Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 26, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Schaefer Minutes The following change was made to the minutes of June 12, 1985: On page 4, the third sentence in the fifth paragraph should read: "Commissioner Siegfried commented that in the original discussion about the size of this house, he thinks the Commission was very specific in saying that the square footage could be 6175, but they did not Want to see other things, as time goes along, that will increase the perception." Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 12, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. GF-352 - Resolution Adding Video Rental Facilities as a Permitted Use in the C-V Zoning District Commissioner Burger moved to approve the item listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 2. UP-583 - Public Storage, Inc., Request for Modification of Use Permit Approval to allow an existing underground gaso- line storage tank at'12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road The public' hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve the Public Hearings Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. A-1095 - Nino Gallo, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story single family residence over 26 ft. in height and over 4,800 sq. ft. in size at 20107 Mendel- sohn Lane, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district; continued from June 12, 1985 (to be continued to July 10, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to July 10, 1985. 4a. A-1097 - James and Roxanne Axline, Request for Design Review 4b. SDR-1600- and Tentative Building Site Approval to remove an existing residence, construct a two-story, single family residence and exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. on site allowable floor area standard at 20170 Thelma Avenue, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; continued from June 12, 1985 (to be continued to July 10, 1985) Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 A-1097 AND SDR-1600 It was directed that this matter be continued to July 10, 1985. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. E-1-85 - J. Lohr Properties, Inc., Consider a Draft Environ- 5b. SD-1584 - mental Impact Report and Request for Tentative Map Approval for a 28-1ot subdivision on 10.2 acres in the R-1-12,500 zoning district at the northwestern corner of Via Escuela Drive and Glen Brae Drive; con- tinued from June 12, 1985 This item was discussed later in the evening after the applicant had arrived. Staff stated that they now have the information for the final EIR relative to' the location of the Monte Vista fault. They commented that the work done by the applicant's consultant, and confirmed verbally by the City Geologist, indicates that the fault does not traverse the site. They added that, therefore, they would recommend that the Commission certify the EIR as complete. They reported that the Commission had reviewed an alternate layout of the subdivision at their last study session, and they should determine which plan is most suitable for the development of the site. The public hearing was reopened at 7:52. Richard Wild, representing the applicant, was present to answer questions. He confirmed that their consultant has made a review of the Monte Vista fault and has determined that it does not traverse the site. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to certify E-1-85 as complete. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Chairman Peterson clarified that the project was not being approved at this time. Staff explained the alternative map that had been submitted, discussing the street layout. They also discussed the recommended location of the single-story homes in the original proposal. The public hearing was opened at 7:59 p.m. Mr. Wild discussed the original and alternate maps, indicating that they had a slight preference for the original map and accepted the conditions placed. = Dr. R. Wood, 19661 Junipero Way, indicated that he preferred the original map. He 'referenced his letter that he had submitted and expressed concern relative to the elevation of the lots. He explained that his lot was set down about 5 ft., and Mr. Lohr has agreed to lower the two houses behind him 2-1/2 ft. Dr. Wood asked that the Staff Report be conditioned to reflect that. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the two plans. There was a consensus that the original plan was preferable. Commissioner Burger stated that she had concern with the alternate plan because of three streets coming out onto Via Escuela in such a short span. She commented that she would like to see lots 1, 10, 14, 17 and 28 conditioned as one-story homes. Commissioner Siegfried commented t'hat a sprawling one-story house on a corner lot may be more imposing than a reasonable two-story house. Discussion followed on the height limitations in the subdivision. Mar~V Kirkeby, the engineer, discussed the grading and pad elevations in - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 SD-1584 the subdivision. It was directed that this matter be continued to July 10, 1985, with the applicant submitting a clear indication of pad elevation and relative heights for Plan #1. Commissioner J. Harris indicated that she would feel comfortable with the statement in the Staff Report that the five lots discussed previously may be two-story, but they will be considered on a case-by-case basis. There was a consensus to that effect. 