Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-1995 Planning Commission Minutes~ ~ :: P.?~rNING COMMISSION MINUTES -~ SEPTEMBER 13. 1995 City 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, Caldwell, Kaplan, Patrick. Siegfried, Murakami Late: .None Absent: Asfour Staff: Planner Dailey and Community Development Director Curtis. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 8/9/95 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 9, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 13, paragraph three amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried noted that all the studies prepared by William Cotton and Associates in the early 1980s were considered mapping of the hillsides. However, while they were not identified as potential problems_ '~~~~ it vas used only as a point of reference...." - Page 15, paragraph six which reads: "In response to Chairman Murakami's question, Dr. Hopkins explained that there were over 1~0 deer herds in California. He indicated that reproductive efforts are not dependent on urban deer. He noted that approximately 10 deer per square mile is standard and stated that this area represents a small portion of the deer herd in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It was his belief that this site would not support habitat for five deer" is to follow paragraph 3, also located on page 15 which reads: "Chairman Murakami asked if am' of the wildlife identified on the site would be considered as being endangered in the future. Dr. Hopkins indicated that there were both state and federal processes to designate wildlife species as endangered species. " - Page 16, paragraph 4 amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he vas familiar with the work done by Mr. Cotton and the procedures that need to be undertaken with the geotechnical review. He felt that if one was to look at the old San Jose Water Company sites ~ and i€ the kind of studies were completed that is required with this subdivision, there would have been many sites that would not have passed the initial test of being a buildable sites. However, in that case. lots were eliminated as the sites were reviewed during the Commission's study sessions. He felt that the study presented this evening.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: ABSHIRE. KAPLAN,_ PATRICK. SIEGFRIED, MURAKAMI: ABSTAIN: CALDWELL: ABSENT: ASFOUR. PLANNING COMMISSION,NUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 - PAGE - 2 - ORAL COl\~I~IL'NICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI\TG AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 8, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Dailey informed the Commission that Item 1 on the Public Hearing agenda should be moved to the Public Hearing Consent Calendar as it has been continued to a date uncertain. The application would be renoticed in the future. CONTSE\T CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSE\T CALENDAR 1. DR-95-036 - CHE>\T; 12601 STAR RIDGE COURT Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,300 sq. ft. rear-yard deck off the back of an existing two- story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Design Review approval is necessary to allow the deck to be taller than 5 ft. from the natural grade; the proposed deck is approximately 24 ft. off the ground at its highest point. The parcel is approximately 2.5 acres and is located ~vithin an HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district (cont. to a date uncertain; new notices will be distributed for future hearing date - application expires 1/17/96). V ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARL\GS 2. DR-95-038 - CICHA\O`'~'ICZ; 21131 SLZ.LIVAN VVAY Request for Design Review approval to construct a 976 sq. ft. one and t~vo-story addition to an existing 2,392 sq. ft. single story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 15,667 sq. ft. in size and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Dailey presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldwell stated that at the site visit, the neighborhood did not appear to be predominantly two story homes but that several of the homes in the area appear to be split level homes because of the topography. She inquired if split level homes were counted as two story homes in this neighborhood? Planner Dailey responded that many of the homes listed as two stories were split level homes and were being counted as two story homes. PLANNING COMMISSION~NUTES S SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 3 - Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Ed Cichanowicz, owner/applicant, informed the Commission that he would respond to any questions which it may have. Dick Wotiz, 21170 Sullivan Way, informed the Commission that he resides across the street from this proposal and felt that the applicant proposed a tasteful design and supported the application. Brian Berkeley, 21140 Sullivan Way , informed the Commission that he resides directly across the street from the proposal. He stated his support of the design because it would enhance the quality of the neighborhood. He felt that the proposal would help start a trend towards improvements in the neighborhood. Commissioners Siegfried/Patrick moved to close the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95- 038. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. 3. DR-95-029 - BLACK~'~'ELL BROS. DEVELOPMENT CO1t1PANY; 197SS GLEI\T U\A DRIVE Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing residence and construct a new 4,038 sq. ft. two-story home per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 1,127 sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. Planner Dailey presented the staff report on this item. She informed the Commission that two letters were received and were attached to the staff report from adjacent residents expressing concern with the size of the proposed residence, the proposed setbacks and the removal of Douglas Fir trees number 11 and 12 located along the western property line. Staff recommended approval of the request. y Commissioner Kaplan expressed confusion regarding trees 11 and 12 and asked why they were to be removed if the city arborist stated that they were worth retaining, giving them a medium rating? Planner Dailey responded that the city arborist indicated that the trees were in marginal condition and that after speaking with him, he did support their removal. Chairman Murakami stated that at the site visit, there appears to be several trees that were planted close together and appear to be overcrowded. Commissioner Caldwell shared Commissioner Kaplan's concern that trees 11 and 12 received a rating of 3 and were no~v cleared for removal. She noted that page 4 of the staff report, under the "Design Review Analysis" it states that "...the landscaping also be incorporated along the western property line. " She did not see that the suggestion was incorporated in the resolution and asked if it was an added condition that the Commission should include in the resolution of approval? Planner Dailey replied that the Commission could incorporate said condition in the resolution. Staff felt that there may not be enough growing room for the native trees to reach PLANNING COMMISSION~NUTES SEPTEMBER 13. 199 PAGE - 4 - their full potential in later years. Staff felt that additional landscaping could be installed as smaller shrubs or trees rather than the large native trees along the rear property. Commissioner Patrick stated that at the site visit it appeared that trees 11 and 12 were questionable and were located in an area where other trees are proposed to be planted. She felt that the ne~v trees to be planted would provide for better screening than the existing taller trees. She recommended that the trees to be planted be non-deciduous trees. Commissioner Abshire felt that the Monterey Pine located in the front of the property was in poor health and would probably die in a few years. If that happens and you cut down all the existing trees located along the side, it would be a different appearance then currently exists. He felt that the property has had full shade trees for a long period of time and that it would be drastic to cut down the row trees and then have the Monterey Pine tree die in a few years. He recommended that the Commission rethink the removal of trees 11 and 12. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Greg Blackwell, applicant, addressed trees 11 and 12. He informed the Commission that he met with Barrie Coate, city arborist, on site. Mr. Coate made his recommendation as to what trees were to be removed and indicated that trees 11 and 12 were of marginal health. It vas later recommended that shrubs that would grow 15-20 feet in height be installed to provide for better screening. Commissioner Caldwell noted that staff has suggested the addition of screening on the west side of the property and asked if Mr. Blackwell would have any objections to the additional screening`? Mr. Blackwell indicated that he would not object to the additional screening. Pam Lavin, 15450 Pepper Lane, indicated that the edge of her bedroom wing was approximately 60 feet from the property line and that trees 11 and 12 have provided shade and screening to her property. She expressed concern regarding the demolition of the existing home and construction of the new home. Her concern being that there would be no screening with the removal of the trees and shrubs. She noted that she has a deciduous locust tree located outside her bedroom. She stated that she was attached to trees 11 and 12 but that if they had to removed, she requested that 48-inch boxed Sequoias be installed and placed to the rear of the property. She also expressed concern that the existing wire fence not be damaged while tree cutting and demolition takes place because she sometimes keeps her livestock in the backyard. She asked about page 4 of Barrie Coate's report and the tree value for the Sequoia tree. She indicated that she priced a 48-inch boxed Sequoia and found the price to be $1,262 (price did not include transport and planting fees). She could not see how each tree was given a value of $5,000. She recommended that trees 11 and 12 be retained during demolition of the existing house and the construction of the new home and then determine the appropriate tree(s) and screen planting that should occur. Jim Vaudagna, 19695 Glen Una Drive, informed the Commission that the home is proposed to be constructed adjacent to his entertainment and pool area. He expressed concern with the 25 years growth of greenery that borders the east and north side of the property. The age of PLANNING COMMISSION•NUTES • SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 5 - growth provides for privacy and beauty. He stated that Mr. Blackwell has indicated that he would be careful not to remove the "gamey" growth. He requested that it be assured that privacy and the existing vegetation not be disturbed. Should it be disturbed, he requested that Mr. Blackwell be required to replace and reestablish the 25 years worth of growth. Commissioners Kaplan/Siegfried moved to close the public hearing at 7:59 p.m Commissioner Caldwell stated that she recalled that, in the past, when the Commission was concerned with deforestation impacts during construction, that the Commission requested that a certain amount of landscaping be installed by a certain date (not contingent upon final occupancy permit). She stated that she understood the neighbors' concerns. She asked staff ho~v the Commission could address this concern. She also felt that landscaping along the west side of the property should be required and maintained during construction. Commissioners Kaplan/Siegfried moved to reopen the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it could require that prior to the issuance of a building permit that five 48-inch boxed trees be installed to the back of the site. He noted that 48-inch boxed trees would need extensive equipment to be used to transport and install the trees. He felt that it would be more appropriate to install the trees ahead of time (i.e., following demolition of the existing home). Installation to occur at the beginning of construction to provide the trees six months to one year of growing time with a check point prior to occupancy to ensure that they become established. Mr. Blackwell indicated that he did not have a problem with Community Development Director Curtis' recommendation and that he did not have a problem with the requirement of additional screening on the west side. Commissioner Abshire asked what is to be done with the fence located along the front street? Mr. Blackwell indicated that the fence was to be removed. Commissioner Abshire asked ~vhv Douglas Fir trees 11 and 12 were to be removed as it appears that it would be cheaper to retain them. Mr. Blackwell responded that "cheaper" may not always be the most prudent thing to do. He indicated that he was following the city arborist's recommendation. He noted that the trees were close together and that the structure of the trees were not very good (trees were leaning and have a potential for falling). Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the city arborist made a presentation to the Commission last year regarding trees and tree replacements. He recalled that one of the suggestions made by the city arborist vas that during development activity, when a tree is considered to be marginal and their longevity questionable, that it may be better to remove the trees when the opportunity is available and obtain replacement trees, (benefiting from the longevity of the new trees). Mr. Blackwell recommended that installation of the trees required at the time of underfloor inspection by the Building Department. PLANNING COMMISSION•1~TUTES • SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the trees that are to be planted be provided with protective fencing during construction. She stated her appreciation of the design and felt that the design was compatible with some of the newer development in the area. Commissioners Kaplan/Caldwell moved to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-029 AMENDING CONDITION 3 AS FOLLOWS: 1) REQUIRE THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BE MODIFIED TO RETAIN THE TREES LOCATED ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE; 2) THE ADDITION OF A 48-INCH BOXED TREE ON THE WEST SIDE; 3) ADDITIONAL SCREENING IN THE NATURE OF A TALL HEDGE TO FILL IN ON THE WEST PROPERTY BOUNDARY (I.E., NATIVE, DROUGHT TOLERANT, OR ONES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA) TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. CONDITION 4 AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF TREES AND SCREENING HEDGE PRIOR TO THE UNDERFLOOR INSPECTION ALONG WITH A MAINTENANCE BOND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY MAINTAINED. AN INSPECTION IS TO BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY TO ENSURE THAT THE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN MAINTAINED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. 4. DR-95-003 & V-95-009 - HASAN; 12182 PARKER RA\'CH ROAD Request for Design Review approval to construct a 328 sq. ft. first story addition and a 370 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 5.835 sq. ft. t~vo-story residence. The application includes a variance request for an addition over 26 ft. in height. The subject property is a 2.13 acre parcel and is located in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Dailey presented the staff report on this item. She informed the Commission that a letter was received from Harold Gambill, 12245 Vista Arroyo Court, recommending that the variance be denied as it does not meet the height requirements of the City Code. Staff recommended that the Commission approve both the design review and the variance applications. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Louie Leu, project architect, responded to the height variance and indicated that the house was constructed previously over what is now an existing garage. He noted that the upstairs room vas not accessible from the main house and that the only means of access to the room was by a circular stairwell. He informed the Commission that the stairwell was the only portion that exceeds the height limitation. Commissioners Siegfried/Abshire moved to close the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Community Development Director Curtis noted for the record that the letter received from Mr. Gambill was distributed to the Commission this evening. PLANNING COMMISSION~I~TUTES • SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Abshire stated that at the site visit, he did not see a problem with the 31 foot height in the building. He did not feel that the addition would be seen as it is screened by trees and landscaping. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the addition fits with the existing home. Chairman Murakami noted that the additional design would not change the profile of the home. He indicated that he did not have a problem with the design. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she would not grant a variance on the basis that you could not see the addition. However. she agreed that the addition vas similar to that of the existing structure. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION V-95-009 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95-003 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. 5. AZO-95-005 -CITY OF SARATOGA; PARKI\G REGULATIOI~TS Consideration of a draft ordinance amendment to Article 15-19 of the City Code relating to parking regulations in Commercial zoning districts and the associated Negative Declaration. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan requested clarification as to the action being requested. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the Commission would be making a recommendation regarding the ordinance amendment relating to "Modification of Off Street Parking Requirement for Shopping Centers. " The second action would be to direct staff to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt improvement measures for the Village Parking Districts by minute action. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:20 p.m. No public input was provided on this item. Commissioners Patrick/Siegfried moved to close the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AZO-95-005. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION~VUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 8 - COMMISSIONER KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT AZO-95-005. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that signs be required to meet the Village Sign Guidelines so that it can be demonstrated that the City has a commitment to the Village Guidelines. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REQUEST THAT STAFF FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY ADOPT THE IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE VILLAGE PARKING DISTRICTS AND THAT SIGNS IN THE VILLAGE ARE TO CONFORM TO THE VILLAGE SIGN GUIDELINES. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. 6. AZO-95-006 - CITI' OF SARATOGA; STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY A\D `IATERIALS Consideration of a draft ordinance amendment to Section 15-12-160 by adding Subsection (e) relating to storage of personal property and materials. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption. Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the City of Mt. View has an ordinance that requires that any vehicles, whether they are parked on the street or a driveway, have to be registered. She inquired if the City has a similar ordinance. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the City of Saratoga stipulates that a car can be stored in the front for 72 hours and does not have to be registered. After 72 hours, the vehicle has to be removed. Commissioner Caldwell felt that the City of Mt. View's ordinance was one way to control dilapidated, non-functioning vehicle problem. She felt that staff should investigate this issue further. She recommended that Section 1~-12.160. subsection (3) be amended to read: "For purposes of this section, the term `unenclosed storage' means storage of items which are not completely enclosed within a structure or completely screened from public view by a permanent solid fence or wall which structure, fence or wall has been constructed or installed in accordance with the regulations contained in Chapter 15 of this Code. " Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:27 p.m. No public input was provided on this item. Commissioners Patrick/Kaplan moved to close the public hearing at 8:2~ p.m. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT AZO-95-006 WITH THE MODIFIED LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE "STRUCTURE, FENCE OR WALL" . THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION,I~TUTES • SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 9 - 7. AZO-95-007 -CITY OF SARATOGA; PLBLIC NOTICIl~TG Consideration of a draft ordinance amendment to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga Municipal Code affecting mailed notice requirements for public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council by reducing the distance of notification from the subject property from 500 ft. to 300 ft. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that reducing the notification distance from 500 feet to 300 feet would result in approximately 55,000 per year cost savings to the City and still meet State requirements for public notification. The savings would be a "full cost recovery" to the City. He further informed the Commission that the City would still have the option of sending notices to an expanded area when it is determined to be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. He recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration and forward its recommendation regarding AZO-95-007. Commissioner Patrick asked why the City does not increase the cost to the applicants to recover the cost for noticing. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the fees could be increased so long as you do not exceed the cost incurred to process an application. He informed the Commission that application fees have recently been increased and that those fees are not full cost recovery. Commissioner Kaplan noted that state code requires 300 foot noticing but that staff could expand the noticing for major issues such as the review of the Paul Masson Winery site. Chairman Murakami asked if this ordinance amendment allows for some flexibility to allow expanded noticing for special situations. Community Development Director Curtis responded that flexibility was incorporated in the ordinance to allow expanded noticing for issues such as hillside lot development. Commissioners Siegfried and Caldwell stated for the record that they received a call from Margaret Russell ~yho expressed that she did not see that there ryas a great reason to change the ordinance. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he agreed with her but that he did not have strong feelings one ~vay or the other. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not see any reason why this reduction in noticing to 300 feet should not be given a try. If there is a problem in the future, the ordinance could be amended. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mary Jane Keas, 12752 Saratoga Creek Lane, stated that with the existing 500 feet noticing requirements and the ~yay distances are calculated, she felt that a lot of people are not currently informed about issues. Because of the situation where there are commercial areas adjacent to residential areas, she felt that the 500 foot noticing requirements should be retained. She did not believe that there would be an added major cost to the applicant. She felt that the public has a right to be noticed of issues that are being considered by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION•NUTES • SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Annette Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, stated that she agreed that the City was under budgetary constraints. However, she felt that improved communication is also an admirable. City goal. She recommended that the 500 foot noticing requirement be retained. She felt that the lots in Saratoga were large and of different configurations. Expanding the noticing would ensure that individuals are notified and make them aware of the issues before the City. Mary Missakian, 20150 Bonnie Brae Lane, indicated that she and her neighbors have 1.5 acre parcels. She stated that the neighbors located on both sides of her were in the 80s and that any notifications that would come to either of them, would not be of interest to them. She felt that if only the three of them were to be notified of a pending application, she felt that she would be put in a position of becoming an advocate for her neighbors. She was not sure if staff would automatically pick up the fact that there are large acre parcels adjacent to small parcels. She indicated that she has twice appeared before the City for site approval on her property. Both times, she was required to pay a $500 notification fee. She felt that the 500 foot noticing requirement would be better for Saratoga. Commissioners Patrick/Siegfried moved to close the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan stated that if there were enough individuals present to request that the 500 noticing requirement be retained, she could support their request. Commissioner Siegfried felt that if the individuals present took the time to appear before the Commission on this issue, he could support retaining the 500 noticing requirement. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioners Kaplan and Siegfried. She felt that the $5,000 equitably distributed among applicants, even if the City continues to "swallow" the cost, would be a good insurance for promoting communication and allowing the neighborhoods to be well informed. Neighbors would know that other neighbors will also be informed and be in a position to stand up for a neighborhood concern. She did not believe that there was any reason why there shouldn't be as close to full cost recovery on noticing as possible. She stated that she strongly was in support of retaining the 500 foot noticing requirements. She also recommended that the City continue to look at situations that demand greater noticing. Commissioner Patrick stated that she felt that everyone should be informed of all issues. She felt that Saratoga vas a small enough town where she could be concerned about areas that are a mile or two away from her. She recommended that the existing 500 foot noticing requirement be retained and that the burden be placed on the applicant. Commissioner Abshire stated that he found himself very sympathetic to the Councilmembers and staff. He noted that cutting budgets in Saratoga vas a difficult thing to do. In this case. the service was being reduced to a state level. He felt that it was difficult to deal with the $5,000 cost for noticing versus laying off of staff members. He felt that Saratoga needs to make up its mind regarding whether it was willing to accept cutting services or whether they were willing to accept paying more fees and taxes. PLANNING COMMISSION~I~TUTES • SEPTEMBER 13. 