HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: October 11, 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Vice Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tappan
Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioner Kolstad absent
Pledge of Allegiance:
Approval of Minutes: Meeting of September 27, 1989
Commissioner Burger asked that the Motion approving DR-89-021 be amended to read in part,
"..that the house be shifted 10 ft. away from the edge of the building pad and 14 ft. south..."
Commissioner Harris asked that Ms. Norling's comment in DR-89-085, V-89-021 and LL-89-005
be amended to read in.part," however, she also told Mrs. Nieman that then the disking was done
by the immediate neighbors, she could use the same person and access could be obtained over the
Norling property." She noted that having stepped down on this Application, the vote was 6-0.
Commissioner Moran noted that the Representative of BP Oil was Mr. Keyin Bush.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1989, AS
AMENDED. Passed 5-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on
October 6, 1989.
Technical Corrections to Packet Material: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. AZO-89-043 City of Saratoga Vehicle Repair Ordinance - An ordinance of the City of
Saratoga amending Section 9-50.010 of the City Code concerning repair of
vehicles on residential property. Continued to October 25, 1989.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
2. DR-89-046 Naghavi, 20233 Seagull Way, request for design review approval to
demolish an existing single story residence and construct a 3,197 sq. ft.
two-story residence in the R-l-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City
Code. Continued to November 11, 1989, per the Applicant's request.
3. DR-89-085 Dymand, 21116 Comer Drive, request for design review and variance to al-
V-89-021 low the construction of a 10,580 +/- sq. ft., two story residence, in the
NHR zone district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval
would allow exceptions to that "floor area", "impervious coverage", and
"height above a major ridge" standards for the NHR district. Public Hear-
ing closed September 27, 1989.
4. DR-89-069 Diamond Development, 13993 Alta Vista, request for a design review ap-
proval for a new 3,663 two story single family dwelling in the R-1-12,500
zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
5. DR-89-070 Diamond Development, 13990 Alta Vista, request for design review ap-
proval for a new 5,138 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling in the R-1-
12,5090 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
6. DR-89-094 Epsman, 19141 Panorama Drive, a request for design review approval for a
one story addition to an existing one story home in the R-i-40,000 zone
district. The total proposed floor area is 6,126 sq. ft. and requires design
review approval per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Vice Chairperson Tucker noted that Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2 were being Continued.
Ms. Fanelli requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 3.
Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4.
Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 6. Passed 5-0.
3. DR-89-085 Dymancl, 21116 Comer Drive, request for design review and variance to al-
V-89-021 low the construction of a 10,580 +/- sq. ft., two story residence, in the
NHR zone district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval
would allow exceptions to that "floor area", "impervious coverage", and
"height above a major ridge" standards for the NHR district. Public Hear-
ing closed September 27, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:38 P.M.
Ms. Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, cited Condition 9 and noted that the last sentence called
for the deletion of all Palm trees in the Revised Landscaping Plan; it was her understanding that
any Palm trees should be identified as to type, size, location and growth expected. She did not feel
that the Planning Commission had directed that all Palm trees be eliminated and asked that the last
sentence in Condition 9 be deleted. Planner Graft responded that Condition 9 reflected Staffs
interpretation of the Motion; the Commission would be reviewing the Revised Landscaping Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
MORAN/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:42 P.M. Passed 5-0.
Commissioner Burger reiterated that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the Revised
Landscaping Plan; she felt that if the Palm trees were integrated into the overall plan for the site,
there would be no objection to such.
BURGERFFAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-085 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
MODIFYING CONDITION 9 TO DELETE THE FINAL SENTENCE, AND V-89-021 PER THE
MODEL RESOLUTION.
Commissioner Tappan noted that the issue of Palm trees had been raised before; he questioned
whether the Commission was taking a position on the use of Palm trees in the City of Saratoga.
Commissioners Burger and Harris commented that this was the first instance they could recall
where the issue of Palm trees as a landscaping feature, had been raised at the Commission level.
Planner Graft responded that the issue was raised because the drawings showed the specific trees
on site; usually plans at this stage of the project did not show landscaping.
Commissioner Moran understood that the Applicant wished to preserve the natural state of the area;
the use of Palm trees would not conform to this intent.
Vice Chairperson Tucker summarized that the Commission had not taken a position on this issue.
The Chair called for a Vote on the Motion. Passed 4-0-1, Commissioner Harris abstaining.
4. DR-89-069 Diamond Development, 13993 Alta Vista, request for a design review ap-
proval for a new 3,663 two story single family dwelling in the R-1-12,500
zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Burger stated that the report on the land use visit would clarify her concerns.
Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit.
Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated October 11, 1989, and
called attention to the letter of Mr. Barrie Coate, Horticultural Consultant dated October 9, 1989.
Commissioner Harris stated she was shocked when she read the Report; she could not understand
how tress of such value could be devalued to a cost of $3,200. She cited the damage to the trees.
The City Attorney responded that there was a methodology for evaluating trees which included
both a specified, listed amount and an evaluation on the part of the appraiser.
Commissioner Tappan thought that a $3,200 cost was in effect, a license for developers to do what
ever they wished; he favored setting an amount that would deter future, similar acts. He wished to
see the City take a public stand on this issue; lush vegetation was what made Saratoga what it was.
Commissioner Moran added the concern that trees could be damaged to an extent that they had to
be removed.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Mr. Bruce Bonfield, Managing Partner, Diamond Development, stated that he concurred with the
conditions imposed for damaging the trees; there were no excuses for such ;damage. However, the
actual situation was not as severe as stated in the Report; Mr. Co'ate's comments on a site visit had
indicated otherwise to him. They had agreed on a program to repair the trees and on a fee schedule.
In An Analysis of Proposed Construction on Trees at 13990-13993 Alta Vista Avenue, Parcel B.
Saratoga. Bartie D. Coate, the final sentence stated, "As a result, total construction damage to trees
on the site is $6,915.73.". He called attention to the fact that a cost estimate was made only for
Parcel B. Secondly, with respect to DR-89-069 (Parcel A), Condition 7, the requirement for
screen trees to the east had been provided for; however, installing trees along the south property
line was undesirable since this area contained a 10 ft. utility easement. Landscaping of some type
would be planted, but such should not include trees.
Commissioner Tappan questioned how trees got nicked, as the Reports stated.
Mr. Bonfield confirmed that trees had been marked off for protection; however, such was effective
only on a flat site. The site in question had a sheer cliff on which a public road was being con-
structed; such required a good deal of tree removal. While damage to the trees should not have
happened, unfortunately, it did occur.
BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Passed 5-0.
Commissioner Tappan suggested that on sites with a lush environment, applicants should be
cautioned regarding the selection of a subcontractor to prevent such incidents.
Commissioner Burger suggested a Condition be added requiring the developer to be on-site when
grading was done; she contended that a "slash and burn" mentality existed. Commissioner Tappan
added that what separated this community from others was its beautiful environment.
Commissioner Moran cited Mr. Coate's letter which stated, "The only significant pruning repair
that I can see, that would offer any benefit at all, is to remove the entire 4" diameter, 4' long
stub..."; it was her understanding that only a 4 inch portion of this branch would be removed.
Mr. Bonfield responded that Mr. Coate's would supervise the work on-site; Mr. Coate had
confidence in the individual who would be doing the actual repair and pruning.
The City Attorney noted Mr. Coate's evaluation that Tree #1, Parcel B. had only a 50% change of
survival; these odds were unacceptable as were similar odds unacceptable for the damaged tree on
Big Basin Way. He advised the Commission that a Condition be added requiring the applicant to
post a bond to provide for the planting of replacement trees should the program for tree restoration
fail; the bond would remain on deposit with the City until such time as the City received a
subsequent report from Mr. Coate that the trees in question were out of danger. The City should
not have to assume the risk.'
Commissioner Burger commented that her understanding with respect to ParCel A was 'that the
Applicant would be working with Mr. Coate; the condition of trees on this site was caused by the
neighbor. This would be satisfactory so long as the preservation work outlined was done; she
noted the urgency of completing this work. With respect to Condition 7, she suggested that the
Condition require the planting of heavy shrubbery along the south property line.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
The City Attorney noted that Condition 7 did not specify trees or shrubbery, but only landscaping.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-069 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
MODIFYING CONDITION 7 TO ADD, "SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL" AND CONDI-
TION 15 MODIFIED TO READ, "PRUNING OF ALL THE TREES, TO CORRECT DAMAGE
'WHICH WAS DONE TO THE TREES, SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A TREE EXPERT IN A
TIMELY MANNER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY HORTICULTURIST REQUIRE-
MENTS AND HIS APPROVAL". Passed 5-0.
5. DR-89-070 Diamond Development, 13990 Alta Vista, request for design review' ap-
proval for a new 5,138 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling in the R-l-
12,5090 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit.
Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 11, 1989, and
called attention to the report and comments on the previous Application.
Commissioner Harris questioned how trees scheduled to be preserved, had been removed.
Commissioner Burger commented that the system was deficient and would have to be remedied;
the Planning Commission added Conditions to protect the trees and then found that changes to the
plans and damage to the trees had occurred. The Commission had a charter from the citizens of
Saratoga to preserve the trees.
The City Attorney noted that procedural changes had occurred since this subdivision was done; the
revisions in place were reviewed for the benefit of the Commission.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 P.M.
heir. Bruce Bonfield, Managing Partner, Diamond Development, responded to the Commission's
inquiries and stated that the Tree Report was not made available until September 21st; it was only
since that time that they had been able to work with Mr. Coate on the preservation of the trees.
Applicants were conscious of the concern about the trees and had their own tree experts on site
during the grading.
.He reviewed An Analysis of Proposed Construction on Trees at 13990-1.3993 Alta Vista Avenue~
Parcel B. Saratoga, Barrie D. Coate, and the letter of Mr. Coate dated October 9, 1989; he asked
that Condition 15 be amended to read, "Trees #2, 5, ~,, and 7 and !~ as labeled on the City
Horticulturist's report shall be removed and replaced by size and type of trees approved by the City
Horticulturist..." He noted that Mr. Coate did not wish additional trees to be planted on the slope,
despite the trees that were scheduled to be removed; Mr. Coate's thought that the existing trees
were in competition with each other, and thus, all the trees on the bank would be trimmed.
Mr. John Klassen, Site Developer, agreed that trees should be preserved; however, a public road
could not be constructed with 3 ft. of dirt removed, 5 ft. from a tree and not cut the tree's roots.
Part of the problem was that plans were drawn by different engineers, some of which were very
incomplete. As part owner of the project, he understood that loss of trees would result in lower
value for the lots. They had shifted the road 3 ft. in order to save one of the large Oaks. Finally,
he noted the serious danger to operators of heavy equipment from low hanging tree branches.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Mr. Klassen continued his comments stating that upon receipt of the letter, he contacted Mr. Coate
to set up a site visit; Mr. Coate had to adjust.~': his schedule to accommodate the urgency of their
request.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 5-0.
Commissioner Tappan stated he appreciated Mr. Klassen's comments which suggested several
items for the Commission's consideration; he suggested that the City of Cupertino be consulted
regarding their procedures surrounding the issuance of grading permits.
Commissioner Moran questioned what prevented the speakers from protecting the trees.
Mr. Klassen responded that he was not a tree expert; there were many misconceptions surrounding
what a tree could withstand.
Planner Graft noted that Condition 15 should be amended to read in part, "...Tree # 6 2 shall be
cut to the ground and covered with soil to avoid damage to tree #3."
Commissioner Burger agreed that Trees #2, 5, 6 and 7 should be removed; Tree #6 did not require
a replacement. Tree #1, with a 50 % chance of survival, had different circumstances than the tree
on Big Basin Way, which was surrounded by existing homes and businesses and required
immediate removal. She felt that Tree #1 might be saved and an attempt should be made to do so.
The City Attorney commented that replacement trees would be located per the City Horticulturist's
recommendation; Planner Graft noted that the Conditions already required a review by Mr. Coate.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-070 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
AND MODIFYING CONDITION 15 TO READ IN PART, "TREES #2, 5, 6, AND 7 .A~.~ !0
AS LABELED ON THE CITY HORTICULTURIST'S REPORT SHALL BE REMOVED AND
REPLACED BY SIZE AND TYPE OF TREES APPROVED BY THE CITY HORTICULTUR-
IST....TREE # 6 2 SHALL BE CUT TO THE GROUND AND COVERED WITH SOIL TO
AVOID DAMAGE TO TREE #3." AND ADDING A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT
IMMEDIATE ACTION BE TAKEN IN AN ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE TREE #1 PER THE
CITY HORTICULTURIST'S REPORT AND REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO POST A
BOND OR CASH DEPOSIT TO COVER THE COST OF A REPLACEMENT TREE SHOULD
THE PROGRAM FOR TREE RESTORATION FAIL; THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND TO BE
BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE TREE AND THE COST OF INSTALLATION AS
DETERMINED BY THE CITY HORTICULTURIST AND WOULD REMAIN ON DEPOSIT
WITH THE CITY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CITY RECEIVED A SUBSEQUENT REPORT
FROM THE CITY HORTICULTURIST THAT THE TREE IN QUESTION WAS OUT OF
DANGER. Passed 5-0.
Commissioner Harris stated she appreciated Mr. Klassen's remarks and invited his additional
comments that may aid the Commission in understanding the situation and/or how to better ensure
the preservation of trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. V-89-024 Cuffe, 21151 Canyon View Dr., request for variance approval from ordi-
nance 15-45.030 to allow the expansion to a two story home to exceed the
allowable floor area. The total proposed floor area is 3~656 sq. ft. in lieu of
2,720 sq. ft. maximum allowed. Continued from September 27, 1989.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 11, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 P.M.
Mr. Jeff Cuffe, Applicant, questioned Staff Recommendation, restricting the home to 3, 200 sq.
ft.; due to the arrangement of interior space, there were not many weight bearing walls to support
the roof load. This explained why the walls were straight up and down and the second story
elevation was not stepped back. In addition, they wished to make the area back of the garage
(north east side) useful space. In response to Vice Chairperson Tucker's question, he confirmed
that it would be difficult, not impossible, to comply with Staff Recommendation. He cited the
comparable square footage of homes in the immediate area and added that they did not wish to
overbuild the lot; the proposed house would meet neighborhood standards.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:56 P.M. Passed 5-0.
Commissioner Burger stated she had some concerns regarding the proposed square footage; while
she was not an expert in engineering, the Applicant agreed that the Staff Recommendation could be
complied with.
Vice Chairperson Tucker commented that while some other homes in the area were larger than that
proposed, the City had received complaints about these structures.
Commissioner Harris agreed; in response to her request for a comment, Planner Graff responded
that Staff Recommendation to reduce the size of the proposed house was not based on helping the
Applicant engineer the house; it was based on a perception of bulk and Staffs evaluation of what
would be an acceptable size for the house.
Commissioner Burger suggested a Study Session to allow the Applicant to address the square
footage of the proposed structure.
MORAN/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE V-89-024 TO DECEMBER 13, 1989, WITH A
STUDY SESSION BEING HELD NOVEMBER 14, 1989. Passed 5-0.
Break 9:00 - 9:15 P.M.
8. DR-88-074 Robby, 13536 Cocciardi Ct;, request for design review approval for a new
SUP-88-004 5,437 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zone district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. A conditional use permit is also requested for
a second unit. Continued from September 27, 1989.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated October 11, 1989.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:22 P.M. The Applicant was present but had no comment.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:22 P.M. Passed 5-0.
TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE SUP-88-004 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 4-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting.
9. DR-89-090 Sato, 21282 Tollgate Road, a request for design review and variance to al-
V~89-026 low the construction of a 900+/- sq. ft., first and second story addition to an
existing one story residence in the R-I-40,000 zone district. Variance
approval would allow a 4 ft. encroachment into the sideyard setback area.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Graft presented the Report of the Planning Commission dated October 11, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:25 P.M.
Mr. Bob Schwenke, Applicant's Representative, noted that the request was based on the physical
constraints of the existing residence; the Floor Plan showed a first floor laundry room and half
bathroom which precluded locating the stairwell inside the house. The Applicants wished to retain
this half bath for their use as well as for the use of the occupant of the second story bedroom; in
addition, they wished to provide quarters for a nanny with the option of closing off these quarters
when her services were not required. The reduction in the side setback was of no significance; an
existing Oak tree had dictated the siting of the house in the first place.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:31 P.M. Passed 5-0.
Commissioner Burger noted the very limited yard area available on this lot; she was concerned that
placing the stairwell to the rear of the house would further encroach into the lawn area.
Commissioner Tappan thought the design was attractive; he stated that this was a difficult decision.
Commissioner Moran agreed this was an attractive home but felt that a Finding of exceptional or
extraordinary physical circumstance could not be made. There was space to the rear of the house
with a usable .back yard remaining, even though the lot was sloped.
Vice Chairperson Tucker stated that she could not make the necessary Findings.
BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-036 MAKING THE FINDING THAT
EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTED IN THAT
THE SITE WAS CONSTRAINED BY THE SLOPE OF THE REAR LOT AND THE
RESTRICTED SIZE OF THE REAR YARD. Failed 1-4, Commissioners Harris, Tappan, Moran
and Vice Chairperson Tucker dissenting.
MORAN/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY V-89-036 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-
1, Commissioner Burger dissenting.
MORAN/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-89-090 PER THE MODEL
RESOLUTION. Passed 4-1, Commissioner Burger dissenting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
OCTOBER 11, 1989
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. City Council Report
Commissioner Burger reported on the City Council Meeting of October 4, 1989.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written:
1. Heritage Preservation Commission, Minutes of September 20,1989, - Noted and filed.
2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - September 19, and October 3,1989, - Noted and filed.
3. Letters from Jack Mallory re: fence heights
The City Attorney stated that this Item had been added to the legislative calendar.
Mr. Mallory provided additional considerations in this matter
4. Letter from Dencio Vincent re: Signage condition, DR-87-053, Prospect Office Bldg.,
20520 Prospect Rd.
Oral by Commission:
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:52 P.M.
Carol A. Probst-Caugh