Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of June 27, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of June 27, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 3 – Commissioner Kurasch asked who would be responsible for oversight of the bond money raised to pay for this new Saratoga Fire Station Mr. Sullivan to explain if citizen input was required because of public funding. • Page 5 – Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicants had considered using a retaining wall to even out the alley grade change. • Page 7 – Mr. Arvin Engelson, 20381 Sea Gull Way, Saratoga, Identified himself as a Boardmember Pastor of the Federated Church. • Page 9 – Commissioner Jackman pointed out that there is just one Fire Station in Saratoga Fire District. This makes it unique to other local cities. • Page 10 – Commissioner Kurasch: Stated that there appears to be an absence of a coordinated approach to reaching this design proposal and integration of all uses for the area and that she was disappointed with the process. Said that this This new Fire Station could have served as a gateway to the City. • Page 22 – Commissioner Jackman asked how fire safe are the whether fire safety issues will allow shingles. • Page 24 – Commissioner Zutshi said that it was good that only 40 trees of the 1,000 would have to be removed and Commissioner Jackman concurred. (6-0-1; Commissioner Roupe abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 5, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Sullivan advised the Commission that Item No. 2 inadvertently was advertised incorrectly, using an address of 19752 Versailles Way rather than the correct address of 17752 Versailles Way. This item will be readvertised for hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar Item No. 1 was pulled for discussion by the Commission, at the applicant’s request, DR-98-046.1 ( 386-53-001) – AZULE CROSSING, 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: Request to change the approved siding material for the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing project. The applicant requests that the siding material be changed to match the existing siding material at the shopping center (i.e., textured rough finished plywood with two by three-inch bats.) The property is in a CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district. (SULLIVAN) Director Sullivan presented the staff report: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to change the siding material during this ongoing remodel and expansion, which will increase the commercial portion from 11,931 square feet to 14,000 square feet. • Reminded that the Commission denied this application in November 1999. Thereafter, the applicants appealed to Council. Council overturned the Commission’s action and approved this Design Review in February 2000. • Said that the approval required horizontal wood siding for the entire building, while the applicant is asking to match the existing board and bats siding. • Stated that staff does not support this request for material change and is recommending denial. • Added that the intent was to see this shopping center renovated with new elements to bring it to a more contemporary standard. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing on Consent Calendar Item No. 1 at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Curt Harold, Project Architect, 1991-G Santa Rita Road, Pleasanton: • Assured the Commission that construction is moving right along. • Asked the Commission to allow the change in siding material to a board and bats siding. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Harold why they do not want to change the siding material per the approved design plans. Mr. Curt Harold replied that the look of the existing siding is attractive. It is nice and they want to carry this look through to the new construction. Commissioner Garakani asked if cost is a factor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Curt Harold replied that he did not believe so. Commissioner Roupe stated that horizontal siding seems to be predominate over board and bats in the immediate area. Mr. Dennis Griffin, Applicant, 12303 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Said that while the approved materials were intended to match the homes under construction behind it, those homes will not be visible once the landscaping is installed. • Declared that horizontal siding will “stand out like a sore thumb” and that he wants to keep the appearance subdued. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the center could be seen from the railroad crossing. Mr. Dennis Griffin replied that a planned fence is not completed and large landscaping elements (including 50-gallon trees) will also be installed. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the request for change two years into this project and wondered what factors changed. Mr. Dennis Griffin replied that it is simply that they are now ready to install the siding. Added that he wants a low-key design. Offered that it took a lengthy amount of time obtaining Planning and Building Department approvals prior to breaking ground on this project. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Consent Calendar Item No. 1 at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Hunter stated that the Azule is a gateway to Saratoga, offering a first impression. Added that horizontal siding is a more quality product and that she would support staff’s recommendation to require the originally-approved siding material. Commissioner Kurasch concurred. Added that she did not like to second-guess something that has already been approved. Chair Barry stated her agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners. Said that this remodel will be a plus and attract attention. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission supported staff’s recommendation and denied a request to change the approved siding material for the commercial portion of the Azule Crossing Project on property located at 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. (7-0) *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 WAS CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW RENOTICING WITH THE CORRECT ADDRESS. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 DR-98-052.1 (397-13-057) – NAGPAL, 19101 Via Tesoro Court: Request for a three-year extension for an approved Design Review application (DR-98-052). The previously approved application was for the construction of a new 5,301 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel (Lot 2). The project is located on a 2.46-acre parcel within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report: • Said that the applicant is seeking a three-year extension for a Design Review application to allow the construction of a new 5,301 square foot, two-story residence in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. • Informed that in May 1999, the applicant applied for a Tentative Parcel Map to split a parcel into two lots, which the Commission denied. This denial was appealed to Council and in July 1999, Council approved the Tentative Map and Design Review application. • Advised that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Tentative Map. However, the Design Review approval expires on July 21, 2001. The applicant wants a three-year extension of the Design Review approval. • Suggested that the Commission adopt a Resolution granting a one-year extension of the Design Review application to July 21, 2002. Commissioner Roupe asked if the map has been recorded. Director Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Roupe suggested that it might be better to take the request for an extension off the table and review the Design Review application again. Questioned why an extension is the best action. Director Sullivan reminded the Commission that this extension request is before them because such an extension is within its purview. Reminded that the applicant has spent considerable efforts to record their Tentative Map. Commissioner Roupe stated that few of the current members of the Commission were serving when this project was initially approved. Chair Barry clarified that the Commission did not originally approved the application. Council approved it on appeal. Commissioner Roupe stated that the majority has not seen the specific Design Review application. Director Sullivan advised that staff’s recommendation of approval is due to Council’s support of the Tentative Map and Design Review for this project. Commissioner Zutshi asked how many extensions are typically allowed. Director Sullivan replied that the original approval was for 24 months. An extension for 12-months is permitted and staff is recommending such a 12-month extension. Commissioner Kurasch asked if a second extension would be possible. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 5 Director Sullivan stated that just one extension would be allowed. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 3 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Amit Nagpal, Applicant, 19101 Via Tesoro Court, Saratoga: • Advised that he is the owner of the subject property. • Said that this project represents a two-year effort since its approval on July 21, 1999, which resulted in the subdivision of a 2.46-acre parcel. They have made significant progress. • Added that there is competition for necessary resources, such as contractors, due to the great amount of construction underway in the valley. • Said that it took 12 months to complete the Tentative Map. • Advised that the geotechnical requirements have been met, that he has paid all the necessary fees, including park fees, and that the Final Map has been recorded. • Informed that he will be ready for submittal for zoning clearance and building permits within the next 60 to 90 days. • Added that his landscape plan is ready for submittal and the process for this project is well under way. Additionally, the Grading and Drainage Plan will be submitted within 60 days. Finally, a letter of intent is in place with the contractor for this project. • Advised that he has communicated with the City over the last seven months and had been told to keep proceeding. Added that there have been several changes in staff planners during the course of this project. • Said that he has asked for a three-year extension because only one extension is permitted. Said that a benefit of the longer extension is not to have to come back again. • Assured that he is eager to build this house and has worked to achieve that goal for over five years. Said that they look forward to moving in soon. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration and asked for approval. Commissioner Roupe asked staff whether the extension requires completion of the project to the point of final occupancy or simply the beginning of construction. Director Sullivan said that with this extension, the applicant will have 12 months, from July 21, 2001, to obtain building permits. Construction must begin 180 days after building permits are issued per Code. Commissioner Jackman recalled that a change in the placement of the structure had been sought originally. Mr. Amit Nagpal reminded that this request was appealed to Council. Reiterated that this project is now five years in the process and he has a lot of time and money invested. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Garakani reminded the Commission that it is here to consider the extension and not to re-evaluate the Design. Added that it is fair to provide the one-year extension. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Roupe concurred and stated that the applicant has the right to have trusted that his design was approved and that it would be unjust to require additional Design Review consideration at this time. Expressed support for a 12-month extension. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission approved a 12-month (one-time) extension for an approved Design Review application (DR-98-052) to allow the construction of a new 5,301 square foot two-story residence on a vacant parcel at 19101 Via Tesoro Court. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 and V-01-004 (517-08-008 & 016) – TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Reconsideration of request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site to allow two new two-story detached condominiums, two new two-story townhouses and a retail commercial space with a second floor commercial office. The maximum building height is 26 feet. Basements are proposed for the residential units. A 32.5-foot rear yard setback Variance has been requested for a townhouse on the CH-2 portion of the site. An eight-space parking Variance has previously been approved. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. The existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space would be demolished. (LIVINGSTONE) Mr. John F. Livingstone, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application includes Design Review, a Tentative Subdivision and Variance approval for a reduced rear yard setback for a development that will include four residential condominiums and one commercial building, consisting of a 1,200 square foot first floor and 2,000 square foot second floor for permanent office use. • Reminded that in March 2001, the Commission approved a Negative Declaration and Parking Variance for this site while denying the other requested applications. The applicant appealed to Council. Council has sent this project back to the Commission with specific instructions: • To include a substantial and stronger wall (concrete block wall with brick veneer) separating the Commercial and Residential uses; • To redesign the storefront retail with larger windows and glass front doors as well as an added awning element; • To revise the plans to show an elevator to the second floor office space; and • To pay a Parking District Fee in the amount of $40,000. Should the Parking District not be established by July 11, 2006, the applicant will be refunded the $40,000 paid into the proposed Parking District fund. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the protection of the large oak tree is still a consideration. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 7 Associate Planner Livingstone replied yes. Chair Barry asked whether the on-site Arborist could be referred and supervised by Barrie Coates. Associate Planner Livingstone replied yes. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 7:48 p.m. Mr. Glen Cahoon, Project Designer, 296 Kansas Way, Fremont: • Pointed out that they have expanded the lower retail windows, lined up the first and second floor windows, deleted a second story balcony and added a pair of French doors with awnings on the first floor of the retail space. It is possible to have displays at each of the first floor retail windows. • Added that the first floor retail space is 1,200 square feet or about enough space for one occupant. The second floor can be configured to hold from one to four different office spaces. • Pointed out the revised entrance to the lobby of the office space. The elevator is located in this lobby. Commissioner Roupe asked whether there are four or five parking spaces at the rear of the retail space. Mr. Glen Cahoon replied that with the requirement for a van accessible space, there is only room for four spaces in this area. Added that they believe the direction provided by Council was good. Commissioner Jackman asked if there is access to the upstairs restrooms for the downstairs retail use. Mr. Glen Cahoon replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the large specimen oak located by the street, asking if there are any changes regarding its safeguarding. Mr. Glen Cahoon assured that there have been no changes in regard to the safeguarding of trees. Promised to follow the recommendations of the Arborist to the letter. Reminded that there will be an on-site Arborist supervising the treatment of the trees during construction. Chair Barry sought clarification as to whether Commissioner Kurasch is discussing the oak tree at the motel property, adjacent to this site. Commissioner Kurasch said that she was speaking about the tree on Big Basin. Chair Barry asked staff if its recommendations remain the same. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that staff approves the placement of protective fencing to provide tree protection prior to grading. Chair Barry clarified that the agreement is in place that if roots are encountered from the oak tree at the adjacent property, the basement will be pulled back or eliminated to avoid any damage to that tree. Associate Planner John Livingstone said yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the Negative Declaration recommends the redesign of the storm drain between units 3 and 4. Associate Planner John Livingstone assured the Commission that the recommendations from the Negative Declaration, as well as from the Arborist, have been incorporated into the final construction drawings. Commission Kurasch asked staff to be cautious. Mr. Glen Cahoon agreed that the drain line mentioned by Commissioner Kurasch can be re-routed. Chair Barry asked how the relationship between the Negative Declaration comments regarding mitigation and Conditions of Approval work. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that adding any suggestions from the Negative Declaration to the Conditions of Approval is the strongest method of incorporating the recommendations. Added that this is not a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Additionally, the Conditions can refer back to the Arborist report. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Conditions of Approval refer back to the Arborist report and that all mitigation factors outlined in the Negative Declaration should be directly included within the Conditions of Approval. Director Sullivan stated that this can be done and is very appropriate. Pointed out that the fifth Whereas statement in the Resolution refers back to the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that he prefers explicit inclusion within the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Glen Cahoon pointed out that the City of Saratoga requires that all Conditions of Approval appear on the drawings and construction documents. Chair Barry mentioned concerns with the materials color sheet distributed. Mr. Glen Cahoon said that the color sheet does not provide an accurate representation of the proposed colors. The roofing will be a dark charcoal gray. The building color is beige or tan. The brick is darker than terra cotta. The awning is forest green. Pointed out that staff has the actual paint chip samples which he submitted. Chair Barry expressed dismay at the proposed use of peacock blue windows together with forest green awnings. Mr. Glen Cahoon agreed, stating that they will work with staff to change the blue to forest green to match the awnings, which were an added feature later in the design process. Chair Barry asked for more information about the proposed roofing material. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Glen Cahoon said that the roofing material is multi-colored in a variegation of grays to achieve a slate look. Stated that this is an excellent product. Chair Barry asked why the proposed building colors don’t better blend with the roof. Mr. Glen Cahoon stated that he likes to use a dark roof. The stucco building will be beige/tan, with the top half being a natural tone while the lower half incorporates a brick pattern. Added that similar projects have been done and look quite nice. Said that the brick is a strong color that blends with the roof. Chair Barry asked Mr. Cahoon whether it would be possible to incorporate bay windows for the retail display windows. Mr. Glen Cahoon replied that to do so would not be a problem. Cautioned that a bay window would encroach into the walkway area and possible impact landscape area. If he is allow to encroach by a foot or so, he could do something with a bay window element. Commissioner Kurasch asked more about the roofing material. Mr. Glen Cahoon said that the roofing material is a lightweight concrete tile with an excellent fire rating, which provides a good representation of slate. Mr. Paul Hernandez, Saratoga Oaks: • Said that his motel, Saratoga Oaks, is located next door. • Thanked the Commission for its interest in preserving the heritage oak tree on his property from any adverse impacts from this proposed project. • Questioned what type of footing would be used for the wall. Commissioner Kurasch said that this is already a paved area and the wall would have to be installed carefully. Mr. Paul Hernandez: • Pointed out a method he is utilizing to install parking near his oak tree that includes the original soil that is un-pressed, 3/4-inch clean rock base pressed to 95 percent with brick on top of that. • Questioned the proposed high roofline and steep pitch. Asked if it would be possible to lower this. • Asked that there not be a drain across the drip line. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:25 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that a lot of progress has been made and commended the applicant. • Said that the recommendations from Council are clear and the applicant has been responsive. • Added that he is supportive of the project as it now stands with the Condition that any mitigation provisions contained within the Negative Declaration become a part of the approval. • Agreed that the use of bay windows for the lower retail space could be supported. Commissioner Kurasch asked if Commissioner Roupe is supporting three bay windows. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Roupe replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that she liked the idea of incorporating bay windows. • Said that she prefers this roofing material and supports the changes to the second story elements to create a 2,000 square foot office space. • Said that she supports the parking variance with the applicant paying into a Parking District. • Added that she did not support the project originally. With the changes made to the proposal, she will follow with the majority Council opinion. • Cautioned that the project is still quite massive and will impact views. • Supported the incorporation of the mitigations mentioned in the Negative Declaration as well as having the Arborist review the landscaping plan, especially the brick wall. • Suggested impervious paving and appropriate landscaping as possible with supervision by Barrie Coates. Commissioner Garakani stated that the colors do not match and should be more uniform, particularly on Big Basin Way. They should be more in tone with the roof. Said that the use of bay windows is a great idea, especially if they are not too big. Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed a feeling of disadvantage in that she is a new appointee to the Commission and did not participate in the earlier hearings. • Expressed concern about the heritage oak tree and said that she hopes the builders realize how important it will be to follow through in the protection measures. • Said that she encourages impervious pavements and agreed that the proposed colors are not good. Commissioner Zutshi: • Concurred with the concerns expressed by the other Commissioners regarding the heritage oak tree. • Stated that these fine oak trees help set Saratoga apart from other cities. Commissioner Jackman stated that the fence does not have to be brick but rather could incorporate a metal frame. Commissioner Garakani concurred. Added that cyclone blocks covered with stucco offer a very light but sturdy alternative. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Glen Cahoon: • Agreed that several different products can be used in the construction of this wall. • Stated that the wall will be hand dug. • Added that no footings will be used in the construction of the wall but rather drilled piers will be used to dodge the roots. • Said that the purpose of the wall is to prevent vehicle traffic from going through. • Added that options such as installing a curb, berm and/or using a wood fence can be considered. • Suggested that pavers might be the material to use for the paved area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Kurasch: • Stated that pavers sometimes require more excavation than installing asphalt. • Suggested that the use of material be deferred to the Arborist to allow for the least amount of impact on the heritage oak. Mr. Glen Cahoon concurred. Added that the property is close to natural grade at that point. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:37 p.m. Chair Barry clarified the apparent Conditions being sought by the Commission as follows: • Add a Condition that any mitigation mentioned within the Negative Declaration be incorporated into the Resolution. • Incorporate three partial bay windows to be used for the retail frontage, coming out within 12 inches. • Require the applicant to work with staff to modify the color board. Specific changes include the use of blue to green in order to match the awnings. Additional, the remaining colors should be toned done, the number of colors used reduced and the contrast among the colors reduced. • Require the Arborist to review the landscape plan including the appropriate construction of the brick wall and paving material. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-011, SD-00-001, V-00-018 and V-01-004 with the Conditions previously outlined by Chair Barry to allow the construction of four residential units and a two-story retail building, on properties located at 14612 Big Basin Way and 20717 St. Charles Street with four additions to the Conditions of Approval. (7-0) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Story pole and neighborhood meeting policy memo: Director Tom Sullivan: • Provided a report on the results of a survey of other cities regarding their use of story poles, when the installation of story poles is required. • Suggested that staff develop a handout on the use of story poles. • Said that staff is recommending that story poles be required prior to the Commission’s site visit, at a minimum the Tuesday before a Wednesday meeting. Better yet, the poles might be required for the entire public noticing period and remain in place during the 15-day appeal period. If a project is appealed, the story poles should remain until the Council hearing date. Commissioner Roupe asked what types of projects would require story poles. Director Sullivan replied any project higher than 18 feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 12 Chair Barry said that many members of the public have asked to see story poles and that this seems to be an important issue for Saratoga. Commissioner Roupe asked if an Ordinance is required to enact this action. Director Sullivan: • Replied that this requirement will become a policy of the Planning Commission. • Added that he would check with the City Attorney. Should the City Attorney advise that an Ordinance amendment is necessary, staff will initiate one. • Clarified that the installation of story poles should occur under the supervision of a licensed surveyor. Commissioner Garakani asked for the length of the noticing period. Director Sullivan replied 10 days before a hearing. Commissioner Garakani declared that he is interested in having the City bring neighbors into a development process earlier. Took issue with the short notice period. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the issue of the use of story poles needs to be taken into context with other development review issues. Stated that the Commission does not have the whole picture yet. Asked Director Sullivan if he is still a Boardmember for the League of California Cities. Director Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked what the cost is for installing story poles. Director Sullivan advised that simple story poles would cost from $6,000 to $7,000 while complex and elaborate story poles could range from $30,000 to $40,000. Commissioner Zutshi said that it would be more appropriate to require story poles only if there are disputes about proposed heights. If no concerns are raised, installing story poles is not necessary. Commissioner Hunter concurred. Stated that story poles should only be necessary in the event that problems and/or concerns are raised. Commissioner Roupe stated that it is unfair to burden every applicant with this cost. It would be excessive to require story poles in all cases. Director Sullivan continued his discussion regarding use of neighborhood meetings: • Suggested that a pre-application meeting occur between the applicant and staff. • Following this pre-application meeting, the applicant would be required to meet with contiguous (or within view) property owners to address any privacy issues. • Advised that the applicant can meet with the neighbors as a group or on an individual basis with each appropriate neighbor. Commissioner Garakani said that he wants to see the Planning Commission involved early on. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 13 Director Sullivan cautioned that any meeting with the entire Commission present must be a published meeting. Chair Barry said that she understands Commissioner Garakani’s concerns regarding neighborhood input and the need for a requirement to have early on neighbor involvement. Suggested that staff consider whether a Study Session on this issue might be warranted. Director Sullivan: • Clarified that in order to deem a project complete, a whole list of things must be submitted by an applicant to allow peer review by appropriate City departments. • Said that it would not be appropriate to have a Study Session on a specific project prior to it being deemed complete. Commissioner Roupe disagreed with staff that a Study Session requires reports, such as geotechnical, Arborist and/or landscaping, before they can occur. A Study Session can be used to pull conceptual applications together. Commissioner Garakani agreed and stated that the Planning Commission should be more involved that it is now. Commissioner Hunter said that the Planning staff should reflect the views of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kurasch said that there are more than one process available. Suggested the use of shirettes, where all involved parties have a say in the process. Using focus groups to bring out all views. This is a process that is responsive and looks at the big view. Triggers could be a large project, larger density projects and/or a public area project. Asked staff to consider having a professional organization come and give a presentation on using such techniques to developed focused opinions. Chair Barry said that the Commissioners have waited a long time for these ideas to be considered and are taking this opening to enact a wide range of changes to the development review process. Suggested enacting these two changes for now. Specifics on how such meetings can occur can be developed as a follow up process. Said that the Commission should take this step tonight. Commissioner Kurasch expressed confusion as to why these two particular issues were pulled out. Commissioner Roupe stated that these proposed ideas can be put in place by having staff draft a policy for Commission’s review and approval, assuming that the Commission has this authority. Chair Barry clarified that this item will have to be properly noticed. Director Sullivan suggested that in the interim, staff should strongly encourage applicants to talk with their neighbors and put story poles up. Commissioner Hunter said that it will be important to make the public aware of these new policies. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Garakani said that a Study Session should be planned to brainstorm with members of the public, developers and the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the triggers would be. Commissioner Roupe suggested that staff make a reasonable proposal. Chair Barry said that a Study Session will require public noticing. Commissioner Garakani said that he hoped to see individual invitations go out to developers, etc. Chair Barry said that staff can notify developers, neighborhood associations and other appropriate groups specifically. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated her desire to have a group come to present a model process. Director Sullivan assured Commissioner Kurasch that her suggestion is fine and that there is money in the budget to accommodate such a meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS Committee appointment for Planning issues: Director Tom Sullivan read of the list of issues and asked for volunteers from the Commission on the items of interest for each one. Suggested a maximum of two per topic. 1. Basement Standards (size, geotechnical considerations, water, justification): JACKMAN/ROUPE 2. Amendment to Ordinance to Increase Staff Review of Development Projects: (includes review of Ordinance on Design Review): HUNTER/BARRY 3. Study Session for Advanced Planning Issues: GARAKANI/KURASCH 4. Use of Three-Dimensional Models: (as time permits) 5. Plan Submittal Requirements (Planning a Study Session to consider requirements for preliminary landscape design guidelines to include fences and hardscape): ROUPE/ZUTSHI 6. Residential Design Guidelines (Study Session) 7. Increase the Sustainable Energy Efficiency Alternatives/Policies to Reduce Waste in Tear Downs: KURASCH/GARAKANI 8. Resource Library: (Underway by staff) 9. Xeroscaping: HUNTER/KURASCH Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 11, 2001 Page 15 10. Review of Zoning Ordinance for Conflicts: JACKMAN/BARRY Commissioners’ Schedules for Upcoming Meetings Chair Barry asked each Commissioner to provide Director Sullivan with the dates of any meetings each will miss over the next three months time in order to make sure that a quorum can be reached for each meeting during busy summer schedules. Library Committee Commissioner Zutshi advised that the Library Committee finalized the interior materials and is working on the temporary library buildings, including signs, lighting and a temporary generator. The next session will include more accurate plans. Informed that a groundbreaking ceremony will occur on September 8, 2001, at 1 p.m. Miscellaneous Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be an August break. Director Sullivan replied no. Clarified that once a development application is deemed complete, it must be heard within a specified period of time. There are items pending that require hearing for both August meeting dates. Commissioner Kurasch: • Advised staff that a property on Quito Road is developing into an eyesore. The owner died earlier this year. There are weeds and trees are dying on the property. It will soon become a fire hazard. • Stated that better communication between the Commission and Heritage Commission needs to occur regarding protocols and jurisdictions. Chair Barry suggested that this subject be agendized for a future meeting, including the idea of appointing Commissioner Hunter to act as a liaison between the Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Commissioner Hunter suggested a joint session with the Heritage Preservation Commission. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. to a special Study Session set for Wednesday, July 18, 2001, to begin at 4 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk