HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-1991 Planning Commission minutes~. ~~ r
' ' ' ..
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: March 27, 1991 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners
Caldwell, Durket, Forbes and Moran.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Bogosian,
MINUTES - The Minutes of February 27, 1991 were approved with the
following corrections:
Page 3, second to last line of last paragraph - Commissioner
Caldwell requested correction to read, ".....representatives
would be able...."
Referring to page 8, Commissioner Forbes asked what time
Commissioner Tappan arrived. (For the record, Commissioner
Tappan arrived at the February 27, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting at 8:00 p.m.)
Commissioner Bogosian corrected paragraph 5 on page 14 to
read: "Commissioner Bogosian said he was inclined to agree
with several of the arguments in favor of A-frame signs...."
The Minutes of March 13, 1991 were approved as written.
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR APPOINTMENTS
Chairman Tucker noted that terms for the Chair and Vice Chair will
begin April 1, 1991.
Commissioner Caldwell nominated Commissioner Gillian Moran. With
no further nominations, nominations were closed, and Commissioner
Moran was unanimously approved by a vote of 6-0 to serve. as
Planning Commission Chairperson.
Commissioner Forbes nominated Commissioner Meg Caldwell. With no
further nominations, nominations were closed, and Commissioner
Caldwell was unanimously approved by a vote of 6-0 to serve as
Planning Commission Vice Chairperson.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None.
1
3/27/91 Minutes,
• REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Planning Director Stephen Emslie announced that pursuant to
Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly
posted on February 22, 1991.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET MATERIAL
Mr. Emslie noted that page 81, item 10 of the Staff Report, under
the heading "Code Requirement/Allowance," the Lot Coverage is
amended to read, "....25% (or 15,000 sq. ft., whichever is less.")
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DR-91-002 Albanese, 19006 Brookhaven Dr., request for
design review approval to construct a 621 sq.
ft. first floor addition to an existing one-
story home for a total of 3,100 sq. ft. in the
R-1-10, 000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code
(withdrawn by the applicant).
--------------------------------------------------------------
2. UP-90-006 Peninsula Recreation, Inc., 21990 Prospect Rd.,
request for use permit approval to expand the
Saratoga Country Club golf course with new
fairways, a driving range and a manmade lake.
The 'property proposed for expansion has
recently been annexed to Saratoga and a
mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared and adopted by LAFCO for the
annexation of the property to the NHR zone
district which included a review of the golf
course expansion. The relocation of an
underground gas storage tank to a new above
ground location is also part of this
application (cont. to 4/10/91 at request of
applicant).
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. LL-91-004 Lindy Properties, 12880Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.,
request for lot line adjustment approval to
reconfigure interior office condominium parcel
boundaries within a C-V (Commercial Visitor)
zone district pursuant to Chapter 14 of the
City Code.
MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
NO. 3. PASSED 6-0.
2
•
3/27/91 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. DR-90-036 Gerla, 22188 Villa Oaks Ln., request for design
review approval to construct a new 6,649 sq.
ft., two-story, single family residence on a
2.54 acre parcel in the NHR zone district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from
3/13/91).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Emslie summarized the Staff~Report dated March 27, 1991 to the
Planning Commission.
Chairperson. Tucker questioned whether the square footage of the
house .was reduced since the length of the structure was reduced by
11 feet. Mr. Emslie replied that the reduction was accomplished
by decreasing the length of the solarium that attached the garage
to the main residence, and there was a slight reduction in square
footage.
Mr. Bill Masten, the project architect, addressed the Commission
on behalf of the applicant.
Commissioner Caldwell asked the architect to identify a circular
feature in the center as illustrated on the driveway. Mr. Masten
responded the intent is to use the area as a planting. area with
shrubs and a tree to reduce the offsite impact to the garage area.
Commissioner Forbes referred to the chimney caps and asked how many
of the caps are spark arresters 'as required by law. Mr. Masten
responded that the outside part is more of a facade to hide the
spark arresters which are equal~to the flue and are about nine
inches in diameter. Commissioner Forbes commented that the spark
arresters increase the height of the chimney. The architect said
that the bottom opening of the spark arresters is what is legally
determining the minimum clearance above the roof line. Chimneys
are at the minimum possible height of the code requirement.
Commissioner Moran remarked that according to the information she
has, the garage is now a couple of feet below the residence.
According to the drawing on the wall, it appears that the garage
and residence are on the same level.
Mr. Masten explained that the finish floor elevation of the garage
is actually higher than floor elevation of the house.
Commissioner Moran asked if any consideration has been given to
design alternatives which do not include a second story over the
garage. Mr. Masten replied that consideration was noted at study
sessions, but a major concern was that the applicant wanted to
separate the maid's quarters from the main living quarters of the
house. Based on this concern, the design focused on bringing the
garage closer to the house and rotating the house.
3
• ~
3/27/91 Minutes
Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether it is possible to move the
garage forward towards Villa Oaks Lane and move the second story
element behind the garage. Mr. Masten stated that that has been
partially done. InYthe~previous plan, the garage was actually 14
feet away from the house and the breezeway was reduced to seven
feet. The garage was moved closer to Villa Oaks by approximately
four and one-half feet. Through those efforts and the rotation of
the building, the diagonal dimension and offsite massiveness was
reduced. Mr. Masten noted that the design has gone as far as it
can without encroaching on the visual separation between the
entryway and the garage.
CALDWELLlMORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M.
PASSED 6-0.
TUCKERlDURKET MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF DR-90-036.
Commissioner Durket commended the architect for a good fob, but
expressed that he would like to see the height reduced to 22 feet.
Heystated that Mr. Masten seemed to think there would be a problem
with the roof line, but the Commission has not seen a drawing with
a 22-foot height.
COMMISSIONER DURKET MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING: AMEND CONDITION #1 TO INCLUDE, "...THE DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A",
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, WITH_.._THE. EXCEP~~. ,ON~'HA THE ..HEIGHT__OF
THE.-: STRUC.TURE_. SHALL..... NOT. -.EXCEED 2 2__ FEET___FROM_.._ NATURAL- GRADE ,.." AND
THAT STAFF VERIFY THE PLANS AS AMENDED.
Chairperson Tucker questioned whether it was possible for the
applicant to reduce the height to 22 feet without changing the
design of the home. Commissioner Durket has researched the issue
and indicated it would entail a change of roof pitch to a 3 and 12,
with a lesser steep roof. In his opinion, the reduction would not
lessen the square footage
A discussion ensued whether it is necessary for the plans to be
returned to the Commission before a decision is made.
Commissioner Caldwell referred
landscaping. She stated that the
was designed lust to screen the
did not have much to do with the
and prominent site) which, to her,
She suggested that the additiona
Commission for review.
to Condition #11 regarding the
original proposed landscape plan
house from Villa Oaks Lane, and
remaining perspectives (visible
are the most important elements.
_ landscaping plan return to the
Commissioner Bog_osian addressed Condition #10. He commented. that
since this is a prominent site, additional grading would further
enlarge the pad in which the structure is located,~and would make
it more visible than not. He asked that condition #10 include
4
i •
x/27/91 Minutes
verbiage stipulating that, "No pool shall be permitted without
obtaining a site modification approval from the Planning Commission
first and no pool shall be constructed that would require any
additional cutting or filling."
Commissioner Moran asked whether the proposed pool location is on
the pad. Mr. Emslie responded that portions of the deck extend
beyond where the pad is now; however, the large majority is on the
flat grade.
Commissioner Moran stated she will not be supporting the amendment
because her main concern withithe massiveness of the house
continues to be the second story on the garage. She is not
convinced that a 22 foot height will improve matters in the design.
She expressed that she will not be supporting the process that
Staff verify the design relative to the adjusted height.
COMMISSIONER FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT.
Commissioner Caldwell asked Commissioner Moran to expound on her
(Moran's) concern regarding bringing the plans to the Commission
versus having Staff verify the plans. Commissioner Moran explained
that, in her opinion, often designs are not improved by "chopping
off" the top two feet of a house. If the Commission is going to
ask for a change in the plan, the Commission should continue taking
responsibility for design and review of the project.
Commissioner Caldwell stated if the Commission moves in favor of
the 22 feet,• she is willing tohave the plan come back to the
Commission for approval.
Chairperson Tucker stated it would be prudent to have the design
brought back to the Commission.
Following discussion, Commissioner Durket withdrew his motion to
amend, and Chairperson Tucker withdrew her motion to approve the
request.
COMMISSIONER BOGO5IAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE TTEM TO A PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING IN APRIL.
Mr. Masten again addressed the Commission. He expressed
disappointment and stated that the issues raised tonight have been
raised in previous meetings. If the item is to be continued, he
would like specific direction., He addressed the individual
concerns expressed by the Commissioners.
Regarding the 22-foot height, Mr. Masten said it is possible to
lower the height of the building in a number of ways. One is to
lower the pad elevation of the building; another is to lower the
roof pitch. At a 4 and 12 pitch, it is fairly easy to use a
concrete or the roof. In this case, it would be a concrete slate
~~
~ •
3/27/91 Minutes}
roof with fairly typical construction techniques. On a 3 and 12
pitch, skylights need special detailing because of shallowness.
That type of roof would also require waterproofing, unlike a
shingles and shake which can act as waterproof.
Pertaining to landscaping, the architect and applicant agree to
further review of the landscape plan.
Mr. Masten referred to the swimming pool, and said that the pool
was intended to make use of the existing pad. It is not the
applicant's intent to place the pool going downhill, but to make
use of the slope for a future greenhouse and solar collectors.
However, the applicant is willing to accept the condition
pertaining to the pool, if necessary.
Mr. Masten made reference to further reduction of the garage and
commented that those issues had been adequately addressed by the
rotating of the building, by narrowing the solarium and reducing
the square footage of the garage. He asked for positive. findings
of the design plan.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned the height of the interior spaces
of the first and second floors. Mr. Masten replied that the entry
level on the lower floor goes from eight feet to nine feet in the
octagon area. The family room and nook area are ten feet. The
heights make use of the sloping side. The second floor garage and
house interior are eight feet. The design makes use of the ceiling
heights on the lower level as it steps down the hill.
Commissioner Durket commented that the site is a very prominent
site and the mass and bulk need to be balanced. The height is
overshadowing all the positiveness of the design.
Mr. Masten remarked that to move the project forward, he would
prefer that Staff verify the revised plan rather than continuing
the application.
Chairperson Tucker noted there are two issues - the height and the
second story element over the garage.
Commissioner Bogosian stated that a 22-foot height could be done
without digging into the hillside and doing extra grading. He
would be in favor of reducing the height. Regarding the building
over the garage, the extra bedroom can be put behind the garage in
such a way to reduce the overall appearance. He agrees with
Commissioner Moran that it would help reduce the bulky appearance.
Commissioner Moran stated she is not convinced that reducing the
height from 24 feet to 22 feet would reduce the mass and bulk.
Commissioner Durket stated he is satisfied with the garage as
planned. It might be improved with the bedroom behind the garage,
6
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
and it would reduce the mass and bulk, but he can still make the
findings for the 22-foot height.:
Commissioner Forbes commented that removing the maid's quarters
form the top of the garage would create an imbalance. He would
prefer to leave the 22-foot height restriction to the discretion
of Staff; however, he is not satisfied with the 24-foot height.
Commissioner Caldwell preferred ;a design which shows the upper
story of the garage as a one-story element. A more important
concern to her is the overall height of the structure. She would
like to see the structure reduced to 22 feet. She stated she could
make the first finding regarding the height of the structure and
avoiding unreasonable interferences with views and privacy. She
would be comfortable with the Staff verification process as long
as Staff has the option to bring the design back to the Commission
if unsatisfied with the design.
Commissioner Moran questioned the second story on the garage. She
remarked that if the overall height is 22 feet, then the garage
would be at 21'6" and could be taller than the rest of the house
at which point the applicant and architect might want to re-design
the house. Mr. Masten responded he would proportionately change
the roof lines.
Commissioner Caldwell remarked she will support the second story
over the garage as long as there are proportionate changes.
Commissioner Bogosian concurred with Commissioner Caldwell.
FORBES/DURKET MOVED TO APPROVE AN OVERALL 22-FOOT HEIGHT ON THE
NATURAL GRADE, SECOND STORY OVER GARAGE TO REMAIN AS DESIGNED AND
STAFF TO VERIFY PLANS.
MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO AMEND MOTION TO INCLUDE APPROVAL OF COLOR
BOARD ~l, MODIFY CONDITION X11 REGARDING LANDSCAPING PLAN AND
RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.FOR RBVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO
FINAL OCCUPANCY, AND MODIFY CONDITION X10 REGARDING THE POOL
CONSTRUCTION, BY INCLUDING VERBIAGE TO CONDITION X10 THAT NO POOL
SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT OBTAINING A SITE MODIFICATION APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND NO POOL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED THAT
WOULD REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL CUTTING OR FILLING. AMENDMENT PASSED
6-0.
MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-0.
7
•
3/27/91 Minutes
•
5. DR-89-018 Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Ct., request for
design review approval to construct a new 6,690 sq.
ft. two-story home on a 1.78 acre parcel in the
Parnas subdivision within the NHR zone district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code (continued from
3/13/91).
Mr. Emslie summarized the Staff Report to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether the large circular element
to the driveway is necessary to fulfill any ordinance requirements
or standards. Mr. Emslie responded that the applicants are
intending to provide the turnaround area as the minimum necessary
for vehicles to turn. Responding to Commissioner Caldwell's
question whether an alternative means could remove some pavement
near the garage and create a hammerhead turn, Mr. Emslie replied
that it could accomplish the same objective. Commissioner
Caldwell asked what paving material had been selected for the
driveway. Mr. Emslie responded, it is indicated on the plan as
asphalt.
Commissioner Caldwell inquired about the pool location. She asked
whether Staff had explored alternate pool locations with the
applicant. Mr. Emslie responded there is a place on the site to
locate a pool. Commissioner Caldwell referred to the second floor
plan and asked whether the two decks posed a privacy problem. Mr.
Emslie commented that with the proposed landscaping and orientation
of the house, there does not appear to be a privacy concern.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned why sizes were not indicated on
the landscaping plan. Mr. Emslie responded that sizes have not
been proposed. One of the conditions is for the comprehensive
detailed landscaping plan to come back to Staff for review and
approval.
Commissioner Caldwell asked for additional information regarding
the xeriscape requirements. Mr. Emslie replied that in response
to the current water restrictions throughout the County, the City
is asking applicants to carefully select a variety of drought
tolerant plants. He said there are many native plants from which
an applicant could choose that minimize water consumption.
Commissioner Durket questioned whether the neighbors have seen or
inquired about the plans. Mr. Emslie stated he has spoken with
Mr. William Verdi who came in' to review the plans today.
Referring to the fountain, Commissioner Durket asked whether the
plan includes specific design for saving water or recycling water.
Mr. Emslie replied that the City ;Council will soon be considering
an ordinance to regulate use of water in the City. One of the
8
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
proposed restrictions recommended by the Santa Clara Valley Water
District and water retailers is not using decorative elements for
water consumption.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m.
The architect, Darryl Fazakas, addressed the Commission on behalf
of the applicant, requesting approval of the plans at the 24 foot
height. His client is willing to work with staff regarding the
xeriscaping aspect of the fountain. The balconies, four feet by
six feet and facing Mr. Yee's house, were meant to reduce the bulk
of the house. The applicant is amenable to meeting the setback on
the pool location. The architect noted that the applicant has
complied with al l: of the Commission's requests.
Responding to Commissioner Durket's question, the architect said
that the first floor interior ceiling height is 9 feet, and the
second floor ceiling height is 8'feet.
Mr. William Verdi, 14725 Saratoga Heights Court, Saratoga,
addressed the Commission. Mr. Verde stated he reviewed the plans
today, and the revised plans and color ,for the brick scheme are
acceptable to him.
Mrs. Marie Rose Gaspar, 14754 Pierce Road, Saratoga, addressed the
Commission. She commented that the design is a good plan. She
questioned the material and color to be used for the roof. The
color board indicating a dark charcoal fire retardant shingles was
distributed to her for review. Mrs. Gaspar approved of the
material and color.
Mr. Christopher Yee, 14580 Saratoga Heights Court, Saratoga,
addressed the Commission, noting he has not seen the revised plans .
He stated that one of the windows in his master bedroom from his
house faces the Kwong house. Mr. Yee's house is located at a
lower elevation than the Kwong property and his entire bedroom can
be seen from the Kwong grounds.' He is questioning the 24 foot
height limit.
A discussion ensued regarding the proposed location of the windows
and the alleged privacy impacts imposed upon Mr. Yee's house.
Chairperson Tucker offered Mr. Yee an opportunity to review the
plans while the agenda was moved to the next item.
6. DR-90-076 Shepherd, 10665 Lomita Ave., request for design
review approval to demolish an existing one-
story home and construct a new two-story single
family residence in the R-1-10,000 zone
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont.
from 3/13/91.;)
9
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
Commissioner Bogosian disqualified himself from participating in
this agenda item.
Mr. Emslie presented the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991 to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern about the bulkiness of the
southeastern right side elevation. She questioned whether it would
be possible to continue the roof line and recess the fireplace
portion of the wall slightly. She suggested the change might
result in breaking up the massiveness of the. wall. Mr. Emslie
responded it would be possible to modify as suggested but it may
involve increasing the overhang.
The Public Hearing opened at 8:50 p.m.
There being no public testimony, DURKET/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0.
DURKET%FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-076.
Commissioner Caldwell reported she revisited the site and indicated
that the larger of the trees shown on the left side of the artist's
rendering does not exist. She is concerned about the depiction of
the landscaping. ..
A discussion ensued regarding the trees and their location.
CALDWELL/DURKET MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE
ROOF EAVE ON THE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION BE EXTENDED TO BREAK UP THE
MASSING AND THAT IT BE REVIEWED BY STAFF. PASSED 4-1 (MORAN
OPPOSED, BOGOSIAN DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF.)
MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-0.
Chairperson Tucker moved the agenda back to Item #5.
Mr. Fazakas again addressed the Commission, stating that Mr. Yee
prefers removal of the balconies. He explained that the balconies
were not in the original plan and were done mainly to please the
Commission to break up that particular side of the house. Mr.
Fazakas and Mr. Yee have discussed alternatives.
Chairperson Tucker asked about the size of the window, which is
three feet by two feet.
Commissioners reviewed a photograph of the Yee house.
Following discussion, BOGOSIAN%CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. PASSED 6-0.
MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-018.
10
a •
3/27/91 Minutes
Commissioner Forbes noted he prefers removing the two balconies.
Commissioner Caldwell expressed her major concern is the height of
the structure. She is not prepared to approve the proposal at a
24-foot height. She would like to see it reduced to 22 feet. She
is also concerned about the driveway, specifically, a significant
amount of asphalt proposed for the property. She prefers
eliminating the circular portion of the driveway and installing a
hammerhead type closer to the garage. She asked whether the cut
and fill statistics from the January 23, 1991 Staff Report include
the pool. Mr. Emslie replied that the pool is not included, but
the basement pad grading is included. Mr. Fazakas commented that
the cut and fill does not include the pool, and that the pool is
intended as a future site.
Commissioner Caldwell prefers eliminating the fountain and the two
balconies. She agrees with Mr. Yee's concerns regarding privacy
impacts. Regarding the landscape plan, Commissioner Caldwell
directed staff to review for. a drought tolerant xeriscape
landscaping plan and installation of mature plants.
Commissioner Durket concurred with Commissioner Caldwell. He
prefers a 22-foot height. He would be interested in viewing the
applicant's ideas for reducing the bulk.
Commissioner Bogosian stated he .would be interested in viewing
plans for a 22-foot building for the reasons already stated. If
the building could be built without the balconies, he would agree
that they be eliminated for privacy concerns. Commissioner
Bogosian stated he agrees with eliminating the fountain because of
drought conditions.
Commissioner Moran would be willing to review plans with a 22-foot
height as she is not convinced that the reduction will eliminate
the problems with the massive bulk. She would prefer that the
Commission review the landscape plan versus at Staff level. If the
Commission is concerned about the building because it is a
prominently visible spot, the Commission should also be concerned
about the landscaping. She agrees with removal of the balconies
because of the neighbor's concern. She expressed concern regarc~ng~_
the perception of the driveway massiveness at its proposed;
location. '
Commissioner Forbes agreed with the comments regarding the driveway
and eliminating the balconies. Referring to the left elevation,
he is not satisfied with the top of the chimney structure. He
proposed removal of the first two horizontal lines from the top
down, which the architect agreed could be done.
11
•
3/27/91 Minutes
Chairperson .Tucker commented she has no problem with the balconies
as the windows are very small and distantly located 80 feet away.
Landscaping will provide architectural relief.
Mr. Fazakas stated he and the applicant would work with Staff on
the 22-foot height, to delete the balconies, alter the. roof line,
eliminate the circular driveway to minimize the asphalt area and
modify the turnaround parking space, remove the fountain, and
increase the privacy buffer and screen the house through a modified
landscaping plan.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the project cannot be approved
tonight without having the plans before the Commission.
MORAN/BOGOSIAN WITHDREW THEIR MOTION.
MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-018 TO THE APRIL 24, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE THE
COMMISSION'S DIRECTION AND REVISE THE PLANS ACCORDINGLY. PASSED
6-0.
Chairperson Tucker declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same
Commissioners were present.
7. V-90-040 Bennett, 21131 Canyon View Dr., request for
variance approval to reduce an interior.,
sideyard setback from 11'8" ft. to 11'4" and
to reduce a rear yard setback from 22'10".to
19'10" in order to legalize an existing deck
in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15
of the City Code (cont. from 3/13/91).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Emslie reviewed the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991, to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Moran .reported on the land use visit, indicating that
the lot is as described in the report.
Commissioner Durket referred to the wording in the third line of
the fourth paragraph of the resolution, and suggested it be amended
to read, ".....surroundings, do not exist to deprive....."
The Public Hearing opened at 9:35.p.m.
Ms. Pat Bennett, 21131 Canyon View Drive, Saratoga, addressed the
Commission. She has lived at the property for 18 years. She
indicated that due to earthquake damage, it was necessary to have
repair work done to her property. She cited a letter dated August
11, 1990, to her attorney who assisted in negotiating her insurance
claim for the damages. Her letter outlined her intent to comply
with City codes and procedures.. The City permit was issued
12
•
3/27/91 Minutes
September 1990. When the project was approved by City Staff and
the permit was issued, she .felt she was proceeding appropriately
and that her plans showed the piers to support the deck. The
project as planned was portrayed in the drawings she submitted to
the City. She expressed disappointment that the project has
already been completed, and she now faces a variance problem that
should have been resolved sometime back.
Ms. Bennett described her house as a two-bedroom structure on a
relatively large lot. .There is unusual offstreet parking by virtue
of the driveway in front of the house. In her opinion, one of the
drawbacks of offstreet parking is that the house is moved further
back on the lot, creating a disparity between the front yard and
rear yard setbacks of the house.
Ms. Bennett noted she has at all times attempted to work closely
with her neighbors and .there is no problem of privacy with her
neighbors. She stated that granting the variance would not have
a negative impact on any of her neighbors nor neighborhood.
Mr. Charles Stewart, engineer and contractor of the project,
addressed the Commission. He reported that the earthquake damage
destroyed the rear decks and left approximately 177 cubic yards of
ruptured and unsettled fill. Rather than rebuild and reconstruct
the fill, redwood decking was installed around the house. He
described the repair project in detail.
Mr. Stewart stated that the hardship or granting of special
permission by Staff is a bit erroneous in that the deck cannot be
simply cut back and totally meet the conditions because the
supporting piers and beams of the deck in the most easterly portion
is slightly less than 22'8". To~accomplish a 22'8" setback would
entail such work as to create a misaligned deck parallel to the
property line versus parallel to the house. Another existing
problem is the smallness of the master bedroom which cannot be
expanded to the side. Expanding to the width of six to eight feet
can be done within the existing code; however, if the deck is cut
back from its existing depth to a total of 22' 8" setback, the house
will only have about seven or eight feet of the rear deck down
hillside to the proposed addition for the master bedroom.
Mr. Stewart indicated that the project was not built with the
intent of doing the work without a permit or without proper
inspections. He requested approval of the variance. However, if
a condition to cut part of the deck down is imposed, he requested
that the applicant be allowed a cutback of at least an 18"
encroachment into the setback over a distance of about half the
width of the deck which would allow the existing piers and girders
to remain in place.
CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0.
13
t
3/27/91 Minutes
Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Emslie to respond to the statement
that the deck as built was shown in the plans which served as the
basis for the issuance of the permit. Mr. Emslie stated he has
reviewed the plans which were approved by the Building Department,
and the plans are not clear. A section of the plans shows the
deck but it is not shown in plan view. In discussing the intention
of the plan checker who issued the. permit, it was issued solely for
the repair of existing decking. .The permit did not include any
additional second floor decking.
Commissioner Moran questioned whether the piers or posts that were
supposedly on the approved plan were located inside or outside of
the setback. Mr. Emslie responded it is difficult to tell as the
plans did not show the property line. Mr. Emslie noted that the
plans showed the length of the deck but they don't show the
distance from the deck to the property line. The plans showed the
piers and a cross-section of the deck which the piers supported.
The plans also showed a cantilever, but Mr. Emslie pointed out that
the permit was not issued for that purpose. It was clear to the
plan checker that the upper story of the deck was not part of the
permit. Per Mr. Emslie, the plan checker said that the section
pertaining to the upper story deck should have been deleted from
the plans, and it was not his intention to approve it.
Commissioner Caldwell asked whether it was written anywhere on the
approved plans that the permit was only for the lower project and
whether any fees were charged for the deck. Mr. Emslie replied
that it does not appear anywhere on the plans. He said that the
plan checker communicated to the. Planning Staff that it was his
intention to issue the permit solely for the repair of a deck
damaged by the earthquake. Thus, Mr. Emslie would presume that the
plan checker did not charge for a new construction fee.
Ms. Bennett again addressed the Commission. She indicated there was
a deck at the master bedroom level before the damage. A major part
of the project was removing the fill from underneath. She
questioned how one gets from one Tevel to another. She stated that
replacing the fill was a consideration from the beginning, and the
only repairs were not confined to the downstair's cement patio.
MORAN/FORBES MOVED APPROVAL OF V-90-040.
Commissioner Caldwell made reference to the problem of clarity in
issuing the permit and failing to delete from the plans the deck
concern which is now before the Commission. Commissioner
Caldwell's concern is that the city is partially responsible for
creating the existing situation. She asked the City Attorney for
guidance.
14
• ~
3/27/91 Minutes
Commissioner Forbes cited the requirements for findings to approve
a variance. He commented that undoing the project, cutting the
deck back, relocating the piers,,relocating the beam, etc. weigh
more heavily than the requirements. He recommends that the
variance be approved.
Mr. Emslie responded that if an employee or agent of the City makes
a mistake or error, the City is not bound by that error, and case
law exists to support that position. He informed the Commission
that it is not obligated to approve the variance based on someone
making a mistake. Mr. Emslie specified the significant testimony
given to the Commission that may be overshadowed by the permit.
He referred to Ms. Bennett's statement regarding the substantial
parking area off Canyon View, a narrow street. Consequently, her
house is situated further back, depriving her of the right enjoyed
by other people with adequate parking on site. Add~.tionally, the
site's topography included fill which failed during an earthquake,
and there was a need to correct it by removing a large amount of
fill and placing the posts down into that area below the deck.
Mr. Emslie stated that the applicant was constrained
topographically by an unstable situation which had to be corrected.
Commissioner Durket agreed with Mr. Emslie's comments, and stated
he is comfortable making the findings for the variance.
Commissioner Moran asked whether a special circumstance for
granting the variance could be due to the fact that the applicant
has approval from the City to do the construction. Mr. Emslie
responded in the negative, and again explained that the City is not
bound by a Staff error or mistake.
Commissioner Bogosian commented that after tonight's testimony and
presentation, he would~be able to find that the variance should be
granted subject to finding that the narrow street required a larger
front yard setback to provide off-street parking, that the presence
of uncompacted fill restrained the applicant's enjoyment of the
property, and that there were ;no detrimental impacts to the
neighborhood.
MOTION PASSED 6-0.
8. UP-90-009 GTE Mobilnet, 17777 Saratoga Ave., request for
use permit approval to construct a 240 sq. ft.
GTE Mobilnet cellular equipment room and a 45'
tall monopole to operate a cellular
communication system within the P-A Zone
District per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Mr. Emslie summarized the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991, to the
Planning Commission. .
15
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
Ms. .Susan Riggs, City Staff Planner, described the site as a
triangular lot with two sides on the City of San Jose side. Staff
has visited the site and concurs with the applicant that the
project is an appropriate use for'the irregular shaped lot.
Ms. Riggs distributed photographs 'of the site to the Commissioners.
Responding to Commissioner CaldweTl's question, Ms. Riggs said that
the total height of the structure including the antenna is 45 feet.
Commissioner Bogosian asked the City Attorney what findings must
be made to approve or disapprove 'a use permit. The City Attorney
responded that the first finding .is that a permit is required for
height. The second part is the normal findings the Commission would
make for any other use permit.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the findings are outlined in page
65, sections a, b, and c of the agenda packet.
Commissioner Forbes reported that the Land Use Committee visited
the site. He asked whether the transmitting and receiving could
be set on PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) lines.
The Public Hearing was opened at~10:10 p.m.
Ms. Peggy Cocker, attorney for GTE Mobilnet, addressed the
Commission, providing a brief history of the project. She
indicated that transmitting and 'receiving cannot be put on PG&E
poles because of potential technological problems, specifically
interference with the radio. She stated there is a dire need for
more cell sites in Saratoga.
Mr. Cole Newman, 3375 Scott Boulevard, x}318, Santa Clara, addressed
the Commission as the engineer for GTE Mobilnet. Responding to
Commissioner Forbes' question, Mr~. Newman stated that the antennas
need to be .placed a bit higher than the height of the existing
buildings in the particular vicinity.
Commissioner Bogosian asked whether the Montgomery Ward building
(in Westgate Mall), which probably exceeds 30 feet in height, would
be out of range. Mr. Newman stated that cell sites are placed
every three to four miles, and if one site moved, it creates an
imbalance in the entire system.
Responding tq Commissioner Forbes inquiry, Mr. Newman indicated
that two cell sites are planned for the City of Saratoga now and
probably one or two may be added over the next two years. As
technology changes, there is a possibility that future systems can
be placed on a building rooftop.;
Mr. Newman noted that the City of~Saratoga has a tremendous amount
of citizens with cellular phones, but there is marginal to zero
16
f •
3/27/91 Minutes
coverage in the City. The City currently gets peripheral signals
from San Jose and other surrounding cities,
Chairperson Tucker asked if the proposed total four antennas would
serve all Saratoga citizens with cellular telephones or whether
other companies would want to come in with their own antennas. Mr.
Newman replied that the FCC divides the systems in half so that one
company would not be able to control all of the market. GTE
Mobilnet would serve only GTE Mobilnet customers.
Responding to Commissioner Durket's concern, Mr. Newman stated that
the sites are not manned, but they are visited once very two
months. Commissioner Durket asked what precautions are taken to
divert traffic and attractive nuisance. Mr. Newman said that all
sites are fenced with chain-link around the site boundaries. Most
of the ladders have side steps to get to the top, but, if
necessary, the side steps could be removed from the ladder.
Commissioner Forbes asked for clarification regarding eventually
installing four towers. Mr. Newman stated that if demand fzom
Saratoga citizens increases in ,the future, GTE Mobilnet might
install more towers, but for now,; two towers will suffice.
Replying to Commissioner Moran's question, Mr. Newman commented
that some of the systems reach out three to four miles, depending
on the terrain and how well they are located. The proposed
Westgate site will cover about a three to four mile radius.
Mr. Don West, addressed the Commission as the owner of a building
at 14395 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga. He has been approached about
using his building rooftop for a 50-foot antenna cellular system.
Mr. Newman stated he does not know which company approached Mr.
Weston, but to get the maximum range out of the system, 45 feet is
the optimum height.
Commissioner Durket questioned whether this item is inter-mingled
with the 5KY project, the next item on tonight's agenda.
Mr. Newman replied that the two projects tie-in, and if both items
are not approved, part of the City of Saratoga will be without
service.
Commissioner Bogosian asked whether the height could be lowered if
more antennas lowering the range were installed. Mr. Newman
responded that they could be lowered to near 35 feet. He pointed
out when the system was first developed in the Bay Area, the towers
were at least 100 to 150 feet tall. With technological changes and
addition of new and more sites, the height has been reduced to 45
feet, and in some areas, to 35 feet.
17
f •
3/27/91 Minutes
Commissioner Forbes questioned what other sites the applicants had
attempted to locate the tower. ~Mr. Newman responded that they
explored several areas in the vicinity, but the City concurred that
the site under consideration was the best site.
Mr. Weston again addressed the Commission. He referred to a Mr.
Long, a neighbor of the SKY project, who raised the question of
interference between radio signals and wireless computer networks.
Mr. Newman responded that GTE Mobilnet has had very few
interference problems. They have been able to correct those which
were interference problems caused by faulty equipment.
CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0.
CALDWELL/DURKET MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-90-009.
DURKET/MORAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, CONDITION #1 OF RESOLUTION NO. UP-90-009 TO READ,
"THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL $E LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON
EXHIBIT `A,' INCORPORATED BY;REFERENCE, WISH T~..EXCEPTION OF
~i REMOVAL OF ,~'HE SIDE STEPS ON THE POLE."
REMOVAL OF THE WHIPS FROM EXHIBIT A.
ADD CONDITION ~4, 11A REVIEW OF THE HEIGHT SHALL BE MADE EVERY
YEAR."
AMENDMENT TO MOTION PASSED 6-0.
MAIN MOTION PASSED 5-1 (FORBES OPFOSED).
9. UP-90-011 SKY, 14375 Saratoga Ave., request for use
permit approval to construct a 240 sq. ft. GTE
Mobilnet cellular equipment room and a 45 ~ tall
monopole to operate a cellular communications
system within the P-A Zone District per Chapter
15 of the City Code.
Mr. Emslie reviewed the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991 to the
Commission, distinguishing the differences in the GTE Mobilnet
project (previous item on tonight's agenda) and the SKY project.
Ms. Riggs noted that the Commission received a letter dated March
20, 1991, from Mr. Joseph P. Long., Realty World, 14363 Saratoga
Avenue, Saratoga, objecting to the: project based on visual impacts.
Commissioner Moran clarified that in the previous resolution (GTE
Mobilnet), the proposed tower was found to be in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance whereas the SKY project is not in accordance.
18
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
A discussion ensued regarding the wording of the resolution and the
context in which the site is located within the zone.
Commissioner Caldwell proposed incorporating a portion of the
verbiage of Section 1555020 of the Conditional Use Permit Ordinance
into Resolution 15-55.020.
Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit and stated
that the residential complex adjacent to the property has several
condominiums whose back windows and garages face the proposed
antenna location and a couple of condominiums whose front door and
front yard area would face the antenna. She would be concerned
about visual impacts.
The Public Hearing was opened at .10:40 p.m.
Mr. Peggy Cocker, again addressed the Commission as attorney for
GTE Mobilnet. She pointed out that the new P-A Zoning Ordinance
amendment allows monopoles up ~to 50 feet in height with a
conditional use permit. She asked the Commission to consider the
benefit to people with car phones (fire, police and citizens) in
the event of an emergency. '
Mr. Weston again addressed the Commission as owner of the building
adjacent to the proposed site. He opposes the project.
DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0.
DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DENY UP=90-011.
Commissioner Moran questioned whether there -were any possible
mitigations that would solve the problem and provide the public
service to Saratoga citizens. Mr. Emslie responded that the issue
has been addressed and photographs illustrate the difficulty in
minimizing the impacts.
Ms. Riggs commented that the problem with the site is that mature
landscaping is needed.
A discussion ensued regarding other sites, which the applicant had
already researched.
Commissioner Caldwell stated she is convinced the project will
adversely affect the residents of the condominium complex, and she
cannot support the proposed location.
THE MOTION TO DENY WAS APPROVED 5-1 (MORAN OPPOSED.)
Chairman Tucker informed the applicants they have fifteen calendar
days in which to appeal to the City Council.
19
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
Commissioner Forbes proposed addressing this issue at the study
session regarding home satellite antennas.
~Q. DR-90-0~8 Ozawa, 21650 Vintage Lane, request for design
review approval to construct a new 6,302 sq~.
ft. two-story single family residence with a
garage on a 2.6 acre parcel in the NHR Zone
District per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Mr. Emslie presented the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991, to the
Planning Commission. '
Commissioner Forbes indicated he made a land use visit and deferred
to the Public Hearing.
The Public Hearing was opened at '10:50 p.m.
Mr. Gene Zambetti addressed the Commission on behalf of the
applicant, Mr. Spencer Ozawa. Using a map, Mr. Zambetti described
the property as 2.6 acres with an open space easement. He showed
the three areas on the lot on which a structure could be built.
The lot has 97 trees. Of a 111,000 square-foot lot, every 166
square feet has a tree. He noted that Mr. Richard James,
architect, has been working with~the arborist and geologist on a
plan to fit the home that is compatible to the slope behind the
hillsides. The home is about 135~feet from Vintage Lane. Thirty-
four trees will be affected by the development, of which 21 need
to be removed due to poor health and condition. Four need to be
removed to accommodate the structure. Due to the constraints of
the two open space easements and the grading, the most desirable
location was as proposed.. The intent is to have minimum amount of
cut, minimum fill, and minimum amount of export. If the house were
to be moved down the lot, it would injure an Oak tree and would
create a visual impact to others. He indicated that for every tree
removed, the applicant will plant another tree within the open
space easement.
Mr. Zambetti noted that the applicant has worked extensively on
saving as many Oak trees as possible.
Mr. Zambetti requested approval of the design and requested that
Barrie. Coate's report and matrix be made a part of the
recommendations.
Staff distributed the color board to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Caldwell asked which 21 trees are to be removed.
Bruce Brownlee, 1620 West Cliff Drive, Santa Cruz, addressed the
Commission as the project contractor/builder. He stated that the
20
• i
3/27/91 Minutes
proposal includes removing trees #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #12, #14, #15,
#16, #17, #19, #20, #25, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, and
#34.
Responding to Commissioner Moran's question, Mr. Zambetti replied
that trees #6 and #9 flank the garage.
Mrs. Marie Rose Gaspar, 14574 Pierce Road, Saratoga, addressed the
Commission again. She owns a buildable site directly across the
street from the Ozawa property. She has reviewed the plans and
approves of them; however, she is,interested in seeing a sample of
the roof and rock materials to be installed.
Chairperson Tucker asked Mrs. Gaspar to review the color board and
discuss with the applicant's representatives while the next speaker
addressed the Commission.
Mr. Safarian, 21757 Congress Hill Lane, Saratoga, addressed the
Commission as the neighbor directly behind the proposed site. He
has reviewed the plan and recommends that the Commission approve
the design with planting along the open space easement.
Commissioner Durket commended the architect for meeting the City's
design requirements.
Commissioner Forbes concurred with Commissioner Durket. He had a
discussion with Mr. Zambetti who was very helpful in explaining the
proposed plan to him.
Mrs. Gaspar returned to the podium, stating she has reviewed the
color board. She has no objections to the roof material, but would
prefer a gray color. She proposed that in the future, samples of
materials be brought for review to the Planning Commission public
hearings.
Mr. Brownlee described the color scheme as more of a gray than
forest green color.
Commissioner Moran inquired about the landscaping. Mr. Brownlee
responded that the intention is to install a diversity of plants
and trees along both sides of the driveway and within 30 to 40 feet
all around the house.
Commissioner Caldwell suggested eliminating either the gutter
downspout color or window door trim color to try to make the area
less busy. Mr. Brownlee proposed eliminating the cream white on
the inside of the window in combination with the deep neptune to
minimize the effect.
Commissioner Caldwell made reference to trees #28 and #31 and
strongly emphasized that both trees be preserved. She noted that
the arborist has stated he would like to see trees #28 and #31
21
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
preserved. Mr. Brownlee commented that moving the house six feet
downhill would create a master bedroom higher than 26 feet and more
cut and fill. Commissioner Caldwell proposed eliminating a notch
off the master bedroom which is near tree #28 and working with the
entry-way to preserve tree #31.
Mr. Richard James, 310 SW 10th, Suite 800, Portland, Oregon,
addressed the Commission as the project architect, stating that the
master bedroom and entry can not be altered and still maintain the
exterior as it is. There would be no space to make the master
bedroom large enough to function.'
Spencer Ozawa, 19897 Douglas Lane, Saratoga, addressed the
Commission, and commented he has used the proposed color scheme on
another project and received many compliments on it.
DURKET/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:30 P.M.
PASSED 6-0.
DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-078.
Commissioner Bogosian commented that the plan is a very attractive
proposal. '
Commissioner Moran stated that the landscaping plan should attempt
to address the privacy concerns of the neighbor on Congress Hill
Lane.
Mr. Safarian clarified that his side of the property is completely
covered with trees. His request earlier was meant to approve the
open space. area with planting of trees.
Commissioner Forbes requested that the approval include i8 trees
to be planted in the open space easement as suggested by the
applicant.
Commissioner Caldwell commented that if the applicant is being
asked to plant trees in the open space easement or elsewhere in the
property, she would prefer that; 21 trees be planted, and that
Barrie Coate be consulted for the type and size of trees to be used
as replacement. She would prefer removing the cream color from the
color scheme to minimize the color.
Commissioner Durket stated he is~comfortable with the colors and
is not in favor of removing the cream color.
Commissioner Forbes would also like to see the cream color removed.
Commissioner Bogosian indicated he was satisfied with the colors
as presented.
22
• •
3/27/91 Minutes
FORBES/DURKET AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A TOTAL OF 21 'T'REES
PLANTED IN THE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT AT THE DIRECTION OF MR. BARRIE
COATE. MR. COATE IS ALSO TO DIRECT THE APPLICANT AS TO THE SIDE
AND TYPE OF TREES TO BE PLANTED. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-0.
MAIN MOTION PASSED 6-0.
1~,. V-90-041 Piramoon, 18557 Vessing Rd., request for
variance approval to reduce a rear yard setback
to 38'6" where 60' is required in the R-1-
40,000 zone district per Chapter l5 of the City
Code.
Mr. Emslie presented the Staff Report dated March 27, 1991, to the
Planning Commission.
Chairperson Tucker acknowledged receipt of a letter from Dr. and
Mrs. Robert Woodhall favoring the application.
Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit and noted that
the property directly behind the Piramoon property is a sizeable
parcel and most of it is undeveloped. The home on the site is
located very close to the eastern border of that parcel. Her
concern is the possibility of impacts on any future development of
the remaining undeveloped parcel if it were subdivided.
The Public Hearing was. opened at 11:37 p.m.
Mr. Abe Piramoon, owner of the property at 18557 Vessing Road,
Saratoga, addressed the Commission, requesting approval of the
variance.
There being no further public testimony, DURKET/MORAN MOVED TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:43 P.M. PASSED 6-0.
DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DENY V-90-041.
Commissioner Moran stated she could not support a variance.
Commissioner Bogosian stated he could not make the findings to
grant the variance. -
Commissioner Caldwell concurred with the other Commissioners. She
referred to page 109 of the Staff Report, the paragraph following
section C, which reads, "ALTHQUGH SPECK, C~~2CUMSTANQE~1`P; ICABLE
TO THE. PROPERTY EXIST, STAFF j~OEtS NOS FIND. '.~J~AT STRICT FtNFORC„E4~IT
QF THE .SPECIFIC. REGULATIQNS WOjJ~~D DEPRIVE THE APPI,~,~C~i'P OF
PRIVILF,~GES SF~ BY QL`HER PROPERTY OWNERS. THRREFORER AF .FEELS
A GRANT_OF SPECIAL. PRIVILEGE WOULD RESULT IF_TRE VARIANCE WAS
APPROVEb.~ Commissioner Caldwell indicated that the Planning
23
t
3/27/91 Minutes
Commission has been instructed by Staff to remove the paragraph
because there was no finding by Staff to that effect.
MOTION TO DENY PASSED 6-0. ,
Chairperson Tucker informed Mr. Piramoon that he has fifteen
calendar days in which to appeal to the City Council.
DIRECTOR'S ITSMS
Mr. Emslie announced that the Planning Commission Retreat will be
held at Asilomar Thursday afternoon, June 6 to June 7.
Mr. Emslie informed the Commissioners that the Commission will soon
be conducting a publicly noted workshop to review the draft Design
Review Ordinance.
Mr. Emslie stated that the next ROS study session is scheduled for
6:00 p.m., April 1b, to discuss the final draft ordinance and
Planning Commission procedures. Commissioner Caldwell requested
that the agenda be confined to those two items.
Commissioner Durket referred to the Minutes of the March 19, 1991
Planning Commission and questioned the phrase "significant contact"
when it was his impression that the purpose of announcing ex parte
contacts was to encourage open hearings. A discussion ensued
regazding the ex parte policy.
Chairperson Tucker noted that the City Council has been overturning
some of the Planning Commission's decisions, and perhaps the
Commission needs to give clearer direction to the Council.
Commissioner Caldwell referred to, item D of the Committee of the
Whole Report and proposed adding to the second sentence, "Each
additional request will .............~c~r_ a g~ cause and
apprQVal."
Commissioner Caldwell requested that Commissioners get copies of
matrices when submitted by Barrie Coate or his associate as they
are helpful tools when considering reports and applications
pertaining to trees.
The Planning Commission noted the City Council Minutes of March 20,
1991.
24
w
_ _.
3/27/91 Minutes
The meeting was ad3ourned at 12:00 midnight.
Resp ctfully submi ed,
Lyn amire2
Minutes .Clerk
25
;f- ,
-~
3/27/91 Minutes
ADJOtJRN~+IE~
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.'
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Ramirez
Minutes Clerk
25