Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-1991 Planning Commission Minutes- , ,, • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: June 26, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call -All Present Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 6/12/91 CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE~THE MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 1991, AS AMENDED. PA88ED 5-2 (TUCKER, FAVERO ABSTAIN) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Dr., read a letter to the Commission regarding review of the access to the project at 20052 Sunset Dr. pursuant to Saratoga Code 1605.035 and requested this be placed on the Agenda. She submitted the letter to the Planning Commission. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21, 1991. Technical Corrections to Packet - None PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR THESE ITEMS WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS OR ANY INTERESTED PARTY. 1. DR-91-021 - Blackwell, 20011 Be11a Vista, request for design review approval to demolish an existing one-story single family residence and construct a new 6,209 sq. ft. two-story residence on a 1.075 acre site, in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 8/28/91) . ----------------------------------------------------------- 2. DR-90-082 - Williams, 21272 Chiquita Way, request for design review approval to construct a new two- story, 7,440,sq. ft. residence on a 10-acre parcel within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is Lot #3 of the Chadwick Place subdivision (Tract #7770) (cont. to 8/14/91). ----------------------------------------------------------- i • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 2 3. V-91-010 - De Lap, 15495 Belnap Dr., request for variance approval to stabilize a failed hillside with a series of parallel retaining walls in excess of 5 ft. in height ~(6 ft., 6 ft. and 12 ft.) and in excess of 10 ft. in height over a 30 ft. run (24 ft.) within the HC-RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 8/14/91). ----------------------------------------------------------- 4. UP-90-011 - GTE Mobilnet; 14375 Saratoga Ave., request for use permit approval to construct two, 50 ft. tall cellular transmission towers within the Professional and Administrative Office (P-A) zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 7/10/91). ----------------------------------------------------------- CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS 1 - 4. PASSED 7-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS (THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS IS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES, AND OTHER SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES). 5. SD-90-010 - Vidanage, 12585Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for tentative map approval to subdivide a 1.87 acre lot into five new parcels ranging from 12,524 to 14,043 sq. ft. in area within the R- 1-12,500 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The proposed subdivision would be accessed by a cul-de-sac. An environmental initial study has been prepared for preliminary review per the CEQA guidelines (cont. from 6/12/91). ----------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991. Mr. Walgren modified conditions 16, 24 and 25 as reflected in the resolution. In response to Com. Tucker's question Mr. Walgren stated the maximum height allowed in the R-1-10 Ordinance is 26 ft. In response to Com. Caldwell's question regarding Condition #2 concerning approval of the Heritage Preservation Commission, Mr. Walgren stated it would go before the City Council. Com. Caldwell suggested Condition #6 be clarified to include that the Heritage • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 3 Preservation Commission would provide a recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing was opened at '7:53 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid noted as far as the resolution was concerned they had resolved all issues. Mr. Heid explained the height of the building in response to Com. Tucker's concerns. The design will be a variety of buildings compatible to the neighborhood. He noted the design review will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Chr. Moran closed the public hearing. Com. Tucker expressed concern regarding the limit of 20 ft. on this subdivision. She felt this was a question of fairness. In response to Chr. Moran's question, Mr. Emslie stated this condition would prevent future owners in this subdivision from building up beyond heights in the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the design review, condition is intended to be perpetual. Com. Forbes stated the applicant had voluntarily accepted this condition and this must be passed before the subdivision map can be completed. Planning Director Emslie stated when large lots in existing neighborhoods are subdivided it has been staff's recommendation to limit the height. Com. Durket stated this is apreventative method to ensure compatibility. Com. Tucker stated, although she would support this, she still expressed concern regarding existing property owners not bound by this condition of limiting the height. She stated that for the record, she does not feel comfortable with the height limit. CALDWELL/DURRET MOVED TO APPROVE SD-90-010 WITH THE CHANGE TO CONDITION 2 THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE WOULD BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR CHANGE OF NAMES TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO ITS CONSIDERATION; CHANGE COND. 17 ADD THE WORD "BY" BEFORE "SECTION 14-40.030". Com. Favero questioned if the Planning Commission had sufficient input from neighbors. Com. Bogosian stated they had input from neighbors at the previous public hearing as well as at the study session. ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 4 Planner Walgren noted he had talked to neighbors and they had expressed no objection to the height condition in the resolution. Chr. Moran expressed concern regarding new owners having the same development options as existing owners. Com. Tucker concurred with Chr. Moran. TUCKER/MORAN MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE MOTION TO ADD A CONDITION THAT WOULD EXPIRE UPON INITIAL CONSTRUCTION WITH REGARDS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. DENIED 2-5 (FORBES, CALDWELL, HOGOSIAN, FAVERO, DURRET OPPOSE) The original motion was carried 7-0. 6. SD-87-008.1 - Sung (Formerly Harbor Builders), 22631 Mt. Eden Rd. , request to extend a tentative approval for a four-lot subdivision for an additional twelve (12) months beyond the expiration of the Tentative Map approved by the City. The Tentative Map approved by the City would have expired on May 24, 1991 had not the applicant applied for this extension. ---------------------------=------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991. In response the Chr. Moran's question Mr. Emslie stated no new information has been submitted by the applicant. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Gordan Hansen, 3030 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, noted there have been several changes since the last hearing of this application. He noted the Tentative Map has expired, additionally the City Geotechnical Consultant studied the property and the report was submitted on the expiration date of the Tentative Map. He noted there are legal issues which have changed because of the changes in the timing and the actions of the City. Mr. Hansen presented an update on the soils study. He stated the City Geotechnical Consultant filed a report dated May 23, 1991. The report stated erosion was found and more detailed information was needed. The City Engineer requested to see mitigation measures and this report was submitted to the City Engineer June 26, 1991. He noted there are no other issues other than erosion and the applicant had completed all the conditions for approval of the final map. Mr. Hansen felt there are no grounds on which to deny this application. Mr. Larry Sung stated the soils study was a last minute request by ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 5 the City. He noted he only needs a 90 day extension. FORBES/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE 'PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 Com. Tucker noted the Commission did not have the benefit of the reports the applicant's attorney referred to and asked for input from staff. Planning Director Emslie stated these reports that were brought up tonight are in furtherance of the final map as it is currently drafted, and that the Planning Commission's concerns go beyond the conditions of the tentative map., Mr. Emslie reiterated Planning Commission concern that there are substantive issues that the Commission wished to discuss in the context of the tentative map approval. He noted that since the map is still valid and the applicants are pursuing meeting the conditions with the City Engineer, is a separate process. We are looking at the issue of the extension of the map and whether or not those conditions are adequate to further the planning objectives for this area. In response to Com. Favero's question regarding inconsistency relative to the General Plan, Mr. Emslie stated the Planning Commission sites in the draft resolution that the project has a potential for inconsistency with the NHR specific plan in that there were questions as to the possibility of four buildable sites. Com. Forbes noted there had been reference to Mitigation Measures and he never seen a plan for this. FAVERO/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE. SD-87-008.1 Com. Caldwell stated she would like to include, as part of the record, the March 5, 1991 Geotechnical Report which figured fairly prominently in their discussion at the last public hearing. She also asked staff whether they had reached any resolution on some of the issues raised in the March 4th report. In response to Com. Caldwell's question Mr. Emslie stated the City Geologist has been provided with the configuration of the lot lines as approved in the Tentative Map and has conducted subsequent reviews based on this. He noted staff is still waiting on more input from the City Geologist. Com. Caldwell requested an amendment to the motion to reword item E to read "the geological documents and reports and the occurrence of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake raise significant questions regarding the design of the subdivision and its effect on public health and safety problems". Chr. Moran noted she would support staff's recommendations and • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 6 views this decision as reconfirming a prior decision. Com. Forbes noted he had seen no new information and would support staff's recommendations. ' Com. Favero concurred with Com. Forbes. The amended motion was carried 6-1 (TUCKER ABSTAINED). 