Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Interim Director John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of February 9, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 9, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 3 and 6. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Zutshi abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. James Christensen, 14055 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Reminded that he had been before the Commission on January 12, 2005, to appeal an outdoor kitchen on his neighbor’s property, which the Commission determined could not be considered an ornamental, unenclosed garden structure. • Asked that Commission to attend the pending Council meeting. • Reported that John Livingstone says that this meets Code and that the structure can remain without the window. • Added that he believes the Commission had attempted to deny this structure. • Stated that attendance by the Commissioners was vitally important. The community needs your help. We need your help. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the Commission was advised not to speak on this issue since one of the possible actions by Council might be to refer this matter back to the Commission for further consideration. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 2 Interim Director John Livingstone agreed that it is one option of the Council to return this item back to the Commission. However, the Commissioners are still allowed to speak to the issue as they see fit. Commissioner Hunter expressed regret that she may have made a motion that was confusing. Interim Director John Livingstone reiterated that the Commissioners are welcome to attend the Council meeting and explain any confusion. Chair Garakani reminding those in attendance that the Commission is, under State law, precluded from discussing Oral Request Items in much detail. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification as to whether the Commission should address this issue as one through the chair or as individuals. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Interim Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 17, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Interim Director John Livingstone announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #SD-99-006 (389-06-002 STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive: Resolution No. SD99-006 was adopted on May 10, 2000 approving a Vesting Tentative Map to divide an existing 1.3-acre parcel into two parcels. The site is located in the Professional Administrative zoning district. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to revisit this application as a consent item because of condition of approval #5 in Resolution No. SD-99-006. This condition of approval requires that the Planning Commission approve an Exhibit B identifying on a site plan a creek protection easement. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Interim Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that the Consent Calendar is usually used more as an administrative item. • Added that the Commission can elect to discuss this issue at length or simply approve it. • Explained that the project plan did not depict a required easement and the Planning Commission wanted it shown and conditioned that action. • Advised that the applicant has now included this easement on the plan. • Stated that the Commission can make a motion to accept this change. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the previous Commission that considered this application wanted to make sure it came back for this issue to be finalized. Interim Director John Livingstone replied yes. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 3 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission approved Exhibit B, identifying a creek protection easement on a site plan for the Vesting Tentative Map (SD-99-006) for Saratoga Creek Drive per the requirement under Condition of Approval #5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. SD-99-006, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-297 (397-21-004) SHARMA, 14600 Westcott Drive: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,702 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. A 1,053 square foot basement is proposed. The gross lot size is 14,250 square feet and the site is zoned R-1- 10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new two- story single-family residence, consisting of a total of 3,702 square feet with a 1,053 square foot basement. The maximum height would be 26 feet. • Said that the existing one-story single-family house on this property would be demolished. • Described the proposed materials as consisting of grey stucco and clay tile roof. The new home would be no closer to adjacent residences than the current home is. • Reported that changes were made to reduce the front entry by two feet in height and to eliminate a second story balcony. • Informed that the concerns raised by an adjacent neighbor have been addressed. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked about the address being on Westcott when the house, located on a corner lot, did not actually front on Westcott. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that the house does not currently front on Westcott. However, addressing for corner lots is flexible. There are no issues regarding relocating the front façade to face Westcott Drive. Interim Director John Livingstone added that it is at the discretion of the Building Official, together with the Fire Official, to determine addresses. The chief concern is the ability to locate a property for emergency response. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the front, side and rear setbacks are the same as existing. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 4 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Herbert Varda, Project Designer: • Said that he was the designer. • Requested approval and said he would be available for any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked whether both the stucco and roof tiles would be grey. Mr. Herbert Varda replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked about underground water flow and pointed out that staff is recommending retaining the services of an expert during construction and afterwards. Mr. Herbert Varda said that the drainage plan would show how water would drain. These concerns would be addressed. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Varda if he knows where the ground water is located. Mr. Herbert Varda replied no, not yet. Commissioner Uhl asked how the Commission could ensure that this issue is properly addressed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Building Department’s plan checker would review the drainage plan at which time he considers the imposed Conditions of Approval very carefully. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that generally a drainage plan is required early in the review process. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous agreed that is the case. Ms. Mary Smith, 14566 Westcott Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has no problem with this neighbor. • Said that there is a drainage issue and that the previous neighbor on this property had water problems. • Pointed out that this property can be connected to the big drain located in the area to drain water from the site. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this area of Saratoga has a lot of underground water. Ms. Mary Smith agreed and said that most houses have a sump pump, as there is a lot of water. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous assured that engineers would look at that issue. Mr. Peter B. Smith, 14566 Westcott Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his support of the Sharma’s request. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 5 • Said that he and his wife have resided in this neighborhood for 30 years. • Agreed that there are a lot of underground springs and lots of sump pumps. • Advised that his property is located downhill and that there is no water under their property and therefore no need for a sump pump. • Assured that this house can be built to deal with the water. • Recounted how when he first met the Sharmas, they asked him about the neighborhood. • Stated that the Sharmas brought their plans for their home for his review. • Opined that this would be a nice addition to the area and that the existing house on the property had gotten run down through the years. • Reiterated his support for this application. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mr. Peter Smith for coming this evening. Commissioner Rodgers thanked the Smiths for being good neighbors. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Uhl stated that this is a great project with a beautiful home that he fully supports. Commissioner Hunter agreed. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that the water issue would be worked out. Chair Garakani said that he was happy to see the balcony modified to protect the neighbor’s privacy. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-297) to allow the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence with basement on property located at 14600 Westcott Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Sharma expressed his appreciation to the members of the Commission, Christy Oosterhous and to his neighbors for their assistance with this process. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD – 14265 Burns Way: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,943 square feet. The floor area of the main floor is 2,608 square feet and the upper floor is 1,335 square feet. In addition, a 1,506 square foot basement is proposed. A 1,018 square foot second dwelling unit is also proposed. The maximum Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 6 height of the proposed two-story residence is 26 feet. The lot size is 29,025 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-15,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new two-story single-family residence as well as a secondary dwelling unit. The total floor area is 3,943 square feet with an approximate 1,506 square foot basement. The second unit would consist of 1,018 square feet. The maximum height would be 26 feet for the house and 17 feet, 4 inches for the second unit. • Described the proposed house as a Craftsman style incorporating shingles and horizontal siding. • Reported that two prior Design Review applications were denied due to neighborhood opposition. • Reminded that the Commission held a Study Session for this submittal. Resulting revisions included a three-foot reduction in height and an increased setback. • Informed that the neighbors to the north have concerns and they are here tonight. • Stated that there is no geotechnical clearance for this project as of yet. The applicant is requesting Design Review action prior to going to the expense of obtaining geotechnical review. • Recommended deferring action on this proposal until this geotechnical clearance is issued by the City Engineer. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the recommendation in the staff report is to defer action. She asked if Design Review consideration would occur this evening. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff could bring back a Resolution if the Commission decides to take action this evening. Commissioner Uhl said that the decision could be made to go forward or not after this evening’s hearing. Interim Director John Livingstone pointed out that the typical choices of action by the Commission range from approving with conditions, denying outright or continuing to another date for further consideration. Commissioner Rodgers asked for the difference between this project and the previous one as it relates to geotechnical clearance. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that the difference lies in the history of the previous applications for this site. The other project did not have that history. Commissioner Nagpal said that the Commission could elect to condition this project so that it would have to be brought back before the Commission if any geotechnical issues are raised. Commissioner Zutshi asked if basic geotechnical review has been done. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the process has started. The study has been submitted but not finalized or approved. More documents are needed. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is any initial feedback on the geotechnical information. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 7 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she is not sure at this point. There are unique features on this site. Commissioner Uhl asked if this would come back to the Commission. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the project has been modified. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the lowering of the height by three feet. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the previous plans were 26 feet in height as seen from the street. Now 26 feet is the average height and the house would appear to be 23 feet in height as seen from the street. Chair Garakani restated that the previous average height was more than 26 feet and now the average height is 26 feet. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out the area that is enclosed on two sides and asked if that is counted as square footage. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that this area is not counted as square footage as the Code requires three or more sides to be enclosed to count as square footage and this is but two sides. Commissioner Hunter questioned how this review could move forward without geotechnical clearance and given that the adjacent neighbors don’t want it to be located where it is proposed to be placed? How can the Commission approve this tonight if the house may have to be moved? Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that this is the position that staff is also taking. Commissioner Uhl stated that if the house must be moved, it would need to come back to the Commission. Interim Director John Livingstone said that all technical data is not there yet and agreed that this project may have to be changed. If there were any major change, this item would be returned to the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal compared square footage between the original and current proposal and pointed out that the original house may have been reduced by a small amount but the second unit is now larger than originally proposed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said this is correct. The second unit is now located closer to the north property line and is larger by approximately 33 square feet. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out another modification since the Study Session in that the chimney flue has been widened. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 8 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that the chimney has been made thicker so as to obstruct any view impacts onto the property to the north. Commissioner Nagpal questioned the required findings regarding impacts to views and privacy. She asked whether impacts on any rooms are taken into consideration? Is it bedrooms, living spaces, etc. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that there is some discretion. The main living areas are what are mentioned in the design handbook. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the concerns over fire hazards as raised in neighbor correspondence. She asked if these issues have been resolved. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is any follow up on that issue. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that there is no new information and that the Fire Department believes that this project can be adequately conditioned. She added that there are some concerns regarding water flow. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to confirm that Tree #26 would be retained. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that this tree appears to be in the path of the deck. The applicant wants to preserve the tree but it may not be feasible. More revisions may be required. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff for the lot sizes for two houses on Marion Road. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that this subject parcel is twice the size of the zoning district in which it is located. Commissioner Nagpal asked for the size homes on those two Marion Road properties. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she did not have that data but that they look smaller. Commissioner Uhl sought clarification between the previous maximum heights of 26 feet versus 23 feet. Was the house 26 feet as seen from the street before this recent reduction? Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Uhl asked if this didn’t exceed Code previously. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied correct. That’s why it was reduced in height. Commissioner Uhl said that it would have been 29 feet maximum if it had been approved as originally proposed. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern about the lack of parking for the second unit. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the requirement for parking could be waived as a means to encourage secondary dwelling units. Commissioner Zutshi asked if this lot could be subdivided. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that it was likely close but not quite large enough to split. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. George Wittman, Project Architect: • Thanked staff for its efforts to create a better community. • Distributed new north and west rendered elevations and advised that larger boards were available also. • Explained that there are two north elevations provided, one with the retention of the Oak tree and the second with its removal. • Reminded that there have been extensive meetings with staff, neighbors as well as a Study Session with the Planning Commission. • Assured that this design would be an asset to this neighborhood and is in compliance with all regulations. • Pointed out that there were a number of constraints to deal with. This site has a history and features a ravine across the project that splits the lot back and front with a footbridge connection. • Said that his clients have four children. This is a growing family, with extended family and a live in. • Described this existing home as a 40s era house that is in sorry disrepair. • Argued that the concerns of the neighbors to the north have already derailed two previous submittals. • Pointed out that there is an 85-foot setback to the garage and a 109-foot distance between this house and the street. They have set back the house as much as possible and designed this house around the ravine. Engaging the ravine equals substantial added cost but gives them the opportunity to work with existing features of this property. • Said that this home would have the Craftsman aesthetic. • Reported that the project was revised since the Study Session to meet all issues that were raised at that meeting. Massing and bulk has been addressed with this design. Light, view and privacy to the neighbors to the north have been respected and nothing would disrupt their view. • Said that the building’s side yard setback has been accommodated to the north side. • Stated that this project is compatible with this neighborhood and that there are a number of two- story homes, including historic ones, in the area. • Said that they have done a reasonable job to break down scale and bulk and this is a winning design for the neighborhood and his clients. • Expressed confidence that any structural alterations that might be required under geotechnical review can be taken into consideration by using deeper footings and/or piles. • Said that the guesthouse was redesigned as it was previously skewed slightly. With the redesign, it has been pushed back and would have no impact to the neighbors to the north. • Said that a deed restriction would dedicate the second unit as an affordable unit. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 10 • Advised that they had wanted a three-car garage but it was not a desirable feature as seen from the street. There is a long access drive, which equals opportunity for parallel parking on site. Use of a two-car garage was an aesthetic issue and it was felt that the site has adequate parking. • Stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked about changes since the last time. Mr. George Wittman: • Advised that the main residence was moved to the south by 1 foot, 10 inches from the north property line. • Added that the roof slope went from 4.25 per foot to 3.5. The roof over the closet was changed to a lower slope shed roof. • Stated that a trellis was added to the closet wall to enhance that elevation as seen by the north property. • Said that the chimney flue was widened to obstruct views into the neighbor’s yard to the north. • Said that the second floor was lowered by 1 foot, 2 inches. The finish floor was lowered 26 inches and went down an extra 14 inches. • Said that the second unit was redesigned and relocated. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the trellis. Mr. George Wittman said that there is no window there. The trellis is decorative. Added that they tried to minimize windows on that façade. The trellis is intended to soften that façade and break it up. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there would be plants on the trellis. Mr. George Wittman replied no. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the two drawings, with and without the Oak, do not depict other nearby trees. She asked if this screening landscaping is not included because the intent is to show the elevation. She pointed out that the bridge as depicted is not covered. Mr. George Wittman said that they would like a covered bridge to access the second unit because it would provide a covered connection from the main structure to that back unit. However, they took the roof off and left it as an open structure with a bench on it to minimize its bulk. Commissioner Uhl asked if this bridge would be covered or uncovered. Mr. George Wittman said that they want a covered bridge but the drawing shows uncovered. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the distance between this house and the neighbor’s. Chair Garakani asked how far the neighbor to the north’s house is from the street and how far this proposed home would be from the street. Mr. George Wittman replied that this house would be 109.2 feet from the front property line. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Nagpal pointed to an increase in the north setback by 3 feet, 10 inches for the first story and by one foot, 10 inches for the second floor. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that this is a legal non-conforming north side setback. Commissioner Hunter pointed out the letters that question the need for eight bedrooms. Mr. George Wittman said the one bedroom is located on the first floor for guests, three bedrooms are on the second floor and there are two bedrooms in the basement. Additionally, there is the guesthouse. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the guesthouse size was increased when reducing it had been discussed. Mr. George Wittman said that the design changed and it is now more inefficient as it is now layed out. The increase was only about 40 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the elevation renderings accurately represent the height differences between this house and the neighboring house. Mr. George Wittman said it is an approximation based upon photographs and aerial photographs. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Mr. George Wittman for his efforts since the Study Session. Chair Garakani asked if the second unit gets counted towards Saratoga’s housing requirements. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes, this unit would be counted toward the City’s regional housing needs. Commissioner Hunter said that this house has lots of bedrooms and that in the past the Commission has considered the amount of parking. She asked how many parking spaces are provided for this project. Mr. George Wittman replied that there is one parking space located off the driveway that can be used without obstructing the driveway. There is the two-car garage and any number of vehicles can be parking along the driveway in tandem. Chair Garakani asked how long is the driveway. Mr. George Wittman replied it is 85 feet long and that each car needs about 20 feet. Chair Garakani said that this means that four more cars can be parked in tandem on the driveway. Mr. George Wittman added that a circular driveway is possible up front but they have tried to minimize the driveway to keep the site more countrified. He added that the two bedrooms in the basement might not be finished out at this time. They may be used for exercise or as a playroom. Mr. Kurt Voester, 14251 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as the neighbor to the north. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 12 • Mentioned a recent editorial from the San Jose Mercury News. • Stated that the applicant’s design may be beautiful but still may not be nice for the neighborhood. • Said that he has lived here for 37 years and during that time never felt the presence of his neighbors’ homes. • Reminded that at the Study Session, five Commissioners asked for reductions in size. While some progress has been made, he suggested a further increase in the separation between this house and his. He suggested moving the garage forward by seven and a half feet and moving the house eight feet to the south. This would result in less of a feeling of being overwhelmed by this house and an English walnut tree could be saved. • Stated that with a spirit of cooperation, this could be achieved. • Added that if this project were to be approved, he would request that the glass in the windows over the staircase be frosted, as it would look directly into their bedroom. • Asked that no thumbs up be given to this current proposal. • Pointed out that at 5,145 square feet, this would be the largest house in the neighborhood. • Suggested that the Commission weigh the issues carefully. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Mr. Voester’s recommendation to move the garage and house might save the Walnut but would instead impact other Coast Redwood trees. Mr. Kurt Voester said that the applicant has told him that these trees are unstable and are coming down. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that trees #5 and #8 are to be removed. Commissioner Nagpal said that it appears Tree #5 would be damaged in construction. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Kurt Voester if he prefers the Walnut to Redwoods. Mr. Kurt Voester replied yes, it is a larger tree. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Kurt Voester where he came up with the 5,400 square feet. Mr. Kurt Voester said that this includes the basement. Commissioner Uhl said that with the basement and second unit the total is actually 6,400 square feet. Commissioner Nagpal said that the main house is 3,900 square feet. Ms. Barbara Voester, 14257 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said that she resides next to the project site. • Questioned the City’s need for guesthouses. Chair Garakani report that secondary dwelling units are desired as they can be counted as affordable housing units. Ms. Barbara Voester: Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 13 • Stated that she is not in support of this proposal as it will overpower her own property and would set a precedent for two-story homes on Burns Way. • Said that this new home stretches 180 feet along her property line, which equals half a football field. This 180 feet worth of building includes the house, bridge and second unit. • Said that their ambience would be gone and they will appear to be walled in. • Advised that she moved in her home in 1968. In 1968 she petitioned to Council to create the Heritage Preservation Commission. She served on the HPC from 1982 to 1989. • Agreed that things change over time. Many people in the area have remodeled. Most have lived here for years. • Said that she feels very lucky to reside in this area where two streets dead-end. There are few cars and people look out for each other. They enjoy orchards and vistas. • Stated that this is area is something special and deserves to be preserved. • Asked that the Commission not allow this project to impact her husband and her. • Declared that this is very important to them. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Barbara Voester about her preference between a two-story versus single-story since a two-story would have a smaller footprint on a parcel and lesser impact. Ms. Barbara Voester agreed that a two-story is the way to go but not so large as this. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Barbara Voester whether she believes that 3,000 square feet is enough for this house. Ms. Barbara Voester said that 3,000 would be fine. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Barbara Voester if she agrees that the existing house cannot be preserved. Ms. Barbara Voester replied that she absolutely agrees with that. She added that she is happy to have a new house on this property. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Barbara Voester if she likes the design. Ms. Barbara Voester stated that this is a beautiful design but this might not be the appropriate spot for it. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that from the street, view of this home is set back. Ms. Barbara Voester stated that doing so is a good idea to position the house further back on the parcel but that this project also affects the back of her property. This represents a big change for them. Commissioner Hunter reminded that there were two denials for two-story homes on this property in the early 1990s. Ms. Barbara Voester said that they were not as big as this house. Commissioner Uhl asked if those applications were denied due to size and bulk. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 14 Ms. Barbara Voester replied yes, those proposals did not fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Uhl asked if these new owners were informed of these previous denials. Ms. Barbara Voester replied yes. She added that when she realized the property was on the market she called the realtor and suggested they tell potential clients of the history of this property. She added that she too told the new neighbors of the history. Commissioner Rodgers mentioned that during the site visit she had asked how high the water had risen in the ravine in the last 37 years. Ms. Barbara Voester said that the creek has dropped down due to erosion and the highest amount of water was eight feet. The ravine is a torrent when it rains. Chair Garakani reminded that the applicant would spend money to correct this situation. Ms. Barbara Voester said that the ravine has eroded by two feet since the new neighbors moved in and removed the debris that had been dumped there in the ravine over the years, including old cars. Commissioner Nagpal said that she has difficulty talking about square footage and reminded that basement square footage is not counted. This is a 3,500 square foot house on a lot that is much bigger than its zoning designation. Asked Ms. Barbara Voester if this fact has any impact on her consideration. Ms. Barbara Voester replied, of course. She expressed concern that the ravine/creek is considered as part of a buildable lot. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that the house could be moved closer to the front of the lot and therefore have a larger impact. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the floor area allowance is 4,969 square feet and asked staff how this is tied to lot size. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that lot size determines allowable floor area. She reported that 4,500 square feet is permitted for this property plus a 10 percent bonus with the deed restriction for the second dwelling unit, which totals 4,900 square feet. The ravine is counted since it is not an easement. If it were an easement, it would not be counted. Interim Director John Livingstone reminded that lots with slope get FAR reductions. A creek counts as slope and equals a reduction. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the reduction was 18 percent. Commissioner Uhl said that this means that a 6,000 square foot structure would have been allowed. Ms. Dorothy Stamper, 20562 Marion Road, Saratoga: Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 15 • Informed the Commission that she has resided in the neighborhood for 50 years, has two other homes on this road and 2.5 acres of orchard at Burns and Marion. Therefore she has a significant interest in the area. • Stated that most of the homes are single-story homes and most remodels done supported the character of the neighborhood and were supported by the neighborhood. • Reminded that the two previous large homes proposed for this property were opposed and turned down and not built. This is an even larger proposal. • Stated the importance of considering the impacts on neighbors. Ms. Anne Brazil-Kolb, 20570 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Said that she is a 20-year tenant of Ms. Stamper. • Reported that what is now called a ravine was formerly called a ditch that was four feet deep at its deepest point. • Said that the previous applicants included little in setbacks for large homes, causing them to be close on property lines. • Applauded these new neighbors’ plans to move the house back on their parcel. • Stated that a two-story is tough to buy, as the bulk and size are not part of the neighborhood. • Said that while her house is large, it is not obvious. Mr. Jim Renolds, 20640 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Said that he, his wife and two daughters reside in this neighborhood. • Thanked the Burgos/Pollard family for their graciousness in sharing their plans for their home. • Said he is a long-time resident of the neighborhood, 15 years, and lives two house to the right of the project site. • Expressed his disagreement with the comments of the Seattle-based Architect. Neighbors did not derail the two previous designs. • Stated his support for the rights of these owners to improve their home but objects to the current proposal for two reasons. One is that two-stories are out of place in this neighborhood. Secondly privacy, views and sunlight could be impacted if all homes in this neighborhood were to become two-story homes. This project is precedent setting. • Said that he wants to preserve this area, which has a unique feel to it. • Said that there is a beautiful orchard, thanks to Mrs. Dorothy Stamper. One can see deer in the area. • Reported that there have been from seven to ten turnovers in homeowners during the last 15 years. • Declared that the proposed size of this house does not fit within this neighborhood where homes average 2,000 to 3,000 square feet. This one is twice as large. • Said that he accepts and embraces the new neighbors and understands the importance to them to build their dream house but it must fit within its neighborhood. They can achieve their house but a two-story home is not desired by this neighborhood. • Stated that Saratoga’s past can be found in this community. Chair Garakani reported that during the site visit he saw a lot of older homes and saw several two-story homes. Mr. Jim Renolds said any two-story was built 15 to 20 years ago. There have been no additional ones built since that time. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 16 Chair Garakani asked if the concern is the amount of living space or height of this structure. Mr. Jim Renolds said that this structure is 26 feet high. It is hard to separate the size and the height. However, the notion of a second unit is outstanding. Chair Garakani reminded that a one-story house could still be 26 feet tall and spread out further on this lot. Mr. Jim Renolds said that his house is 15 to 17 feet high and could be used as a bellwether. Chair Garakani said that Code does not limit to a 15 to 17 feet maximum height. The maximum height allowed under Code is 26 feet. Houses 18 feet or lower can be approved without Planning Commission review and those 18 feet and higher come to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Nagpal inquired whether a Single-Story Overlay has been considered for this area. She asked if Mr. Jim Renolds has seen this house plan. Mr. Jim Renolds said not as currently proposed but he has seen the story poles on the site. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that the neighbors to the north, the Voesters, prefer a two-story to a single-story. Mr. Jim Renolds said that prefer is too strong a word. Rather, it is a compromise they are willing to accept. Homes consisting of two-stories run counter to this neighborhood. Commissioner Uhl asked who imposes a Single-Story Overlay. Interim Director John Livingstone said that he would prefer to see the Commission stick to the issues before it tonight. Mr. Jim Renolds said that he does not believe that the Single-Story Overlay designation has been raised before for this neighborhood. Mr. Jim Payne, 20631 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Said that he has seen the plans for his neighbors’ home and thinks they have done a wonderful job. • Said his one concern is that a plan for a single-story home was never developed to compare this to. • Stated that it may be warranted to investigate a Single-Story Overlay. • Said that single-story homes with an 18-foot height limit are what fit into this neighborhood. A single-story is the best way to approach this issue. Mr. Sonny Ng, 20650 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Stated that he lives to the west of this site. • Said his major concern is having a two-story overlooking his backyard and master bedroom. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Sonny Ng if he submitted any letters regarding this project. Mr. Sonny Ng replied no. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 17 Ms. Marcy Loth, 20636 Marion Road, Saratoga: • Said that it is clear that having a second story is the major concern. • Said it would be difficult if all the neighbors went up with a second story. • Added that this is a unique property at the end of a street. It is a wooded lot. • Pointed out that the footprint for this home is less on this property that the house across the street that was just built. • Added that a one-story home would have a greater impact that what is being proposed. • Reported that her neighbor recently added to their home and now their new family room looks into her bedroom. • Said that this project would be unobtrusive to its neighbors. • Said that the issue of two-story versus one-story must be considered in context. Mr. John R. Kahle, 20601 Brookwood Lane, Saratoga: • Said his is a two-story home that was built in 1916. • Stated that this owner took great care to come to him with his proposed plans. Great effort was made to adhere to the needs of the neighbors. • Said that these neighbors in this neighborhood are very good friends of his. • Stated that he is not impacted but feels it is only fair to let these neighbors know the care being put in by these new owners to fit into this neighborhood. • Stated that he understands the objections but this new owner has come to this area to make his home and has tried to meet the demands of his neighbors. • Said he has no objection and supports this project. • Said that the issue of a Single-Story Overlay doesn’t impact him as he already has a two-story. • Reminded that he does not reside on Burns or Marion. • Restated his belief that these applicants have tried to be honest and fair and have tried in every way possible to meet any objections. Mr. Mehdi Shahbazi, 14231 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said he, his wife and three children reside in the neighborhood and have done a remodel-addition to their home. • Stated his support of his neighbor’s request. • Declared it was time to stop talking and let this house be built. It has been 13 years of talking about it. • Stated that we have two doctors here in our neighborhood that want to raise their family here, including four children and a caretaker. • Reiterated that it is time to move on and get this house built. Dr. Angela Pollard, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Reported that this has been a three-year process and it feels as if they are slaves to two masters in having to meet the demands of their neighbors and the City. • Stated that the previous plans were not denied due to size or to being two-story. The Commission denied them because they needed work but the applicant at that time wanted a decision, which was for denial. • Said that some people feel strongly against two-story homes while others do not. There are two- story homes in this area. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 18 • Said that theirs is an isolated lot that is part of three neighborhoods. It is two times larger than most lots in the area. • Said that they have worked hard to process their application and have taken their neighbors’ needs into consideration. • Reported that their neighbor’s windows look into their bathroom right now. A single-story home on their property would simply duplicate that situation. • Assured that this house would not impact the neighbor. • Pointed out that they followed the points made at the Study Session and that they are looking for an approval pending the geotechnical report. Dr. Burgos, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said that they have done everything possible to accommodate the concerns of their neighbors and have been considerate. They have taken impacts into account. However, the neighbors have not been considerate. • Stated that he does not think that anything they can do will make Barbara and Kurt Voester happy. They are simply dealing with changes in their neighborhood. Chair Garakani asked Dr. Burgos if they are willing to retain the large Walnut tree. Dr. Burgos said definitely. He is not here to cut down trees. If they can keep any trees, they are up for it. If they have to take any tree down, they are happy to plant another tree. Commissioner Rodgers asked Dr. Pollard about her roots in this neighborhood. Dr. Angela Pollard said that her family has been in the area for more than six generations. She has cousins on Canyon View. Commissioner Nagpal asked Dr. Pollard for her impressions on the suggestions to move the placement of the house and garage, retain the Walnut tree and use frosted glass on the staircase window. Dr. Angela Pollard said that no one could see out of that window as it is located very high up in the stairwell. Mr. William Wittman said that they would have no problem addressing the glass but reminded that the landing is set back from the window by six to eight feet. The stairs are located below this window. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the suggestion to move the garage forward and move the second unit. Dr. Burgos reported that the second unit is located in the middle of the back lot. If it were moved, the pool would be too close to the bank of the creek. He added that they moved the house so it is located near a triangle of property on the Voester property that they do not use. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the garage placement. Dr. Burgos said that they have gone through many changes with discussion after discussion. One solution was moving the house forward. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 19 Commissioner Nagpal asked if it would require a significant redesign to change the placement. Dr. Burgos replied yes. It would still not satisfy the Voesters, who would still be unhappy. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Interim Director John Livingstone reminded that the height is based on an average from the front and rear of the house. Slopes penalize the maximum height allowed. If the house were moved forward on this lot, it would raise the allowable height. Chair Garakani: • Reminded that the applicant has the option to go with a single-story home that could still be as high as 26 feet. • Pointed out that this lot is located back at the end of the street and would not have much of an impact on its neighbors or that street. • Said that this applicant has tried to bring the house back on this lot and will go to a lot of expense to make sure this house does not end up in the ravine/ditch/creek. • Stated that this applicant is trying to be neighborly and has changed design several times already. They have already done a lot to make sure this design meets the needs of the neighbors. • Said that this design looks good and the lot located at the end of that street that looks like a court. • Stated that there are so many two-story homes around, how can this owner be asked not to have a two-story home. We cannot say no. • Said that the applicant has tried to mitigate as much as possible. • Reminded that only a 30-foot setback is required, which they have exceeded considerably. • Stated that they are providing something beautiful here. Once it is built, the sensitivity concerns will go away. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that Marion Road is an extraordinary area. Burns is a unique historical area from back in the 1930s and 1940s. • Said that she has a lot of sympathy for these applicants who have a young family. • Agreed that this is a perfect place to raise children. • Opined that the sacrifice has to be the two-story component. • Pointed out that there are 27 single-story homes and three two-story homes in the immediate area. • Stated that this house is too big. It is a huge house for this neighborhood. • Advised that she raised four children in a 3,000 square foot house. • Expressed concerns about the fact that there is no accessible parking for the second unit, which she finds disturbing. • Stated that this house has a three-story appearance from the back and that this is a peculiar piece of property with its ravine. • Said that while the applicants are to be commended for their efforts thus far, this house has still got to come down further in size. • Pointed out that this is an established historical neighborhood. If a house is approved at 6,000 square feet this time, next time the request might be for an 8,000 square foot house. • Stated that she cannot support this application. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 20 Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that this is a difficult project and reported that she spent a lot of time reviewing the materials, including three hours today that she did while staying at the hospital with her father who had surgery. • Said she has empathy for the applicants in this case. This is a difficult process to go through with a lot of time and money expended. • Said that the applicants have demonstrated respect for their neighbors. • Said that when considering the issue of single-story versus two-story homes, she believes that a two-story home is the right configuration for this lot. This house will go with this lot. A single- story home would have a huge impact on the Voesters. • Reminded that this lot is twice the size of others in the area. • Stated that this two-story minimizes the perception of bulk and has a compatible bulk and height. • Suggested that it is difficult to judge the square footage needs of a family. • Added that it appears that the main residence of this home is 3,900 square feet. There is another 3,900 square foot house nearby that is on a lot half this size. • Said that there is no Single Story Overlay in this neighborhood and that no precedent is set here with this two-story home. • Reminded that approvals are specific to lot size and a whole bunch of other considerations, including neighborhood. • Said that a lot of people have indicated a preference for single-story homes. However, when considering the seven neighbors on Burns, two are not supportive of this request, three are supportive and one is neutral. • Reiterated that a two-story design is better for the Voesters. • Suggested that a compromise might be in the size of the second unit. • Added that she wished that the suggestion offered by the Voesters regarding garage placement had been presented during the Study Session. It’s a bit late to be presenting that alternative now but at that time, the applicant could have considered whether that proposal was realistic or not. • Said that this is a difficult decision and agreed that this is a special neighborhood. • Stated that this is a nicely designed Craftsman style home that is mitigated by its location at the end of a street. Commissioner Schallop stated his complete agreement with the comments of Commissioner Nagpal. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stated that she too also agrees with Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that this is an incredible neighborhood with nice houses and gardens. It is a fantastic pocket in this City. The area is charming and has incredible character. • Suggested that the house currently located on this site is not a part of that charm. It detracts rather than enhances the area. • Stated that these owners are entitled to build something on their property. This design with a two- story is as good as it is going to get. • Suggested that despite concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood, the fact that the new house would be located back away from the street, and therefore would not be imposing from the street, shows sensitivity to the neighborhood and does not take away from the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 21 • Reminded that this is a large and unique lot and that the architect has designed a house that will be historic 100 years from now. • Opined that this proposal is sensitive to the Voesters regarding light, air and setbacks. • Reported that the last design considered by Council in 1998 was a two-story. They did not preclude having a two-story on this lot. • Reminded that since 1998, this area has had the option available to designate their area with a Single-Story Overlay. That has never been done. • Said that features have been incorporated to lower and move this house back on the lot. It is not a hillside property. The house is discrete and she will support it. • Commended the project architect. • Agreed that she has some concern about having no dedicated parking for the second unit. If it were ever to be rented out as a low-income unit, there would be no available parking to serve it. • Asked staff for clarification as to why they recommend approval without dedicated parking for this second unit. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that the City encourages deed restrictions for second units and offers a waiver for parking to encourage construction of these second units. Commissioner Nagpal said she has a similar concern about the lack of parking for the second unit. Commissioner Zutshi reminded that there is parking available on the side of the driveway. Additionally, in the future, a circular driveway could always be a possibility. Commissioner Rodgers said that she would always support greenery versus parking. In this case she chooses greenery and still encourages the second unit. She suggested approval of this project with conditions, including the condition that if the geotechnical report requires any changes to this project that it be brought back before the Commission. She also supported going with the Arborist’s recommendations. Commissioner Nagpal commented that the covered bridge does increase the perception of bulk. Commissioner Zutshi said that there is certain functionality with the covered bridge. Chair Garakani questioned who would be impacted if the bridge were covered. Commissioner Zutshi said that a covered bridge offers more character than bulk. Commissioner Rodgers said that the issue of the bridge could be discussed further. Either way, it looks fine to her. Pointed out that there are lots of covered bridges in Oregon. Chair Garakani said that the covered bridge prevents leaves from piling up on it and offers protection from rain. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated that the applicant has worked hard to accommodate their neighbors. • Said that a lot of effort went into moving the house further back onto the lot. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 22 • Reminded that the second story element is only half of the first story footprint. If the home were to be a one-story house, it would require a footprint that is one and a half times larger than currently proposed. • Stated that this design looks beautiful. • Reminded that if there were any geotechnical problems, this project would come back to the Commission. • Stated that this project should be allowed to move forward. It needs to move forward. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that that Commission had not been provided with a front elevation drawing of any substantial size. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reminded that the first submittal has front elevation details. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is a very tough case. • Stated that this is beautiful design but the issue is size. • Reminded that both Design Review findings and Code requirements must be considered in reaching a decision. While the project may be within Code requirements, it must also comply with the seven Design Review findings. Without opposition, it is easier to approve. Findings to consider include views and privacy impacts, preservation of natural landscape, preservation of trees, minimizing bulk and compatibility of bulk and height. • Said that this house, even without the second-story, would be a huge home. Chair Garakani reminded that this applicant was given direction at previous Planning Commission meetings and at a recent Study Session. Those directions cannot keep changing. Commissioner Uhl said he agrees and that he regrets that he had been unable to make the Study Session. Added that he is not saying that this project cannot go forward, just that it is a big house for this neighborhood. A 5,000 square foot house would be more compatible. Chair Garakani said that they have every right to go up with a second story. Commissioner Uhl said that one issue is the neighborhood opposition. Said that while he feels sympathy for the applicants, there is more that can be done to alleviate concerns. He added that he is not convinced that the second-story is required. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that Code says not to look at the basement level. Commissioner Hunter said that this particular basement would feel like a big open room because of the slope that allows for big open windows in that space. Said that consistency must be considered and the proposal must fit into its neighborhood. Other proposals have been sent back because they were deemed to be incompatible with their proposed neighborhoods. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that those were located on a Hillside property and this is not. Commissioner Uhl reiterated that both Code and required Design Review findings must be considered. He reminded that the second unit has created a loophole that allows extra square footage on this site. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 23 Commissioner Nagpal suggested that in the future the Planning Commission should look at issues in the Design Review findings regarding square footage. Commissioner Schallop reminded that the issues to consider per these findings are bulk and not square footage. Commissioner Uhl said that more could be done to make this house smaller. He said that he feels this house will impact its neighborhood and could be shrunk down. Chair Garakani reminded that this would require a total redesign. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is an opportunity to shrink the size of the second dwelling unit. Commissioner Uhl said he has no problem with that. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the 3,943 square foot footprint, minus the garage space, equals 3,400 square feet. A similar sized house has been constructed on a lot half this size. Reiterated that this lot is not precedent setting as it is twice the size of other lots in this area. Commissioner Uhl stated that a great job has been done as seen from the street side. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that it will be much more costly to construct a building at the rear of this lot. Commissioner Rodgers said that the applicant has mitigated bulk and impacts by placing the buildings at the far back of the site. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Voesters have a small front setback. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that it is difficult to plan a house simply based upon the feedback provided tonight. There needs to be consistency by the Planning Commission regarding requirements. • Said that whether an applicant has supporters or opponents make a difference. However, the Commissioners visit the site and analyze impacts. Decisions are made using Code and Design Review findings. Previous denials are not relevant. Commissioner Nagpal: • Outlined a list of items that appears to be of chief concern. • Stated that one issue is the geotechnical report and soils stability. Any issues raised by these studies that result in the need for a design change must come back to the Commission. • Said that the parking waiver for the second unit might need to be explored further. • Said that Fire requirements have been met. • Stated that one issue still to be determined is whether the bridge should be covered or uncovered. • Pointed out that the revised drawings preserve more trees. Trees 5 (Redwood), 8 (Black Walnut) and 26 (Walnut) are proposed for removal. • Recommended that Trees 5 and 26 be retained and Tree 8 be removed. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 24 • Said that the issue of square footage for the second unit has no clear consensus. • Said that use of frosted glass for the stairway window is an option. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the final landscape plan be reviewed with the Voesters. Chair Garakani reminded that those in the house couldn’t access the stairway window. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the glass to be used in that window be decided once the window is framed in place. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-133) to allow the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit on property located at 14265 Burns Way, with the following added conditions: • That if the geotechnical/soils report results in the need for any design changes, this project comes back to the Commission; • That the bridge be uncovered; • That the landscaping between this property and the property to the north be reviewed with the northern property owners; • That Tree 5 and Tree 26 be retained to the City Arborist’s recommendations and include all other recommendations of the Arborist; and • That frosted glass be used on the stairway window if requested by the neighbor once that window is framed; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: Hunter and Uhl ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Nagpal expressed her hope that this neighborhood comes together. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Interim Director John Livingstone made the following announcements: • Design Review Focus: Stated that Design Review focus should be on size versus square footage and/or one and two-story design. This is a delicate issue. • Overlay District: Reported that the Single-Story Overlay has been used once before for a large area of the City that had a consistent single-story pattern. For areas with pre-existing two-story homes such an overlay is not a good land use decision or tool. • Commissioner Zutshi’s last meeting: Announced that this is Commissioner Zushi’s final meeting. Commissioner Zutshi said that she would be out of town in March and miss the last two meetings of her term. She added that she and her husband would be moving to Shanghai in July for one to two years. Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 25 Interim Director John Livingstone thanked Commissioner Zutshi for her service on the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal offered to host a farewell party. Commissioner Zutshi stated that she learned a lot about Saratoga from Jill Hunter and extended her thanks to all of the Commissioners. Interim Director John Livingstone continued: • Update on Appeal: Said that a mediation meeting has been set for February 24th to attempt to work out the issues on the appealed item. If the matter is worked out, this item may be pulled from the upcoming Council agenda. Commissioner Rodgers said that the City Attorney instructed the Commissioners not to discuss this issue with either side. Interim Director John Livingstone said that the matter could come back to the Commission and cautioned the Commissioners to stay in Planning Commission mode. He added the importance of conformance with Brown Act requirements. Commissioner Uhl suggested that staff advise if and how the Commission members should participate. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Nagpal asked about the meeting next week. Chair Garakani said that this is an Ad Hoc Committee. It was determined that Chair Garakani and Commissioners Nagpal and Rodgers would attend this 5 p.m. meeting. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that this Ad Hoc Meeting is a public meeting. Commissioner Schallop asked if the next site visit would continue to occur at 3:30 p.m. Chair Garakani replied yes. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Planning Commission Minutes for February 23, 2005 Page 26 Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk