Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Guch, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner J. Harris Minutes Relative to the minutes of January 22, 1986, on page 8, the last sentence in the sixth paragraph should read" .... "with just picking from two consultants." Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 22, 1986 and approve as amended. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 29, 1986 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR la. Negative Declaration - SM-24 - Chalmers lb. SM-24 - Dr. and Mrs. Chalmers, Request for Site Modification to construct a pool and decks on a slope that exceeds 10% at 20849 Verde Vista Lane 2a. Negative Declaration - SM-25- Brady 2b. SM-25 - John Brady, Request for Site Modification Approval for the construction of a pool, spa, retaining walls and play house on a slope greater than 10% at 14287 Chester Avenue Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the items listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 3. A-1162 - Richard James, Request for Design Review Approval for a second-story addition to an existing single-story residence at 14081 Loma Rio Drive It was noted that correspondence had been received on this application. Commissioner Pines moved to approve A-1162 listed above. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. SUP-8 - Nadine McCullough, Request for a Second Unit Use Per- mit Approval to allow two existing detached one-story second units located on two separate parcels at 14985 Quito Road; continued from November 13, 1985 (to be continued to April 9, 1986) It was directed that this item be continued to April 9, 1986. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 5. SD-1454 -John DiManto, Request for modification of Condition V-G (relating to water requirements for fire protec- tion) to Tentative Subdivision Map Approval for 5 lots between Madrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads; con- tinued from December 11, 1985 (to be continued to February 26, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 6. A-1144 - Ken Chan, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family residence on a hill- side lot at Lot 13, Tract 6528, Farr Ranch Road; con- tinued from January 22, 1986 (to be continued to March 26, 1986 It was directed that this matter be continued to March 26, 1986. 7a. Negative Declaration - V-717 - Carol Mauldin 7b. V-717 - Carol Mauldin, Request for Variance Approval for two, substandard width (9' where 9.5' is required) parking spaces where a minimum of four parking spaces are required, to allow no landscape strip in front of the parking area where a minimum 5 ft. strip is required, for the conversion of an existing residential struc- ture at 14650 Sixth Street (to be continued to March 12, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to March 12, 1986. 8. A-1155 - E. J. Henry Kopatschek, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for the construction of a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area and approval of the grading permit to move more than 1,000 cu. yds. combined cut and fill on Parcel C at the northerly end of Blue Gum Court; con- tinued from January 22, 1986 (to be continued to Febru- ary 26, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1616 - Prince of Peace Church 9b. UP-590 - Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church, Request Mod. for Modification to a Use Permit and Design Review 9c. A-1160 - Approval for a new 39 ft. two-story sanctuary build- 9d. SDR-1616-ing without providing additional parking and Tenta- tive Building Site Approval for 50% expansion of exist- ing church facilities at 12770 Saratoga Avenue; con- tinued from January 22 (to be continued to February 26, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 10. V-721 - Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Levy, Request for Variance Approval to exceed the permitted maximum 15,000 sq. ft. impervious coverage at 19800 Glen Una Drive; continued from January 22, 1986 Staff reported that this item had been continued from the last meeting and the applicant has submitted revised drawings. They stated that they are not able to make the findings and recommend denial of the variance. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 V-721 The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mrs. Levy reiterated that the property is zoned hillside because of the annexation, but only has a 4% slope. Commissioner Pines indicated that he does not have trouble with the impervious coverage; however, he does have a problem with the driveway approach. He stated that he feels it should be more circular and further back. Commissioner Burger stated that she is chagrined a little big over the increase in impervious coverage since the last meeting, noting an increase of 854 sq. ft. She commented that there had been a consensus at the last meeting that the Commission was not concerned about the impervious coverage as it stood two weeks ago; however, it has now been increased. Mrs. Levy indicated that all they were asking for is a piece of square cement to put the pool equipment on and a path connecting the breezeway to the back yard. She commented that it appeared at the last meeting that the main concern of the Commission was the back-up parking into Glen Una. Commissioner Burger explained to the Commissioners who had been absent from the last meeting that the Commission's concern had been that Glen Una is a narrow road and there would be a lot of people coming out of the front door during entertaining. She explained the previous parking layout, which was head-on parking. She recalled that the Commission had asked for a circular driveway similar to the first application. The other Commissioners who had been at the meeting agreed. Mrs. Levy stated that she felt that had not been made clear, and noted that their plan which had been submitted a month ago, with the head-on parking arrangement, was approved by Staff and at that time permission was given to put in the pool. Commissioner Pines noted that the driveway is in the City right-of-way and if the street is ever widened in the future, it would wipe out the driveway and the drop off point. Commissioners Peterson and Siegfried indicated that they did not have any problem with the impervious coverage. Commissioner Siegfried commented that, in addition to the question of safety, he does not think the present plan is aesthetically pleasing. He added that he does not propose that it be a full circular driveway, but he would like to see it cut more into the front step area, so there is a much more significant planting area available. There was a consensus that the Commission has a problem with the proposed driveway. Chairman Peterson noted the two options available: 1) taking a vote, which would be a denial and can be appealed to the City Council, or 2) continuing the matter and submitting a plan which is more acceptable. Ken Levy, the applicant, stated that they were being held up on the pool area and construction. He asked if it were possible to get approval on the driveway with the provision that they bring the circular drive back to a study session. It was noted that there would be a 10-day appeal period on any decision on the application. It was clarified that the excavation of the pool itself does not bring the applicant above the impervious coverage. Staff stated that even if the variance for the impervious coverage were not granted, the pool would still go in the same location. Therefore, on that basis, they did not feel there is a problem for releasing the pool permit. It was directed that the variance application be continued to February - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 V-721 26, 1986. The applicant was asked to revise the plan for the circular driveway and submit it to Staff. Staff was requested to agendize the matter of zoning of annexed properties for a study session. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing on V-721. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 11. GP-86-1 - Gypsy Hill Subdivision, Consider Amending the General Plan Designation of a portion of a parcel at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Ave., from Open Space-Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) to Residential- Very Low Density (RVLD) per Government Code Sections 65350-65362 and Article 15 of the City Code 350-65362 Staff explained the proposed designation amendment. They stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission have recently reviewed the designation for this 1/2 acre park site which was contemplated to be used as a horse staging area, and they have recommended that the park area designation for the site be eliminated. They added that the Parks and Recreation Commission have indicated that the City would be better served by receiving in lieu fees from future development. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution, making a recommendation to the City Council that they amend the land use designation. It was noted that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Hoover regarding this application. Staff clarified that this amendment has nothing to do with the trail on the site; it just concerns the park area and horse turnaround area. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Pat Keenan, the next door neighbor of the Hoovers, inquired about the size of the building site on this parcel, expressing her objection to 1/2 acre lots in that area. Staff explained that it is not the intention to create a 1/2 acre site and put a home on it. They commented that this property will be absorbed into the sites in that area and will not create any additional density on this development. Mrs. Keenan addressed the private road in her area, expressing concern relative to the additional traffic from the subdivision. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, further explained that the 1/2 acre park site will be absorbed into the remainder of the property, and all of the lots will be 40,000 sq. ft. or larger. He commented that the private road in question will remain a private road, and none of the lots in the project will access onto that road. He added that, with the connection of Chester Avenue to that private road, Chester will become a public' street and will further reduce the traffic concern. Dr. Hoover commented that his questions were now answered. He added that he would still prefer to have the parcel be an equestrian riding ring. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution GPA-86-1, recommending the amendment of the General Plan Designation. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. It was pointed out to the neighbors that the subdivision will be discussed further at the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 1986. 12. A-1161 - Gerald Butler, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard on Lot 2, Tract 6732, Montalvo Heights Drive - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 A-1161 -Staff explained the application, indicating that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner Guch gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Irvin Haas, the designer, gave a presentation on the project. He commented that the proposed home fits the site and is compatible with the other homes being built and planned in the neighborhood. Jack Christian, President of the Montalvo-Mendelsohn Homeowners Association, indicated that they are against any variance over the 6200 sq. ft. standard. He stated that Mr. Butler has built homes which they have generally approved; however, they oppose the fact that he is using precedent by stating that this home is compatible with what is being built or planned. He added that he feels that the City should follow the ordinance standards. Mr..Christian was given a copy of the proposed plans to review. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he has no reason to go beyond the 6200 sq. ft. guidelines. He stated that the plans do not indicate that they are compatible with the site, given the slope. Discussion followed on the calculation of square footage. Commissioner Burger stated that, in viewing the site, some of the concerns listed in the Staff Report regarding preserving the natural landscaping and perception of excessive bulk disappeared. She indicated that she could make those two findings. She added that she feels that the proposed home is compatible with the other homes in the area. Commissioner Guch added that the bulk of the house is towards the wooded area. Commissioner Burger commented that the home is set so far back from the street that she feels that that reduces the perception of bulk, and it is staggered in relation to the home on the right. Relative to the grading, there was a consensus that there is no problem with the garage being in the back. Commissioner Peterson commented that he would approve the 6200 sq. ft., stating that he feels there is a strong feeling in that area about that standard. He added that he does not feel that it will sacrifice the overall design by staying within that standard. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner Pines stated that he could go either way on the square footage; commenting that the house is of a size where 270 sq. ft. can be cut out. He added, however, that he does not look it as setting a precedence, and he personally looks at each house individually. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1161 per the conditions of the Staff Report, which reduces the square footage to 6200 sq. ft. She made the following findings: Preservation of Natural Landscape - The pad for the home is on a level area and that particular area does not have any trees. The home is stepped down the slope to the rear of the home, which effectively eliminates what may be some more grading. Perception of Excessive Bulk - This is diminished. Staff finds that it is of compatible bulk and height. The large front yard setback does decrease the bulk in an area where there are large lots and large homes. The home is staggered in relation to the home on the right, and you cannot see the home on the left. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 13a. A-1163 - Richard James, Request for Design Review Approval for a 13b. V-723 - second-story addition to an existing single-story resi- dence and Variance Approval to maintain a 23 ft. front yard setback where 25 fto is required at 14093 Loma Rio Drive Staff described the proposal, indicating that they are unable to make the findings for the variance and recommend denial. They recommended approval of the design review. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, commenting that the lots in this area are small but are lots of record. She noted that there is very little landscaping on the front of the lots or on the pads. She added that they are heavily wooded in the rear and slope downward, and there are other two-story homes in the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Gary Vick, 14137 Squirrel Hollow, expressed concern relative to this design, stating that he feels it is a bulky design. He spoke in opposition to the variance and supported Staff's concern relative to the height of the proposed structure. He indicated that the design for A- 1162 is far more pleasing than this proposal. At Commissioner Burger's inquiry, he clarified that he would like to see the height on this home be 20-1/2 ft. and the design be low-rise that ~'ttentuates the length of the house, rather than the height. There was a consensus that the elevations need to be addressed. Richard James, the applicant, submitted the elevations of the four homes he is planning now. He indicated that they could reduce the height on this proposed home to 22 ft. He described the homes on the street, commenting that he feels that they have addressed the issue of bulkiness and the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. James addressed the size of the garage, and there was a consensus of the Commission that they do not want to grant a variance just to get a bigger garage. Mr. James indicated that he would be willing to reduce it to 18 ft.; however, he does not know if they can get it in the 25 ft. setback. It was clarified that just a small corner of the garage would be in the setback, and the configuration of the porch has been changed. It was suggested that horizontal siding be used, instead of vertical siding. Mr. James agreed with that suggestion. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that with the 22 ft. height and the new configuration of the porch, the Commission has no problem with the proposed house. Commissioner Pines moved to approve V-723, making the following findings: #1 - This is mitigated by the fact that the proposed garage is an existing footing, and the applicant has already reduced the covered patio. #2 - It is dealing with an existing foundation. Commissioner Siegfried added the size and shape of the lot. #3 - This is covered by Finding #2. #4 - It is not a special privilege to allow the garage to remain with the existing footings. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Pines moved to approve A-1163 per the Staff Report, subject to the patio roof being cut back, per the sketch submitted on February 12, 1986. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. - 6 - Planning Commission. Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 14a. Negative Declaration - V-720 - Dr. and Mrs. Brozda 14b. A-1165- Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda, Request for Design Review 14c. V-720 - Approval for a new parking deck and Variance Approval to allow 15 substandard (9' x 18' and 9' x 16') parking spaces where approximately 66 spaces (9.5' x 18') are required for the restaurant and retail-type uses on-site and to allow no loading facilities or handicap parking spaces where a minimum of one off-street loading space and one handicap space would be required at the north- west corner of Third St. and Big Basin Way (to be con- tinued to February 26, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 15. SD-1567 -Dividend Development, Request for modification to con- ditions of Subdivision Approval requesting private gated street and clarification of light and air easement along western property lines (Lots 13 through 18) of SD-1567 (Tract 7763) south of Prospect Road and the S.P.R.R. tracks It was directed that this matter be continued to February 26, 1986. 16a. V-725 - PMS Management, Request for Variance and Sign Permit 16b. SC-2 - Approvals to permit a 24 sq. ft. freestanding sign in addition to approximately 17 sq. ft. of signage which already exists for the Saratoga Walk-In Clinic. The proposed sign is not in conformance with the previously approved Sign Program, exceeds the total square footage allowed for signage and does not meet the required 20 ft. exterior sideyard setback requirement at 12224 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Staff explained the application, recommending denial of the variance and sign permit. The City Attorney commented that, relative to the regulations on signs in the new Zoning Ordinance, it was not the intent to change any existing sign program. Commissioner Guch gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the area. It was noted that correspondence had been received on the application. The public hearing was opened at 8:47 p.m. Craig Maynard, of Cal-Neon Signs, gave a presentation on the proposed sign. He described the walk-in clinic location, indicating that they need a sign that is more visible. He indicated that they are willing to modify their request relative to size and height. Commissioner Siegfried commented that this is a unique service and is of value to the community. He stated that, while he would have a difficult time deviating from the signage that is now there and could not approve the proposed signage, he would be willing to look at an alternate plan. Mr. Maynard stated that they would be willing to reduce the size of the sign to 3 feet, and would like to keep the name "Saratoga Walk-in Clinic" and the hours on it. He added that they would be willing to give up the hours that they have on the building. The lighting of the sign was discussed, and Commissioner Pines suggested that the sign be turned off when they close, instead of having the hours on it. Commissioner Burger stated that, while being willing to looking at an alternate sign that was smaller, she would like to have the sign moved so it is lighted but directly below the sign that is currently outside the clinic. Mr. Maynard stated that they feel that putting the sign at the intersection was the best point of visibility. - 7 - ~lanning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 V-725 and SC-2 Commissioner Guch indicated that she has a problem with putting an extra sign in this shopping center, commenting that she feels this would be extremely precedent setting in that center. Discussion followed on this issue. Commissioner Peterson indicated that he would have trouble granting a variance for the sign and at his inquiry, the City Attorney stated that as an option the ordinance could be changed to have a special category of emergency service signs, etc. Commissioner Pines suggested looking at a sign that is more of the informational sign that is a symbol that means medical care. It was determined that this matter should go to a study session. The applicant was asked to bring back an alternate sign, much smaller and more generic. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on March 4, 1986 and the regular meeting of March 12, 1986. Break: 9:00 - 9:15 p.m. MISCELLANEOUS 17. George Charlton, Consideration of Appeal regarding Staff granting of a temporary storage permit for a motor home parked illegally at 18565 Paseo Pueblo Staff explained the appeal relative to the temporary storage permit. They indicated that the permit will expire on March 22, 1986. Mr. Charlton gave the background of his complaints regarding this matter. Kenneth Kraus, attorney for Mrs. Diffenderfer, explained that she uses the motor home as her principal means of transportation; however, she has had a recent injury and has been unable to drive temporarily. He explained that the other vehicles on the property belong to her son. Discussion followed on the code regulations for motor homes. Mr. Charlton commented that there were. a lot of situations in his area that are not being controlled. There was a consensus that the issue of regulations for motor homes, etc. should be agendized for a study session. Commissioner Burger moved that the temporary storage permit remain in effect as issued by Staff, until March 22, 1986. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 18. Consideration of Draft PD Ordinance for Zoning of the Paul Masson Site Discussion followed on the percentages of the total project in relationship to the approximate density. Commissioner Guch stated that she has a problem with the office use being listed at 20%. Commissioner Peterson commented that he had mentioned during the discussions on this matter that he could visualize a mixed use project there that might put offices along the railroad and freeway as a buffer, as opposed to putting homes there. Commissioner Burger indicated that she felt that the 25% for retail service establishments is also too high. Discussion followed on these percentages. Commissioner Siegfried noted that these figures are guidelines and the Commission has the power to modify them, depending on the plan and the compatibility with the neighborhood. He added that what the Commission is trying to suggest in the numbers is - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 PD Ordinance that the Commission does not want to see the site overpowered by any particular usage; they want to see something done creatively. Commissioner Burger stated that she would like to set the standard so that a slightly stronger message comes across to a developer about offices than is currently shown in the proposed ordinance. After further discussion there was a consensus that the percentage for retail service should be 15% and the percentage for offices should be 15%. It was also determined that the wording on page 4 of the ordinance should read "Senior Citizen Housing with medical facility". Discussion followed on the density related to the percentages. Commissioner Siegfried suggested listing the percentages of coverage and not listing the density in a table; however, adding a paragraph which suggests that it was the consensus of the Commission that the density be in these ranges. There was a consensus to that effect° The City Attorney stated that the percentages will be contained in the ordinance and it would be his intention to then quantify in the Commission's report, to give some indication as to the range of intensity of development, density, etc., that the Commission would be willing to consider. He added that he feels any developer who wants to come in with a proposal on that site should look not only to the ordinance, but also the Commission's report. He stated that the Commission may wish to put in some comment that, while offices may be listed as an acceptable use it may not necessarily be a preferred use, or put in some indication of priority of uses. At Commissioner Siegfried's inquiry regarding whether the Commission's report will be referenced in the ordinance, the City Attorney commented that in the actual ordinance he could easily put in a purpose and finding clause that makes reference to the report. He added that when the amendment itself is put into the Code it would not have that reference, other than a reference to the ordinance constituting the amendment. The maximum coverage percentage of 60% was discussed. Staff commented that they would like to look at it for the various uses. It was also suggested that the quote from Cupertino be put at the front of the ordinance. It was clarified to Jerry Lohr that a restaurant is considered a retail use. Mr. Lohr commented that there had been earlier discussion regarding some concept of a tradeoff for the senior citizens. He stated that he had thought there was a concept of some added density on other housing or on coverage to help subsidize the senior citizens. He added that it appears that the density numbers have been cut down so that the project will not be viable at the price Paul Masson has been asking. Discussion followed on the density for senior citizen housing. It was clarified to Don Skinner, of PRC Associates, that the guidelines on density will be a statement in the Commission's report. Discussion followed on percentages of housing on the site. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Planning Commission's Staff Report, as amended this evening'. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Bert Toevs congratulated Staff and the Commission on the expeditious way they had handled the Paul Masson property and the proposed ordinance. 19. A-1042 - Joseph Masek, 14467 Big Basin Way, Review of Lighting Plans Staff discussed the proposed lighting plan, recommending approval subject to Staff review of the wattage of the lights after they are installed. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the lighting plan for A-1042. - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minuites - Meeting 2/12/86 A-1042 Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 20. Recommendation to City Council of Consultant for Village Plan The letter received from Mr. Grunwald was noted. Commissioner Siegfried stated, for the record, that he agrees with the concerns that Commissioner Pines expressed previously. He commented that this does not seem to be the most appropriate way to handle this matter. Commissioner Burger agreed. Commissioner Siegfried added that, given the choice of the two consultants, there is no question as to the appropriate choice. Commissioner Pines stated that he still had the concern that he had expressed before, and he also has the concern as to whether the job can really be done well for the $17,400 quoted cost. He stated that he likes the outline and feels that it outlines a comprehensive report. He added, however, that he does not feel that it can be done for that price, and he does not want the City to get into the situation where, because it can not be done by the time allowed, the City gets a less than good report in order to bring it in under budget. It was noted that that concern isexpressed in the memorandum from the Commission Chairman to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend the firm of McKay and Somps to the City Council as the consultant for the Village Plan. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 21. Pacific Bell conversion from underground to overhead in the Ashley Way area Commissioners Siegfried and Burger abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff explained that Pacific Bell had previously addressed the Commission regarding the undergrounding that had been placed in the easements in rear yards of homes in the Glen Brae area. Staff stated that, with the deterioration of those systems they found that many needed to be reinforced or replaced. They added that, with the difficulty which will was encountered in the rear yards they wished to replace these facilities on the existing system that holds the PG&E lines. Staff indicated that when the matter had previously been discussed the Commission agreed with the problems relative to the maintenance in rear yards of underground facilities and agreed to the conversion to overhead in those locations. Staff stated that they have now found a similar situation is occurring in the Ashley Way area and intended to make that same conversion, and in notifying the property owners, a number of them objected to the conversion. Bill Silver, 20723 Ashley, explained the location of the lines and the impact to his view by the conversion. Bob Bertmess, 20711 Ashley, agreed with the impact to the view. He stated that the backyards are not being disrupted, since this is a creek bank and is protected by the flood control easement. Peter Walde, of Pacific Bell, stated that, in addition to backyards, one of the primary concerns is the economics of any job that they do. He indicated that the most economical way to rehabilitate the facilities that are in disrepair in this particular area is to place them aerially. He indicated that they were given that permission in 1963 when the tract map was filed. The City Attorney, at Chairman Peterson's inquiry, stated that he would not necessarily jump to the opinion that the City is not in a position to require undergrounding in this particular situation. He commented that he had not had time to confer with Staff on the matter. He added - 10 - Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 2/12/86 Pacific Bell that the City does have specific provisions in the ordinances requiring undergrounding of facilities. Staff commented that there are public utility easements in this tract; it is not designated an underground district at the moment, nor was it in 1963. They added that the City may find that they do not have the jurisdiction to require the undergrounding, but he will discuss the issue with the City Attorney. Further discussion followed on the location of other utility lines and the Commission's preference for undergrounding. The City Attorney stated that he feels at this point the Commission's decision should be based on considerations other than the City's ability to enforce it. Mr. Walde stated that, no matter what the Commission's decision is tonight, they will still intend to proceed with construction as presented. Commissioner Pines moved to keep the lines underground. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 3-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Mrs. Smith regarding Mr. Rivoir's property and answer from the City Manager (Information only) Oral by Commission and Staff 1. 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 Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Se~~~ ~ R~~rt S. Sh!ok ~' RSS:cd - 11 -