Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-1990 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 22, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 13. SD-88-019 Birenbaum, 20052 Sunset Dr., request for DR-90-050 tentative building site and design review approval to construct a new two-story, split level, 5,111 square-foot single-family dwelling per City Code Articles 14-20.070 and. 15-45.080. The subject property is located within the HC-RD zone district. CHAIRPERSON KOLSTAD: Number 13, Birenbaum. This is DR-90- 050 and SD-88-019, 20052 Sunset Drive. Let's see, we have a land use on this one. COMMISSIONER CALDWR~.n: Yes we did. I believe every one of the Commissioners up here has been to the site. Am I right? COMMISSIONER TAPPAN: Correct. C~nDWRT.L: Yeah. Gillian? TAPPAN: Got there this evening. COMMISSIONER MORAN: Uh huh. C~X.nWR;.T.: SO I'm not sure how much I can add to what you already know since we've all been there. KOLSTAD: Fine. CALDWELL: Is there anything you'd like to me to expound on? TAPPAN: Short and sweet. CALDWR~.n: Yeah. I think that the, what I can also report on, however, is the aspect of our site visit to the neighboring property and that would be the Gibersons' and, have you all been there? KOLSTAD: No. CALDWRv.n: Okay. The Gibersons live directly across the creek ravine from, and I guess that's east, of the site. Is that right? And the site is visible from their home, from their back deck and from their pool area. Let's see. The. one, all along the eastern, where, I guess it would be the western exposure of the Gibersons' house from several different windows you can see the site and we were able to see some of the flags that were Transcript Planning Cowmission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 2 erected to depict the height of the proposed dwelling from the Gibersons' as well. And I think the only other point that's worth noting here at this point is that the Gibersons are somewhat shielded from the Birenbaums' property right now by a couple of acacia trees and then by the black oaks that also exist on the Birenbaums' property and all of those are deciduous, is that right? The acacias are as well as the black oaks? There are black oaks on the Birenbaum property that shield one's view somewhat from the flags that were erected to establish where the dwelling's going to be. Is that, do you want to...? PLANNING DIRECTOR EMSLIE: The oaks are deciduous but the... CALDWRT.T.: The acacias are not? EMSLIE: Right. C~nnW~F.T.: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. The acacias are not. But there's some question about their viability in the future. KOLSTAD: I have a question for you. C,~T.~T.T.: Yeah. KOLSTAD: If you're looking out from the back of the house, whereabouts would be the Birenbaums' house? Would it be to the left, or straight ahead, or to the right? C~LDWELL: It's pretty much, if you're in the center of the Gibersons' house, it's pretty much dead on. KOLSTAD: Did it appear to be lower or higher? C~T.nWRT.L: Right across that from what I could tell. You know, yeah. KOLSTAD: Okay, thanks. Anyone that, staff report? PLANNER WALGREN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The applicants are requesting build~lng site and zone review approval to construct a new two-story, split-level home on.a currently undeveloped parcel at the end of Sunset Drive. The design of the home is characterized by intersected horizontal and vertical planes which step down the hillside to minimize'destruction of the natural topography. The total earth excavation for the house itself is roughly 350 cubic yards. A major issue of the previous application for the site is whether or not the lot should be accessed by a bridge extension on Sunset Drive. Following successive site visits and careful review of this application, Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 3 staff feels that the proposed driveway easement access will have the least impact on this canyon and does not recommend consideration of the bridge alternative. Staff feels that the sensitive site of this home is a viable development solution for this difficult hillside parcel. Staff had the City's consulting geologist, arborist as well as other applicable agencies review the proposal and is recommending approval of the project with their .[unintelligible] attached to the resolution. KOLSTAD: Any questions of staff? C~r.DW~r.r.: 'I just remembered what the other deciduous tree was. It was the fruitless mulberries that are on the Gibersons' property which do provide some shielding at this time of the year but during the winter months would not. KOLSTAD: I'll open the public hearing at 9:41. Oh, excuse me, before we do that, for members of the audience that are not here on this one. This is a really emotional application and we're going to hope to try and keep it moving forward for you so your applications afterward won't be heard real late. And 'again, let's try not to reinvent the wheel. We've heard it, we've heard a lot of it more than once, more than twice. And we really appreciate your brevity and maybe you can point out mostly new information that hasn't been presented in the past. Thank you. VIRGINIA FAN~T.T.I: Good evening. Virginia Fanelli representing the Birenbaums. With me tonight are Mr. and Mrs. Birenbaum and their attorney Lucy Lofrumento. We will try to be brief. We would like to make the presentation as meaningful as we can in a brief period of time since we've worked a long time on this project. Tonight we're here to ask for. your approval of our applications for site development and design review as per the findings of the staff report. The. Birenbaums have lived in Saratoga for 16 years, spent several years for the perfect lot for the type of home and lifestyle they wish for their family. When they found this lot their criteria for its development was to plan a home w~ich would create as little as possible intrusion on the land itself and on the neighborhood. They were very aware of the past concerns of neighbors about the development of this lot and from the beginning have attempted to meet with and work with the surrounding neighbors. An effort which has been mostly successful. They made an extensive search for an appropriate architect before they hired [unintelligible] who are award winning architects for hillside development. The architects, engineer and landscape architects have worked closely together to design the home before you. What has resulted is a low profile, Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 4 highly articulated, natural material house which has been sited on the property to achieve a minimal impact. I just wanted to point out the model here before you. I think most of you saw this. Gillian, I believe you probably have not up to this time. Just for reference this would be Dr. Mussone's house back to the south of the property. This is the north looking out towards the'Valley. The Gibersons, Molineux are over on this side of.the property and on this side is the Peach Hill. Mr. Kennedy is up in this direction. For your further information, obviously, this is not the entire site. This is the portion of the site which shows part of the driveway coming up and the house and the proposed pool. To have done the entire three-acre site on a model would have been extensive. But we just wanted to point out here that the statistics for this are site coverage of 9.8 percent, it's 1200 square feet less than the allow on this site. There is only 885 total cubic yards of cut and fill, 350 of those are for the house. There's 20 yards of cut and 125 yards of fill for the driveway. And there are no ordinance size trees scheduled for removal. In fact the majority of the trees number five for removal were those suggested by Mr. Coates, the City Arborist, which would benefit the growth of other trees in that slump. Some of them are clumped very close together and he suggested thinning those out so that the more healthy trees and larger trees would be able to survive. We believe that this compares most favorably with the houses shown in staff report all of which were built on lots approximately half the size of this lot. And especially in comparison to the majority of hillside homes which you have reviewed. The proposed access of the driveway is built on an existing legal easement. This driveway will follow the natural contours and no trees will be removed for it. Central Fire District has also agreed that a 12-foot drive plus one-foot shoulders would be sufficient for their needs, a change which we would like to make in Condition 18 when the Fire District confirms it with the staff. The alternative suggestion of accessing from a bridge appears to have significant environmental impact. It would require approximately 870 cubic yards of fill, retaining walls of approximately 11 feet high to get the driveway up to the house and removal of seven trees. In addition, as the neighbors' letters have stated, it has the potential of becoming. an attractive nuisance and will create more noise for the majority of neighbors. We agree with the staff's statement that it is difficult to imagine a bridge extension over this pristine canyon Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 5 and that the cost is excessive to access one parcel. While it is not an economic issue, our estimates range up to $350,000. Dr. Mussone, the neighbor to the south, has expressed concern in a letter to you about landscaping and exterior lighting. We are in agreement with him and would like to have you add a condition to the resolution that we will work with him in planning on these items. A great deal of thought and concern for the site and the neighbors has been put into the plans you have before you. It is highly sensitive to both. We ask'for your approval per the staff report with modifications of Condition 18 and the addition of the condition concerning landscaping and lighting. We're happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER BURGER: I have one question, Mrs. Fanelli. Can you just go back again and tell me what the change is in Condition 187 I didn't catch that. FANELLI: Well, Condition 18 'reads "A 14-foot driveway..." BURGER: Right. FANELLI: The Fire District person who reviews these has indicated to us in a recent meeting that as far as the Fire District is concerned 12 feet would be adequate with one foot of shoulders for the fire trucks and this would allow us to not do any extensive, any more grading and would keep the retaining walls at a minimum and would certainly protect any additional trees. BURGER: Okay. So a total of 14 versus 16... FANR~.r.I: But I would not let you do it except upon staff receiving that directly from the Fire District. I mean, I would like that added to it so that's confirmed. KOLSTAD: Next? I say next because I know that there's more in this case. k?hy don't you, anybody else that wishes to speak please come forward. Thank you. ALAN GIBERSON: Just take a couple of seconds while we pass the report out. I apologize for getting it to you late. We had two business days to work on this after receiving the staff report on Friday. Alan Giberson, 15561 Glen Una. [Unintelligible] Can we just start, just briefly, we started getting into this project after March of... Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 6 CALDWELL: Excuse me, do you have another... TAPPAN: Could you speak into the mike? GIBERSON: We skip to page 3, we started objecting to this project last March of 1989. In your, we could not find in the file our seven page objection dated July 24, 1989. I just put that in there for your review and reference and I will not repeat that. Next page is JCP Engineers dated July 18, 1990 requesting in-depth engineering and geologic study of the site. Next is a hard-to-read diagram of Saratoga.~ You see just below the "s", about an inch below in the center is a circle that's where the property is and the dotted line started about four o'clock heading northeast is the Berrocal'fault. That's on this page here. That's from the USGS dated February 15, 1990. As you know we had a little quake today and maybe this is important to remember that earthquakes are a consideration and they do report that the fault does cross this property. The next is a picture that's hanging on the wall of the Planning Department. The subject property is outlined in yellow and you see there's an "ms" area in the center where the house will be and the PS at the, it sort of snakes along the left hand side, that's the trace of the Berrocal fault. I think that crosses the property. [Unintelligible] from 1979 the first study of this area and this is a JCP geology report and again in the left-hand side is a dotted of the Berrocal fault. Then we have several pages regarding development of Peach Hill properties from Peterson Architects then a project by Mr. Kennedy. Notice that there is an extension crossing the Birenbaum property to access that property. Then a letter Fox and Carskadon. Mr. Kennedy's property is up for sale and that is divisible from City lots. I don't know what the access is. Maybe you can help determine that for me. Again, picture showing that this parcel is divisible into three lots. Then a letter from Sewer District confirming the presence of the sewer. Then the handwritten notes--Martin's or Steve's--from the first study session back last August talking about moving the house north and making it smaller. KOLSTAD: Pardon me. Your three minutes are up. If your, if your plan is to present this information... GIBERSOM: Could I have one minute? KOLSTAD: If it, were you planning on expounding on any of this? GIBERSON: No I was planning to introduce new information. KOLSTAD: So it's for introduction of evidence? Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 7 GIBERSON: Yes. KOLSTAD: Okay. If you could go very quickly because that's all you need to do for introduction. GIBERSON: Okay. August 21, yesterday, we have an updated noise impact study. Commissioner. Kolstad and others expressed interest regarding this. This is.regarding the Birenbaum property. That's all. And my major point is that I think we need to consider the earthquake seismic process. I know it's been reviewed by several engineers. I don't think they've addressed this properly. I think that they smoothed it over and said yes the project is fine for today but we won't guarantee it for tomorrow. I think the other concern is the subdivision. Is there going to be a subdivision just north of this property. A 2100 foot-long sewer has been installed, a ten-inch water pipe has been put in place and the question is how's the access. The Commission decided a few years ago that it would be coming from Sunset and it would seem redundant to put in a bridge to serve this subdivision and the Birenbaums long driveway next to it. We think it violates the slope and the residential design and that's it. Thank you. KOLSTAD: Thank you very much. Next?' WALT HOSKINS: I'm Walt Hoskins, a civil engineer retained by Mr. Giberson. And I just have a few pieces of information before you that I don't think you've seen before. This is the new proposed residence from the very residence around. Here's the Mussone residence looking down on it. Here is the Kim residence looking overhead. Here is the Molineux residence and here is the Giberson residence. As you can see from their views this house is located on the ridge. We've also prepared site lines from the various residences around the area, the Molineux, the Giberson, the Mussone [unintelligible] lines along which those views are taken. We also prepared in accordance with the Residential Design Handbook the site lines for the various residences. Here's the proposed house. You can see it's at the apex of several of the homes site lines where [unintelligible] that the house ~ould' be better located slightly down off of the ridge to get it out of the direct views. With regard to the access, you may be aware that this property over here needs to be developed at some day, at some time, and the access proposed for the house comes in here and the proposed reducing the turn radius to 21 feet when it requires forty-two feet. I recognize that that's allowed when conditions warrant. However, this, if you were to swing this to 42 that's the normal requirement it would require substantial amount more of'excavation. In addition to that the maps that were presented ignore two large oak trees Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 8 which cut right through, that road cuts right through. The last thing I'd like to show you is the bridge that's been talked about. Again, eventually this. access is going to have to be developed to serve these lots over here because of the policy statement that there's no access off Peach Tree. We've gone out and surveyed along what would be the center line of that access and we've found information that's contained on the maps before you seems to be in error. Actually the slopes and things that were presented in the study session were based on inaccurate information. [Unintelligible] What we have now is we're talking about a ten-foot high bridge that.would have to be put in there and it's my understanding that if the bridge was to be placed there from Sunset that the people would be, if the access wasn't provided over the existing easement they would be happy to supply additional lands which means that some cut and fill; could be done rather than building these high retaining walls. The high retaining walls were proposed only because we have a 40-foot right of way to work with. However, if you can widen the right of way and add some cut and fill to work with, you could make the bridge look more natural. Further the bridge can be a relatively short span wood bridge. Wood bridge kits now that cost $30,000 and span 50 feet for road application. So there's no misunderstanding that's exclusive of the abutments. I would say that you'd probably need that much more for the abutments [unintelligible]. One other thing that I have that concerns... KOLSTAD: If you could conclude, please. HOSKINS: Pardon me. KOLSTAD: If you could conclude, your ten minutes are up. Thank you. ~OSKINS: One other factor is'the coverage. I don't know whether you count coverage or not that's off the property, that's on easements on other people's property, but if you do that I think you'd find that approximately 17,000 square feet is being covered with impervious surface material and no provision has been made for decks or walkways around the pool and that sort of thing so I thin~ that if you take that into account you will be exceeding the coverage. Thank you. KOLSTAD: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address us on this. Give your name and address for the record. TOM CUMSTON: Tom Cumston, Berliner, Cohen and Biagini, representing Dr. Mussone whose address is 15590 Peach Hill. As you are probably quite aware Dr. Mussone's property is above and to the south of the Birenbaums' lot and I would refer you to a Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 9 letter that I submitted to all of you yesterday, I hope you've all received it, stating his primary concerns with the project in its current form. Essentially Dr'. Mussone feels the project has come a long way and he can accept this project as designed with the addition of two things, adequate landscape screening at the south back part of the house between his house and the Birenbaums and some assurance that the exterior lighting will not be excessive. And you've heard Ms. Fanelli indicate that the Birenbaums are willing to accept permanent conditions addressing those concerns. I don't have any. particular language in my mind for those conditions but I'm sure that the staff has customary language that they could use to accomplish that so on Dr. Mussone's behalf I would urge you to adopt the resolution with that additional language. KOLSTAD: Did Dr. Mussone have any specifics that he wished to include in that landscaping plan? CUMSTON: The landscaping, what we need basically is something tall enough to screen the house but short enough to prevent blocking views so what we need is vegetation probably in the 12, 10 to 15 foot range. What he would like is an agreement that they would submit a plan to him for his reasonable approval and that then they would landscape according to that plan and similar with the exterior lighting particularly on the driveway and the pool area. KOLSTAD: Thank you. Anyone else like to address us? LESTER SACHS: My name is Lester G. Sachs. We live at 19941 Sunset Drive. I'm here this evening representing myself. We've been through this matter for approximately over ten years now in the development of Sunset and whether it should be by bridge or elsewhys. The, we had a battle in' 1980, we had a battle in 1983, we had a battle in 1986, and we're now here. We're personally in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Birenbaums' development. We feel it's a fine development. The site is visible from our residence as it is from Dr. Kim's. Dr. Kim wasn't able to be present tonight. He did write a rather comprehensive letter opposing any bridge. We've gone through the staff before five or ten years ago on this bridge problem. We're very familiar ourselves personally with the development of the adjacent lots because we fought the development of the adjacent lots. As it now stands there's one additional lot that can be development on Mr. Kennedy's property and it's significant now that Mr. Kennedy is not here opposing this particular development. Hypothetically if this development goes through and Mr. Kennedy sells his property he may not be able to develop that property into.another additional lot. And he does have access other than over Sunset. Our problems are Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 10 that if a bridgegoes in on Sunset it's really going to be devastating to Dr. Kim. It's going to create some traffic problems. But we feel it's really going to maybe encourage development across Sunset which I don't think any of us want to do. I appreciate some of the problems of my neighbors in this area and I certainly don't want to oppose any of them because we all live together yet looking at this particular problem we personally feel and most people on Sunset feel that if the property's going to develop, and we recognize there will be development, this is probably is the best development that you're going to have and it's probably over a period of time going to result in less traffic problems and other type of environmental problems. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. KOLSTAD: Thank you. If there's anyone else who wishes to address us after this gentlemen if you could please come forward.. Thank you. CHAIHO KIM: My name is Chaiho Kim. I wrote you a letter and [unintelligible]. I am here. I did, however, save those beer cans [unintelligible]. Thank you. KOLSTAD: I was serious about anyone wishing to speak to come forward. GLORIA LEVY: I'm Gloria Levy and I live at 19800 Glen Una in Saratoga. I live approximately one block from the property on Sunset. KOLSTAD: Please speak into the mike please. LEVY: I just want to say twosthings. First, I support the Birenbaums' proposal. I feel that. the house is in keeping with the neighborhood standard in terms of aesthetics. Second, I'm also. opposed to a bridge at the end of Sunset which is clearly not in the best interest of the overall neighborhood and I live one block [unintelligible]. Thank you. KOLSTAD: Thank you very much. What can I say? Anyone else that wishes to a~ddress us? AL KING: A1 King on Sullivan Way in Saratoga. I wasn't going to say anything tonight but I haven't seen this before and I thought it was a very beautiful plan. I've seen so many houses built in Saratoga, huge monstrosities in the hills and this is an excellent design. It blends into the hillside. It doesn't look like it's really there. I think this is the best that could be done for this hillside and if this is an improvement on this project I would say that staff has done a very good job approving Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 11 it because for once we're going to get something that looks real nice. In the past when I'd go down the streets I'm horrified by these chopped-off roofs, houses that are ugly and big and dominate the lots all over Saratoga. Let's pass this thing. Let's pass something that's real nice and fits into the hillside. KOLSTAD: Thank you. Anyone else? MORAN: Move to close the public hearing. FANRT.~I: Let me just make add one comment then if Mr. Birenbaum has something else he wants to say but I don't think. I just want to state, as all of you know, all of the geologies and the studies by JCP and your City Geologist, the engineering plans that are before you by Nowack have been resurveyed twice and he is a civil engineer who has stamped his plans. We have not had the privilege of seeing Mr. Hoskins' plans but Mr. Kennedy has need to develop maybe someday in the future, maybe Mr. Kennedy or someone else will develop and at that time you have some choices or whoever is sitting where you are will have those choices. I think that really that all we have, if you have any questions about technicalities I'm sure Mr. Birenbaum or I could help you. KOLSTAD: Thank you. BURGER: At the risk of being premature I move to close the public hearing. TAPPAN: Second. KOLSTAD: All those in favor? UNANIMOUS: Aye. KOLSTAD: Opposed? BURGER: I have two questions really. The first thing.'I would like to do is we have a submittal before us from the Gibersons this %vening and it is extensive and [TURNED TAPE OVER- -WORDS OMITTED] if I am reading their concerns and the history of this site they're concerned about geology. There's a fault on the property, the Berrocal fault. Engineering plans, they're concerned about the location of the home, the square footage of the home, am I missing anything. EMSLIE: Access and... BURGER: Access. Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 12 EMSLIE: And noise. BURGER: And noise. Okay. I sort of lumped access under the engineering plans. I think a study was done on the approach or was that just on the bridge? EMSLIE: The studies were done on the use of the easement. BURGER: Okay, the use of the easement. EMSLIE: The use of the easement as well as extending Sunset and constructing a bridge. BURGER: Okay. And, so the concerns regarding the easement access and the geology have been addressed by the City of Saratoga to the satisfaction of the City of Saratoga and the staff? EMSLIE: The City Geologist is recommending to the Planning Commission that you can grant design review approval if you so desire. He's asking for additional studies but those are typically studies that he would find in the construction phase. BURGER: Okay. Nothing out of the ordinary is what we're seeing here. Okay. Then my only other question is what I've just tried to do is boil down all.of this information we have into maybe what comes out to be five or six bullets that indicate the Gibersons' concerns. Then my other question is how much, and perhaps this is a question for the City Attorney, I am a little concerned about how much, how much we have to take into account possible development of Mr. Kennedy's property in trying to determine whether or not we should be approving the Birenbaums' application? I fail to see a connection and I need some guidance on that. CITY ATTORNEY TOPPEL: From a legal point of view there isn't any. I think it should be noted first of all there is a letter in the file from Mr. Kennedy opposing the bridge. Secondly, there have been a number of different development proposals for 6he Kennedy property. There have in fact been tentative map approvals granted none of which have ever gone to a final map. As a matter of fact, if the Commission was to require access by reason of the Kennedy property I would have more of a problem with that if that was your basis for doing so because it's purely speculative and the owner of that property has not indicated any intention to subdivide it. We do at times work out driveway access in terms of how we think an area will develop as a matter of good planning. But here I think the staff report indicates very clearly that considerations of planning have Transcript Planning CoRission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 13 dictated use of the easement as opposed to the bridge. If that complicates the development of Mr. Kennedy's property, certainly he is not bothered by it and he is current owner. If a future owner is then obstructed in subdividing the property then that's his problem and we'll have to' deal with it at that time. But it would be inappropriate for us to make a decision on access solely on the basis of a speculated development of the Kennedy property which'at the moment is not before us. BURGER: Thank you Hal. I, just to get started here, it is my feeling that I prefer the easement access over the proposal for the bridge. It was something that I remember when Mr. Hur owned this property we really discussed this at length and I think that perhaps it was shown at that time to not be the best solution. I prefer the easement access as proposed by the applicant and it is my opinion that this home is sensitively designed for this hillside. We cannot develop this lot without people being able to see the home that is on the lot. It won't be invisible but I think that the Birenbaums have been very sensitive in their design and I think with the addition of some conditions for landscaping, particularly in response to the Gibersons' concerns, maybe some landscaping on the Birenbaums' property and maybe the Gibersons would want to look at some additional landscaping on their property as well. I see no problem' with this application. TAPPAN: My sentiments. C~T.DWRLL: Okay. I have a couple of questions. The two oak trees that were referred to by the Gibersons that may be in the way of the driveway easement. Do we know about these? Do they exist? WALGREM: They weren't plotted in the plans and I didn't personally notice them in walking the site. The driveway access proposed is along the existing dirt access road and there aren't, you don't see two oak trees in the middle of the dirt access road. MORAN: On the plan they're at that hairpin turn. C~T.DWR~.T.: Will it be necessary to take them down? KOLSTAD: If it's at the hairpin I don't remember anything. I remember a lot of light and I don't remember it at all. FANRLnI: We believe that the trees you're speaking of are an oak tree at the chain, if you remember across the driveway Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 14 almost at the beginning of the drive access which is off of the easement property, and a walnut tree. KOLSTAD: All right. MORAN: Will either of these be removed? FAN~.T.I: Will they be removed [asking the applicant]? A~PLICANT: No. Absolutely not. KOLSTAD: Thank you. C~T.DW~.V.: I have another question. When we were at the site for the visit we were discussing the various access possibilities and we discussed the balance of that subdivision and Mr. Kennedy's property and if that is sold and developed at some time where logically access would occur to that property. Bear with me for a moment in this'line of reasoning here. At that time staff indicated to me that the logical access to that property would be a bridge over Sunset because at some time in the past the Planning Commission had made some kind of resolution or promise to the Peach Hill residents that there would be no access to that block of property from Peach Hill. And I just, can you clarify that or can you tell me whether I'm all wet or, you know, what's going on here? TOPPEL: Well, there's been a lot of discussion about Peach Hill as the reunion tonight would testify to. But there has never been to my knowledge anything binding on the City with respect to access. The earlier map approvals that may have been granted I believe may have gone o~er this ravine by the bridge but those are now expired. If someone was to come in for subdivision of the Kennedy property, I think our position would be you have to show us a means of access and certainly Peach Hill is not precluded as an'option. If the City has their way in which Mr. Kennedy currently accesses his own property in Peach Hill. If the City decides that the bridge over the ravine is not the appropriate manner of accessing and other alternatives are not desirable ~ither we might just conclude that the entire property is unsuitable for subdivision and we can't make the findings under the Map Act. So I don't think we're committed to Sunset as a means of access to the Kennedy property. There has certainly never been an agreement I'm aware of to which the City is a party that says we will never entertain the idea of an access from Peach Hill and even if that was proposed and we found it to have problems we could always deny the subdivision application which is why I come back to the point that this one should be decided on its own merits. Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 15 CALDWFT.n: Yeah, I understand that. I just found it really distressing to have that said to me that well a bridge over, you know, Sunset or the ravine there would be the logical... TOPPEL: That would be an issue to be decided at the time. And the City from my point of view could always say that's not an appropriate means of access. CALDWELL: I found it distressing from the fact that right now staff is saying that's appropriate and that might be the only way to go. You know, I'd like to think prospectively here. We are a Planning Commission, and, you know, I think we should be, it's prudent to be concerned about how this area might be develop and what's logical and environmentally sensitive in the long run. Okay. I have a couple more questions. The issue of site coverage whether it includes the driveway, the decks, the possible decks and walkways around the pool. TOPPEL: It does not include offsite. CALDW~.T.~.: ...it does not include offsite. What does that mean. Does that mean that the Gibersons and people next to them over whose property that driveway runs, are they constrained by that site coverage? TOPPEL: No. C~r.nW~.v.~.: Okay. Let's see. Oh, what, has the Council in the past decided whether or not Sunset is an appropriate access point to any of that property? Someone made reference to that and I just jotted a note down. Are you aware of any decision made by the Council? TOPPEL: Well only to the extent that there was a subdivision map approval granted for the Kennedy property which as I recall provided for access from Sunset. CALDW~nT.: So there's a subdivision. map that's been approved that provides for access from Sunset? TOPPEL: And, as I understand it, has since expired and was never taken to a final map. CALDWFr.~.: Okay. So that is no longer a valid legal document. TOPPEL: I don't have the dates in front of me but Steve advises that it has expired. Transcript Planning Commission Meeting Auglist 22, 1990 Page 16 CALDWELL: Okay so that's totally invalid legally. TOPPEL: Yes. There has never been a final map. There have been a couple of variations of the tentative map but as far as I know there has never been a finaI map recorded for the Kennedy property and even if the earlier tentative maps provided for access from Sunset they have now expired. Any subdivision of that property would require an entirely new application. C~T.DWELL: Okay. Do you know, Hal, the basis for the Council's finding that. Did they consider the environmental issues at that time? EMSLIE: Well, yes. I can glean from the record, having not participated in those discussions., that the Sunset access was seen as more desirable because of the existing width of Peach Hill. It's narrower than Sunset,=it's more mountainous, it's got more .curves to it and I think that the increased traffic on this street was seen as less desirable'than direct access to a more improved street that Sunset is. TOPPEL: We were also looking at like five to seven lots at the time. C~nDWR~.L: Another question, Hal, is it possible that this driveway which is proposed to serve the Birenbaums property could be used at a later time to access the balance of that subdivision. TOPPEL: Not unless Mr. Birenbaum was willing to grant an easement over his property. There is nothing on his property that extends an easement to the Kennedy property. ~T.T.: And the Gibersons and their next door neighbors would have control over that as well? Since the easement is on their property? TOPPEL: I don't know enough about the easement, the scope of the easement whether it is... CALDWRT~.: You see what I'm driving at other than, you know, how many cars are going to be using... TOPPEL: Okay, let me try the. answer to that. If the easement, this parcel was part of a larger parcel and was subdivided out. I think Kennedy started with, this is maybe one of the three lot subdivision, and then the rest of it was supposedly going to be subdivided into additional lots. If the. easement was servicing the entire thing before any subdivision Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 17 occurred you could make an argument that it might be available for additional subdivision on the Kennedy property but there is no easement right now over the Birenbaum property. I guess to answer your question is I can't say for sure that if they're willing to grant an easement on this property it couldn't serve. additional lots on the Kennedy property if they were created. But that might be an overburdening of the easement. I would have to know more about what the easement was created, what parcel it was intended to serve and what would constitute an overburden on that easement. But again I come back to the point that we're not dealing with a subdivision of the Kennedy property and if there was an application file we would take a fresh look at the access at that time. CALDWRT~.: Yeah, but I think it's prudent to look at inducements to, or, you know, something might feasibility be used more intensely in the future when we're talking about the environmental impact of that. That's where I'm coming from. TERRY KELLY: Excuse me. KOLSTAD: The public hearing is closed. FRT.T.y: I did want to speak to a factual issue... KOLSTAD: Regarding? MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: The easement across the Birenbaum property. Simply to, I believe the record would show that there is in fact, that the Birenbaum property is impressed with an easement, Terry Kelly, Blase, Valentine and Klein, attorney for the Gibersons. I believe that the Birenbaum property is impressed with an easement that cuts across and terminates where the reservation ends on the Giberson property that would service the Kennedy property. In addition there is a curved slope control easement that Kennedy also impressed with this lot. [Unintelligible] I simply wanted to clarify since that's my understanding. KOLSTAD: Thank you. C~T.nWELL: In the Giberson report there is a map, the USGS map which shows the Berrocal fault transecting the site. I'm having trouble reconciling that with the staff report which indicates that.the Berrocal fault is up to 300 distant from the site and I'm wondering what to make of that. BURGER: Which page are you looking at, Meg, we just got this this evening... Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 18 C~T.DW~T.T.: Well, they're not paginated but it's right after, it's the JCP letter. BURGER: Thank you. WALGREN: Staff is referring. to the report prepared by our consulting geologist William Cotton who reviewed an 1988 seller's report for this property and supplemental 1989 seller's report and who also prepared the City's seismic stability map that was referred to earlier in the evening and this is his recommendation that after his review that's where the fault has been located, 300 feet, I think, southwest of the parcel. C~nDWR;~.: Did he have the, did he have this USGS map at all to look at or the benefit of their... WALGREN: I'm sure he has the resources he needs to do this kind of review. TAPPAN: He's a licensed geologist. C~v.F~qELL: Yeah, I'm sure the guy who did this is too. All right, I'm going to wrap it up here then and summarize what my concerns are. My major concern is the geologic suitability of the site for development and the discrepancy between what we understand from the staff report to be the location of the Berrocal fault and what this USGS map indicates. And I believe that it's appropriate before any building site approval or design review approval takes place that we determine the location of this fault and determine the suitability of this site for development. We are doing something similar with the Hubbard and Johnson site where there is a possibility of a fault transecting that property and I think it's only prudent to take the same course of action or a similar course of action here and I would recommend that we do that. I'm real concerned about approving development on property that may be very hazardous. Let's see. The access issue is also troubling to me. I, I don't know how to resolve this issue of whether or not this driveway might be used as access to t~e remainder of Kennedy's property and I think that it would, if we were looking at this as a whole and that were proposed, it might very well change our opinion of the suitability of that as the access point to the Birenbaum property if we knew that was also going to be used by any other inhabitants of the balance of that subdivision. I briefly looked at the noise report that was included in the Gibersons' packet and it indicates possible noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA emanating from use of that driveway by cars and that's pretty loud. I mean, they tell us that these freeway sound walls are going to be decreasing noise down to 60 dBA and that still seemed loud to a Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 19 lot of people in this City so I'm concerned about that. The privacy issue, given the direct line of site, something clearly has to be done about that given the fact that the black oaks which really do serve as some screening on the Birenbaums' property are deciduous and they're just not going to be there year around and the trees on the Giberson property are also deciduous. I think that really covers the major points but my bottom line is I can't move forward on this until I know what's happening with the site geologically. MORAN: I appreciate your comments. Do you have in mind some additional landscaping that you would like to suggest as a condition for this, for the neighbors along that side? One question. .Would you feel comfortable with a condition that would be similar to ones we've made in the past that would ask for a verification of the geology report on the fault line? C~T.DW~.T~.: I would prefer to take the course of action that we're following, that I understand us to be following with the Hubbard and Johnson site which is to not make any decision regarding, you know, the tentative map in that case the building site approval in this case until we know what the hazards are that exist on this site. Or if hazards exist on the site. WALGREN: It was the City's geotechnical consultant that identified that possible fault running through that Hubbard and Johnson parcel. C~T.DW~.nT.: Yeah. And I recognize that, James, what troubles me is that I don't know if our City Geologist had the benefit of the knowledge that, you know, the USGS is evidencing in this map. that has been produced to us. And it may be a very simple thing but I can't move forward. And, Gilljan, as to, you know, I would take that up at that time. I think something needs to be done for the privacy issue and typically what we've done in the past with respect to landscaping I think would be appropriate if this site is deemed suitable for development. Does that answer your question7 MORAN: Yes, yes it does. C~r.~W~.r.r.: You know the other issue that you raised is that is whether the location of the home is the appropriate location. Whether moving the home down a little bit, whatever, would improve the line of sight issue, the privacy issues, the noise issues. MORAN: Okay. I would just like to say that I feel as though this is a sensitive design for this hillside location and Transcript Planning Commission Meeting Aug~ast 22, 1990 Page 20 I feel that the staff and the applicant have worked together to address the site development issues that I think are important and the ones that Commissioner Burger talked about. I would like to move forward on the application but I would also like to respond to the concerns that you've raised and I'm just looking for some ground where we could perhaps consider a condition that we double check with the City people about where that fault line actually is and have a condition that. the applicant work with staff to put in the kind of landscaping which you think would be appropriate there. C~T.r~TE~.T.: You know, the other issue, Gillian, is the drive, and I don't know whether you're concerned about that but the potential for that driveway to be used by other, you know, speculative owners of the remainder of that property. Does that concern anybody else on this Commission? KOLSTAD: Your points have been made very well. Maybe we should move on and other ones can comment. CAT.DWR~.V.: I was just offering another condition that Gillian might consider. BURGER: The, Meg, I think if you go back and look at the history of the Planning Commission's deliberation on this site I think that you will see that alternate siting of the home is inappropriate. We looked at, in my recollection, as many as three different sites. One above and one below the area where it currently sits and we ran into slope density problems as we moved down and we ran into site view problems as we moved up. So I think this site is probably the best siting for the home with a condition of some landscaping. I'm not concerned, you asked if any of us were concerned about the access. I'm not. I think that's a red herring. And the other thing, regarding the fault location it's hard for me to believe that our City Geologist did not have USGS maps. I would have absolutely no problem with a condition that suggested that at the staff level that it get a verification from our City Geologist as to the location of the fault. I'm no~ quite as ready to'question the competence or the integrity or the completeness of the report put forth by the City Geologist. C~.DW~: I haven't seen that report. I wish I had. COMMISSIONER CALDWELL WAS OFFERED A COPY OF THE REPORT FROM A MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE. TAPPAN: My sentiments were expressed by Commissioner Burger. And, are we finished, I'll make a motion? Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 21 KOLSTAD: I'd like to make a few comments. TAPPAN: I'm sorry, John. KOLSTAD: We've had some other applications with faults that were closer than 300 feet. In fact, I remember one where the fault went right between the house and the detached garage. So I do have confidence in, to a major. degree, with the City Geologist. As far as noise I don't know that I would necessarily agree with an 85 dBA noise level for that. This bridge, I think it's visually and environmentally impactful. The view impacts from the Gibersons, I think, are minimal and I don't believe that that's a major ridge line by any means. As far as impervious coverage the staff report has indicated that they're way under and I would, I'm a bit disturbed as to the integrity of the documents supplied at the last minute by the Gibersons. For instance, they're commenting on impervious coverage where 15,000 is allowed and, let's see, they said it should not be allowed because it's something like 15,250 or something like that. I'm sure that those items can all be worked out. Then we answer the question about coverage on adjacent properties. I do agree with the neighbor for conditioning landscaping and lighting and I believe that staff can probably take care of that knowing that the Commission is strongly concerned about those issues for all the neighbors. And just for, since it's probably going to go to court anyway, I thought it might be good to comment on some of the design review findings in that and one is minimizing perception of bulk. I don't think it's bulky in the least. You know, you can, if you took, I'd say 90 percent of the applications that we come up with are bulkier than this one. Number 2, that it integrates, the structure integrates with the environment. I really don't see how anyone could possibly say that with a flat roof and that it minimizes it and matches with the slopes. Privacy problems and impacts, I think because of the distance away this home is from the other houses that the view is minimal, that the privacy problems are virtually nonexistent because of the distance and, you know, it comes down to the, it almost makes me chuckle because it's like the vacant lot next door that has been vacant for 20 years and the kids have been playing baseball and now they want to develop it and, well, I just say that in that situation that the neighbor complaining should feel lucky that he was able to enjoy the open space but they do have a right to develop it and I think I made my case. It does preserve views. It's the proper place, we discussed, on the slope, we've discussed lowering it and raising it numerous times. So I'm ready to go. I don't see any need to continue. I think all the points have been brought out. When it does get appealed to the Council you can bet your bottom dollar that all Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 22 of these points that have been brought up at this level will be brought up again and answered. BURGER: I move for approval., you want SD first, Steve? I'll move for approval of SD-88-019. TAPPAN: Second. C~T.nW~.r.: Discussion? I've'briefly looked at the document submitted by Cotton and, thank you for doing that, it does not reflect any review of USGS documents. It specifically reflects review of three items and I just put that on the record, that do not include USGS documents... BURGER: Okay. I was going to include in the design review approval a condition. MORAN: That should be in the SD. BURGER: Should it? Is it more appropriate to be in the SD rather than the design review? WALGREN: In this application all of the conditions have been incorporated in the DR. BURGER: In the DR, okay. So I was going to address that in the DR. MORAN: If we don't tie this. thing together then we're going to get in a situation where the SD would... BURGER: I have no intention of continuing the DR. I'm just going to include as a condition that we verify the location of the fault. MORAN: If it's not verifiable we could end up with an approved SD and an unapproved design review. EMSLIE: ~ut see, in this case there's not a relative impact between the two because it's not like a variance and a design review where one is related to the other. The SD is only saying that all the services are available to this lot and it's suitable for development. The design review then looks at all the specific technical information. MORAN: But this amendment has to do with whether or not it's suitable for development. Transcript Planning Commission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 23 BURGER: I think what staff is saying is right. We're getting all tied up in the technicalities of trying to assure that we approve a package. EMSLIE: Let me make a suggestion on the SD. Adopt the SD with one condition that all the conditions of the design review are incorporated by reference. And then all the conditions in the design review will also be part of the SD so that the two projects will be considered as a package. MORAN: I'm not worried about packaging. I'm concerned about getting a site that's approved that we perhaps think should not be approved and that's my reading of what Commissioner Caldwell is bringing up. WALGREN: The only condition that's within the building site approval resolution is one that says that all conditions of the design review resolution shall apply. That's the way that the building site approval resolution is worded. MORAN: Okay. TAPPAN: Forward? BURGER: I don't know if there was a second on the motion. TAPPAN: There was. KOLSTAD: Was there? .Okay. All those in favor? C~T.DWR~.L: COuld you restate it? BURGER: Okay. The motion was approval of SD-88-019 per the staff report. TAPPAN: Second. BURGER: With the understanding that, as James just said, that all conditions of the design review are incorporated and included and applicable in the SD. That the SD doesn't go forward without the DR. C~LDWR~.n: Right. KOLSTAD: All those in favor? BURGER, KOLSTAD, MORAN, TAPPAN: Aye. KOLSTAD: Opposed? Transcript Planning Conission Meeting August 22, 1990 Page 24 C~T.nWI~T.T.: NO. BURGER: Okay, and then I'm going to try this now. I move approval of DR-90-050 per the staff report adding a condition which would, there are two conditions that I would like to add, one is regarding landscaping and lighting in response to Dr. Mussone's concerns but also in that condition I would like to include landscaping approved at the staff level which would minimize the impact to the Birenbaums... TAPPAN: Gibersons. BURGER: Gibersons, I'm sorry. And the other condition would be verification, Hal, you need to help me. TOPPEL: Well, according to staff the City Geologist has already determined the fault. The question is not whether he's looked at it but whether he's considered the USGS report so I think the condition should be verification from the City Geologist that he has considered the information from the USGS report and explains any inconsistencies. I should point out normally Mr. Cotton has all this stuff in his shop and it's part of the background review that he makes in any application. BURGER: That was my understanding and I guess we just need to verify that. That would be a condition and then I guess we also want to, with the approval of the Fire Department, it was Condition No. 18 about changing the width of the driveway access. EMSLIE: I would just suggest you leave that condition as it's written in and add the phrase unless an alternate design is approved by the Central Fire District. BURGER: That would be fine with me. Retain that condition unless an alternate is approved by the Fire Department. I think that's my motion. TAPPAN: Second. KOLSTAD: All those in favor? BURGER, KOLSTAD, leORAN, TA~PAN: Aye. KOLSTAD: Opposed? C~T.DWR~.: NO. KOLSTAD: YOU have, there's ten calendar days for appeal. CITY O[ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: August 22, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Kolstad, Commissioners Burger, Caldwell, Moran, Siegfried and Tappan. Commissioner Tucker was absent. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes of AugUst 8, 1990: Commissioner Caldwell requested that the motion for approval of item 6 on page 5 be amended as follows: CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF FE-90-001 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN SECTION 1 OF THE RESOLUTION AND WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: THAT NO MORE THAN 50% OF EACH LOT BE ENCLOSED; THAT ALL ENCLOSURES THAT ARE 60% AS WELL AS EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK ENCLOSURES BE GRANDFATHERED IN SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL WITH FINDINGS THAT THE FENCES DO NOT CAUSE AN OBSTRUCTION TO PASSAGE OF DEER AND OTHER WILDLIFE; THAT THERE BE STANDARD OPEN DESIGN FENCE PROTOTYPES TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THAT WILL BE ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS TO THE RESOLUTION AND INCORPORATED THEREIN TO BE USED BY STAFF IN REVIEWING FUTURE PROPOSALS; THAT THERE BE A PROVISION TO ALLOW SIDE OR REAR YARD FENCING TO ABUT OPEN SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION THAT THERE BE NO CONTIGUOUS FENCING WHATSOEVER AND THE MINIMUM PASSAGE OF 40 FEET THROUGH OPEN SPACE; AND. THAT THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD PROPERTy LINE WILL BE 30 FEET AND THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE SIDE YARD WILL BE 20 FEET. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Moran noted that in the fifth and sixth paragraphs on page 6 "Belinda" should be Melinda. SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1; Commissioner Moran abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Walter Ballard, 18288 Swarthmore Dr., addressed the Commission regarding noise abatement with respect to lack of an enforcement program for barking dogs. Chairperson Kolstad noted the noise abatement issue will be addressed at a study session on September 18. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 17, 1990. Technical CorrectiOns to Packet Material: Planner Walgren reported the following technical corrections: Item 3 (DR-89-116.1, Blackwell): The third finding of the resolution was clarified in that the 200 cubic yards of cut are for the yard area only and do not include the total amount of 800 cubic yards for the entire project for the development of the house and driveway. Item 4 (DR-90-031, King): An additional condition was requested that only the proposed building pad and driveway approach areas shall be cleared of existing mature landscaping. Item 6 (DR-90-041, Lund): Condition No. 3 should be corrected to read "maximum height of 26 feet" not 25 feet. pUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. SM-90-004 Morrison, 14170. Teerlink Way, request for site modification approval to construct a swimming pool and retaining walls on a site with an average slope exceeding 10% in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code (conto to 9/12/90). 2. DR-90-015 Deiwert, 12272 Via Roncole, request for design review approval to construct a 644 square-foot second-story addition in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City. Code (conto from 8/8/90). 3. DR-89-116.1 Blackwell, 21357 Diamond Oaks Ct., request for design review modification to construct a new 5 foot tall retaining wall which was not part of the original application approval. Perthe Parker Ranch subdivision conditions of approval, design review is required for any retaining walls exceeding 3 feet in height. Modification is also requested to allow an additional 200 cubic yards of cut and 120 yards of fill necessary to create a usable yard area. 4. DR-90-031 King, 20040 Mendelsohn Way, request for design review to construct a new 5,497 square-foot single-family dwelling in the R-i-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 5. DR-90-016 Chu, 18858 Ten Acres Rd., request for design review approval for a 171 square-foot first floor addition and an 816 square-foot second floor addition to an existing 3,870 square-foot residence in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. DR-90-041 Lund, 18665 Maude Ave., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,080 square-foot, two-story single-family residence in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell requested that item 4 be removed. Commissioner Moran requested that item 6 be removed° BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2, 3 AND 5. Passed 6-0. 4. DR-90-031 King, 20040 Mendelsohn Way, request for design review to construct a new 5,497 square-foot single-family dwelling in the R-1-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern regarding the dedication. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m° City Attorney Toppel pointed out that there are engineering reasons as to why the dedication is being required that relate specifically to the configuration of the property. I.t is not simply a matter of one house being replaced by another house of larger size° He said the Commission has the discretionary authority to waive the condition if it wishes to do so. CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 P.Mo Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-031. Passed 6-0. 6. DR-90-041 Lund, 18665 Maude Ave., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,080 square-foot, two-story single-family residence in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR .Continued The neighbor residing at 18640 Maude Ave. expressed concern that they have not been noticed regarding Planning Commission applications in the neighborhood. She said it was apparently due to an error made by the County Assessor's office. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.Mo Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger requested that staff make sure there is no conversion of the existing garage into a second unit. Commissioner Moran questioned the proposed color of the house and requested the color be changed to dark tan and that staff work with the applicant regarding the colors. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-041 WITH A CONDITION THAT THE COLOR BE DARK TAN AND THAT THE COLOR BE APPROVED BY STAFF. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. DR-90-018 Williams, 18396 Purdue Ave°, request for design review approval to construct a 747 square-foot second-story addition and 252 square feet of additional first floor area to an existing one-story, single-family residence in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (continued from 7/25/90)o Planning Director Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated August 22, 1990. The public hearing was Opened at 8:05 p.m. Col. E. T. Barco addressed the Commission and expressed concern regarding two-story additions changing the character of neighborhoods in Saratoga and said he is opposed to the second-story additions. He suggested the Commission postpone any decisions on second-story additions pending guidance from the City Council. A representative of the applicant stated the applicant has made it a point to try to reduce the size of the house and has discussed the plans with the neighbors. The neighbors were supportive of the plans. He said a single-story addition would result in removal of the back yard. TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:11 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried said he could vote in favor of the application because of the height and size of the proposed house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan noted the applicant's sensitivity and responsiveness to Commission concerns regarding bulk. He stated he could vote in favor of the application. Commissioners Burger and Caldwell agreed with Commissioner Tappan's comments. Chairperson Kolstad noted that the homes in the neighborhood are consistent in design and the proposal would be changing the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Moran agreed with Chairperson Kolstad's comments. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-029. Passed 4-2 (Commissioners Kolstad and Moran opposed). 8. DR-90-029 Calebotta, 14240 Paul Ave., request for design review approval to construct a 777 square-foot second story addition and 17 square feet of additional first floor area to an existing one-story single family residence in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (continued from 7/25/90). Planner Walgren reviewed the staff memorandum dated August 22, 1990. The public hearing was opened at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Scott Cunningham addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to a question from Commissioner Moran, Mr. Cunningham stated there are four pine trees at the front property line, none of which are intended to be removed. To the applicant's knowledge, none of the trees at the property line are oak trees. CALDWELL/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8: 23 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried requested that, if approved, the application be approved subject to staff verification of the trees on the property. Commissioner Burger agreed and stated that if there is an oak tree on the property it needs to be protected. Mr. Emslie suggested a condition be added requiring the applicant to submit a tree survey and tree protection measures prior to zone clearance o PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger noted the applicant has addressed concerns raised by the Commission at the public hearing and study session, and she would be able to vote favorably for the application with the condition suggested by Mr. Emslie. Commissioner Moran questioned the condition that the applicant agree with the neighbor regarding landscaping. Mr. Toppel responded that the Commission could not require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the neighbor as a condition of approval. He suggested the condition be worded to require that the applicant shall install landscaping on his own property but the requirement could be waived if landscaping is installed on the neighbor's property. Chairperson Kolstad said he would be in favor of a landscaping plan to be worked out at a later time. He stated he felt strongly that the existing wall not be removed and if it is removed it be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. MORAN/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-029 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXISTING WALL NOT BE REMOVED AND IF IT IS TO BE REMOVED THE APPLICANT RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALL LANDSCAPING ON THE SOUTH SIDE UNLESS THAT CONDITION IS WAIVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR; AND THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A SURVEY OF EXISTING TREES AND A PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVED PLAN FOR PROTECTING THE TREES. Passed 6-0. 9. SD-88-008.1 Rogers & Brook, San Marcos Heights Subdivision, Crisp Ave./Gypsy Hill Rd., review of proposed decorative entrances to the subdivision. One at Crisp Avenue and the second at Gypsy Hill Rd. The entrances will include no enclosed gates (continued from 8/8/90). Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Staff Memorandum dated August 22, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:31 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli appeared for the applicant. She stated if the Commission does not feel the entry at Crisp Ave. is appropriate, the applicant is requesting the entry treatment at Gypsy Hill be approved and that approval be based on the revised plans submitted. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., addressed the Commission regarding his opposition to the proposal. MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:38 P.M. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran stated she reviewed the minutes of the last meeting and felt that this will not assist in integrating the new and old homes at either end of the subdivision and the entry structures are not appropriate at either end. She also expressed concern regarding the height and agreed with the staff proposal. Commissioner Caldwell agreed with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Siegfried Said he was still opposed to any entry treatment at Crisp but did not have a problem with the Gypsy Hill side. Chairperson Kolstad agreed with Commissioner Siegfried. Commissioner Tappan said he had no problem with the recommendations in the staff report but also stated he had no objection to entrances on either side of the subdivision. CALDWELL/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-008.1 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ENTRY TREATMENT BE NO HIGHER THAN 6 FEET TALL. Passed 4-2 (Commissioners Burger and Moran opposed). Commissioner Burger stated she voted against the proposal for the same reasons she voted against it at the last meeting. She said she felt the appropriate treatment is an entry at both Gypsy Hill and Crisp. 10. V-90-010 Chin, 21427 Saratoga Hills Rd., request for DR-90-036 variance to reduce required side yard setbacks and design review for a two-story addition in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 7/11/90). Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 22, 1990. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Mr. John Bohan, designer, appeared for the applicant. He said the applicant feels he has compromised the design and square footage based on interaction with staff and the Planning Commission. SIEGFRIED/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried said he felt strongly about the application. He pointed out that because of the slope of the land, the location of the house and the unusual design of the dome the home basically has bedrooms the size of large closets and there is no way to expand in any direction PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued other than that proposed° He said he could make the findings on the basis of the topography and the uniqueness of the house. Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Siegfried's comments and said she would be able to vote in favor of the revised application. Commissioner Tappan agreed with the other Commissioners° Commissioners Moran and Caldwell indicated they would also vote in favor of the variance. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR V-.90-010. THE FINDINGS SHOULD BE TIED TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND AND THE UNIQUENESS OF THE STRUCTURE. Passed 6-0° SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DR-90-036. Passed 6-0. Break 8:55 p.m. - 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried left the meeting and did not return. 11. DR-90-032 Sievert/Ball, 18549 Paseo Tierra, request for design review approval to construct a 958 square-foot second- story addition and a 742 square-foot first floor addition to an existing 1,476 square-foot residence in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 22, 1990. The public hearing was opened at 9:06 p.mo Mr. Ken Sievert, 20157 Suisun Dr., Cupertino, introduced Mrs. Sievert and Mr. and Mrs. David Ball, the other applicants. Mr. David Ball, 18549 Paseo Tierra, addressed the Commission. He pointed out an error on the site map on which the site is shown correctly but the address was shown incorrectly. In the Executive Summary under "Project Discussion" the 942 square-foot second story addition should have been 958 square feet. Based on other second-story projects in the neighborhood, Mr. Ball stated the applicants could not understand staff's recommendation for denial of this project. Regarding the privacy concerns, Mr. Ball circulated photographs taken from the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued approximate location of the second-story balcony. He said the applicant is willing to provide any screening required by the Commission. Chairperson Kolstad assured Mr. Ball that the errors he described would not have any effect on approval of the application. BURGER/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:19 P.M. Passed 5-0° Commissioner Burger indicated she is not opposed to a second-story addition at this site. However, she said she would like to see the side elevation of the second story addition stepped in on the east side. She also expressed concern regarding the privacy impact of the second-story balcony. She suggested conditions be included for landscaping on both sides and the rear. Commissioner Tappan stated he had no problem with a two-story in the neighborhood but indicated he agreed with the discussion in the staff report relative to mass and bulk. He also indicated he felt the plans did not articulate the project. Commissioner Caldwell said she would not be able to approve the project because she agreed with staff's findings regarding the design review° She suggested the applicant consider expansion with a single-story addition. She indicated, however, she is not totally opposed to a second-story addition. Commissioner Moran agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners and stated she was not prepared to support the application at this time. She recommended the Commission follow the staff recommendation of denial without prejudice. Chairperson Kolstad also agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners° He said he was not opposed to a two-story but felt the addition could be achieved by a one-story addition. Commissioner Tappan reiterated the Commissioners' concerns regarding the design. Commissioner Moran stated that she would prefer a one-story design as the present design would provide for a house that is massive and bulky for the neighborhood. TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO DENY DR-90-032 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AuguSt 22, 1990 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 12. SUP-90-001 Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Ln., request for a use permit to V-90-023 legalize an existing 1,330 square-foot second unit and variance approval to legalize a nonconforming 22-foot rear yard setback where 50 feet is required in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 22, 1990. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, architect, appeared for the applicant. He said the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. MORAN/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:34 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger stated she had no problem with the application and agreed with staff that in the interest of architectural integrity she felt the one-foot variance on the roof line of the garage is not only acceptable but desirable in the neighborhood. Commissioner Caldwell said she looked at the property and saw no problem with making the garage within the code. Chairperson Kolstad stated he had no problem with the variance. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE V-90-023 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 4- 1 (Commissioner Caldwell opposed). BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE SUP-90-001 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 5-0. 13. SD-88-019 Birenbaum, 20052 Sunset Dr., request for tentative DR-90-050 building site and design review approval to construct a new two-story, split level, 5,111 square-foot single- family dwelling per City Code Articles 14-20.070 and 15-45.080. The subject property is located within the HC-RD zone district. Commissioner Caldwell reported on' the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 22, 1990. The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Virginia Fanelli appeared for the applicant. Ms. Fanelli made a presentation of the proposal and pointed out a portion of the site and the neighbors' properties on a model. She indicated that the Fire District agreed that a 12-foot drive plus one foot shoulders would be sufficient for its needs. Ms. Fanelli requested amendment of Condition No. 18 upon confirmation by the Fire District by staff. She stated that Dr. Mussone has expressed concern regarding landscaping and exterior lighting. The applicant is in agreement with those concerns and requested addition of a condition that the applicant will work with Dr. Mussone in planning those items. Mr. Alan Giberson addressed the Commission. He distributed and reviewed a report regarding his objections to the proposal. Mr. Walt Hoskins, Civil Engineer, addressed the Commission. He circulated photographs of the view of the proposed residence from neighboring properties. He indicated that from the photographs it is apparent the house is located on the ridge. He also presented site lines prepared from the various residences in the area. Mr. Tom Cumston addressed the Commission regarding Dr o Muss0ne ' s concerns, which were previously submitted. He said Dr. Mussone could accept the project as designed with the condition that landscaping be included between his home and the applicants' and with the assurance that exterior lighting will not be excessive. Mr. Lester Sachs, 19941 Sunset Dr., indicated his support of the application and his opposition to a bridge on Sunset. Mr. Chaiho Kim, 19977 Sunset Dr., noted that he sent a letter to the Planning Department regarding the' application. Ms. Gloria Levy, 19800 Glen Una, indicated her support of the application and his opposition to a bridge on Sunset. Mr. King of Sullivan Way, indicated his approval of the design. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:07 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger commented on the concerns expressed in the report submitted by Mr o Giberson. 'She questioned if the concerns regarding the easement access and geology have been addressed by the City to the City' s satisfaction. Mr. Emslie responded that the City Geologist is recommending to the Commission that it can grant approval of the application if it so PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued desires. The geologist is requesting additional studies but those studies are typically required during the construction phase. Commissioner Burger expressed concern and questioned how much the Commission would have to take into account possible development of the Kennedy property in trying to determine whether or not to approve the Birenbaum application. City Attorney Toppel noted there is a letter in the file from Mr, Kennedy opposing the bridge and there have been a number of development proposals for that property. If the Commission was to require access by reason of the Kennedy property he would have a problem with that because that is speculative. In this case the staff report clearly indicates that considerations of planning have dictated use of the easement as opposed to the bridge. If that complicates development of the Kennedy property, it does not appear to bother Mr. Kennedy. It would be inappropriate for the Commission to make a decision solely on the basis of a speculated development of the Kennedy property. Commission Burger stated she prefers the easement access over the proposal of the bridge. She said in her opinion the home is sensitively designed for the hillside and the lot cannot be developed without people being able to see the home on the lot. With the addition of conditions for landscaping, particularly in response to the Gibersons' concerns, she would have no problem with the application. Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioner Burger's comments. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the two oak trees referred to by the Gibersons that may be in the way of the driveway easement. Mr. Walgren responded they were not plotted in the plans and he did not notice them when walking the site. Ms. Fanelli indicated there is an oak tree at the beginning of the driveway access which is off of the easement property and a walnut tree. The trees will not be removed. Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern regarding the geologic suitability of the site for development and the discrepancy between the staff report and the USGS report concerning the Berrocal fault. She felt it would be appropriate, before any building site approval or design review approval takes place, that the location and the suitability for development of the fault be determined. Commissioner Caldwell was also troubled bythe access issue and was unsure about how to resolve the issue of whether or not the driveway might be used as access to the Kennedy property. She also expressed concern regarding PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued the privacy issue and pointed out that the trees on both the applicant's property and the Giberson property are deciduous. She said she could not move forward on this application. Commissioner Moran stated she felt the design is a sensitive one for the hillside location and that the staff and applicant have worked together to address the development issues. She suggested conditions that the location of the fault be double checked and that the applicant work with staff regarding landscaping. Commissioner Burger pointed out that alternate siting was considered in the past and was found to be inappropriate because of slope density and site view problems. She said she was not concerned about the access° Regarding the fault location, she stated it was difficult for her to believe that the City Geologist did not have USGS maps. Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioner Burger's comments. Chairperson Kolstad stated he had confidence in the report of the City Geologist. He said he did not necessarily agree with the 85 dBA noise level. He also said he believed the view impact from the Giberson property is minimal and did not believe it was a major ridge line. He felt the issue of impervious coverage could be worked out and agreed with the condition suggested reg.arding landscaping and lighting. He also commented that he did not believe the design to be bulky and because of the distance from the other houses the privacy concerns are minimal. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-019. Following discussion, Mr. Emslie suggested that the SD be adopted with a condition that all the conditions of the DR are incorporated by reference. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-019 PER THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL CONDITIONS OF THE DR ARE INCORPORATED, INCLUDED AND APPLICABLE WITH THE SD. Passed 4-1 (Commissioner Caldwell opposed). BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-050 PER THE STAFF REPORT ADDING CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH DR. MUSSONE REGARDING LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING IN RESPONSE TO DR. MUSSONE'S CONCERNS; THAT LANDSCAPING BE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL WHICH WOULD MINIMIZE THE IMPACT TO THE GIBERSONS; THAT VERIFICATION BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY GEOLOGIST THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED INFORMATION FROM THE USGS; AND THAT CONDITION 18 REMAIN AS PHRASED UNLESS AN ALTERNATE DESIGN IS APPROVED BY THE FIRE DISTRICT. Passed 4-1 (Commissioner Caldwell opposed). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 14. DR-90-024 McKenzie, 14678 Oak St., request for design review V-90-011 approval to demolish an existing 2,500 square-foot structure and to construct a new two-story 2,880 square- foot residence in the R-l-10,000 zone district. Variance approval is also requested to allow the main residence and the detached garage structure to encroach into required setbacks per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 22, 1990. The public hearing was opened at 10:48 p.m. Mr. William Young appeared for the applicant and discussed the proposal in detail. Mr. George McKenzie, 14678 Oak St., reiterated Mr. Young's comments and reviewed the proposal in further detail. TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:04 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger stated she had no problems with a two-story house on the lot and the proposal is an improvement to the lot. She expressed her concerns that the design does not have the feeling of the other homes on the street but indicated that her opinion is a subjective one. In response to a request from Commissioner Caldwell, Mr. Emslie explained the setback. Commissioner Tappan said he had no problem with the house fitting into the neighborhood. He did have a problem making the findings for the variance. Commissioner Moran agreed with the staff report regarding the design review. She indicated she could not make the findings for the variance. Commissioner Caldwell agreed with Commissioner Moran's comments. CALDWELL/BURGER MOVED TO DENY V-90-011 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 5-0. CALDWELL/BURGER MOVED TO DENY DR-90-024 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 5-0o Chairperson Kolstad moved the agenda to Communications - Written. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 15 COMMUNICATIONS Written Mr. James A. Rodrigues, 18692 Woodbank Way, addressed the Commission regarding his letter dated August 16, 1990 concerning a request for initiating a second-unit use permit. Mr. Toppel and Commissioner Burger briefly reviewed the history of the second unit use permit issue. Chairperson Kolstad said he would not be opposed to looking at the issue and perhaps changing the law but felt that because of the history of the issue that was not likely. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that Mr. Rodrigues approach the City Council regarding the issue; the other Commissioners concurred. 15. AZO-90-003 City of Saratoga - Miscellaneous Amendments to Zoning Regulations. The City will consider miscellaneous amendments to zoning regulations regarding fence height outside a required yard; exclusion of enclosed balconies from floor area calculations; authorized removal of trees and penalties for unlawful removal; exceptions for unenclosed improvements within a required yard; and setbacks for swimming pools (continued from 7/25/90). City Attorney Toppel reviewed his memorandum dated June 26, 1990. Regarding the staff recommendation that the Commission separate the tree preservation ordinance, he suggested that Section 3 remain and that Section 4 be deleted. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:48 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli addressed the Commission and displayed photographs taken throughout the community° She suggested that the ordinance which excludes unenclosed areas be more specifically clarified and felt these areas should not be calculated in square footage. Mr. Scott Cunningham agreed with Ms. Fanelli's comments. He said he felt the cutting of trees should be related to the grading permit not the building permit. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:54 P.M. Passed 5-0. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE FOR FENCE HEIGHT (SECTION 1). Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 22, 1990 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE FOR AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF TREES AND PENALTIES FOR'UNLAWFUL TREE REMOVAL (SECTIONS 3AND 4). Passed 5-0. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE FOR EXCEPTIONS TO YARD REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 5). Passed 5-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE FOR DESIGN REVIEW--CALCULATION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE (SECTION 2). Commissioner Caldwell stated the City Council would be discussing the allowable floor area issue at its next meeting and would like to have the benefit of its discussion before voting. Chairperson Kolstad said he would prefer to vote tonight. Commissioner Moran said she was in favor of ordinances which would allow the Planning Commission to be reasonable, but this change would invite additional square footage and she could not support it. Commissioner Tappan stated he had no problem with the change. The motion passed 3-2 (Commissioners Caldwell and Moran opposed). BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE FOR SETBACKS FOR SWIMMING POOLS (SECTION 6). Passed 5-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Committee-of-the-Whole Report 8/14/90 2. Heritage Preservation Commission minutes 4/18/90 .COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUMICATIONS Oral ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Cuffman