Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 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 and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Interim Director John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of February 23, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 23, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. (6-0-1; Commissioners Zutshi was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication Items. 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 March 3, 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). Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM NO. 1 Interim Director John Livingstone advised that the Commission could elect to pull this item from Consent and discuss it, open it to the public for comment and/or approve the item. Commissioner Hunter suggested that this item be pulled from Consent and discussed. APPLICATION #04-133 (503-23-006) BURGOS/POLLARD – 14265 Burns Way: At a public hearing held on February 23, 2005, the Planning Commission, on a 5-2 vote, directed staff to prepare a conditional resolution of approval for Design Review. The applicant requested 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 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: • Reminded that at its meeting of February 23, 2005, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for adoption to allow the construction of a new two-story residence. • Advised that the resolution has been drafted and is being presented to the Commission this evening for adoption. • Pointed that the redesign of the house would be required in order to save Tree No. 5 and Tree No. 26. The Arborist had recommended either removal of Tree 26 or the redesign of the house. He did not recommend retention of this tree with the existing footprint. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the proposed deck. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that this deck would circle the entire house. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the redesign is for the house or the deck. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the first Arborist’s report stated that Tree No. 5 could not be saved. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a bond amount would be posted. Commissioner Hunter reminded that this tree would be cut down. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it would be replaced. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Mr. Kurt Voester, 14251 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Pointed out that during the Study Session it had been reported that Tree No 5 was not slated to be removed. Later it was determined that it could not be saved. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 3 • Reminded that at the last public hearing, he had mentioned that it would be desirable to be able to speak in favor of this project instead of against it. • Reiterated his suggestion that the garage be moved and the house slide over to the south by about eight feet. With this relocation, Tree No. 26 could also be retained. Chair Garakani said that by moving the house by eight feet, the Redwoods would be impacted. Mrs. Barbara Voester, 14251 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Reminded that the Redwoods are already slated for removal but moving the house would save Tree No. 26. Dr. Angela Pollard, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said she wanted to clarify two issues. In September, it was determined that the Redwoods would have to be removed. At that time moving the house was brought up. They have moved the house. • Reported that they are trying to save the Walnut tree (Tree No. 26) although the Arborist’s latest report says it cannot be saved. Dr. Burgos, Applicant and Property Owner, 14265 Burns Way, Saratoga: • Said that trimming the Redwood trees had been considered but that the Arborist says that by cutting one, the rest would become unstable. • Said that they also considered trimming branches from the Walnut but were also told that the tree would not survive. • Assured that if the Walnut does not survive, they will replace it. • Reported that the elevations provided at the last meeting inadvertently did not depict two planned windows. • Added that Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous has warned them that these windows might not be allowed to be put in now as a result of that oversight. Dr. Angela Pollard reported that these windows were depicted on all blueprints but were accidentally left off the elevations. Dr. Burgos reiterated that they were only missing from the elevations from February 23, 2005, by were included on the remainder of plans submitted and are on the current colored elevations. Chair Garakani asked where these windows were located. Dr. Burgos said on the north elevation. Dr. Angela Pollard added that they are first floor windows. Chair Garakani asked if they were included on the three-dimensional rendering. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. She added that she advised the applicants that they must build per the black and white plans but that the Planning Commission can alter that. Chair Garakani asked if the applicants had any concerns about the suggestion to move the house. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 4 Dr. Angela Pollard replied that they have already done lots of alterations. Chair Garakani asked if there is any room to move the house as everyone had been under the impression that the Redwood trees were to be kept. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that to relocated the house the project would need to be redesigned and reminded that the garage is already against the other side setback. Chair Garakani closed the hearing for Consent Calendar Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that she will once again vote no against this project and that the main reason is that it is an environmentally sensitive property with a deep ravine, because the proposed two-car garage is not enough for this size home and due to the loss of trees. Commissioner Rodgers: • Questioned whether the windows that had been inadvertently left out should be allowed or not. • Reiterated the requirement for frosted windows in the landing if requested by the Voesters after the framing has been completed. This is per the minutes of the last meeting. Interim Director John Livingstone suggested that language could be added that requires this decision to be made prior to Planning final. Commissioner Rodgers suggested allowing the two windows that were left out of the elevation drawing inadvertently be included in this project approval. Chair Garakani asked what rooms these two windows would serve. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied a bedroom. Chair Garakani said he did not mind adding them back in. Commissioner Schallop agreed. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that it is clear from the Arborist report that Trees 5 and 26 cannot be saved. Dr. Burgos has said he wants to try to save Tree No. 26. However, that should not be required. • Added text to paragraph 22 to read, “to be resubmitted to the Saratoga Fire District for approval based upon an uncovered footbridge.” Commissioner Uhl: • Said that for the record he would not be supporting this project because he does not find it to be compatible in bulk and mass. • Added that the project does not adequately minimize its perception of bulk and there is strong neighborhood opposition. • Suggested that the applicants could shrink the size of this home to meet the concerns and create a win-win situation here. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Hunter concurred. Commissioner Nagpal: • Reminded that the applicants have done years of design work on this project. • Said that she would like to see Tree No. 26 saved but does not feel that these applicants can be asked to redesign their project at this point. If Tree No 26 can be saved it should be but she has trouble believing that it can be. • Suggested that the Commission discuss a requirement for replacement trees. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that a valuation would be determined to be reflected by a Tree Protection Bond. Chair Garakani reminded that the applicant is not asking for this tree to be removed but rather wants to keep it. They will try their best to preserve this tree. If they fail to retain it, it should be replaced. Reminded that this tree has sentimental value to the Voesters. Commissioner Rodgers suggesting changing the text in the resolution to reflect the applicants attempts to save Tree No. 26. Chair Garakani asked how far Tree 5 is from the proposed house. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that the cluster of Redwoods is collectively labeled as Tree No. 5. Chair Garakani asked how far these trees are from the house. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she estimates they are about eight feet from the building line and one to two feet from the deck. Commissioner Nagpal suggested giving direction for the applicants to attempt to save Tree No. 5. Chair Garakani said that there are two issues. One is if the tree dies. Two is the safety factor. When roots are cut the tree can become unstable. The applicants can try and save as much as possible but the Arborist must give direction. Commissioner Schallop suggested that the Commission defer to the recommendations within the Arborist’s report. Commissioner Rodgers: • Suggested eliminated Trees 5 and 26 from the preserved tree list and add text reading, “Applicant shall attempt to save Trees 5 and 26. If it is not possible, the City shall establish appropriate replacement requirements.” • Added text to paragraph 22 to read, “to be resubmitted to the Saratoga Fire District for approval based upon an uncovered footbridge.” Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 6 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution for Design Review Approval for a new two-story home and secondary dwelling unit at 14265 Burns Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter and Uhl ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-339 (386-10-056 and 041) Westgate Church, 18510 Prospect Road: Request for Design Review to expand the existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Interim Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to expand a parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces to support the expansion of a church located on an adjacent property that is within the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose. • Stated that this proposal is consistent with Design Review criteria. • Explained that Saratoga’s parking requirement is one space for every 200 square feet of floor area within a Commercial zoning. For 2,000 square feet, 10 spaces are required. Nine are provided. The applicant is proposing to increase the parking spaces on this site by 39 for a total of 48 to serve the church on the adjacent property. • Reported that the proposed expansion of the church itself is pending before the City of San Jose. • Added that a condition has been added that requires the preparation of a legal document stating that this parking is to be associated with the church located on the adjacent parcel in San Jose. • Stated that the applicant is proposing the removal of four trees to be replaced with five 36-inch box Oak trees. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter stated that Silver Dollar Eucalyptus trees are proposed for removal due to being too close to the asphalt. Commissioner Uhl asked where the replacement trees would be placed. Interim Director John Livingstone replied that the replacement trees would be placed at the approximately same locations as the removed trees. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jack Ross, Project Architect: • Expressed his agreement with staff’s recommendations and conditions. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 7 • Said he was available for any questions as are a representative from the church and the project Civil Engineer. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Jack Ross if they had considered placing trees on the other side too. Mr. Jack Ross reported that he was authorized earlier today to add six Crepe Myrtles or Flowering Plums to the landscaping. Chair Garakani said that this addition was nice. Commissioner Hunter told Chair Garakani that these trees would be his legacy as it was at his request that they were added. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said this request was fine. Chair Garakani said it looks good. Commissioner Rodgers stated that she does not like it when mature trees are taken down and replaced with smaller trees. Commissioner Hunter reported that she studied landscape architecture at UCLA for two years and feels that these Eucalyptus trees would actually be perfectly stable if left alone. Chair Garakani reminded that the Arborist put in the report that these trees would not be safe. Commissioner Hunter stated that she thinks they would be safe. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-339) to allow the expansion of an existing parking lot from 9 spaces to 48 spaces on property located at 18510 Prospect Road to support the proposed expansion of the church on the adjacent parcel located in the City of San Jose with the addition of six Crape Myrtle trees along the other side of the driveway, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-347 (397-10-025) JOSHI, 19327 Monte Vista Drive: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the existing home and construct a one-story, 6,054 square foot home with a 2,239 Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 8 square foot basement. The maximum height of the home will be approximately 24.5 feet. The lot size is 43,645 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the demolition of an existing home and construction of a new single-story, 6,054 square foot home with a 2,239 square foot basement. • Described the architectural style as Mediterranean including clay tile roof and stucco. The home includes a front courtyard and a three-car garage with a side facing façade. • Said that the home’s maximum height is 24.5 feet and varying roof heights are used. Only a small portion of the home has heights at the maximum. • Stated that the project also has a 16 foot attached carport. Such a structure can only be approved at staff level when less than 15 feet high. Anything from 15 to 20 feet high is allowed with Planning Commission approval. • Explained that this carport would be located on the side and has a pleasing design that would not detract from this home. • Advised that this property is located in the Montecito Heights development that was developed circa 1946. This is an evolving neighborhood with modern Mediterranean style architecture. • Stated that this home is well articulated and will blend in well into this neighborhood. • Reported that the neighbors were shown the plans and no negative comments have been received. • Added that geotechnical clearance has been granted and an Arborist’s report provided. • Recommended approval and advised that the owners and designer are available for questions. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the glass ceiling located over the entry and asked for an explanation as to whether this area is double counted as floor area due to height. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that Code says that anything above 15 feet is double counted as floor area. Interim Director John Livingstone advised that this is a typical section and that the object is to control bulk. Commissioner Rodgers asked what the impact is of this glass ceiling and why this is excluded from being double counted. Interim Director John Livingstone replied material. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it is simply because it is a horizontal glass ceiling. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the use of glass offers the benefit of light below without the need to double count this square footage. Interim Director John Livingstone reminded that the applicant is working within Code. This issue can be discussed further at some other time. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that there have been some other similar projects previously approved. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Hunter said that this is not the case before the Commission in the last four years that she can recall. Commissioner Nagpal said that perhaps these approvals were made at an Administrative level. She suggested that this issue be taken up during the next Code review. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the gate and wall between the carport and house requires an exception for height above 3.5 feet. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that if this were located within the front yard setback (30 feet) this would need to be lower than 3.5 feet. However, this fence is not located within the required front yard setback. At this location this wall and gate can go up to six feet in height. Commissioner Schallop asked why this carport could be considered compatible. Chair Garakani suggested that one reason is that it is detached. Commissioner Schallop reminded that carports tend to be controversial and he questions what makes a carport compatible in this case. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that it is not visible from the street, it is tastefully designed and there is a lot of landscaping provided. Commissioner Schallop agreed that one couldn’t tell from the street that this is a carport. He asked if there is any floor area benefit when this is treated as a carport instead of a garage. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that Municipal Code mandates that there must be three sides and a solid roof to count as square footage. In this carport, there are only two sides. There are no walls at the front and rear of this carport. Chair Garakani asked what prevents them from later enclosing the carport. Interim Director John Livingstone replied that doing so would result in Code Enforcement action. He added that FAR is limited and enclosing this carport would exceed allowable FAR on this parcel. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer and Builder: • Said he was available for questions. • Assured that he is very familiar with the 15-foot requirement and understands its intention. • Added that he would be glad, at a later date, to discuss why the City needs to abandon that requirement. There is no reason to restrict the interior height of an entry. • Stated that the carport is an integral part of this design, as they wanted as much structural frontage as they could get on this 203-foot property frontage. The house would not look proportionate without this carport and motor court. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 10 Chair Garakani said that he has looked at some entryways that are huge and that bulk comes from height. Mr. Marty Oakley: • Said that this is an eight-foot tall entry here and what is being talked about here is the volume of space above. • Agreed that there are too many Disneyland style Mediterranean houses in Saratoga. Mr. and Mrs. Joshi, Applicants and Property Owners, 19327 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that they have resided in Saratoga for 15 years and like it. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration of their request. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is a nice design and there is no neighborhood opposition. • Said that this home falls below the maximum height allowed. • Pointed out that impervious coverage has been raised in past cases and this project is pushing the limits on impervious coverage although this project is beautifully designed. Commissioner Hunter said that pavers are likely to be used. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this is a large 40,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Hunter asked if pavers are counted as pervious or impervious. Interim Director John Livingstone said that pavers are not currently counted as pervious surface. Credit against impervious surface area is not offered for use of pervious pavers. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that this is just a great design, a wonderful Santa Barbara look. • Said she is excited about this project. • Asked what materials would be used to surface the badminton court depicted on the landscape plan. Mrs. Joshi replied grass. Commissioner Schallop: • Expressed agreement with the comments made by Commissioner Nagpal. • Said that the carport is compatible and fits in well on this site, appearing as a structure or second unit rather than a carport when seen from the street. • Said that this is a large lot. A 6,054 square foot structure, not counting the carport, is proposed for a lot that allows a maximum of 6,800 square feet. • Stated that this is a well designed home on a large lot. It is an impressive design. Commissioner Uhl said that Commissioner Schallop has made some great points. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed with Commissioner Schallop. • Said she also agrees with Commissioner Uhl on the subject of impervious surfaces, saying she prefers more greenery. • Admitted that the carport has been well integrated and is a good example of a carport. • Said she was not clear on how the 15-foot height limitation for the entry worked. • Said that this project is fine and she can support it. • Stated that she likes this architect’s plan. Commissioner Schallop said that the issue of the accessory structure exceeding the 15-foot height still needs to be addressed. Chair Garakani said that this has been allowed before. Commissioner Rodgers said that this carport would look odd if it were lowered to 15 feet. She asked staff if there is any issue with the second kitchen in this home. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan said that it brings up the notion of a second unit but in this case it represents more of an entertainment area for this home. Staff does not feel it is an issue. Chair Garakani: • Said that this design looks great and the carport is necessary to the design. • Added he has no problem with the design. This project is good. • Pointed out that the width of this house is 117 feet while the height is 24.5 feet. If there were a second story, the maximum height allowed would be 26 feet. Commissioner Uhl reminded that only a small area is at the 24.5-foot height. Commissioner Hunter asked if the end of a car would hang outside of the carport when parked under it. She said that it actually looks like a gatehouse. Mr. Marty Oakley replied only a limousine would hang out when parked in this carport. It is the minimum depth required for a full-length car. Commissioner Hunter questioned the plans for low-growing landscaping. Mr. Marty Oakley pointed out Sheet 8 that shows trees and lawn. The site will be 100 percent landscaped. Commissioner Hunter joked that she cannot believe she is saying yes to a carport especially in a $3 to $5 million house. Mr. Marty Oakley said that carport is just a word. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #04-347) to Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 12 allow the construction of a new one-story, single-family residence on property located at 19327 Monte Vista Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #04-376 (397-07-002) YEN, 15040 El Quito Way Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the previously approved Design Review Application. The modifications include changes to the floor plan and design. The proposed project will add approximately 1,784 square feet to the existing 4,232 square foot single-story house for a total floor area of 6,016 square feet. The gross lot size is 57,115 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 24 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Interim Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to modify a previously approved Design Review Application, adding 1,700 square feet to the first floor for a total of 6,016 square feet. • Described the lot as 57,000 square feet. The maximum height of the home would be 24 feet. • Reminded that the Commission in September 2004 approved this project. Since that time, the applicant decided to change his design. The original addition consisted of 1,000 square feet and has been increased by 700 square feet for a total of 1.700 square feet. The old design is replaced by a newer design. • Explained that this proposal meets all required Design Review findings. No trees would be removed. No negative correspondence has been received. • Said that this project conforms to General Plan policies. • Recommended approval. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Tim Yen, Applicant and Property Owner, 15040 El Quito Way, Saratoga: • Said that these changes equal a more pleasing architecture. • Said he likes this new design a lot. Chair Garakani said that this is a small addition with no adverse impact. Commissioner Hunter agreed that this is a nice design. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that the Commission discourages projects being returned to the Commission for change too many times. Mr. Tim Yen assured that he would not return as each change to the project costs him time and money. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 13 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted Modifications (Application #04-376) of Building Plans and Development Conditions to the previously approved Design Review Application to allow changes to the floor plan and design on property located at 15040 El Quito Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Brown Act and Due Process at Public Hearings–Training to be held May 11, 2005 with Richard Taylor Interim Director John Livingstone announced that training has been scheduled for May 11th at 5 p.m. with City Attorney Richard Taylor to discuss the Brown Act and Due Process. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that Commissioners from other local cities be invited to save cost. Interim Director John Livingstone said he prefers to limit this training to just City of Saratoga. It will be intense training and he wants the Commissioners to get as much as they can from this session. Commissioner Nagpal suggested training with the City Arborist some time in the future. Commissioner Rodgers said a refresher on Robert’s Rules of Order would be helpful. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if there are plans to bring up Code issues during the year. Is someone keeping track of issues, such as the glass ceiling, as they are raised at these meetings? Interim Director John Livingstone replied yes, staff is keeping track of issues being raised. He added that staff hopes to have a shot at updating the Code within the next year, performing a general cleanup to things such as the Sign Ordinance and other Code Sections. Chair Garakani reiterated his concern over the issue of security cameras and their potential for impacts on privacy. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Nagpal asked if the list of new Commissioners has been made public yet. Interim Director John Livingstone said he does not have this list as of yet. He reminded the Commission of the joint session with Council on April 6th. Planning Commission Minutes for March 9, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Nagpal reported that she sent the draft agenda to Interim Director John Livingstone based upon the suggestions made by the Commissioners. Interim Director John Livingstone reported that this draft agenda was forwarded to Council. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk