Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2000 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chairman Page. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairman Page ABSENT: Commissioner Jackman STAFF: Director Walgren PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - May 24, 2000 COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2000, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Page 9, paragraph 5: “... another meeting would not add anything.” Page 9, paragraph 7: “... did not like the style and of the proposed house.” Page 20, paragraph 1: “... replacements were much closer to the property line than the previous buildings.” Page 19, paragraph 7: “Chairman Page asked the Commission to provide input and reasons related to recent suggestions about making the Planning Commission meetings less formal. Suggestions had been made including calling Commissioners by first name and a couple of others. He commented that his goal...” ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren reported that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 9, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were none. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 JUNE 14, 2000 1. DR-99-003.1 & UP-99-002.1 (517-15-012 & 517-15-013) – VILLA MONTALVO, 15400 Montalvo Road; Request for Modification of an approved project to allow for changes in the grading plan associated with the construction of 10 artist cottages and a common building. The approved quantities are 1,200 cubic yards of cut and 1,200 cubic yards of fill. The proposed quantities are 2,967 cubic yards of cut and 2,860 cubic yards of fill. The 10-acre site is located within an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 6/28/00 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-99-056 (503-82-005) – CHEW, Lot #5 Rodeo Creek Hollow; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 3,728 square foot, single story residence. The site is 15,730 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the application was for Design review approval for the construction of a new 3,738 square foot, single story residence. A riparian open space easement was recorded along the drainage ravine, and the building does respect the open space easement. The application meets the zoning requirements and the development standards of the original subdivision conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of the project. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Curt Cline said the site was difficult to conform to. The project was designed so that the neighbors did not look at a big, bulky roof. Commissioner Roupe asked about the landscape plan. Mr. Cline said the landscape plan was reviewed with a landscape designer and was something that would be done. Commissioner Patrick asked whether any consideration was given to not having the garage openings face the street. Mr. Cline said several designs were considered. They did not want to create a long wall along the side of the property and did not want the neighbors to look at a large slab of concrete. Commissioner Barry asked about the feasibility of constructing the house along the creekbank without disrupting the creekbank. Mr. Cline said he looked at several options and noted that no walls directly adjoined the riparian setback. Commissioner Barry asked whether the City discussed with the applicant requesting onsite supervision of the building construction. Director Walgren said staff told the applicant that a physical barrier would be required at the easement line and would be monitored by the inspectors during construction. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 JUNE 14, 2000 Barbara Torok, 13037 Oakwood Court, supported the design but said she was present to ask for an exception. In 1996, she and her husband came before the Planning Commission stating they would be opposed to the design of the Rodeo Hollow properties because it had a tremendous impact on her home. Her home aligns with the road that they did not want and they now have a property that will butt up to theirs with only a 10 foot easement. The property needs to be extended to have more than a 10 foot easement which she would like to see come from the creekside. She submitted copies of letters which she had sent to the City during the past several years. Commissioner Roupe asked what flexibility the Planning Commission had, given the riparian easement, to make a finding that would encroach into the riparian easement. Director Walgren said it would be difficult to amend the easement; the easement would have to be moved 10 feet back. The easement was not created as a result of a biotic analysis, but was when the City used the 60 foot building set back rule for the R-1, 40,000 District. It is not locked in based on environmental analysis. He added that the tentative map would have to be amended which could be done if supported by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the Planning Commission would have to base its findings on. Director Walgren said under the current ordinance there would be no chance of amending the riparian easement because they were based on a scientific recommendation. In the current case, a wildlife biologist could evaluate the easement. Commissioner Barry said the house would be on the edge of the creekbank, and if the easement was lessened, the building would go off the slope. Director Walgren said the project would result in a different design, possibly a split level design. Mr. Cline said the it appeared that when the grading was done for the culdesac, the grading went into the riparian setback, and it appeared they would not actually build over the bank. He explained that in doing work for other cities, encroaching into existing riparian setbacks resulted in mitigation measures including native plants to mitigate the encroachment. Commissioner Kurasch asked what were the results of the first request for review of the project, referring to the information submitted by Ms. Torok. Director Walgren said during the subdivision review, emphasis was on Phase II and the not through connection of Paramount Drive. It was ultimately accepted that the applicant could make the pad viable with the constraints on it and, by limiting the building to a single story structure, the views and privacy of the adjoining homes could be preserved. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:07 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe said his understanding was that the Planning Commission cannot unilaterally change the riparian easement to allow the house to encroach on the easement. Director Walgren said that was correct. The easement was locked in when the map was approved and recorded. The Planning Commission could make the recommendation and begin the process. A biotic analysis would be needed and once that report was available, the matter could be scheduled for a City PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 JUNE 14, 2000 Council meeting in 4-8 weeks. Commissioner Roupe said the property complies with the intent of the original subdivision plans. He appreciated the concerns of the neighbor. He looked at the question of process that would be necessary to make an amendment and the uncertainty it would bring to the project. The design of the house is consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch had not real concerns with the application. She had to go on the basis of the application and asked that if there are objections that the appeal be pursued. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioners Roupe and Kurasch. She recalled prior discussions about setbacks, trees, and fences, and the discussion that a single-story house was preferable than changing the setbacks. She was not willing to change the riparian setback. Commissioner Barry said until the issue by Ms. Torok was raised, the design appeared to be appropriate. If the Planning Commission considered approving the project, she wanted a stipulation added that there be protective fencing on the creek bank and occasional oversight. She did not believe the Planning Commission was the body to consider Ms. Torok’s concerns. Chairman Page said he would not want to set a precedent. He felt that a biotic analysis might open a can of worms. Commissioner Barry thought a biotic study might be something the applicants request as part of an appeal which the Council might agree to. Commissioner Kurasch felt that leaving the appeal process open would be fruitful. Commissioner Bernald felt that the lot meets the requirements that were set at the time of the site development, and she would approve the project with perhaps a modification to the protection of the creekbank. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-056 WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT APPROPRIATE PROTECTIVE FENCING AND INSPECTIONS BE MADE TO ASSURE NO ENCROACHMENT ON THE RIPARIAN EASEMENT. Commissioner Bernald asked whether there were any qualifiers that the Planning Commission would send if the application was appealed. Director Walgren said he was considering recommending that if an appeal was filed, that a report should accompany that appeal, with a report prepared by a qualified biologist . The problem was that the applicant would not be the appellant, and the applicant would have to hire a biologist to do a study which he did not believe was appropriate. If the applicant was the appellant and pursued the amendment on their own, that could be included as a requirement. Commissioner Barry asked if it would be inappropriate, given the neighbor’s many years of effort asking for review. for the Planning Commission to recommend the City bear the cost of the biotic study. Director Walgren said the Planning Commission could make a recommendation for the City to prepare the report. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/KURASCH AMENDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL AS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 JUNE 14, 2000 STATED WITH THE ADDITION THAT IF AN APPEAL IS MADE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE NECESSARY BIOTIC STUDY BE UNDERWRITTEN BY THE CITY. FAILED 2-4 (COMMISSIONERS BERNALD, PATRICK, ROUPE AND PAGE OPPOSED, COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) 3. LL-00-001 & V-00-005 (503-27-073 & 503-27-074) – SPARACINO, 14325 & 14345 Springer Avenue; Request for Lot Line Adjustment and Variance approval to allow the merging of two existing lots. The proposed lot will have a larger width dimension which requires a larger side yard setback. Variance approval is necessary for the existing house to remain only six feet from the property line where a ten-foot setback will be required. The existing residence on 14345 Springer Avenue will be demolished. The existing parcels are 10,125 square feet and 7,375 square feet and are located within an R-1-10, 000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the application was a request to merge two adjacent parcels. One parcel was 10,125 square feet, and the other was a nonconforming, substandard 7,375 pre- existing lot of record. The primary residence resides on the smaller parcel, and the residents want to merge the two parcels in order to demolish the existing home and use it as an accessory building to the main residence. The existing home was built using the substandard nature of the lot which dictated what its required setbacks would be. Under current codes, the building would be required to meet a 10 foot setback, but was currently at a 6 foot setback which was why a variance was requested. Staff felt the findings could be readily made regarding the special circumstances. Staff feels the variance can be supported. Commissioner Patrick asked whether the merger would create any rights to the applicant that otherwise would not exist. Director Walgren responded that in general, the rights were reduced. Commissioner Patrick asked whether the merger would allow any further encroachment into any of the other setbacks. Director Walgren said the merger would result in larger perimeter setbacks. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Michael Sparacino, 14325 Springer Avenue, concurred with the staff report. He said he wanted to expand his property in terms of outdoor living space. The plan was to build a garage and pool on the property. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:32 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) There were no concerns raised by the Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE LL-00-001. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE V-00-005. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 JUNE 14, 2000 4. UP-99-009.1 (517-10-036) – SARATOGA TENNIS CLUB, 20571 Komina Avenue; Request for approval for a modification to an existing Use Permit for the enlargement of existing tennis courts and replacement of an existing 12 foot high fence. The site is one acre and is located within an R-1- 10, 000 zoning district. Commissioner Roupe recused himself from this item. Cliff Barrett, 605 Bellflower Way, Scotts Valley, said the application requested modifications to the use permit in order to extend the courts 34 feet and to replace the existing fence with a 12 foot vinyl clad chain link fence. He provided support for the expansion with a survey of 72 percent of the population of the club in favor of the project. Director Walgren said the use permit was before the Planning Commission last summer. He noted that a letter was received from Roy Cameron, 20560 Komina Avenue, expressing concern that adequate and useable offstreet parking is not being provided on site and that landscaping should be considered for installation along the front of the tennis court. He added that a packet of survey letters were distributed to the Commission from Arthur Anderson, 20574 Komina Avenue, expressing support of the club and useable onsite parking for guests of the tennis club. Mr. Barrett said a parking study was prepared and presented with the Planning Commission packets. The study showed there were six spaces in the driveway and six spaces across the frontage of the property. He noted that there were nine cars at the heaviest time during the survey. Commissioner Kurasch noted in the July 1999 packet, the staff analysis stated there were two parking spaces in front of the clubhouse and a few additional spaces adjacent to the court on Komina Avenue. She questioned the analysis that the club had eight or nine real parking spaces. She asked about possible landscaping in front or additional parking that could be provided. Mr. Barrett said the cost for additional parking would be astronomical, and he guessed the cost would be $200,000-$250,000 for parking in front. Commissioner Barry asked Director Walgren to review the history of staff’s feeling about how many parking places there are. Director Walgren acknowledged that three spaces were readily available without having to move cars around, and there were three or four were available on the street frontage without having to move cars around. He added that the staff report was written before the issue of available or shortage of parking came out in the public hearing. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Arthur Anderson, 20574 Komina Avenue, said during the past year when there was consideration of moving the courts, it appeared that the club had no interest in questioning the neighborhood about their interests or concerns. He prepared and sent out 35 questionnaires to people in the neighborhood, and 23 were returned. He said he brought the material to the office on November 15, 1999, which then disappeared. He noted that Komina was a very narrow street, and he worked with the School District to get it to create more offstreet parking for the school. He felt that the club leadership was conspicuously unaware of the concerns of the neighbors. He thought that offstreet parking could be provided and landscaping should be added in front of the courts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 JUNE 14, 2000 Jeff Barco, 20588 Komina Avenue, noted that the school currently had 300 students and was allowed to expand up to 500 students. The traffic on Monday through Fridays was a very bad situation. He was opposed to any expansion of the club unless the following conditions are met: 1) Put parking behind the courts; 2) Consider fencing other than cyclone ; and 3) Obtain input from the neighbors. Roy Cameron, 20560 Komina Avenue, said when he first moved to his house 45 years ago, there was a squabble between the club and the neighbors due to parking. He felt there was no effort on the part of the club to realize there is a problem. People other than those attending the club parked on the street which contributed to the problem. He was also concerned that the plan did not show landscaping on the frontage which he felt should be required. Clare Schultz, 20606 Komina Avenue, believed the tennis court should be set back and landscaping should be required in front to beautify the property. The parking situation needs to be addressed and the back of the property would be the answer for additional parking. Mr. Barrett said the club was a busier place 45 years ago. He said the club was trying to be a good neighbor by improving the facility from a tennis standpoint. He said the club had support of the members to do the major renovation. The courts would be extended but the use would not change. Parking in the back would take up lot coverage as far as impervious coverage was concerned. He agreed that landscaping was necessary in the front. Commissioner Barry asked about the plans for the back section that was not being used. Mr. Barrett said there were no plans for the back area. The weeds would be cut, but it would be left in its natural state. He stated that the club did not have money to add parking in the back of the property. Commissioner Bernald questioned how many parking places could be added, given the impervious coverage. Director Walgren responded that pervious parking spaces could be added. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:20 P.M.) PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE RECUSED, COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) Commissioner Patrick said the Planning Commission had the right and obligation to require the club to be considerate of their neighbors. She thought off street parking should be required, noting that other clubs in Saratoga required off site parking. A setback from the street should also be required, as well as landscaping. She said the proposed fencing was appropriate given the use and protection from the neighbors. She would propose that the club move its enlarged tennis courts back from the street an appropriate setback as required, and that landscaping and off street parking be required. Commissioner Barry said if the tennis club continued to exist in its present form, it was an existing nonconforming use, but when the club came to the Commission to ask for something, then there was a legitimate opportunity to ask that other changes be made. Commissioner Bernald agreed that adding more parking would be a great expense, but the Commissioner agreed it could be pervious. She agreed that a setback should be required in order to provide a significant amount of parking with landscaping around it. Commissioner Kurasch said in the deliberations of July 1999, when the use permit was approved, consideration was that a parking analysis be done and appropriate parking would be proposed or an PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 JUNE 14, 2000 explanation as to why it was not needed. She was not satisfied that the survey presented met that requirement. The parking survey should be more objective or scientific. She concurred that landscaping was necessary and had no objection to the fence. Chairman Page said he could make the finding for expanding the tennis courts; he was unsure whether moving the courts back ten feet would help, but thought landscaping would definitely help. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/PATRICK MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-99-009.1 WITH A CONDITION THAT A SETBACK, TO STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION, TO PROVIDE A SETBACK TO ALLOW MORE PARKING ALONG KOMINA DRIVE WITH LANDSCAPING INCORPORATED ALONG KOMINA DRIVE. Director Walgren understood the motion to mean that the tennis courts would have to be moved back 20- 25 feet from the street in order to have diagonal parking along the frontage, plus another 2-4 feet for a planter box. He suggested that if the Commission required significant additional onsite parking, the application should be continued to come back to the Commission as a revised application. Commissioner Barry said it would be helpful to give the applicant direction as to how many parking spaces the Commission thought they would need. Director Walgren said 12 spaces would cover most situations. He added if the applicant was able to provide frontage parking, that number would be exceeded. Commissioner Kurasch said she did not have the analysis to base the number of spaces on. She referred to the motion in July 1999, that an analysis be done to determine the amount of parking required. Director Walgren said that adding parking in front would be a significant project to build. It would be best to have it come back to the Planning Commission. He suggested continuing the item to a date uncertain with direction to the applicants to provide accessible, useable onsite parking. Commissioner Bernald withdrew her motion. Director Walgren suggested that a parking plan or parking monitor to regulate parking on the site. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/BERNALD MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-00-009.1 WITH TWO CONDITIONS: (1) REQUIRE AN APPROPRIATE SETBACK AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING TO BUFFER THE FRONT OF THE COURTS; AND (2) REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP A PARKING PLAN THAT IN TOTAL ACCOMMODATES 12 PARKING SPACES, AND THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT A PLAN THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT END. Commissioner Barry said rather than denying the application outright which would preclude the applicant from coming back for one year, the door would remain open for the applicant to do something. Commissioner Patrick said she heard concerns about people walking on the street to get around cars, and the set back would allow a walkway between the retaining wall and fence for people to walk to avoid the cars. She asked whether the retaining wall could remain and the fence portion be moved. Director Walgren said that could be done but would not gain additional parking. Chairman Page asked whether the applicant was willing to come back with a plan with a setback of the fence from the road, landscaping would be created and safety issues on the 4’ retaining wall drop off would have to be considered. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 JUNE 14, 2000 CHAIRMAN PAGE/COMMISSIONER BERNALD MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. Mr. Barrett said the 4 ft. retaining wall was 120 feet long and would be a major project to move it. He said in order to get 12 offstreet parking spaces, the clubhouse would have to be decimated. He felt there should be some consideration from a historical landmark point. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:54 P.M.) PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE RECUSED, COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT). Director Walgren said the resolution to approve could be structure so that a landscape plan be developed to screen the fence, within the existing right-of-way, and a parking monitor plan or parking plan be brought back to the Planning Commission as a condition of approval. He added that the use permit could be brought up if conditions worsened in the future. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/BERNALD AMENDED THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE SETBACK. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 3-2 (COMMISSIONERS BERNALD AND PATRICK OPPOSED, COMMISSIONER ROUPE RECUSED. Chairman Page declared a recess at 9:59 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. 5. V-00-008 (397-17-043) – PILLAI, 19800 Versailles Way; Request for Variance approval to enclose a 727 square foot patio. The addition would be 627 over the allowable floor area. The site is 35,720 square feet and is located within an R-1-40, 000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the applicant was requesting a Variance to enclose a 727 square foot patio. The addition would exceed the floor area allowed by 627 square feet. There were no special circumstances applicable to the topography that would warrant the variance, and denying the variance would not deprive the applicants of a reasonable use of their property. Staff recommended denying the variance. Commissioner Barry asked about the size of the garage. Director Walgren reported that the garage was 1,600 square feet, where average garages are 600-900 square feet. Commissioner Roupe said the existing structure had three enclosed walls which he believed made the structure nonconforming. Director Walgren said when the house was built, enclosed porches were not required to be counted as floor area, so it was conforming when it was built; when the codes were amended in the late 1980s, the building became nonconforming. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 10:14 p.m. Hari Pillai, 19800 Versailles Way, provided information about the project, including noting that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 JUNE 14, 2000 overgrown ivy was removed and the landscaping was being improved. He added that the facade of the building would be extensively remodeled. He believed there were exceptional unique circumstances, there was no adverse environmental impacts, and he had the support of his neighbors. He said no changes would be made to the roofline or overhangs, and the patio could not be seen by any of the neighbors. He said he considered a garage space trade off and possibly take down some of the garage, but he was concerned about the cost of deconstruction of the garage and attempting to match the existing roof. Randy Lovelace, 10144 Camino Vista Drive, Saratoga, said the porch created a dark space along the back of the house which could not be corrected by skylights. It appeared to him that the space at one time was included in the FAR. The space is enclosed by three walls and a roof. Chairman Page asked whether the roof could be cut back to match the existing house. Mr. Lovelace responded that the nature of the roof was a full hip, and cutting into the hip would destroy the clean lines of the house. Commissioner Roupe said it appeared to him that the area where the new wall is proposed, is the load bearing wall for the frame structure. Mr. Lovelace said that was correct. COMMISSIONER BERNALD/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:27 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) Commissioner Barry appreciated the difficulty that the Planning staff had finding a basis for a variance. She was impressed with the point that Commissioner Roupe brought up about the load bearing wall of the house. The residents inherited an unusually large garage which she believed constituted a special situation. Commissioner Bernald agreed there were special circumstances but was unsure about the special privilege that the project might allow. Commissioner Roupe said the porch was a deep area with a three foot overhang that precluded reasonable light into the interior of the house. There was a enjoyment of the property issue that could be raised. He noted that the applicant clearly went out of his way to seek the neighbor’s input. He felt there could be some reasonable conditions within the criteria of what supports a variance. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with staff because she did not see a special circumstance and she was concerned about special privilege. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Kurasch. The applicants were aware of the situation when they purchased the house. She felt it was a special privilege without special circumstances. Commissioner Bernald questioned whether the applicant could leave the roof, knock out the side wall and create a carport. CHAIRMAN PAGE/COMMISSIONER ROUPE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:36 P.M. PASSED 7-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) Director Walgren said the applicant would no longer need a variance. Commissioner Barry was unclear how the application was a special privilege. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 JUNE 14, 2000 COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) COMMISSIONER ROUPE/SECONDED BY BARRY, MOVED TO APPROVE V-00-008. Commissioner Kurasch said she was unclear about the special privilege. Commissioner Patrick concurred. Commissioner Barry felt there were special circumstances, noting the size of the garage. Commissioner Roupe said the Commission had to make a judgment as to what was a reasonable use of the property. He said the configuration of the house presented limitations. He added that there was no impact on the neighborhood. He felt special circumstances could be justified. Director Walgren said the three primary special circumstances are (1) the house was built in a legal, conforming manner in 1972; (2) the nature of porch; and (3) it counted as floor area today. Commissioner Roupe suggested a fourth special circumstance which was the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. MOTION PASSED 4-2. (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) 6. GPA-00-001 – CITY OF SARATOGA; Saratoga Community Development Department staff is updating the Circulation and Scenic Highway Element of the City’s General Plan. The document will act as the City’s long-range traffic management plan. The update is intended to assess existing traffic conditions and to develop a goals and policies document to address changed conditions. The Planning Commission has scheduled this meeting to continue to solicit public input. A recommendation towards adopting the Element will then be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (CONTINUED FROM 5/24/00) Director Walgren said the project was started last fall with community meetings, went into data collection and developed a draft plan. The project has been re-noticed since the last meeting. He reviewed what was included in the staff packet. The current meeting was intended to be a receive-comment meeting and a revised draft set of goals and Policies will be developed for review at the June 28 meeting. He noted that additional correspondence was received from Commissioner Kurasch, Peter Wohlmut and Kito Road residents. He reported that one of the goals was to develop a neighborhood traffic management plan. Chairman Page opened the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. Charles Little, 12526 Radoyka Drive, was interested in the project to see what type of support there was for another exit off Highway 85. Commissioner Roupe asked whether Mr. Little would support an objective evaluation of an exit off of Highway 85. Mr. Little said that was correct. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 JUNE 14, 2000 Paul Philp, 12303 Kosich Court, agreed with Mr. Little. Robert Kahn, 18471 Ravenwood Drive, said he lived in Saratoga for three years, but was unaware of this plan. He would like to see a better way to inform residents. In response to a question from Commissioner Barry on how to reach residents, Mr. Kahn said he would like to see something in the mail. Director Walgren noted that the subject was posted on the KSAR and items were mailed to homeowner groups, churches and schools, and articles were in the newspaper. Commissioner Kurasch asked about school traffic. She said one of the policies that was recommended had to do with finding routes to school. She asked if there was room for improvement in carpooling. Mr. Kahn said he had not seen the plan so he could not make any recommendations. Director Walgren said he would talk to the Council about doing a direct mailing to all households in the City. Norman Martin, 12524 Miller Avenue, said it was difficult for people to find out what was happening on the Planning Commission and City Council. There should be some way for the newspaper to list when the meetings are. Steve Fitzthimons, Project Manager for Pride’s Crossing, said he did direct mailings in Pride’s Crossing and received a good response. His group was planning a “tool kit” which was taken from neighboring communities. The intent was to create a document that could be used by neighbors who have traffic problems. He reported that three streets were being re-designated as collectors. One of the strong inputs from the community was that the residents did not like that idea. Sohrab Rashid, Fehr & Peers Associated, said the various community input was received at the community meetings. Interest included traffic signals, transit, and shuttles. CHAIRMAN PAGE/COMMISSIONER BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 11:30 P.M.) PASSED 7-0 (COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT) Commissioner Bernald said several people at the meeting expressed concern about the Quito Road onramp which she felt was due to several members of the Commission who sensationalized the issue. She did not want to see that type of action happening again. She felt a statement needed to be made that the document did not recommend an onramp to Highway 85. Commissioner Patrick said the circulation element as presented to the Commission was appropriate to recommend to the City Council as it exists. The only significant impact the Commission could recommend regarding traffic circulation was for the Council to exercise its leadership in discussing, planning, promoting, supporting, and implementing public transportation for Saratoga residents. Commissioner Barry said Saratoga recently had a vote for no more density, no more traffic, and no more noise. The Circulation Element needed to reflect that policy. She wanted to see the flavor of the document changed. The Commission needed to review the specific changes that commissioners suggested in light of the policy issue. She also felt the document should be more user friendly and action oriented. Director Walgren anticipated incorporating all the comments and then to identify those that should or should not be incorporated. Commissioner Kurasch suggested the Commission hold another study session on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 JUNE 14, 2000 DIRECTOR ITEMS − Housing Element update − Wireless Communications update These items were held over to the next meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission will meet on July 12, 2000, 5 p.m. for a study session on the retreat COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN − City Council minutes for meetings of May 9 and May 17, 2000 - noted – Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2000 - noted – Letter from Commissioner Kurash - noted ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. to Wednesday, June 28, 2000, Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Ruth Swanson Minutes Clerk