6. SUP-8 - Nadine McCullough, 14985 Quito Road, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow two (2) existing Second Units on two (2) separate parcels in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from February 27, 1985 (to be continued to September 25, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985. 7a. SUP-12 - Charles Bolander Trust, 14231 Douglass Lane, Request 7b. V-678 - for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing, detached, one-story second unit and Variance Approval to maintain a 3.5 ft. rear yard setback and 3 ft. side yard setback where 35 ft. and 15 ft. are required respectively and to provide two (2) covered parking spaces where three (3) are required, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district; continued to June 26, 1985 (to be con- tinued to September.25, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985. 8. C-222 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending Certain Zoning Regulations of the City of Saratoga pertaining to uses, site coverage, accessory structures, dis- tance between structures and setbacks in the R-l, HC-RD and NHR zoning districts; continued from June 12, 1985 The City Attorney explained the changes that have been made to the ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. No one appeared to speak on this issue. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the Site Review Committee reviewing use permits for the cabanas, recreation rooms and similar structures. Commissioner Burger stated that she feels the Site Review Committee could handle those applications, and there was a consensus to that effect° She moved to adopt Resolution C-222, with the change in Section 3.7-1(a)1, making the Site Review Committee the body that would grant the use permit for the items indicated in that paragraph and the other corresponding sections. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 9. A-913 - Charles Masters, Request Modification of Design Mod. Review Approval for a new, 29.5 ft., single family residence on a hillside lot which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. standard at Lot 24, Tract 6665 Congress Hall Lane in the NHR zoning district Staff explained the application, recommending denial. They described the lot and the grading. Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, noting the oak trees that partially screen the - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - June 26, 1985 A-913 structure. She stated that they are far enough away that landscaping could be provided near the proposed home for additional screening. She discussed the orientation of the other homes in the area. The public hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Ron Dick, the designer, referenced his letter dated June 12, 1985, explaining the changes that have been made'to the design and the grading. He indicated that the home is now 29-1/2 ft. in height; however, he felt that they can reduce it to 27-1/2 ft. Charles Masters, the applicant, discussed the other homes in the area, indicating that they would not be impacted by this home. He indicated that he would like to have the present height of the home. Commissioner Burger expressed concern about the lots to the southeast and below the Masters property, relative to the impact from the pool and recreation area. Mr. Dick explained that he feels the oak trees screen that area. She also asked why the home was positioned so far back from Congress Hall Lane, thereby not making use of a large portion of the flat pad. Mr. Dick commented that they had used the basic pad area, noting that the area narrows drastically as it comes up to Congress Hall Lane. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would like to follow the Staff recommendation on 27-1/2 ft. and indicated that he would like to compromise on the grading. Commissioner Siegfried pointed out that that would raise the structure because the applicant has taken a lot of the grading out from under to get his 18" of clearance under the pad. Discussion followed on the grading and the height of the home. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she has a problem with the height of this home because of the visibility that this area has from the entire Parnas and McBain & Gibbs area, and the fact that there is a house next to it that is much smaller and 7 ft. lower. Staff clarified that the City Geologist would review the project before any work was accomplished and there is no geotechnical reason for not doing the amount of proposed grading; however, Staff feels that the land should be retained and utilized as it exists. Commissioner Peterson stated that he could support a height of 27-1/2 ft., 7219 sq. ft. floor area, and the cut and fill, based on the discussion. Commissioner Siegfried agreed, stating that there would be a roof line that is equal. to or slightly lower than the existing house that is next to it. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-913 Mod., deleting Condition No. 14 relative to grading. Regarding the findings, he stated that the reduction in the height to 27-1/2 and allowing 2200 cubic yards of grading reduces the home equal to or below the home next to it. Finding #2 and #4 are made very much on the same basis, that the reduction in the height of the home and the reason for the grading is to further allow for the setting of that home into the hillside. He added a condition requiring additional landscaping, subject to Staff approval, to provide screening on the eastern and northeastern sides, stating that this would help make the findings #2 and #4. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 10. A-1053 - Robert and Gay Bohn, Request for Design Review Mod. Approval for a new, two-story single family resi- dence over 6200 sq. ft. (7,317 sq. ft. according to the applicant) in the NHR district at 14124 Pike Road - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 A-1053 Staff described the history of the project and the present proposal, stating that they were still unable to make the findings and recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Robert Bohn, the applicant, explained that the City Council had voted down the height limit and referred the project back to the Commission with a reduced roof line, for their review. He questioned the Staff's calculations, which include 1500 sq. fto of attic and open space on the second floor level. He noted that this space is not intended for livable area. He commented that he had discussed moving the bedrooms on the west side of the house back over the garage, which would use up some of the attic space, if the Commission is concerned about it. He described the other homes in the area. Mr. Bohn submitted photographs of his lot. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she appreciates Mr. Bohn's concern about the way the square footage is measured. However, she feels that, given the height of the house, the Commission. must consider that, whether it is looked at in real numbers or not, it is going to be a very bulk apearance. She added that in her mind that is a very visible lot and the home is going to completely fill up the lot. She stated that she feels that is incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Peterson agreed, stating that he feels the house is too large. Commissioner Burger agreed with the other Commissioners. She stated that, even though an area may be counted into the square footage that is not considered.living space, i.e. garage, it does contribute to the perception of bulk of the home. She added that this is a very large home for the size lot. Chairman Peterson discussed the measurement of square footage. Commissioner Siegfried agreed that the home is too large and impacts the neighbors. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny A-1053 Mod. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. Mr. Bohn stated that he would like to submit some alternatives and have them considered at a study session. Commissioner Siegfried moved to reconsider the vote, and Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously 5-0, and it was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on .. August 6, 1985 and regular meeting of August 10, 1985. 11. A-1101 - Mr. and Mrs. Sudin Vittal, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story single family residence on a hillside lot which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard at 15265 Montalvo Heights Court in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district (to be continued to July 10, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to July 10, 1985. Break - 9:15 - 9:30 p.m. 12. A-1103 - Parnas Corp., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family residence, which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area stan- dard on a hillside lot, and approval of grading in excess of 1000 cubic yards on Lot 20, Tract 6665, Congress Hall Lane, in the NHR zoning district Staff described the application, stating that they were unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 A-1103 Committee report, stating that the landslide which had occurred on the site is visible to the naked eye on the eastern side of the lot. She described the lot, indicating that there are a large number of oaks on the perimeter of the lot. The public hearing was opened at 9:34 p.m. Wendell Roscoe, the designer, gave a presentation on the project, addressing the grading and the circular driveway. It was clarified that the height is 28 ft., and Mr. Roscoe indicated that he could reduce the roof pitch. It was noted that the Commission does not have a plan which shows that the circular driveway connects with the driveway going to the garage in the back, as indicated by Mr. Roscoe. There was a consensus that the Commission would like to. see a plan with one curb cut. Staff commented that if there is a single curb cut they feel there would be changing of the contours and an area in front of the house will be modified substantially. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus to bring the matter to a study session. Chairman Peterson noted that there seems to be a consensus for a height of approximately 26 ft. and a possible slight reduction in square footage. He added that the major concern is the driveway, i.e. the way it will look, the grading, and how the driveway will affect the landscaping in the front. The applicant was requested to bring suggestions to the study session relative to these concerns. It was also suggested that the applicant make the findings that staff was unable to make. It was directed that this matter be continued to the study session of July 16, 1985 and the regular meeting of July 24, 1985. 13. V-701 - David Smith, Request for Variance Approval to permit construction of a garage addition with a 5 ft. side- yard setback from building line and 3.67 ft. side yard setback to the overhang, where 7.8 ft. is required in the R-1-10,000 zoning district at 13675 Quito Road The application was explained by Staff. They stated that they feel there are other alternatives to the location of the garage addition which would not require a variance; therefore they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, noting the mature birch trees on site and the screening provided by oleanders on site and large oak trees on Quito Road. The public hearing was opened at 9:58 p.m. Dave Smith, the applicant, explained the proposal, addressing the trees on site. The height and slope of the addition were discussed. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger commented that she could make findings #1 through #4 that Staff was unable to make. She moved to approve V-701, making the following findings: #1 and #2 - The placement of the home on the lot is at such an angle that construction of the garage as recommended would visually impact the entire plan so it would not look proper. It would impact the birch trees because of their location, and they may be non- ordinance size but they greatly contribute to the beauty of the front yard. She added that it does represent a practical difficulty to remove those. #3 - It is a common privilege to have a two-car garage in order to keep cars off the street and properly housed, and #4 - By virtue of the fact that it is a common privilege it is not a special privilege. She - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 V-701 added that Condition #2 should read that the height of the addition shall not exceed 15 ft. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Mr. Smith asked approval to have the overhang area extended back to the rear of the existing garage. There was a consensus to grant this approval, and it was noted that the exhibit should be changed to reflect that. 14. GF-3.44.1 - City of Saratoga, Consider Recommending Approval of Text Amendments to the Second' Unit Ordinance which would generally relax the development regulations of this ordinance for new and existing second units. These amendments would be reviewed per Ordinance NS-3 and would have to be reviewed and adopted by the City Council. The City Attorney noted the changes made by the Commission at their last study session. Chairman Peterson pointed out that the Commission had agreed upon a limit of five second units per year in the R-1-10,000 zoning district, and that change should be added to the ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 10:14 p.m. Doug Adams stated that he feels existing units should be grandfathered into the ordinance by having them registered and inspected. He commented that within the existing units there is a special group which are pre-1962. He explained that in 1962 Saratoga adopted the Uniform Building Code, which states that buildings in existence at the time of adoption of the code may have their existing use or occupancy continued if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the adoption and the continued use is not dangerous to life. He asked that the use of this special group of legal existing units be continued. Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge Drive, recommended that the Commission and Council accept what is in existence at the present time, and then give a reasonable time to bring those properties up to code that are presently not up to health and safety codes. He stated that he agrees with having only one second unit per lot on new properties. Regarding item E regarding variances on new units, he commented that there are unusual lots in the City. He indicated that he feels item H is difficult, and feels that once a property has been created into a second unit and brought up to code, it should be allowed to continue. Jean Johnston commented that so many existing second units were built without permit. She stated that .she was concerned with impact on neighborhoods by existing units, specifically traffic problems. She also expressed concern as to rental of these units to other than senior citizens. She stated that she feels there shoul~ be follow-up inspections to ensure that the ordinance is regulated. She added that she feels each existing unit should be handled on an individual basis. The City Attorney summarized the changes to Harriet Handler. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris referenced the letter from the Good Government Group which states that they oppose second units on R-1-10,000 lots. She stated that she feels that looks and appearances from outside are the least of her concern. She explained that she is concerned with the extra traffic, parking, and the impact it would have on the neighborhood, and none of those things would be mitigated by staying within the existing appearance of the house or by keeping it to 600 sq. ft. Therefore, she will be voting against the amendment. Discussion followed on whether the 5 units per year in the R-1-10,000 zoning district are included within the 20 total or in addition to that. - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 GF-344.1 The City Attorney stated that the ordinance now reads that if there is a use permit granted to legalize an existing second unit, it is not included; if it is a new unit it is included. Therefore, it depends on whether it is an existing or new unit within the R-1-10,000 district. Commissioner Siegfried clarified, in response to Mrs. Johnston's comments, that while the senior citizen has to be in one or the other of the structures so that in fact the second unit could be occupied by someone who is not a senior citizen, there is a second requirement on the second unit. That is, there'can be no more than two people in a unit. Commissioner Burger moved to approve GF-344.1, with the changes relative to the limit of five units. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried added that he was voting for the amendment; however, he has never been terribly much in favor of the ordinance. He explained that it was mandated by State law that if the City did not adopt a Second Unit Ordinance the City might. end up with a State ordinance applying to it. He indicated that he shares Commissioner J. Harris' concerns about the opening up to the R-1-10,000 district, and he would hope that when this comes before the City Council they will take a very close look at that. MISCELLANEOUS 15. V-609 - Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road, Review of Lighting Plan; continued from June 12, 1985 Staff explained the history of this application. They stated that when the plans for the lighting were submitted for a building permit it was determined that there were lights proposed that were essentially inconsistent with the Planning Commission's intent. Staff recommended denial of the plan, with direction that a plan be resubmitted that meets with that intent. (Commissioner Siegfried left the meeting at 10:45 p.m.) Randy Hess, attorney for the applicant, questioned the need for a variance for the wall. He explained that originally the wall was over 6 ft. high on the neighbor's side of the property. The applicant had backfilled that side of the property so that both sides of the property are now 6 ft., and the wall is not over 6 ft. The City Attorney commented that there was a variance granted for the wall, and what is now before the Commission is the lighting plan. He explained that Staff has determined that the light on that portion of the wall that was measured at 6 ft. would therefore be higher than 6 ft., and a further variance would be required. He stated that the lighting was to be subject to further review and approval by the Planning Commission. He added that a condition of the variance was that Mr. Renna backfill on the other side of the wall. Therefore, the variance was granted for the wall which originally measured 6-8 ft. and backfill was done as required by the variance. He explained that, from Staff's point of view, it was a 6 ft. wall, measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is lowest, and it doesn't shrink to a 5 ft. wall because of backfill required by the variance. Mr. Hess commented that he does not think that a wall 6 ft., measured from either side of the dirt, is a 7 ft. wall because there is a portion of the retaining wall underneath the dirt. He explained that Mr. Renna's home is in a valley, and he was required to grade and raise the dirt on his property up several feet. He stated that the wal 1 is now in a valley and is 6 ft. The City Attorney commented that if the wall is 6 ft. and it has a 1 ft. light, it still is over 6 ft. - 8.- Planning Commission Page 9' Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 V-609 Mr. Hess indicated that the lights around the home are all low-voltage lights and do not shine into any neighbors' homes. He commented that it is evident that it is not the case in Saratoga that a light is considered as part of the wall, and he submitted photographs of homes in the vicinity which have lights that are well over 6 ft. tall. He added that Mr. Renna's lights are for his security and his aesthetics. Discussion followed on Mr. Renna's lights and those of other homes in the area. Mr. Hess pointed out that there are approximately 20 homes in the area with lights that are over 6 ft., some of which are up to 10 ft. high. Mr. Hess explained that Mr. Renna had originally requested a variance so he would not have to backfill his neighbor's yard, which he eventually did. He stated that he was denied.that variance for having a fence over 6 ft. and within a very short time a variance was granted on Sobey road to theMagnum property for a fence which appears to be well over 8 ft. tall. He added that all Mr. Renna is asking that the Commission give him what everybody else on Sobey Road has. It was clarified that there will be 59 lights, 12 ft. apart. Commissioner Burg.er pointed out that the minutes from July 1983 state that the lighting plan will be submitted for Planning Commission review, with the intent that it would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft. sections of the fence, and not be allowed on any portion of the fence 6 ft. or higher. The photographs submitted by Mr. Hess of other lighting in the area were discussed. The City Attorney commented that some of those fences were around recreation courts and many of the lights were on fences that were set back. He explained that if a fence is within the setback or if there is a structure within a setback, the 6 ft. height limitation does not apply. He added that there is no way to determine, just based on the pictures, whether the lights are at the front of the property or on lower portions of the walls. He commented that, with respect to those fences that are at the property line or within the setback, and, based upon the pictures, appear to be 6 ft., again they may have been put in later. We don't have enough information with respect to each property; there could have been a variance or an approval at the time; it could have been put in later after there was an approval of the other structure; it could have been done illegally, or they could be legal. There is no prohibition against the lighting per se; we are dealing with a fence at a property line, which has a 6 ft. height limit on it. Commissioner Peterson stated that his major problem is that he looks at the plan , sees 60 lights, and light pollution comes to his mind. He commented that he does not understand why the applicant needs 60 lights around a house. He added that the purposes in the R-1 district speak rather directly to the ordinances controlling illumination and glare, and he feels that 60 lights, even if they are 25 watt, is just far too much light pollution. Mr. Hess indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Renna are agreeable to reducing the number of lights so there will be 1 light for every 24 ft. on the side wall, which will reduce the amount of light substantially. Commissioner Peterson questioned why the lights have to be on top, and Mr. Hess indicated that it was from an aesthetic viewpoint and there is more expense involved if it is behind the wall. Mr. Renna clarified that the walls bordering the driveway are 30". Commissioner Burger stated that she could understand why the applicant would want some light along the driveway; however, she has a lot of trouble with that light on a high wall along the perimeter. Commissioner J. Harris commented'that as the lights go back along the property line, one neighbor will see the interior lights on the opposite wall and the other neighbor will see the lights from the opposite wall. Therefore, she does not understand how they can possibly be blocked off so no one sees them. Commissioner Burger stated that she would be able to support a light every 24 ft. on the walls that are 30" high, that is, - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 6/26/85 V-609 along the driveway, not on the per.imeter, but in the inside of the lot. However, she cannot support any of the lighting that would require a variance on a 6 ft. wall. Commissioners J. Harris and B. Harris agreed. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the lighting plan for V-609, as modified to delete the lights in every area except where delineated in the discussion, and with the further condition that the lighting as approved be alternative posts, so it would be every 24 ft. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. The appeal period was noted. 16. Tract 6781, Teerlink Ranch, M~. Eden· Road, Determination Rela- tive to Undergrounding of Existing Overhead Electric Service Line Staff explained the request. They described the area and stated that their usual recommendation would be to require the undergrounding. However, because of the location and the damage that would be done to the area, they do not have a problem with the request. Discussion followed on the Paul Masson property. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that it was difficult to even see the poles and wires, and it was the consensus of the committee that they would rather see the poles and ·wires stay than scar the hillside. Commissioner Burger moved to grant the request from Lea Engineering to not underground the Paul Masson service through Tract 6781 westerly of the cul-de-sac of Heber Way. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. C OMMUN I CAT I ON S Written 1. Letter from McBain & Gibbs, Regarding Amendment to CC&R's for height restriction on Lots 5, 6 and 12, Tract 6628. Staff stated that they feel there are some errors in the letter, indicating that they have no recollection of a 23 ft. height on Lot 5 or a discussion with Mr. McBain relative to Lot 12. Bob McBain, the applicant, addressed the lots in question, specifically Lot 12. The other lots in the area were discussed. It was noted that the Planning Commission would still have control over' the homes on these lots at the Design Review stage. Commissioner B. Harris stated th'at she feels that conceptually the applicant is trying to convey to the Commission that his sense of concern is similar to that of the Commission regarding the design, and the numbers mentioned by the applicant are certainly within the guidelines. She added that as long as the Commission still has the right to deny the Design Review if it is not acceptable, she has no problem. Chairman Peterson noted that the Planning Commission will be looking at the Design Review very carefully. Staff pointed out that when the applicant was before the Commission relative to a change to the CC&Rs concerning two-stories, it was the Commission's decision at that time that the height limitation be substituted, and that limitation was 21 ft. Commissioner B. Harris moved to recommend to the City Council that the CC&Rs be amended relative to Lot 12 only, that the height limitation not exceed 21 ft., with a maximum elevation of 981. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. The applicant was requested to submit a copy of the amended language of the CC&Rs to the Commission. Oral by Commission 1. Tentative Agenda for the Planning Commission Retreat (disussed by Chairman Peterson) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. the meeting , tary