HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-1995 Planning Commission Minutes•I:ANNING COMMISSION MI\ U
-- JtiLY 26, 1995
Cite Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Regular Meeting
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Murakami
Roll Call
Present: Abshire. Asfour, Caldwell, Kaplan, Siegfried, Murakami
Late: None
Absent: Patrick
Staff: Planners ~Valaren and ~~'hite
Cite Attorne~° Faubion was present this evening. Community- Development Director Curtis ~i°as
not present this evening.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA\CE
Minutes - 7/12/9
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED ~10VED TO APPROVE THE JULY 12. 199
MINUTES `VITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
- Page ~, second paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "...purpose of
r^ ~ ^a° ^'° °''° reducing the .de.nsit~~.
~.
- Page 7, paragraph 7, second sentence amended to read: "...A parking committee ~-as
:......
::
sperm estabi.ished irapartielar de~loprrit because of the lack of parking...."
..............
- Page 8, paragraph four, fourth sentence amended to read: "...meeting: ~ appr~vcl
...............:
this project ~ and directed staff to return with resolution of appro~~als
incorporating the appropriate findings and conditions."
- Page 9, third paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that a
case was reviewed a ~~ear ago in the general area where the garage was sitting on the
street...."
- Page 13, second paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Abshire stated that he drove
...
through the neighborhood of hotises:.tha~: ~'1?Ir: Ha~~clesigned and that the existing homes
were ven attractive. He felt that this proposal was a nice design, but felt that the design
«-as not compatible «~ith that of the Herrir:ri :#~=~~u~ neighborhood."
- Page 17, third paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "...Therefore. '~° '~°~ °,~.,~,.°a
- he:i~:~f..t~i?aipirifa~ that there be a condition added that
reflects that the- applicant ~~-i11 make every effort to remove the green sign.
- Page 20, second paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour felt that the deletion
~PLANNI\TG COMMIS~T ivlI~?UTES
JULY 26, 199
PAGE - 2 -
ol'[~I~ IOl1U~l~'1'Ilg pllri'ISC: ";^ ,.1.,~° +L,.,+ , ,; 11 ,.1,~+,-,,,.+ ., ..+,.,-;~+'~ 1;,~.° .~.f ~;,.l,r
v~vtl~C''F~~~E6ia~cct~kt~-c^~c^c=2~R"czcrn--fvi =~@li~C~C~--6~~E'~e`st~i{~t~~C~t~~
,",='g~«.~., ..+_,,,,+ ,._ ,.:y,.+ °~ ,••.,+- from Section 3.(a)(4) Sign Restrictions pertaining to the
restriction of temporary political signs from being erected within or upon any public
highway, public street or public right-of-way" would be removing a safety feature.
- Page 21, paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Kaplan stated that ~+ +~,, ,,,,.a ••~°
°~r° ~.:~:' +''°''°.r,r:~~:°~ iollcn+'ing the sc.li.cdulc<l land use visit; she and C:ommiss~?ncr
Patrick visited the site on Burgundy `~~ay where ~~the four homes are currently being
built...She noted that there was not one single fancily- fence protection in place around the
trees; that there were at least four trucks and an ell vut house parked in a group
:.;:.;..:.
underneath a cluster of trees...."
THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, K_APLAN,
IVIURAKAMI. SIEGFRIED: NOES: NONE: ABSTAIN: CALD~'~'ELL: ABSENT: PATRICK.
ORAL CO1VIVIti\ICATIONS
Planner Warren introduced Heather Bradley, Saratoga's nev~-ly hired Assistant Planner. replacing
Paul Kermovan.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code ~49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July
21. 199. y
Technical Corrections to Packet
Planner ~~%algren informed the Commission that there -ere t~t~o corrections to the agenda as
follows: Agenda item 6, page 2, relabel subsection "d)" to read subsection "c)"; and page 3,
second paragraph, first line amended to read: "These three ordinance amendments have aria one
Policy Statement have been reviewed by the Planning Commission...."
CONSE\T CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALE\'DAR
Commissioner Asfour noted that the Commission approved one of the items at its last meeting
and asked staff to return with conditions of approval. He indicated that he had a concern
regarding the property itself as several cars and trucks «-ere being parked on the site illegalh~.
He asked if the Commission could condition the approval to require the removal of the stored
°ehicles prior to commencing construction. If a condition is to be added. does the Commission
need to request the removal of the item from the public hearing consent calendar? He inquired
as to the proper procedure.
~PLANNII~TG COMMIS~1 MI\UTES
JULY 26. 199
PAGE - 3 -
City Attorne~~ Faubion advised the Commission that should the Commission wish to discuss the
project, to add conditions or to discuss conditions. the item would need to be removed from the
consent calendar.
Commissioner Kaplan requested that Consent Calendar Item 2 be removed from the agenda.
1. DR-95-019 - bIOSTAAN; 20720 LEONARD RD. Request for Design Review approval
to construct a ne~i~ x,336 sq. ft. t«~o-store residence on a 1.2 acre hillside parcel currently
developed with an 832 sq. ft. one-story "cottage". A public hearing is required for this
proposal pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The propem- is located at the end of
Leonard Rd. and is «-ithin an R-1-40.000 zoning district (cont. to 8/9/95 at the request of
the applicant: application expires 11/8/90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COVIMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALD~VELL MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING
CONSENT ITEM 1. THE MOTIOl~T CARRIED 6-0 `WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK
ABSENT.
2. SD-90-003.2, UP-90-003.2, DR-90-034.2 & V-90-039.2 - `ZISSIO\' PARK HOMES;
12297 SARATOGA-SUNi\YVALE RD. Request for modification consideration of a
Tentative Map approval to subdivide a 2.67 acre lot into 26 multiple-family townhome
parcels and two 10.000 sq. ft. commercial parcels fronting Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Use
Permit approval .vas granted to allow the 26 to«nhomes «-ithin a Commercial Visitor (C-
V) zoning district. Desicn Revie~i~ approval was granted for the entire project. Variance
approval was granted to allow 32 parking spaces in lieu of the 37 parking spaces required
for the commercial buildings pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City_ Code. An environmental
Negative Declaration has been adopted for the project.
The modification request is to allow 26 detached homes on parcels ranging from 2,206
to 3,249 sq. ft. in size versus the approved attached townhomes and "cottage" type homes.
Architectural modification of the homes and the commercial structures is also requested
(cont. from 7/12/95 to adopt Resolutions of approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Caldwell stated that upon consultation with the City Attorney. she came to the
conclusion that she «-ould remove herself from this item since she «~as not able to review the
entire record. Given the level of discussion that took place. she indicated that she would step
down from discussion of acenda item 2.
Planner ~Valgren summarized the action taken by the Commission at its last meeting. He noted
that the public hearing was reopened for this meeting because changes to public improvement
requirements have been made to the project since it was first approved in 1991. He indicated that
it «-as his understanding that the conditions, as modified. are acceptable to the applicants. Staff
recommended that the Commission adopt the resolutions before the Commission.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he received a phone call from Mr. Morici and that Mr. Morici
indicated that he accepted staff s modified conditions.
PLANNING COMI~IIS~T MII~TUTES •
JULY 26. 199
PAGE - 4 -
Commissioner Abshire inquired as to the school district that these ne~i~ homes would be located
in. He also inquired as the nearest park. Planner ~Valgren responded that he was not certain as
to «°hat school district these homes «-ould be located in. He indicated that the nearest park «~ould
be located approximately L~ miles a~i-ay from the property.
Commissioner Asfour indicated that the school district serving this area «-ould be the Cupertino
School District.
Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the Cite Attorney has stated that the Commission can discuss
inclusion of additional conditions. She stated that she raised the issue of parking on the lot. She
indicated that parking on the lot has appeared to have additional stored vehicles. She reported
her findings from her site visit this afternoon and stated that she ~i°ould ~~~ant to have the site
cleaned up.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that this project «•ould need to proceed ~~~ith approval in order to
have the site cleaned-up.
Planner `Valgren recommended that a condition be added that ~i-ould require that within 30 or 60
days, all the parked vehicles are to be removed and that the driveways be barricaded so that there
is no more parking of vehicles.
\TO one spoke on this item.
COIV11V1ISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
7:~0 P.~1.
COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR IVIOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEM 2 WITH
THE ADDED CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE STORED
VEHICLES ARE TO BE REMOVED A1~TD THE PROPERTY BARRICADED IN A WAY
THAT WOULD NOT ALLO~'~' THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES TO CONTINUE.
Commissioner Abshire indicated that the reason he voted against this application last time was
the fact that Saratoga and Cupertino have excellent school districts. He felt that the homes of
this size would attract families with children and that there would be no space for the children
to recreation. He noted that the nearest park was located approximately L~ miles a«-ay. He felt
that too many units ~~~ere being proposed. He felt that some consideration should be given to the
fact that the families «~ith children would have no place to recreation in this particular site.
Therefore, he ~~-ould not support the proposal.
Commissioner Asfour requested that the City Attorney clarify that the issue before the
Commission was that the resolution reflects the actual approval that took place at the last
Commission meeting. City Attorney Faubion responded that the vote at the last meeting ~n°as to
approve the application, then the issue before the Commission tonight was whether the resolution
reflects the vote and the action that ~i~as taken by the Commission.
: PLANNING CO~IVIIS~T MINUTES •
JULY 26. 199
PAGE - ~ -
Commissioner Kaplan asked «-hat ~i~ould those Commissioners «-ho did not approve the
application be voting on tonight. Cite Attorney Faubion responded that given that an action was
taken by the Commission at its last meeting. the issue was settled.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that a condition is being added to the Resolution approved at the
Commission's last meeting. She asked if voting yes on the motion ~~-ould approve the resolution
as amended. Cite Attorney Faubion responded that the Commission would be approving the
resolution as amended this evening.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-2 AS FOLLO~~'S: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI,
SIEGFRIED: NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: ABSHIRE. CALDWELL: ABSENT: PATRICK.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. DR-95-020 -GRANT; 14801 VIA DE MARCOS Request for Design Revie~- approval
to construct a new 6.919 sq. ft. split-level single store residence on a vacant 41.014 sq.
ft. hillside parcel. The subject property is Lot #1 of the San Marcos Heights subdivision
and is located «-ithin an R-1-40,000 zoning district.
Planner `Valgren presented the staff report. He recommended the addition of a condition to read:
"Any future landscaping or irrigation installed beneath the canopy of an ordinance protected oak
tree shall comply ~i-ith the `Planing under Old Oaks' guidelines prepared by the City Arborist.
I`TO irrigation or associated trenching shall encroach into the driplines of any etisting oak trees
unless approved by the Cite Arborist."
Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if the amendments to the zoning codes to be revie«-ed by the
Commission later this evening addresses floor area reduction? Planner Walgren responded that
the proposed zoning code amendments would no longer apph~ to this type of property based on
the fact that every eYCeption on larger lot zoning districts are being approved. It ~.~-as staff s
belief that if it is easy to make the eYCeption that the rule is no longer necessary in the larger lot
district.
Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:~2 p.m.
Gary Mignano, project designer, G&G Design. 1~8~ The Alameda. San Jose. stated his
concurrence with the recommendation as presented by staff.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he found it helpful to have the elevation. the floor plans and
the roof plans contained in one set of plans.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:00 P.M.
CO~LVIISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-9~-020
WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CONDITION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE
MOTIONT CARRIED 6-0 ~'~~ITH COiV1MISSIO\'ER PATRICK ABSEI~TT.
PLANI~TING COMMIS~T 1~III~TUTES •
JULY 26, 199
PAGE-6-
City Attorney Faubion excused herself from the remainder of the meeting.
4. DR-95-025 - LARSE\T-~iOGAL; 20470 MO\TTALVO HEIGHTS DR. Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 4,630 sq. ft. t«-o-story residence per Chapter
1~ of the Cit~° Code. The parcel is approximately 1.88 acres and is located within an R-1-
40,000 zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He clarified that a total of five trees were proposed
to be removed and that staff felt that the replacement trees were more than adequate.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the site visit, it was commented that the Commission goes
through a lot of trouble to make sure that the trees are protected. However, it was noted that
during construction, the protection measures for the trees are not being followed. She
recommended that the applicants supervise construction for the trees' protection.
Chairman iVlurakami inquired if consideration was given to transplanting of the ordinance
protected trees. Planner ~~%algren responded that the Cit~° arborist did not recommend that the
trees be transplanted.
Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m.
Karen Zak, project designer, indicated that she tried to minimize the removal of the ordinance
protected trees and not invade into the neighbors privacy. She informed the Commission that she
retained the services of a landscape architect to ensure that the trees survive.
Commissioner Siegfried and Chairman Murakami stated that the house was nicely designed and
that it was sited well on the site.
Richard Mattson Jr., 20460 Montalvo Heights Drive. informed the Commission that his property
vas located to the east of this project and that it is bordered on the entire eastern section of the
site. He commended the owners and the architect for the siting of the house and for the
protection of the trees. IIe requested that the trees located along the eastern propert~° line be
maintained as in past years, he and his wife have nurtured and maintained those trees for the
separation and enhancement of the tw-o lots. He also requested that should the entrywa~~ (PG&E
easement) be used during construction, that protection measures for the trees be required.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if a condition could be added that would require tree protection
measures should the builder decide to use the access as described by Mr. Mattson. Planner
V~'algren recommended that condition 13 a) be amended to include the specific details of the
overall construction access plan.
COMMISSIO\TLRS SIEGFRIED%CALD~'~"ELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARII~TG
AT 8:10 P.M.
~PLANl~TING COMMIS~T MINUTES
JULY 26. 199
PAGE-7-
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED.%ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTIO\T DR-9~-02~
V~'ITH THE MODIFICATIO\ OF CONDITION 13 a) TO ADD THE FOLLOWING: "THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SPECIFIC DETAILS DESCRIBING CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS TO THE SITE. INCLUDING THE POOL, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO
TREES. THE CITY ARBORIST SHALL REVIE`V THIS INFORMATION AI~TD PROVIDE
A RECOMME\TDATIOI~T. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK
ABSE\TT.
The Commission requested that the applicant allow it to borrow the model presented to the
Commission this evening to take to the design review committee meeting to depict what a nice
design proposal should look like.
S. DR-95-032, V-95-007 - ADA~ZS; 14730 SIXTH ST. Request for Design Revie«-
approval to construct a 728 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing 1,69 sq.
ft. two-story residence. Variance approval is requested to allow the second story to
encroach into the required front yard setback. The subject property is 8.070 sq. ft. in area
and is located in an R-1-10.000 zoning district.
Planner Warren presented the staff report. He recommended that the condition relating to the
deck as stated in the resolution of approval be approved as ~Yitten.
Chairman 1~lurakami opened the public hearing at 8:1 ~ p.m.
Earl Adams, applicant, stated his concurrence to the conditions as stated by staff.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Adams has consulted «-ith the neighbors regarding the deck.
Mr. Adams responded that he has contacted his neighbors and that he did not believe that there
was any opposition to the proposal. Regarding Commissioner Kaplan's question regarding the
use of the area underneath the deck, iV1r. Adams responded that it would remain as open space.
COMIVIISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN I`10VED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:17 P.M.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she felt that there «-as a privacy issue as it relates to the deck
and would support staff s recommended condition.
Commissioner Asfour indicated that he would support the design review and variance with the
exception of the extension of the deck.
COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION I~TOS. DR-
9~-032 AND V-9~-007 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 ~'~'ITH
CO~~VIISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT.
6. AZO-9~-001(a,b & c) -CITY OF SARATOGA The Planning Commission is initiating
amendments to the following sections of Saratoga's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances:
PLANi~TING COMMIS~i ti1INUTES
JULY 26, 199
PAGE - 8 -
a) Article 1 ~-70.020 Amendment to allow residential development within hillside
subdivisions to use those building setbacks in effect ~i-hen the subdivision and site
development plan «-ere originally approved, in lieu of current lot-percentage based
setbacks. y
b) Article 1 ~-4.030 Amendment to the ordinance «-hich establishes the maximum
allo~i-able building square footage for a parcel based on the net site area, the
average slope of the parcel and the proposed building height.
c) Article 14-X0.040 Amendment to parcel Lot Line Adjustment procedures.
Policy Statement Clarification of the current definition of structure Gross Floor
Area.
These three ordinance amendments have one Policy Statement been revie«-ed by the
Planning Commission at publicly noticed study session meetings. These amendments are
intended to "correct" areas of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances which have become
burdensome or outdated and/or to clarify current definitions. An environmental Negative
Declaration has been prepared for adoption.
Planner ~~'algren presented the staff report.
Commissioner Asfour asked if by the adoption of the Resolution, the Commission would be
recommending City Council approval of the proposed text amendment. Planner `'t%algren
responded that the Commission would be recommending Cit_v Council Approval of subsections
a), b), and c).
Commissioner Kaplan asked about the floor area reduction as listed on page 10, Subsection 1 ~-
4~.030(f) of the staff report. She noted that the proposed text amendment reads: "After the
allowable floor area is calculated in Subsections (d) and (c) above...." She asked «~hy the text
did not read "(c) and (d) above" (reverse order). Planner ~'~%algren responded that it «-as his belief
that the order was correct. Folio«-ing further revie«~, he noted that the proposed text amendment
contained a typo and that the text should read "(d) and (e) above...."
Commissioner Kaplan asked if the way Subsection F is «Yitten, the maximum building height
would not change any current City numbers. Planner ~~'algren responded that Subsection F
~-ould not change any numbers. She asked staff if there was a maximum of 7,200 square feet
per unit in cluster hillside housing. Planner ~~%algren responded that the floor area maximum is
7.200 square feet and that it pertains to the entire hillside residential zoning district regardless of
whether the units are clustered or left on individual lots.
Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
No one addressed the Commission on this item.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED!ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES
JULY 26. 199
PAGE-9-
8:30 P.M.
Commissioner Cald«-ell felt that this text amendment affirms current policy and that it does not
create an inequity problems.
Commissioner Siegfried felt that the amendment regarding the older hillside sections ryas
important because even though the percentage setback ryas yell intended. it changed things from
~yhat was done in the past.
C01~1MISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO ADOPTED THE GROSS FLOOR
AREA DEFINITION A1~TD RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO-95-OOl
(a, b, & c). THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT.
C01~1MISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COU\TCIL
APPROVAL OF THE POLICY STATEMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 ~~'ITH
COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO ADOPT' THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR AZO-9~-001. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 `~I~ITH COMMISSIONER
PATRICK ABSENT.
7. AZO-9~-005 -CITY OF SAI2ATOGA; PARKI\G REGULATIONS Consideration
of a draft ordinance amendment to Article 1~-19 and 1~-3~ of the City Code relating to
parking regulations in Commercial zoning districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner White presented the staff report. He noted that Section D, page 2, should be amended
to read: "d. To encourage the use of Parking Districts tie tine and few three, implement the
:.. .:..
following improvements...."
Commissioner Abshire commended staff fora «-e11 presented document. Planner White pointed
out that Commissioner Abshire and Chairman Murakami were instrumental in assisting «-ith the
parking survey.
Commissioner Siegfried asked how this proposed ordinance amendment would affect parking
requirements if an existing shopping center was to be remodeled, expanded or if alternate uses
«-ere to be proposed? Planner White responded that the alternate use provision «-ould be subject
to a formal agreement between the commercial users and the City. Commissioner Siegfried
expressed concern that if an agreement was reached. the proposed ordinance amendment may
allo~~~ a business o«ner to build a certain amount of square footage. At a later date. the
agreement fell apart and nosy there is more building than the parking would otherwise be because
of the alternative use amendment. Planner `'White indicated that it Mould be up to staff to monitor
the agreement to make sure that there is not a conflict between the uses and the shopping center.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a problem with the concept. but that he ~i°as
- PLA\TNING COMA~IS~T v1INUTES
JULY 26, 199
PAGE - 10 -
concerned that if a site w-as over built and an agreement was entered into. Should the agreement
go away, it would result in an over built site.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she agreed with the content of the staff report. She stated that
one provision with the alternative use troubles her because there are scenarios than she can think
of where it may not work. For example. say two business owners enter into an agreement. Thee
each establish their uses in accordance with the agreement; then one of them chooses to close
down. The other business owner established their business based on the agreement. The business
owner now- becomes the beneficiary of the additional parking based on the agreement of two
complimentary uses. She asked if the City would tell the other business owner that because the
other business has gone away and anew- owner wants to intensit~~ the use. said business owner
would have to modify his use accommodate a new business proposal. She expressed concern that
the issue would become complicated and worried that it may be bad planning.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her impression that this ordinance would not apply to the
Village because there is not a surplus of parking within the shopping center under any
circumstances. In reading the staff report. she took issue with a statement contained in the staff
report which reads: "Staff concluded that Saratoga's Parking Standard meets the need of the
majority of functional uses...." She felt that there were areas where there are empty spaces day
and night (i.e., Argonaut).
Commissioner Asfour recommended that the language clearly reflect that the underlying parking
requirements would be reverted back to if the use changes.
Commissioner Abshire stated that a problem exists whereby businesses are being driven away
from Saratoga because parking cannot be provided.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that there were no guarantee that an existing business owner would
use the parking agreement against a new business if the existing business does not like the new
business or it is thought that the business may compete with it in some manner.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if it would be possible to remove section (d) and have staff give
the "Alternative Use of Parking Facilities" additional consideration. v
Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff contact other cities that have this ordinance in place
to see how- they handle the concern being expressed.
Commissioner Caldwell felt that it would be helpful to know if other cities are experiencing
problems and if so, how they are coping with the problem(s).
Planner ~~'hite informed the Commission that in its contact with other cities w-ho have this similar
provision, those cities did not express that they have a problem with arranging an agreement.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a problem with the language because he felt
that there was enough protection in it. He stated that he would support the ordinance if it
excludes the Village and that it pertains to existing commercial areas and existing commercial
- ~ ~PLANI~TING COMMIS~i MINUTES
JULY 26. 199
PAGE - I 1 -
structures. He expressed concern that someone may try to le~~erage this to say that one is able
to build a bigger building. He felt that the city needs to encourage commercial areas to flourish.
Commissioner Cald«-e11 ~~-anted to kno«- what «-ould occur if there is a change in o«nership,
change in use, or the uses are intensified. y
Commissioner Siegfried stated that the language did not clarify that this language pertains to
existing buildings and not ne«- buildings.
Commissioner Cald~i°ell noted that page 2 contained a list of suggestions. She suggested that the
Commission consider the use of suns that follo~i~ the Village Design Handbook for aesthetic
purposes.
Commissioner Asfour recommended that the signs be illuminated properly for aesthetic purposes
to make the signs ~~isible and not defeat their purpose.
Planner ~?~Thite suggested that the Commission delay its recommendation of the ~i==hole package
to the City Council if the Commission «-as not ready to for«-ard a recommendation to the
alternati~~e parking.
IT ~~'AS THE CO\TSE\SUS OF THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION ~~~ZTH THE EXCEPTIOI~T OF THE "ALTERI~TATIVE USL- OF
PARKIl`~G FACILITIES" (STAFF TO CLARIFY THAT THIS SECTION PERTAINS TO
EXISTING STRUCTURES).
Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
There «-ere no speakers on this item.
COl~il`1ISSIONERS CALD~'~'ELL/ASFOLTR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:32 P.Iv1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT.
Planner `Vhite recommended that this item be continued to a future study session.
COMMISSIONERS CALD~VELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND COl`TTI\TUE THIS ITEM TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0
~~'ITH COMIVIISSIO\TER PATRICK ABSENT.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
COI`IMISSIO\T ITEI~TS
The Commission congratulated Planner ~'t%algren on becoming a member of the American Institute
for Certified Planners.
Commissioner Kaplan inquired as to the status of lot merger for the Constantin property. Planner
_ ~ `PLANl`TING COMMIS~•T MINUTES
JULY 26, 199
PAGE - 12 -
VValgren responded that the lot merger moved for~~-ard and ~~~as not contested by the Constantins.
Commissioners Asfour and Cald«-e11 indicated that they ~i-ould not be attending the August 9
meeting. Commissioner Asfour further indicated that he would not be present for the September
13 meeting. Commissioner Cald~i-e11 stated that she ~i-ould not be present for the August 1
workshop. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she would not be attending the September ~
study session nor the September 13 meeting.
CO~TMUNICATIO\TS
t~'rittPn
1. Memo from Community Development Director
2. City Council Minutes - 7/~, 7.'8 & 7/11/9
3. Planning Commission Public Notices for 8/9/9
Oral
CihT Council
ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business. the meeting adjourned at 8:~0 p.m. to 7:30
p.m., Tuesday. August 1, 199, Senior Adult Day Care Center. 196~~ Allendale Ave., Saratoga,
CA
RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED.
IRV1A TORREZ
IIiI\TUTES CLERK
ir_PCOT_69?.S:~R