Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-2000 Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Page, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Kurasch (due to illness) Staff: Director Walgren and Assistant Planner Pearson Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - December 8, 1999 IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 1999, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Page 6, last paragraph, line 2: “...copper irons ions; therefore....” Page 10, paragraph 8, line 2: “....stabilize the soil, and ignore slide plans planes.” Page 16, paragraph 11, line 3: “....using existing infrastructure.” Oral Communications - None. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren declared that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 7, 2000. Technical Corrections to Packet It was noted that page 5 of the staff report on Item #2 (Chetty application) has been revised and distributed to Commissioners. CONSENT CALENDAR - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP-97-009.1 (397-22-044 and 397-22-012) – SARATOGA FEDERATED CHURCH, 20390 Park Place; Request for modification to an approved Use Permit to include construction of a new 640 square foot garage. The property is 87,000 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Jackman recused herself from this issue because she resides within 300 feet of the property. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 12, 2000 Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that this is an amendment to a conditional use permit. He reported that the Saratoga Federated Church received a conditional use permit approval in October 1997 to substantially and significantly renovate and rehabilitate their existing facility. He said the building is listed in the City’s Historic Registry and the original use permit was reviewed by the City’s Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission, and an environmental impact report was prepared for the project. He stated that tonight=s application is to amend the original application to include a 640 square-foot, 12 feet tall detached structure. He said had the structure been entirely out of required setbacks, it would not necessarily need to come before the Planning Commission as it was not a significant modification to the original approval. However, given its location on the site within required setback, modification of the original use permit is required. He conveyed that staff has reviewed the application and found it can be supported, that the necessary findings can be made, appropriate regulations have been met, and is recommending approval of the modification of the use permit. Commissioner Page asked whether the Live Oak trees on the property would be impacted by the modification. Mr. Walgren responded that one tree would need to be removed to accommodate the garage. He said that the tree (not a Live Oak) was in poor condition, and staff did not feel it was necessary for the arborist to evaluate it. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:43 p.m. Paul Davis, architect from Monterey, California, addressed the Commission, noting that the project had been well explained by staff. He said the church has looked throughout the property to see where the best location would be for this facility. He described the project as a two-car garage with storage going back into the corner of the existing parking area so as not to take any parking spaces out. He said this would minimize visual impact. He noted the structure would be designed to match the church in colors and materials. He said this is the best location on the property. Commissioner Page asked whether the storage unit in the parking lot would be removed, and Mr. Davis responded in the affirmative. There was no one else from the public who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 7:44 P.M.). PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN RECUSED). Commissioner Barry stated she had no comment and was prepared to vote on the subject. Commissioner Patrick indicated this was an acceptable project and she saw no reason to oppose it. Commissioners Page and Roupe and Chairwoman Bernald stated they were in support of the project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-97-009.1. PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT; COMMISSIONER JACKMAN RECUSED.) Commissioner Jackman returned to the meeting. 2. DR-99-045 (503-82-002) - CHETTY, 18050 Rodeo Creek Hollow; Request for Design Review Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 12, 2000 approval to construct a new 3,884 square foot, two-story residence. The site is 16,400 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assistant Planner Pearson presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting design approval for a 3,884 square foot, two story residence on a parcel created by the Rodeo Creek Hollow subdivision. He said the parcel has a significant large Oak tree on the property, and the applicant has worked significantly with the City Arborist so the tree will not be damaged. He referred to the arborist report on file. He noted that the applicant also worked significantly with staff on the architectural features of the house to set a good precedent as this would be one of the first homes in the subdivision. He said the project meets all the requirements, and staff recommends that the project be approved. Chairwoman Bernald noted a Monterey Pine tree on lot #2 of the subdivision, and requested that in the future the arborist make a report regarding its removal. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Arun Chetty, 10158 Cold Harbor Avenue, Cupertino, stated that throughout the design phase of the project, he and his architect, Michael Vierhus, have been in constant contact with the Planning Department and City Arborist. He said there is a beautiful Oak tree on the lot and it is their common objective to ensure that the tree lives a healthy life. He noted the lot has been a challenge to design and feels that with the work, which has been done with the city and the arborist, the project is workable on both parts. He stated that he understood consistency with the neighborhood is an important issue. He described some features of his original plan and in working with the City, the City had good suggestions on making the project more consistent with the neighborhood. He said as such many of the features were eliminated to try to come up with something that was consistent. Responding to Commissioner Patrick’s inquiry regarding whether wood siding had been considered, Mr. Chetty said that wood siding had been considered in the early stages. However, stucco was chosen after seeing many of the houses in the neighborhood had stucco. Commissioner Jackman noted the project has only one fireplace. Chairwoman Bernald expressed concern with the balcony, and Mr. Vierhus responded, assuring Chairwoman Bernald that there was privacy between the applicant and neighbors. A future neighbor, Mr. Wang, asked how many windows would go in on the west side of the property, and Mr. Vierhus responded there was only one, demonstrating its location on the map. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 7:50 P.M) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe stated this was a nice design, and encouraged the applicant to pay close attention to the “prize” Oak tree on the property. He noted the resolution provides that the applicant will have his own arborist in addition to support of the City Arborist and a bond would be placed on the tree. With those concerns addressed, he is very much in favor of the project. Commissioner Page agreed with Commissioner Roupe, and expressed he would want to see more wood, but would go along with stucco. Commissioner Jackman voiced that she liked the plans, and noted that stucco is being used more than wood because of cost and maintenance. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 12, 2000 Commissioner Patrick expressed there should be more wood and this is an area where wood would fit into the site. Because of that issue, she will be opposed to the project, although the rest of the design and site is well suited. Commissioner Barry stated she was particularly happy to see that the total height of the residence was going to be 23 feet and that she did not have a particular opinion about the wood versus stucco. She said the project was fine as planned. She conveyed that she appreciated the fact that the applicant and architect worked closely with staff. She shared Commissioner Roupe’s concern regarding the tree, stating that Commissioners have a common concern that what is on paper gets carried out, and hoped that the tree would be preserved. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Barry regarding the tree, and urged the applicant to follow the arborist’s recommendations found in the brochure regarding planting under old trees. She said she would prefer wood, but understood the realities of stucco. Being assured that the balcony would not be invasive to the future neighbor, she noted she would support the project. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TOAPPROVE DR-99-045. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). 3. V-99-012 (517-07-024) - CONGLETON, 14771 Bohlman Road; Request for Variance approval to permit a previously constructed six-foot fence where only a three-foot fence would otherwise be allowed. The site is 1.3 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Pearson presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting a variance for a 6-foot fence. He said the fencing regulations require that the fence be limited to 3 feet in height within the front setback area. He said the applicant is requesting a 6-foot fence to keep cars from turning around on his property and to keep the applicant’s grandchildren from going out into the street. He said the findings required to grant the permit include finding unusual circumstances about the property exist and a special privilege is not being granted. He conveyed that the property is a fairly busy street which could be considered an unusual circumstance and also the proximity of the house to the street. However, staff feels that a 3-foot fence would take care of the problem of cars coming onto the property. He said the argument that the fence needs to be there to keep children from wandering into the street is not the type of argument for which a variance is typically granted. He said it is not a situation tied to the physical properties of the lot. He noted that other fences in the area that are 6 feet tall existed prior to the current zoning ordinance. The applicant’s neighbor was granted a variance for a 6-foot fence prior to Bohlman Road being realigned, and there has been a change of conditions since that fence was constructed. He reported that the required findings cannot be made to support the variance, and staff recommendation is to deny the application. Responding to a question from Commissioner Barry, Mr. Pearson confirmed that a special circumstance should be related to physical properties of the parcel. He said one example would be if there is a deep slope on one part of the property and a variance was needed to build in the setback areas. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Barry, Mr. Pearson explained the previous situation at Bohlman Road which at one time had an island in the road. Commissioner Roupe referred to the house adjacent and immediately to the left of the front of the property which has a 6-foot fence, and asked whether the fence was on the side or on the front of the property. Mr. Pearson responded that the property is described as a corner lot with an exterior side in the front, in which case a 3-foot fence is required on the side yard just as it is on the front because that side is a continuation of Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 January 12, 2000 the applicant’s front line. Commissioner Roupe asked if that was the same property for which a review was made and a variance granted, and Mr. Pearson responded in the affirmative. Replying to a question from Commissioner Page regarding the conditions of the neighbor=s variance, Mr. Walgren said that Bohlman Road formerly split off at the intersection with Sixth Street and formerly had an island with a tree in the center of it, which put the uphill of the southbound lane in very close proximity to the property that received the variance. Mr. Walgren stated that additionally, there was a great differentiation where the road was higher than the property, and a three foot fence would still be lower than the roadway. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. Ford Congleton, 14771 Bohlman Road, Saratoga, stated he has lived on Bohlman Road for 18 years and has seen the changes in the area regarding traffic, pressure of the road, and trees that are now gone. Because of these conditions and realignment of the road, the height of the road is higher than his property as is the case with his neighbor. He said there is a tremendous amount of traffic now. He described the surroundings when he first moved in. He said that the road curves both ways at the point where his house is located. As one comes off Oak Street, one would go directly into his driveway. If one comes down Bohlman Road, one would go directly into the opposite end of his property. He explained that cars traveling down Bohlman Road come down fairly fast, which is part of the reason a traffic sign was installed. He said there have been a number of traffic accidents at the corner of Bohlman and Sixth Street/Oak near the cemetery involving people who do not stop at the sign. He said this creates a tremendous amount of concern for him, for his grandchildren, and for his property. He conveyed that if he had a 3-foot fence at the property line that would create a hazard with the fence itself because cars would come up onto the fence like they have in the past. He said he has had four instances where people have run into the fence, taken out sections of the fence, removed the shrubbery and landscaping which he has had to replant several times. He described the other problems associated with traffic and drivers and said they were potential hazards for loss of life. Mr. Congleton stated he began the fence project two and a half years ago when he contracted a contractor to do the work, including obtaining construction permits, and he was under the impression those tasks were done. He said the contractor constructed the columns, dug a hole in the front of the house, installed electrical wiring, and then abandoned the project. When he went to the City to have the permits finalized, he found that no permits had been obtained. At that time he was halfway through with the project, and feeling frustrated, decided to proceed and finish the fence, which he admitted was a mistake. However, he expressed that his property needs to be protected and that the fence he constructed is in line with other fences in the neighborhood. He said his neighbor who was previously granted a variance had the same circumstances as he does. He said that if he is not granted a variance he would feel that he is being denied the same privilege as his neighbor. However, he said he planned to put in landscaping or do whatever was necessary to correct the problem. Commissioner Jackman noted that fences in the neighboring properties had been installed prior to the current code. She said she could sympathize that there is quite a bit of traffic and commented that she lives in the area and the traffic is not an intolerable burden on the street. She acknowledged Mr. Congleton’s issue with the curb, but it is very tolerable. Commissioner Roupe commented that the issue is control of traffic which in the past has been a nuisance to the applicant where people have driven through the subject property. He said the 7-foot gates are beyond the ordinance allowances. He said it appeared to him that a five-foot or seven-foot gate would be sufficient to address the control of traffic regarding the U-turn or driving through of the applicant’s driveway. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 January 12, 2000 Mr. Congleton confirmed Commissioner Roupe’s statement that regardless of the size of the fence/gate, whether it be a three-foot or six-foot fence, the issue of traffic control through the property would be controlled by the gates. Commissioner Roupe stated that the other issue was the safety of the grandchildren and whether a three-foot versus six-foot fence would be adequate to provide that level of safety. Commissioner Barry expressed concerns with the description of accidents mentioned by Mr. Congleton, the situation after the stop sign was installed, and the lighting. Mr. Walgren responded that street lighting in Saratoga is generally not encouraged as it is perceived more of an invasion on rural roads than it is a benefit; however, lighting a particular curve or location could be done. He said it is unknown whether a record of accidents for this location exists. Responding to a question from Commissioner Barry, Mr. Walgren said the stop sign was installed to facilitate circulation through the Sixth Street and Bohlman Road intersection and to slow traffic down. Commissioner Barry asked what the process would be if the Commission or the applicant were interested in having the City provide lighting on a dangerous curve. Mr. Walgren replied that additional public lighting could be discussed with the Public Works staff and it may not be necessary to go to the Public Safety Commission. Chairwoman Bernald recalled that Mr. Congleton had installed a lamppost with several globes in his front yard, and asked him whether he turned it on every night. Mr. Congleton responded he did not. Judy Congleton, 14771 Bohlman Road, addressed the Commission regarding the traffic accidents which are on police records. She described the damages to their property resulting from the accidents, some of which have been serious. She asked the Commission to consider this matter seriously. She described other situations and problems associated with drivers parking, littering, climbing her fence, and urinating in her yard. She has asked the City Council to install speed bumps on Bohlman Road and she was told this could not be done because the fire trucks need to get to emergencies in a hurry. Commissioner Roupe asked the applicants whether a three-foot or six-foot wrought iron fence would be a deterrent to a car traveling 50 miles per hour. Mr. Congleton responded that if a car were coming down that quickly and running into a three-foot fence, it would simply rise above it and go over it. He said with a six-foot fence, the post would bend and slow down the traffic intruder, and the landscaping would also help slow down the vehicle and prevent it from coming down onto the yard. Mr. Walgren remarked that he would not want to downplay the seriousness of traffic conditions on Bohlman Road, and noted that a higher incidence of cars speeding in the narrow hillside roads exists overall. There was no one else from the public who wished to address the issue. COMMISSIONER PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:30 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Jackman stated she could not support the project. She did not feel that the six-foot fence would be any more beneficial than a three-foot fence. She said it is only at the very lowest right side of the Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 January 12, 2000 property where there is a gradual slope down to the fence; and she did not feel that this supported a six-foot fence in the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman. She noted that black wrought iron at night in the dark is not going to be highly visible to anyone, and that would probably be the least preferred visibility item. She said she lives in the hillside and understood the problems associated with litter. She said a three- foot or six-foot fence in her neighborhood would not make any difference; however, installed lighting has been remarkably effective. She commented that a problem with hillside fencing in Saratoga exists, and that the Commission will be considering the issue later tonight. She stated she could not support the project. Commissioner Barry stated that the City has a dilemma with hillside fences, and consistency and enforcing the regulations are important issues. She agreed with Commissioner Patrick’s comments regarding the lighting, and this could be more of a solution than anything else. She was concerned that the Commissioners did not have before them documentation regarding the accidents. She said that if there are special circumstances of the road, the area, and accidents, she would like to have that documented and researched. She mentioned there could be a resolution either with the Public Safety Commission or Public Works Department that something could be done to help the applicant. She suggested that if the applicant withdrew his application, it could come back with a report that there has been resolution or documentation that there is a serious accident record. She said without overwhelming justification it would be hard to say yes to a six-foot fence in light of the regulation. Commissioner Page empathized with the applicants. He said the placement of the gates and bricks around it serve as a deterrent. He agrees that lighting would also help. He agreed that a six-foot fence would definitely slow down a car more than a three-foot fence, but probably would not slow down a bigger car coming down the hill at 50 miles per hour. He stated he could not support the project, although he would support lowering the fence. Commissioner Roupe concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He tried to look at the findings which need to be made to grant the variance, and could not see special circumstances that would justify a six-foot fence. He said he understood the need for the gate and what it does to control traffic. Under the current arrangement, he could not support the project. Director Walgren confirmed Commissioner Roupe’s statement that the variance that was made previously was made prior to the removal of the tree and island, and there has been an altered circumstance since the granting of the previous variance. Director Walgren stated that if the Commission wanted to consider the vehicular safety as a potential finding, the request could be postponed, especially since the fence is already up. Staff could do a study and come back with a report. He said vehicular safety as a criteria was not really the focus of the review because even the rails that separate freeway traffic are three feet. However, at this point, staff could investigate the vehicular safety and report back to the Commission. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/BARRY MOVED THAT THE FINAL DECISION ON V-99-012 BE DEFERRED PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON BOHLMAN ROAD TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. PASSED 5-1 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Chairwoman Bernald declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff members were present. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 January 12, 2000 4. UP-99-022 (386-14-011) - PRINCE OF PEACE, 12770 Saratoga Avenue; Request for Use Permit approval to operate a ACenter for Wellness@ business at the Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church. No expansion of floor area is proposed. Parcel is 2.8 acres in size and is located within an Agricultural zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this was an application to modify an existing conditional use permit to allow the applicant to incorporate the Center for Wellness activity described in the report. He said this is categorized as a personal service activity, which is a permitted use in this zoning district. He noted that churches, libraries, schools, and police and fire stations, and other institutional and religious facilities are permitted within residential zoning districts, but subject to a conditional use permit. Most of the churches and synagogues in Saratoga provide this type of activity as part of their overall church function. Director Walgren reported that in this particular case, an operator of the Center for Wellness contacted Planning staff about a business license to operate this business. After communicating with the operators and representatives of the church, it was clear that this case was a little different in that it was not members of the congregation operating an activity exclusively for members of the congregation. He said it was decided that the activity was outside of a church activity; and that it would need its own conditional use permit. He noted that the activity has been occurring at the church for many years, so any impacts related to traffic, noise, or similar issues have been existing for a long time. He stated that the City had not received any complaints. He reported that the necessary findings can be made to grant the conditional use permit modification. Director Walgren stated that Commissioner Barry had distributed a photocopy of the business licenses of the eight practitioners who operate at the Center for Wellness. Director Walgren acknowledged the correspondence received regarding this item. Commissioner Page asked whether the business license process would change once the project is approved. Director Walgren responded that a nominal fee is involved and a business license, which has to be cleared through the Planning office, is issued. He said once the modification is approved, the business licenses would be cleared to be issued. Commissioner Page referred to a letter regarding certain types of services offered such as drug rehabilitation and anger-management, and asked whether that would be something the City would look at and make decisions on. Director Walgren responded that the licensed marriage and family counselor may provide anger management services and these would come to the City’s attention. Another specific program such as a drug rehabilitation program would also come to the City’s attention. Commissioner Barry asked once the conditional use permit approved what would be the situation regarding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code and service activities of a religious institution versus business activities. She said her underlying concern was that the Commission would be agreeing to a use and wondered whether that use would be in violation. Director Walgren responded there was no relationship between the Commission’s land use decisions and IRS issue, and this should be seen as a land use activity and whether it is appropriate in this district. A discussion ensued regarding the number of services to be provided. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 12, 2000 Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m. Karen Idler, Associate Minister of the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, presented the history of the Center, noting it was established by the church over ten years ago. She said that the Center is a program of the Church - not just another city business - and has been so since its beginning. She noted that the Center’s governing body is the church council. She reported that the Center provides a safe, confidential environment for people of all ages and all cultures, regardless of religious affiliation, who seek to improve the quality of their life. She said three-fourths of the people served at the Center are residents of the broader community with one- fourth being members of the church. She stated that services are provided at sliding scale fees upon request, and no one is refused services. She conveyed that the services provided are tai chi, yoga, balance exercise classes, marriage-family-child counseling, massage, voice and drama instruction, nutrition consultation, and services of a nurse therapist and nurse practitioner who address concerns such as prescription drug interactions and clear communication with health care providers. She commented that services are by appointment and rarely are there more than a few individuals ever receiving services through the Center at any one time. She said this is important to the church as it means that clients of the Center have never created a traffic flow problem even when other activities at the church are taking place concurrently. Other activities include many 12-step groups that hold their meetings at the church. Additionally, she said that the church’s parking lot also serves as a parking lot for Challenger School. Responding to a question from Commissioner Barry whether this was the only business source of providers, Ms. Idler said that none of the providers worked full time and they worked by appointment only. Ms. Idler said that some of the providers have a business at other locations but this is not a requirement to provide the service at the Center. In response to Commissioner Roupe’s inquiry regarding whether the church council reviewed the applications of providers wishing to participate in the program, Ms. Idler stated that the responsibility for governance is under the church council, and the pastor and other staff members participate in interviews and make recommendations to the council. Ms. Idler, responding to Commissioner Jackman’s question, confirmed that each provider must have his/her own liability insurance and noted that staff does not check to see if each provider has a business license. Bill McHugh, President of the Church Council, addressed a concern expressed by Commissioner Barry regarding the IRS issue. He said there has never been a concern that the operation would jeopardize the church’s status. He said the congregation supports the Center through fundraising activities to subsidize the sliding scale fees. Marjorie Reid, resident of Saratoga Parkside Condominiums, 18907 Sara Park Circle, stated she was not aware of this project when she purchased her property. She referred to a staff report regarding a temporary use permit, which Director Walgren reviewed. Director Walgren noted the staff report was written in 1995 regarding a temporary rotating housing program at the church. He said the item was unrelated to the issue being discussed. Ms. Reid opined that if a provider needs a business license, it is no longer a church activity, and commented it would be a business. She asked who would pay for damages to fences incurred by the Center’s clients. She asked what the hours of activities would be and the number of clients to be served. She wanted to know who would be screening the professional providers. Peter Apel, 18956 Sara Park Circle, addressed the Commission and explained he had erroneously distributed the 1995 staff report to all property owners within the complex. He said due to lack of time there was a mix- Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 January 12, 2000 up and apologized for the confusion. He expressed the same concerns that the Commission would actually consider such as traffic impacts and safety issues. Mr. McHugh stated that the church has staff who are there during business hours and invited Ms. Reid to go in and talk to staff. He said the church has not had any problems in the ten years it has operated the Center. Ms. Idler also invited Ms. Reid to come in and meet with her to discuss Ms. Reid’s concerns. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:32 P.M.). Commissioner Jackman stated she was in support of the project which has been in existence for several years. She said the services provided are overseen by the church council. She clarified that the professionals may well be licensed. Citing herself as an example, she said she is a Registered Nurse, but has no business license of any kind, and she asked that the two issues be separated. She asked the applicant to check the professional license even though the provider may not have a business license. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman. She said this is a good service for the community and full use of such facilities should be encouraged. She said she would vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Barry agreed with Commissioners Jackman and Patrick. She said this was a benefit to the community and it is not a big operation. She said the business license issue is confusing because of the professional license versus business license. She asked whether a review process would be made on the conditional use permit regarding growth of the operation. Director Walgren responded that the resolution restricts hours but not number of patrons or practitioners, and stated that a ceiling could be incorporated into the conditional use permit. Commissioner Barry proposed establishing a cap that necessitated review. Commissioner Roupe concurred with other Commissioners, agreed that this is a worthy project, and will support it. Commissioner Page agreed with other Commissioners. He said this is a great use and the church is providing a great service. He said he did not think it appropriate to put a cap on the number of people because no analyses had been done to understand the impacts to the community, the neighborhood, and the traffic. He noted that a conditional use permit can be called up at any time, and if issues arise, it can be brought back to the Commission for reconsideration. Chairwoman Bernald concurred, noting this is an appropriate use of property. She commented that the Center has been existent for ten years without any complaints speaks to the fact that it has been run without an invasive component to the neighbors. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/PAGE MOVED THAT UP-99-022 BE APPROVED. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). 5. SM-99-002 (517-23-037) - WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road; Request for Site Modification of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a residential guest parking area. No floor area is proposed. Parcel is 6.2 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 January 12, 2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a request for site modification consideration for lot #1of five lots. He said lots #1 and #2 access off Peach Hill Road, and are both owned by the Woods. Lots #3, #4, and #5 access off Madrone Hill Road and contain all of the historic rock work and garden structures, and are owned by another family. He said subdivision improvements have begun on the two upper lots and the cul-de-sac is under construction. He noted that the Woods had presented their design review application to the Commission last summer to build a single-family home at the pre-approved building pad location for lot #2. The application was approved and is under construction. As part of that application, the applicants proposed using lot #1, which is six acres and a separate lot of record, for guest overflow parking for their main residence. At that time, the proposal required a variance to retaining wall heights, required much more grading, and required removal of several more trees. The applicants withdrew the application and have resubmitted a revised proposal with reduced grading, and the arborist has reviewed the plan to remove or replant ten trees instead of 17. He said the area has been reduced from 4950 square feet to 3200 square feet. He noted that there is no longer a variance necessary to exceed the retaining wall height limits for the hillside residential zoning district. Director Walgren conveyed that staff review concludes that the necessary findings can be made to approve the application request. He said collectively, because there was a water tank required to be built at the top of the site, the 200+ cubic yards of grading added to their proposal brings it over 1,000 cubic yards. He said there is a provision to exceed the 1,000 cubic yards if it is a reasonable proposal, which staff feels applies in this case. He stated that the parking area will be completely screened from public view. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 9:43 p.m. Murray Woods, 524 Roxbury Lane, Los Gatos, CA, 95032, addressed the Commission, stating they would like to have parking in reasonable proximity to their house. He said the area chosen is the most reasonable area in the entire two lots. He cited regulations of the fire department of Santa Clara County, and described the plan. Harold Kobayashi, landscape architect from Mill Valley, described his early work with the City of Saratoga and the design aspects of the proposed project and attempts to save the trees. There was no one else from the public who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:50 P.M.). PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Commissioner Roupe stated he has been on the property on several occasions and will be supporting the application. Commissioners Page and Jackman stated they would support the project. Commissioner Patrick asked what the outcome was regarding merging the two parcels which had been previously discussed. Director Walgren recalled that an existent lot coverage restriction did not allow merging the two properties. Responding to a question from Commissioner Patrick, Director Walgren said that the Commission could not require the properties to be merged. A discussion ensued regarding merging the properties. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 January 12, 2000 Commissioner Patrick said she would be proposing that as a condition of accepting the second parcel, because of the unusual situations of the parcel, that there be no more extensive use on parcel #2 and that if the parcels are ever independently developed, the parking area in parcel #2 would be removed. Director Walgren commented that the condition could state that if the site modification is approved for this degree of offsite parking, any intensification would require an additional site modification consideration and upon development of that property, that parking area would need to be converted and restored. Commissioner Barry remarked that the use of residential lot #2 for a parking lot was discussed at the site visit and she would like to make it conditional because it is not normal for a residential lot to be used as a parking lot. Director Walgren noted that the condition could be included in the site modification resolution for tracking purposes. Commissioner Barry stated that Commissioners understand there is a clear need for parking off the road, but the issue was to create a clear record and have a clear basis for the finding, and to have something that is not a precedent for another application that might be unusual. Chairwoman Bernald shared Commissioner Barry’s concern and would not want the passage of this application to set a precedent for anything different in the future. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE SM-99-002 WITH THE CONDITIONS PREVIOUSLY STATED. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Chairwoman Bernald moved the agenda to Director’s Items. Director Walgren reported that an application for a new home on Montrose was approved at a certain measured setback which was beyond the required setback. When the foundation forms were constructed, it was revealed that it was closer to the side property line but still within meeting the setbacks. He said that this issue requires the item to come back to the Commission, and is placing it on the agenda while the project is still under construction. Director Walgren responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the setback measurements and adjacent properties. COMMISIONERS BARRY/ROUPE MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH THE CHANGE. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). 6. AZO-99-001 (Citywide) - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Planning Commission will consider changes to the City=s zoning ordinance regarding hillside fencing regulations and administrative appeals. Under consideration will be: 1) amendments to the Hillside Residential zoning district fencing regulations, and 2) amendments to the administrative appeals process. An Environmental Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared by the City of Saratoga and are on file in the Community Development Department. (CONTINUED FROM 12/8/99). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff recommendation to clarify the current appeals process in two parts. He indicated that the first part would clarify the zoning ordinance that only discretionary decisions are appeal- Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 January 12, 2000 able decisions, which is stated in the Municipal Code and is consistent with State law. However, he said the appeals section of the City’s zoning ordinance is unclear. He reported that Chapter 2 is the Municipal Code, which establishes the general appeals process for the entire city, and Chapter 15 is the zoning ordinance. He said that the staff report quotes language from Chapter 2 relative to ministerial versus discretionary decisions, stating that “.... the right of appeal to the City Council when a decision or action is ministerial and does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment pursuant to any provisions of this code” is not an appeal-able decision. He noted that examples were included in the staff report. He said he would like to see the zoning ordinance made consistent with State law and the Municipal Code. Director Walgren reported that the second part of the appeals process involved clarifying the limitations on appeals. He said the city currently has a handful of administrative discretionary processes, including the administrative design review process, administrative tree removal permit, administrative second dwelling unit permit, and administrative sign permits, which can all be appealed to the Planning Commission. Referring to those sections, he noted that they specifically state that an appeal to the Planning Commission is final. He stated that the staff recommendation is to clarify the appeals section of the ordinance to include “that an appeal to the Planning Commission is final” and applies to all administrative considerations. Responding to inquiries from Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren stated he had discussed this issue with the City Attorney who agreed with staff observations. Director Walgren stated that if the Commission were to agree to the changes, they would only be recommendations to the City Council - not final amendments to the ordinance. He clarified that although the City Attorney has already been consulted regarding the proposed changes, the City Attorney would ultimately draft the ordinance amendments. Commissioner Barry made a motion to consider a format to guide the process of the Planning Commission’s deliberations on the fencing recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council. Before delving into the specifics, the numbers, and the formulas, and other issues that might be raised, she suggested that the Commission establish a format for the Commission, the public, and staff to follow in guiding deliberations and reaching a decision. She said this is a big issue for the community, and it would have a lot of impact on the community, and there are strong feelings about the issue. She proposed that the Commission discuss the basis of its decision and its rationale for making the decision it makes. There was no second to her motion. Consensus was to continue discussing the appeals procedure before addressing the hillside fencing. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/ROUPE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE STAFF PROPOSAL AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE CLARIFIED AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Director Walgren suggested that staff present the report on the hillside fencing, and then follow up with a discussion regarding procedure. Director Walgren reported that this was an ordinance amendment that was discussed at a September 9, 1999 joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Issues discussed included hillside fencing, limitation on areas of enclosure, the exception process, and the concern of population of deer and wildlife in the hillside. Mr. Pearson reported that the hillside fencing ordinance was adopted in the late 1980's. He displayed a city zoning map, which outlined the boundary between the hillside residential district and the rest of the zoning districts in the city. He said the current requirements have a maximum enclosure area of 4,000 square feet Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 January 12, 2000 which requires no more than 60 feet of solid fencing and the remainder has to be open wire fencing through which small animals could pass. He noted that the only way to deviate from these standards is with an exception from the Planning Commission. He conveyed that the City Council has directed the Planning Commission and staff to reconsider these regulations for the following reasons: There have been many fencing exceptions requested in the past few years that possibly greater exception areas are needed to protect property, people, and landscaping from wildlife such as deer and coyote. He said staff’s original idea was to increase the maximum enclosure area and remove the exception process; however, a need for flexibility could still exist in the code. Mr. Pearson added that staff is now recommending that the maximum enclosure area be increased and that the exception process be retained. He noted that exceptions are only granted when needed for safety reasons or if the greater enclosure area to be fenced is not visible from public streets and are hidden by vegetation or topography. He indicated that staff is recommending adding a case for exception for agricultural purposes such as orchards and vineyards where a larger area needs to be protected. He explained that staff is also recommending that with the new fencing regulations, it would also require setbacks for the fencing from property lines. The proposed new regulation would satisfy concerns regarding aesthetics and the circulation of wildlife between residences. He said the proposed setbacks are 30 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Pearson reported that when the current fencing regulations were adopted, the minimum lot size in the hillside area was one acre, and it is currently two acres. He said the minimum lot size increases as the slope of the property increases. He noted that the current limit of 4,000 square feet is approximately equal to 10 percent of what was then the minimum lot size. He referred to the table in the staff report listing all the exceptions applied for and granted over the last five years. He said the average enclosure area of the fencing exceptions granted was 32 percent of the lot size. He stated that staff is recommending a compromise between the ten percent and 30 percent areas discussed, resulting in a maximum area of enclosure of 20 percent of the net lot size. He said that figuring in the area of a typical hillside home, and possibly a swimming pool, at 20 percent allowed fencing would total approximately 30 percent of the property being occupied by structures and fencing, leaving a 70 percent open lot. (He noted that the swimming pool is not counted in the enclosure area because it is required to be fenced by state building codes.) He said this would allow sufficient room for wildlife to roam the hillsides, and would still require open wire fencing and setbacks from the property lines. Staff would recommend keeping the exception process for unusual cases and for larger agricultural operations. Using visual aids, Mr. Pearson presented examples of properties with 10, 20, and 30 percent enclosure variables. Mr. Pearson deferred to Director Walgren who read into the record excerpts from a letter dated January 12, 2000, regarding this subject from Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, stating that the 4,000 square feet area or 10 percent of the property is appropriate. Director Walgren clarified that the code specifically states, “...4,000 square feet” not “...4,000 square feet or 10 percent...” He said the letter would be sent to the City Council with the Commission’s recommendation. Director Walgren noted that correspondence had also been received from Commissioner Kurasch who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to illness. Commissioner Kurasch’s letter stated she agrees with the need to modify the current ordinance and agrees it is possible to do so with a set percentage limitation such as 20 percent of the parcel (which is coincidentally the number staff was considering recommending for discussion; however, Mr. Pearson’s study indicated that the typical area of enclosure is about 30 percent.) He said the current ordinance basically allows fencing 10 percent of a one-acre parcel, and as a compromise to minimize the number of exceptions that are being applied for, staff thought 20 percent was probably a reasonable starting point. He said this also takes into consideration that the building footprint and the pool are Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 January 12, 2000 going to take up another 4,000-6,000 square feet and collectively, 30 percent of the property would not be open. He said a 20 percent fencing area allows that at least 70 percent of the remainder of the property is open and accounts for the house and any other pool improvements. Director Walgren noted that Commissioner Kurasch’s letter suggested a cap of 15,000 square feet which is open for discussion when it is decided what the percentage should be. Her letter went on to say this is a very important issue. Director Walgren said this issue is very closely tied with the City’s Hillside Specific Plan and the recommendations made therein; the City’s Open Space Element of the General Plan; the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the Conservation Elements. He said staff has reviewed all of these documents and found that this type of an ordinance amendment is consistent with the policies in the aforementioned documents. He commented it was interesting to go back to these documents because there is such an emphasis on promoting agricultural uses in the hillsides. Responding to a question from Commissioner Barry, Mr. Walgren read Ms. Grens’ letter into the record, noting the letter would become part of the written record and would be forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Grens’ letter noted: that the City must have consistency in the application of the existing ordinances relative to fencing. (Mr. Walgren agreed, noting this is what the Commission is trying to achieve. He said part of the concern is that if exceptions are being continuously granted, then the ordinance needs to be reviewed to guarantee greater consistency.) that the current ordinance is appropriate, it was put in place to allow the free ranging of all wildlife and free access of fire vehicles in emergencies. (Mr. Walgren agreed, noting that the most important considerations when the ordinance was adopted were the aesthetics of assuring the hillsides were not fenced corner-to-corner to allow for wildlife passage, and free access of fire vehicles. Commissioner Roupe stated that the letter was in error in indicating 10 percent of the property is allowed, and Mr. Walgren reiterated that the ordinance states a 4,000 square-foot limitation.) that new residents/residences should be definitely aware that there are deer in the hills and that some years the populations are higher than others and wildlife considerations are something inherent to the hillsides and should be not part of a fencing consideration. that fencing does not necessarily keep deer out of one’s orchards or vineyards. (Mr. Walgren said staff has heard the same statement from wildlife biologists, especially that a six-foot high fence is not going to keep out deer, but could be a deterrent if wildlife corridors are left open for free passage.) that plants could be fenced in individually versus fencing in the entire area of vineyards or an orchard. that residential properties with vineyards that sell fruit to producers or vendors on the site - and not truly an agricultural use - should be a consideration. that if one purchased property on the hillside one should have anticipated that problems with wildlife exists and the fencing should be limited to 4,000 square feet. Chairwoman Bernald indicated that discussion would include properties with their own vineyards. Director Walgren commented that that was part of the fencing ordinance that the Commission may want to separate. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 January 12, 2000 Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Pearson to go back to the map and roughly describe the streets outlined so the general public viewing tonight’s meeting on television would have an idea of what is included in the residential area. Director Walgren noted that the hillside fencing regulations only applied to the areas west of the dark lines, which are the city’s hillside residentially zoned lands, basically the foothills of Saratoga. Commissioner Jackman asked what streets divided the hillside residential zone, and Director Walgren and Mr. Pearson responded there was none. Mr. Pearson indicated the locations of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road on the map, noting that the zone follows parcel boundaries. Director Walgren indicated he had summarized Commissioner Kurasch’s letter, noting that she was in concurrence that the ordinance should be looked at 20 percent area of enclosure with a cap. She suggested that 15,000 square feet would be appropriate, and concluded with emphasis that public participation should be encouraged throughout this process. Commissioner Barry conveyed that Commissioner Kurasch’s letter suggested a poll, and Commissioner Barry stated that an essential part of this process should be some kind of community representative poll asking the public what they believe is reasonable to allow for fencing. Commissioner Roupe questioned what kind of process Commissioner Barry would suggest to involve broader input. He remarked that the Commissioners represented the people who would have that input. Commissioner Barry responded that the poll was a good idea, noting that the values issue is something that ought to be the beginning of a debate regarding this issue. Commissioner Patrick said she was uneasy telling people how to make up their minds. She said the Commissioners have a decision-making process in effect - a public hearing. She said this issue has been noticed to the public and it has been in the Saratoga News. She stated that a poll would cost thousands of dollars to conduct and the City does not have funds for a poll. She commented that this meeting had been noticed, and no one was present to speak on the issue. She suggested that the discussion proceed with each Commissioner making his/her presentation, respond to others’ presentations, and vote on the issue. Director Walgren added that in terms of assessing what the community’s values are relative to the issues, in his opinion, those have been expressed in the Hillside Specific Plan and Open Space Element of the General Plan, and other projects where direct mailings are sent to every property owner in Saratoga. He said staff did an extensive poll regarding open space, particularly in the hillside when the Open Space Element was updated in 1993. He said those documents conclude that the hillside should be preserved to be as open as possible, and fencing should be restricted to a reasonable degree. He said this was the basis for the regulations, and it was understood that the hillside should not be fenced corner-to-corner. He asked how it would be possible to balance what is currently permitted with what residents are requesting of their city. Commissioner Jackman acknowledged that tonight’s public hearing had been noticed and no one had come to the meeting. She said she would like to see more publicity in the Saratoga News. She encouraged the public to write to the Planning Commission or attend a meeting on a certain date to express their interest. Commissioner Barry clarified that she was not suggesting that the Commission clarify what community values are, but suggesting that through this process, the Commission could find out what the community values are. Commissioner Roupe stated that Commissioners were appointed to this position to make decisions, and are Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 January 12, 2000 obligated to make a decision. Chairwoman Bernald agreed with Commissioner Roupe. Commissioner Page concurred with Commissioner Roupe. He noted that Commissioners are the recommenders, and the decisions are going to be made by the City Council. He said a majority of people have not come before the Planning Commission, and are probably waiting for the time when their words will mean something to the people who make the decision. Commissioner Roupe commented that 20 percent was a good number. He looked at the maps presented by Mr. Pearson and to him, they still leave a lot of open space. He heartily supports the idea that there should not be corner-to-corner fencing in the hillside. He said he would want to accommodate the wildlife, noting that wildlife has to live with humans as humans have to live with wildlife. He said he was open to the issue of an absolute cap. He supported the 20 percent, the setback rule, and fencing composition. He stated that the staff recommendation is acceptable to him. Director Walgren asked Commissioner Roupe if his support included the additional exception finding based on agricultural use, and Commissioner Roupe responded that if somebody brings forth a question regarding reasonable exception, that too should be heard. Director Walgren conveyed that exceptions will still be discretionary decisions decided by the Commission and appeal-able to the City Council, and if the ordinance adopted is not flexible enough or is perhaps too conservative, it can always be revisited. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the 20 percent would include the swimming pool area and the house, and Commissioners responded that it would not. Commissioner Barry noticed that the first 10 percent diagram displayed by Mr. Pearson included the swimming pool. Mr. Pearson responded that the graphic included the pool area, but the calculation of 10 percent excluded the pool. Commissioner Barry noted that the pool was contained within, and that made a big difference to her. She said she could agree with Commissioner Roupe if the pool were included. Commissioner Roupe clarified that he meant the 20 percent to exclude the pool, and explained his rationale. Director Walgren commented that when living in the hillside with fencing at 4,000 square feet, it is critical that the pool area be excluded because it is required to be fenced; however, with 20 percent of the parcel, there is not a good reason to have that exempted from the area of enclosure. He stated it would be acceptable to delete the parentheses which excludes the pool and have it part of the 20 percent. Commissioner Patrick, citing an example, inquired about defining agricultural use. A discussion ensued regarding fruit-generating and hobby agriculture versus livestock operations. Commissioner Patrick said she would not want to dissuade people from agricultural uses because that is what the City would like to have more of; however, she did not know that one type of landscaping should be valued more over another. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 January 12, 2000 Director Walgren noted that staff was looking more at the hobby-type vineyard or orchard. Director Walgren confirmed Commissioner Roupe’s statement that staff would propose that the absolute standard be the percentage agreed upon, and if somebody needs to go beyond that for agricultural reasons, it would be an exception that they bring to the Commission, whether it be a rose garden or a vineyard, to consider the conditions for that exception. Commissioner Page asked whether it would be feasible to make it so that the agricultural use is more administrative that it is exception. He said Saratoga is a unique area with the ability to have boutique vineyards, which is a great way to preserve the more natural state to the hillsides. He said this would an opportunity to build an even stronger future for the uniqueness of Saratoga. Commissioner Patrick commented that making agricultural use administrative would make it final at the Planning Commission. Director Walgren responded that if the percentage adopted is to allow hillside fencing at 20 percent, anything beyond that should still go through exception review process by the Planning Commission. A discussion ensued regarding placing a cap on the process. Director Walgren conveyed that there could be a cap but when deciding what that number would be, it becomes arbitrary. He said the City would not want to encourage any greater degree of fencing than is known to be currently occurring in the hillside. Commissioner Jackman asked what could be done about enforcing the rulings that the City Council and Commission make, especially when someone has 40 or 50 percent and they come to the Commission for conformance. Director Walgren replied that it is the exception that fencing is going up illegally that is not caught. He said his staff is in the hills weekly and the Commission is in the hills two to four times a month. When staff received an anonymous letter citing 40 properties that were in violation, and upon reviewing those properties, it was found that a third of them were not in the hillside district, and a third of them had been granted exceptions through the process. He noted that staff is consistently bringing requests before the Planning Commission where somebody has installed the fencing, and they have been stopped and treated as a new proposal. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman regarding fire truck access, Director Walgren said staff was suggesting a 40-foot separation between property fencing. Director Walgren noted that an option to the issue could be to allow the 20 percent area of fencing and eliminate the exception process. Commissioner Roupe expressed that the exception process should not be eliminated as people have a right to be heard if they have a justifiable cause and need a forum in which to do so. Commissioners Jackman and Page agreed with Commissioner Roupe. Commissioner Roupe proposed that the conditions of exception should be more clearly stated. Commissioner Page commented that placing a maximum percentage would be an enforcement measure for the City Council and easier to enforce. However, personally, he would take a look at each parcel and consider Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 January 12, 2000 whether the topography obscures the fence well enough to encompass 100 percent, and if it does, it would not impact anyone. Mr. Walgren cited the current findings which say, “When the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping, or other features of the site..." He said other findings included safety reasons and justifying large vineyards or orchards on the property which could be defined as agriculture. Commissioner Barry asked whether the 20 percent should apply to larger parcels. Commissioner Roupe responded that enclosing 20 percent (or one-acre of a five-acre parcel) would still leave four acres open space. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLSIDE FENCING ORDINANCE: THAT FENCING IN THE HILLSIDES BE LIMITED TO TWENTY PERCENT; THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF TWENTY FEET FROM SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AND THIRTY FEET FROM FRONT PROPERTY LINE BE INCORPORATED; THAT THE EXCLUSION FOR POOL AREAS BE ELIMINATED AND THAT POOL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED DECKING BE INCLUDED; THAT THE EXCEPTION PROCESS BE RETAINED, THAT AGRICULTURAL USE BE DEFINED, AND THAT A THIRD EXCEPTION FOR AGRICULTURAL USES BE INCLUDED. PASSED 5-0-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSTAINED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). Mr. Walgren asked the Commission for a vote on the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Barry noted that the document was not in the agenda packet, and she would be procedurally uncomfortable voting on this issue. Mr. Walgren explained that none of the ordinance amendments would result in an environmental impact and staff was recommending that a Negative Declaration be adopted and no further environmental work be done. A discussion ensued, and Mr. Pearson summarized the California Environmental Quality Act document, and responded to questions from Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. PASSED 5-0-1 (COMMISSIONER BARRY ABSTAINED; COMMISSIONER KURASCH WAS ABSENT). DIRECTOR ITEMS - Scheduling of Planning Commission annual retreat - A date was set for March 3, 2000; however, later in the meeting it was learned that the League of California Cities would be meeting March 1-3 in Monterey. It was decided that March 10, 2000 would be reserved for the retreat. - Postponement of telecommunications discussion to February 23, 2000 - Commissioner Page declared he would not be present at the February 23, 2000 Commission meeting. - Various project updates - Director Walgren reported on two items appealed to the City Council. One was the Cellular One application where the appellant withdraw the appeal. Another project, Azule Crossing, will be reconsidered by the Council. Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 January 12, 2000 COMMISSION ITEMS Director Walgren reported that the City of Saratoga received a plaque of commendation for its fireplace ordinance from the Bay Area Air Quality Board. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council minutes for adjourned regular meeting of December 7 and regular meeting of December 15, 1999 - Noted. - Notices for regular Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2000 - Noted. - Memorandum from Community Development Director concerning communications between Planning Commissioners - Noted. - UC Davis press release offering a seminar entitled ARole of the Planning Commissioner@ to be held February 26, 2000- Noted. - Director Walgren noted that after the agenda packet was mailed, staff received a notice of the League of California Cities annual meeting to be held March 1-3 in Monterey. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m., to Wednesday, January 26, 2000, at the Adult Care Center 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: James Walgren Secretary to the Planning Commission