Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-1991 Planning Commission minutes;. .~ .,., ?- ~ ~. CITY OF SARATOGA ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, May 28, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center, Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting The meeting is a study session between applicants, interested citi- zens, staff to discuss continued applications, advance planning projects and general planning issues. The Planning Commission has a policy that no decisions will be made at these sessions. A written report will be made of the proceedings. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. DR-90-079, SD-90-009, V-90-037 - CONSTANTIN, 20855 KITTRIDGE RD. The Planning Director reviewed that the purpose of this study session is to receive the report of the City Geologist and intro- duced Bill Cole, representing William Cotton & Associates, the City's geotechnical consultant. Mr. Cole responded to specific Planning Commission questions: 1. What were the primary considerations used to evaluate this site? Mr. Cole reviewed considerations listed in his memo- randum to the City Engineer. 2. The Planning Commission focused on the 1987 memorandum prepared by William Cotton and Associates which outlines the scope of work for the applicant's consultants, and asked Mr. Cole to review this document. 3. What questions were not addressed to Mr. Cole's satisfac- tion? What was the purpose of scalping the hillside? Mr. Cole responded that all considerations were addressed to enable the recommendation to the Planning Commission. The scalping was to prevent activation of landslides but is not related to the repair of the existing landslides. 4. The Planning Commission raised the statement made by the applicant's consultant that the development of the site will correct geologic conditions. Mr. Cole responded that this statement is true. Mr. Cole then referred to the map prepared by the City's consultant. 5. The Planning Commission wanted to know the location of the Berrocal fault. Mr. Cole responded that the 1989 earthquake revealed the fault was over 50 ft. from the proposed con- struction. He reviewed the two similar considerations ` Regular Adjournec~eting 5/28/91 Page 2 applicable to new development; i) Rupture; this is not a concern since the fault is away from the structure; 2) Shaking; this is a consideration regardless of setback. 6. What is the condition of the bedrock; and what is its depth? Generally, bedrock is seven (7) feet below the surface. A structural engineer is required to review foundations prior to building permits to determine the depth of each footing. He also stated that the top 3 to 4 feet is fractured. 7. The Planning Commission asked why the supplemental geotech- nical design criteria requested on 12/21/90 are now being deferred in the 2/28/91 letter until prior to building permits? Mr. Cole responded that the design criteria has been established but inspections are necessary to monitor construction. 8. Does Mr. Cole agree with the 5/16 letter from the appli- cant's consultant? Mr. Cole said he agreed with these findings. 9. Is scalping the site the sole beneficial act to improve this site? Mr. Cole said that factors such as drainage improve- ments are equally important. 10. What dangers exist with ground failure caused by extraordi- nary runoff and a major earthquake? Mr. Cole responded the ground water is not a major concern given the slope of the property. In addition, the drainage improvements will result in less ground water percolation than the existing condi- tions. 11. Is the City Geologist satisfied with the worst case scenario presented in the JCP report? Mr. Cole responded that he was satisfied and that the analysis is very conservative. 12. In the 3/87 memorandum from the City Geologist, it was recommended that no development should occur unless addi- tional studies are made. To what extent will William Cotton and Associates stand behind the project if it fails? Mr. Cole responded that the firm is satisfied that the project is designed on sound engineering and geologic principles. He then provided a brief history of the firm's experience to attest to the firm's expertise. The Commission asked if staff agreed with the applicant's findings that similar slopes are present in other develop- ment. Staff stated it was not aware of other developments proposed for slopes as great as this site in the vicinity or in the entire City. The neighbor's concern that existing landslide is a produce • -~ ~ - - ~ Regular Adjournec~eting 5/28/91 Page 3 of this site and the applicant's consultant states that the landslide is a result of grading done by downslope neigh- bors. Mr. Cole responded that landslide was the result of a number of factors and that poor grading was a contributing factor. Bob Sax representing the applicant wanted the Planning Commission to know that the applicants feel that the site is safe because they want to live here. He also feels that the City's own consultant is satisfied with the work proposed. Mr. Phipps asked if William Cotton and Associates was finan- cially responsible for damages occurring as a result of this project? Mr. Cole responded that in 20 years, the firm has not been sued. Mr. Phipps also inquired regarding the affect of drainage improvements on native vegetation? Mr. Cole responded that his expertise did not include landscape or horticultural issues. Mr. Walgren responded that the City Horticulturist reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions to preserve the existing landscaping. The Planning Commission thanked the participants and noted that the continued hearing for this item is scheduled for July 10, 1991. 2. 3. DR-89-110 _ TAI, 21451 CONTINENTAL CIRCLE Staff presented the modifications to the plans which were before the Planning Commission this evening. The applicant was present to discuss the proposal and to answer the Commissioner's ques- tions. The Commissioners expressed remaining concerns regarding the height of certain architectural elements relative to this promi- nent site, the amount of grading proposed, and the overall length of the structure. The applicant agreed to stake the buildings footprint and provide height poles for the Commission's review. A revised material board was also requested for the June 12th public hearing. DR-89-087 = SOBEY OAKS ASSOC., 14766 GYPSY HILL RD. Staff discussed the proposed revisions to this previously ap- proved design review application. The project manager was present to answer any questions in place of the applicant. The Planning Commission directed staff to approve the change with a condition reauirina a landscaped arbor structure_ 4. DR-91-012 - YAN, 13566 COCCIARDI CT. Staff presented the modifications to the plans which were before the Planning Commission this evening. The applicant and his ," : ' Regular Adj ourne~~eting 5/28/91 Page 4 engineer were present to discuss the changes and to answer any questions the Commission may have. The Commission felt that the plans could be further improved with regard to the following: 1. The horseshoe drive should be eliminated. 2. The pool should be eliminated per the staff recommendation to preclude the creation of an additional graded pad beyond the home. 3. Darker exterior colors should be utilized, and 4. The Commission generally felt that the front entrance ele- ment needed further reduction. 5. SD-90-010 - VIDANAGE, 12585 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE RD. The Planning Director reviewed the proposed tentative map and the Planning Commission's concerns which prompted this study session meeting. The applicant and his representatives were present to discuss both the history of this existing nursery site and its temporary use permit and the concerns the Planning Commission had with the proposed subdivision. The applicant then presented three alternative map configurations with building footprints and driveway aprons represented. The Planning Commission reacted favorably to the five lot map with access to the north rather than the south. However, if this access could not be secured, the Commission was generally agree- able to the map as originally presented.