Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-2008 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Contract Planner Heather Bradley and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of September 24, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 24, 2008, were adopted. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Nagpal abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 2, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Cappello 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 There were no Consent Calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #CUP08-0009 (503-68-007) MILLER, 14098 Palomino Way: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a generator to provide an emergency backup supply for an existing single-family residence. The generator is to be located adjacent to the north side of the residence of an existing concrete patio. The generator will be surrounded by a wood enclosure that would screen the generator from view as well as provide noise reduction. The lot is 54,075 gross square feet in size and zoned R-1- 40,000. (Chris Riordan) Mr. Chris Riordan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that a revised resolution has been distributed with an added Finding D. • Distributed a color board for the generator enclosure for review. • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a natural gas powered generator to provide emergency back up power for an existing single-family home. • Added that this generator would be located on the left side with a 55-foot setback from the side property line A 7.5-foot tall wood and concrete enclosure would be constructed to screen this generator from view. The materials and colors would be the same as for the house. • Informed that the allowable decibel level during the daytime is 60 and 45 at night. This unit operates at 48.5 decibels as tested • Advised that the Ordinance allows the noise level to exceed standard when used during emergencies. • Recommended approval. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Kirby Miller, Applicant: • Said that he had nothing to add to the staff report. • Asked for approval. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the installation of an emergency backup generator for an existing single-family residence on property located at 14098 Palomino Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #PDR07-0008 (389-25-012) BRENNAN, 18605 Lyons Court: The applicant requests Design Review approval to add a second floor to the existing single-story residence. The proposal includes an approximately 594 square foot second-story addition and a 251 square foot first floor addition to the existing 2,189 square foot residence (including garage). The total proposed floor area would be approximately 3,034 square feet (including garage). The maximum height of the proposed building will not exceed the 26-foot height limit. The maximum impervious coverage will not exceed the allowable 60 percent of the net site area. The lot size is 8,150 square feet and located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-45.060. (Heather Bradley) Ms. Heather Bradley, Contract Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Outlined corrections to the draft resolution as follows: o Under the fourth whereas clause, “…after approval and is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan including the following policies.” o Under the fifth whereas clause, “…Section 15-45.080 and the City Residential Design Handbook have been determined.” o Condition 6 – “…maximum extent reasonably possible.” o Condition 6 – on the second to last line replace “City” with “Community Development Director.” o Condition 12 – on the first line, “the entire City Arborist reports.” o Condition 13 – on the first line, replace “attached” with “the September 19, 2008, map.” o Condition 18, Item C – on the second line, “I recommend placing place mulch.” o Correct numbering after 18 accordingly. • Reported that the applicant is asking for Design Review approval for a 587 square foot second-story addition to an existing 2,189 square foot residence. The first floor would be increased by 260 square feet. • Reminded that the Commission first heard this item on May 14, 2008. The Commission shared concerns raised by neighbors that the project was not consistent with Design Review findings on mass, bulk and privacy. The applicant requested a continuance to a study session. • Added that three study sessions were held in June, July and August. At the August study session, the Planning Commission recommended that the applicant take their revised project back to public hearing. • Reported that staff has determined that all required Design Review findings can be made. • Added that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal pointed to an October 7th letter referring to a deficiency in the proposed second story setback. She asked staff if the proposed setback meets requirements. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. She added that second stories are required to meet an additional five-foot setback from the first floor. In this case, the area referred to is inaccessible Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 4 attic area that is not considered first floor space. Therefore, this meets the first floor requirement and the second floor also meets setback requirements. Commissioner Nagpal asked for the average lot size in the area. Is it R-1-10,000? Planner Heather Bradley replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked for verification that this particular lot is approximately 8,000 square feet. Planner Heather Bradley replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked for the general lot size on Lyons Court. Planner Heather Bradley said that a majority of the lots on Lyons Court are less than 10,000 square feet in size although one at the back of the Court may be 10,000 square feet. Commissioner Nagpal asked Planner Heather Bradley how the square footage calculations are made. Planner Heather Bradley explained that there is a formula that represents a sliding scale based on lot size. Commissioner Nagpal asked for the height of the corner house. Planner Heather Bradley said that she believed it was 18-feet tall at the peak. Commissioner Kumar mentioned the letter handed out at the site visit that contained a line drawing. He asked if that exhibit had been verified. Planner Heather Bradley said that she had not confirmed that exhibit. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the height calculation on that letter is different from staff’s and asked why that might be. Planner Heather Bradley said that she does not know where that particular number came from. She added that height is calculated from grade level. Commissioner Nagpal asked if grade level might be lower than the finished concrete. Planner Heather Bradley said right. She added that one takes an average calculation. She reminded that this property has a slight slope to it. Commissioner Hlava asked for verification that the story poles are essentially where the house is going to be located. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 5 Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Tom Brennan, Applicant and Property Owner, 18605 Lyons Court: • Thanked staff and the Planning Commission. • Advised that his wife, Sheila, and architect, Ron Heikes, are also present. • Explained that he and his wife have two children, a small business and extended family. They enjoy entertaining. • Reported that they wish to expand and modernize their existing home. • Pointed out that they have made multiple revisions to their design. Today it consists of a 587 square foot second story addition and an approximately 300 square foot first floor addition. The complete home would consist of 3,036 square feet including the garage. The maximum roof height would be 21 feet, 11 inches. • Added that their project will result in their impervious coverage meeting Code standards. • Said that this is a Craftsman-style home with the second floor being one-forth the size of the ground floor. Said that the material board shows use of horizontal wood siding, gables and stone veneer accents at the base. • Stated that they would adopt the latest in green building techniques as listed. • Said that their landscaping plan will enhance the environment by bringing it up to Code as to impervious coverage and by adding two oak trees and other native landscaping. • Described the time line for their project as follows: o First, they have lived in their home for seven years. o Upon submittal of plans, their neighbors solicited a petition drive against their project. Signatures for 18 homes were obtained in opposition. o Stated that in response, he contacted 58 neighbors to explain their project and welcomed their feedback. o Advised that five of the 18 original signers of the petition have since rescinded their opposition. o Reminded that this project was discussed at a public hearing held in May. A continuance was requested to move into a study session format because of the nature of the findings to the original design. o Advised that subsequent to this hearing, they met with neighbors, the Planning Department and the Planning Commission at three study sessions over the last six months. o Stated that input from the neighbors was welcomed. Neighbors’ concerns were voiced in a manner that would help them to reach compromise. • Reported that they have achieved a new design, which addresses the concerns and findings previously brought forth. • Said that three areas of concern had been raised. 1) the walls of the second story were bulky and jutted up in the view of adjacent neighbors from the sides and rear of our project 2) it was also a concern that second story windows may impact privacy of neighbors’ yards on the sides and rear of our property; 3) lastly, although the concept of a second story was deemed acceptable in principle, it was recommended that we explore alternative designs and try to minimize the second story. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 6 • Advised that the current design addresses all of the past findings. The current design looks like a one-story house on three sides and the front looks like a 1.5-story house because of the way that the walls and windows are tucked beneath the roof. • Said that the rear and side windows have been removed from the second story and the rear and side walls have been minimized. • Assured that these changes remedy the findings from the previous model. • Showed comparable renderings between the original and current design as seen from the rear of the house where there are no longer any second story windows or walls. It looks like a one-story house as seen from the back. • Reiterated that there have been three study sessions with participation by the Planning Commissioners and neighbors. There have been four design changes and three sets of story poles put up. • Stated that the roof peak height is now almost two feet lower and four feet lower than the allowable maximum height under Saratoga Code. • Said that now the second floor has only two bedrooms rather than three and one bathroom rather than two. The total square footage of the upstairs was reduced by 35 percent. • Said that they have added square footage downstairs without impacting their landscaping. • Advised that the ratio of first to second floor is now at one quarter. • Informed that there are 87 homes on the neighborhood grid and he contacted 58 owners in person. Of those, 13 remain in opposition from the original petition signers. Five have rescinded their opposition. Twenty-seven have signed letters of support and 18 are either neutral or provided no response. Now only 22 percent of the neighbors remain opposed. • Pointed out that there is precedence for two-stories in our neighborhood. In fact, 18 percent are two-story. There are several two-story homes within six parcels of their own • Said that there are six criteria per the Design Review Handbook. One is trees and landscaping. Currently there are three large trees. At one point it had been suggested that they remove a very large tree from their front yard and build their addition out at the front of the house. This is a very large tree in good condition. This tree will outlast all of us in this room tonight. • Pointed out that the design makes this home look like it is a one-story. • Questioned the basis of how design guidelines are interpreted. His project is low density, maintains existing landscaping, provides openness of yards and maintains a low profile and height. • Stated that this design represents a reasonable compromise and said that they took great effort to reach a compromise. Commissioner Nagpal asked for what length does the maximum 21-foot height run. Is it the entire ridgeline? Mr. Tom Brennan replied yes. Planner Heather Bradley said it is 43 feet. Commissioner Nagpal said that it appears that the immediate neighbors are the ones not in support. She asked when the example two-story was constructed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 7 Ms. Sheila Brennan said it was between 13 and 15 years ago according to neighbors. Commissioner Nagpal said that most two-story homes run along the creek. Ms. Sheila Brennan disagreed and provided some locations that did not back to a creek. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern about the proposed use of Navajo White as the main paint color. Chair Cappello asked the Brennans if their color board is accurate. Ms. Sheila Brennan said that the body color is a sand color that looks somewhat grey as seen on the color board. The trim would be rust and green. Chair Cappello asked staff when the initial submittal was made for this project. Planner Heather Bradley said that it was in August 2007. Chair Cappello asked when the first public hearing was held. Planner Heather Bradley said May 2008. Mr. Steve Allen, Resident on Lyons Court: • Advised that he continues to oppose the scheme of this design as proposed by the Brennans. • Reported that a solar specialist has advised him that his garage roof can accommodate seven solar panels that will generate one-third of the capacity available to his house. However, if the Brennans were allowed to build according to their latest proposal, this section of roof would be shaded, particularly during the winter months. • Added that this proposed roof height would create 10 percent shading factor for his house and will take away from his kilowatt production. • Stated that this proposed remodel violates the second story setback requirements (currently 9 feet) as six feet or less is what is proposed. • Said that the use of an interior wall to measure the setback is deceptive. • Said that he researched his neighborhood and there are no second story homes on a court that backs another court. This would be an unprecedented move. • Expressed appreciation for the Commission’s time. Mr. Ned Nedderostek, Resident on Aspesi Drive: • Stated his objection to this proposal. • Described his property as being the second house west of Lyons Court. • Said that he has been in this home for 50 years and intends to stay there until they “bury me.” • Expressed objection to the blocking of his view to the east as seen from his backyard and living room. Instead they would be forced to look at a “ski slope” roof. • Said that a two-story just does not blend into this neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 8 Mr. AG Salahieh, Resident on Metler Court: • Said that his father resides on Metler Court. • Thanked the Commission for their work. • Reported that only a few feet separate their pool from the Brennan home. The Brennans’ new second floor height would block the morning sun. • Advised that these homes are close and they share fences with five neighbors. • Said that this project is a bad example and sets precedent. • Added that he cannot trust the Brennans not to retrofit the back of their second story with windows some time in the future. Commissioner Kumar asked Mr. Salahieh the height of the back fence. Mr. AG Salahieh said that it was approximately nine-feet tall including lattice. Commissioner Rodgers asked where the photographer was standing when the picture Mr. Salahieh provided was taken. An unidentified woman advised that she took the photograph for Mr. Salahieh standing near the window to the laundry room or next to the patio furniture. Ms. Bernice Keeble, Resident on Lyons Court: • Stated that her opinion has not changed. • Said that the proposed front elevation is too overpowering and bulky. The rear elevation has too much roof, is too high and is too unattractive. • Added that the southern elevation is really ugly with an unattractive profile. • Identified herself as a fourth generation resident of the Santa Clara Valley with 50 years as a resident of Saratoga. • Clarified that she never agreed to support a second story nor changed her mind later to support one. • Urged denial. Ms. Camille Luckadoo, Resident on Aspesi Drive: • Said that she lives across the street and continues to oppose this request due to views and privacy impacts on her neighbors. • Added that the proposal violates setback requirements. • Suggested that the increase in height violates Code. • Advised that in 2006, the City denied her design and that this proposal should be rejected on the same grounds. • Pointed out that the lot size figures provided by the applicant have changed and should not have. • Stated that the story poles are inadequate and no orange netting was used. They only installed some sort of green material at the ridgeline. • Asked the Commission to please reject this project. • Thanked the Commission for its time invested in volunteering to serve the community. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 9 Ms. Mary Costanza, Resident on Lyons Court: • Advised that she has lived on Lyons Court for 33 years or since September 1975 and has been very happy until now. • Stated her opposition to this second-story design that would diminish the small view of the mountains left to see. This second story would impede the vista. • Added that this view means a lot to her. Ms. Dierdre Dunnion, Resident on Lyons Court: • Thanked the Commission for its hard work and patience. • Explained that she has a four-year design degree. • Opined that this design is not compatible in bulk or height. • Described the neighborhood as being very attractive and well maintained where previous additions made to homes have been compatible. • Stated that this proposal cannot meet the bulk, height or architectural integrity requirements for approval. • Said that some findings have not been made. • Declared this to have been a draining experience for this neighborhood. Ms. Judy Walls, Resident on Lyons Court: • Said that she has resided here since 1974. • Pointed out that houses here are in an aging state while vegetation is mature. • Stated that it is her interest to modify and improve her own property with an opportunity to go upwards. • Added that she would like to maintain the ability to do that, which is not likely if the Brennans are not allowed to do their addition despite their many compromises. • Advised that she welcomes the approval of this addition. Mr. Paul Summers, Resident on Aspersi Court: • Said that he is not directly affected but rather indirectly. • Informed that he just did an extensive remodel of his home. • Stated that it is human nature to resist change but neighborhoods change even without renovation being done to homes. • Pointed out that just the normal growth of his neighbors’ trees has reduced the amount of sky he can see when using his telescope to view the stars. • Stated that he is supportive of the Brennans who are trying to do what is best for their family while accommodating their neighbors. Mr. Ron Heikes, Project Architect: • Said that they are willing to do a solar study to rebut the data provided by the neighbor. The only impacts might be during the winter or in the late afternoon. • Said that the existing 65-foot tall tree eclipses this addition. There is already no view of the mountain. • Added that the lot size changing from 8,450 to 8,150 is simply his typographical error and not deliberate. He added that it is a moot point anyway. • Pointed out that there are no criteria for story poles. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 10 • Advised that the Brennans installed three sets of story poles just to accommodate this neighborhood and not because they had to do so. • Stated that the sketch provided by one neighbor is inadequate. Srivazj Ramaswami, Resident on Aspesi: • Said that he would see a large home. • Expressed concern for the potential of future installation of windows at the back elevation in the event that there might be a different owner. • Stated his objection to this project Mr. Tom Brennan, Applicant: • Said that a solar study was prepared. • Added that Camille’s schematic is incorrect. • Stated that the second floor setback assumptions are incorrect. • Advised that throughout this process he had thought that a compromise might be possible. • Reminded that homeowners have the right to build up and this design is reasonable. • Pointed out that remedies to the original concerns raised have been reached. • Reiterated that this neighborhood is not zoned against second stories. • Suggested that a win-win situation could be achieved through compromise. • Added that they are happy with the current compromise that has resulted in a respectful design that meets the City’s guidelines. Ms. Sheila Brennan, Applicant: • Reminded that this is the fourth design. • Thanked the Commission for its time and attention to this project. • Assured that they have worked to address bulk, height and neighborhood compatibility issues raised. • Pointed out that the upstairs would contain just two kids’ bedrooms. • Said that this design has been created to meet their family’s needs. • Added that she is personally excited about this design. • Expressed acknowledgement of the neighbors’ rights to fight for what they believe in but said she too has that right. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to verify if the violation to setbacks as claimed is correct. Planner Heather Bradley replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the non-conformance use reference applies here. Planner Heather Bradley explained that this is a substandard lot so percentage-based setbacks apply. All parts of the addition do meet requirements. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether modification to an existing non-conforming structure means that the entire structure needs to meet current guidelines. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 11 Director John Livingstone: • Explained that it is typical for staff to see garages that don’t meet the depth, length or width required under current Code. • Added that typically, staff would not require any modifications to a garage. The Code requires a two-car garage and the Brennans have a functional existing two-car garage. • Continued to say that the impact of an addition to this home does not intensify the use of this existing two-car garage. • Stated that if this existing garage was just a one-car garage and the home was being increased by 50 percent or more, staff would look at increasing that one-car garage into a two-car garage. • Concluded by saying that in this instance, the existing two-car garage is just a few inches short on one side and does not represent intensification. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is not considered the expansion of a non-conforming use. Director John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the consideration of the finding for minimizing perception of bulk intends to refer not just to the immediate area but also with the surrounding region. Planner Heather Bradley replied correct. Chair Cappello asked if nothing is unique with this project regarding this finding. Planner Heather Bradley replied no. Commissioner Nagpal said that while in the report it references other homes in the neighborhood, the larger neighborhood and/or region could also be considered. Planner Heather Bradley replied yes. Commissioner Hlava: • Stated that she was not in favor of the original design. • Added that the real issues for the particular addition were unreasonable interference with views and privacy as well as excessive bulk and height. • Said that she could not make the findings for views and privacy the last time but that the new design rectifies a lot of that concern. • Pointed out that the standard is not “no impacts.” The standard is “unreasonable” impacts. This is not an unreasonable impact so she said she could now make that finding. • Questioned the perception of excessive bulk by pointing out that in this neighborhood there are a fair number of two-story houses. • Stated that neighborhoods are changing. This neighborhood has original neighbors who have stayed for years and the neighborhood has stayed exactly the same. • Added that today’s young families need different homes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 12 • Reminded that two-stories with up to 26-feet in height are allowed and this proposal is at a 22-feet maximum height. • Stated that she cannot say that this house has the perception of excessive bulk. Instead its bulk and height are compatible with this neighborhood. • Advised that she would vote to approve this request. The Brennans have worked hard and tried to work with neighbors. • Expressed her hope that when all this is over these neighbors will be able to get back together. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she echoes that sentiment of hope. • Reminded that Design Review is done on a case-by-case basis on the merit of individual design. It is not about a second story but rather about required Design Review findings. • Advised that she started with the same concerns on views/privacy, perception of bulk and height and consistency of bulk. • Stated that the lot size is the root cause as well as having two courts that back each other. • Announced her trouble with making Findings D and E so she is unable to support this request. Commissioner Rodgers: • Reminded that two-story homes are a permitted use in Saratoga unless a one-story overlay is imposed on a particular area. • Reiterated that Code has always allowed second story additions. However, where one house is the first in a neighborhood to go to a second story, they have to have a superb design. • Pointed out that this house has more of a 1.5-story design. • Gave as an example when Dorchich Court was transitioning from a single-story neighborhood and the 1.5-story format was used in that transition. • Advised that she was opposed to the original design. • Said that neighbors’ concerns have been accommodated by scaling the project back, deep cuts with the second story being reduced to just 25-percent of the first floor and the first floor basically being retained on the same pad. • Said that the trend is that kids play outside less today and people want larger homes for their families. • Said that the architect and the Brennans have addressed issues raised by neighbors. • Recognized the need to distinguish between “unreasonable” and “no” impacts. The Brennans have done their best to minimize impacts. The neighbors did not want windows overlooking them so they got a sloped roof instead. • Said that the setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood. • Expressed concern about the use of Navajo white and suggested a more muted or soft color to help minimize any appearance of bulk and to better blend in. • Advised that she can make the findings to support this application. Commissioner Kumar: • Commended the Brennans for their efforts and participation in multiple study sessions. They worked extensively with the Planning Department and provided multiple designs. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 13 • Added that privacy issues have dissipated and are significantly better now. • Pointed out that the Brennans incorporated suggestions from neighbors and reduced the height from 24 to 22 feet. They have gone to extra lengths. • Stated that this is a very special neighborhood with lots of character. He disagreed that it was a neighborhood in transition and pointed out that there are not too many two-story homes around this specific home. • Agreed that the problem is with the lot size being just 8,150 square feet with a 3,500 square foot home on it. • Said that the other nearby two-story homes back up to the creek. • Advised that he cannot make the Design Review findings due to excessive bulk and height. The appearance of bulk is increased with the 43-foot length of ridgeline. Commissioner Zhao: • Thanked the applicants and architect for their compromises including removing windows from the rear and side elevations and reducing the overall height. • Advised that having a 43-foot long ridgeline at the 22-foot height seems bulky to her and increases the perception of bulk. • Said that she would not support this application. Commissioner Kundtz: • Thanked all concerned for their intellectual and emotional participation. • Stated that Findings A, D and E require judgments on the Commission’s part. • Agreed that the impacts standard must be evaluated as “unreasonable.” • Advised that he is unable to make Findings D and E and will not support this project. Chair Cappello: • Advised that he can make all findings. • Commended the applicants and their architect. • Pointed out that the neighbors would never be satisfied as long as there is a second story. • Suggested that there is a breakdown in the process. This applicant first applied in August 2007. A public hearing was held in May 2008. Three study sessions were held during the summer and four revisions to the plan were prepared. At the last study session a straw poll was held and the applicant was encouraged to bring their project back to public hearing. • Added that it was his expectation that after that last study session there was a good chance of passing here today. • Stated that another continuance is not appropriate at this time and suggested that it was time to take a vote. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission DENIED without prejudice the Design Review application (Application #PDR07-0008) to add a second floor to an existing single-story residence and an addition to the existing 2,189 square foot residence (including garage) on property located at 18606 Lyons Court, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 2008 Page 14 AYES: Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Cappello, Hlava and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Cappello reminded the applicants that the appeal period is 15 calendar days from tonight’s action. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:50 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk