Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: March 8, 1.989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Tappan; Commissioner Tucker absent. Approval of Minutes: Meetings of February 8, '1989, and February 22, 1989 Commissioner Siegfried asked that in the Minutes of February 8th, Page 4, his comment be amended to read, "...it raised a question about the implications of the ordinances that, by giving away a portion of the property to the Santa Clara Water District, a non-conforming lot could be converted into a conforming lot. The question was, did such meet the intent of the ordinance?" HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 1989, AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Kolstad asked that in the Minutes of February 22nd, Page 6, his comment be amended to read, "...he explained to the residents..." Commissioner Harris asked that on the same page, add to Mr. Lohr's comment, "...as children would be attending Saratoga Schools." HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1989, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Col. E. T. Barco, E1 Camino Barco, presented a prepared statement regarding the deteriorating appearance of the City due to the proliferation of illegal signs and/or objectionable signage; a series of photographs were presented. He asked the Commission to study the matter. Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on March 3, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planning Director Emslie noted that in the Model Resolution for DR-88-091, Condition 3 to be amended to add a provision to allow the landscaping to be bonded until the drought conditions had abated. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-88-066 Nelson, 13621. Pierce Rd., request for tentative building site, design review SD-88-022 and variance approval to construct a new 4,963 sq. ft. two-story single faro- V-88-031 ily home in the NHR zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 1,153 sq. ft. Application withdrawn. 2. SD-89-003 McDonald, 20904 Prospect Rd., request for building site approval for one parcel measuring 17,076 sq. ft. of net site area per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The parcel is located in the. R-1-20,000'zoning district. Continued to March 22, '1989. 3. DR-87-161.1 Hulberg, 12820-12860 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for approval of a modification to the site plan to allow parking lot lights not previously approved by the Planning Commission per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to March 22, 1989, per request of the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 4. DR-88-076 Yoshioka, 20570 Prospect Rd., request for design review, tentative map SD-88-016 and use permit approval to construct a two-lot subdivision of 53,575 sq. ft. UP-88-013 and 23,000 sq. ft.; and use permit approval to allow a residential use in the neighborhood commercial zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to March 22, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 5. DR-88-098 SinsIcy, 15314 Sobey Road, request for building site and design review ap- SD-89-001 proval to construct a one-story 5,797 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R- 1-40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from February 22, 1989. 6. DR-88-094 Lohr, 14594 Sobey Oaks Ct., request for design review approval to construct a two-story, 5,486 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from February 22, 1989. 7. DR-88-091 Huang, 14590 Deer Springs Ct., request for a single family residence to exceed the 8 ft. height limit above a major ridge line by 11 ft. Continued from February 22, 1989. 8. DR-88-080 Mollard, 13977 Albar Ct., request for design review approval to construct a 6,240 sq. ft. two-story home with an attached three-car garage in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from February 8, 1989. 9. DR-88-029 Archer, 12057 Parker Ranch Rd., request for modification to previously approved deck at the rear of the lot located in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Chairperson Guch noted that Public Hearing Consent Calendar 1 was withdrawn from the agenda; Public Hearings Consent Calendar Items 2, 3, and 4 were being continued to a date certain. Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 6, 7, 8 AND 9. Passed 6-0. 5. DR-88-098 SinsIcy, 15314 Sobey Road, request for building site and design review ap- SD-89-001 proval to construct a one-story 5,797 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R- 1-40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from February 22, 1.989. Commissioner Burger noted that there was no grading shown on the plans submitted nor were the materials and colors proposed shown; she requested clarification of these items. Planner Jacobson stated that a site visit indicated that only minimal grading would be required for the pier foundation; the site had only a 2% slope. Staff had not received an adequate response regarding the materials and colors to be used; the Applicant was asked to address the issue. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Ray SinsIcy, Applicant, presented a color sample of a grey tone which was called "Misty". He confirmed that the site was practically flat. Commissioner Burger asked that the standard Condition be imposed, requiring earth tones with colors and materials subject to the approval of the Planning Director and adding a second Condition stating that only minimal grading was to be done on-site. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:48 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-098 AND SD-89-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, WITH THE STANDARD CONDITION TO BE IMPOSED, REQUIR- ING EARTH TONES, AND COLORS AND MATERIALS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND ADDING A SECOND CONDITION STATING THAT ONLY MINIMAL GRADING WAS TO BE DONE ON-SITE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 MARCH 8, 1989 pUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. UP-89-002 Shannon/Wieser, 12840 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for a conditional use permit approval to operate a dog and cat veterinary hospital at the Saratoga Oaks Center in the C-N zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from February 22, 1989 per the request of the applicant to be heard before a full Commission. The Public Heating was opened at 8:47 P.M. Mr. Ed Wieser, Applicant, made himself available for questions. Dr. Shannon, Applicant, stated that this animal clinic would not be a problem for the community; examples of other operations in the San Jose area without problems or complaints were cited. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-89-002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-2, Commissioners Burger and Harris dissenting. 11. Mt. Eden Rd. A public hearing to consider certifications of an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed four (4) lot residential subdivision directly north of Tract 7761 of the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision. The project consists of 52.5 acres located in the NHR zone district and is proposed for the develop- ment of four single family homes and a remainder parcel comprising 31 acres to remain in a Williamson Act Contract. The purpose of the heating is to consider the adequacy of an environmental document prepared to identify potential impacts which may result from the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated March 8, 1989. Mr. Paul Hoffey, Earth Metrics reviewed the Dritf~ EnVir0nment~tl ImpaCt RepOrt (EIR~ for the Proposed Mount Eden Road Residential Subdivision, dated October, 1988. He added that one issue not discussed in the Draft EIR was the archaeological aspect; the Native American Commis- sion indicated the possibility of significant, cultural and/or archaeological resources. The California Archaeological Inventory would conduct a records search of the area; all recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources would be incorporated into the proposed project. Commissioner Harris questioned whether an EIR was done on the Quarry Creek Repair Project. Planning Director Emslie responded that to his knowledge, there had not been an EIR conducted; permits were within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineer who were handling the environmental documentation at this time. He confumed that permits had not been issued. Commissioner Harris noted that the EIR did not consider that the Quarry Creek Repair Project was connected to the project under consideration despite testimony at the City Council Hearing of June 15, 1988, by the Appellant's Attorney, to the contrary. If the Commission approved the EIR on the Mt. Eden Rd. project, what recourse did the City have if Army Corps of Engineers found that the two projects were in some way related. Planning Director Emslie responded that the Mt. Eden Estates EIR was being prepared per the advise of the City Attorney, who had indicated that there was a distinction between the current project and the Quarry Creek Repair Project; the environmental impacts were separate. The only overlap in the two projects was the fill taken from Borrow Hill to the construction site; in this aspect the EIR under consideration at this Hearing was germane. Mitigation measures could be incorporated in any determination made. Commissioner Harris added that she was unfamiliar with the time frame of the project under consideration; however, it may be appropriate to continue certification of the EIR until the response from the Army Corps of Engineers on the Quarry Creek Repair Project had been received. She felt that the two projects could not be separated. Planning Director Emslie responded that the EIR must be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission before certification could take place. Commissioner Harris questioned the size of the houses to be allowed on this site. Planning Director Emslie noted that the consultant had responded to the comment from the public that a house on this site could be 12,000 sq. ft; Staff would address this item in the Final EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried was concerned about the connection, if any, between the Quarry Creek Repair Project and Mt. Eden Rd. project in terms of drainage and the resulting impacts; while there may not be a linkage between the projects, the EIR did not sufficiently address the question. The Public Heating was opened at 8:12 P.M. Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, presented a written statement of her concerns; she added that the Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association as well as numerous residents throughout the City shared their concerns expressed about this project. Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, commented as follows: Noted that this project was similar to the recent Nelson Gardens Application in that many resi- dents were concerned about the possibility of cancelling a Williamson Act Contracts Noted the concerns of residents over the Quarry Creek Repair Project and added that he felt the two projects were one and the same Cited Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association Statement, dated December 14, 1988, and added that some of the issues raised had not been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR - In addition, he was concerned that a 12,000 sq. ft. house could possibly be built Asked that a good geological survey of the site be completed Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Ave., Saratoga, noted that this development was midway between Mt. Eden Rd. project and the Parker Ranch subdivision and provided the connection in the equestrian trail system; he urged that the City not loose a critical link in the recreational system and asked that the equestrian trail be maintained. Mr. William Peretti, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, stated that the Quarry Creek Repair drainage project continued to be under construction in his back yard for the past two years. He concurred with Commissioner Harris' comments and added that three contiguous developments by the same individuals were under construction with a drainage project for all three located in his rear yard. Mr. Vince Garrod felt the Draft EIR was quite comprehensive and accurately represented what he observed over the years. He felt there was no problem that could not be adequately mitigated with the current geological and engineering methods. With respect to the provision of water to the site in question, there was an agreement with the San Jose Water Works that water would be available to the subdivision and in the amount required. Commissioner Harris requested clarification ~'om Mr. Hoffey that all of the geologic studies re- ferred to in the EIR had been completed prior to removal of the hill for the Creek Repair Project. Mr. Hoffey responded that such was correct; the geotechnical studies completed by Nordmo Associates were conducted prior to the removal of fill. However, there was an understanding when those reports were being done that 70 ft. at the top of the knoll would be removed. Excavations were conducted at the point of the hill which would become the level portion; in addition, a subsequent geotechnical study conducted by O'Rourke specifically on Lot 4, stated that removal of the top of the knoll, in fact, not only created a level building site but also reduced the load of the knoll and increased its stability due to the removal of the weight which created pressure and caused the hill to slide. Commissioner Harris noted that one of the mitigation measures suggested required a geological study of each building site prior to design review; Mr. Hoffey stated that the geological study would be prior to the design of the foundation by the City Engineer and City Geologist. The Commissioner suggested that the required geological studies be completed as a Condition of the Tentative Map; if problems showed up, they could be revealed to the City Council prior to the Final Map Approval. Mr. Hoffey responded that he was not in a position to require further geotechnical studies; however, he agreed that he was in a position to suggest mitigation measures. He added that he had been in consultation with the City Engineer and City Geologist; to his knowledge, they had not expressed sufficient concern about the geologic conditions; at this point, he would not recommend additional studies of that magnitude. Planning Director Eroslie advised the Commission that if a desired mitigation measure was not in the Draft EIR, Conditions could be added to the Tentative Map; based on the information presented in the Draft EIR, the mitigation measures were the minimum required; the studies referred to by Commissioner Harris or other conditions deemed necessary could be required by the City. Commissioner Harris commented that Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association letter noted that Nordmo Associates were hired by the developer; she wished to verify with Mr. Hoffey that their reports had been reviewed by the City Geologist; he confirmed that such was the case. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris quoted as follows on the DrOf[ EnvirOnmental Impact Report (EIR): 3.2 Drainage/Hydrology/Water Ouality. Impacts. statement, "The runoff will continue along a natural drainage course." In view of the history of the area (Quarry Creek Repair Project), she questioned why the natural drainage course would be relied upon. Mr. Hoffey responded that such would be considered in greater detail in the Final EIR. In some cases, engineers of projects wished to keep the storm water runoff from flowing as an over-land flow on natural surfaces; they wished to see the runoff interrupted and enter energy dissipaters or rip-rap types of structures to slow the flow; when the water reached the natural ravines, it would either be infiltrated into the soil or held in place by the existing vegetation. Commissioner Siegfried added that he also had questions about drainage. It was his understanding that runoff from rooftops, etc. was channeled through the storm drainage system to the energy dis- sipaters; as the runoff flowed below Lot 4, it reached a natural drainage area. He did not under- stand how this process increased the flow. Mr. Hoffey reaffirmed ihat such would be addressed in the Final EIR in much greater detail. Commissioner Harris stated that the above discussion partially answered her questions on 3.1 Geology. Slope Stability. statement, "The stability of this portion of the site, however, has been increased due to the recent grading by lowering and unloading the slope." Mr. Hoffey confirmed that this was the opinion of Geotechnical Consultants, who would have to provide any additional information on this item. Commissioner Kolstad asked that the CEQA Guidelines be addressed. It was his understanding that in order to certify an EIR, definite answers in respect to mitigation measures were required and had to be in place at the time of certification; in addition, it was his understanding that when adjoin- ing projects impacted each other, CEQA Guidelines required an environmental analysis on the earli- est possible date rather than reducing the project to parts in order to avoid a comprehensive analysis; such was referenced in Commissioner Harris' question on the Quarry Creek Repair Project. Mr. Hoffey responded that with respect to the former question, there was no requirement in the CEQA Guidelines, insofar as he was aware, which required that mitigation measures be in place at the time the EIR was certified. Commissioner Kolstad asked that the CEQA Guidelines be made available for his review. Planning Director Emslie confirmed that any mitigation measure in a certified EIR was required to be in place or conditions established to insure that they were in place prior to completion of the project; such was an integral part of the environmental review process. Commissioner Kolstad noted that the provision of water service from San Jose Water Company was not in place; Commissioner Siegfried responded that a Condition requiring such was. Commissioner Harris cited the Draft EIR, 3.1, Impacts, Slope Stability. statement, "The haul roads utilized during grading of the site and transportation of fill to the Quarry Creek repair site are currently experiencing minor erosion and gullying and should be repaired with site development." She noted that this repair project occurred during the past three years of drought and she felt that the statement that the roads were experiencing "minor erosion" was insufficient. During the rainy years, major erosion may occur; she asked that such be pointed out and added that the Draft EIR conclusion, "Reparation should consist of restabilization and revegetation." should be more specific regarding how the reparation would occur. Commissioner Siegfried asked that the term "minor erosion" be defined; Mr. Hoffey responded that minor erosion was scattered, with the potential to become major erosion if measures were not implemented to halt the erosion. Commissioner Burger asked whether the Draft EIR contained reference to the equestrian trails; other Commissioners assured her that such was included. She asked that reference to the main- tenance of the trail system be included in the Final EIR. Finally, she commented that Commis- sioner Harts' concerns about the Quarry Creek Repair Project were legitimate concerns. It was her understanding that an EIR was not completed on the Repair Project since it was an emergency, although the repair was monitored. She questioned where a linkage between the projects occurred. Commissioner Harris reiterated her concerns'and noted the magnitude of the Quarry Creek Repair Project; in addition, there was sufficient doubt within the community that the project should not have been classified as emergency since the condition had existed for three years prior to the repair. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger questioned how these concerns could be addressed; it was important that the Commission had assurance before the certification of the EIR before them, that the Mt. Eden Rd. subdivision would not result in additional problems in the future. Chairperson Guch noted that there appeared to be some areas of the Mt. Eden Rd. project which were linked to the Quarry Creek Repair Project, specifically on Lot 4 and the Haul Roads; she asked that the potential relationships between these projects be addressed. Commissioner Siegfried concurred and asked that the drainage as it related to the reparation of the Creek bed be addressed, namely, how would the flow. patterns be changed by the new project and what would the cumulative impacts be? Commissioner Harris cited the City Attorney's statement as related in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of June 15, 1989, that "both the proposed subdivision and drainage leading into the Quarry Creek area would be the subject of an EIR." The Draft EIR under consideration did not seem to address the issue of the "drainage leading into the Quarry Creek area..." The City Attorney was quoted as saying, "Drainage from this property was part of hydrology studies done in connection with the Repair Project"; yet the Draft EIR did not refer to such. Commissioner Burger asked that the issue be addressed in the Final EIR. Commissioner Harris concurred and added that testimony of the Appellant's Attorney at the City Council Hearing had "questioned how anyone could consider these actions separate projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); projects in question were closely aligned". Commissioner Kolstad that the he had the same basic concerns as Commissioner Harris had raised; concerns would be alleviated if the Army Corps of Engineers stated that the Quarry Creek Repair Project was proceeding or that the drainage from the new project would not have an impact. Chairperson Guch suggested this approach reversed the question; she suggested that the impacts from the Mt. Eden Rd. project be considered. Commissioner Siegfried added that a properly engineered drainage system, even for an undevel- oped site, would mitigate the impacts; the question was the change resulting from development of the site as opposed to the current drainage patterns; such was independent from the Repair Project. Commissioner Kolstad felt the Draft EIR did not adequately address the impact of the drainage from the project; Commissioner Siegfried added that the changed impact from the proposed development was the question to be addressed. The Public Hearing remained open. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE MT. EDEN RD. TO APRIL 12, 1989, DIRECTING THE CONSULTANT TO INCORPORATE THE CONCERNS INTO A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). Passed 6-0. Break 8:50 - 9:05 P.M. 12. SD-88-024 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Drive, request for tentative map approval to ereate a three-lot subdivision in the R-1-10-000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. No parcel is proposed to less than 11,500 sq. ft. Commissioners Kolstad and Siegfried reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated March 8, 1989. Chairperson Guch introduced the following letters into the record: - Ms. Pat~cia Khan and family, 13710 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, dated March 1, 1989 - Mr. Thomas J. Wyatt, 13682 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, dated March 5, 1989 - W.M. McMullan, 13748 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, dated March 7, 1989 - Mr. Richard I. Dewell, 13730 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, dated March 2, 1989 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Sam Espeseth, Applicant, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of the property and noted his desire to restore the original home on-site - Discussed the Application and noted that such meet all zoning requirements - Concerns raised by the neighbors included drainage problems and the loss of privacy; he felt that both these concerns as well as any other problems could be corrected with proper engineer- ing, grading and a one-story ranch home design - Design review of the proposed houses would address privacy, parking and view impacts - Suggested the house on Lot C be lowered 3 ft. to make it equal with surrounding homes - The cul-de-sac could be shifted away from the adjacent home owners to prevent impacts - Finally, landscaping could be added along the edges to create a buffer Mr. Bill Heiss, Consulting Engineer, presented slides and commented as follows: - Noted the Applicants surprise at the reaction of the neighborhood on this Application; however, it was understandable that a change in the area would create resistance - Reviewed the request, the property's history and the topography and configuration of the site - Staffs suggestion to merge the parcels was inappropriate and they strongly objected to such - With respect to the CC&Rs, those for Tract 1321 did not apply to this particular project - Concurred that the problems could be addressed and the project made compatible with the area - The lots proposed were in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance; no variances were required - Problems resulted when the subdivision was created; no provisions were made for drainage - Project in question could accommodate drainage concerns; the solution was fairly simple - It was an oversight on their part to place the cul-de-sac as proposed; the logical solution was to relocate the turn-around to provide the proper setback from the adjacent home owners property - In addition, landscaping would be added to further buffer the cul-de-sac area - Lowering Lot C pad would bring the lot into general conformance with the neighborhood - The suggestion by a neighbor to average the elevations of the surrounding homes and require the proposed house for Lot C to approximate this figure was reasonable - In addition, the home on Lot C would be a one-story, ranch style home - On parcel A, some excavation would be done, lowering the rear portion of the lot, to conform to surrounding homes; such would minimize the privacy impacts - After project completion, a 70 ft. clear zone would leave the farm house visible from the road - The Historical Commission had no objection to the removal of the old garage; the new garage would compliment the character of the farm house Ms. Lea Wilson reviewed her letter of February 28, 1989. She was concerned about the potential loss of value to her property; furthermore, her home could be surrounded on three sides by street. Ms. Barbara Seacrist, 20270 Metrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed her letter of March 1, 1989. Ms. Patricia Kahn 13710 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, presented a letter addressing her concerns. Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, sympathized with the Wilsons; while the project did not require a variance, it was in fact, creating the need for a variance for the Wilsons. In addition, he had concerns about the location of the driveway, the CC&Rs and the application of the hillside design guidelines to the proposed houses. Mr. Joseph Rodriguez, 20232 Saratoga Vista Ct., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of February 261h. Ms. Bonita Cox, 20264 Saratoga Vista Ct., Saratoga, stated she had remodelled her home includ- ing the opening up of the home toward the hillside; one of the proposed houses would be consid- erably higher then hers and completely destroy her privacy as well as her ability to work at home. Ms. Anne Sorden reviewed the letter of her mother, Mrs. McFarlane, 20280 Saratoga Vista Ct; pictures of her view were presented. Ms. Fredriea Kuehl, 20250 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed her letter of February 22, 1989. Mr. Tore B. Dahlin, 13696 El Camino Rico, Saratoga, reviewed his letter of February 28, 1989. Mr. Curtis Wilson, 20251 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of February 28, 1989. Mr. Michael F. Kenrich, 20270 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, presented a petition and reviewed his letter. Ms. Janice LaMotte, 13700 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, reviewed her letter of February 21, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Leonard McCarthy, 20231 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of March 1, 1989. Mr. Donald Murphy, 20211 Merrick Dr., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of March 1, 1989. Mr. Walter Semetha, 13685 E1 Camino Rico, Saratoga, noted health benefits of privacy and quiet. Mr. Tom Wyatt, 13682 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, reviewed his letter of March 5, 1989. Mr. Herb LaMotte, 13700 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, reviewed the letter of February 21, 1989. Mr. Heiss suggested continuing this matter to a Study Session for consideration of alternatives. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:06 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried noted that there were only two lots of record; he felt the request could not be approved. The question was whether another house could be built at all; because of the unusual lot shape and its size, he did not feel there was an acceptable plan for more than the existing home. Commissioner Burger concurred; due to the testimony heard and her concerns about privacy impacts and drainage problems, she could not vote in favor of the Application. A Study Session would not help since she felt that there was no solution other than denial of the request. Commissioner Tappan noted the difficulty since the Applicant had two lots of record and had come before the Commission to explore the possibility of adding another lot. In a sense, the Applicant would be denied a property value he must have felt he would have when he purchased the site. He questioned whether there would be objections to the noise from some of the neighbors when the existing farm house were renovated; everyone would have to be reasonable when the structure were remodelled and enhanced. Commissioner Kolstad stated there was no way he could approve two new houses for this site in addition to the renovation of the farm house; minimum setbacks to this historic structure would nol do it justice. Regardless of testimony given, he felt the request could not be approved. Commissioner Harris concurred with the other Commissioners; however, the drainage system would be improved with the proposed development. Nonetheless, the Application could not bee approved and the impacts to the Wilsons from the proposed cul-de-sac were very undesirable. Chairperson Guch noted that there were not three lots of record; she could not justify the creation of such. She was concerned about the site access since such would be impactful and neighborhood concerns about traffic on Merrick Dr. were justified. A Study Session would not help. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY SD-88-024. Passed 6-0. 13. Mt. Eden Estates Lot 1, Tract 7761, Quarry Road, request for modification to approved plans to allow relocation of an access driveway to the lot located in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Commissioner Siegfried reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum of March 3, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 P.M. Mr. Tom Burke, Home owner in the subdivision, commented as follows: Comments had been received that the driveway shown on the original engineer drawings did not make sense; Applicants concurred with this assessment Questioned whether the driveway as proposed with 5 ft. retaining walls, could be done In addition, a fire access road was to be provided as required by the Tentative Map Applicants proposed to extend the paved area about 50 ft. and install a crash gate With respect to Mr. Kohler's letter, he disputed the facts stated in the letter Mr. Bill Pretti, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, felt the relocation of the driveway placed it on a precipitous area of the lot; in addition, the northern slope was considered unstable. The new location would be more visible than the formerly approved one. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Willera Kohler, Via Regina, Saratoga, commented as follo~vs: Objected to the relocation of the driveway prior to receiving permission The driveway cut was very close to the quarry site Reviewed and clarified letters exchanged and discussed the history of the project Pictures of the area were presented Residents in the area did not wish the driveway relocated BURGER/SIEDFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Siegfried felt that the relocation of the driveway was logical; he would approve the request of the Applicant. Commissioner Harris questioned the intent of the original location of the driveway; Planning Director Emslie responded that a review of the files did not clarify this issue; one could only assume that an attempt was being made to minimize the cut and the amount of impervious coverage. The Commissioner questioned whether the original driveway was located as shown on the map to screen it from the viewshed and residents in an adjacent area. Commissioner Siegfried responded that he did not think the relocated driveway was visible to adjacent residents; there was vegetation all along the cliff. The issue was to insure that the new driveway location was geologically stable. Commissioner Kolstad felt the relocated driveway was more aesthetically pleasing; the original location would have required a straight cut. Chairperson Guch concurred that the relocation proposed was logical; the original cut would have required significant retaining walls. Planning Director Eroslie suggested the addition of a Condition that satisfactory g. eological reports be reviewed by the City Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission if geological problems arose. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR LOT 1, TRACT 7761, MT. EDEN ESTATES, PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT SATISFACTORY GEOLOGICAL REPORTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AROSE. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. Commissioner Harris opposed the Application on the grounds that the project was in a very sensitive area; she did not feel qualified to make a judgement on the issue. She concurred that the reloeation of the driveway required a geological review. 14. DR-88-096 Casabonne, 14435 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval for a 816+/- sq. ft. addition to an existing retail store located in the central com- mercial zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated March 8, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:44 P.M. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, presented drawings of the addition. Applicants felt that the proposed renovation was in keeping with the Village; various building treatments in the Village were noted. Commissioner Harris reviewed the considerations of Village Task Force which felt strongly that the use of the existing materials was not acceptable. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:53 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Siegfried was reluctant to vote against the Task Force's opinion; however, a replacement of the existing stone frontage might not result in a significant change in appearance. Commissioner Burger noted that only a 14 ft. section to an existing building was being considered; the existing building was not unpleasant looking. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan felt that the Commission needed to be sensitive to the Village Task Force and their role in making recommendations to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kolstad felt the existing fascia did not enhance the Village; in order to attract new business, improvements would have to come first. He would not vote in favor of this Application. Commissioner Harris suggested landscaping to soften the appearance of the building. 'Commissioner Siegfried favored a Continuance to further consider the Task Force's opinion. Mr. Heid stated that the Applicants would accept a Continuance. SIEGFRIED/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-096 TO MARCH 22, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD MARCH 14, 1989. Passed 6-0. Items 15 and 16 were heard jointly. 15. DR-88-061.1 Cheatham, 14458 Oak Place, request for modification to previously approved design review application to allow the construction of 970 sq. ft. basement. The home is located within the R-l-10,000 zoning district. 16. DR-87-043.1 Horn, 14470 Oak Place, request for modification to previously approved design review application to allow the construction of 700 sq. ft. basement. The home is located within the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Commissioner Siegfried reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated March 8, 1989. The Public Hearing on DR-88-061 was opened at 11:00 P.M. Mr. Chuck Cheatham, Applicant, reviewed the Application and the parking available on-site; adjacent residents on either side of the home did not object to the basement. Ms. Jane Piedmount, Oak Place, Saratoga, objected to the administrative approval of these base- ments without a public hearing; she noted on-going concerns about the size of homes in this area. She was concerned about the massive increase in square footage in the Horn home and did not understand how such could occur. Neighbors had previously expressed concerns about the square footage allowed on these lots and the impacts from traffic and parking. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DR-88-061.1 AT 11:07 P.M. Passed 6-0. The Public Hearing on DR-87-043.1 was opened at 11:07 P.M. Mr. Horn, Applicant, noted that when he purchased the home there was no family or work room; his three small children did not have sufficient play area and he felt that a basement would be less impactful. Staff had approved the plans for the basement and four parking spaces existed on-site. Ms. Cassandra Huston, 14460 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that she and her husband were opposed to the addition of the basement for Mr. Horn's home; she cited the proximity of the two homes and the increased intensity of use resulting from this addition. Furthermore, there were safety hazards connected with the lack of fencing of the construction area. She urged denial of this addition. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DR-87-043.1 AT 11:14 EM. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried noted there had been no change in the elevation, bulk or appearance of either structure. Intensification of use had not been evaluated; however, the current Ordinances did not address this issue. He asked that such be considered by the Commission at a future date. Commissioner Burger stated that due to the administrative approval granted for these two projects, she would have considered the Applications very differently. She agreed that there were not visual changed from the additions, to the neighborhood; the Commission would have to consider the issue of bulk, size and intensity of use at another time. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 MARCH 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan felt a loophole existed in the Ordinance; the request for additions of this type would be a continuing problem unless the Ordinance were reviewed. He concurred that a significant addition in square footage intensified the use of a structure. Commissioner Kolstad did not feel that intensity of use was a problem; however, the Commission could consider counting a portion of the basement area in the square footage since the intensity of use could be a problem. He favored the use of basements for living areas since the bulk of the house would not be increased. He would approve this Application. Commissioner Harris concurred with Commissioner Kolstad that the addition of a basement would not increase the intensity of use; however, the approval should be conditioned to prohibit use of such as a second unit. The original size of the homes was appropriate to the neighborhood and such had not changed. Commissioner Siegfried reviewed the original applications and the lot constraints of these parcels. One of the additions contained an office, bedroom, recreation room and a bathroom; this was what he meant by an intensification of use. This issue would need to be addressed by the Commission at a future date. Chairperson Guch noted that the intent of the Commission was that homes would not visually impact the neighborhood in terms of height, bulk and size; the addition of a basement would accomplish the intent. The question was what intensification of use meant. The Ordinance did not consider the basement in the square footage of a home; perhaps this issue could be reviewed in the future. The impact of the homes under consideration was the same as when originally approved; however, the public had a right to know when a project was being considered, exactly what the project was. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-061.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 6-0. 'SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-043.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 6-0. 17. V-88-035 Rose, 20645 Montalvo Heights Rd., request for a variance from Ordinance 15-29.010 to allow the construction of a 6 ft. fence within the required front yard where 3 ft. is the maximum allowed. Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:22 P.M. Mr. Ray Bolosky, Representing the Applicant, reviewed the Application and presented photo- graphs of the area. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:28 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-035 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: 1. Upcoming Planning application and projects. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. City Council Report Commissioner Burger reported on the City Council Meeting of March 1, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 MARCH 8, 1989 COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Letter from Ann Fitzsimmons Re: Saratoga Villa Development & Stonepine Condominiums Noted with referral of erosion concerns to the City Engineer for appropriate follow-up. 2. Heritage Preservation Minutes of February 15,1989, - Noted and filed. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:31 P.M. Resp,ectfully sub , Carol st-Caughey