Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairperson Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Lata Vasudevan APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 23, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the regular Planning Commission minutes of January 23, 2002, were approved as submitted. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: Barry and Hunter APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 9, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the regular Planning Commission minutes of January 9, 2002, were approved with the following corrections: Page 5 – Stated that in 2001, they had 18,000 riders on their trials trails. Page 9 – added text “Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4” just above the first comments made by Ms. Grace San Filippo. Page 10 – Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Camargo if the solar system will provide electricity or radian radiant heat… Page 11 – Said that she thinks she Ms. San Filippo will really like this house…. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: Kurasch Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 7, 2002. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Sullivan 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). *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 Application #02-006 (366-35-019) OAK CREEK INVESTMENTS; BRIGHTER FUTURE LEARNING CENTER (tenant), 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a learning center in an existing 2,626 square foot office space at the Oak Creek Center. The office space is located in the C-V zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a learning center (Brighter Future Learning Center), which is considered an institutional facility per the Zoning Ordinance. • Said that this location will serve as the corporate headquarters, offering tutoring for students as well as training for licensees of other Brighter Future Learning Center locations. • Stated that other uses in the Oak Creek Center include a restaurant, hair salon and architectural firm. The proposed tenant space has been vacant for approximately one year. • Advised that staff finds that this use will benefit the Oak Creek Center and surrounding businesses and that findings can be made to support this application. Commissioner Roupe said there is potential that this use could intensify parking although he believes that it most likely would not. Asked staff how they came to the conclusion that parking needs for this use would not represent intensification from the previous use. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that according to Ordinance, five spaces must be provided for employees. Added that the bulk of the use for this business is in the late afternoon, after school. Commissioner Roupe asked for specific peak times of operation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 3 Planner Lata Vasudevan replied from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Commissioner Jackman added that she believes this learning center would be providing one on one tutoring. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:16 p.m. Mr. Brian Kelly, Owner of Oak Creek Center, 14772 Live Oak Lane, Saratoga: • Advised that the former tenant was a real estate office with 50 to 60 agents and that parking was never a problem. • Assured that parking available on site is more than adequate to meet all the needs. • Pointed out that the bulk of the business for this learning center is after school, between the hours of 3 and 6 p.m. • Added that there are three full-time employees on site and that the students are typically dropped off for their tutoring sessions. Mr. Henry Young, Applicant, Brighter Future Learning Center, 10062 Miller Avenue, Cupertino: • Advised that their learning center is operated much like the Sylvan Learning Center and that they provide tutoring in math and English. • Added that they additionally have licensees who operate additional locations of the Brighter Future Learning Center and also publish books and programs and operate a demo classroom. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Young how many students are on site between the hours of 3 and 6 p.m. Mr. Young replied that they operate three time periods every afternoon, 3:30 to 4:30 p.m., 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. and 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. The maximum number of students per class is six. Commissioner Hunter commended Mr. Young for locating in Saratoga and said it was wonderful to have them in town. Mr. Young said that they like Saratoga very much. Added that they have an office in Cupertino right now and that the parents of their Saratoga students are very happy to know that the Brighter Future Learning Center is coming to Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff if this proposal has any impact on the Zoning for the site. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. She added that there are Permitted and Conditionally Permitted uses for this zoning. A learning center is a Conditionally Permitted use. Chair Barry pointed out the traffic potential with the overlap of students leaving and arriving between sessions. Commissioner Roupe said that as far as he is concerned this issue of traffic is resolved. With a maximum of six students and only three sessions, his concerns are satisfied. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that is the potential for three classes per hour. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Young clarified that there are three classrooms but that all three are typically not used at the same time. While they could have up to three classes at a time, they usually only have one or two. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Young what the maximum number of students is anticipated in the future. Mr. Young replied 30 to 40 in the future. Commissioner Kurasch asked how many at any given time. Mr. Young replied 18. That represents six students times three classrooms. Commissioner Hunter asked for the ages of the students. Mr. Young advised that the students range up to middle school. In the future, they hope to add SAT preparation courses on weekends for high school students. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Roupe pointed out a discrepancy in the staff report in that the previous use on site was not a bank but rather a real estate office. Commissioner Jackman stated that this business would be an asset to the community. Parents in Saratoga are education oriented and this learning center would bring people into the Oak Creek Center. This learning center represents a good use for the Oak Creek Center and will provide a good service for Saratoga. Commissioner Kurasch suggested attempting to assign a maximum number of students but said that this would be hard to do. Said that there should not be much of a problem with parking, as the provided parking on site seems reasonable to serve all uses. Chair Barry stated that this is not a more intensive use than the previous real estate office. Director Sullivan pointed out Condition 3, which dictates that if this proposed use intensifies, the Use Permit can be brought back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Garakani asked whether there is adequate exterior lighting for the safety of the children in the evening hours. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Jake’s Pizza is in this center with a lot of evening activity so that it can be expected that the exterior lighting is at a safe level. Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Sullivan how intensification could be evaluated. Director Sullivan replied that it is determined either by observation or complaint. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 5 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission approved Application #02-006 to allow a Conditional Use Permit to establish a learning center at the Oak Creek Center at 12175 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road as proposed. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-01-046 & UP-01-019 (503-24-025) – LEE, 20645 Fourth Street: Request for Design Review approval to add 283 square feet to the fourth floor and 283 square feet to the fifth floor of The Inn at Saratoga. The Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the expansion of a conditional use. The Inn at Saratoga is located on a 29,807 square foot parcel in the CH-1 zoning district. (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and a Use Permit to allow a 283 square foot addition to both the fourth and fifth floors of The Inn at Saratoga. • Described the sloping lot, which has a front elevation with the appearance of two stories and a rear elevation with five stories. • Added that the Design Review approval is required when more than 500 square feet are added to an existing structure within a Commercial district. • Advised that staff finds this proposal to be consistent in that it blends with the existing structure with the use of matching composition roofing. The addition has a compatible bulk, height and design and will not negatively affect the existing structure. The proposal is consistent with the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines. • Informed that a Use Permit is required for expansion of an existing Use Permit. • Said that the necessary findings can be made to support this proposal. The exercise room and business office are necessary components for the use of the hotel’s guests. • Recommended approval and distributed a photo of The Inn. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification about the project number protocol. Director Sullivan replied that the new numbering system is in place for anything beginning as of January 1, 2002. Any files submitted prior to that date already had the older file numbering assigned. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:36 p.m. Dr. Lee, Owner, The Inn at Saratoga, 20 Joyce Road, Hillsborough: • Informed that he purchased The Inn at Saratoga in April 1993 and that he has previously converted two rooms into meeting rooms to meet the needs of today’s business guests. • Added that to be competitive in today market, they also need an exercise room for their guests as well as a small office equipped with computers, copiers and fast internet access. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is any change in materials. Dr. Lee replied no. Mr. Warren B. Heid, Project Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that the materials being questioned by Commissioner Kurasch represents a firewall between the barn and this building. This is a four-hour firewall that was required in addition to fire sprinklers on the roof adjacent to the barn. • Advised that The Inn was constructed on a steep hill, which is why there is a two-story appearance on one elevation and a five-story elevation on another. • Stated that The Inn at Saratoga has been an asset to the City of Saratoga. • Said that they have incorporated many elements to the roofline in order to break up the façade. • Added that a centrally located exercise room and well-equipped office at The Inn are necessary for guest use. • Said that the porch will remain as it is but that they came forward with an overlap that is in keeping with the ridgeline of the roof. This addition will not detract architecturally and is minimal as far as square footage. • Made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Kurasch said that the entry appears prominent and expressed concerned that the roof will cut off the entry. Mr. Warren B. Heid replied that this element was purposely brought forward and that it cuts the porch roof by two feet. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Heid if he designed The Inn originally. Mr. Warren B. Heid replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Heid how many years he has been an architect working in Saratoga. Mr. Warren B. Heid replied that he has recently begun his 45th year. Commissioner Jackman asked about the break down in occupancy. Dr. Lee replied that 85 percent of their guests come from within the Silicon Valley and about 15 percent are local. During the summer there are more tourists. Pointed out that since September 11th, hotel occupancy is dramatically down and that last weekend the hotel had but five guests. Commissioner Jackman agreed that both the exercise room and office facilities are necessary to keep the hotel competitive. Chair Barry asked Dr. Lee if he participates in the Village Planning Group. Dr. Lee replied no but added that his manager works closely with the Rotary. Chair Barry suggested that Dr. Lee consider participating. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 7 Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Hunter said that she is delighted to have The Inn and agrees that the exercise room and computer room are in order for The Inn to remain competitive. Stated that she is glad to support this request. Commissioner Roupe said that the architecture is a nice fit and agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Hunter. Pointed out that The Inn’s addition will look like it was always there and that this will represent a nice addition to the community. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved DR-01-046 and UP–01-019 to add 283 square feet to the fourth floor and 283 square feet to the fifth floor of The Inn at Saratoga on property located at 20645 Fourth Street as proposed: AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 Application #02-003 (510-01-046) – NEALE, 15081 Pepper Lane: Request for Administrative Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to add 683 feet to the existing detached two-car garage. The proposed addition will create a three-car garage. The proposed addition will match the existing design and roof pitch of the existing garage. The 22,101 square foot parcel is located in the $- 1-20,000 zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the this request is for an Administrative Design Review to allow a 683 square foot addition to an existing detached garage and the conversion of a two-car area into a pool house. This addition will add three new parking stalls. • Said that a Use Permit is necessary to allow the 15-foot height of an accessory structure. The height is necessary to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure. This proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Said that staff finds this proposal meets Design Review requirements and Use Permit findings. • Advised that the trees will be retained with the exception of one small six-inch fruit tree that will be removed. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that in the Case History within the staff report the date of December 28, 2002, should be corrected to read December 28, 2001. Asked if the impervious coverage listed takes into account the patio and pool. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 8 Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes and added that this project is in good shape as far as impervious coverage is concerned. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. David Neale, Applicant and Owner, 15081 Pepper Lane, Saratoga: • Declared that he and his wife love their home and the City of Saratoga and have lived here for two and a half years. • Commended Associate Planner John Livingstone and made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Arborist has made the recommendation to change spray heads to drip lines near some trees and asked if Mr. Neale is prepared to make that change. Mr. David Neale replied that his Landscape Architect will incorporate that recommendation. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the Commission could also add this requirement as a specific Condition of Approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Neale if he would be reusing the garage doors. Mr. David Neale replied that he did not believe so. He added that some of them are rotted but that they will try to match the doors as best as possible. Commissioner Roupe said that he has come to the realization that his home may well be within 500 feet of this project site and therefore he would recuse himself from any further participation on this hearing process. Commissioner Roupe left the dais at 8:04 p.m. to sit in the audience. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Neale if he knows when his house was built. Mr. David Neale replied that he was not certain but believes it was constructed some time in the 1930s or 1940s. Commissioner Jackman said that she believes the house was constructed before 1927. Added that she is glad that the Neales did not tear the house down or make a big addition to it. Mr. David Neale said that it is hard to specifically date this house. He added that an old plan was found but that it was undated. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:06 p.m. Commissioner Hunter said that she has been attending the Heritage Preservation Commission meetings and a discussion was held on ensuring that garages are matched to houses. Said that she supports matching the garage to the house in this situation and thanked the Neales for the lovely work on this house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Kurasch suggested that page 18, number 12 be included in the Conditions. Chair Barry thanked staff for taking the initiative to offer the 15 foot height in order to match the garage to this house. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (Application #02-003) to allow the addition of 683 square feet to an existing detached two-car garage on property located at 15081 Pepper Lane as proposed. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Kurasch NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: Roupe Commissioner Roupe returned to the dais at 8:08 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 Application #02-007 (Citywide) – Resolution Amending the Zoning Requirements related to Rear Yard Setbacks for Two Story Dwellings: The Planning Commission has requested that it consider amending the language of the Zoning Ordinance that regulates rear yard setbacks for two story dwellings. Currently the minimum yard requirements differ for lots that have been developed prior to May 15, 1992 vs. vacant lot and lots created after May 15, 1992. The Ordinance also has different setbacks for single-story and multi-story dwellings. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded the Commission that it had adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding rear yard setbacks for two-story dwellings. • Stated that currently there is a difference in minimum yard setbacks if a parcel was created before 1992 and after 1992. • Pointed out that staff has prepared drawings showing existing setbacks and mandatory staggered setbacks. • Said that it is unclear whether Section 15.45.040 requires an addition to the setback standards for two-story structures. There is conflict within two sections of Code. Commissioner Roupe asked if what is being proposed this evening will address the problems and make them go away or is there still some ambiguity to address. Director Tom Sullivan said that he credits Staff Planner Ann Welsh for discovering ambiguity between two sections and that staff needs an interpretation from the Commission. With that interpretation, staff will come back with Ordinance clarifications. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the fact that the language seems to talk about the whole structure and not just the second story element. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 10 Director Tom Sullivan said that the Design section requires that the second story setback move one foot for every foot above 18 feet in height. Commissioner Roupe clarified that this evening’s focus is on rear yard setback. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is correct. He added that the Design Review Ordinance makes no distinction between pre and post 1992. He said that there are two sides to the argument including implementing the Design Guidelines or having a one size fits all standard. Commissioner Roupe asked what the historic interpretation was and whether staff had looked into that subject. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He stated that the letter of the law must be changed so that it is the same as the interpretation. Chair Barry asked if there is a difference in setback for a one story versus a one-story that is higher than 18 feet. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Barry asked if this still applies if the house is moved forward on the site. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are different rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Jackman asked if it matters whether there are one or two-stories or simply the overall height. Director Tom Sullivan replied that it does matter as there are different setbacks within the Zoning Ordinance. At the present time, with a two-story structure, the entire structure moves back. What is proposed is that just the second story element is moved back and not the first story. Commissioner Kurasch said it appears that the existing Design Review standard and proposed interpretations are the same. Director Tom Sullivan said that per the existing Code as written the entire structure of a two-story must be moved back from the rear property line. Commissioner Roupe suggested not imposing that requirement on smaller lots but to do so for larger parcels. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that design standard requirements are sometimes more important on smaller lots than on larger lots. Commissioner Kurasch asked why the rear yard setback (25 feet for a single-story and 35 feet for a two story) is the only one that varies while the front setback for a two story does not. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the only differentiation is for the rear yard setback for a two-story. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Kurasch asked if is possible to apply this requirement to the front rather than rear setback since at most hearings the impact of the front is of more concern. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that multi-story concerns are generally privacy impact issues. There is typically a standard front setback for structures. The penalty for taller structures is an increased setback requirement. Reminded that the Residential Design Guidelines provide the direction for staff. The Commission can decide to abide by them or tweak the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Garakani suggested using the same idea for sideyard setbacks. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is possible if the standard is changed. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the Commission did not give staff instruction to change sideyard setback standards but it is not a bad idea. Commissioner Kurasch said that the way the Ordinance is interpreted now is simple and consistent with clear recommendations that can be interpreted. Commissioner Roupe stated that nothing stops a flush two-story house as long as the whole structure is brought forward to meet the minimum setback requirements. Chair Barry opened the Public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Warren B. Heid, Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he appreciates what Director Sullivan is doing here. • Agreed that privacy and bulk have been problems faced by Planning Directors, Architects and others over the years. Said that the standard has been 25-foot rearyard setbacks for single-story structures and 35-foot rearyard setbacks for two-story structures to get rid of bulk. • Said that the interpretation for two story massing is more difficult to handle on a smaller lot than on a larger lot. The standard one-foot for every foot above 18 has been imposed. Stepping in structures above 18 feet in height is not a problem. • Stated that most existing homes would not meet this Ordinance if it is changed. Commissioner Kurasch asked why not apply the same interpretation for front yard setbacks as a means to reduce bulk and mass. Mr. Warren B. Heid replied because the issue has never come up as a problem. Commissioner Roupe said why not give architectural flexibility and apply the standard to the single- story element setback. Mr. Warren B. Heid said that each project needs to be reviewed individually. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the full width of the street that separates front yard to front yard. Agreed that a 10-foot difference between a single story and two-story could be changed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 12 Mr. Warren B. Heid suggested that Zoning can be changed to Planned Development in order to allow percentages on smaller lots. Director Tom Sullivan said that if the City had large tracts, this suggestion would be great. The City has but a few infill lots and a majority of remodels that need to fit into existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Kurasch said that continuity to front setbacks makes sense. Mr. Steve Benzing, Architect, 144630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has worked with Warren B. Heid for 17 years. • Pointed out that front elevations are driven by client concern for resale value and are rarely a straight box. • Expressed concern that the proposed changes in interpretation would render many existing homes into non-conforming status that would hinder remodeling work. • Said that the penalty for height applies for any area over 18 feet. This is how it has been interpreted. Chair Barry asked Mr. Benzing if he feels this interpretation could force one similar architectural style. Mr. Steve Benzing replied yes. He added that setting back the second story gives more sunlight and ensures privacy. He added that Saratoga already has the most restrictive design standards. Chair Barry asked Mr. Benzing if he believes that Saratoga has less architectural variety than other communities. Mr. Steve Benzing replied no. He added that Saratoga has more architectural variety but does not allow real radical design. He stated that Montalvo could not be built today. Tall and unique homes are not allowed by today’s standards. He stated the importance in allowing a little bit of architectural freedom. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Benzing if he would prefer to have the continuation of the existing interpretation or the proposed interpretation. Mr. Steve Benzing replied that the practice should continue to have the penalty apply to area above 18 feet as there are already enough negatives to not sell second stories. The client can choose livable space versus exterior height. He said that he prefers the existing interpretation as it has been used over the last 15 years. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the rear setback has been 25 feet for a single-story and 35 feet for a second story. Mr. Warren B. Heid expressed that it is nice to have the City review its policies with new thoughts. He added that he is accustomed to the existing interpretation. Chair Barry closed the Public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:07 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 13 Chair Barry said that Saratoga has the blessing, but also the complication, in that the City has no typical tract style neighborhoods but rather it has much variety. She said that she would prefer to not tweak the Ordinance at this time. Commissioner Roupe said if this proposed interpretation is best, he is concerned about putting it off. Chair Barry suggested imposing a time frame to come back with preliminary review of where the conflicts are. This could include changing the definition of structure. Reiterated that she would rather wait. Commissioner Hunter stated that this is an interesting process and she is learning a lot and is glad that there are two architects present this evening. Added that she is not wild about change and prefers keeping the interpretation as it is, if it is working. Agreed with the recommendation to hold off for a while on any changes. Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission Subcommittee should set some deadlines. Commissioner Hunter said that the flexibility of the interpretation is not that bad. Commissioner Jackman cautioned that there should not be too much flexibility as staff tends to turn over. Commissioner Garakani asked for the pros and cons of both the existing and proposed interpretations. Director Tom Sullivan suggested a continuance of this Public Hearing. Chair Barry agreed that this is a good idea to allow more input before making a final decision. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Commission hears community input at each meeting. All can agree that the impact of a two-story structure is greater than the impact of a single-story structure. Having a simple setback standard is the resolution. Commissioner Garakani said the setback stays the same with both rear yard setback interpretations. Director Tom Sullivan said that it does not stay the same. The difference would be that the whole structure (two-story) would have an additional 10-foot setback. Chair Barry asked if the 10-foot number is arbitrary. Commissioner Kurasch recommended requiring the 25-foot rear setback for single-story and 35 foot setback for two-story structures. Chair Barry restated her support for a continuance to solicit additional input. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that input from other practicing architects could be solicited. Commissioner Kurasch added that input from community members would also be helpful. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 14 Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:24 p.m. Mr. Warren B. Heid said that he concurs with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Kurasch, whereby the 26-foot maximum height is allowed at the front setback. Chair Barry pointed out that privacy and bulk are always major concerns when reviewing design proposals. She added that it is important to guard against preventing flexibility and to provide an interpretation that does not penalize architecture. Director Sullivan stated that the Zoning Ordinance establishes a three dimensional envelope where a structure can be designed. Proposed continuing for one month to allow the involvement of more people. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS There were no Director Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Appointment of Commissioner to Attend Village Economic Planning Committee Meetings Chair Barry suggested appointing a Planning Commissioner to attend the Village Economic Planning Committee meetings and proposed Commissioner Hunter for that assignment due to her depth of knowledge on the history of buildings in Saratoga. Commissioner Jackman said that this is a good idea. Commissioner Hunter accepted the assignment, saying that she is happy to do so. Planners Institute Commissioner Hunter inquired if any Commissioners planned to attend the Annual Planners Institute and whether the City would reimburse the costs of attendance. Director Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked for recommendations on which programs might be most beneficial. She offered free accommodations to any interested Commissioners at a home she has available in the Monterey area. Commissioner Kurasch said that she would be attending the Planners Institute on Thursday. Commissioners Subcommittees Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Roupe asked if the discussion on basements would continue this evening. Commissioner Jackman said that the latest revision was distributed at the last meeting and that further discussion would occur at the next meeting. Upon further reflection, she advised that she will actually not be in attendance at the next meeting on February 27th. Director Sullivan suggested dedicating a full meeting in March, either the 12th or 27th, to an in-depth discussion of Subcommittee reports as well as the continuation of the rear yard setback interpretation. That meeting could have a minimum of specific development review. Commissioner Kurasch suggested splitting up those two topics at separate meetings. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, February 27, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk