Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: October 12, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, ~ Kolstad, Tappan Approval of Minutes: Meeting of September 28, 1988 Commissioner Burger asked that on Page 3, delete final phrase of her comment and add "...no action would be taken on the grounds that the decision could be postponed until all risks could be quantified and avoided. Commissioner Siegfried asked under Miscellaneous a sentence be added, "Commissioner Siegfried suggested they write Staff outlining their concerns regarding any difficulties they are experiencing with the Design Review Standards. Commissioner Harris requested the following sentence be added, "Commissioner Harris responded to Mr. Crowley's request for a Study Session that the Planning Commission always welcomed new information but she did not care to get into further argument with the developer about the size of the homes. She was pleased with the Ordinance as it was. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1988, AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0-1, Chairwoman Guch abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on October 7, 1988. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Caldwell stated that DR-88-056, Condition '14, add phrase, "including but not limited to grading, drainage and landscaping" and Condition 15 revised to read, "Trail grading to be done prior to issuance of building permit per requirements of Parks and Recreation Commission. Pathway to be comparatively level from side to side and unobstructed." Applicant was agreeable. She called attention to the letter of Ms. Patricia Ford Re: SD-88-011 dated October 1'2, 1988. In DR-88-073, Condition 6., delete 12 ft. and add 1.0 ft; Condition 7. amended to read, "...it shall have a spread footing, maximum 12 inches below grade and no closer than 12 ft. from the tree. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. V-88-025 Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for variance approval to allow the floor area standard to be exceeded on a level 29,680 sq. ft. lot in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. The proposed additions to the existing residence modifying the previous plans will result in total floor area on the lot of 10,3419 sq. ft. total where 5,220 sq. ft. is currently the maximum allowed. The previous approval allowed 7,419 sq. ft. total on the lot. In addition, variance approval is requested to allow the additions to the residence to be a minimum of 13 ft. from the exterior side property line where 25 ft. is required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. (Continued to October 26, 1988. 2 SD-88-005 DiManto, Madrone Hill & Peach Hill Roads, request for tentative approval of proposed 5-lot subdivision of 23 acres of partially developed property in the R-40,000 and HLC-RD zoning districts per Chapter 14 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Continued to October 26, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 3. V-88-033 Berquist, 15240 Madrone Hill Road, request for variance approval to allow a 10 ~. high retaining wall where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the city Code. Continued to October 26, 1988. 4. TUP-88-005 Boisseranc, 13650 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for approval of tem- porary use permit to sell Christmas trees from November 26 - December 24, 1988, in the R-1-12,500 zone. 5. DR-88-058 Woolworth Construction, 14861 Three Oaks Court, request for design review approval for a new 5,592 sq. ft. t~vo-story single family home in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. DR-88-056 Plimpton/Killian, 13596 Cocciardi Court, request for design review approval of a new 4,941. sq. ft. two-story single family home on a 1.4 acre lot in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. SD-88-011 Piassmeycr/Fournier, 138'10 Saratoga Avenue, request for tentative approval of a proposed two lot subdivision in the R-I-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. 8. DR-88-073 Dura Style Homes, 18268 Montperc Way, request for design review approval for a new 4,015 sq. ft. one-story single family home in the R-i- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Items 6,7 and 8. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4 AND 5. Passed 7-0. 6. DR-88-056 Plimpton/Killian, 13596 Cocciardi Court, request for design review approval of a new 4,941 sq. ft. two-story single family home on a 1.4 acre lot in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated October 12, 1988. Commissioner Harris was not favorable to the revised Conditions presented and was concerned regarding consistency; she questioned why all weather surfacing of thc trails was not required. Planner Caldwell responded that the trail was bonded throughout the subdivision with a require- ment that the trail be completed before the issuance of any permit. Parks and Recreation Commis- sion would be determining the width and the surface treatment of the trail. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Lou Killian, Applicant, had concerns about Condition 15 and presented a copy of a Building Restriction Agreement (September 18, 1986) granted by the City. The developer had set aside a four million dollar bond guaranteeing the required improvements and completion of the trail. If he could not obtain a building permit until the trail was in place, it appeared hc was being penalized. He requested some concession to be allowcd to apply lbr a building permit before the trail was in place. The Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Trails was satisficd that the trail would be more than adequate and scenic in appearance. The City Attorney stated that the problem the City had encountered ~vas that the subdivision was approved and built and the trails had not been completed. The City Manager concurrcd that the City had encountered problems; Staff suggested the revised Condition to address this concern. Grading plans must show the exact placement of the trail. Mr. Killian confirmed that the trails would be installed by the developer; ~vithin the coming week a plan showing the exact location of the trail would bc submitted to the City. City Manager reiterated serious conccrns that building permits would be issued without specifically locating the trail; Applicant's assurance that plans would bc submitted within the week was news. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Siegfried noted that the Condition required a trail to be clearly designated on-site. The City Manager responded that Staff would accept a compromise that no building permits be issued until a grading plan for the entire subdivision bc submitted and approved. Commissioner Harris asked that original wording of Condition 15 be retained, adding the words "and unobstructed.". The City Manager suggested the follo~ving wording, "Trail shall be con- structed to standards as set forth by the Parks and Recreation Commission." Final sentences of the Condition deleted, substituting wording previously suggcstcd. Mr. Killjan noted that the trail would have to narrow to approximately 4 ft. at one or two locations. The City Manager noted the resulting difficulties of maintaining a 4 ft. wide trail. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:05 P.M. Passed 7-0. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-056 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH REVISED CONDITION 14; REVISED CONDITION 1.5. TO DELETE THE FINAL TWO SENTENCES AND ADD, "TRAIL TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO' STANDARDS AS SET FORTH BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION" Passed 7-0. 7. SD-88-011 Plassmeyer/Fournier, 1.381.0 Saratoga Avenue, request for tentative approval of a proposed t~vo lot subdivision in the R-'I-20,000 zoning district per Chapter '14 of the City Code. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 12, 1988. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:1.0 P.M. Mr. Plassmeyer, Applicant, wished as much flexibility as possible regarding design review since he wished to save all the trees Mrs. O'Connor cited her recent letter and was concerned that an abandoned well existcd on-site. She felt that a two story home in this location would be inconsistent with the neighborhood and invade the privacy of existing residents. Mr. O'Connor reviewed the site dimensions of the Applicant's property and noted that a 4,440 sq. ~. home still left over onc-third of an acre as usablc land. Ms. Patricia Ford concurred with the above comments. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:14 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger agreed that this was an area of one story homes; she felt that such should be preserved. The question was whether a one story restriction or a height limitation should be imposed; she felt that a 20 ~. height was most desirable. The City Manager suggestcd a limitation of one story; if such were in exccss of 1.8 ft. in height, the plans would be subject to design revic~v With respect to street name and address, unclear and/or out of sequence numbers created a problem for Public Safety agencies. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-011 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AMENDING CONDITION 19 REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A PLAN FOR THE STREET NAME AND ADDRESS IN CONFORMANCE WITH PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS; CONDITION 21 AMENDED TO STATE, "A BOND SHALL BE POSTED..." AND ADDING CONDITIONS REQUIRING THAT IF AN ABANDONED WELL EXISTED ON-SITE SUCH BE CLOSED OFF AND RESTRICTING HEIGHT TO A ONE STORY STRUCTURE. Passed 7-0. 8. DR-88-073 Dura Style Homes, 18268 Montpere Way, request for design review approval for a new 4,01.5 sq. ft. one-story single family home in the R-l- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planncr Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated October 12, 1988. Commissioner Harris removed this Item due to the proposed orientation of the house; she noted the rarity of a 60 inch Oak tree which would bc seen from the bedroom side of the house. She requested a rodesign. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Siegfried noted that the Oak tree was on the property line; he questioned how the house could be oriented to take advantage of the tree; the living area could not be placed within 10 ft. of the sideyard setback area. Commissioner Harris responded that perhaps adjoining houses could open out onto a common driveway. She noted that the fence was placed directly under the tree and asked the Applicant to address this situation. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:29 P.M. The Project Architect stated that the home was designed and sited as requested by the Applicants. He concurred that the Oak tree was'beautiful, especially from a distance; however, the view from the home would be that of a very large trunk. He did not feel applicants could be required to share a common driveway BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:31 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger noted the site constraints and agreed that the beauty of the tree was better viewed from a distance. Commissioner Siegfried concurred and added that the 19 ft. height proposed was in keeping with the site and the Oak tree. Commissioner Kolstad agreed it would be nice to better utilize the Oak tree; however, a 60 inch trunk limited the possibilities. He noted the shading from the Oak that would benefit the house. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-073 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS 6 AND 7. Passed 6-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9. City of Saratoga - Residential Design Handbook, consider a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of Handbook. The Handbook contains residential design policies and implementation techniques and had been prepared to assist in the implementation of the City's single-family residential design review regulations. Planner Young reviewed the Memorandum Re: Residential Design Handbook of October 3, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:35 P.M. There were no speakers. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Harris thought that at the Commissioner's Retreat, Page 13., A Technique Regard- ing Landscaping, had included wording on the "use of full, compact plants against buildings and cascading plants above and on front of retaining walls; tall, slender and spare plants away from buildings, lining driveways, walkways, etc." Planner Young stated that the concept would be included in the Residential Design Handbook by adding an appropriate phrase. Commissioner Burger suggested that Page 21. be titled, Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy. In response to questions about how the Handbook should be referenced in the City Code, the City Attorney discussed differences between standards and guidelines; he noted that it was important that the Commission have the ability to enforce design concepts contained in the Handbook. There was consensus among the Commission to direct the City Attorney to site the Handbook in the City Code. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN HANDBOOK AS AMENDED. Passed 7-0. Break: 8:45-9:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 10. GP-88-002 Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request for certification of ZC-88-001 an Environmental Impact Report, General Plan amendment and rezoning of property for the former Paul Masson Winery site. The subject property 'involves 27.2 acres located east of Saratoga Avenue and north of the South- ern Pacific Railroad tracks. The proposal is to amend the land use element of the General Plan from M (limited industrial) to MU-PD (mixed use planned development and rczone the property from L-1 (light industrial) to MU-PD (mixed use planned development) to accommodate 79 townhomes and a senior lifecare facility. The proposed lifecare facility contains 190 apartments, 25 cottages, a personal care component containing 60 beds, and a skilled nursing component with 60 beds. City Attorney noted the concern regarding the speci ficity required for a conceptual design approval; the Conceptual Design Plan was compared with the Final Design Approval. Requirements of the Ordinance were reviewed. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:'1.2 P.M. Planner Caldwell advised the Commission that the General Plan Amendment, Environmental Im- pact Report (EIR) and the rezoning of the property could be considered first; Ms. Cheung of LSA Associates would discuss the response prepared to the Commission's inquiries. Ms. Lori Cheung, LSA Associates, reviewed the Les Maisons Provencal General Plan Amend- ment/Rezoning Environmental Impact Report - Route 85 Freeway Interchange at Saratoga Ave: - Traffic: Level of Service Ratings at project entrance, Fruitvale/Saratoga Ave. intersection and at Saratoga/Cox Ave. intersection; mitigations for the latter intersection were noted - Air Quality: with a Saratoga Avc. interchange, the Saratoga/Cox Ave. intersection was subject to further violation of carbon monoxide standards; mitigation measures described in the EIR. Commissioner Harris questioned the suggested mitigation measure of installing an additional traffic lane on Saratoga Ave; there did not seem to be adequate room to accommodate such. Ms. Cheung stated that the traffic engineer would have to address the issue; she agreed that it was conceivable that if there was insufficient room for the additional traffic lane suggested, there would be no mitigation for the existing Level of Service Rating of E Commissioner Harris cited the Response to County of Santa Clara Transportation Agency Letter Response 3 and questioned how this statement had application to the proposed development; seniors would be using the bus system thus, it seemed appropriate that the project applicant fund improvements. Ms. Cheung responded that LSA viewed such as pertinent; however LSA did not feel that the project applicant should be required to fully fund the required improvements. She felt that the portion of funding requircd should be determined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Harris cited the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Internal Circulation, 10., and questioned the historical rescarch which indicatcd that the amount of proposed on-site parking should be adequate. Ms. Cheung responded that she believed that the traffic engineer had extensive experience with other senior citizen projects; in addition, City standards were usually higher than required for a project of this type. Commissioner Harris noted that when another Commissioner visited three similar projects, parking ~vas woefully inadequate. Commissioner Harris noted that the Draft EIR, Off-Site Circulation, 2., "The eastbound Cox Ave. intersection approach should be restripped to provide an exclusive left, an exclusive through and a combined through/right-turn lane;" the constriction of this interchange was cited. Ms. Cheung confirmed that there was sufficient room for the recommended improvements with restriping; the exclusive lanes would improve the traffic flow. Commissioner Harris questioned whether mitigations could be recommended when, in fact, they were not possible. The City Manager responded that the question was to what extent the project reduced Level of Service Ratings; the project impact on the environment, not the environment on the project, needed to be considered. The Level of Service Rating on Cox Ave. would be reduced by an interchange on Saratoga Ave., irrespective of the projcct under consideration. Thc question to be addressed to the consultants was "To what extent did the traffic projected for this develop- ment further deteriorate traffic on Cox and Saratoga Avenues should the interchange on Saratoga Ave. be constructed." Ms. Cheung responded that LSA Associates was predicting that the existing Level of Service Rating D would remain even with construction of this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney stated that the proposed mitigation mcasures should be possible. The other alternative would be to state that there was an impact that could not be mitigated; therefore an overriding consideration would have to be found to allow the project. The City Manager stated that there may be other methods to increase the capacity of the inter- section; examples were cited. He suggested the City reserve to itself for an extended period of time, a requirement that the applicant assume responsibility for required mitigations since the traffic this development would place on Saratoga Ave. was unknown at the time. Mr. Wade Hover, Attorney for Mr. Passantino, commented as follows: - Passantino property, an integral part of the rezoning area, had been virtually ignored; Mr. Pass- antino wished to be included in all discussions or hearings on this issue - Environmental Impact Report did not address impacts on the Passantino property, for example, access to the property from Saratoga Ave. Chairperson Guch informcd the speaker that Study Sessions and/or other Hearings had not been previously held on the Conceptual Development Plan. Mr. Hover stated that he and his client . wished to be included in discussions on the Ordinance as well; Commissioner Burger noted that all Study Sessions/Hearings on the Ordinance Amendment had been widely publicized and noticed. Mr. Hover objected that the property could not be rczoned without noticing property owners; the project under consideration required a rezoning. He was unfavorable to a General Plan Amendment without consideration of the Passantino site; secondly, the project proposed would enormously impact his client's property. A Public Hearing was an inadequate forum for necessary discussions. The City Attorney reviewed the procedures accompanying the General Plan Amendment; however, the City could not dictate to the Paul Masson property owner how an adjacent property (not owned by the Applicant) could be used and/or incorporated. It ~vas legitimate for the speaker to address undesirable traffic impacts on his client's property; the Commission would have to consider how Mr. Passantino's property would bc reclassified. Mr. Hover reiterated that the EIR did not address the ingress/egress of his client's property. Mr. Dennis Reichardt, Managing General Partner, Les Masions Provencal, responded that formal, written offers of purchase had been made to Mr. Passantino and were refused; he expressed appreciation that the City had not imposed a requirement that they buy the property in question. Mr. Passantino stated that only tentative plans were presented for his review and no solid offer to purchase his property had been made by the Applicants. The City Attorney noted that the above dialogue was irrelevant to the project under consideration. He added that the driveway of the Passantinos was not being impaired by this prqject; to the extent that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressed the total traffic increase of the development, it addressed the issue. Planner Caldwell noted that by virtue of the testimony, the Passantino property would be added to the EIR; she confirmed that their access would not be restricted by this project. Mr. Andrew Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, commented as follows: Offered services of the Senior Coordinating Council to resolve any difficulties that may arise - Consideration of other senior complexes indicated that adverse air quality had not been found Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, stated that her mother had implored her not to place her in a similar location as proposed for this complex. Mr. Hover reiterated his position that a General Plan Amendment rezoning the property would have a tremendous impact on this client's property. He did not feel a rezoning was necessarily required; the proposal under consideration could be accomplished under a Planned Development. In response to Commissioner Kolstad's question, Mr. Hover commented as follows: Wished the access routes to be changed entirely so that his clicnt's property was not affected Wished to change the ambiance of the Conceptual Plan to insure that a club house or similar activity were not placed directly adjacent to the rear of his client's property. Wished the Commission to consider the fact that an attempt was being made to change the zoning of his client's property if not by direct means then forcing such a change Confirmed that he did not wish a zoning change for any part of the entire area PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Reinhardt stated that this project would not interfere with Mr. Passantino's access anywhere near the interference from the prior use by Paul Masson Winery; secondly, the EIR did address the impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Hover restated his concerns as to whether the EIR addressed the traffic impacts on his client; Commissioner Siegfried responded that the EIR could be amended to address this issue. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:15 P.M. Passed 7-0. The City Attorney stated that the EIR was required to address traffic impacts; it was a matter of interpretation whether an individual parcel of property was to be addressed. Ms. Cheung stated that written comment had not been received from area residents; with respect to the Passantino property, LSA Associates felt the analysis presented was sufficient. Planner Caldwell reiterated that testimony given at this Hearing became part of the EIR. She reviewed the Passantino property and the existing traffic situation; the signalized intersection at the project entrance was sufficient mitigation to allow the Passantino's adequate and safe traffic movements. If the Commission accepted that the Passantino site was a single family residence and had been incorporated into the EIR, the EIR was not subject to further review by the Commission. Mr. Hover insisted that he be allowed to speak on the issue and refused to take his seat. The Meeting was recessed from 10:20 - 10:50 P.M. The City Attorney advised the public that the Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Cheung summarized the Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Environmental Impact Rcport. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the amended EIR adequately addressed his issues of concern. Commissioner Harris reiterated concerns regarding the proposed traffic mitigations and recommended consideration of other, more appropriate mitigations. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO ADOPT A MINUTE MOTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Passed 6-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. Commissioner Tucker stated that she dissented due to concerns regarding air quality. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GP-88-002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION Passed 6-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF ZC-88-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION Passed 6-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. 11. Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request for approval of a conceptual development plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site pursuant to Article 15-21 of the City Code. Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development Corporation, stated that in view of the lateness of the hour Applicants requested a Continuance of this Item, with a Study Session to be held. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE LES MAISONS PROVENCAL TO OCTOBER 26, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD OCTOBER 18, 1988. Passed 7-0. 12. SD-88-006 Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road, request for approval of subdivision of approxi- mately 11 acres of undeveloped property into 3 lots. Each lot is proposed to be approximately 3.6 acres in size. The property is located on the south- east side of-Pierce Road, immediately southwest of the intersection with Surrey Lane. NHR zone (northwestern hillside residential, General Plan designation RHC (residential hillside conservation. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued from September 14, 1988. Commissioners Burger reported on the land use visit; Commissioner Siegfried provided additional information on the area and Pierce Rd. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 12, 1988; she suggested Condition 7 be amended to add "...along the project frontage and submitted to the Planning Commission for approval." The Public Hearing was opened at 11:12 P.M. Mr. Ralph Saviano, Applicant, stated that he took issue with the follo~ving Conditions: Conditions 30, 32: Lot C was within the required pad elevation; Applicants would take care the problem on Surrey Ln. which entailed drainage of the hillside was corrected .Condition 5. b: Placed an unreasonable burden on the Applicant since there was no under- grounding of utilities along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd; costs would be prohibitive. In addition, a neighbor had an existing overhead utility pole which would interfere with the undergrounding Condition 1.6: Applicants did not question the need for widening the bridge; however, this project would have little or no impact on the bridge and yet they were being required to absorb the heavy costs of improvement. Applicants asked that a per lot fee be levied in lieu of the bridge widening. Mr. H.E. Hunzinker, 13929 Pierce Rd, Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited existing traffic hazards on Pierce Rd; widening the road would cause the removal of trees Felt that this issue should be addressed at this time - Suggested a pedestrian walkway be installed to remove pedestrians from the road - Felt the slope area formula should be applied to this site: he noted the existing slide area - Noted the low areas which collected excess water; drainage of these areas must be considered Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Assoc., cited his previous testimony on this project and asked that no trees be removed from this site; furthermore, he felt that if the road were widened, the incidents of speeding would be increased. Mr. Steve de Keczer, 13415 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, commented on Geologic Analysis as follows: Objected to information indicating that flooding was very minimal on-site; such was incorrect. Site was listed as not being in a flood plane; his property, only 20 ft. away was in a flood area. Questioned whether a detailed, geologic investigation had been conducted. Concluded with a request that no widening of Pierce Rd. be done opposite his property; he was already severely impacted by traffic hazards/accidents Asked that any flooding and/or slides be corrected before development on-site occurred Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, reviewed the topography and history of this area and cited existing traffic hazards. Mr. Bob Benchley, 21055 Sarahills, Saratoga, called attention to his recent letter. He and his neighbors were concerned regarding the existing slide in this area and asked that such be repaired. Ms. Marge Shaw went on record as being concerned about the existing slide in the area. Mr. Kohler questioned whether the existing slide had been properly surveyed. An unidentified speaker stated that the road widening proposed was about a foot wide; he did not feel that such would impact the roadway. He asked that landscaping be trimmed back to increase sight line. He reviewed the geologic studies completed on his property. Mr. Joe Crosby, Civil Engineer, Geologist, stated that they were aware of the slide and the flood- ing problem; they suggested lot pads be moved to alleviate the flooding condition; grading and · drainage control would further alleviate this situation. He reviewed remedies for repair of the slide and added that the slide was about one-third above the property line of the site in question. Mr. de Keczer added that the slide would have to be repaired from the bottom up. Mr. H.E. Hunzinker added that an uncorrectable geologic hazard existed on this site. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 12:15 A.M. Passed 7-0. The City Attorney noted that the slide traversed the property line; the City could not condition the Applicant to repair the slide on the adjacent property. The question put to William Cotton Assoc. was whether the development in any manner aggravated or activates the slide and the ans~ver was no; would the development in any way be jeopardized by the slide and the answer was no. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris noted that the improvement widening the road and bridge could create more hazards, namely, the illusion of a safe road; the narrow bridge served as a safety factor since cars were required to slow down. She was reluctant to encourage foot traffic in the area due to safety hazards. The City Attorney responded that safety was not created by maintaining an unsafe condi- tion; roads must be improved at some point. Commissioner Burger commented as follows: - Piecemeal road improvements were of concern; a minimal bridge widening would be acceptable - Questioned undergrounding utilities and suggested a deferred improvement agreement - Agreed that the slope should be shaved to increase the sight distance Commissioner Siegfried commented as follows: - Agreed that a deferred improvement agreement was desirable - The recommended road improvement of approximately one-half to a foot in width Would not significantly impact the trees nor change the character of Pierce Rd - Some widening of the bridge was required; suggested a Study Session be held on this issue - Questioned the argument that a repairable landslide would not be corrected because a portion of such was on an adjacent property owners site - Shaving the slope and removal of the underbrush was required to clear the sight line Commissioner Kolstad fully concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. Chairperson Guch commented as follows: o Felt the bridge should be widened since the opportunity presented itself - Did not object to the Applicant's proposal to leave the house as sited and relocate the driveway on Lot C - Agreed that the slope should be shaved to increase the sight line - Was favorable to a deferred improvement agreement - Suggested that the road improvements be further considered at a Study Session Planner Caldwell stated that the above issues could be addressed in the Conditions; the item requir- ing additional information (slides on the site) was contained in the geologic reports; Staff would present information at the October 261h Meeting, without a Study Session. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-006 TO OCTOBER 26, 1988, 13. DR-88-002 Hall, 22637 Mt. Eden Road, request for design review approval for a two- V-88-001 story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The total square foot- age proposed is 5,824 sq. ft. The home is located in the NHR zoning district. Variance approval is also being considered for the follo~ving: 1) 26 ft. 8 inch height of the main structure where 26 ft. is the maximum allowed, 2) 10 ft. retaining wall where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed, 3) impervious coverage of 18,911 sq. ft. where 15,000 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 12, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 12:40 A.M. Mr. Tom Hall, Applicant, commented as follows: Reviewed the Application; they wished to maintain the character of the area Height of the house was within 8 inches of that allowed; Applicants felt that they were within the height limitation; he was unsure how the discrepancy in height occurred Impervious Surface: Applicants felt they were being adversely impacted by this restriction House was a remodel; there had been substantial problems with the lot line and right-of-way Applicant had been required to deed part of his property to the neighbor in order to bring the access and driveway into conformity; such required the Applicant to create a new driveway This driveway created 4650 ft. of impervious coverage, 25% of that allowed. Staff Recommendation to use Turf stone was expensive to install and maintain, used excessive water and became unsightly in a short period of time. Variance on the retaining wall height: new drawings were being submitted which were in conformity with requirements Mr. Paul Reid, Architect, commented as follows: This was a remodel; there was no ~vay to move the house closer to the property line - Cited Los Altos Hills formula which did not penalize individuals for long driveways - Turf stone was a good solution for a minimal usage area, not a driveway area with daily use - Provided information on the specific amounts of impervious coverage PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 OCTOBER 12, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hall stated he had been granted a temporary easement for a one year period for the existing driveway; at that time, he would be required to establish some mode of entry onto the property. Planner Caldwell responded that the Commission could not grant a lot line adjustment which vio- lated an easement; if a lot line adjustment took away the right to access the lot, it violated the law. Mr. Hall offered to present a copy of the easement. Planner Caldwell advised that the Item be continued pending research on the easement in question; Applicant was asked to provide information on existing square footage and impervious coverage. In response to the City Attorney's question, Mr. Hall confirmed the adjoining property owners driveway was on his property; he transferred this property of his with an understanding that he would be granted a new driveway. The City Attorney concluded that the lot line adjustment did not impair an existing easement; it eliminated the need for an easement on the adjoinin.g property. Mr. Hall added that the lot line adjustment reduced impervious coverage on his site since the most of the 4,000 sq. ft. area transferred was impervious surface. Mr. John Seals, Architect, commented as follows: Presented a drawing for the retaining wall to the rear of the site With regard to overall building height, there were two topographical maps for this area of the site--with a range of 6 +- inches in the more exact contour map The grade could be raised 8 inches on the side of the house in question; such would make the. overall dimension of the house 26 ft. in height A standard detail showing how the grade could be raised was presented; such would reduce the mass of the house and limit the amount of unnecessary grading In response to Commissioner Tucker's question on the wine cellar, he stated that the existing grade would be altered; thus, the wine cellar would be classified as a basement and not calculated in the floor area. He asked that the Commission calculate the finished grade of the house. In response to further question, he stated that he had not calculated the percentage of slope. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 1:14 A.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Kolstad noted the instability of the ajacent site due to drainage; with the amount of impervious coverage proposed for the site in question, futher problems could arise. He would be able to make the required Findings for allowing the driveway; however, further consideration of the amount of impervious coverage was necessary. Commissioner Tucker requested additional information. Commissioner Siegfried summarized that consensus seemed to be to deny the variance requested. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY V-88001. Passed 7-0. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-002 TO OCTOBER 26, 1988. Passed 7-0 MISCELLANEOUS: None. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: None. Oral by Commission: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 1:24 A.M. ~arol X. Pr~bst-Caughe