Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-1994 Planning Commission Minutes`~" " Y -~ ~ ~ AUGUS'T' 10, 1994 • City ~.ouncil Chambers, :13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Murakami, Patrick, Siegfried, Asfour Late: Caldwell Absent: Kapla-1 City Attorney Riback was present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICA'T'IONS No comments were offered. MINUTES BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION DEFERRED APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 1994 MINUTES TO TH.E END OF TI-IE AGENDA. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code >49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 5, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff received two .requests for continuances this evening: 1) Item No. 2 (LL-94-002/V-94-015:13245 Padero Court and a vacant parcel on Chadwick Court) to be continued to September 28, 1994; and 2) Commission Item No. 1 (the Bean application on Saratoga Avenue) to be continued to September 14, 1994. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. F-94-002 - Lee; 21800 ivlt. Eden Rd., request for Planning Commission approval to allow an open wrought-iron style fence to enclose a rear yard. Article 15-29.020(c) of the City Code states that no fencing within a hillside district shall enclose more than 4,000 sq. ft. in area. The applicant's proposal, which has already been partially constructed, encloses <ipproxi~nately 20,000 sq. ft. The subject parcel is 43,560 sq. ft. on size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSS: MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE - 2 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff recommended that condition 2 be amended to read: "Within ~4 ;E months of approval, the front yard fencing along the east property line shall be reduced to 3 feet in maximum height...." Commissioner Caldwell entered and was seated. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing on this item at 7:36 p.m. Peter Lee, co-applicant, informed the Commission. that he would answer any questions which it may have. He commented that the fence request was for security reasons. Commissioner Calc1we11 gtrestionecl whether and how long ago stucco wall was ever approved. Planner Walgren responded that it was a design feature of the original residence and that it was approved along with the borne construction in 1988 and that it complied with the Hillside fencing regulations. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if there were requirements imposed at the time cif its approval to screen the fence wall with landscaping? Planning Walgren responded that he was not aware if there were requirements at the time of approval to require landscape screening. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the City was confronted with this type of application today, would the Commission be looking at screening the fence structure? Planner Walgren responded that it would be something that staff could look into. Chairman Asfour questioned if tl~e front fence was enclosed, having a gate at the front door, would that come into the 4,00() square feet calculation? Planner Walgren responded that if there were a gate located at the front, it would lie a solid enclosure and the exception would be for 30,000-40,000 square feet or whatever that area would be. He (Walgren) also stated that the installation of a gate would be an intensification of the exception approval. and would need to return to the Commission for review and approval. Chairman Asfour questioned whether a condition should be added which stipulates that no gate is to be installed as part of this approval.. Planner Walgren concurred with Chairman Asfour's recommendation. COMMISSIONERS SIEGF.RIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:41 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he supported the request before the Commission as well as Chairman Asfour's recommended condition pertaining to the gate. Commissioner Caldwell noted that there were two hillside fencing requests before the Commission this evening. She stated that she had a problem with one of the requests and that her recommendation would be based on the site visit. She noted that the visibility of this fence request was far greater than the visibility of. the other project. She felt that the fence would be visible from t}~e road traveled as yotr approach the property. She could not support the request because she could not make they'"visibility" finding. She also noted that the Commission would need to make a second .finding, that finding being "safety". Although '' t PLANNING COMMISS~] MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE-3- she noted that the applicant states in the letter submitted that he recognizes that the fence would not handle their safety concerns, it would provide piece of mind. That is not a finding that the Commission is being asked to make. She could not make the safety finding. Planner Walgren clarified that either finding would need to be made to grant the exception (either that it is screened by vegetation/ topography or that it is necessary for safety reasons). Commissioner Abshire commented that his concerns were that of safety and whether there would be freedom of the wild animals to roam through the area. He did not believe that the fence would block the animals' path and that there does not appear to be any problems in terms of fire protection. The fire hydrants on the street and the opening of the fence would allow the emergency equipment to access the house. He did not find the fence objectionable and found it attractive at his site visit. Commissioner Murakami commented that he also had an opportunity to visit the site. Since the fence was recessed, he felt that it was adequately obscured and would support its approval. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if. the Co-nmissioners supporting the fence request would agree to require installation of landscaping to screen the fence and to make the fence line less visible. Chairman Asfour commented t}lat he could support the requirement to include vegetation on the side of the solid wall. Commissioner Patricl: concurred with the installation of vegetation on the stucco wall in that it would soften the look from the hillside. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/A.BSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION F- 94-002 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS - AMENDING CONDITION 2 TO READ: "WITHIN ?4 ~ MONTHS OF THIS APPROVAL...."; - REQUIRING LANDSCAPING ALONG T.HE SOLID WALL SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL; AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE SHALL B.E NO GATE INSTALLED IN THE FRONT. Commissioner Caldwell cotnmentecl that the Commission needs to review very carefully hillside fencing applications because when these subdivisions are approved and conditions are placed on the hillside zoning district, she felt that the City had in mind the maintenance of an "open." feeling. If all. the neighbors were to request fencing exceptions, the "open feeling" would not remain and she cautioned the Commission when approving fencing ' ~ PLANNING COMMISS~r MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE-4- applications in the future. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. However, he felt that this hillside fence request met an exception. He concurred that there would be problem in the long term if the Commission does not address the various issues. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: A_BSHIRE, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED, ASFOUR; NOES: CALDWELL; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: KAPLAN. Chairman Asfour reopened the public hearing. Mr. Lee requested that the six month requirement be extended. Chairman Asfour informed Mr. Lee that the Commission has adopted the resolution with the siY month provision. Community Development Director clarified for the record that the six month condition was presented by staff prior to the opening of the public hearing. The public hearing was opened and the applicant dicl have an opportunity to address the six month period at that time. 2. LL-94-002 - Barkas, Chadwick; 13245 Padero Ct. & a vacant parcel on Chadwick V-94-01.5 - Court, request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel per Chapter "14 of the City Cocle. A Variance is also required to allow one parcel to be under the minimum lot size requirement based on the parcel's new average site slope per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Both parcels are located within the .Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. =---------------------------=----------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 28, 1.994. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that individuals were present requesting to address the Commission on ~rgenda item 2. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRI.ED RESCINDED THEIR PREVIOUS MOTION. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing on this item at 7:~2 p.m. He informed the public that a request has been made by the applicant to continue this item. to September 28. He questioned whether the public would want to present their comments at this time or defer comments until September 28. Daisy Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, requested that the Commission delay decision on this item PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES • AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE-S- and requested that City staff. meet with adjacent neighbors to address their concerns on this development. She felt that the lot line adjustment wot-ld only increase the usable area. She stated that the adjacent neighbors believed that all the issues relating to the lot line would need to be addressed as a whole instead of piecemeal development. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the concern was that other parcels in the Chadwick subdivision would be coming before the Commission for .lot line adjustment. Ms. Stark responded that past history indicates that changes occur once approval is granted (e.g., a previously approved single story home built behind her home was approved as a single story home and later was constructed as a two story home, with a reduction in landscape buffer). She expressed concern that history would repeat itself. In reviewing the maps she submitted to the Commission, Map No. 2 has been highlighted indicating the proposed 700 foot long driveway cut into the hillside. The neigl~l~ors felt that tl~e driveway was a safety hazard (an adverse environmental impact). She felt that a minor adjustment would allow a new driveway to be located on the flat portion of the hill without cutting into the hill. She requested that the Commission review the site before making a decision. She submitted a letter from three neig}Ihors requesting that the Commission delay its decision and requested that the City conduct a meeting with the neighbors to aclclress all of the concerns associated with this development (e.g., lack of. plans for proper drainage for parcel B). Chairman Asfour responded that it was difficult for the Commission to anticipate what other owners of properties are going to do with lot lines. The Commission can only deal with what is presented to it and that a decision would be made to delay this item to September 28 at the applicant's request. He recommended that Ms. Stark present documents or any information on this application to staff. to be incluclecl in the Commission's September 28 packet. The Commission would review any new information provided. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the deadline to submit correspondence to the Commission to be included in the packet. Community Development Director Curtis responded that September 14 would be the deadline that correspondence/information would need to he submitted for staff to analyze. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR A.PI'LICA".PIONS LL-94-002 & V-94-015 TO THE SEPTEMBER 28 MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). 3. SM-94-003 - Urrutia; 14577 Via De IVlarcos, request for Site Modification approval to construct a pool, arbors anal associated hardscape surfaces per Chapter 15 of the City Cocie. The proposal also involves a request for exemption from the hillside fencing requirement to allow the fenced area of enclosure to exceed the permitted 4,000 sq. ft. per the subdivision conditions of approval. The parcel size is 41,965 sq. ft. and is ]c~cated within an R-"L-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. s_p PLANNING COMMISS*1 MINUTES • AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE-6- Commissioner Caldwell commented that the reason she thought that both findings would need to be made in order to grant an exception was that page 20 of the staff report indicates that both findings regarding visibility and safety would need to be made. Planner Walgren responded that he felt that the statement was a mistake and that one or the other finding needed to be made, .not both. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing on this item at 8:05 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicants, requested approval of the landscape plans which include the swimming pool, the arbor and fence. Regarding the fence, when the subdivision was approved, 1.0 acres were dedicated to the City as public open space. As part of that gift to the City, there was an agreement with the City that would allow for structures to be built within the private open space on these .Lots and fencing is considered a structure at this time. She requested approval of the fencing for security reasons as this property abuts the public open space. As far as the arborist report, she concurred with staff and would prepare cross sections to ensure that the arborist and staff were confident that the arbor would not interfere with tree no. 2. She stated that the applicant was in agreement with staff's condition and requested Commission approval. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that his research indicates that either one of the findings would need to be -n~tde, not both. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURA.KAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:07 P.M. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SM-94-003 PER STAFF'S REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-U (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). 4. DR-94-018 - l\Tigam; 2:1.4:1 Continental Circle, request for Design Review approval V-94-O1.0 - to construct a new 5,11.6 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant is also requesting Variance approval to locate the residence 113 ft. from tl~e front property line where 123 ft. is required. The property is a 3.0C acre vacant parcel located within the I-Iillsicle Residential (.I-IR) zoning cli.striet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented tl~e staff report on this item. He recommended that this item be continued anal that the applicant be directed to revise the plans to meet the 123 foot setback requirement. He stated that the applicant does have the option to request a vote this evening, denying the request to continue the item. If that is the case, staff recommended that the Commission deny both the design and variance requests and that denial resolutions would be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting for formal adoption. J ~ PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES • AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was struck with the significant two story structure of the home. She yuestioneci the height of tl~e home that had already been approved on this property. Planner Walgren responded that the home applied for was at 26 feet and believed that by the time it was approved by the Commission it might have been about 24 feet. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing on this item at 8:10 p.m. Walter Chapman, 620 South Del Monte, .Los Altos, designer representing the owners, provided the Commission with. aciciitional information (graphic prints of the property) and explained the isscres that lead to the variance request. He was aware that the building could be shifted or relocated on the site slightly to avoid the variance to the front property, but doing so would create impacts. The findings for a variance were based on the City of Saratoga's Article 1.570.060. He felt that speci~il circumstances were applicable to this property including size, shape anal topography. Because of the depth of the property, it can be seen how much deeper this property is compared to the other nine parcels located on Continental Circle. It is more than twice the depth of the other homes. Because of that, a setback of. 123 feet is recluirecl as opposed to 53 feet (twice the setback required on this site than is required on the adjacent parcels). He noted that the original homes on Continental Circle were built prior to the adoption of the current ordinance and were at 30- 35 foot setbacks. He understood that the purpose of the 20% setback was to provide a variety in street scape so that all homes were not located up along the road. The home complies with all of tl~e. City's guidelines in that staff was able to make the findings supporting the ciesigri of the structure. The issue was that of the placement of the structure. He pointed out that the 10 foot variance in the front yard has a minimal impact to the neighborhood. If the structure was pushed further out onto the knoll would create a greater impact to the immediate neighbor. He informed the Commission that he has a letter from the neighbor stating his support of tl~e variance because he would not want to see a structure built further. out on that knoll. As far as the issue of the height poles, those poles were 26 feet from. tl~e current grade. He tried to show through the diagram that relocating the structure would be contrary to the goals and objectives of the City which is to keep the buildings integrated into the hills instead of. putting it out onto the knoll, making it more visible from the valley floor. Chairman Asfour yuestioned if. Mr. Chapman was aware of the required setbacks before designing the home. Mr. Chapman responclecl that he was not aware of the change in setback reyuirernents. After reviewing the project, it was decided that pushing the structure further out was contrary to the goals and objectives from City guidelines, but also the client's needs. Moving the home firrther out would be more costly and would require additional grading. He tried to keep the building tucked closer to the hill anti make it conform more to the hillside. Commissioner Abshire questioned whether consideration was given to making the building a single story one? It was his opinion that making it a single story structure would conform to the hillside. Mr. Chapman responded that the two story portion of the home was slightly " ~y `PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES i AUGUST 10, 194 PAGE-8- over 30% of the home. He tried to keep the upper floor down to as close to a third of the mass of. the structure as possible. An arbor was developed across the back of the house which introduced a green belt across the building itself to break up the two story portion of the home. Commissioner Abshire stated that it was an attractive building but that he felt that it would fit better down in the valley flat lands and not on the hillside. Mr. Chapman responded that because of the natural topography of the site, there exists a flat spot and that the home was placed on that flat spot. Chairman Asfour questioned if the home could be physically rotated to minimize encroachment into the setbacks. Mr. Chapman responded that because of the shape of the hill and that if the home was rotated, it would project further off the banks. Once it does so, the building would not comply with the five foot underfloor pin requirement. The home was designed to follow the contours of the main hill and the parking area. Only a small area is to project out onto the ridge, minimizing the under pinning that would be visible or would add to the mass or height of the structure. Commissioner Caldwell questioned staff regarding Mr. Chapman's comments that the height poles were not accurate because of the excavation which is to occur. Planner Walgren responded that it vas his unclerstanciing that .the .he.ig.ht poles did reflect the height of. the building after the excavation occurred. Mr. Chapman stated that it was an error on his part because a 2C foot pole was placed on site and that it was realized afterwards that about 18 inches to 2 feet were to be excavated in order to provide aturn-around. Commissioner Murakami questioned if. the part of the structure which would encroach the setbacks would be the garage area. Mr. Chapman responded that a portion of the garage would encroach into the setback. Chairman Asfour informed Mr. Chapman that staff. was requesting a continuance and that he has a choice to request a vote tonight on the application as submitted. Alternatively, staff was recommending that this item be continued to allow him the opportunity to rework this submittal without requesting a variance. Commissioner Siegfried recom-nended that there be Commission discussion so that the applicant knows what direction the Commission was headed. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Abshire co-nmentecl that at his site visit, he questioned if the lot would be legal. if the lot were smaller. Staff informed hiin that. a scenic easement exists on the property and that the owner has the responsibility of maintaining it. He sees this issue as a technicality in that if tl~e lot was smaller, the request would be legal. He stated that he was inclined to grant tl~e variance. ' PLANNING COMMISS~i MINUTES , AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE - 9 - Chairman Asfour questioned staff regarding the intent of the requirement. .If the easement was enforced and the home moved back on the lot, it would block the views of the neighbors. He did not feel that w~is the intent of the City. He questioned what the intent was. Planner Walgren responclecl that the intent was to provide setbacks relative to the lot's configuration and to provide varied setbacks rather than just straight minimal setbacks. So if you had a deeper lot, it could afford larger setbacks to achieve a greater variation. He stated that staff 5 recommendation. not to support the variance was not an intention to push the house further off. the hill or to obstruct view sheds of. adjacent properties. It appeared that there could be an alternative to tl~e design of the house so that it remains within the pad area and still meet that extra 10 foot setback. Staff concurred with the applicant that it was an unusual. situation. It was an exceptionally deep lot and 123 feet was an exceptionally large setback, inucl~ greater than the 30 foot setbacks that were in place when all the surrounding .homes were approved. It does appear that in this case that setbacks can be met. There does not appear to tie a physical hardship that would .keep this residence from meeting that extra 1.0 foot setback. Iti the home .vas right at the edge of the pad and the home was as compact as possible and the extra 10 feet were pushed off the pad, it would be a case where staff would probably support the variance or something similar to it. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not supportive of granting the variance in this case. However, he understood Commissioner Abshire's comments. This was an unusually sleep ].ot and every other house on that street did not have setbacks anywhere near this size. His problem was that without major design changes, the. house could meet the requirements. He did not want to see the home pushed any further up the hill, aggravating the view shed problem. If it could not. be changed to meet the requirements, he could support the variance. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the size of the lot provides the applicant with other benefits (e.g., square footage of tl~e home). Sloe did not believe that it would be a hardship for the applicant to meet the required setbacks. She has difficulty in granting a variance based on the fact that the. lot is not what they wanted it to be. She also had difficulty in granting a variance based on what the neighbors view might lie. There were specific findil~gs that have to be made to grant a variance. She concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments iii that she does not see the findings required to grant the variance. She stated that the previous applicant was able to design a home within the setback requirements. She shared Commissioner Ahshire's views regarding the bulk of the home. She was not enthusiastic about tl~e design for this lot and was concerned about the height of the home. The previous application considered for this lot was very difficult because of the prominence of the site. It was a prominent site and was exacerbated by the fact that the other homes on Continental Circle blend into look like one structure when you look up into the hillside. :Perhaps taking the home a little further out on the knoll would help alleviate that problem.. Paying more attention to color in this case or something of that nature may mitigate the appearance of one continuance structure. If this item is to be continued, she encouraged the applicant to look at that problem from a design stand point. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was inclined to go along with staffs recommendation. PLANI\TING COMMISS~1 MINUTES AUGUST 10; 19)4 PAGE - 10 - She felt that an alternative design reconsideration could eliminate the need for a variance from setback requirements. Commissioner M~rrakami felt that tl~e applicant has enough flexibility to adjust the home. He clid not like the height of the home Because the lot was a predominate one. He stated his support of staff's' recommendation. Chairman Asfour stated that he was concerned about moving the house out. He could not make the findings to grant the variance. He was also concerned about the height as well. He recommended that the applicant work with staff to mitigate the concerns. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRiED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED f-0 (COMMISSIONER KA.PLAN A.BSENT). Mr. Chapman responded that he had no alternative but to agree to a continuance at this time. He responded to some of the comments expressed by the Commission. He stated that it would be difficult to l:eep the structure from going substantially 20 to 30 feet further out onto the ridge primarily because of the fire truck turn-around. The garage would need to be placed in such a way that the fire truck turn-around were first. Doing so would push the whole structure approximately 20 or 30 feet further out onto the knoll. He felt that the other i~wners in the vicinity had certain privileges in that the percentage of their lot depths were not nearly as great at the time of their construction as is required from this lot. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that revised plans would need to be submitted . no later than August 2(i for tl~e September 14 meeting. If the applicant cannot make that deadline, the application could be continued at the September "14 meeting to a later date. Mr. Chapman stated that it was his belief. that he could meet that deadline Commissioner Caldwell stated that it should be clarified from a legal stand point that it was her understanding of variance findings that the physical circumstances surrounding the property must create undue hardship for the applicant; a finding which the Commission would need to make. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CA.LDWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS UR-94-018 & V-94-010 TO SEPTEMBER 14, 1994. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). 5. DR-94-002 - Kerwin Ranch (Phase II, Lots 9-1G); 13G1G Fruitvale Ave.; request V-94-01.4 - for Design Review approval to construct Phase II of the Kerwin Ranch subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Phase II consists of eight (8) one-story single family residences ranging from 4,245 to 4,825 sq. ft. in size. The request also involves Variance approval to allow the residence on Lot #12 to encroach into its required rear yard setback approximately C ft. and to allow the residence on .Lot #1C to encroach -:~ PLANNING COMMIS~1 MINUTES AUGUST 1.0, 1994 PAGE - 11 - into its recltrireci front yard setback approximately 6 feet. These lots are accessed via an extension and realignment of. Lisa Marie Court, which is an existing cul-de-sac. The lots range from 22,452 to 32,479 sq. ft. and are located within an R-1-20,00() zoning district: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He clarified that there were a total of 15 trees to be removed as part of Phase II development, not the 17 cited. Of these 15 trees, 10 have already been approved for removal due to their location within the perimeter greenbelt or within the extension of. Lisa Marie Court. Also to be removed were some of the pepper trees along Fruitvale Avenue due to their poor health and inappropriateness for the future landscape plans. Oti these 10 trees, replacement trees have been provided for the overall subdivision plan previously approved, five within the building envelop of lot 14. These five trees were anticipated to be removed when the development was approved but have not yet been approved or compensated for. Of these five, two are olive trees which are relatively easy to transplant. The other three trees have a combined valuation of $6,625. Staff recommended that in the landscape requirement of the resolution that the street trees be required to be upgraded in size to equal. the $6,625 valuation as replacement compensation for the trees to be removed. Staff recommended approval of the application, with the denial of the variance since the variance encroachment is relatively minor. Staff felt that it would lie relatively easy to redesign the homes for staff review. If the Commission does adopt the resolutions, there would be no need for this item to return to the Commission. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing on this item at 8:40 p.m. Jim Sisk, De Anza Properties, Sunnyvale, informed the Commission that in working with staff, the request for variance for lot 1.6 would he withdrawn. He requested that the hearing process continue regarding the variance request relative to lot 12. Marty Oakley, Saratoga, designer for the entire subdivision, distributed an alternate design for lot no. 16. If the Commission supports the home alternative, the home would be built as depicted in the alternate design. He also distributed an exhibit for lot no. 12, depicting the rear setback. He informed the Commission that initially when the four homes were designed for the sixteen lot sirbciivision, he tried to create as much of a custom look as possible. Being that the strbclivision was split in half equally with eight lots on one street and eight on the other, four different plans with two different elevations for each plan would be appropriate for each street. In designing the homes, it was taken into account the variation of lot sizes. It is proposed to design four different homes with four different lot sizes, starting with the smaller homes on the smaller lots with the largest home on the largest lots. Lot no. 12 I~appens to be one of the four largest lots in the subdivision. Therefore, construction of the largest home is being requested to be built on said lot. Similar to the previous application that was heard this evening, the setbacks were calculated on a percentage basis. Lot no. 12 happens to be the deepest lot in the subdivision. The bui.l.ding envelop was relatively small based on the actu~.rl square footage of the lot. He felt that the house plotted as it is, meets all the requirements with the exception of one portion ,: ' PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1.994 PAGE - 12 - which extends 16 feet into the rear yard setback. The other portion of. that area is the fire place which would normally be allowed to encroach into a side yard or rear yard setback. From an economical and balance standpoint in streetscape, he preferred to have two D plans so that it is not forced to have an uneven mix of homes. Staff was correct that a plan A or plan C could fit on lot no. 1.2. But if they were to do that, he would either have 3 plan Cs or 3 Plan As in the same cul-cie-sac, not providing a mix and a variety of homes that was hoped to be achieved. Chairman Asfour questioned if plan C could replace Plan D? Mr. Oakley responded that because of the unusual configuration of all of the lots and the varying sizes of the homes, the C plan that would not fit on the lots due to the narrowness and depth of the lot. If a D plan was not plotted, the only other choice would be an A plan or C plan.. He also felt that a B plan could fit, but that there would be a three foot encroachment into the side yard. Chairman Asfour questioned of a slightly smaller D plan could be considered. Mr. Oakley responded that redesign of the D plan would result in a change from the other three D plans. Commissioner Mtrrakami commented that this was a nice subdivision but he felt that the applicant could easily modify this particular pad to accommodate the setback. Mr. Oakley concurred that. a borne co>_clcl be designed that would fit the building envelop, but doing so would require modification to the three other D plans. He commented that instead of redesigning the D plan, if he clicin't .have a choice, he would prefer selecting one of the smaller plans that would fit the site, creating an uneven mix of the homes. Chairman Asfour commented that economics could not be taken into consideration in granting a variance. Mr. Oakley stated that he would compromise to a six foot encroachment. Commissioner Abshire recommended that the house plans be changed from lot 12 to lot 1.6. Mr. Oakley responded that a D plan was originally plotted on lot 16. When it was submitted to staff, staff analyzed the building setbacks on the lot c1i.fferently than he did. Since then, he has adjusted the setbacks to meet staff. s requirement. The original plan D was faced straight onto the street. When it didn't fit, a plan B was plotted with a request for a sia foot encroachment into the front yard. After analyzing it and based on stafps recommendation, he went back to tl~e D plan and tilted it somewhat. It was a better solution than asking for a smaller house on the largest lot. To answer Commissioner Abshire's question, yes you can place a plan D on lot 1.6, but if you can't have a plan D on lot 1.2, we are back to the same scenario where you have five of one plan and two or three of another. Chairman Asfour gtiestionecl if you could place a B plan where the D plan was on lot 12? r . PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES AUGUST 1.0, 1.994 PAGE - "13 - Mr. Oakley responded that yoti could not place a B plan. without asking for a variance. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. Commissioners Caldwell and Siegfried stated their concurrence with the staff report on these applications and that they clid not see a reason to deviate from staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-002, A.PP.ROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION V-94-014, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR .LOT "12, RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOT 16 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THE MOTION CARRIED (i-0 (COMMISSIO.NER KAPLA.N ABSENT) THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:58 P. M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:10 P. M. Chairman Asfour requested that the mover of the last item reconsider the motion so that the resolution stipulates approval of exhibit A as modified by the applicant for lot 16, eliminating the need for a variance. COMMISSIONERS CAI._DWELL/SIEGFRIED, MOVEDTO MODIFY THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO INCLUDE A.PPROVAI_ OF EXI~IBIT A AS MODIFIED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSION'ER KAPLAN A.BSENT). 6. V-94-009 - Irwin; 1.461.2 Big Basin Way, request for Variance approval. to allow two new display window bays that encroach into the required front yard setback to be constructed on the front elevation of an existing btiilcling pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing building is non-conforming in that it is setback 12 ft. 5 in. from the front property .line where 15 ft. is required by the current Zoning Ordinance. The ne~v bays will encroach 4 ft. into this non-conforming setl~~ick. The subject property is located within the CH-2 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff. report on this item Chairman Asfour opened the }~ul~lic hearing on this item at 9:14 p.m. Warren Hyde, representing the Irwin's, agreed to answer questions which the Commission ' ~ PLANNING COM.MISS*i MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE-14- may have. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:15 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 94-009 PER TI-IE STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS MADE IN THE RESOLUTION. TI-IE MOTION CARRIED C-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). 7.. llR-94-035 - Lucas; 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for Design Review V-94-OOG - approval to construct a 1..667 sq. ft. first anti second floor addition to an existing 4,869 sq. ft. two-story residence and Variance approval to allow ti7e maxir77um building height on the addition to be 29 ft. where 2(i ft. is tl7e maxirnun7 permitted pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Cocie. There is also an existing 645 sq. ft. second unit located on the property; tl7e total proposed floor area for the site is 7,181 sq. ft. The subject prol7erty is approximately 4.47 acres ar7c1 is located in an R-].- 40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presel7tecl the staff report on this item Commissioner Caldwell questioned if staff confirn7ecl that t17e Beech tree next to the area of construction was going to be retained. Plar7ner Walgren confirmed that the Beech tree was to remain. Commissioner Caldwell q>.lestioned if the arbor structure in the internal rear yard was to be removed. Planner Walgren responded that he was not sure whether the arbor would be removed. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing on this item at 9:1.9 p.m. Robert Aviles, 79 Hillmann Avenue, Can7pbell, responded that the arbor located along the rear side of the project was to lie .retained. Tl7e variance request vas to allow the applicant to exceed the 26 foot heig}7t 1ir77it. Commissioner Murakami questioned tl7e unusual location of the garage. Mr. Aviles responded that the original location? faced towards Saratoga/Los Gatos Road. However, the second unit required that the garage be rotated to accommodate aturn-around. Maria Duncan, spoke on behalf. of l7er r77otl7er-, Srnilija Maynard, 20201 Seagull., Saratoga. She informed the Commission that her family used to live .next door to Mr. Lucas. She protested the variance request. filer mother, for a period of 10 years, attempted to split a three acre parcel of land ~lnc1 haci appeared t)efore tl7e Pl~tnning COI77I771SSlon and City Council. The subdivision request n7et all the requirements of tl7e City. The last request made also included a design review anti v~lriance .request for a structure that would slightly exceed the height .requirement, similar- to the request l7y Mr. Lucas. Her mother's request ~•. PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINU"I'ES S AUGUST 10, 1~~4 PAGE - 15 - was turned down by the City Council. She was present to make sure that since a similar request was denied on their behalf, she wanted to make sure that the laws and codes of Saratoga were applied equally to all citizens. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:18 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). Commissioner Caldwell questioned if staff. could expand on the testimony received. Planner Walgren responded that he was not familiar with Ms. Duncan's statements on her mother's applications. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not recall anything about a structure when he was previously on the Planning Commission but that he recollected that there was a proposal for a lot split that was before the Commission once, if not twice. If the Lucas' objected to it, he believed that the application. for the lot split was denied on the basis that it would create anon-conforming lot in the sense that it was not quite wide enough. There may have been sufficient acreage, b~rt that the lot was too narrow. He did not recollect anything about a structure nor variance to the height of a structure. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:?5 P.M. TIME MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). Ms. Duncan clarified a point that Commissioner Siegfried made. There were three proposals and Commissioner Siegfr-ieci was correct that the first request was denied because it would create anon-forming lot. However, in the second proposal, her mother was going to deed away a small parcel of land to the Water District. It would have been a conforming lot. The last time s11e appeared before the Planning Commission and the City Council, there was going to be a proposed strttcttrre that was to be included on the plan and the height requirement exceeded that required by code. The request was denied because the Council would not approve the variance from the height requirements. The Council further stated that even though the existing lot would be conforming, she remembers the Mayor of that time stating that she suggested th~it it would not fit with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried questioned if the variance request was that for a new home on the lot. Ms. Duncan responded that her mother requested the lot split so that the property could be split into two lots. A variance from height limitation would have been requested for a new construction, not for an existing structure. Chairman Asfour commented that the difference in the requests was that of an existing structure and the example cited by Ms. Duncan was for new construction. Ms. Duncan stated that she wanted to ensure that. the laws of. Saratoga were applied ~:. ` PLANNING COMIVIISS~1 MINUTES • AUGUST 1.0, 1994 PAGE - 16 - uniformly. She felt that it appears that Mr. Lucas is able to clo things in the City that a lot of other normal citizens were not able to do. She requested that the Commission be fair in an its assessment of this project as well. COMMISSIONERS CA.LDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:28 P.M. Chairman Asfour stated that it vas irrelevant who applied for a variance. He would review the issue as the issue, regardless of. ~vl~o was behind the application. New construction would be required to meet existing zoning requirements. If there exists construction on the property, it was built according to the zoning regulations in effect at that time. Then it becomes a legally non-conforming structure and is looked upon slightly differently. The Commission would need to make findings to grant a variance. He viewed this request and the previous request differently. Commissioner Calcl~vell commented that in .reacting tl~e staff report, she was not inclined to be in favor of. the variance request. But in seeing the structure, she recognized the consideration that staff has verb~ilizeci in the staff. report in a more graphic way. She could see that a variance was appropriate in this case. She stated her appreciation for Ms. Duncan to appear before the Commission. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Caldwell and felt that the variance was a minor one. He stated that in his years on the Commission, this was something that the Commission argued about all the time. That is, do you take .into account that there is a structure on the property and whether or not you might grant some minor variance. He considered this request minor in that sense because it was an exiting house. He concurred with the architect in that if you. don't cio something that reasonably matches the existing pitch of the roof., it would ruin what is an actually beautiful home. Commissioner Abshire felt that in the long run, the applicant would be disappointed with what is proposed. With this addition, the I:itchen would look out at the back end of a garage. The proposed garage would be difficult to get in and out of compared to the one that the applicant's have now. After the initial novelty is worn DLit., he ciid not feel that the gymnasium would be utilized a lot. Commissioner Murakami stated that the only thing lie was looking at was the roof. The existing structure would be higher than the proposed new structure. He stated that he had no problems with the proposal. Chairman Asfour commented that he concurred with the architect that if. the Commission insists on 2(i feet, the end result may be atrocious. He had the same concern expressed by Commissioner Abshire regarding the gar~cge, but he did not feel that it was the Commission's concern. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-94-006. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ICAPLAN ABSENT). ,,.. PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES • AUGUST 10, 1.994 PAGE - 17 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MiJRAKAMI MOVEDTOAPPROVERESOLUTION DR-94-035. THE MOTION CARRIED C-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN ABSENT). Chairman Asfour stated his appreciation for Ms. Duncan's comments but hoped that she understood the difference in both variance requests. 8. DR-94-0:19 - Cashion; 1.2029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,000 sy. ft. office addition onto an existing 10,00() sq. ft. commercial building located at the rear of. the Blue Hills Shopping Center per Section 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 2.4 acres and is located in a Commercial Neighborhood (C-N) zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the requirement of two aclclitional parking spaces were inadvertently left in the staff report. The additional spaces are not necessary based on the evaluation presented. Commissioner Caldwell. stated her appreciation of the fact that the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) looked at this application in terms of where the run off. is to be collected or deposited. She wondered if the Water District also .looked at the application. not on.l.y in terms of Best Management Practices (BMPs) from a design stand point, but also for construction and post construction .BMPs. There are a lot of things that happen around the creek during construction that the Regional Board has ciictateci BMPs to be followed. Her overall concern was that the design, construction and post construction BMPs apply in this case given the pr-oxirnity to the creek. She questioned if there was a way of accommodating this type of request if tl~e Commission was to make a decision tonight? Planner Walgren responded that at this point the only protection measure was the fencing be placed at the perimeter of tl~e proposed parking lot along the areas of proposed construction. But if there are other more specific measures which tl~e Commission has in mind, they could be incltrclecl in the .resolution of approval,. having some regtirements that are being monitored during construction as far as .material storage and equipment cleaning, etc. Commissioner Caldwell felt that it was important for the City to pay close attention because the City has been pressed to be more sensitive to urban run off along the creeks. She felt that it was reasonable to believe that the citizenry are becoming more informed about these issues in general, but also because the Regional Board is interested in having those individuals with discharge permits to pay attention to the .Best Management Practices. She encouraged the Commission to go out of its way to make sure that the all areas are covered and that it is doing the right thing for the immediate environment. She noted that examples of construction BMPs are things such as preventing and controlling erosion, sedimentation. into the creek, preserving a n~it>,rral drainage system and water quality resources during construction, source control, construction site materials during construction, and chemical waste that might be on site. She felt that they were basic requirements that can be accomplished reasonahly easily. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing on this item at 9:40 p.m. ~!- '~ PLANNING COMMISS~l MINUTES • AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE - 18 - Vince Vincent, Dennis Kobsa &. Associates Architects, Mountain View, concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's concern. As far as sensitivity of the creek, he was in full concurrence with that concern and that it would need to be addressed with the contractor during construction. He also helieved that the Santa Clara Flood Control District requires a permit for any activity adjacent to the creek. The Water District would also require a permit application. He stated his concurrence and agreement with staff. s comments and recommendations. Commissioner Mural:ami duestione.d if the use was to be located there for a long time and not require a change in flow of traffic in the parking area. Mr. Vincent responded that his client has a seven year lease agreement for the expansion area. Commissioner Murakami questioned if there was a possibility of c}~ange in rise (e.g., retail use). Mr. Vincent responded that the parking requirement was fairly light for the use and felt that it would be hard to determine future rises. The parking was designed for office use and that change to retail use would require modifications and appearance before the Commission. Tim Shively, 12155 Saratoga Villa Place, addressed tl~e impact of the use on local residents. The staff report to the Planning Commission does not indicate the residential area located behind the site nor is it shown on the map (Saratoga/Villa Place). I-le noted that the politics of Saratoga was to preserve the rural character of Saratoga. He referred to the most recent USGS Map which was based on a 1900 survey and updated iii 1940. He noted the revisions to the map between "1900 and 1.940 represents urban encroachment onto formally rural areas. He was not sure what that map would look like now in the 199Qs but felt that encroachment occurred further. I-Ie requested that the Commission consider how this development might impact the living style or the view of the residents residing behind the development. He requested that the Co~nmiss.ion review traffic impacts (the site is located in a major traffic intersection). He felt that one large bedroom community was going to be seen. from Sunnyvale to Saratoga and that building was increasing and out of control.. Chairman Ast:our questioned ~~~hat he ~~~ould like to see develop on the lot. Mr. Shively responded that he would lil:e to see it remain. as open space landscape. Another alternative would be a parking f~icility. Mr. Shively stated that he resides in the townl~ome located behind the site and represents himself as well as five other neighbors. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if R9 r. Shively has experienced any problems associated with commercial property and what would be his recommendation(s) to mitigate concerns if the project moves for~~~ard. Mr. Shively responded that noise has been a factor after business hours, not so much from this particular area but that the noise generated from the adjacent shopping center was being experienced. The use may .increase the noise level. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if landscaping would mitigate the privacy issue that was raised. Mr. Shively responded that it would help the situation but that he was concerned about some of the recommendations about the trees because the construction would :. PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES AUGUST 1.0, ].994 PAGE - 1.9 - encroach further onto the tree space, damaging the roots of the tree. Commissioner Murakami commented that the city arborist visits and examines property to ensure that if a parking lot is to be installed, that it won't damage the trees. The arborist then submits a report and makes recommendations. Mr. Evan Casi~ion, C11 Santa Cruz, Menlo Park, property owner, stated that he was worried about the oak trees and hired the best individual to ensure the preservation of the trees. He stated that he was sensitive to the residential area anal tried to do everything possible to mitigate the residents concerns, installing several redwood trees to buffer the site. Community Development Director Curtis commented that in looking at the parking study, it was realized that the parking area was under utilized with the current use of. the property. One option m~ty be to reserve an area for future parking when required, delaying improvements of. paving and restricting development. If trees are to be installed, that they be located such that a fttttire parking .lay ottt can be constructed without disturbance of the trees. (Delaying improvement of the parking lot until such time that a parking study is completed after a certain period of time or when a problem in parking exists.) Commissioner Siegfried agreed t.l~at parking be reserved along the fence line with the current deletion of. 1.C,-20 parking spaces ~vitli the understanding that if parking was needed, it could be obtained at a later date. 1VIr. Shively clarified that reservation of the parking area was to occur along the existing masonry fence and to be installed as needed. Chairman Asfour clarified that staff would include ~t trigger .mechanism in the resolution something to the effect that if p~trkitig becomes a certain percentage over utilized, installation of additional parking spaces would be required. Commissioner Caldwell coin~nentecl that the existing residents have a good neighbor relationship with the existing tenant. She clarified that the neighbors were concern with future tenants that would use the site and their parking needs. Commissioner Abshi-•e questioned how nlilny offices were being added? Community Development Director Curtis responded that x,000 square feet of floor area is being proposed with a parking requirement of 25 parking spaces (1. parking space/200 square feet). Staff did not anticil~~tte that all parking spaces were to be tiled given that it was an addition to an existing office complex. Chairman Asfour recom-nencleci approval of. tiie design review allowing staff to work with the applicant regarding the number of parking spaces to be regtiireci. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that a condition be added to the resolution to read: "The number of parking spaces to be paved and the number reserved std '~ PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINt1TES • AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE-20- for future improvement shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director." He recommenclecl that no parking he allowed on the creek frontage at this time. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 1.0:00 P.M. THE M01'ION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER KAPLAN A.BSENT). Commissioner Caldwell commented that there was some enthusiasm for inclusion in the resolution a provision regarding the Best Management Practices. She questioned if a condition could be added that states that the construction and post construction phases conform to the requirements of the BMP. She understood that in terms of how the city ensures that the BMP requirements are. met was an administrative anti logistical problem. City Attorney Riback responded that the recommended condition was consistent with City policy. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-01.9, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: - THE PROJECT TO CONFORM TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND POST CONSTRUCTION BMPs REQUIRED BY THE REGIONAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT - STAFF TO WORK OUT TI-IE DETAILS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE BMPs. STAFF WILL REVIEW TI-IE PARK.ING AND LANDSCAPING PROPOSALS FOR THIS PROJECT. STAFF TO APPROVE MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO ACCOMMODATE AN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THE ADJACENT RESIDENCES AND ALONG THE CREEK, RESERVING THE OPTION THAT THE CITY REQUIRE AT ANY PORTION OF THAT LANDSCAPE AREA BE MODIFIED TO SUPPLY ADDITIONAL PARKING IF PARKING STUDIES INDICATE THAT IS NECESSARY. AN AGREEMENT TO BE RECORDED THAT STIPULATES THAT THF_ APPLICANT ACCEPTS THE REQUIREMENT. Commissioner Caldwell clarified that the intent to the landscaping is to provide screening and privacy to the residents behind this comrnerc.ial property. THE MOTION CARRIED (i-0 (COMMI.SS:IONER .KAPLA.N A.BSENT). MINUTES BY CONSENSUS, THF_ COMMISSION DEFERRED APPROVAL OF THE JULY 27, 1994 MINUTES 'I'O ALLOW "THE INCORPORATION OF THE .FOLLOWING .; ~. ~ PLANNING COM:MISS~I MINUTES AUGUST 7.0, 1.994 PAGE-21- AMENDMENTS: ................................. - Page 2, last paragraph, replace uEe-i~g with ~xr~cerbating. - Page 5, paragraph 1, amenclecl to read: "Regional Water Quality Control Board and developed by the staff as well as the Santa Clara Valley Water District Staff. These were best management practices for `the design phase €~ new construction...She wondered if staff sees any particular problems with a condition that would require at least in tf~e driveway of parcel number 2 of pervious coverage...." - Page 7, last paragraph, aine-lcled to read: "Commissioner Caldwell suggested that Mr. Kahoom share his overheads: so that everyone is able to see them and comment on them. - Page 9, paragraph 2, line 15, change word from c~e~ to ~ercel3Eior>. - Page 10, paragraph 2, line 9, amenclecl to read: "...The proposed structures are unprecedented...." - Page 13, paragraph ? amended to read: "...She explained that at one time, 5 e opened her shade to look out into her view shed and saw something that...Several years later, you don't see the house because the trees ''^~~° *^'-°~ ^^r° ~~~ ~* Piave <. filled-in. ~Tl~c vie~~• from '11r. ~'1~c-olsev`s h~.~ck ~•ard hips Co look different ttnd it has to look dramatic because fit has to lool: different and it has to look dramatic because it is a change from nothing to something...." Commissioner Caldwell. noted that for tl~e Kerwin Ranch project, that the Commission elisures that the drip irrigation. is titil.izecl under tl~e trees, not sprinkler types. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that at this time, street trees were to 6e installed with drip irrigation ant that staff hits not received frill site landscape plans. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis commented on the following: He reminded the Commission that the August 27 meeting has been canceled. The next Commission meeting wou.lcl be the work session scheduled for September 6. - In the first week of. Septeil~ber, stiff was trying to schedule a joint meeting scheduled with the Los Gatos Town Council/Planning Commission and Saratoga's City Council/Planning Commission anti probably Monte Sere.no's City Council/Pla.nning Commission to have a presentation made by the Santa Clara County Planning Department on the Santa Clara County General Plan. The Planning Director for the Town. of Los Gatos has indicated that September S, 9, "10 and 11. were good dates for them. I-le recommended that the Commission tentatively mark these dates on its _ :w PLANNING COMMISS~i MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1994 PAGE - 22 - calendar. September ~ may be an option but would necessitate canceling the Commission workshop. The meeting may be held in Los Gatos because their Council Chambers is better setup for use of displays. Commissioner Caldwell supported the September C date because she plans to be out of town on the other dates. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there were two items scheduled for the September 14 meeting th~lt were continued from the July 27 meeting and recommended that the new Commissioners review the July 27 meeting minutes to familiarize themselves with the items to be discussed (R & G Development on Douglass Lane). COMMISSION I'I'Ei11S Commissioner Caldwell commented that she had a copy of the new Brown Act and requested that staff. obtain copies for the Commission.. 1. SD-94-001; Bean, 1.4024 Saratoga Ave. Review of proposed fencing details, landscape plan and tree transplanting/replacement plan (continued to September 14, 1994). COA~IMUNiCATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 7/20/94 and 7/20/94 Oral City Cotmcil An,IOURI~'MENT - "There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 10:1.5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., September (i, 1994, Senior Adult Day Center, 19055 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK ~~~rco~ io~a.s~ ti