1995 PAGE - 11 - Chairman Murakami stated that individuals have come before the Commission and voiced their opinion to retain the 500 foot noticing requirement. Therefore, he could not support the amendment. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE NO CHANGE TO THE NOTICING REQUIREMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission as to the following: - The Tree Guidelines were originally scheduled for the Sept. 27, Commission Meeting: however, staff will not be able to complete changes as directed by the City Council, therefore staff will schedule the item for the Planning Commission's October 25 meeting for its review and recommendation prior to being scheduled before the City Council. - He furnished the Commission with Volume III of the Odd Fellows environmental document, which consists of responses to comments received during the 60 day response period of the draft EIR review for the Odd Fellows project. He recommended and requested that as the Commission reviev~~s the document, that it contact staff should there be any questions so that staff can be prepared to respond to those questions at the September 27 public hearing. Commissioner Kaplan asked what action would be required from the Commission on September 27 and whether a decision would need to be made by the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the Odd Fellows project was scheduled for a public hearing and that it vas up to the Planning Commission as to how it wants to proceed that night (i.e., whether it just wants to receive public testimony, or decide what it wants to do after receiving public testimony). Commissioners Caldwell and Siegfried felt that the public should be informed as to the procedures and/or actions that would be taken by the Planning Commission at the onset of the meeting regarding the Odd Fello«~ project (i.e., testimony and questions are received one night with action to betaken that evening or at a subsequent meeting). y COi\I~~IISSION ITE1t~S Commissioner Caldwell informed the Commission that she was told by a neighbor who resides in the Douglass Lane area that a couple has purchased the home that was on the historic inventory and that the buyers are planning to restore the structure. COi\I1~IUITICATIO\TS PLANNING COMMISSION~IUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that a letter was received and distributed to the Commission from the Save Our Neighborhood Initiative Committee (SONIC). He requested that the Commission direct staff as to whether it would like the SONIC group to make a presentation to the Commission and be placed on a future agenda. He also informed the Commission that it vas furnished with a letter from Acting City Manager Perlin requesting that should the Commission request a presentation, that the Commission not take a stand or a specific position at this time. Mary Jane Karas, 12752 Saratoga Creek Drive, stated that now that she was aware that the Commission would be hearing the Odd Fellow project to the September 27 meeting, she understood that the Commission may not have time on that agenda to hear the presentation. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like this issue to go through the normal course. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the presentation would be that of an informational item. Commissioner Abshire stated that he would agree to hear a presentation from the SONIC group. Commissioners Patrick and Siegfried recommended that this item be scheduled for a work session as no action would be taken. Commissioner Caldwell stated that this request was an unusual one. She noted that these were homeowners groups who have developed an initiative for the purpose of preserving the integrity and character of SaratoQa's residential neighborhoods and remaining recreational open space lands (a land use issue) ~ She felt that it would be appropriate for the Commission to hear the group in a study session. Regarding the memo from the Acting City Manager, she stated that she took issue to the directive as listed in the paragraph which states: "The City Attorney strongly discourages any Commission from taking a position on the proposed initiative, and any individual Commissioner from doing the same as a representative of their Commission. " She noted that the Mayor has already come out in opposition to the initiative. She has done so as the head of the City. She found it duplicitous and highly irregular that the Commission is now being asked to be silent. Commissioner Siegfried and Chairman Murakami did not feel that the Commission was being asked to be silent, but that the memo vas making it clear that the Commission could not speak as a representative of the Commission. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the presentation by the SONIC croup would be scheduled for the Planning Commission's October 3 work session and that he would so notify the group. `'Written -~ PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 13 - 1. Memo from Acting City Manager re: Aug. 30th letter from SONIC 2. Letter from Save Our Neighborhoods Initiative Committee (SONIC) 3. City Council Minutes dated 7/19 & 7/25/95 4. Planning Commission Public Notices dated 9/27/95 Oral Commissioner Siegfried reported that the Bicycle Committee has completed its work on the Pathway Plan and that it would be going to the City Council shortly. Cite Council ADJOLR~~IEITT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 27, 1995, Civic Theater. 13777 Fruitvale Ave.. Saratoga. CA Respectfully submitted. Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk