Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-1994 Planning Commission Minutes1 .~. :;,`_; ~"~~ ~1NNING COMMISSION A~INUT~ • ~ SEPTEMBER ]4, 1994 City Council Chambers, ].3777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice-chairman Murakami. Rol] Call Present: Abshire, Murakami,. Patrick, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Asfour, Caldwell, Kaplan City Attorney Kit Faubion was present. PI.EI)GE OF AI,I..EGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. MINUTES -AUGUST 1.0, 1.994 BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 1.0, 1.994 MINUTES DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF THREE OF THE COMMISSIONERS. REPORT OI' POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Cocle ~49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 9, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there were three corrections as follows: Agenda Item 5, page 1.0?, condition 9a amended per the language provided by the Fire District clistribirted this evening pertaining to the cost to install a fire hydrant within the common turn-around (each of the four property owners to contribute 25% to the cost for installation of said hydrant). - Agenda Item 6, condition 9a to be amended per the Fire District's recommendation as stated above. - Agenda Item 8, page 14g, condition 7 should be amended to read: "No structure shall he permitted within any easement. All other restrictions set forth in the open space and landscape maintenance agreement shall remain in full force in effect." The change allows for tiie deletion of the fencing since the open space agreement does allow certain types of fencing within the open space agreement. '~ PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 2 - CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-94-018 - Nigam; 21451 Continental Circle, request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,248 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is a 3.06 acre vacant parcel located' within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. to 10/12/94 at the request of the applicant; the application expires 1/20/95). ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED AGENDA ITEM 1 TO OCTOBER 12, 1994. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-94-024 - .Roberts, 14350 Douglass Ln. (Parcel 1), request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single-family home and construct a new 5,638 sq. ft. two-story residence in its place pursuant to Article 15- 45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is 1.25 net acres in size and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/27/94 at direction of Planning Commission). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on both agenda items 2 and 3. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the extensive .minutes of the previous meeting were included in the packet and reviewed by the new Commissioriers. Vice-Chairman Murakami Qpened the public hearing on both agenda items 2 and 3 at 7:41 p.m. Mark Roberts, 13690 Fortuna Court, Saratoga, applicant, commented that he felt that the concerns of the Commission and neighbors have been addressed (i.e., lot layout and landscape design). He also addressed the concerns .relating to lot #2 and its relationship to the open space easement. Glen Cahoon, G&G Builders, 1585 The Alameda, San Jose, architect, stated that the homes were designed to step down the hill with the contours of the natural grade as best as possible. He showed the footprint and' property layout to better illustrate how the foot prints and the homes relate to the neighborhood. He described the style of the homes in the surrounding area (Durham Court). He stated that extensive screening exists on Mr. Tang's property and lot 6. The homes have been setback at least 65 feet from any adjacent homes. The existing homes average approximately 3,000 square feet. A tremendous amount of land is associated with the two parcels under discussion. The homes proposed are larger than those in the neighborhood, but they were well under the floor area ratios as well as height and setback (well antler percentages of coverage). The elevations for the homes ~~ ~ PLANNING COMM(SS~1 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, .l~)4 PAGE - 3 - indicate deep overhangs (2.5 feet) which adds a large shadow, creating a very long horizontal line. In addition to that, some of the horizontal lines are broken up with stucco channel. The two story homes are to be limited to about a third of the overall footprint of the entire building. The Dome was not a stacked, two story residence. He informed the Commission that Parcel 2 ~voiild have the same architectural style and would be compatible with that of the neighborhood. He presented slides that illustrate that the existing landscaping and trees assist in screening the sites from adjacent parcels (Tang, Lohr and Woolsey homes). He felt that the following concerns have been addressed: modulation along the rear of parcel 1 has occurred; implementing twice the required amount of tree replacement (required to install 8, 24-inch boxed trees, proposes to install 16, 24-inch boxed trees), trees to be modulated and not stacked along the property line, and that the riparian easement would remain undisturbed. John Teter, ].9931 Durham Court, spoke in opposition to the development because of the size, bulk and incompatibility with the neighborhood. He requested that the size of the homes be restricted to that of the average home in the neighborhood (i.e., approximately 3,500 square feet). . Bob Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, agreed that a developer has a right to develop land. He felt that the issue was whether the homes meet the City's design standards. He submitted a petition in opposition to the proposed homes from the Douglass Lane/Durham Court residents. He felt that design review requires that proposed homes be compatible to that of existing homes in terms of height and bulk. He yuestionecl how a 5,500 square foot structure would not appear bulky? The existing homes i.n the neighborhood averaged between 2,700 to 3,500 square feet in size. He felt that the massive size of the structure and the expanse in walls ~voulci be visible to the acljaeent residents. He felt that the homes proposed were designed to the maximum allowed. He stated that Mr. Roberts, at no time, attempted to meet with the neighbors to address the concerns which they may have. Jeanne Johnston, ].4350 Douglass Lane, concurred with the comments expressed by Mr. Woolsey. Her comments were .relevant to both parcels because she did not see a difference between the two homes and she felt that both homes were oversized. She conceded that as they were two lots of record, two homes would eventually be built on them. However, these homes appear to be ugly, l~ull:y, rind cio not fit with the character of the existing neighborhood. She did not understand why Mr. Roberts proposes these homes knowing that the adjacent residents oppose their design. Also, Mr. Roberts has not met with the neighbors to address their concerns. She believed that the homes were being built on speculation. and she did not feel that it was fair to the neighbors. She requested that the Commission allow fi~rther meetings. with the developer. Barbara Lulu 14190 Douglass Lane, stated that she did not object to the lots having homes built. She stated that she clid object to the overall size of the homes on parcel 1. and 2. She understood that the size of the homes were within. the city's regulations. She did not feel that homes averaging 5,500 square feet fit in the neighborhood. She did not want the neighborhood to turn into the patterns that Cupertino has fallen into whereby large homes are built to the maximum allowed. Sloe --equestecl that the hones to be built, be required 'PLANNING COMMI 4~ MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1.99 PAGE - 4 - to be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood in regards to size. Dr. Robert Lohr, 14300 Douglass Lane, stated his opposition to the oversized edifice homes proposed because they were too large and do not fit with the neighborhood. He informed the Commission that the baclyard contained a neglected orchard. The existing trees that help screen the development from his property would be removed. He felt that it was inconceivable that the compatibility of the neighborhood would be allowed to be disrupted in this fashion. He concurred with the previous comments expressed. He welcomes new neighbors, but did not feel that the size of the homes fit nor enhance the neighborhood as far as aesthetics are concerned. Annett Woolsey, 1992 Durham Larne, commented that she provided the Commission with a letter listing a number of consideration in architectural ideas to soften the homes. She addressed the landscaping proposed to soften tl~e bulk of the home. She felt that the preliminary landscaping plans lacked important details such as the type of landscaping to be installed. The location of the trees needed to be carefully planned and designed so that the view of the hillside are not obstructed. The developer is proposing to install a number of redwood trees which would grow tall quickly. She requested that it be stipulated that a maximum height fc~r the trees be designated by use of substitute trees so that her view could be preserved. The landscape plans clo not indicate the location of other accessory items (i.e., pool, pool houses). She stated her concern with the impact that these structures would have on the immediate neighbors, both noise and visual impacts. The homes are proposed to be built to the maximum sc}uare .footage. If future owners want to build a pool house, she questioned if a variance would be required to add square footage. She did not want to have a future building intrude any firrther to the privacy of the immediate neighbors. She requested the opportunity to allow the neighbors to meet with the developer and the Commission in a work study session to discuss the issues of compatibility and privacy. Gary Pastre, 14230 Douglass Lane, concurred with Ms. Woolsey's comments regarding the landscape planting. He stated that he filed a letter earlier outlining his general concerns anal would expand on them this evening. He understands property rights but opposed this development. He felt that those who lived in the community would have a greater stake than the new property owners. He was saclclened when he read in the newspaper that the Julia Morgan Cottage was going to be bull dozed with construction, destroying a Saratoga heritage. He addressed the environmental issues associated with site development. He informed the Commission that he was a volunteer for the Santa Clara Creek Coalition and that Wild Cat Creek was one of the few creeks in the area t}~at runs year round. The creek has been reviewed by the Creek Coalition and others and has been found to contain native fish species. The creek has been cleterrnined to have a high habitat potential for the red legged frog which will be pl~rcecl in an enciangerecl species list. Both the State Department of Fish Game and local organizations are very interested in habitats like this one. He was engaged and looking for some proposal to protect this .habitat. He recommended that the language of the Riparian Easement be strengthened in the months to come to add protection to both the native plants and ar~.imals that are in this areas. He expressed concern with the impact. of runoff. containing masonry washings, toxic sprays, and lawn fertilizers to the creek and habitat. He stated his opposition to the development on the PLANNING COMMIS' MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 194 PAGE-S- basis of its environmental impact. He questioned if an Environmental Impact Report was filed for the development that he could review. If the homes are to be approved, he encouraged that a meticulous management of the construction and planting be those that do not require toxic sprays, fertilizers, and/or extensive watering. He expressed concern regarding the existing oak trees with construction traffic and recommended constant vigilance with this project. Shanta Loomer, 1.))74 Durham Court, stated that she has resided at this location for 17 years. Her home was approximately 3,1.00 square feet. She stated her opposition to the bulk and incompatibility of the structure with those in the neighborhood. She stated her disagreement with Mr. Roberts' comments that the existing trees between her home and that of the Tangs would conceal the new homes. She also felt that the bulk of the home would depreciate the val~ie of. her home in t1~e future. Sloe requested that the Commission reconsider the size of the homes. Kathleen Amezcua, 1411.0 Shadow Oaks Way, stated her concurrence with the comments expressed by the neighbors regarding the design problems. She spoke to one comment that was made at the last meeting dealing with this issue. It was commented that some of the people who spoke were not directly affected by the construction of these homes. She felt that it was visually one neighborhood and anything that would happen. at the end of Douglass Lane would have an i-npact on her property as well. If massive, bulky, mansion- like homes were approved, they would creep down Douglass Lane anal would affect her directly. She believed that there was a law suit against the city due to its negligence in protecting the creek. Sloe recommended that development along the creek be reviewed. The example of dirt being piled up against the oak tree was a good example of how the city needs to be vigilant to assure that stipulations are adhered to. Mr. Roberts responded to comments raised by the neighbors. He stated that he was not here as a speculator and has lived in Saratoga for 1C years. He felt that he has met all the conditions and requirements of tentative map approval as well as city ordinances. He tried to minimize the impact that the homes would have on the land and to the neighbors. The property was well screened by topography or trees for most of the surrounding residents with the exception of a few. He clid not feel that the Shadow Lane residents would be affected by the view shed or the actual. construction of the homes. The .homes to be built are to be located on a private street. The homes were designed to step down the slope. Extensive research was eoncl~icteci and it vas cleterminecl that the existing home was not the Julia Morgan. home. The existing home was not structurally sound enough to be maintained. He felt that he did the best that he could to address the concerns of tl~e immediate neighbors such as the Woolseys and Tangs. He addressed their concerns by landscaping and modulation of the home. He stated that the neighbors want screening but they don't want the screening to block their view. The homes located nearby on the half acre lots have 15- 22% lot coverage. He sent oiit letters to the neighbors prior to the first meeting asking to meet with the neighbors to show them the plans and informed the Commission that not one of the speakers tonight showed up to tl~e meeting. He sent a letter to Mr. Tang and met with Mrs. Tang to inform them that if. they h~icl any questions or problems, to contact him so that they could meet. They did not contact him. He also felt that he has been very PLANNING COMMIS~1 MINUTES • SEPTEMBER 14, 1~~4 PAGE-6- sensitive to the protection of tl~e creek. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried questioned what measures have been undertaken during construction to ensure that there is no run-off. or construction near the creek similar to the discussion on the commercial property located on Prospect Road. Planner Walgren responded that the concerns on the commercial property were related more to construction activity such as hosing off. of the equipment. A condition could be added to monitor this project in the same manner. Ike informed tl~e Commission that the City was in the process of training its inspectors to monitor and prevent construction equipment from being hosed down preventing drainage into the creek system. He informed the new Commissioners and the public that a 60 foot open space easement was recorded cooperatively with the applicant in order to perpetually preserve the creek (trot required by code for a lot split of this type). The open space easement would not allow development at any time in the future within said easement. The zoning district would generally allow up to 50-60% of lot coverage. Staff felt that the development of the site has been reviewed carefully from an environmental and creek protection stand point. Com.mi.ssion.er Siegfried expressed concern with the location of the trees along the Woolsey property line as depicted on the landscaping plans. He questioned if staff examined the landscape plans to determine if the location of the trees were appropriate or do the plans warrant further review to determine if. the trees would dominate the property as they grow. Planner Walgren responded that staff. leas hacl the opportunity to review the landscape plans. The landscape plans were a result of. the previous public hearing with the intent to provide as much screening as possible. PIe has spoken with the Woolsey's and discussed was an alternative of req>.riring tree species that do not grow quite as tall as redwoods, that could be accommodated. Relocation of trees could also be accommodated to preserve views. Commissioner Absltire stated that he came prepared to the meeting tonight to accept staff's recommendation and approve the proposal. However, he stated that he was overwhelmed by the response of the neighbors and appreciated their concerns. He stated that he was less inclined to approve the application and recommenclecl that a study session be held with the developer to determine if consensus could be reached with the neighbors and the contractor. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that the neighbors have requested tree plantings to screen their view. But on the other hand, the neighbors do not want their views blocked nor shadows cast over their yards. She also expressed concerned with the comments expressed regarding the bulky appearance of the homes. She stated that she was aware that four or five homes could be built on the site that would add to the bulk, traffic and noise concerns. She was not sure if a consensus could be reached between the neighbors and the developer. At her site visit, it appeared that from the Woolsey's backyard, the homes could be seen but that the trees could soften the homes and still provide a view of the hills. She stated that she could support the request with the stipulation that construction management 'PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES • ~' SEPTEMBER 14, 1~~4 PAGE-7- guides be followed to protect the hillside and creek. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he was inclined to move forward with the resolution of approval. He understood the neighbors' concern and understood how neighborhoods changed. However, this project was somewhat unique in that the homes sit at the end of the cul-de-sac. Ike felt that the lot coverage was minimized, the height was four feet under the height limitations, the homes were stepped down the hill, that they met design review requirements, and provide for a riparian corridor. He recommended that a condition be added to require that staff further examine the landscaping to ensure that the placement and height of the trees make the most sense from both the short term and long term visibility. He did not feel that anything would be accomplished in a study session that staff has not already considered. He stated that he,would support both agenda items with the changes in conditions stated and t}~e assurance that the creek is protected from run-off and construction activity. Commissioner Murakami stated that he has had more time to analyze these projects since the last meeting. Regarding the issue of incompatibility to the neighborhood, he believed that this was a transitional neighborhood. He understood the concerns of the residents, especially the residents directly to the north of the proposed project. He understood that the residents .have lived there for many years and have enjoyed an unobstructed view. Some of Commissioners have correctly pointed out the fact that a meeting would not help the developer nor the adjacent residents to resolve the problems. The City allows 1.5 acre size lots and he could not find a legal. or logical basis to deny these applications. Screening of the project with twice the amount of trees initially recommended by the arborist should help to screen the homes. The homes were setback far enough from the riclgeline trees to mitigate the view. He was satisfied that the CO foot setback protected the riparian corridor of the creek. He agreed with leis fellow Commissioners that tl~e trees should be modified from the types that Have been selected by the developer. Community Development Director Curtis responded to the question raised by Mr. Pastre regarding the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for these applications. He stated that the construction of a single family residence which involves less than four single family homes were exempt fro~.n. the requirements of. the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore no environmental review was required. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-~4-024 WITH THE ADDI~'ION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT THE LOCATION AND THE HEIGHT OF THE TREES SHALL BE REVIEWED BY STAFF WITH THE INTENT TO PROVIDE FOR SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM SCREENING WITHOUT AFFECTING THE .LINE OF SIGHT OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-1 AS FOLLOWS: MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL, KAPLAN. 3. DR-94-025 - Roberts; :143(0 Douglass Ln. (Parcel 2), request for Design Review ~~ ~ PLANNING COMMIS] MINUTES ' SEPTEMBER 1.4, 1994 PAGE-8- ~ipproval to construct a new 5,434 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.5 net acre parcel pursuant to Article 15-45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/27/94 at direction of Planning Commission). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-025 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT THE LOCATION A.ND THE HEIGHT OF THE TREE SHALL BE REVIEWED BY STAFF WITH THE INTENT TO .PROVIDE FOR SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM SCREENING WITHOUT OVER AFFECTING THE LINE OF SIGHT OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CA.LDWELL, KAPLAN. 4. PD-94-002 - Greenbrier Homes; 13:150 Saratoga Ave., .request for Planned Development-Final Plan approval to construct 94 single-family cletaehecl residences at the 24 acre torrner Paul Masson Winery site. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Saratoga Ave. and .Route 8~ and is zoned Multiple Use-Planned Development (MU-PD). An Environmental Initial St>_rciy, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared. Based upon review of the Initial St>.rdy, staff will recommend adoption of a "Negative Declaration." for this project. Pursuant to Section 21091 of CEQA, an extended public review period is req>_rired for tl~e Negative Declaration. Therefore, the project will be presented to the Planning Commission, public testimony will be received and the application will. be continued to a subsequent public herring elate for fin~rl consideration (staff. will be recommending the item be continued to the September 28, 1994 public hearing). Vice-chairman Murakami informed the public that no decision would be made tonight on this item. The extended review period for the negative declaration for the project has not been concluded. Therefore, public testimony would be taken from both the Commission and the public. Commissioner Siegfried commented that at his request, he met with two representatives from Greenbrier Homes to receive back history on the project. Commissioner Abshire stated for tl~e record that lie also met with representatives with Greenbrier .homes. Commissioner P~rtrick commented that she had been contacted by Greenbrier representatives and was provided with an informational packet. PLANNING COMMIS~i MINU"CES ' SEPTEMBER 14, 1. X94 PAGE - 9 - Vice-chairman Murakami indicated that he also had the opportunity to converse with representatives from Greenbriar. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that staff finds that the project, at this point, is consistent with the MU-PD zoning ordinance standards, the Paul Masson Specific Plan adopted for the property, and with the City Council conceptual plan approved earlier this year. Based on that, if no new information is presented this evening that would affect staffs environmental deter-nination, staff recommended continuation of the public hearing to the September 28 meeting for final approval and adoption of the environmental Negative Declaration.. Commissioner Siegfried questioned the maximum allowable size for a home in an R-1. 10,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren responclecl that based on a 10,000 square foot lot, a 3,200 square foot would be the maximum size allowed, including garage and accessory structures. Commissioner Siegfried questioned if the maximum size allowed would be reduced if the lots were 7,00 square feet. Planner Walgren responded that the size would be reduced on a sliding scale. Vice-chairman Murakami questioned the average square foot .maximum that would be proposed under the conceptual plan. approved by the Council. Planner Walgren responded that a condition of City Council conceptual plan approval resolution stipulated that the average home size .not exceed 3,()66 square feet, excluding the garage area. He stated that he did not have the percentage number information in the packet that was submitted to staff.. He understood that if one took an average of the ~4 homes based on the distribution presented elsewhere, it would likely exceed the 3,066 square feet. Vice-chairman Murakami commented chat he had a prepared a rough calculation of 3,103 square foot average. Commissioner Siegfried commented that at the site visit, he noticed that most, if not all of the trees along the back of the property which shield it from the residents on Montrose were Monterey Pine trees. He questioned the life expectancy of those trees. Planner Walgren responded that he was not sure about tl~e life expectancy of the Monterey Pine trees, but that in general, Monterey Piffles of that ~ige cio not receive a high value from. the city arborist based on the fact that they are not well suited for the dry climate of the valley floor area. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the trees raise the question as to what type of landscaping cal be installed, especially if. it is not known what the life expectancy of the Monterey Pines would be. Vice-Chairman Murakami opened the public gearing on this item at 8:55 p.m. Carol Meyer, Greenbriar Homes, informed the Commission that the plans before the Commission were ones that were consistent with the conceptual plans approved in April by the City Council. Since April, she has ~vorkecl with planning, public works, the fire district and school district. She h<as reviewed the conditions of. approval and agrees with the majority of the items. She felt that most of the conditions could be worked out with staff ' PLANNING COMM1SS~i MINUTES • SEPTEMBER 14, 1.9)4 PAGE - 10 - during the following weel:s. She thanked staff for their assistance with this project as well as the adjacent neighbors for their input and support. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City Engineer was present to answer any questions which it might have. Paul Latierre, Landscape Planner and Architect, presented the Commission and public with an overview of the proposal addressed last April. Ninety-four homes were proposed with 4.8 acres of open space. .lie addressed the difference between the City approved specific plan and that of the conceptual and final plan. He reviewed the transitional design of the project (project surrounded by townhomes, commercial space, office and lower density homes and I-85). The site pl~rn concept proposed detached homes with continuous open space within the interior part which is located in front of the majority of the homes. The remainder open space was spread throughout the site in such a way that greatly benefitted the project and integrated the concept of a MU-PD zoning district. The redwoods located in the main entrance are to remain and the ones that have succumbed would be removed. There were two different types of open space proposed: lineal (frontage of the homes) and park space. The idea of the plan was to provide a lush feeling of environment by the use of significant plant material. The front landscaping is to be installed as part of this development with the rear landscaping to be responsibility of. the homeowner. Three foot fencing is proposed in front of the homes to be integrated with the landscaping so that the open space zone goes from house to house. The design of. the project has not been utilized anywhere else before. Tlie idea for tl~e project carne from the specific plan, zoning and from the idea of producing single f~rmily homes for this kind of environment. The park space that is proposed adjacent to the freeway wotrlcl provide a buffer required in the specific plan. Tot lots, picnic areas and a par co>rrrse station are proposed. Heavy screen plantings of redwood, oaks and other species are to be installed to screen the homes from the freeway as well as the existing sound wall. A pedestrian connection is proposed between lots 12 and 1.3 that would allow individuals to walk to commercial areas and not be compelled to drive their cars. The concept plan included minor modifications to the MU-PD. The modifications would provide less rear setbacks from street line right-of-way (provides 40 feet to the right-of-way line instead of 50 feet). The rationale for setback reduction was to maximize the benefit of. the open space of the site. He felt that providing more distance where there is already going to a be soundwall had no visual benefit to the community and would tale away from the open space that is provided internally to the site. He requested that condition 3.cl.ii Ise deleted because he felt that the project setback the homes to protect the neighbors. The other item he requested that the Commission consider was the requirement by staff. to move back the soundwall 25 feet for lot 1.3. A 15 foot setback is proposed and he has increased the setback by five feet from the conceptual plan and felt that the distance was sufficient for that area. He ciid not want to push the soundwall back further because he felt that it would negatively affect the adjacent lot. James Yee, Steinberg Architects, project manager, addressed the architect use of the project, (3 floor plans with 9 elevations are proposed to create a variety with multitude of color schemes and stones). Overall, a custom tool: would be achieved with Monterey style homes proposed. PLANNING COMMISS~r MINU"CES • - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Siegfried gcrestionecl if. other than reversing the plans, were there any changes to the rear elevation. Mr. Yee responded that the rear elevations of the home would basically look the same other than it might be reversed and the use of different colors. Vice-chairman Murakami stated that according to what he received in the mail, he prepared some rough calculations of square footage that did not work out for him. Ms. Meyer clarified that by the Wert meeting, calculations would be submitted that were accurate and satisfy the Commission's concern. Alma Chaney, 18859 Afton Avenue, stated that she has followed the plans for the Paul Masson site as a child. She has reviewed the Greenbriar plans and found that it meets the needs of the neighborhood and the City. She requested that the Commission accept the Greenbriar Homes Company final plan which meets the guidelines of the conceptual. plan so that ground breaking could occur prior to her leaving for college. Gary Lang, 1.3172 Montrose Street, inforrnecl the Comrnission that he also has followed the activities of the Paul Masson property. 1,he City started a process which would allow perspective developers to know the bounds of. the allowed options for the development of this site. The neighbors were asked by the City to participate in the process known as the "Site Specific Plan". It alerted developers to the constraints to the site before ever getting involved in a lengthy anal costly planning activities with the possibility of. having those plans disallowed by the City because they clid not conform to the requirements. This process has brought together the neighborhood and the City in consensus about the needs for safety, traffic congestion and flow and the allowable uses for the site. The respondence to the questionnaire sent out to the neighbors supported single family homes for all the site. To avoid congestion in the neighborhood, Afton Avenue was to remain as a closed street. The Greenbriar representatives with whom the neighbors have worked with have been concerned to meet the needs of. the neighbors, tl~e site specific plan as well as the City's General Plan. The concept plan passed by the City Council a few months ago was the result of multiple iterations of work with neighbors, staff, Planning Co.mm.ission and City Council. The conceptual plan was felt to be a reasonable tradeoff of public open space overall site layout, innovative ideas such as the linear park and first class home designs integrated with thoughtful landscaping. Because of these features and the willingness of Greenbriar to work with all concerns, it was easy for him to stand before the Commission on. March 8 and support that plan. As a neighborhood of predominantly owner-occupied homes, they are much aware of the details that the plans set forth. He looks forward to the changes which are well designed. Tl~e suhmittal of a final plan for approval constitutes a significant investment by Greenbriar under what one might think a reasonable assumption that the site specific plan guidelines ~rnd concept plan approved by the City Council on April 20 would allow them to go forward with the highest expectation of obtaining approval. It seemed ridiculous to the homeowners that the fundamentals of the concept plan would be reopened at this stage of. the process when some staff members, Council members, and Commissioners have come and gone. The neighbors feel that the details of. the final plan need to be worked on, not the fundamentals. The neighbors support this plan because it represents a good use of the property. 'PLANNING COlVIMISS~1 MINUTES i - SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 12 - Deborah Lang, 1.317? MontRose Street, urged the new Commissioners to take the time to review the entire history of the events in chronological order. Work study sessions were conducted along with public hearings to get an idea of what the main concerns and goals would be. She felt that as a responsible citizen, that it was her responsibility to pay attention to the issues and to get involved as necessary. The Afton Avenue closure became her top priority. Other concerns incluclecl appropriate development behind the homes along Montrose Street, traffic and pollution impacts for the greater Saratoga area. Community Development Director Curtis and city staff have worked hard in the beginning stage of the specific plan process to incorporate these issues into what would become the adopted Specific Plan for the Paul Masson property. Greenbriar entered the picture at this stage of the process. With the specific plan in place and neighbors concerns identified, Greenbriar proceeded to develop a plan that would comply with both the guidelines and rules of the Specific Plan. Greenbriar also sl~o~ved care anti concern .for the adjoining neighborhood by adhering to their priorities of the Afton closure and construction of single family homes. She stated her support for the Greenbriar proposal. She informed the Commission that petitions have been signed by resiciel~ts supporting the proposed development. Judy Homen, 13159 Montrose Street, self-employed landscape gardener, examined every angle of the design and fought to retain tl~e Monterey Pine trees. She stated that one needed to wait five to six years to allow the l~inclscaping to mature. She requested that the overall project be reviewed and that it not be nit picked and requested that positive action be given as the proposal has been followed for several years. Martin Chaney, 1.8859 Afton Avenue, stated that he has followed the development plans for this property since the time of development proposal by the Dividend Corporation. He responded to the survey that was concluctecl as part of the development of the site specific plan and has attended hearings anal Council meetings on that plan. He also attended and spoke at Planning Commission and Council meetings which Greenbriar's conceptual development plan was approved. Since the first review of the Greenbriar proposal, he and his neighbors have strongly stipporteci their development plan because it is the only plan that he has seen or heard of that preserves the character of the neighborhood. It keeps the access to Afton Avenue closed except for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access which was one of the most important things in tl~e site specific plan.. The plan incorporates large setbacks along Montrose and stays within zoning height limitations to help preserve the views of the neighborhood. He stated that during this process, he was truly pleased that Greenbriar went out of their way to set tip informational meetings for the neighborhood. Throughout this process, Greenbriar has been .responsive to the neighbors concerns and request. He requested that the Commission support and expedite the approval of the plan so construction can begin and be conclticled as quickly as possible. He thanked the new Commissioners for taking the time to meet with Greenbriar to review the plan anal the history of the site. He invited the Commission to meet with the neighbors if there were any other issues of concer-~. Mary Gardener, 2046() Forrest Hills Drive, Stiperintenclent of School, addressed school issues regarding this development. She stated that this was an opportunity to raise the issue 'PLANNING COM M IS~i MINUTES • " SEPTEMBER 1.4, 1994 PAGE - 1.3 - of school impact t}~at the development would have on schools. Meetings have began with the school district anti Greenbrier. She stated that she wished that dialogue could have taken place earlier in the process. The phasing of the development would allow plenty of time for the school district to work with Greenbrier. She appreciated Greenbriar's willingness to survey the buyers of the homes in terms of planning questions as to the number of children that are to live in t}~e homes so that the school district can anticipate the number of students that will he coming into the schools. Also, use of developer fees would enhance the fields, playgrounds and school facilities. A major concern to the school district was that of safety. On this issue, the school district would need to continue to work with the City. The school district has requested crossing guards and are interested in improving the bike paths and walking piths in this particular case because the school district is now considered as an open enrollment school district. This means that students would have the right to go to any of tl~e schools within t}~e district. The district is currently working with the City on a car pool and a ride reduction plan. There will be a need to continue the partnership with the City to ensure that the safety issues are mitigated. She was pleased that the school district was now able to be in the fore front of establishing a process which will. address the impacts to the school and that the City encourages developers to work with the school district early on in the development planning. Tom deRegt, New Cities Investment Company, 978"1 Blue Larkspur .Lane, Monterey, informed the Commission that he liar worked on this project since 1992 as the agent for VA properties who acquired tl~e property in. 1.993. Informational meetings began in May 1992. Between May and September, he interviewed City Council Members and Planning Commissioners to try to get direction on the process. The City decided that the process should be a "Specific Plan". In 1.992, the city was approached to suggest an alternate process, a joint study session between Council and Commission. During the specific plan process, all public meetings and community meetings were attended. Property owners met with the neighbors early on. After the specific plan was approved, as the property owners agent, he interviewed a dozen huilclers and developers. Several potential land uses were discussed, all consistent with the specific plan. Based on input, it was decided to enter into a contract with Greenhriar Homes. He continues to work with Greenbrier Company and complimented Ms. Meyer for hiring excellent consultants. He felt that an award winning plan was before the Commission. He thanked city staff for its assistance and requested Commission approval of tl~e plans at its next .meeting. Peter Leslie, 1.3100 Saratoga Avenue,4 informed the Commission that he also worked with Greenhriar Company and stated his support of the specific plan. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:4~ P.M. TI-IE COMMISS[ON RECONVENED AT 1.0:00 P.M. Carol Meyer, requested any initial feedback be provided regarding the 4.7 acres proposed for open space so that they could be addressed at the next meeting. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:02 P. M. 'PLANNING COMMISS* MINUTES ' SEPTEMBER 14, 1994 PAGE - 14 - Commissioner Siegfried st<rted that he has followed the history of the Paul Masson site and understood the neighbors concerns. He agrees that development of the site needed to be that of residential and that he would not consider anything other than residential development now or in the future. He expressed concern that from the existing trees to Saratoga, McFarland and Montrose, you have 3,500 to 3,700 square foot homes, the backs which are basically straight lines. The effect of that would lie that until the landscaping grows, you would look over Saratoga Road with minor setbacks from house to house of a straight wall with openings of 11-"14 feet between the homes. More importantly, he was concerned about the view from Montrose. You have 18, 26 foot tall buildings with three models with three different backs with 1.1-13 feet of spread between houses. What conceals that effect are the existing Monterey Pines that may or may .not exist for some length of time. He felt that it would be difficult to plant tall landscaping in front of the Monterey Pines and then have then die a few years from. He has a problem of perception, not particularly about the inside of. the development because the inside of the development would be seen only by the individuals who buy and live in it. But for those who drive around it or live next to it. One has to understand that for a period of time, we will be looking at 3,700 square foot building on what is going to he perceived from the outside as 7,000 square foot .lots. That is a very large. massive building. He felt that some consideration should be given to try to do something to modify the straight line effect and some additional consideration has to be given to the long term tree landscaping along the Montrose side of the property, given the .fact that none of us .know how long the Monterey Pines may live. Commissioner Abshire commented that he spoke with Greenbriar representatives. He informed the representatives that his concerns were that of. schools anal safety. He sees this project adding at least one percent to the population of. Saratoga and a two percent increase to the school enrollment. Because of its location, it's almost impossible for the children to walk or ride a bicycle to school. He felt that transportation problems would occur. He recommended that the City look into the safety of. children getting to school from this development and alternative transportation would also need to be considered. Overall, the concept was a good one anal understands why the neighborhood supports the project. He shared Commissioner Siegfriecl's concern that the development would have a real crowded appearance because of large homes proposed on small lots.. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with the size of the homes and wanted to make sure that the project meets the guidelines of the conceptual plans that were approved, but also the spirit of the concept. She calculated that only four of the lots were 10,000 square feet. The vast majority of the lots were smaller than that. She also noted that there were three car garages in every house which were not included in the square footage of the .houses pursuant to the concept previously approved. She felt that every attempt has been made by Greenbriar to build the largest possible house and the greatest number of houses on this site. She also expressed concern regarding the number of homes proposed. Vice-chairman Murakami started that he opposed the project at its onset. Since the Council reversed the Commission's decision, he was looking at the proposal in a more liberal view. He expressed concern with the average square footage of the homes. Another concern was PLANNING COMMIS~v' I~IINUT'ES • SEPTEMBER 1.4, ].994 PAGE - 1.5 - the one shared by Commissioner Siegfried, that being of the alignment of the homes on the backside of McFarland. Discussed at prior meetings were the staggering effect of the lots. In looking at the drawings, especially the back side, they give the appearance of a straight wall. He stated that he would like to avoid the look of Cupertino. .However, he understands that these homes are varied in style and colors. Maybe that would help the physical perception. looking from tl~e outside. He stated his willingness to work on this project and understands that the citizens wart this development approved. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 28 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY, IT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED THAT AT THE NEXT HEARING, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WOULD BE BASED ON NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED (I.E., CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE, STRAIGf-IT LINE AFFECT ALONG MONTROSE AND SARATOGA AVENUE SIDES, ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO MITIGATE LIFE SPAN OF MONTEREY PINF_S). THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COIVIMISS.IONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT). Community Development Director Curtis stated that he did not believe that the remainder of the agenda anticipated any legal issues and requested that the Commission excuse the City Attorney. 5. DR-94-015 - Weng/Ring; 19462 burgundy Way, request for Design Review approval to construct a new one-story x,638 sq. ft. residence pursuant to Chapter 1~ of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 42,320 sy. ft. and is located within ari R-"1-40,00() zone district. Planner Walgren recommended th~rt ~rgencia items 5 and ~ be considered at the same time as they are related. H.e presented the staff. reports for both agenda items 5 and 6. Vice-chairman 1Vlurakami questior~eci if staff found the entry design for parcel B acceptable. Planner Walgren stated that the front ~ircl~itectural entrance to the residents was acceptable to staff.. Commissioner Abshire questioned why every proposal before the Commission proposed to maximize lot coverage? Vice-Chairman Murakami opened tl~e public hearing for agenda items ~ and 6 at 10:26 p.m. David Pruitt, designer for .Parcels B and D, informed the Commission that in working with staff, there vas conceal that tl~e Commission, in the past, had a problem with grandiose entries that stand otrt as a }?rominent ~rrchitectural feature. I-Ie felt that due to the size and width of the borne, he hacl to prciportion the entry to where it was in the right balance, size- wise, accommodating the needs of the o~~mer for a covered entry and keeping a formal feel because of the French-style elevation. 'PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES • ' SEPTEMBER 14, 1.994 PAGE - 16 - Mr. Weng, applicant, informed the Commission t}~at he would respond to questions which it may have. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:28 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL AND KA.PLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-015 SUBJECT TO THE INCORPORATION OF THE CONDITION PERTAINING TO THE FIRE HYDRANT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FIRE DISTRICT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, KAPLAN A.BSENT). 6. DR-94-0:1.7 - VVu; :1)408 Burgundy VVay, request for Design Review approval to construct a ne~v two-story 5,275 sq. ft. single family residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of tl~e City Code. T}~e subject property is approximately 39,373 sq. ft. anti is located within. an R-1-40,00() zone district. Vice-Chairman. Murakami opened tl~e public hearing on this item at 10:30 p.m. Tony Wong, designer, spoke on beh~rlf of the applicant, Mr. Wu. He informed the Commission that the home was designed based on the fact that grading was minimized and that the impact to existing trees would be minimized by the construction of a two story home. He did not feel that the existing neighbors would be impacted. He tried to minimize the massing of the home by introducing different roof lines. He chose a neutral color scheme that would blend the home with the environment. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 1.0:32 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COM.MISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KA.PLA.N ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PA"PRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-01.7, AMENTDIN'G CONDITION 9A AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FIRE .DISTRICT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KAPLA.N ABSENT). 7. UP-94-005 - Wampler; 1224:1. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for Use permit approval to allow the establishment of. a 960 sq. ft. gourmet coffee shop with seating pursuant to Chapter 15 of the city Code. The proposed use would occupy an existing tenant space in the Oak Creek Shopping Center within aCommercial-Visitor (C-V) zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that it be made clear in the staff report and/or in the resolution of approval that parking is deficient and that. the Commission would be -.. ~ PLANNING COMMIS~1 MINUTES • ' SEPTEMBER 14, :1994 PAGE - 17 - reviewing parking in the future. Vice-chairman Murakami questioned if outside seating was proposed. Planner Walgren responded that he was not aware of any outside seating. Vice-Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing on this item at 10:35 p.m. Mike Wampler, 1027 Mt. Carmel Drive, San Lorenzo, applicant, stated that he anticipates that customers would patronize the coffee shop between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PA'T'RICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:37 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL A.ND KA.PLAN A.BSENT). Commissioner Siegfried stated that he hacl no concerns at this time.. He was familiar with the site and has never observed a parking problem. He wanted the reccird to be very clear that parking would be something that the Commission would look at if it became a problem and that if it is determined that parl:irig is a problem, the condition. would be modified or the use permit revol:eci, if necessary. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIR.E/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-94-005 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CA.LDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT). 8. DR-94-020 - Hinshaw; 1227 Quito Rd., request for Design Review approval to constr~rct a new 3,997 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Coc1e. The property is a vacant 42,21() sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Vice-Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing on this item at 1.0:41 p.m. Glen Young, G&G Design, "1585 The Alameda, San Jose, stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. Vice-chairman Murakami, questioned the roof. design integrated with the large blank wall. Mr. Young responded that the home was that of a u-shaped type design that orients itself towards an inward court. This created privacy for the neighbors as well for the Hinshaws. Commissioner Siegfried commented that when the three lot subdivision was approved, neighbors expressed concern regarding landscape installation around the perimeter to ensure screening. He did not recall how the condition react at the tune and requested assistance from staff regarding the landscape language. Planner Walgren responded that he was aware that a comprehensive landscape plan was approved and installed at one point as a condition -• ~ ~ ~ PLANNING COMMIS' MINUTES • ` SEPTEMBER 14, 194 PAGE - 1.8 - of subdivision approval. Vincent Van Talbork, 1520() Oriole Way, expressed concern regarding the greenbelt not being planted properly according to plans. He slid not feel tl.~at a mechanism was in place to maintain the greenbelt ~incl that an irrigation system was not installed. He requested that the landscape area be maintair~ecl because the greenbelt was a positive thing for all residents. He also expressed concern for the greenbelt with construction activity. He recollected that a landscape agreement was entered .into stipulating that no fences would be allowed. Staff now .recommends that condition 7 be amended. He requested that it be made clear that the landscape agreement does not supersede it by the elimination of the first sentence of condition 7. Mr. Young responcleci that tl~e landscape agreement clearly stipulates that no fences or grading is to allowed within the greenbelt easement and that this would be an excellent opportunity to have someone live there who cares about the property and maintain the landscaping. Ken Hinshaw, applicant, assured everyone that once he moves into the home, he would like to have the same greenery that the neighbors would like to see and that he intends to maintain it. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that a condition be added to ensure that the maintenance of the greenbelt easement. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:45 P.M. THE MO"LION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KA.PLAN ABSEN'T). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-020, INCORPORATING THE AMENDED LANGUAGE TO CONDITION 7 AS STATED BY STAFF UNDER "TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET" AND THE ADDITION OF A CON'DITIONT PERTAINING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN 1'HE GREENBELT AREA. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSION'ERS ASFOUR, CALD~'~~ELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). 9. UP-94-004 - Casale; 180:1 ] ~7:iucle A~~c., request for Use Permit approval to construct a 7C8 sq. ft. detached garage located 12 ft. from a .rear property line per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 40,073 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report o-1 this item. Commissioner Patrick questioned whether there ~~~e.re any objections from adjacent neighbors regarding the garage structure. Planner Walgren responded that he was not aware of an.y objections to the request. 1. . :.4 PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 19)4 PAGE-19- Vice-Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing on this item at 10:51 p.m. Kevin Thurston, Express Builders, 21.801. Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, informed the Commission that he would respond to questions which it may have. Commissioner Abshire questioned if tl~e two car garage addition would supplement the existing garage. Mr. Thurston responded that it would supplement the existing garage on site. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:52 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-J4-004 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, KAPLAN ABSENT). 10. DR-94-027 - Kotler; A-lontalvo Heights Ur., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,906 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant is also requesting an exception to the floor area/height reduction regulation in order to permit additional floor area up to the 1T~axi-num permitted in the City Code. The property is a vacant 1.1.4 ~icre parcel located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented tl~e staff. report on this item. Vice-Chairm~in Murakami opened tl~e public hearing on this item at :10:54 p.m. Jerry Butler, 20622 Montalvo Heights Drive, informed the Commission that the home was smaller than the two ac}j~tcent }comes by at least 1,500 square feet. The home would be compatible with the adjacent hones ant that the height of the home would be 26 feet. He felt that the home would be compatible with the neighborhood because the adjacent homes were that of two storv structures. Commissioner Siegfried complimented Jerry B~itler for a great job on the whole development and that the development has turned out to be a nice development. Vice-chairman Mural:a-ni noted that the front roof line on the right side projects straight out. He questioned if the projection. was for a view from the second floor? Mr. Butler responded that what Vice-chairman Murakami sees in the site elevation may be that of the ridge. He informed the Commission that all roof lines go to the same pitch. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:55 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS, ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT). 1 "' "PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES i SEPTEMBER 14, 1.9)4 PAGE-20- Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt that the proposed home was compatible to that of the subdivision. He concurred with Mr. Butler that this may be one of the smaller homes within the subdivision. Vice-chairman Mural:ami cornmenclec} the applicant for a design that was compatible and blended with that of. the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-027 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CA.LDWELL, AND KAPLAN ABSENT). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Planning Commissioner appointment to the Bicycle Advisory Committee (replacing Paul Jacobs). Community Development Director Curtis requested that the Commission appoint a replacement to ex-Commissioner Jacobs to serve on the .Bicycle Advisory Committee. Commissioner Siegfried volunteered to serve on the Committee. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. SD-94-001; Bean, 14024 Saratoga Ave. Review of proposed fencing details, landscape plan and tree transplanting/replacement plan (cont. from 8/10/94 at the request of the applicant). Planner Walgren reported on this item. He informed the Commission that the Preservation Commission has reviewed and accepted the plans, including planting along Saratoga Avenue and the treatment of the wall that would be visible from I-Ieritage Lane. The City Arborist has also reviewed the plans and finds that the proposed replanting has been done properly and was very complimentary to the arrangement and sizes of the species in relationship to the existing larger trees. Staff. has reviewed tl~e document and finds that it complies with all the requirements of the subdivision eonclition. Commissioner Abshire stated that he would need to abstain on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Vice-chairman Murakami commented that he was the only Commissioner sitting on the Commission this evening that has fullowecl the approval process for this project. He stated that he did not have any objections to the plans. Since the arborist and Heritage Commission have reviewed the plans, he could support the proposal. ~y ` ~ ~ PLAI~rNING COMMI.SS~1 MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 19 )4 PAGE - 21 - BY CONSENStJS, TI-~IE COMMISSION FOUND THE PLANS ACCEPTABLE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. (COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSTAINED DUE TO A CONFI.:ICT OF INTEREST AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL A.ND KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMUNICATIOl\TS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he was speaking for Chairman Asfour who was the Commission's representative to the City Council public hearing where the Martin variance appeal was considered. The Planning Commission approved the variance that allowed t}le wine cellar and tasting room area and denied the kitchen addition because it pushed the building envelop out. The City Council considered the appeal and no action was taken at the Council level because there were not three votes to support a motion. No approval action by the Council upholds the Commission action. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that Tuesday, October 11 would be the next joint work session with the City Council. At the September 28 meeting, he would be requesting topics for discussion that the Commission may have (i.e., tree policy, Santa Clara County General Plan). Written 1. City Council Minutes - 8/3, 8/9, 8/2~ & 8/30/94 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., September 28, 1994, Civic Theater, 13777 Frui.tvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK it\PC091494.SAR