Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-1996 Planning Commission minutes~LANNING COMMISSION MINU~ APRIL 24, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce Late: Siegfried Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, and Planner Bradley (City Attorney Riback was not present this evening) Pledge of Allegiance Chairwoman Kaplan presented Commissioner Murakami with a plaque and thanked him, on behalf of the Commission, for acting as past Chair to the Commission. Minutes - 4/ 10/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 10, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: - Page 6, paragraph 9, second sentence amended to read: "...Shestated that she could .. not support cinly rcqui.ri»g the approval of antennas in residential zones.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2. the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 19, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES • APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V-96-001 -DIAMOND; 18406 MONTPERE WAY; Request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 272 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2,688 sq. ft. single story residence. The addition would encroach 1.2 ft. into the required side yard setback of 7.2 ft. The subject property is 8,220 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district (applicant is requesting continuance to x/8/96; City review deadline is 9/12/96). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Siegfried entered and was seated. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SD-95-010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single-family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul-de-sac would access the development off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. -there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (cont. from 4/10/96 regular adjourned meeting). Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He indicated that there were still issues to be resolved prior to approval as follows: pedestrian access; circulation alternatives; Saratoga-Sunnyvale wall; one story versus two story homes; and the bus stop shelter. Staff requested Commission discussion and that it provide the applicant and staff with direction reaardinQ the issues listed above or any other issues that it may have. Should the Commission approve the project, a resolution of approval would be prepared for this application and that it would be placed on the consent calendar for its next meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the public hearing remained open (7:40 p.m.) Ray Nesmith indicated that he did not have anything further to state other than the comments that were stated at the work session. He agreed to answer any other questions which the Commission may have. He stated that he was in agreement with the conditions PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES • APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - contained in the letter presented to him. Jim Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, informed the Commission that he was representing the homeowners to the north and west of the project. He indicated that the homeowners presented a petition at the first hearing on this item, noting that the primary concern was that no additional traffic be added to the adjacent streets. The petition also listed items that should be completed to make this project neighborhood friendly. Study sessions have since been held, giving the neighbors the opportunity to review the various concepts proposed. He indicated that the neighbors unanimously supported the street layout as proposed. He noted that the school also prefers this circulation pattern for the safety of the children. He informed the Commission that there is an athletic field controlled by the Saratoga-Los Gatos Recreational District, noting that there still remains activities outside school hours. He reiterated that the homeowners support this proposal and requested that the following conditions be included as part of the Commission's approval of the subdivision map: - Lots on north and west boundaries of subdivision are to be restricted to single story residences. - Finished grade of lots on north boundary are not to exceed present grade level. - Landscaping and irrigation to be installed at the end of Lynde Avenue, Seaton Avenue and Prune Blossom Court by removing portions of existing pavement. The pavement's new terminus shall be curved. - Area between school driveway and west boundary of the subdivision, which is city owned land, to be landscaped and irrigated. - Maintenance of items 3 and 4 to be provided by a landscape and lighting district supported by the Lands of Navico. - Retain integrity of existing retaining walls and fences along north, west, and south boundaries of subdivision. All damage or replacement to be accomplished at Navico's expense. Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, identified the modifications made to the subdivision layout as follows: the cul-de-sac that goes in a southwesterly direction was straightened slightly, moving it closer to Seaton Avenue; the pedestrian walkway was shortened to 120 foot; the size of the walkway vas increased to a vary ing witdh of 20 to 25 feet; the lot lines for lots 3-10 were modified; landscaping would be installed in the area located at the end of Lynde Avenue and Prune Blossom Court; an alignment of the existing driveway to the school and Seaton Avenue; and that a small landscape easement has been provided at the corner of the school parking lot and driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that a lot of thought has gone into this proposal and that although there are three streets that have the potential to be extended, only one of the streets, Seaton Avenue, should not be extended. He felt that the proposal was a good one. He felt that it was important to provide this kind of access directly through to Herriman, from a pedestrian stand point. He concurred with Mr. Ousley that the athletic field located at the school site was used extensively on weekends and evenings. Therefore, this circulation would allow for bicycle and walking traffic from areas that are not easily accessible. He stated that he liked the plans and that he would like to see a mixture in size of houses as well as single and two story homes. Commissioner Abshire stated that he originally objected to the proposed plans. However, at the work session held a couple of weeks ago, he was convinced that this was probably the best plan that could be perceived and that it would preserve the existing ash tree. He felt that the signal light at the entrance of the project would be more efficient now that there were four accesses being proposed instead of three. He felt that a problem would exist in that there would be no traffic from this subdivision going to the ones adjacent to it. However, he felt that this disadvantage was outweighed by the advantage of the current plans. Commissioner Pierce stated that he still had a concern with the layout. He also stated that he did not like any of the alternatives that were presented at the study session. He felt that the logical solution to the lot layout would be a modified alternative C (instead of having two cul-de-sacs, the project could use the signal light at Herriman, go through and make a right turn to connect to Prune Blossom. This modified Alternative C would allow the use of the Herriman signal light and that it would provide additional safety to individuals using Verde Vista. He noted that it was not safe to pull out onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road when the traffic is heavy, because it is a dangerous situation. He indicated that he could accept the rest of the proposal with the exception of the project's layout. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the circulation plan proposed. She recommended that there be another outlet. She felt that there were other alternatives that could address her concerns. She indicated that she liked Commissioner Pierce's suggestion of the use of a modified alternative C. Therefore she could not support this proposal. Commissioner Murakami stated that after reviewing the proposal at the study session, that he was more inclined to agree with Commissioners Siegfried and Abshire. He felt that the proposal would provide enough access for a development of this size. He stated that he would be inclined to support the proposal. Commissioner Asfour stated that his original concern has not been addressed, that being that the proposal only provides one access to the development. He stated that he would need to see one more access provided, connecting one of the other roads dead ending into the property. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she supported Commissioner Pierce's modified alternative C because it would relieve a dangerous traffic situation from Verde Vista to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. She felt that ythe modified alternative would open up the proposed neighborhood to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not want the neighbors to think that the Commission vas not listening to their concerns. However, the Commission is mandated to make decisions that would benefit the City as a whole, not just a small locality within the City. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the public hearing be reopened to determine whether the applicant wishes to modify the plans as recommended by the majority of the Commission or whether they wish the Commission to take action this evening. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO ALLOW TIME TO MODIFY THE PLANS OR WHETHER THEY WISH A VOTE TO BE TAKEN THIS EVENING. Mr. Nesmith informed the Commission that he has investigated the recommended alternative. He indicated that a concern vas that the City calls for a maximum length of a court and that the court was already proposed at 1,100 feet. The Lynde addition would bring the court up to 1.600 feet. This extension would be of concern under fire regulations (extension from a fire hydrant). He felt that the additional traffic to the school would also be an issue. ~'Vhat was being proposed was something that would work for the entire neighborhood. y Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the purpose of reopening the public hearing was to determine whether the applicant would like to return with a revised plan to address the concerns of the majority of the Commission based upon the comments made this evening or whether the applicant wishes the Commission to vote on the request before it. Mr. Nesmith requested that the Commission take action on this item tonight as there were no other alternative that would make better use of this site. Commissioners Patrick/Asfour moved to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not believe that the proposed modified alternative C was a rational one. He felt that it would make a through way from Herriman onto Verde Vista through an existing neighborhood (impacting the four homes currently located on the dead end street). It was his belief that individuals driving across town would go through the signal light, turn right and drive down the existing street, adding additional traffic to an existing neighborhood (taking an existing dead end street and making it a thoroughfare). • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION SD-95-010 AS PROPOSED. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR APPLICATION SD-95-010. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE; NOES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED. Community Development Director indicated that the resolution of denial would be scheduled for the May 8, 1996 Planning Commission -Consent Calendar. 3. DR-96-010 -STEPS; 14136 ARCADIA PALMS; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 773 sq. ft. first-story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second-story addition to an existing single-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application also includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. and for the underfloor clearance height of ~ ft. The subject property is 53,178 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report on this item. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:15 p.m. David Zaro, project architect, concurred with staff's recommendation. He stated that he made a sincere effort to minimize the bulk of the second floor area. This was accomplished by centering the second floor area. He also tried to minimize any impacts to the surrounding neighbors and to their view corridors. Commissioner Murakami complimented Mr. Zaro on his architectural drawings. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-010 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 4. UP-96-003 -THE BROOKSIDE CLUB OF SARATOGA 19127 COX AVE.; Review of a comprehensive Use Permit for an existing private tennis and swim club facility located on an approximately 3.4 acre site in the R-1-10,000 and R-1-12,500 zoning district, pursuant to Article 1~-~~ of the City Code. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item and informed the Commission that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to consolidate all previous conditions of the use permit into one resolution. Staff recommended approval of the resolution. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the Commission was presented with a document this evening dated April 24, 1996 from Brookside Club, stating that there were corrections to misprints. She stated that she would refer to the resolution before the Commission until such time that the corrections were identified. Commissioner Pierce clarified that the Commission was being requested to consolidate the conditions of approval and not to discuss the conditions in particular. Commissioner Siegfried felt that a definition needed to be identified regarding what constitutes a swim meet as well as the definition for private swim/tennis lessons. Chairwwoman Kaplan asked staff regarding page 1 of the resolution, condition 2 pertaining to the hours of operation for outdoor activities -Swimming. She noted that there were inconsistencies in the hours for adult s~vimminQ as identified in the proposed resolution of approval and that of the matrix prepared by staff (8 a.m. versus 9 a.m.). She also noted a discrepancy located at the top of page 2 of the resolution relating to the Sunday swim hours (resolution stipulates 10:00 a.m. and the matrix table states 11 a.m.; resolution stipulates Saturday and holiday hours as 9 a.m. -matrix states 10 a.m.). Community Development Director Curtis indicated that staff would review the hours that swim practices could commence. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the only testimony that the Commission would consider this evening was the resolution before it. The comments would need to address whether the unified use permit proposal correctly states the terms and conditions of all of the previous use permit amendments. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Walter Windus, 12681 Saratoga Creek Drive, indicated that he resides across the street from the Brookside Club. He expressed concern with the increase in membership and the increase in use of the facility (condition 5, page 2 of the consolidated resolution of approval). Commissioner Siegfried clarified that condition 5 limits membership to 250 families and that it would not be increasing the membership. He indicated that he spoke with Dee Askew briefly regarding this matter and that at the time that he spoke with her, he had not reviewed the packet, nor of the request for use permit consolidation. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Dee Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Drive, stated that the neighbors were concerned because the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a comprehensive use permit that reflected all previously and currently applicable use permit conditions. She indicated that upon reviewing the respective permit, the neighbors found discrepancies and omissions as follows: - Page 2, weekend swim hours (previously identified by Chairwoman Kaplan); - the last four items located on the matrix were not included in the resolution (upgrade perimeter fencing along east property line; additional landscaping to reduce impacts to neighbors; eliminate tennis rebound wall; eliminate or move basketball standard); - Inclusion of a section which stipulates that the Planning Commission shall retain jurisdiction "To preserve the health, safety, convenience, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding areas or to preserve the existing or perspective values of properties and improvements." (Included in UP-14.1 of 1960) Ms. Askew requested that the Commission consider its draft permit report in its deliberations. Bob Salutric, 12365 Saratoga Creek Drive, requested that the ambiguities be resolved. He expressed concern with ho~v the club house is to be used henceforth. He requested that the previous verbiage of preceding use permits be incorporated in the resolution of approval. Regarding the sound system, he did not feel that the six foot fence would mitigate the noise of the sound system. He requested that an eight foot fence be required (condition 7). He also requested that the non-membership and group lessons be clarified. Jim Shaw, stated his support of the neighbors who reside on Saratoga Road. Bob Williams, Vice President, Brookside Club Board, offered the following comments: - page 2 of the consolidated resolution of approval should indicate that the Sunday swim hours are to be from 11 a.m. until one hour after sunset; - requested that under Club Swim Team Practices (page 2 of the resolution of approval) be amended to read: "11-18 year old team members: Commencing at 8 ................. . a.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays during the period of ap~?r~~~a~el June 15 through July 31; "All team members: commencing at 9 a.m. on weekdays during the period ~ begnri~n~., ~hethird ;~ik of ~rl through July 31; - Swim Meets and Time Trials -amended to read: "Three Saturday swim meets and one Saturday or Sunday: time trial during the period June 15 to July 31, beginning no earlier than 9 a.m. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 9 - - A group to be defined as 3 to 4 swimmers. Commissioner Patrick noted that page 27 of the staff report indicates that a 1985 amendment made it possible for the Club to begin practices as soon the school children are released for the summer rather than waiting until June 15. It was her belief that at one point, in the review of the use permit, commencement of practices were earlier than the June 15 date. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Commissioner Abshire excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the last four conditions listed in the matrix have been satisfied and therefore were not included. However, should the Commission wish to include them in the resolution of approval, they could so be included. He informed the Commission that it would continue to retain jurisdiction of the use permit and that the Commission has the right to amend or revoke the use permit if problems arise. Regarding the request to install an eight foot fence instead of a six foot fence, he indicated that the Commission approved the installation of a six foot fence. He addressed the swim trials and stated that it was the intent to have four congregate activities. A swim trial could be held either on a Saturday or Sunday as long as it is not both days. He indicated that the Commission has discretion regarding weekend swim trials. It was his belief that it was the intent of previous decisions to allow swimming to start at the end of the school year rather than identifying a specific date. He recommended that the date be identified as being the first week or first Monday after the end of the school year. He informed the Commission that he needed clarification as to what constitutes private lessons as well as clarification regarding Saturday versus Sunday swim trials. Commissioner Patrick recommended that the swim practices be stipulated not to start prior to the first Monday that the Saratoga elementary school is released for summer break, but no earlier than June 1 of any year. She indicated that she did not have a problem with Saturday versus Sunday swim trials but that she would not want a continuous, two day event. She also stated that she would support private lessons not to exceed a certain number at any given time. Commissioner Siegfried stated that his concern has been the advertisement of swim and tennis camps. He did not believe that private swim and tennis lessons was ever the intent of approval (condition 6). Commissioner Asfour indicated that it vas his belief that private lessons is a one to one basis. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that it was her interpretation that private lessons are ones that are paid for. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he did not believe that the issue was whether or not there were private lessons but that the issue was that of providing lessons to non-club members. He indicated that staff was looking at the definition of private lessons as being lessons being offered to non-club members. Commissioner Asfour felt that allowing paid, non-members to receive lessons would be indirectly increasing the Club's membership. Commissioner Patrick felt that the difference between member and private lessons was one whether the life guard vas directing an individual ho~v to swim versus spending an hour with an individual receiving lessons, regardless of whether it is a private individual or as a group. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it vas his belief that it was not the intent of the City to allow the advertisement of swim/tennis camps or a day care center. Commissioner Patrick recommended that language be included in the resolution that would limit the number of individuals who can be present before it constitutes a group (tennis not to exceed two individuals per lesson and swimming lessons not to exceed five individuals per group). Commissioner Pierce noted that testimony has not been received that implies that the club is conducting swim camps. He did not believe that a problem exists. He acknowledged the fact that the neighbors were concerned with a potential problem. He felt that it should be made clear that it is not the Commission's intent to allow camps. If it gets to that point, the Commission would continue to retain its jurisdiction over the use permit. Community Development Director indicated that he understood the Commission's definition of "private lessons" . COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO ITS MAY 8 MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION PER COMMISSION DISCUSSION. Community Development Director informed the Commission that this item would not be placed on the consent calendar as the public hearing was reopened. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK RESCINDED THEIR MOTION. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND TO INCORPORATE THE MODIFICATIONS AS IDENTIFIED THIS EVENING. THE RESOLUTION IS TO BE PLACED ON THE MAY • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 11 - 8, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THE COMMISSION'S VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Chairwoman Kaplan thanked everyone for their efforts on this item. 5. DR-96-007 -COSTA: 18928 TEN ACRES ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a 44,867 sq. ft. vacant lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the R-1- 40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Greg Kwahara, project architect, indicated that grading would allow the home to appear more natural and softer without the use of a retaining wall. He thanked staff for its assistance. Commissioner Asfour expressed confusion regarding how the proposed design would work. It was indicated that if the house was stepped down, it would need a retaining wall to the rear. But that if the house was not terraced, a retaining wall would not be necessary. It was his opinion that the applicant vas trying to fit the lot to the home instead of fitting the home to the lot. Mr. Kwahara indicated that the amount of cut could be reduced and that it could be softened with the use of landscaping. Paul Doble, general contractor, stated that grading can be reduced and still meet the City's requirement, but doing so would require the installation of a large, ugly retaining wall. He did not want to see a retaining wall built because it would not be attractive. It was his belief that this proposal would be a "win-win" situation. Commissioner Siegfried clarified that Commissioner Asfour vas asking if it was possible to redesign the house, stepping it down to minimize grading. Commissioner Asfour stated that there were other issues other than meeting zoning requirements. Ed Costa, applicant, indicated that he chose a home design that he liked and then he searched for a lot in Saratoga that would fit the design. He felt that the plans would work well on this particular lot. He was looking for a lot that was aesthetically pleasing, having a park-like setting. In order to conform to any type of building on this particular lot, it was found that a certain amount a dirt would need to be removed. He indicated that he proposes to install a considerate amount of large trees, noting that the lot was currently • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 12 - bare. He indicated that an alternative would be the use of retaining walls but that doing so would impose a large amount of concrete in the way of a retaining wall. He felt that his proposal would fit well within the community. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not support the use of retaining walls and that he was in support of a house that fits the lot, not creating a lot that fits the design. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that Commissioner Asfour's points were well taken. He indicated that he did not have an objection to the design of the home but that he was concerned that the lot was being modified to accommodate the home. Therefore, he could not support the request. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support the massive earth movement. She felt that the home could be redesigned to fit the property or that the home could be re- sited. She did not feel that the topography vas too strict that it makes redesign impossible. She indicated that she could not support the request as submitted. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that her concern was with upsetting the hill and that she concurred with the comments as stated by her fellow Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST A VOTE OR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Mr. Costa indicated that he did not wish a continuance and requested that the Commission vote on this item this evening. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION DR-96-007 AND DIRECTED STAFF 'TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ITS MAY 8, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS - • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 13 - COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 4/3 & 4/9/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 5/8/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 8, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk lI';PC042496.SAR