Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: January 11, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Mccting Roll Call: Present: Chair~voman Guch, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad; Commissioner Siegfried present at 8:04 P.M. Commissioner Tappan absent. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of Dcccmber 214, 1988 HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 1988, AS PRE- SENTED. Passed 4-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried absent, Commissioner Tucker abstaining. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Caidwell noted the 'following changes: In DR-88-077, Schradcr-Yee Development, Project Description amended to read in part, "In the rear arc two (25) significant trees which are to bc removed, including an 10 inch deciduous tree and an 11 inch tree. One 15 inch Monterey pine is to be preserved." Revised Resolution DR-88-077 was presented with the addition of Condition 7 stating that the 15 inch Monterey pine is to be prcserved; non-compliance constitutcs a violation of the permit. The Applicant had been informed of these amendments and had no objection to such. SD-88-018, Maynard, letters were received from the ti311owing individuals: ~ Dr. William T. and Mrs. Marlene M. McLaughlin, 193'10 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. N Sally and Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., January 6, 1989. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Nonc. Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Mccting was properly posted on January 6, '1989. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. SUP-88-001.2 Rose, '14725 Sobey Road, rcquest to modify a condition of approval for a second unit use permit. Applicant requests to be excused from a require- ment to install street improvements along 260 ft. of 'frontage on a 1.88 acre site in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code zone. Continued to February 22, 1989 at thc request of the Applicant. 2. SD-88-017 Eagleston, 20600 Lomita Avenue, adoption of resolutions for tcntative map V-88-044 and variance for a two-lot subdivision approved by the Commission on December 14, 1988. 3. UP-88-015 Kolotouros, 202~0 Prospect Road, adoption of resolution for use permit approval to continue a nonconforming trucking business approved by the Commission on December 14, 1988. 4. V-88-;-'c~3o Ratner, 191.03 Via Tesoro Court, adoption of resolution for variance ap- proval to allow 6 ft. maximum hcight for two (2) front entrance gates which exceed the maximum height allowed of 3 ft. approved by the Commission on December 14, '1988. 5. DR-88-088 Davies, 15215 Sobey Road, request for design review approval for a 2,418 sq. :ft. two-story addition to an existing one-story single family dxvelling in thc R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. .,. 6. DR-88-077 Schrader-Yee Dcvclopmcnt, 14288 Elva Avenue, requcst for design review approval for a 735 sq. ft. addition to the first floor and a 1,105 sq. ft. second story home on a 7,425 sq. ft. parcel in the R-l-10,000 zoning dis- trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from December 14, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Page 2 JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 7. SD-88-018 Maynard, 29330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for tentative map approval to create a two-lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 acres of partially developed property in the R-1-40,000 zone district. 8. V-88-038 Drumm, 18395 Monpere Way, request for variance approval to allow an addition to be constructed on an existing residence within 6 ft. of the western property line where 7 ft. is required in the R-'l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Chairperson .Guch noted that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 1 was being Continued. Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 7. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2 - 6 AND 8. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried absent. Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 3., UP-88-015: Mr. Kolotouros, 20210 Prospect Road, requested information on the Model Resolution; Item to be considered after hearing Item 7. 7. SD-88-018 Maynard, 29330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for tentative map approval to create a two-lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 acres of partially developed property in the R-I.-40,000 zone district. Commissioner Harris noted the letters submitted' at the hearing and due to controversy surrounding. this Item, asked that this Application be continued. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planners Caldwell and Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Doug Anderson, Applicant's Representative, stated Mr. Maynard was present at the hearing. The Public Hearing remained open. Commissioner Harris requested clarification on lot sizes in the area; the McLaughlin's letter in- dicated that surrounding properties had larger lots; in addition, she questioned the relationship between Santa Clara Valley Water District (letter of November 17, 1988) and the bridge on-site. Commissioner Kolstad requcsted that issues raised in the Lucas' letter be addressed. Chairperson Guch asked for information on the proposed bridge across San Thomas Aquino Creek and the necessary access; she requested a Continuance of this Item pending receipt of information. Planner Caldwell stated that Santa Clara Water District's letter was in response to the plans pre- sented; as stated in their letter, "Plans for a bridge crossing or for any work in the vicinity of the future District right-of-way should be sent for District review and issuance of a permit prior to an construction." Condition 18 of the Model Resolution addressed this requirement. Commissioner Harris, citing the area's rural character, asked that the bridge design be reviewed; the City Attorney responded that a Condition requiring design review of the bridge could be added. Commissioner Kolstad had no objection to the design chosen for the bridge. An acceptable density for the parcel was clear upon visiting site; in addition, there were no privacy issues. He did not feel there was a need to continue this Item. Commissioners Harris,Tucker and Chairperson Guch favored a Continuance. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-018 TO FEBRUARY 8, 1989. Passed 3-2- 1, Commissioners Burger, Kolstad dissenting, Commissioner Siegfried absent. 3. UP-88-01.5 - Kolotouros, 20210 Prospect Road, Mr. Kolotouros requested information on the Model Resolution; Applicant referred to Staff for information requested. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 9. V-88-025 Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for variance approval to A-1088.1 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 resi- dence modifying the previous plans will result in a total floor area on the lot of 10,374 sq. ft. where 5,220 sq. ft. is currently the maximum allowed. The previous approval allowed 7,4'19 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 January 11, 1989. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 11, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Jerry Kocir, Applicant, commented as follows: Presented a packet, including a Site Plan and Staff Report of May 14, 1985, for review In compliance with Resolution '1088.1 and V-88-025, current plans were submitted with reductions from the approved 10,419 sq. ft. to 7,407 sq. ft. (Page 3 of the packet submitted showed the breakdown of the figures presented) Reviewed the Study Session ol' September 6, 1988, regarding clarification of previous state- ments he had made on the mixed side yard setback created by Brandywine Acres in 1961 - Explained that the "Lands of Mullen" at his southerly property line was a walnut orchard; Brandywine Street was constructed seven years after he built his home - If houses had been built adjacent to his lot and a street constructed between these houses and his home, his lot would have an interior side yard and no variance would be required - Since this condition was created without consideration for his existing residence, he urged the Commission to consider such at the time - The variance for 8 ft. was requested due to the City's updated requirement of 25 ft. setback from the exterior side property line; 17 ft. 6 in. already existed on-site - There was no possibility of construction in the 8 ft. by 9'I. ft. landscaped area adjacent to Brandywine Dr; usage and maintenance of this area was approvcd by the Commission - Variance Findings were reviewed; he felt that this case was an exception - Bulk and height: only the roof line could be seen from Hwy. 9; landscape screening and existing wails were noted Disputed the 1,896 sq. ~. listed for the pool room; applicants had reduced such to 1,693 sq. ft. Commissioner Siegfried suggested lowering the height of the pool room at the first pillar to reduce the total square footage; Mr. Kocir responded that such was not possible due to a differential in elevation at the pool room entrance; also a glu-lam was required to carry the weight involved. Commissioner Kolstad also suggested design alternatives; Mr. Kocir reiterated that the pool room was 5 ft. lower than the entrance; in addition, the glu-lam had to be considered. Mr. Mark Kocir, Son of the Applicant, provided additional information on the glu-lam required; in addition, condensation was also a problem. Commissioner Tucker asked the Applicant whether alternative pool covers had been investigated. Mr. Kocir responded that they investigated a bubble type cover attached by bolts and found that condensation on the floor was a serious problem; in addition, air cooling was a consideration. Commissioner Burger confirmed that the pool area was enclosed by walls and a roof. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:34 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Kolstad stated he could make Variance Findings for cnc~:oachment into the setback on the grounds that there was a taking of land and the existing 8 ft. landscaped/sidewalk area adjacent to the site. However, total square footage ~vas excessive; a project redesign was in order. Commissioner Siegfried concurrcd with Commissioner Kolstad's remarks; nonctheless, the design presented was much better than previous plans. Commissioner Burger agreed with both Commissioners. Commissioner Harris felt the house itsell' was impactful in the neighborhood; the pool cover at a two story height was too large of a structure for this site. She concurred with above comments. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JANUARY 1. 1, '1.989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to consideration for a continuance for a project re. design, Mr. Kocir noted his efforts and requested a structural analysis from Staff. Chairperson Guch responded that the Commission wished the Applicant to find a way to reduce the height of the pool cover to bring the project more into compliance with square footage requirements; Mr. Kocir stated he understood but expressed concern regarding what else he could do. He agreed to the Continuance suggested. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE V-88-025, A-'1.088.'1 TO FEBRUARY 8, '1989. Passed 6-0. 10. ZC-88-002 J. Lohr (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Ave., consideration of rezoning SD-88-001 and subdivision approval for a four unit condominium, project on 14,100 sq. ft. of property currently developed with a single family home. The request is to rezone the property to RM-3,000 in order to construct four units similar to the current surrounding development known as Saratoga Parkside. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 11, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:42 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, reviewed the project history and cited the density bonus granted. Planner Caldwell noted the following technical corrections to Staff Report: - Density and Zoning, the formula should read in part, 3,500 sq. ft. - Parking and Circulation, first paragraph final sentence to read, "A total of six (6) spaccs outside the garages are required and six (6) are shown." BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZC-88-002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 11. DR-88-104 J. Lohr (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Avenue, request for design review approval for a four unit condominium structure on a 14,100 sq. ft. lot in the Residential zonc district, Gencral Plan designation PDR (planned developmcnt residential) per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated January 11, 1988; she noted that Condition 8 should be amended to read, "Early warning fire alarm system shall bc in- stalled and maintained in accordance xvith provisions of Section 14-25.110 (b) of the City Code." The Public Hearing was opened at 8:48 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, Applicant, questioncd whether sprinklcrs were required (Condition 4). City Attorney responded that both the sprinkler system and the early warning fire system xvere being required. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to the txvo single story units off of Saratoga Avenue; however, she would have preferred a more continuous roof line. Chairperson Guch was favorable to the roofdiffcrentiation presentcd. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-104 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 12. DR-88-100 Prolo, 19841. Glen Una Drive, request for design review approval to construct a 2,01.3 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 6,822 sq. ft. and a variance to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sq. ft., in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JANUARY '11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planners Caldwell and Jacobson reviewed the Report to thc Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:55 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: Request'was to construct 2,013 sq. ft. with 649 of the total to be constructed on the first floor under the existing roof line; 1364 sq. ft. would be a new second story addition which would be a continuation of the existing second floor Reviewcd the history of this Application and the needs of the Applicant for the space requested Ten immediate neighbors approved the plans and signed a petition requesting approval Applicants did not understand at the time of purchase, the limitation on allowable square footage Reviewed Staff suggestion to either remove or put to another use, accessory structures on-site;' both suggestions negated the reason Applicants bought the property Accessory structures ~vere quality construction; removal of such deprived the Applicant of part of the use of their property Special circumstances; the main residence ~vith the proposed addition was within the allowable square footage; since the accessory structures were away from the house, their square footage had no impact on the perceived bulk of the main residence Reviewed the character of the area, the lot and the natural barriers between the surrounding properties; in addition, landscaping would be added along the property line Variance would not be granting a special privilege in relationship to other homes in the area, es- pecially since the main structure with the addition, ~vould not exceed allowable square footage - Requested approval of the Application BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:09 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris expressed concern about the square footage requested and questioned the size of the surrounding homes; she had reservations whether the variance findings could be made. Commissioner Burger stated that viewing the main structure, she did not have a problem granting this request.since the home was within the allowable square .footage and not was very impactful given the size of the lot; she questioned whether a reduction in the size of the garage were possible. Commissioner Siegfried noted that thc Commission had debated over the years the findings neces- sary to grant approval. A finding of compatibility could be made; however, variance findings were required in this case. He questioned the size of homes and accessory structures in the vicinity. Commissioner Kolstad felt the request was compatible with the.area He wished to make the findings; however, he was concerned that approval of this Application would set a precedent. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to the design; however, she had difficulty making a finding that this was not special privilege. She was agreeable to a review of the surrounding home sizes. Chairperson Guch concurred that reviewing the size of adjacent homes was desirable; she was favorable to the design proposed. As Commissioner Kolstad noted, if a vote were required imme- diately, she would have to vote on the square footage presented. She suggested a continuance. Ms. Fanelli stated the Applicant wished to know what was meant by compatible square footage; Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Commission wanted to know the total square footage. Commissioner Burger advised the Commission to make known what would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Harris noted that the intent of a Variance was to remove subjectivity from decisions. Ms. Fanelli statcd that the question was whether accessory structures impacted the bulk of a home. Commissioner Burger favored a review of the size of surrounding homes; if such werc approxi- mately 8500 sq. ft., she would accept this Application with a comparable square footage. Chairperson Guch asked how comparable square footage helpcd in making a variance finding. Commissioner Kolstad responded that comparable square footage may not justify a finding. Commissioner Siegfried agreed and suggested a review of the surrounding homes and accessory structures; if such xvere in the range of this request, the Commission could consider the possibility of making a variance .finding on the grounds that the total square footage of the structures on-site were compatible ~vith the surrounding area. Otherwise the Application would have to be denied. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JANUARY 11, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli asked if the Applicants found that thc square footage was comparable, would it be possible for the Commission to make the necessary findings. Chairperson Guch responded that it would be possible to have a discussion on whether or not the findings could be made; she advised the Applicant that the Commission ~vas unable to make the findings at the time. Commissioner.:Harris suggested the Applicant be offered an opportunity to attend a Study Session and present modifications wherein the Commission's concerns could be addressed. At that time the issue of compatibility with the surrounding area could be reviewed as well as consideration of how the proposed square footage could be reduced. Applicants were agreeable to a Study Session. Chairperson Guch asked that Staff research the issue of compatible square footage in the area. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-100 AND V-88-043 TO JANUARY 25, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING' HELD JANUARY 17, 1989. Passed 6-0. Break: 9:30 - 9:45 P.M. 13. AZO-88-009 City of Saratoga, amendment to the City Code subsections 14-25.110 (d) and 15-80.090 (d) pertaining to the early warning fire alarm system. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated December 16, 1988. The Public Hearing xvas opened at 9:55 P.M. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:55 P.M. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney clarified that the amendment would only be added to those sections of the Sub- division and Zoning Ordinance that listed the circumstances when the early warning fire alarm system was required to be installed. Commissioner Burger raised the issue of an expansion of an existing home of less than 50% which, nonethcless, increased the total square footage to over 5,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Siegfried concurred and suggested that the 50% may not be the appropriate number; he agreed with Fire Chief Kraule's assessment of the situation and added that safety concerns may not be greatly increased by a small expansion of an existing home. Commissioner Burger questioned whether it was the square footage per sc that triggered concern. Chief Kraule responded that this question was the source of an on-going debate; he cited the variables in putting out a fire, namely, the size o1' the home, how advanced the fire ~vas when the Department was notified and the amount of resources necessary to control the fire. He noted the increasing size of homes in the City and stated that some number had to be set; the 5,000 sq. ft. figure seemed thc most appropriate number. City Attorney advised the Commission that this Item could be Continued to a follo~ving meeting. The Commission reached consensus on Staff Recommendation Re: 2 Sprinkler Systems for Garages; a revised Ordinance Amendment would be brought back to the Commission for approval. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-88-009 TO JANUARY 25, '1989. Passed 6-0. 14. AZO-88-010 City of Saratoga, amendments to the City Code Section 15-06,280 concern- ing gross floor area, Section 15-18,020 adding financial institutions as a permitted use in the PA zone district and Sections 15-29.010 and 15-29.020 concerning fcncing. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. The City Attorney reviewed the Memorandum dated December 21, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 P.M. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney stated that a revised Ordinance Amendment would be presented for revie~v. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-88-010 TO JANUARY 25, 1989. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 JANUARY 11, 1989 MISCELLANEOUS: 1. DR-87-052.1 Kwei, (former applicant Naval), 14599 Big Basin Way, consideration of landscape plan. Continued from December 14, 1988. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum dated January 11, 1989. Planner Caldwell noted the packet presented for the Commission's review by the Applicant. Chairperson Guch wished to see a combination of replacement trees on-site and in the Saratoga Village Street Tree Program; Commissioner Siegfried concurred. Planning Director Eroslie responded that given the site constraints, replacement of a similar sized tree in the same spot was unlikely. Chairperson Guch noted the Commission's desire to have the replacement tree in the area of the tree being removed; she requested a landscape plan incorporating the on-site planrings and the Street Tree Program. Commissioner Burger noted that it was apparent the City had lost more then could be replaced in the near future; she wished to see 'planrings on-site with the remainder of the funds contributed to the Street Tree Program. Commissioner Harris stated that the original tree was in an undesirable spot in so far as construct tion was concerned; she questioned whether the replacement should be installed in the same spot. Mr. Barrie Coate, Horticultural Consultant, noted that a replacement tree could be installed in the same place as the original tree; he discussed the landscaping plan he submitted with his report. Mr. Long Kwei, Applicant, stated that he had talked with Mr. Coatc as well as to other experts; ac- cording to them the tree value was the basis for the replacement cost which included tree removal, replacement trees and installation. He felt the replacement cost should be assessed at $33,386.00; the $66,772.00 assessment was financially impossible and was unfair to him. He suggested that landscaping on-site be maximized per Mr. Coate's recommendation; secondly, he wished to install a tree on Mrs. Fitzsimmon's site per Mr. Coate's recommendation. Finally, the balance of the $33,386.00 would be paid to the Saratoga Village Strcct Tree Program. Mr. Duke Wall, Developer, stated that it was impossible for the Applicant to spend the $33,386.00 on-site and on the neighbor's property with nothing left over. He noted that this issue arose from concerns over one action of the contractor, namely, one root was cut closer than the plan allowed. Experts retained by the Applicant clearly stated that this action alone would not have caused the loss of the tree; there were a number of factors that combined to jeopardized the tree. Finally, experts had determined that the tree could still survive. The City Attorney advised the Commission that the City relied on its own experts; the topic was the value of the tree. Staff figure of $33,386.00 was exclusive of any installation costs; Mr. Coate was asked to address this figure. Mr. Coate stated that the International Society of Horticulturists provided a formula by which the value of a tree was calculated; this formula was used in his report. He confirmed that the formula had nothing to do with removal of an existing trcc or installation of a replacement tree. Mr. Kwei stated that the question should be, when they replaced the tree, should replacement costs be included into the $33,386.00? The Commission confirmed that they understood the question. Consensus reached that the replacement value of the tree plus installation costs would be assessed. The City Attorney stated that the replacement value of the tree and the installation costs could be separated; however, the Commission wished trees installed in the value equivalent to the value of the tree removed; the cost of installation was the Applicant's concern. Thus a $33,386.00 expen- diture for the replacement of the tree was sought; the installation costs could be secured with a return of any unused money upon completion of the requirement. However, with respect to the street trees, the City could not have a situation as suggested by the Applicant, where the lowest of three bids obtained would be used; the street trees ~vould be part of the overall program where the City would obtain bids through the Public Works Department. Mr. Wall interjected that the Applicant's offer of the lowest of three bids was to assure the City of the best price for the replacement trees, leaving the maximum residual balance available to the City. He added that Mr. Coate had not been allowed time to answer questions on the installations costs. Conclusions reached at this hearing contradicted information of the experts; such was inappropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 JANUARY 11, 1989 MISCELLANEOUS Continued The City Attorney added that the Applicant could be given credit for removing the decaying trees on the Fitzsimmon's property. If there was an immediate economic constraint on the part of the Applicant and noting that some of the trees would be street trees planted at a later date, a contribution of money could be deferred and secured with a provision that as the condominium units were sold, a certain' amount of money was deposited into the street tree account. Commissioner Harris noted a discrepancy between figures submitted by Mr. Blair and Mr. Coate on the replacement value of the tree; Mr. Coate could not account for the substantial difference. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO PURCHASE TREES IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,386.00, TO POST OR SECURE AN EQUAL AMOUNT FOR INSTALLATION OF THE TREES WITH ANY DIFFERENTIAL BEING RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. APPLICANT TO BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR REMOVAL OF THE TREE ON THE FITZSIMMON'S PROPERTY. Mr. Kwei responded that he was financially unable to comply in the amount of $66,772.00; he noted his interest in the public safety and cited the narrow profit margin of this project. Chairperson Guch stated that a condition of the development was the preservation of this tree; the Applicant was advised of his right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Council. Commissioner Harris asked that details of the installation cost be ~vorked out by Staff. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT DETAILS OF THE INSTALLATION COSTS BE WORKED OUT BY STAFE Passed 6-0. 2. SD-88-006 Saviano Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road - Council request for Planning Com- mission review of new information and policy recommendings concerning the appeal of Planning Commission resolution approving the three lot sub- division. Consensus reached by the Commission due to the lateness of the hour to Continue SD-88-006 to January 25, 1989, with a Study Session being held January 17, 1989. 3. City Council request for Planning Commission suggested planning programs and priorities for consideration of upcoming Policy Development Conference. Suggestions made by the Commission were noted by Staff for consideration at the Conference. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Letter from the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council re: EIR, General Plan Amendment and Rezoning of former Paul Masson Winery Site, - Noted and filed. '2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report of December 6, and October 18,1988, - Noted and filed. 3. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of December 7, 1.988 - Noted and filed. 4. Memo from Planning Director re: Planning Commission Retreat Oral by Commission: Commissioner Burger reported on the December 21, 1988, Meeting of the City Council. Commissioner Harris reported on the January 4, 1989, Meeting of the City Council. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission ~vas adjourned at 11:40 P.M. ctfully ' / CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 17, 1989, 7:00 p.m.* PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole The Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting is a work/study session between applicants, interested citizens, staff and members of the Planning Commission to discuss projects and/or planning issues in an informal manner. As such, no official record is kept of the proceedings since the Committee will not be making any formal decisions. ,7:00 - Showing of "Saratoga" videotape seen on "Bay Area Backroads" p.m. I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 7:30 - A. Robby, 13536 Cocciardi Court p.m. Discussion of letter re: variance from standards of Second Unit Ordinance (information attached) B. Reichardt, 13150 Saratoga Avenue Update from developer on plans for 25 acre project on former Paul Masson winery site. C. SD-88-006 - Saviano/Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road Review of new information and policy issues concerning the appeal of Planning Commission resolution approving the 3-lot subdivision - continued from 1/11/89 D. DR-88-100, V-88-043 - Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Drive Request for design review approval to construct a 2,013 sg. ft. second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 6,822 sq. ft.; and a variance to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sg. ft. (Oral report on staff findings re: square footage for neighborhood residences - cont. from 1/11/89) ADJOURNMENT ,Please Note the 7:00 p.m. video, if you wish to see it.