7. DR-91-015 - Saratoga Pacific Oaks, 14577 Via de Marcos, Lot #22, request to construct a new 5,119 sq. ft., one-story, single family residence within the R-1-40,000 zone district in the San Marcos Heights subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991. In response to Com. Bogosian's question regarding the pool, Mr. Walgren noted the pool is restricted by the open space easement and the construction of a pool would have to go through the Planning Commission. In response to Com. Caldwell's question regarding landscape plans, Mr. Walgren noted staff received the plans this afternoon and feels they are acceptable. He expressed concern regarding the species type and the plans would be revised to comply with xeriscape guidelines. He noted the plan submitted proposes most of the landscaping along the west and east sides. Planning Director Emslie noted the landscape plans will be reviewed by the Planning Director as stated in the conditions. Com. Durket questioned the masonry material used? Mr. Walgren pointed out where this material would be located. Com. Forbes questioned the type~of metal used on the southeast elevation. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Greg Brook, Saratoga Pacific Heights, noted he was available for questions. In response to Com. Forbes question he stated the metal for the chimney hood would be painted to blend in with the color scheme. TUCKER/DIIRRET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 TUCKER/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE DR-91-015 ADDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 7 LANDSCAPING REFLECT DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES. Com. Durket noted he would like to see more landscaping towards the open space easement and that staff has the understanding of what is desired. Com. Caldwell noted she had a minor change to the resolution on Item #10, that per the recommendation of the City Arborist for irrigation before and after root. disruption, all recommendations by the City Arborist must be completed during construction. On Item #14 instead of "a" future swimming pool, "any" future swimming pool. She requested discussion on the color from the Commission and noted she would be in favor of altering the resolution to request staff to require a medium to dark earthtone. Com. Tucker noted this was not a hillside area and the homes in the adjacent neighborhoods were of a similar color, she had no objection to the color proposed by the applicant. Com. Caldwell noted the proximity of the lot to the open space easement and would like to integrate the structure into the natural terrain as much as possible. Com. Bogosian concurred with Com. Caldwell. He noted he will support the application, but would like to see a darker color. Com. Bogosian commended the applicant on the preservation of trees. CALDWELL/DURRET MOVED TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO ALTER COND. 8 TO PROVIDE FOR MATERIALS THAT ARE MEDIUM TO DARK EARTHTONE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. Chr. Moran noted she did not feel comfortable with the landscape plans and would like to consider both house and landscape plans concurrently. She noted she would not be in favor of this project. Com. Caldwell noted the landscape plans are an important part of the project and would be amenable to a continuance. Planner Walgren noted with drought conditions, initially landscape plans were not required by staff. In response to Com. Bogosian's question Mr. Walgren noted staff will be requesting first step landscape plans, which are native vegetation primarily trees for screening purposes. Com. Bogosian stated, at this stage, he would like to see landscaping for screening purposes only. Chr. Moran concurred with Com. Bogosian and expressed concern regarding screening the back of the house on this particular • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 8 project. Com. Forbes stated there should be a total landscaping plan with an alternative drought plan. Chr. Moran stated she would support staff's recommendations, but in the future would like to see the landscaping plan concurrently with the development. The amendment to the motion regarding color scheme was carried 6- 1. (TUCKER OPPOSED) Com. Caldwell reiterated condition 12 noting it permits the Director of Planning to approve the landscaping plans and by a consensus of the Commission, the landscaping plans are basic for screening and should conform to the xeriscape standards. The Commission also requests additional landscaping along the rear property line to screen the house from the open space easement. Com. Tucker noted this was acceptable as a restatement of the motion. The motion was carried 7-0 8. DR-91-019 - Saratoga Pacific Oaks, 14595 Via de Marcos, Lot #23, request to construct a new 5,642 sq. ft., one-story, single family residence within the R-1-40,000 zone district in the San Marcos Heights subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991 with modifications to the conditions as outlined in the revised resolution. He noted if the Commission felt additional screening is necessary it could be added into the conditions. It was the consensus of the Commission to add the additional screening. The public hearing was opened at 9:13 p.m. Mr. Greg Brook noted he recognized the need for screening on the southern boundary and felt it was adequately addressed. In response to Com. Forbes request Mr. Brook noted there would be no objection to removing the architectural features above the chimney. CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 9 FORBES/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE DR-91-019 Com. Durket stated he was not in favor of this application as it sits at a higher elevation. He noted it was too massive and bulky and suggested the height be reduced. He expressed concern regarding view blockage as referenced in the staff report. Com. Caldwell stated from the land use visit this site is depressed approximately 5 ft. from the adjacent property. Planning Director Emslie noted the project is prominent in terms of the open space. Chr. Moran concurred with Com. Durket and would like to see it lowered because the subdivision was approved with a mix of one and two-story houses. Com. Bogosian stated his impression from the site visit was that the lot is depressed and screened; with oak trees. He did not find the plan to be excessive in height and would support the application. The motion was carried 5-2 (MORAN, DURKET OPPOSED). 9. DR-91-025 - Leposavic, 1,5134 Sperry Lane, request for design review approval to construct a new, two- story, 6,300 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ---------------------------=------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991. He noted staff received correspondence from Douglas Adams, executor of the estate of Catherine Dutton, 15005 Sobey Rd., requesting consideration of his view shed from higher property. Com. Bogosian questioned the applicant bringing in fill and what are the relevant code provisions .for this? Planner Walgren noted the original grading plan was approved in 1980 and work was commencing per that plan, the city's current policy states that the grading quantities, combined cut and fill, should not exceed approximately 1000 cubic yards. Mr. Emslie noted an applicant cannot bring more that 50 cubic yards into a site or take 50 cubic yards away without a permit. He noted staff will follow up on the comments in Mr. Adams' letter. In response to Com. Forbes question regarding visual concerns, Mr. Walgren stated the height has been reduced from 26 ft. to 19 ft. • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 10 The Commission discussed the height of the project. Mr. Emslie stated initially staff recommended the building not extend more than 20 ft. above the grade. He thought it was more meaningful to discuss the height of the home above grade in this case, because we are dealing with the relative height of this pad and the neighboring pad. Looking at the actual height of the building is somewhat deceiving because it doesn't tell you where the building is in relation to the pad elevations of the properties that surround it. This is consistent with what staff had recommended when the Planning Commission initially denied the plans. Staff felt that no structure should extend more than 20 ft. above the upper pad level of this property and that the revised plans do conform with that initial analysis. The public hearing was opened at .9:26 p.m. Mr. Ray Murdock, Architect, stated they are in support of staff's recommendations. He addressed the letter from Douglas Adams noting there is no need to have an elevation raised or lifted in terms of a new foundation. He noted what was presented was the utilization of the existing foundation noting the house will not exceed the 22 ft. at mid point of the natural slope to the ridge mentioned by Chair Moran. The 19 ft. is in relationship to the Dutton estate from the outside finish grade, and would not obscure views from the Dutton estate. In response to Com. Caldwell's question Mr. Murdock stated the location of the pool was part of the application and is included in the grading quantities. In response to Com. Forbes question Mr. Murdock stated they are planning seismic upgrade for the foundation. CALDWELL/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE !DR-91-025 Com. Durket expressed concern regarding the use of stucco and requested more natural material and would like the motion amended to include this. Com. Caldwell noted the majority of the exposed building is natural brick, which is acceptable. In response to Com. Favero's question, Mr. Emslie stated staff felt comfortable with heights and views and had not received any objection to the proposal. Com. Caldwell requested an amendment to the motion to include • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 • Page 11 native species and drought tolerant species to condition 13. Com. Durket reiterated his comments regarding the use of stucco requesting a darker color and wood siding. Com. Caldwell stated she would amend the original motion to include darker earthtone colors to be approved by the Planning Director. Chr. Moran questioned the carport? Planner Walgren explained this noting it is enclosed on the west and south sides and on top. Com. Tucker expressed her concern. regarding the 6 ft. crawl space. Planner Walgren explained that when projects are developed on sloping topography the result is cavity areas. He noted the crawl space is a product of building the lower level and having the crawl space match the upper grade. In response to Com. Bogosian's question regarding the roofing on the bay windows, Mr. Murdock stated the same material as the main roof will be used over the bay windows. Com. Tucker suggested adding to the motion that the deck areas are not to be enclosed. Chr. Moran addressed Com. Favero's concerns regarding the view and suggested the Planning Director require landscaping to screen the property from the property above. Com. Favero stated this would be acceptable and suggested staff re- examine the view issue and report back with positive confirmations from the owners of the estate. Planning Director Emslie suggested adding a condition that prior to issuance of building permit that the applicants stake and provide story poles at the ridge height to be inspected by the Planning Director and reviewed for potential view blockage and if necessary to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Com. Favero stated this would be acceptable. Mr. Emslie reviewed the above motion as follows: Cond. 10, exterior colors be modified to be medium to dark earthtones, subject to staff review and approval; adding a condition, deck areas may not be enclosed at any future time; adding a condition requiring the construction of story poles prior to issuance of zone clearance for Planning Director review and approval, should the Director determine that there is a view blockage to the rear property, it will be brought before the Planning Commission for further reduction in building height; Cond. 13 to include native species PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 12 and conformance with xeriscape and landscape standard. The above motion was carried 7-0. 10. DR-90-077 - Tager, 14105 Pike Rd., request for design LL-91-003 - review approval to construct a new 4,851 sq. SD-89-011.1 - ft. two-story residence on a 1.2 acre site within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Lot line adjustment approval is requested to transfer 7,378 sq. ft. from 13983 Pike Road to this parcel. Modification to condition #27 of SD-89-011 is also requested to allow the structure to exceed the 190 ft. contour elevation. ----------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991. The public hearing was opened at ;9:52 p.m. Ms. Lois Tager, 13983 Pike Rd., stated the house has been designed for personal health reasons. She noted it is not visible as it is screened by trees, which will be maintained, and showed photos to prove this. She noted the design is compatible with the neighborhood and is an asset to the City of Saratoga. Mr. Steve Tager, 13983 Pike Rd. , stated there are errors in the staff report and pointed these out. He noted the architectural design is pleasing and conforms to the topography and recommended the design be left as is. He is not in support of staff's recommendations. He stated the home is not visible from the Mt. Eden Valley. He noted the pool is needed for health reasons and the color change is unreasonable. He urged the Commission to approve this design. Mr. Marty Oakley clarified the crawl space noting it is under the living and laundry rooms. Mr. Jack Markel, Wardell Ct., spoke in support of the project and urged approval. Mr. Tager stated the arborist recommended the 12" oak tree at the back corner of the garage be removed and be replaced with four box oak trees. Mr. Tager noted he will comply with this recommendation. TUCKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 • In response to Com. Tucker's question, Mr. Walgren noted a small portion of the house extends 12 ft. above the 190 elevation • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 13 contour. BOGOSIAN/DURRET MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-077, LL-91-003, SD-89- 011.1 TO JOLY 24, 1991 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT BE FOLLOWED. Com. Bogosian stated he was on the committee that visited the site and felt it is prominent and visible from surrounding areas. He noted the building is too massive for the site and expressed concern regarding height and vertical elements. He is concerned about the non-conformity with the specific plan regarding the pool pad. Com. Favero requested the opportunity to visit the site and would support a continuance. Com. Durket requested story poles as this would be helpful to show the height. Com. Tucker stated she would like the opportunity to visit the site and would like the proposed pool marked. Com. Caldwell expressed concern regarding the proposed tree removal as they are in excellent condition and requested these be preserved. She also explained to Mr. Tager that the Commission follows the policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. She explained that the Commission does take the extra steps to make sure that visible hillside homes will be integrated well into the natural environment. She spoke in support of the continuance. Com. Forbes supported the continuance. Chr. Moran concurred with Com. Tucker with respect to marking out the pool site and to see the story poles in place. The above motion was carried 7-0.' 11. LL-89-002.2 - Harbor Builders, Mt. Eden Estates, request for a one-year extension of the Planning Commission's approval of a lot line adjustment granted May 24, 1989. ----------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991. He read an additional Section 4 to the draft resolution as outlined in the revised resolution relating to future design review approval. In response to Com. Caldwell's question Mr. Emslie stated this PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 ~: Page 14 language is making it clear that the future building site is going to be subject to specific criteria. He noted the additional Section is consistent with the policy. Com. Caldwell questioned the Planning Commission's legal options to condition where the building pad will be when development occurs on this property. In response to Com. Caldwell's question the City Attorney stated it would be difficult to condition at this time because the application is a time extension on a lot line adjustment. She noted if the Commission sees problems in the future they can address that. Com. Caldwell noted that by preventing additional grading on lot 11, another problem is being created that is establishment of a new building site on the lot which contravenes the NHR Specific Plan. Mr. Emslie suggested addressing the concerns of development on the upper pad. In response to Com. Caldwell's question Mr. Emslie stated this pad is not a specific building pad, but approved as part of the Tentative Map. Com. Caldwell questioned if the City is in a position to be dealing with a developer who they are in litigation with? In response to Com. Caldwell's question, the City Attorney noted the applicant will have to comply with city requirements. Com. Durket also questioned the litigation noting that approval of the extension may be a detriment to the City. The City Attorney noted if it was going to be a detriment to the City the lot line should not be approved if specific grounds are found. The public hearing was opened at '10:45 p.m. Mr. Tom. Burke, Harbor Builders, noted he had all the signatures required for the recording of the property. In response to Com. Caldwell's question Mr. Burke stated a portion of lot 10 will be distributed to lot 11 and also a portion of the Cocciardi property will be distributed to lot it to make it a more buildable site. Mr. Roger Shaft, Owner of lot 11, noted he bought the property with the stipulation from Harbor Builders that this lot line adjustment would occur. He noted the lot line adjustment is of no benefit to Mr. Cocciardi, it is to make lot 11 more suitable to build on. In response to a question from Com. Caldwell, Mr. Shaft explained that the purpose for seeking the lot line adjustment is to provide a new building site on Lot #11 located on the large flat pad that • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 15 now exists on Lots #10 and 11 and the Cocciardi property. Mr. Markel noted the lot line adjustment will allow more buildable space and urged approval of the extension. TUCKER/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PA88ED 7-0 CALDWELL/DURRET MOVED TO DENY LL-89-002.2 Com. Caldwell felt strongly that substantial evidence exists in the record to indicate that the future residence for lot it will be located on the flat visible pad which now exists on the Cocciardi property and lot 10. She felt that to grant this application would be to directly contravene policies of the NHR Specific Plan, which are bound to uphold, namely that we are bound to protect and preserve the City's irreplaceable hillside scenic resources. This is a very prominent site, and we have had great difficulty with some of the other properties in this immediate area. Ridge lines shall be protected to allow clear views from streets and roads. We would be hard pressed to uphold this goal and objective by approving this lot line adjustment. The obvious conclusion of granting this lot line adjustment is located on that flat, visible pad. She stated that she sees no way of reconciling this with the NHR Specific Plan. Com. Durket concurred with Com. Caldwell, but noted he disagreed with staff regarding conforming to the NHR zone district. He feels the flat pad was created to be a building site to somewhat circumvent the goals and policies behind the NHR district. Com. Tucker questioned if this was designated a prominent ridge line site? She noted that she read the staff report to say that it met frontage, depth and width requirements. She asked the City Attorney on what grounds this could be denied? In response to Com. Tucker's question, Mr. Emslie stated this would not be considered a minor ridge, but it is within the Planning Commission's concern for the viewshed that we have had in this area. He noted the property does conform with all the standards for the creation of a lot, both before and after lot line adjustment. In response to Com. Tucker's question regarding the grounds for supporting denial of the project, the City Attorney stated that there seems to be some feeling from the Commission that approving this project is directly in conflict with applicable Specific Plan policies and that approving the plan in that contravention of policy would be harmful to the public health, safety and welfare, since the kinds of grading concerns that have been cited are a matter of public health, safety and welfare. She also indicated that part of the Commission's comments have been the statement that • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ' June 26, 1991 Page 16 has been made by the current owner of the property does intend for that to be the building pad. Another significant piece of factual data for this comment is that the .current owner of the property has indicated that he does intend for the existing pad to be the building pad and not just the restoration work. She stated that the comments of the Commission so far has been that the purpose of the lot line adjustment is to put :the flat pad on lot #11, intended to be the building pad for lot #il and that placement of the building pad in this location is directly contrary to applicable Specific Plan guidelines for the 'property, thus is a violation of public health, safety and welfare. Com. Forbes noted he had no objection to the lot line adjustment. Com. Bogosian noted he visited the site and noted the lot line adjustment will extend opportunities to build on lot 11. The above motion was carried 4-3;(FORBES, TUCKER, MORAN OPPOSED). 12. City of Saratoga - Draft Circulation Element Abstract for review and comment (cont. from 6/12/91). Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1991. He noted staff would like to utilize a series of neighborhood meetings to receive input. Mr. Emslie suggested the Planning Commission divide up into three groups to work with a staff member and meet with each of the neighborhood ayes. He noted staff would like to finish this by the end of August. Com. Caldwell noted there was no mention of the Heritage Lane Designation. Mr. Emslie gave a brief update as to where the Heritage Commission is at this time. He noted they had prepared an inventory which will be helpful to staff and the Planning Commission. He noted the process is slow so as to obtain as much input as possible. Chr. Moran suggested that heritage lanes be added to a specific list. The public hearing was opened at 11:22 p.m. Mr. Mark Ebner, 13755 Saratoga Ave., questioned the status of designating Saratoga Ave. a heritage lane. Mr. Emslie explained why Saratoga Ave. would be handled separately as further study is required. He;noted if Saratoga Ave. had to be widened it would no longer be a Heritage Lane. ! • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 17 Com. Durket noted there was a majority vote by the Commission which he was not a part of, to look at.the City as a whole. Mr. Ebner requested a continuance to allow concerned citizens to give input regarding this issue.: Ms. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, questioned if the Heritage Commission will be consulting the area plans to obtain input. Mr. Emslie stated they would be.: TUCKER/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE~PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 Com. Tucker did not feel a continuance was necessary as it would be continued with individual meetings. Com. Favero noted to designate a street is to focus on its characteristics and a continuance would not be necessary. Com. Bogosian concurred with Com. Tucker noting there will be opportunities for public input. The Commissioners divided into groups as follows: Team #1 Commissioners Bogosian and Forbes Team #2 Chr. Moran and Commissioner Favero Team #3 Commissioners Tucker, Caldwell and Durket (Floater) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None COMMISSION ITEMS Com. Caldwell stated the letter. from the Giberson's should be addressed. She noted it should be placed on the agenda. Com. Bogosian stated he would like this to be placed on the agenda to give time for a site visit. Com. Tucker questioned if this was a significant material change and if not objected to placing it on the agenda. Mr. Emslie stated staff felt it was not a significant material change, but to place it on the agenda to be discussed, which is the usual procedure. Com. Tucker withdrew her objection. Com. Durket addressed the notices received in the mail and requested that Commissioners be assigned to a certain period of • ~- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 26, 1991 Page 18 time to respond to these notices. Chr. Moran agreed with Com. Durket's request. Com. Bogosian stated that he is not in favor of setting up another committee to do this. He feels it should continue on the present basis. Com. Caldwell suggested pursuing Commissioner Durket's suggestion on a trial basis. Com. Tucker requested clarification as to what the projects are when the notices are received. She noted she had no objection to Com. Durket's request. Com. Forbes did not support the request regarding the notices. Com. Caldwell requested staff to distribute the Citizens Investigative Committee Reports to the Commissioners. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 5/30, 6/5, 6/8, and 6/11 Oral Ms. Ann Marie Burger, 20045 Winter Lane, noted the deliberations of the Planning Commission are important and requested that the sound system be adjusted. City Council Com. Caldwell reported on the City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:56 p.m. Cathy Robillard Minutes Clerk