Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 1985,- 7:30 pomo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13~77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: ·Regular Meeting ROUTINE.ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B~ Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Schaefer Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Vice-Chairman Peterson chaired the meeting.)' Minutes Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of F. ebruary 27, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Jo Harris seconded the motion, which was'carried unanimously. " ORAL COMMUNICATIONS i -.. Peter Shaw, landscape architect for the OuMeara residence on Farr Ranch Road, indicated that he had a plan for a proposed stream bed in an existing drainage ·swale. He explained .that the pool contractor had applied for a permit and had bee~n advised that he should come to this meeting and describe 'the plan because part of it goes into-a scenic easement. Commissioner Schaefer stated that the intent was to keep the scenic easements as natural as Rossible, adding that she feels this would meet that intent° CommissiOner Jo Harris commented that she feels the Commission would want to talk about this further, since it would be setting a precedent. It was directed Ithat this matter should be reviewed by Staff, and then set the matter for a study session if they· feel that is necessary. CONSENT CALENDAR Item #1, A-1073, Bas Homes·, was removed for discussion° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve,the remaining item listed below. Commissioner Harris seconded the!motion, which was carried unanimously 2.' GF-351 - Resolution adding g~aphic arts/sign workshop facilities as a permitted use in the C-V District Discussion followed on A-·1073.! Commissioner Schaefer addressed the equestrian trail and drainage d~itch, commenting that she thought the original intent was to have the trail removed from the road so the drainage ditch was between. the t~oo Staff described the new street and swale, indicating that they felt perhaps having the·swale between the pathway and the street may create·more of-a hazard than h'aving it located against the bank. They suggested that this issue be kept open for a period during which Staff could review it. Comissioner J, Harris- commented that this is such a wide open area and the speed of cars in that·area would contribute to the lack of safety. The drainage was discussed, and it was the consensus to have Staff review the matter of the location.of the trail and swa!le and bring it back to the Commission° Commissioner McGoldrick addressed Condition #6, stating that she would like the lot buyers to know where the 14 seedlings are and their care requirements. Don Brandeau, landscape architect, indicated -that they are using a 2 ft. high seedling protection de~i&e and they will write out a brief ..... description of their care. Commissioner J. Harris expressed concern about the safety of children riding their horses during construction. It was determined that a Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 A-1073 condition ·should be added, stating'. that it will be the responsibility Of ·the developer to ensure that there is a safe place for riding during this time. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1073, Bas Homes, per the Staff Report, with the discussed amendementso Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. BUILDING SITES 3. SDR-1592 - Burt Albrecht, 19275 San Marcos Rd., Request 'for Ten- · tative Building Site Approval, Over 50% Expansion; continued from February 27, 1985 Staff explained·that-this. matter was continued to allow the applicant to meet with Staff relative to dete'rmination of the improvement of San Marcos Road and the access road to~ the site° They ·stated that they have determined that, regarding the ·initial reach off of Fruitvale for about 100 ft., there are problems of width and widening the road does not seem to be appropriate. They added that~ beyond that, all the way back on San Marcos and the access ~oad, there appears to· be sufficient width to · improve it, ·and they ·recommend the2 widening. Kurt Anderson, representing the applicant, submitted a petition from the owners of the homes located on S~n Marcos, opposing the widening and resurfacing of the road. DiscussiOn followed on the condition regarding the existing accessory 'structures and corral. After discussion it was the consensus that this condition d. hould remain as written° After further discussion· on ~he road· improvement requirement Commissioner McGoldrick moved to 'approve SDR-1592, per the ·Staff Report, amending Condition· II-D to state that it will not be widened, and the resurfacing of the road will be -~ubject to Staff review and approvall Commissioner Harris seconded the ~.otion·, which .was carried unanimously 6-0 PUBLI'C HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR It was noted that Item #8, Rober~ Holmes, had been withdrawn by the applicant. , Items #5 and #6, A-1060 and A-10621, J. Lohr Properties, Inc.,· Item #9, UP-575, Adolph Jack Schrager, and Item #10, V-67·9, Randy & Linda Thorsch, were removed · for discussidno The public hearing was opened on the balance of the item·s listed at 8:05 p.m·. Commi-~sioner 'Har.riS moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldri'ck -~econded-the motion, which was carried unanimously. Co~issioner Schaefe~ moved to approve the ·balance of the items listed ·below.· Commissioner ~Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously ~-0.. 4. A-1057 - Bas Homes, Inc. (DBA Eden Ranch), Request for Design Review Approval to Gonstruct a new, one-story single family residence on ~a hillside lot at Lot 14~ Tract· 6701, Damon Lane~ in the NHR Zoning District 'SD-1364 - DeMartini (Bas Home~, Inc.), Request for a one-year extension for a sevdnteen (17) lot Tentative SUb- division Map at 22101 Mt. Eden Road, in the NHR zon- ing district Discussion followed on Items 5 'and 6'~ A-1060 and A-1061, .J. Lohr Properties. Co~issioner Peterson ~expressed the following concerns: (1) There are some relatively small lots which have 'proposed houses that he - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 A-1060 and A-1061 feels are too large, and (2') He feels the design could be improved'. The side yard setbacks were discusse~d. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she shares the concern regarding the size of the homes° Staff noted that the developer has taken off the one house that was over the standard. The public hearing was opened'at 8~:10 p.m. It was clarified to Allen Aspi, 12421 Lolly Court, that the provisions of the original plan for development of the site are being adhered to. Jerry Lohr, the applicant gave a presentation on the applications, discussing the size and design of the homes. Ray Simpson, 12300 Radoyka Drive lnquired .about the designs for Lots 1 and 15. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she feels the homes are going to blend in nicely with the existing neighborhood. She noted that the three lots being considered at this time are three of the larger lots in the subdivision, and she would fe!el comfortable with this size house, assuming that the others are going to be reduced in size. Commissioner Burger agreed° Roger Cross,-San'Palo Court, spoke in opposition to the back yards of these homes facing San Palo Cour~o Staff noted that that was part of the previous subdivision approval. They added that this was done to hopefully save the Monterey pines on the lots. A resident from San Palo Court!inquired about Lot 17, and it was clarified that the aesign will be 9ne-storyo Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° CommiSsioner McGoldrick moved to Approve A-1060, per the Staff Report. Commissioner J. Harris seconded th~ motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1061 per the Staff Repo:rt. Commissioner Jo Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Schaefer:suggested that Lot 18 be reviewed to determine if a two-story 'is appropriate. Commissioners McGoldrick and J. Harris accepted the amendment that Lot 18 be reviewed by Staff. The motion for approval was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. Discussion followed on Item #9, UP-575, Schrager, relative to signageo Commissioner McGoldrick asked what could be done to ensure that there are no-people parking at the site..~ The public hearing was openedat 8:~29 p°m. Florence Barker, of the San Jose]Symphony, indicated that they would encourage a barricade to prevent p~rking at the site. Betty Maas, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, addressed the parking, asking for "do not park" signs in front of her home. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested that a cone or saw horse ]be used to prevent parking. Ms. Mass asked if the show would be an abandonment of the antique shop, and Staff was requested to research that matter, along with the City Attorney. Linda Protiva, Oak Place, also expressed concern about the parking. She asked that signs also be placed on ~Oak Place for a period of a month° Mary Beth Benam, 20611 Ratana Court, expressed concern over not being able to use the address in the publications° She asked if they could say no parking onsite and give the address. Discussion followed on this issue, and it was the consehsus that this could be done, with Commissioner McGoldrick.opposing pu~ting the address of the site. Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 ] UP-575 Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve UP~575, per the Staff Report dated March 5, 1985, deleting the reference in Conditions #2 and #7 that the address of.the showhouse shall notibe advertised, and Oak St., Oak Place and Aloha shall be added to Co~ndition #2. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion~ which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. = Discussion followed on Item #10, V-679, Randy and Linda Thorsch. Commissioner Schaefer commented ~that she agrees with approving. the carport as it exists, but she does not agree that there should only be one parking space on site. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use 'Committee report, describing the s~te. The public hearing was opened at 8i47 p.m. Linda Thorsch, the applicant, stated that they have no objection to extending the carport back. The setbacks were discussed~ It was clarified to Richard Kendall, rep~resenting the applicant, that if the carport were extended approval would be given for removing an olive tree. ~ Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. COmmissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V-679, per 'the conditions of the Staf Report, changing. Finding' #1, relative to the olive tree, to state that Staff will determine the best position for it and it can be removed if necessar.y, and that th'e carport be the size'to permit two cars. She added that the findings for the variance are made on the fact that not granting the variance for the side yard setback would limit the ability to have a covered parking Space. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was 'carried unanimously 6-0° PUBLIC HEARINGS ll. A-1054 - Milton Garfield, Northeast Corner of Douglass Lane and Durham Court, Request=for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story single'family residence, in the R-1- 20,000.zoning distric~ (to be continued to March 27, 1985 It was directed that this item be c~ntinued to March 27, 1985. 12. SD-1567 - Fremont Union High SChool District, Request for Tenta- tive Subdivision Approval for a 55-1ot subdivision on a 47.5 acre site in the NHR District located just south of the intersection Of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks; continued from February 27, 1985 Staff explained the history of the ~pplication and the last Staff Report on it. He indicated that the issues to be resolved by the Commission are the lease-back option for the park, how to deal with future traffic circulation problems at Prospect and Stelling, and a land development fee to defray the cost of a new fir~ station at Seven Springs Ranch. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Sandy Santoriello, Norada Court, Spoke in opposition to the proposed project. He questioned the way this application is being. processed, despite the fact that Measure A~ was adopted° The City Attorney explained that'there was litigation commenced shortly after Measure A and there was a settlement agreemen~ approved by the Council at a public Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 SD-1567 meeting. He added that this map.. is now being processed in accordance with that settlement agreement,,. which was entered into prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan and. the Zoning Ordinance which now applies to the NHR area. He explained~ that suit was filed by the School District, along with other developers in the Measure A area; those suits were settled and this is one of t..he settlements. He commented that his instruction to the Commission, as, far as this project was concerned, is that the tentative map be consistent with that settlement agreement~ Bill Heiss~ civil engineer, discu:ssed the lease concept for the park and the size and heights of the homes'in the development. Russ Crowther, Norada Court, addressed the height, ioe. 22 ft. single story, which he feels is excesslveo He inquired about the abandonment of the sidewalk easement that goes into the project from Norada Court. Staff commented that there is s~till an easement on the subdivision itself for the storm drainage° Discussion followed on the additional pedestrian easement which had been created for access° Mr. Crowther commented that the 'current General Plan shows an 8-acre park located at the end of Kre~sler Court. He asked if there was something in the settlement that permitted a 2.3-acre park° Staff commented that the settlement sp"ecifically gave the City the right to have a 2o3-acre park dedicated to.the City'. Mro Crowther indicated that the residents favored a park at ~he end of Kreisler Court, which would prevent it from going through'; He passed out sections from the California Government Code, which state that no local agency shall approve a tentative map unless the legislative body shall find that the proposed subdivision, together With the provisions for its design. and improvements, is consistent with the General Plano He noted that the General Plan shows this as NHR .zoning and shows an 8-acre park in a different location. The City A"ttorney stated that the map is being processed consistent with a settlement agreement arrived at during the context of litigation. He commented that the position that has been taken is that, while there may have been a subsequent Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Council' w'as authorized to settle legal issues raised during the course of litigation; an agreement was entered into and approved'by the court, and the City is abiding by that agreement° He added that he did not share Mr'.. Crowther~s view that the City is not abiding by'California law; he and!. Mro Crowther just have different ideas as to how' that law applies in thins case. He pointed out that the Staff Report states that the project is consistent with the settlement agreement and the settlement agr~,eement itself was consistent with the City~s General Plan in force at the time the agreement was negotiated° Mro Heiss discussed the pad elevations of the homes along Norada Court and the Arguello area. He also a.ddressed the water drainage system° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to Close the public hearing° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the conditions regarding the traffic circulation plan and the fire station° The abandonment of the sidewalk easement was further discussed. The City Attorney commented that the pedestrian easement can be eliminated as it ,applies to this subdivision. He added that the Commission can then maze a recommendation to the Council to abandon that portion of the pedestrian way coming off of Norada Court. He commented that they would check into that because it is an easement in use. He stated that they would get some feedback from the people on Norada Court as to whether f..urther action is needed on their subdivision. Commissioner Schaefer recommended= that the Commission go with the lease option relative to the park, s~ating that she feels it would be an excellent investment for everybo~dy concerned. She added that it will also increase the value of the homes. There was a consensus for that option, The City Attorney state:d that if there is consensus he would Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 SD-1567 like to leave the issue Open so that Staff can meet with the applicant and try to develop some plan for that area and bring the proposal back to the Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick'moved to .approve SD-1567, per the Staff Reports dated March 6, 1985 and January =.17, 1985, and Exhibit "B-6", .with th~ third lease option for the park ~nd the abandonment of the pedestrian easement in this development. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting~ She stated that she shares Mr. Crowth~r~s concern for this' going against the General Plan and the Specific Plan. Break 9: 4.0 'p .m. - 9: 55 p .m. 13o A-1021- Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval' to construct a 25 ft.',' one-story residence on a hillside l'ot at 21543 Saratoga] Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis- trict; continued .from February 27, 1985 (to be continued) It was directed that this item be ~continued. 14.. A-1023 - Parnas corporation,= Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 27 ft., two-story residence on a hillside lot at 21531 Saratoga H"eights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis- trict; continued fr'.om February 27, 1985 (to be continued) It was directed that this item be bontinued. 15. A-1052 - Mark Rapport,-Monta!vo Heights Drive, Tract 6732, Lot 4, Request for Design Review Modification Approval for a new, two-story residence that exceeds the 6200 sq~ ft. floor area standard, in the R-1~40,000 zoning district; continued from Febr.uary 27, 1985 Staff explained the proposal, not.'ing that they were unable to make the findings and' recommend denial. Di!scussion followed on the grading~ It was noted that a letter had been received from Hoskins Engineering reflecting a discrepancy. in th~ amount of grading on a previous approval. CommiSsioner McGoldri~ck gave a Land. Use Committee report, discussing the trees to be removed, the house design and the height. She stated that she could see no Other homes that would be impacted by this home. , The public hearing was opened at 19:00 p.m. Mark Rapport gave a presentation on the project, describing the new design. He addressed the tree removal and grading. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. . · - The City Attorney suggested, since there is another Design Review Approval outstanding and because of the discrepancy in the grading, that · there be a condition that this. approval, by agreement with the applicant, would supersede and canCel the earlier approvall Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-1052, making Finding #2 based on the fact that it will only immediately affect the house that will go in next door in the future, and fo~ earthquake purposes it is better to .build on the solid land rather t~an on a lot of fill. She. added that there are trees and natural landscaping on the site, and the home will · be an attractive asset to the are.a. She stated that there should be a condition that the house be no higher ..than 29 feet' at any point from the ridgeline 'and 'that the driveway have a minimum of 2 ft. landscaping down Planning commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 A-1052 the side to the adjacent property° She commented that if this were a 40,000 sq. ft. lot she would not a2pprove the 6930 sqo ft° Commissioner J. Harris added to the findings that the applicant has stated that he can keep the oak trees around ~the circular driveway, and he has indicated .that he will replace the trees that are being lost. Commissioner McGoldrick secon~ded the motion, which Was carried unanimously 6-0. 16ao Negative Declaration - SDR-15i90 - Liccardo 16bo SDR-1590 - Leonard Liccardo, !20045 Mendelsohn Lane, Request for Tentative Buildin~ Site Approval for a three (3) lot subdivision, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district; contin- ued from February !27, 1985 Staff explained that· this matter had been ·continued from the last meeting in order to allow some ofthe Commissioners to visit the site° They noted that if the project is approved the Commission will need to make an exception to the ordinance relative to the slope density computation° They commented that' they were recommending denial of the application for the three lotso Commissioner Burger gave a report:on the on-site visit, indicating that it had been staked to show the bo'undaries of the three proposed lotso She stated that the two issues concerning the other Commissioners on their site visit were the slo'pe off of the road above and the possibility of flooding on Pa~rcel Bo She described the slope, commenting that she did not see ~ny danger from cars coming down from the road above because of the dense vegetation° She added that she also was personally not concerned about~ flooding because of the proper infill being used to bring it up to~ a level above the flood plain° Commissioner Peterson agreed~ adding that the site.is not in the hillsides and he can make the findings for the exception° He added tht he believed Commissioner Siegfried agreed° It was noted that the other Commissioners had visited the site! on an earlier date° The public hearing was opened at 1~0:17 pomo Bill Gissler, the civil engineeri, gave a presentation on the project, describing the site. He commented that he did not feel that the slope formula applies to such a unique site° He stated that this project would enable the development of the sanitary sewer line, which would be a cost savings to the Sanitation~District'. He noted that there was no opposition to this project from th~ neighbors° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to Close the public hearing° Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimouslyo~ Discussion followed on the Staff Report and the basis for the recommendation of denial of the three lotso Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she would vote against the proposal° She indicated that she has no problem with the slope density formula or with the safety aspect. She stated that she can not see an exception to something where there is any risk at all to the future occupants° She·added that, even though the engineering is excell:ent, she can not vote for three lots where she feels two would be safer° Commissioner Jo Harris shared those concerns°' Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR- 1590o Commissioner·Peterson seconded the motion, which failed 4-2, with Commissioners Bo Harris, ~o Harris, McGoldrick and Schaefer ·dissenting° Commissioner McGoldrick moved t6 deny SDR-1590, per the Staff Report·° Commissioner Jo Harris seconded t~e motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Burger and Peterson dissenting° Commissioner Schaefer commented that she voted against the project based on the slope density Planning Commission. Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 SDR-1590 and the comments in the Staff Report. She added that she would vote for two lots. Commissioner B. Harris and Jo Harris agreed'. The appeal period was noted. 17. V-684 - Douglas North, 19091iPortos Drive, Request for Variance Approval to allow an!addition to maintain a 17 ft front yard setback and 6.67 fto side yard setback where 25 fto and 10 ft. are requited, in the R-1-10,000 'zoning dis- trict; continued from February 27,-1985 Staff described the proposal, noting that this matter had been continued from the last meeting because the applicant was not present° They indicated that they were recommendiing approval of the variance for the front yard setback and denial. of the variance for the side yard setback° The public hearing was opened at 10:34 pomo Doug North, the applicant,.gave azpresentation 'on the proposal~ noting 'the need for parking° He commented that without a variance for the side yard setback, the addition will look like an add-on° He reported that PG&E had approved the proposal and will be submitting a letter to that effect. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion., 'which ~as carried unanimously. Commissioner Jo Harris stated tha~.she feels the configuration of the · lot should be taken into consi'dera~iono Commissioner McGoldrick state~ that, although it is not pertinent to the findings, the' idea of getting cars off of'the street is very attractive to neighbors° She made the following findings: Exceptional!circumstances - Shape of the loto Common privilege - Because.it woul!d dramatically change the appearance of the house. Special privilege -;If it is a common privilege it is n'ot a special 'privilege. Commissioner 'McGoldrick moved to approve V-684, per the conditions of the Staff Report, based on the above.findings° Comissioner Burger Seconded the motion', which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Schaefer° Commissionjr Schaefer stated that she felt the design could be slightly different.2 · 18~ A-1063 - Mato Kusalo, Request' for Design Review Approval to con- struct a new 4,867 siqo'fto single family residence which exceeds the 3;500 sqio ft. allowable floor area standard at 12663 Sun Valley 'Court, in the R-1-10,000 zoning disto Staff explained the application, racommending approval only if the size of the structure is reduced to:be no greater than 4,000 sq. ft. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and the adjacent properties° Staff addressed the proposed fence on the cul-de-sac frontage which would be over ordinance requirements, stating that it would need a variance° The-public hearing was opened at 10i:4'6 pom. Ron Dick, the designer, clarified that the fence is within the building envelope, and it was noted that itiwould not need a variance° Mro'Dick 'deScribed the proposed project. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern about setting a precedent in allowingthe size standard of oneizoning district and the setbacks of anotherzoning district. Mro Dickicommented that he felt the size and shape of the lot should be taken into consideration° Discussion followed on the size of the proposed house° Commissioner Harris moved to close the public'hearing° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously. - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 A-1063 Commissioner J. Harris referenced .the approval of the house adjacent to this home. She stated that the consideration that the Commission made when that home was approved was ..that they have such deep back. yard setbacks and the property to the n.~rth was vacant° She' stated that she thinks this site is completely different; the back yard is very narrow. and she feels it is poor planning '.to have this size of home that close to the back fence. After further discussion of the size of the home, it was determined to continue this matter to a study session, to discuss alternatives. It was directed that this matter be Continued'to a study session on April 2, 1985 and the regular meeting of ',April 10, 1985.. 19a. V-685 - Public Storage, Inc.l, 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, 19b. A-1062 - Request for Variance Approval to allow a freestanding sign, a directional .sign which exceeds 6 sq. fto and to exceed by 22 sq. ft.! the 30 sq. ft. of 'signage permitted by the ordinance, and Design Review Approval of the sign- .age The application was explained by Staff. The public hearing was opened at 11:02 p.m. The correspondence r~eceived in opposition was noted. Cathy Straub, of Public Storage, =gave a presentation on the Signage. Discussion followed on the 'proposed signs 'and the total signage. Commissioner J. Harris expressed concern about the total look along that part of Saratoga-Sunnyvale road. ~It was clarified that the applicant .could have a 6 sq. ft. directional !sign under the ordinance. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1062 and V-685,' per the Staff Report, approving the variance to allow a freestanding sign and to exceed by 22 sq. ft. the 30 sq.. ft. of signage permitted by the ordinance, and denying the variance, for a directional sign which exceeds 6 sqo ft. Commissioner Burger secoDded the motion, which was carried 4- 2, with Commissioners J. Harris a~d Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was opposed on the basis that when the project was approved it had been stated that there would be no extra signage needed, and she does not feel an exception should be made. MISCELLANEOUS 20. A-1055 - Sobey Road Project, Report on Access Road Construction Staff reported the status of the access road construction relative to this application, indicating that.a contract has been awarded'for the construction of the road to Lee Evans, paving contractor. They explained' that Mr. Evans will be proceeding on the construction at the earliest possible date, as soon as ,the area is dry. They commented that they felt it would be ill-advised.for the City to proceed against the bonds since the construction will be done when the weather permits. They added that Mr. Evans has provided a nominal amount of maintenance since the last meeting. Staff indicated that they would give status reports on the road to the Commission if they wish. After discussion it was determined that there would be a progress report from Staff every two weeks. .= Mr. and Mrs. Johnson agreed that a progress report will be sufficient. They explained how dangerous the crest was and stated that they felt it should be lowered. Discussion followed on the entrance of the road and the removal of trees. Staff indiqated that there is an existing home whose driveway enters the roadway~at the crest and the driveway would have to be modified in order to lower the crest. It was determined that - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 'Minutes - Meeting 3/13/85 A-1055 the Johnsons will work with Staff on the matter of the crest. It was the consensus of the Commission that the matter has been dealt with sufficiently so that Mr. Tager, ~he applicant, can proceed with his building permits on his site. 21. Discussion of Amendment to CC~Rs for Tract 6628 It was directed that this matter b~ continued to March 27, 1985. COMMUNI CATI ON S Written 1. Letter from Thomas Copenhagen dated March 7, 1985, regarding the Lands of Miller. ',It was directed that this item be discussed at the study session on April 2t 1985. oral by Commission 1. It was noted that the Planning Forum will be held at Saratoga on April 11, 1985. 2. Vice-Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. · ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved ~to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.ml Re~ ectful iubmitted Robert S. i Sh k Secretary RSS:cd