Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: November 9, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Rcgular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Introduction of new Planning Director, Stephen Emslie by the City Manager. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of October 26, 1988 Commissioner Harris asked that a statement be added in DR-88-079, Mr. Leckrone "submitted photos taken from the roof of his home toward Mrs. Welch's showing existing trees and the dis- tance between the structures." In SD-88-006, add to Mr. Kohler's statement, "Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Kohler if he had done the calculations subtracting the slide area; he had not, but Acting City Manager, Mr. Shook responded that such a calculation would deduct the slope area of the lot, allowing greater density and would allow for perhaps as many as four lots. This property was not designated MD or MRT." In DR-88-005, add "After the Hearing, Ms. Fenelli asked for some guidelines; the Commissioners generally felt that the size of the home should be reduced." Chairperson Guch asked that in Item 8, Les Maisons Provencal, her final comment read, "Chair- person Guch noted the grave concerns regarding project density; the flexibility allowed in Concep- tual Design Approval permitted Applicants to creatively address concerns about project density." BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 1988, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Tucker abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: - Mr. Bert Martell, 14420 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, read into the record a statement rcgarding construction activity occurring at 19431 San Marcus Rd. without notifichtion of neighbors. - Ms. Pat Dawn, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, cited concerns about removing the underbrush at a property on Pierce Rd. and Surrey Ln; she asked that Staff further review this situation. Staff would report on this issue on Tuesday, November 15, 1988. Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on November 4, 1988. Technical Corrections to the Agenda: Planner Caldwell stated that in DR-88-084, a Condition was added requiring the installation of a sprinkler system in the three car garage. Applicant had been informed and was agreeable to such. Chairperson Guch stated that the final Public Hearings Item, V-88-032 had been withdrawn per request of Jessie H. McGuirc in his letter of Novcmber 9, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1: DR-88-059 Abou-Khater, 19400 Pinnacle Courtt., request for design review approval for a 978 sq. ft. main floor. addition and 553 sq. ft. lower floor addition to an existing 4,120 sq. ft. one-story home per Chapter 15 of the City Code. After the addition, the total floor area will be 5,651 sq. ft. on a .855 acre site in the R-I-40,000 zoning district. Continued to December 1.4, 1988. 2. V-88-042 Saratoga-Los Gatos High School Dist., 20300 Herriman Drive, request for Sign Permit variance approval to allow a monument sign at Saratoga High School to be 446A 50 sq. ft. in size where 24 sq. ft. is allowed in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 3. ' SD-88-012 Cheatham, 14458 Oak Placc, request for tentative building site approval for DR-88-061 one lot in the R-l-10,000 zoning district pursuant to City Code Article 14- 15. Design review is also requested for a ne~v 3,276 sq. ft. two-story single .family home to replace the existing structures on the lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 4. DR-88-084 Dura Style Homes, 18250 Montpere Way, request for design review approval to construct a new 4,008 sq. ft. home with an attached 3-car garage in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 5. DR-88-90 Chan, 21396 Maria Lane, request for design review approval to construct an 822 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing residence in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. V-88-036 Pacific Bell, Knollwood Drive, request .tbr variance approval to replace an existing underground transmission line with aerial cable at the rear of the homes. Property located between Kirkmont Drive and Knollwood Drive in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter '1.5 of the City Code. 7. UP-88-014 Thorsch, 20490 Willjams Avenue, requcst for use permit approval to recon- struct a deteriorating climbing structure at an approved nursery school in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. V-88-041 Robert Schiro, 13902 Upper Hill Court, request for variance approval to construct a retaining wall 190 lYet long and 10 tYet high where 5 _Ft. is the maximum height allowed in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The Chair noted that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 1 was Continued to December 14th. Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 2. A member of the Public requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8 TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3,4, 5, 6 AND 7. Passed 6-0. 2. V-88-042 Saratoga-Los Gatos High School Dist., 20300 Herriman Drive, request fix Sign Permit variance approval to allow a monument sign at Saratoga High School to be 446A 50 sq. ft. in size where 24 sq. ft. is allowed in the R-1-1.2,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker stated that she was favorable to combining the two signs into one; however, she had reservations about the size and wished to discuss the illumination proposed. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, '1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. Mr. Vern Burgess stated that the sign illumination could be reduced; in addition, the curve of the sign would sot'ten the effect. There would be'illuminated red lettcring on the white background; in addition, the message board would bc separated from the name of the school. Commissioner Tucker cited Sign Ordinance requirements; it was her understanding that the lower portion of the sign would be included in calculations of square footage. Commissioner Harris questioned the brightness of the illumination; Mr. Burgess provided infor- mation on the type of lights to be used and stated that if upon completion, the sign appeared too bright, the interior lighting could be adjusted. Ms. Addy Dursell, Pierce Rd., Saratoga, was favorable to the message board included in the sign. Commissioner Burger questioned whether there was to be any increase in the size of sign. Mr. Burgess confirmed that the brick columns on the new design would be placed where the out- side of the existing sign was located. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 P.M. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Tappan suggested review of the sign illumination after construction was completed; such to be added as a Condition of Approval. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to the illumination presently used; such was soft and blended with the surrounding residential area. The sign proposed was highly visible; she preferred not to have internal illumination. She was concerned this Application could set a precedence. Commissioner Harris felt that the sign in question had a special purpose and served the community by noticing events and productions. She had no objection to the interior lighting proposed. Commissioner Kolstad was favorable to the size proposed and did not object to internal illumina- tion; he agreed that a provision should be added requiring a review of the sign after construction. Commissioner Burger noted an initial reluctance; however, she now agreed with above comments. Commissioner Tucker stated that her concerns were addressed; she favored a review of the sign. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-042 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT THE ILLUMINATION BE REVIEWED AFTER IN- STALLATION OF THE SIGN. Passed 6-0. City Attorney suggested the review be set .for a date certain; he suggested 30 days after installation. Hours of operation could be regulated as a Condition of the Variance, if the Commission wished. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION REQUIRING A REVIEW OF THE INTENSITY OF THE LIGHTING AND THE HOURS OF ILLUMINATION WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF INSTALLATION OF THE SIGN. Passed 6-0. 8. V-88-041 Robert Schiro, 13902 Upper Hill Court, request for variance approval to construct a retaining wall 190 feet long and 10 feet high where 5 ft. is the maximum height allowed in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit; the Land Use Committee was of the opinion that plants would have to be installed on the wall and downslope after the required repair was made. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Rick Walton-Smith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoga, expressed the following concerns: Pile of dirt was in immediate danger of sliding; mud slides had previously occurred on-site Photographs of the retaining wall showed that the wall was bowing out Aesthetic questions on the appearance of the wall existed Residents wished to see planrings and/or suitable screening in front of the wall Mr. Bill Clayton, Representing the Applicant, stated that the repair wall had been installed only a limited time ago; with respect to visual impact, the Application was submitted to address this issue; the landscaping plan included ivy or other planrings on the wall as well as trees or plants to be installed in front of the wall. Piled dirt would be reinstalled next to the retaining wall. Commissioner Kolstad questioned the installation of a 10 ft. wall and suggested alternatives to re- duce the height of the retaining wall; Mr. Clayton responded that such was recommended to address the problem. The Commissioner felt the retaining ~vall could be half thc height requested. Mr. Clayton, responding to further inquiry of Commissioner Kolstad, stated that water had gotten behind the wall causing it to bow out; thus, bracing was required in order to stabilize the wall. Mr. Walton-Smith noted the cost of the retaining wall; however, when originally built, the Appli- cation was not heard by the Planning Commission. This Application was a feat accomplished. Ms. Virginia Young, 21.400 Sara Hills Rd., Saratoga, stated her only concern was the 15 gallon trees proposed for installation; she asked that larger trees be planted to prevent the lengthy delays required to obtain adequate screening and give residents relief from the visual impact of the wall. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Tappan sympathized with neighbors and agreed it was critical that the wall be quickly screened from view; increased planrings and larger plants and trees should be required. Commissioner Burger felt the 10 ft. high ,,vail was necessary. A 12 ft. wall already existed on the other side of the property; it was difficult to separate this wall from the surroundings due to the planrings that had been installed. The same could be done for the 10 ft. wall; she was favorable to this Application with a Condition that heavy plantings used as ground cover and trees be planted; in addition, cascading plants to be installed on the wall itself. CommissiOner Kolstad was not convinced a 10 ft. high wall was necessary; however, he would vote in favor of the Application with the Condition as stated by Commissioner Burger. Commissioner Tucker concurred and .asked that the property owner maintain the drainage on-site. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-041 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE ADDED: - LANDSCAPING PLAN SHOWING LARGER TREES AND SHRUBS AND CASCADING PLANTS OVER THE WALL, LARGE ENOUGH TO GAIN A SOLID FOOTHOLD PRIOR TO HEAVY RAINS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT; .PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. - PROPERTY OWNER SHALL PROPERLY MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE ON-SITE. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 9. DR-88-002 Hall, 22637 Mr. 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 impervious coverage of 18,911 sq. ~. where 15,000 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. Continued from October 26, 1988. Planner Caldwcll reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M. Mr. John Seals, Architect, commented as follows: - Cited Staff Report, Variance for Impervious Coverac, e and objected to the comment that "It appears that the applicant can develop and landscape h~ property in compliance with the Code's restriction of 15,000 sq. ft." - In order to design comfortable pads, patios, decks and pool, the 1262 sq. ft. of allowable impervious coverage would be almost used up - The main issue was controlling soil runoff; if this issue could be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Geologist, would the Planning Commission accept this solution Commissioner Kolstad responded that while such might be taken into account, there were a num- ber of issues to be considered as stated in the Staff Report; he called attention to the Findings that would have to be made. Mr. Seals asked whether other landscape materials would be considered; Chairperson Guch responded that the Commission wished to see the amount of impervious coverage reduced. Mr. Tom Hall, Applicant, commented as lbllows: - Stat~ that drainage was a primary concern - Noted the extensive landscaping proposed for the area surrounding the house - For proper control of the drainage, it was necessary to use the water on site Driveway was designed to minimize the slope While a shorter driveway was possible, such may not be better - Agreed the proposal was a little over the impervious coverage allowed; however, Staff recom- mendation to use turf block was not acceptable - Suggested runoff be addressed by proper engineering and use of landscaping - Preliminary Title Act for the driveway easement was included for the Commission's review Revic~ved the intent of the driveway easement previously granted PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planner Caldwell noted that the drive~vay easement agreement was not a requirement of the City; in fact, the City could not approve a lot line adjustment that conflicted with easements on a property. The abandonment of the easement was done after the Planning Commission approved the lot line adjustment and was independent of any action, requirement or kno~vledge on the part of the City. Legal documents provided by the Applicant did not indicate in any way that the easement had to be removed; if such was the intent of the Applicant, it was his personal intent. It was Staf_~s under- standing that legal access existed on the property as shown on plans submitted and on the lot line adjustment granted by the City. City Attorney confirmed that the City approved a lot line adjustment based upon access rights as shown; if the Applicant had a different agreement, the City was not party to such. He did not see anything in the Title Agreement presented that had any bearing on the action under consideration Mr. Hall added that significant impervious surface had been removed from the site through the lot line adjustment, approximately 2000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:57 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris citcd the required Findings and noted that the Applicant had made a case in that the lot was double the minimum size required; however, as noted in the Staff Report, the "Planning Commission approved variances from impervious coverage only for cases where the existing coverage was approved in compliance with Code restriction at the time and already exceed- ed the maximum coverage allowed per the new code requirements." She noted the amount of landscaping in the form of impervious coverage and the size of the parking area in front of the house. She could not make the necessary Findings. Commissioner Burger agreed, adding that there were creative ways to rcduce impervious coverage. Commissioner Kolstad concurred. Consensus reached to Continue the Application to allow the Applicant to reconsider the proposal; Chairperson Guch advised that the Commission was not favorable to granting the Variance. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE V-88-001 TO DECEMBER 14, 1988. Passed 6-0. 10. GP-88-002.1 Passantino, 13100 Saratoga Avenue, consideration of an amendment to the ZC-88-003 General Plan and Land Use Map to change the designation from M (limited industrial) to M~10 (medium density residential) and rezoning of property from L-I (light industrial) to R-l-10,000 (single family residential). Properties are currently developed with onc single family home on an 18,200 sq. ft. parcel and a water well belonging to the San Jose Water Works on a 5,280 sq. ft. parcel. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M. Mr. wade Hover, Mr. Passantino's Attorney, asked whether Staff was thc Applicant in this item. City Attorney Toppel responded that the City initiated the Application; however, Mr. Hover could utilize the amount of time allotted to an Applicant to address the Commission, if he so chose. Mr. Hover pointed out that the City through the City Council, had not made any recommendation. The Executive Summary was published as recently as October 271h, less than '1.4 days ago; his client had not been allotted time to refer this matter to consultants for a response. His first request was for a 60 day extension of time before the matter were considered any further. The City Attorney stated that such a request was solely within the discretion of the Commission. Commissioner Harris noted that the Commission only made a recommendation to the City Council; tentative hearing date for the Council was December 21st. She felt that adequate time existed for Mr. Passantino and/or his Attorney to respond. The City Attorney advised that the hearing could continue in order to make a decision whether or not there were grounds for granting the speaker's request for a 60 day continuance of this Item. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hover responded that such would needlessly compound arguments he wished to make; there was no case for rezoning his clicnt's property. He saw nothing in the Staff Report, Discussion, that gave any reason whatsoever, for rezoning the Passantino property based upon public necessity, safety or any other factor. There had been no study wherein his client had an opportunity to participate or to indicate that the public safety was in any way being served by a rezoning. He had no objection to considerations surrounding the Paul Masson property; however, his client's property was being considered for a residential designation. This parcel was bordered on three sides with ingress/egress routes for the proposed Les Maisons Provencal and Route 85; such was an inappropriate location for a single family residence. Mr. Hover objected to the characterization of "spot zoning;" his client's property had been zoned as it currently existed since before the City was incorporated. The legal concept of spot zoning did not apply; use of such a term was not consistent or persuasive with the law. He objected to the statement that current zoning on site was inconsistent with the current use; such was not the case. Furthermore, the statement that "medium density residential designation is consistent with the established use and with the density of the majority of Planning Area F" was an irrational statement. Mr. Hover stated his client was considering utilizing his property through Professional/Office use which would be compatible with the planned use of the immediately adjacent parcel. He concluded with the request that the Passantino property remain in the current zoning until such time as an application were presented; to rezone the property at this time did violence to the concept that the property be considered part of the surrounding area. Mr. Ray Simpson, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, stated that anything the Council could do to maintain a property or change property in Saratoga to maintain a single family residential character was in keeping with the General Plan. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, the City Attorney stated he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Hover in terms of conclusions reached. He cited Exhibit D, Industrial and stated that language ret?erring to office and retail use required that these uses be part of the Winery operation; such would not allow office or retail use independent of the Winery. Any other uses were conditional uses; nothing in the present M district, would allow construction of an office or retail building. The use of the Passantino property was a legitimate issue; however, he suggested the property owner decide on a desired use of his property and then apply for such. The single family dwelling on-site was a non-conforming use which had been grandfathered in. The City Attorney stated that Staff recommended the current use of the Passantino property be classified in the General Plan and given a Zoning Classification in accordance with its existing use. Commissioner Burger noted that the Planning Commission would be making a recommendation to the City Council; she suggested the Commission take action on this item. The City Manager suggested that alternatives be further considered by the Commission. Mr. Hover reiterated his request not to rezone the Passantino property at this time. Consensus reached by the majority of the Commission to Continue this Item to December 14th. The Public Hearing remained open. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE GP-88-002.1, ZC-88-003 TO DECEMBER 14, 1988. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Burger dissenting. 11. DR-88-069 Lohr, 14617 Chester Avenue, request for design review approval to con- struct a new 5,164 sq. ~. two-story single family dwelling in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldweli reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:50 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, reviewed the Application and discussed the dimensions of the individual lots; he called attention to the special provisions to preserve the Oak tree on Lot 22. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:01. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Tappan concurred with Staff; the proposed house was an ungainly, massive and in- congruous structure. Commissioner Kolstad cited the bulk of the structure and the lack of architectural interest; he noted that Lots 1, 2 and 3 were a transition from the Sobey Rd. area. He cited the example of a recently approved Montcwood house which appeared boxy; he wished to see more than "frame and stucco boxes" in future applications. Commissioner Burger noted that while the structure on Lot 2 had some architectural elements, she suggested other design elements to make this house compatible with previously approved homes and soften the appearance. She noted that the Oak tree adjacent to this lot was dying; she wished to see a replacement tree required to maintain the entrance to this project. Chairperson Guch concurred with Commissioner Burger and felt that design elements and land- scaping could be added to improve the appearance of the project. Commissioner Harris concurred with comments of Chairperson Guch and Commissioner Burger; she suggested one of the one-story houses be placed adjacent to an existing one-story home. Commissioner Tucker noted the lack of interest in the roof elements. Chairperson Guch favored a Continuance with a Study Session to consider this project. Applicant was agreeable and would consult with his client regarding the Commission's comments. GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-069 TO DECEMBER 14, 1988, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD DECEMBER 6, 1988. Passed 6-0. 12. ZC-88-002 J. Lohr (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Avenue, consideration of re- SD-88-001 zoning and subdivision approval for a 4 unit condominium project on 14,100 sq. t't. of property currently developed with a single family home. The request is to fezone the property to the current surrounding develop- ment known as Saratoga Parkside. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, reviewed the history of this Application; a project rodesign had been pre- pared but was not ready to submit; he requested a Continuance of this Item. Mr. Bob Peckovick, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, presented a petition oppos- ing construction of housing which resulted in a four fold increase in density. Residents were concerned regarding a "creeping rezoning" in the area. Mr. Ray Simpson, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, concurred with the above. Vice President, Saratoga Parkside Homeowners Association, disagreed with the above statements; he supported the development and wished to see Mr. Lohr's project completed. He noted the open space available within this development. The Public Hearing remained open. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE ZC-88-002, SD-88-001 TO DECEMBER 14, 1988. Passed 6-0. 13. V-88-030 Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Court, request for variance approval to allow 6 t't. maximum height for two (2) front entrance gates which exceed the maximum height allowed of 3 ft. on a 1.216 acre site in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated November 9, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 10:30 P.M. Mr. Jerry Ratner, Applicant, noted the topography and the site constraints; absence of a gate made the home non-conforming with adjacent homes. He felt that the Fence Ordinance requirements worked against the security needs of this home; a 3 ft. high gate would not provide the necessary psychological or physical barrier required. Photographs were presented. Mr. Maurice Camargo, Architect, stated that the gates were part of the pilasters and questioned the intent of the Ordinance. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:36 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris did not object to the wrought iron gate as proposed. Commissioner Kolstad felt the request was appropriate; however, he was concerned regarding the making of the required Findings. Commissioner Burger noted the definite neighborhood flavor of the area; however, she felt she could not make the required Findings. Chairperson Guch stated she could not make the Variance Findings. Commissioner Kolstad noted that other properties in the vicinity had similar gate structures. Commissioner Tappan suggested the Applicant might be willing to delay installation of the gates until such time as the Commission amended the applicable Ordinance to allow wrought iron gates. The City Attorney noted that the Commission seemed willing to review the applicable Ordinance; however, such did not change the requirement for making the Variance Findings. KOLSTAD/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V-88-030 MAKING A FINDING OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY HAD SIMILAR GATE STRUCTURES AND THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SAFETY OR BE MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY. Failed 3-3, Chairperson Guch, Commissioners Tucker, Tappan dissenting. City Attorney stated he would present an Ordinance Amendment for review by the Commission; Item to be brought back lbr consideration by a full Commission on December 14, 1988. 14. V-88-032 A & L Land Development, 14945 Three Oaks Way. Item withdrawn from the agenda per request of Mr. Jessie H. McGuire. M I SCELLAN EOUS: 1. Sign Permit Mina-Tree Signs/Wells Fargo Bank, 1.4428 Big Basin Way, request for sign permit for 2 fascia signs totalling 29.5 sq. ft. on a bank building in the C-C zoning district. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1988. The Cha, ir recognized the following speaker. A Representative of Wells Fargo answered questions about the construction of the sign. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 455A FOR A SIGN PERMIT. Passed 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Letter from Dennis Reichardt, Les Maisons Provencal Re: Study Session - Hearing set for November '15, 1988, Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS Continued 2. Memo Re: Hw.ang residence Consensus of the Commission to reconsider Motion and set Hearing for November 15, 1988, Committee-of-the Whole Meeting. 3. Memo Re: Modification to landscaping at shopping center/signalization at Pierce Road - Noted and filed. - 4. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of September 21, October 5 and October 19, 1988, - Noted and filed. 5. Letter from Wade Hover - Noted and filed. 6..Letter Re: Argonaut Shopping Center - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Commissioner Burger reported on the City Council Meeting of November 2, 1988. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey