HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-1994 Planning Commission Minutes' ~' ~LANNING co~lnnssu)N n11NU~
- SEI''1'EMKF.R 28, 1')'I~{
City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruilvalc Avenue
Re};ular Dlecting
Vice-chairman Murtrkami informed the public that the meeting would he delayed for a few
minutes to allow the Commission to review correspondence submitted.
The meeting was called to order at 7:~~ p.nt. by Vice-chairman i\~lurakami.
Roll Call
Present: Abshire, C'alcha•ell, Kaplan, ~4urakami, Patrick, Siegfried
Late: None
Absent: Asfour
City :\ttorney Rihack ~~:rs prc;cnt.
PI.F:1)(:E OF AI,I..EG1:\NC'F;
ORAL COA9n1UNIC.A'1'IONS
No comments were offered.
MINUTES
COIV'1MISS10\ERS G\LDWEI.I./fiAPLAN \40VED 'I'O APPROVE 'I'lIE .IDLY 21i,
199 MINUTES \'t%I'I'I-1'l-[IE FOI_LO\VING AML\D~~iF.N'1'S:
- PAGE 1, PARAG12,4PI1 4 liN'DER TI[F MOTIO\ FOR JULY li, ]99T TO
READ: "...SHF- AI SO FE1;1' 7-FIAT THE NL-IGH130RI{OOD WAS UNIQUE
AND TI3E HOD4ES WERE POSITIONED IN SUCH A WAY THAT I'I' WAS
I)IFFICUL"I' TC) SIDE FRC)lV1 MANt' PU13LiC' ROADS A?~B TIII? VERY'
HETEROGENEOUS...."
PAGE ~, P..<\RAGIZAPII ~ "fO RL.<\D AS FOLLOWS: "^"'~Iti(; "1'IIT:RF-.
E.XI$"f:5 ,4 SI;BS'I~AN'"T'I:\L SFCON'D S'I C)Rl' POR'I~ION ()F T'IiE HOME AnI)
1'kl[~::U\L~ERGI:.U()1.2.:t1RL:1::::EtiCi;()5.1112E W'1LL N'C)T C:IZEATE NO1Z
IN''I~FNSIFI'...."
- PAGE l~, PARAGR:\PH ~ 'I.O READ: "COMMISSIONERS CALllWELL
Q[~)-~"'J '~=L;~t'1SKEI~':F.OR VICGCIiAlRN1AN MURAKAMPS B
I?~SITI(~ti' ()N T-I-1-F (:j`:I~k1.ER ISSUES...."
'1'1 fE Ni(_)'I'ION C',\RRIED .-Q :~ ,4S I OLLO\VS: Al'ES: C:~\LD\VI:1_L, KAI'I_AN,
MUR.41iAA~iI: \(.)I:S: NONI': ABS'I'AI\: ABSI-IIIZE. PAT'RIC'K, SIF:CIFRIED; ABSENT:
ASI~OUR.
`PLANNING CU~4\q1~N ~11NUTFS •
SEPTEMBER 2S, 1994
PAGE-2-
August '10, 1994
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEC;FRIED MOVED TO APPROVE T} iE AUGUST
l0, 1994 MINUTES Wl~l~hl TI-IE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
- PAGE ?, PARAGRAPH ~ 'I~O READ: "C0~4MISSIONER CALDWELL
QUESTIONED WI:IETIIER:.:E\.ND I-IC)\'V LONG AGO'.TI:IE STUCCO WALL
WAS F.,VER APPROVED...COMMiSSiONFR CA[,DWGI.i, QUESTIONED IF
THERE WERE I2EQUIRE~7EN'fS 1M1'USED.:A`f':'''I'IiE':`-1'1MEU1':::':1TS
APPR.CIVAI. TO SCREEN Ti-IE FENCE....:
- PAGE 3, PARAGRAPH 2 TO READ: "P-LA~I*}€~ COMMiSSiONF:R;A,: 5.:.,....:E
...................................................... .
COMMENTED THAT HiS CONCERNS WERE THAT OF SAFETY AND
WiiETiiLR Ti1rRL WOIJi_D BE FRf;ED0~1 FOR TILE WiLD ANIMALS TO
"rte R0:1~-1 ~I~1-IR()liC;l-i "I~1-1 [: ARE,4. I-11~~ 1.)Ii.) NOT Bi:1.1[:VE ~i~HA"1"1'IiE
PENCE \VOLJLU BLOCK T[IE ANIM:\L'S PAT[I AND THr\T Ti-IERE DOES
NOT APL'EAR 1'O BE .ANY' "^''~,-'.z;T"J~ I?ROBI::E1~1S I\ TERMS OF'.F..iRE
PROTEC'7~IUti!. THE FAZE HY"UIZAN'1'S NE3L1'-:N ON.'1'HE S-i'REET AND THE
OPENING OF THE FENCE \VOLJLD ALLOW THE E:~1EIZGENCY
EQUIPMENT TO ACCESS TIIE IIOLJSE.
- PAGE i, LAST PARAGRAPH'I'O READ: "...iF E\I_,I-.'fl.lE NEIGi IBORS WERE
7'O REQUES-f FENCING L:?CCEP:TIONS, TIIE "OPEN FEELING" WOULD NOT
.................
RE~IAiN .4N'I) 5111}: CAIJ'I'IONL-U'171E COh7MISS10N \\'HEN .APPROVING
FENCING; .41'1'I.;IC:4'LIONS'IN 'I'1-Ii 1=U'1"t'RE
- PAGE ti, Pr\RAGR,\PI 13. C.'ORRECT SPELLING FOR V1RG1\iA FANELLi,
- YAC;E 7, F=IRS'I' PARAGRAPH TO READ: "COh4MISSiONEi2 CALDWELL
S'I'A-['F..D TI-i.4T S11E \\'AS STRUCK \VITII'fllE SIC;NIF''ICAN'I"I'WO S-i~ORY
STRUCTURE OF THE il0)`1E. SI-iE QUES'1'lUN'Ell THE HEIGHT OF THE
FLOMi: 'I'11.4'T': I1.:4I7. ALR'EA'I]l': BEEN..APPROVE.IU OiV':'7'.II.IS: PI20P.C"slt'.I'Y.
PL.4N'N'F,R WAL(;REN 12GSPONDEDTIiATT1-IE i-TOME A,PPi:.LF:,:.D:::F:QF2 Wi\S
.. ..:.......:.:..:.. .
AT 2ti 1=EL'I'...."
- PAGE 10, PARr\GRi\PII R TO READ: "CO\~1MISSIONER CAI.DWL•LL,
STATED I H,4'I I 1 SHOULD BE C:1_ARiFIED 1=1-N~ FR(')!41 ,4 LEGAL S'T'AND
1'OIN"1' "I'l TAT IT \VAS EiER UNDERS'I'ANI.)ING OF VAftlf\.NCE FINDINGS
THATTHE 1'HYSIC,4I.CIRCU'~1STANCES SLJRROIJNDING THE PROPERTY
N1I1ST CREATES LJN'UUE HARUSHII' FOR "fFIE raPPl_iC'ANT...."
- PAGE 19. PARAGRAPH ti 'IY) IZEf\ll: "COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED
AGREED "fHA"1' 1',1RKiNG BE RESL•RVED A[_ONG Ti-iF, FF,NCF_ LiNE WI'1~H
THF,'^'~''~^'_'_:`''''~`"' CI:JRRENT:DEi'F.TiC)i`T;UI~ Ifi-2(1 PARKING SPACES...."
`PLAN\ING C'ON1M1`~)N' \~11N'U"1'ES •
SLY 1 E1\QBER 'S, I ~)<14
PAGE - .i -
TILE MOTION CARRIED ~-U-1 AS FOLLUVVS: AYF,S: ABSHiRE, CALUWELL,
MURA.KAMi, PATRICK. S1E(.iFRIED; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: KAI'L.4N'; ABSENT:
ASFOUR.
Sentembcr 14, 1994
COMMISSIONERS SIEC;FRIED/ABSI IIRi: ~-1(_)VEI) I O APPROVE TI IE SEP"I~EMBER
14, 1994 ~91NU'i'ES WiTIi TiIL FOI-1.(_)1•'1\G MODIFIC'ATiONS:
- PAGE 7, PARAGRAPi-1 Z, L.IN'E I I AML-\DED TO READ: "...TIIAT TiIi G(1
FOOT SE~f13ACK PROTECTED TI-IE RII:'ral2ltaN::::.C':OR'RIDOR::;OI":; THE
;. ...
C.R.EEK...." .
- PAGE 7, PARAGRAPH 4, LINE 3'I~O READ: "...THE LO(:A"1'lON AND THE
i-iEiGHT OF T'HE '1'12EES...."
- PAGE 9, PARA(iRAPFI 3 TO Ri:AD: "COM(\91SS10\F_R SIfiGFR1EU
()UESTIONED "Ti IL• ~4AXI~il1\~1 .41.1.0\VAB1.E SIZL• FOR A F-10ME ~llt iN
AN R-I IQ,O(IQ !0\ING DISTRICT...."
PAGE 1.11, PARAGRAPH I, LINE 26 TO READ: "...RA`I'FONALE FOR
SE'["BACK REUUCT~ION WAS TO MA~IMIZ6 TIIE Bf;Ni;FIT OF THE OPEN
SPACE OF TFiE SiTE. HE FELT T-HA"l~ 1'ROViDiNG MORE DIS"DANCE
WHERE TFIERE IS Ai.,READI' GOING TO'BE A SOUNDI'VALL...."
PAC;i: li, I.AS'I' PAR.4C;RAl'H, LFN'E 4 TO BEAU: "...HE E`CPRESSED
C:ONC:ERN TiIAT I~RUM'I'1-IE E~IS'I'ING 1-I~la4-E STRT:.FT'S;.l`O. S;4I2;?~'TOC.A;
McFARLANU, eSND X10\.TF2:(.~SE, l'OU HAVE...~40RE I~9PORTANTLY, 1-1E
W.4S CONC'i'R\i'D ABC)U'I' 'I~FiF-: #~I2{)=V 1=-1~12~'D1rDm-~.m==~1-"J-'r,-. ViFVV:.FI2.OM
- PAGE l4, PARAGRAPH 14, LINE 2, REPLACE "APPEALED" ~VIT'li
"REVERSED".
- PAGE 1), PARAC;RAi'H li TO READ: "COM(v11SS10\ER SIEGFRIED
CC)'v:11'I:1 ~1 E\'I'E.D' J:ERRY.E3I;lTLIR:';F'C).R; ~::C;F2F';A'i' :JC)13 ;C)iV: TI;~,G; WI i;O1;:F
DEVELOP~:fENT Al\D"l.'11..~2t'i':'I"HE'1)b~+':E[:UP~9ENT:I:Ir1S:T'URNEU:;O.IJT."I'O
E3G::;4.:i~'IC1:::Di=~?}3L(:)1'tilE1ri; ~~i~~nnnr_~-~rr.n ~t-ii:~-~j_11~-.p~iiit~ t~~
13(>~1~~... (; R1=~:~\-1--.1L-1" 'xi ri n -r~ t r. c t-rr..,
THE ~40'I'ION C;AItRiED 4-I)-2 AS FOC,i.OWS: AYES: ABSFIIRE, ML'~RAKAMI,
PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: NONE; ABS'1'AI\: CAI,i)WE[_L, KAPLAN: ABSENT:
ASFOUR.
' PLANNING C'O~4~11S,N ~11NU`I'F.:S
SEPTLMBLR 2r;, 19')4
PAGE - 4 -
RF,POR'1' OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 5494.3, the agenda fur this meeting was properly posted on
September 23, 1)94.
TECHNIC.AI- CORRECTIONS '1'O PACKET
Planner Walgren informed the C'onunission that there were two corrections as follows:
- Agenda item 4, page 4S, the stall analysis section, Setbacks, correct side yard
setbacks from 20 feet to 7:5 feet per code requirement.
- Agenda item 7, project description, to reflect that the existing home is a story home
with a hvo to three car garage underneath the living area which would constitute a
second flour (not :u) existing single famih~ home as described).
CONSENT ('ALCND.4R
PUKI,IC HEARING CO\SE\'r c.a1.EN'DAR
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that there was a
speaker for agenda item 1. He recommended that agenda item 1 be removed from the
Consent Calendar.
2. LL-9-1-U].U - yti'oocl/\onnan; 19aUU Saratoga-I.os Gatos Rcl./].9651 Glen Una Dr.,
request fur Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot
line between a 3.117 acre parcel, a ?acre parcel and a 1 acre parcel per
Chapter 14 of the City Code. The u)tal :ImULlnt Ot area transferred is
appnrximately (ilfl sq. ft. All three parcels are located within an R-1-
40,000 zoning district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONA MO"PION Bl'COMMISSION'ERS(:AI.I)Wril.1./SIEGFRIEU,7 HECOM\4ISSION
APYROVEU CON'SF,NT ITEM ? BY :y1lNU'1'E ACTIO\. TI-IE ~9OTION C'ARRiF.,D (i-0
(CHAIR'y1AN' ASFOUR ABSEN`l~).
1. 1.1: 94-U02 - Karkas, Chadwick; 13245 Padero Cl. cR• a vacant parcel on Chad~r•ick
V-94-015 - Court, request fur Lol Line Adjustment approval to relocate an
existing lot line hetw•ecn a 3.07 acre parrel and a 3.79 acre parcel per
Chapter 14 of the City Code. A Variance is also required to allow one
parrel to he under the minimum lot size requirement based on the
parcel's new average site slope per Chapter I ~ of the City Code. Both
parcels are located within the l lillside Residential (HR) zoning district
(cont. indefinitely at the request of the applicant; application expires
1 / 19/95 ).
Planner ~'~ralgren presented the report on this item.
' Pi,ANNING C'(.-11v1~11S•N MINIJ'I'FS •
SIP~1'Eh1BEl2 _'3, 1904
PAGf_-~-
Vice-chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:54 p.rn.
Ray Piontclt, 2119 Chiquita Way, informed the Commission that he recently found out that
this item was to be continued indefinitely. ile expressed concern that adjacent neighbors
are not being notified of hearings. I-le explained that he and Community Development
Director Curtis have hatl misuntlentantlings in the past few months regarding things that
were going to occur onh~ to find out that just the opposite hatl happened. No one provided
the nei~_hhors the courses- of informine them of proposed chans~es. Also of concern ++~as
that this item would he reagentlizetl without notification to adjacent neighbors and action
taken without public comments. The issues of concern were installation of landscape buffer
and illegal drainage throur:•h his backyard causing hillside erosion. An accunudation of
events have occurred that has led ur his written comments. Ile requested better
communication with the adjacent neighbors.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he responded to
the letter from Mr. Piontek because he thought that it +vas a personal attack. "Che item has
been continued at the ralurst of the applicant and that the applicant has a right to request
for a continuance. If the Connnision continues this item indefinitely, the item would need
to he readvertised both by nrril ;mtl newspaper.
Commissioner Calchvell yuestiuncd if ~1r. Piontek +vas :nvarc that on the Commission's
agenda under Written Communications, the letter would be addressed and discussed
following the pt.rblic hearing items. Mr. Piontek acknowledged the fact that a response to
his letter was included in the Commission's packet.
C:ommissioncr Caldwell stated that the request was for an indefinite continuance. She
questioned if stall was confident that the applicant was tryin_~ to resolve the problems?
Pl:umcr Walgren respontlctl that the applicant has relayed w staff that they +vere trying w
resolve issues relating to the transaction of land exchange. Commissioner Calchvell stated
that she would not object to the continuance so long as there is atlcyuate noticing to the
nei,hbors.
C01~1MiSSIONERS C'ALDVVELL/PATRICK MOVED APPROVAL OL I"1~1,M 1 O\` THE
CONSENT' C'AI.,FNI)AR. THE N10TION CA.RRIEi) C-0 (CI-IAIRMAN ASFOUR
AI3SFi1T'1'j.
3. PU-94-U02 - Grecnbriar Humes; 1310 S:u•aloga Ave., request for Planned
Development-din;rl Plain approval tir construct r14 single-family
detached residences at the 24 acre former P:ml Masson Winery site.
'fhe subject property is located at the northeast corner of Saratoga
Ave. anti Route Si and is zoned Multiple lJse-Planned Developmart
(MlJ-PD). An Environmental Initial Stutly, as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CFQA) has been prepared.
Based upon review of the Initial Study, sutfl is recommending adoption
PLANNING CO`~tMIS•N 1v1INl1TES •
SEP"1'EMl3ER 23, 19J4
PAGE-6-
of a '.Negative Declaration" for this project (cont. from the 9/14/94
public hearing; application expires 12/15/94).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Siegfried raised a question as to the sire of the lots and homes located on
Montrose. Planner W'algren responded that the average house sizes vary significantly aping
Montrose with the typical homes being 1,3(1(1 syuare feet with a one car garage. There are
some larger homes on the east side of Montrose that are in the 2,500 to '_,300 syuare foot
range, with the majority having hvo car garages. It is his belief that the average home size
was 1,600 square feet, including garages, and that the average lot size is 10,000 square feet.
Commissioner Siegfried queried if this were an R-1 111,0(10 zoning district, would there be
any reyuirernents fur dedication of open space for the 25 acre site. Community
Development Director Curtis responded that the City has a requirement to provide a park
for residattial development. In lieu of dedication of land, a p;trk fee could be imposed. it
is City Council policy ur impose a park tee and not accept dedication of land.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that the map indicates that the yards would be fenced
in. He questioned what standards would be used if pools and/ur accessory structures were
proposed. Conununih~ ievelopment Director Curtis responded that at this point, there are
no restrictions for accessory structures. Flowever, the Commission could add a condition
which stipulates that a pool house or accessory structure that may be counted as floor area
would be disallowed if it increases the :overage square footage of living area beyond 3,O1i6
syuare feet.
Commissioner Kaplan requested that the Cih- Alurrnee achisc the (:'ornmission what its
responsihility was tnni~~ht. City Attorne_~~ Itihack responded that the Commission's role
tonight was to revicw• the final plans and to determine whether ur nut the plans meet the
requirements of the h1U-PD Codes and whether the plans comply with the concepwal plan
as approved by the City Council. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the Commission was
required to follow the conceptual plan line by line or could the Commission use its
discretion in its revicw`? City rVtorney Riback responded that the Commission has limited
discretion. He did not hclieve that the Commission had to go "line by line", but that the
Commission had to maintain consistence with the conceptual plan as approved by the
Council. Fur example, the 3,Obti syuare toot average home size would need to he complied
with in the action taken. I lowevcr, with respect to the question Commissioner Siegfried
asked of Community Development Director Curtis, the Commission could take action ro
include ur exclude from that figure accessory slnicunes. Conunissiuncr Kaplan stated that
she understood that the conceptual plan w;u not a bindin~• document on the Commission.
Commissioner Siegfried read from Section 15.21.130 of the Cude (page 323) which states
that: "The Plannin~~ Commission may approve, reject or modify the conceptual development
plan and may impose such conditions or requirements as it deems appropriate." Section G
further states that "Approval of a conceptual plan shall constitute only an indication to the
applirmt that the City is initialh~ receptive to the proposed development and is willing to
consider the pruj~ct in more detail. Such approval sh;tll cooler no vested rights or other
PLANNING COMA-IIS•N MINU"I'ES •
SEPTEMBER 23, 1J94
PAGE-7-
rights upon the applirmt to proceed with the project and the City may therefore reject the
final development plan even thou~_h it complies with the approved plan." He felt that the
Commission could nrtke nurdifirttions if necessary. 1-le did not believe that the Commission
was bound to approve an average home size of 3,066 square feet. City Attorney Riback
concurred with the sections as read by Commissioner Siegfried. The City did look at the
conceptual plan and now the final plan was before the Commission presumably consistent
with the conceptual plan. From a Icg•.tl perspective, the Commission does not have to
comply with every aspect of the conceptual plan. The Commission can modify the final
plans if they were not consistent with the conceptual plan.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was prepared w vote toni~!ht on the Cirrcnbriar
pn>posal and has read all of the material provided and that she has listened to the tapes of
the Sepremhcr lath meeting. She did nut accept an invitation to meet with the applicant
and discuss the proposal because she did not believe that it was appropriate to do so. She
believed that such discussion would subvert the open meeting process. At the land use
meeting on 'Tuesday, the Commission was invited to the ilomen home on ~4ontrose which
was not indicated on the site visit list. She explained that the Commissioners in attendance
at the site visit (Commissioners Ahshire, Murakami, Kaplan and Planner Walgren) stepped
into the rear vard of the ilomen residence to vicw• the scene. No testinumv was taken at
the Homen residence because the visit was not noticed. Mrs. Homen advised the
Commissioners that she had been assured b~ the applicant that her fence would he repaired
and plants put into her yard as screening. Conunissioner Kaplan disclosed this information
so that the Commissioners who had not been present would know what information had
been riven to those who were there.
Commissioner Abshire commented that over the past week he visited with representatives
from Greenbrier regarding their plans for Saratoga. I-Ie also visited their Hillswne
development in south San Jose and drove by their project located near Prospect Avenue,
San Jose. He did this to satisfy himself that Greenbrier would he able to live up to the
commitments made.
Commissioner Patrick connnentcd that staff has indicated that the averuee home size would
be 3,066 square feet. She stated that she reviewed Ghihit A and prepared calculations
which indicate that the proposed homes would he below the 3,Obti square foot average fur
only plan A. According to her mirth, of the 94 homes proposed. only 27 homes were
proposed as plan A. She did nut understand how the average home size would be 3,0(i(i
square feet. Planner ~l%algren responded that he has nut verified the size for each of the
homes listed in the exhibit. The applicants have stated that the revised house plans
prepared now meet the 3,06(1 square feet of living area. Anew condition has been placed
in the resolution and/or Coven;tots, Conditions c~ Restrictions (CC&Rs) that would require
that this be verified prior to line( map approval of the project and th:u a finalized exhibit
would need to he accepted.
Commissioner Patric(: also questioned the average lot sizes. She noted that of the 94 lots,
she counted ~ which were over 10,00(1 square feet. Manner y'Val~ren responded that the lot
sizes were consistent with the conceptual plan approved. A requirement of the MU-PU
I'LA~NI~C; COMMI~\ MINI;TES •
SF.F''I'EMRF..R 2~i. 1904
PAGE-2i-
zoning requires that the lots be 10,0(10 square feet. FFowever, the project, based on the
linear park plan and other amenities that were incorporated, was approved with the lot sizes
as depicted in the configuration presented.
Conunissioner Patrick yuestioned if this area +vould continue as an ~4U-PU coning or+a•ould
a zone ch:urge to residential he reyuired'? Planner ~Valgren responded that the zoning
would remain as ~~lulliple Use-Planned Development (Ml;-PD) which does permit this type
of detached single family housing in a planned dcaclopnunt. Commissioner Patrick
yuestioned if a condition could he added to stipulate control of lot coverage, including pools
and accessary structures. Planner Walgren recommended that the Commission incorporate
a condition restricting accessory structures based un lot coverage if it so desired.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she has been contacted several times by representatives
from Greenhriar but that she had not met +vith them.
Commissioner Sie~~fried rnmmented that he has stet with Greenhriar representatives to
obtain past history. Ile felt that the meetings were appropriate because there were no
neighbors in opposition to this project. 1-le also felt That change, could be made to the
project under [he City's rode. He stated that he still believes that this is an appropriate
location for an entire residential drvrlopmrnt. Ile questioned wtuu limitations existed to
review the 2~ acre residential site. City Attorney Riback responded that after considering
:ill of the information brought before the Commission, it could either approve, modify or
deny the Greenhriar proposal.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that issues have horn raised regardim_ adding floor area,
:(ccessarv structure;, lot cover;t~~r, and CCcl•R restrictions. She questioned what would he
the must effective legal foul for the Commission to contemplate using to address the issues
and concerns raised. She believed that the applicant was going to advocate only CC&R
restrictions and provisions. In the past, the C.'ity used CC~Rs, died restrictions, and
conditions of approval. She yuestioned what condition; +aould be appropriate ones to
impose. Community Development llirector Curtis recommended that restrictions be
incorporated within the resolution of approval. The conditions could further state that these
restrictions are to he recorded in the CC(.l•Rs. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the
CCdRs could he amended by the homeowners if the homeowners did not like the
restrictions or +vould amendment to the CCfiRs require City action'? Conununity
Development 1)irecurr Curti; responded that the homeowners would need to return to the
City to modify the conditions prior ur nutdilving the CCd'•Rs.
Curnmissioner Caldwell yuestioned whether provisions w•rre made fur irrigation of the trees
reyuired under condition 4a of the resolution of approval. She noted that past large sc:dc
development allowed trees to be installed without the reyuirentent of an irrigation system.
She wanted to make sure that the condition not be meaningless. Planner Walgren
responded that irrigation installation should be included in rnndition 4a that states that the
City would require verification that an irrigation system has been installed before the City
finals the individual homes. Commissioner Calchvell rrl'(tmml'n(1L'Cl that a landscape plan
be submitted and revie+ved to ensure drat the plaruings are appropriate.
PI.ANNIN`G CO\1~91'1~N ~1INUTES i
SEPTEMBER 23, l)94
PAGE-9-
Commissioner Siegfried Mated that there may be another question that goes along with
Commissioner Cald+vell's concern regarding irrigation of the trees, than being the health and
life span of the existing ~4ontcrcy Plnc trees h)Cated along Montrose. The concern was that
of screening because once the project was approved, the hunuowncrs can do what they like
to the backyards. Once the pine trees are gone, he CII(I ^Ot knOLV if the location of the new
trees would make any difference in terms of screening. The issue was not only how the
trees were to be maintained but LLhere the new trees are to he located relative to the
M.onterev Pines.
Commissioner Caldwell recommended that staff request a landscaping plan for staff to
review and make sure that the tree plantings were appropriate. Planner ~Valgren responded
that staff did not feel that it +va> necessary to have it as a condition at this point, but that
it could be added :u a condition.
Conunissioner Calchvell noted ttrtt each of the home; are proposed to have two fireplaces.
7'he valley experiences severe inversion during the Lvinter months due largely to wood
burning fireplaces. The Bay :~rrt Air Quality Management District was considering
imposing severe restrictions t,t new construction. She felt that the City needs to consider
this particularly in light of the fact that if the Cih' approves the project and the negative
declaration, under CEQA, the City is saying that there are no significant environmental
impacts associated LL'ith the implementation of this project. She had a short conversation
with the: applicant LL here she raised Ihi; issue of envirunntenlal concern. She requested that
her telloLV Commissioners eive some thou'_hl to this issue.
Commissioner hapl;m questioned LL~hy the City was reviewing the EIR and the Negative
Declaration so late in the process. She questioned if this was the appropriate time ro review
the EiR folloLL'ing the approval of the conceptual plans. Connmunity Development Director
Curtis responded that [his was the appropriate time to address the environmental impacts
associated with this project.
Commissioner CaldLVell commented that it was her understanding that the Commission has
a mitigated \e~_ative Declaration pr~parcd and proposed by staff for its approval Lvhich
stipulates that if the City approves the project Leith all the conditions that have been
proposed, the Comm~ission ca.n say that it does not bclieL•e that there are significant
environmental impacts associated Leith the project. The impacts that the Commission notes
would be mitigated through the conditions imposed.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned how Sed+vay ~~ Associates, determined the population
assumption that there will he only 263 new residents in the 9~4, 4 bedroom residential
subdivision. She stated that she has yet to see in her 2~ years of living in the City of
Saratoga but three houses turn over in her neighborhood where there were only 3 people
living in it. By her rtlculations, using two adults and hvo children, there would be 376
individu;ds and iF there acre hvo adults and three children, there would be an increase in
popul:uion of 47(I individuals. 'T~hesc figures represent nutty than what the experts came up
with. Community Ucvelopment Director Curtis responded th;tt he assumes that the
consultant came up Leith one of the historic basis for the City of Saratoga that the average
PLANNING COMM1~)N \~11NUll:iS •
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - l0 -
was 2.8 persons per house based upon a 2.8 x 94 = 2(i3 formula). Planner Walgren
responded that the calculation was based on 19911 census information and standards that
have been verified over the years Cih~-wide. Commissioner Kaplan commented that the
various types of home hovers +verc not considered in the calculation (e.g., it is not known
how many retired couples would want a four bedroom house).
Commissioner Kaplan questioned if traffic calculations took into account driving children
to schools. She stated that it was not dear from the report whether carpool trips to school
and back during peak hums were taken into account. She also questioned if t+vo wage
earners were including in the rdculations (t+vo people leaving between 7 and 3 a.nt. in the
morning going to work and then returning home in the evening.
Vice-chairman Nlurakami stated shat the only questions he had were related to the average
calculation per square foortge and the average speed counts.
Vice-Chairman ~~lurakami opened the public hearing for this item at 8:38 p.m.
Carol Meyer, Grecnbriar, stated that she would turn the meeting over to Paul Laticrre so
that he could briefly go through the presentation for the benefit of those Commissioners
+vho were absent from the last meeting follo+ved by addressing the issues presented tonight.
Commissioner Calchvell responded That the presentation would not be necessary as she and
Commissioner KapL•ut bare revie+ved the minutes in detail as ++•ell as havins. listened to the
tapes. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the new issues raised this evening be
addressed.
Ms. Meyer stated that her architects, Goodwin Steinberg and .iim Yee from the Steinberg
Group were present to address the Commission. She noted that the homes were redesigned
to lower the square footage. II you add up the square footage of the homes that +vill
actually he built, the average would be x,11>( square feet. She also addressed the concern
of ancillary structures in the rear yards. She stated that she did not have a problem
restricting pool houses from the backyards. l lo+vever, she requested that trellises be allowed
because they add a lot to backyard huukc•aping.
Commissioner C;dd+vell questioned if ;toy thought had been given to impervious coverage.
Ms. Meyer responded that some hornco+vncrs would +vant to have swimming pools and that
it has been her experience that there +vill be an average of ?~o to 4`,-z. swimming pools
installed. She responded to Conunissioncr Kaplan's question pertaining to school children
and people living in these homes by noting that other developments average .4 to .S children
per home.
Commissioner ICsplan crnnmented that some of her neighbors have moved into her
neighborhood expressly for the school district.
Commissioner Sieelried yueslioned if the calculations included any extra individuals (i.e..
mother, father, grandfather, etc.). (\•ls. Meyer responded that of ,t 411-p home project, an
average of S~¢. consisted of e.etended famih~ members living +vith a couple. She shared
PLANNING CO~iC\11~1 MINU"lL-:S •
SEPTEMI36R 2S, 1994
PAGE - ll -
Commissioner Calchvcll's concern regarding pollution. She agreed to otter gas log lighters
with gas lugs as an option. She informed the Commission that the traffic consultant,
Michael Kennedy, f)KS, +vas present to address traffic concerns.
Paul Laticrre, land planner and landscape architect for the project, presented the
Commission with a ;lido presentation. He addressed the setback of the wall for lot '13. The
concepwal plan stage showed a five foot setback fur the +vall and that the current plan
indicates a 10 foot setback. Greenbrier has requested that a li foot setback be utilized.
If the watt is setback 1~ feet, it would be setback i feet more than some of the walls on the
other side of the street on McFarland. He did not believe that the _S foot setback would
provide any positive hcnrfit to the streetseapes and would provide negative impacts to the
home. Illustrations +vere presented to show what the +vall elevations +aould look like along
McFarland. Ile disc•ussu(the setbacks of the homes ur the right-ul-+vay line (over 40 feet
behveen the house to thr right-of +vay). "hhe proposal has slightly smaller setbacks along
that street in order ur provide the open space Irtrk. The area along ~4cFarland would be
planted very heavily. 'hhere exists a significant anunnn of bufferin~_. He did nut believe that
the additional setback would make a visible difference when you look at the. project from
the outside, but would make a significant difference to the size of. the park and upon space
inside if the setback is increased. [Ic did not believe that there would be any material
benefit to setback the homes further near Highway f;~ because the homes were invisible
from one direction due to the retaining/sound walls that currently exist. Also, the existing
pines :n the rntr:tnce would provide a si~~nifirant amount of screening from the other
direction. There would he no uvrrtll benefit to the project and the exterior cunununity if
greater setbacks were required. Fle pmposc~ to nutve the wall as an entire writ, jogging it
back :urti forth to cre;ue tiOme SLeI?ping in the elevations as seen from Sarato~;t Avenue. lie
provided drawings depicting extensive plantings. Once people develop their backyards, there
would be additional scrccttina.
Commissioner Calchvell questioned if it would be possible to have the same type of
staggering effect for lots 90-94 as proposed for lots 1-9. ~1r. latierre responded that it
would be possible to stagger the homes, but nut the +vall because an unmaintainable piece
of land would he created. Hr stated that there +vould he a Luke buffer brt++•ecn the homes
and the strcctscape. 1-ie c.lid not feel that there was ;ur impact lront Montrose Street
w•hrthcr the homes were stae~sered or in a str;tisht line. The hunter would trot be visible
from any location. hie stated that hr +vould a_~ree to work with the adjoining neighbors
regarding the disposition of the existing trees. The trees that were agreed to be removed
would be replaced +vith 24" bc>erd u'ees with the location of the trees to be worked out at
the appropriate time.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned the slide depicting the traffic light newly-installed at the
entrance to the development un Saratoga Avenue. She questioned how much of the house
.vould he visible from a car driving from the freeway- urw•ards the traffic light. Mr. L,:ttierre
responded that the homes wuuli.l nut br seen I'rum Saratoga .Avenue berarse the homes
would be setback 411 fort from the suund+c:rll. Conunis>inner Kaplan cunuttenred that if
traffic moves to+vards the u'affic light, she felt that the staggering of the homes would be an
imperceptible visual mitigation trtvellirig at 3~ miles per hour. She questioned what the
1'--.An~i1nG coti'Inu~)~ ~Tl~lu-rr_•s
srPTrMBIIZ ~s, l~)t~~
PAGF:-12-
cars would see from the high point on Saraurga Ave. lookin~~ back towards Highway 8S,
because if drivers can sec the ++•hole row of houses, then it would look like a massive wall.
She questioned if single story homes should be built to mitigate bulky appearance. Mr.
Latierre responded that ~-ou would he able to see a little of the house from the other
direction but there is to he planting in the Caltrans right-of-+vay. 1'he characterization of
the homes hcing massive bulk ++•as not a good characterization of what the homes would
actually look like.
Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern that massive walls would he seen and questioned
if single story homes+vould be more appropriate to mitigate the massive hulk. Mr. Latierre
provided a rendering showing landscape plantings with four or five years growth.
Goochvin Steinberg addressed the conceptual plans that +vere approved by the City Council
and what it means to the Cununissirn~, the architect surd the clients. He conunented that
the City of Sarau~ga has a reputation of hcing a very tough city but +vas straight forward and
fair. He stated that his interpretation of conceptual plan approval meant that lot sizes, road
and home ;tuts wcrc approved. Ile has moved to the next stage of the design process
which was to try to wort: ++•ith the elevation and to be sensitive to those elevations.
Judy Flomen, Lil~9 ~•1ontrose, informed the Conunission that she contacted each and every
neighbor on i\•kmtrosc Street regarding Greenhriar's proposal. She submitted a petition in
support of the pnrpos;d. The only pcnnn who expressed concern +vith a two story structure
WAS a renter. She provided the Commission with photographs of her home depicting little
landscaping ;md some pictures of. her home seven years later with mature landscape
careening. She addressed the straight line-look and jogging of the homes by stating that she
did not want to see the homes staggered on Montrose Street. If the homes were staggered,
yon +vould take away Irom the open space. She requested that the homes be Icft as
proposed because they were not perceived as a snaigltt line. She addressed the fireplace
issue. .She stated that she uses her fireplace because her 3,20Q square foot home was a~
years old and that the home was heated by one furnace.'I'he new homeo+vners would have
centrAlizcd hcatin~= ;md would probably not use the fireplace ;rs a hea[in~ unit. Also, no one
has expressed concern +vith ho+v the existing school children would get to school. With the
installation of a signal light, the children have been safer than they have ever been.
Regarding the s+a•imming pool issue, she informed the Commission that there were several
svimming pools in Saratoga to chose from (i.e., YMCA, ~~'estgate Swim Club, etc.). She
did not see that the pool issue as being one to he concerned with. Rcgardmg the pine tree
concern expressed by Commissioner Siegfried, she felt confident that Cireenbriar would
replace the trees.
Commissioner Siegfried responded that his concern was that once the pine trees were gone,
they were gone. The concern was that there +vas not a connnon backyard. He was
confident that Greenbrier would do +vhat she would like them to do. But once the homes
were sold, the backyards were no longer common property. Every neighbor could do what
they want to do. If the concern is not resuh-ed at this time, there would be no control
because the backyards would become private properh=and the City cannot require anyone
to provide screening in the hacl:vards.
PI..ANNING COMi\~11~N )\QINUTES •
SEPTEMBER 2S, 199
PAG G - 13 -
Rebecca Chanev, 1RS~9 Afh,n AVCnIIC, addrosscd a concern that was addressed at the last
meeting. That concern heine that the neighborhood would not receive any l,enefit by having
the plans approved as proposed. She stated her disagrdement with this concern. She noted
that some of the benefits w he received from this proposal would he: 1) improved safety
for the families (installation of a signal light); 3) accessible close recreation (use of proposed
park and walking path and the use of an interior open space area); 3) environmental
enhancement -the pl:u,s which meet the requirements of the site plan in the MU-PD zone
was the least dense option to be considered; and 4) the neighbors have ahvays found open
doors when communicating with Grcenbriar and trust Grcenbriar. The MU-Pll zone is one
that would provide the least impact.
Martin Chaney, 1859 Afton Avenue, addressed the extensive support for this I,roject. Ire
addressed the straight line along \•tontrose. I Ie belie~~ecl th;u the reason for this w•as largely
due to the ~0 Foot setbacl: rcyuircmdnt. Ile emphasized that the ~0 toot setback
requirement w•as marl important to the individuals in the neighborhood than whether the
line was straight or not. `this was clue to the concern that the development would have on
the views of the hills. I-le concurred with Planning Commissioner Caldwell's
recommendation regarding issues about restrictions on future devclo}>ment and additions.
Regarding the longevity of the Monterey Pines, the existing neighbors have been aware of
the health of the treys. The neighborhood, including Grcenbriar, is conunitted to preserving
trees where possible. He recunundnldd that the determination of which trees are to be
removed be Icft up to the City Arborist and Greenhriar's tree consultant. The trees can still
provide screening until the newly planted landscapim_ matures. (=vervonc shares the concern
of impacts un school and s:,fete and that is unc of the reasons that the neighborhood is
supportive of this devdlopment plan. 'I'bis plan would provide the first signalized
intersection south of Cox AVCntll' un either Saratoga Avenue or Quito Road. 't'his, in
combination with sidewalks and bike paths along Saratoga Avenue means that for the first
time, its going to be possible for the residents to walk and hike safely to the library. He
understands and shares the Commission's concern regarding this development plan. The
neighbors have reviewed the plans and viable alternatives, Although it was not perfect, it
was superior to any of the alidrn;ttivds and recununended Commission approval of the plans
this evening.
Margaret Chang-, 1SS~r) :lftnn :venue, requested that the Cnnunission support the
proposal. She felt that the proposal met the needs of the neighhorhuud. If the proposal is
approved, it would be feasible to conthlete construction oC the project before she completes
high ,drool.
Michael hcnnedy, DKS Associ;ues, traffic conwluuv, responded to yucstions raised by
Commissioner Kaplan relative to traffid. The answer wits "yeti' to the yucstions raised was
~a•hether the counts also included the impacts of trips to school and thou of multiple
individuals residing in the houscholel. '1-he tralTic analysis was based un studies of a number
of other suhclivisions ul equal size. 'Dips used ~+•ere per dwelling unit that refledt all types
of trips that are to be m;rcle from this hpe of subdivision. To the LXSCnt [hat this was a
typical subdivisions of homes Icss th:u, X110 chvcllings in total size, it wars typical to include
the various types of traffic counts questioned by Commissioner K;q,lan.
PI..ANNI\G C0~4N11~N NIINI;'I~ES •
SEPTEMI3E1: '8, Irt~)4
PAGE - 14 -
Commissioner Ahshirc questioned if Mr. Kennedy has ever checked up on some of their
past forecast on traffic. Mr. Kennedy responded that trip generations were based nn existing
subdivisions and were not speculative in this case. They were based on observations. IIe
estimated that his forecast was typically accurate t0 wilhirl -l~%.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the traffic chart includes not onh~ Greenbriar's proposal
but ako th:u of the proposed Kerwin Ranch subdivision. She questioned why the existing
neighborhood was not included because there was no interplay between the street that
Montrose comes out to Saratoga :\venuc. Mr. Kennedy responded that the counts were
actual traffic counts. DKS measured the number of vehicles at a particular intersections
during the months of ~\ugust and that other counts conducted for the City of Saratoga were
taken during the months of April and May. The counts taken in August were factored
upward to adjust for the fact that school was out at the time.
Ms. Meyer called to the Commission's attention a table distributed containing conditions
[hat she requested be nurdificd ae lollows: condition 3dii -deletion of the ~0' setback from
the street line w read ~0' setback from the curb line adjacent to (\9cl-'arland Avc. so that the
open space in the park area at the other' end of the project could he reutined (strong input
received from the SLIrrOUnlllnt; neighbors that they would like that area to be a park).
Commissioner Kaplan requested staff clarification regarding its intent with condition 3dii.
Planner Walgrcn clarified that the recommendation was to increase the setback to the
minimum >0 foot required in the N1U-PD zoning which can be varied if the Commission
finds that there is good reason to vary it. The applir<uits were concerned that if they meet
the ~0 foot setback from Mcfarland, th;rt they would eliminate the open space located
internally in the development. The whole development would push to the south and what
would he lost would he the open space to meet the SU foot setback.
Ms. Meyer stated that the lor;uion of the homes have not chanced from that of the
conceptual plan. The N1cArrland access has been widened from the conceptual plan and
tree wells were added.
Vice-chairman ~-lur;tkami stated that the problem that the Commission was having was that
of receiving information this evening and questioned ~ahy the information was submitted at
this time. Nis. Meyer responded that at the last meeting, it was rcyucstcd that the
Commission accept the proposal and i1 was felt that the information was not presented as
well as it could have been. So she prepared a worksheet to have the issues clarified because
they were technird and hard to understand.
Commissioner Kapl:m st:ui•d that the worksheet was a good one to prepare. However, the
difficulty for the Commission w•as that the worksheet(sj were received this evening.
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that pages _':, _'~ and 2J of the staff
report were submitted al the last meeting. The request for deviation from setbacks were
included in the stafF report.
" PLANNING coMn•11~N MINUTES •
SEPTEMBER 2S, 1994
PAGE - 15 -
Planner Walgrcn informed the Conunission that R additional letters from area residents
were received and distributed to the Commission.
COMMISSIONI3RS Ki\PL~W/Cf\I.I)\VEI.I. MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING, AT 9:411 I'.~1.
THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:40 P.M. 1~HE COMMISSION RECONVENED
AT 9:51 P.M.
Commissioner Calthvell requested that staff address its position on the appliautts request
to modity recommended conditions of approval.
Planner Walgren responded to the ntodific;ttions to c•unditions as listed in the handout
distributed as follo+vs: I) ±dii -lots 9-12 abut ~1cParland and lots 9(1-9; abut the corner of
Route SS and S;rratnsa Avenue: the recommendation to meet the 50 foot setback was taken
from the MU-PD zoning and the spccilic plan development guidelines for this site
(reflecting 7_onine Ordinance and guideline requirements; 2) 3diii - it is reconunended that
the soundwall setback on lot 1. a minimum of 25 feet which reflects the front yard setback
requirements of the abutting home directly to the cast which is in an R-l, 10,000 zoning
district where the required front yard setback is 25 Feet; and ,j Condition 4a -the language
as proposed by the appliruu requesting +vas acceptable to statff. This would require that the
trees along the perimeter hontcs :don« Saratoea Avenue, Montrose Street and McFarland
he installed prior to linal inspection on the individual homes. The perimeter homes were
the ones that staff +vas addressing ++ith this condition. The remainder of the trees could be
installed subject to the reyuirentents of the CC&Rs.
Commissioner Patrick notet.l that provisions in the first hvo pages of the handouts received
states: "Planted prior to final occupancy for each of the homes or a security deposit may
he posted in lieu." This IanRuagc has been deleted from the sununary. Planner VValgren
responded that the language nuxiifirrtion as listed on page ? +vould be acceptable to staff
necause it achieves stall's objectives for tltc plantinvs of the trees.
\~ith respect to Condition 41. Planner \\%algren clarified the C'ity'> Building Code surd
Central Fire District for the chive+v;n. Stall recommended that the rcyuested ;unendment
to allow the 13 foot drivc++':n' +vithin the linear open space I?e approved. Staff still
recommends that lots 9U-9? he srtt~~ered similar to lots 1-S. Commissioner Caldwell
commented that the applicant's response to this condition was that i[ +vould create dead
space. She questioned if that was a true statement and it so. +vould tn:u cre;tte a pronlem.
Planner Walgren responded that it m;ry he a true statement and would need to be looked
at closer. The condition to stagger the lots +vere developed Iate last +vcck and staff did not
have an opportunity to rcvicw• the restrictions that nun' he on those parcels.
Commissioner Cald+vcll yucstioned if staff could assist the Commission w resolve the issue
of accessory structures, allowing trellises. She yucstioned if it would make sense to add a
condition that site development ++ould need to axtform to IZ-I requirements with respect
w lot coverage. Depending on the size of the lot, they would onh~ he allotted the amount
_ PLANNING CO~~A~11~\ ~11NU'I~ES ,
SEP`I'EiVIBER 2S, 1994
YAGr - Ili -
of lot coverage of the traditional R-I zoning district. She also questioned whether the
Commission should restrict impervious coverage. Planner Walgren noted that the
Comrission could narrow the regulations that it wished to apply, the requirement could be
that no lot could exceed (i0~~ lot coverage as required under R-1 10,000 standards
Commissioner Caldwell suggested that if the City was to move forward with this project, that
the Commission include a condition regarding the fireplaces. She su~,~~ested that no wood
burning fire places wuulti he allowed. As a compromise, she proposed that one of the two
fireplaces in each of the homes he a gas lo~~ only and that both fireplaces he gas starters.
Commissioner Kaplan rcconunended that only one gas log fireplace be allowed per
residence ant( that no ~a~ood burning fireplaces be allowed due to environmental impacts.
Commissioner Siegfried yuestionetl if the proposal made sense from a design stand point.
He stated that in his Irtst years as a Planning Commissioner, the City fought for the size of
homes to make sure that they were compatible. [Ic rciterttcd that he believed that this
area should be tlevelopetl as residential. But having a conceptual plan approved does not
prohibit the Cununission in Inoking at the design of the project. Fle would nut have
approved the 9~ lots, but that he woul(I accept the 9a lots on the. basis that Greenbrier was
given a density bonus, this was a transitional zoning and the project made sense. The
average lot size was 7.ri00 square feet (>~ lots). Under the City's IZ-I 10,(100 •r..oning district,
the homes could onh~ he _',SI)0-F feet. Ile recummcndetl that the area be stipulated as being
residential, and grant the 94 lots. I loweycr, the square footage would need to be reduced
to something that is in line with the R-1 10,110(1. If not, the City would be questioned as tic
why it allowed (i,6~0 square foot lots with i,7(.)0 square foot homes. If you look at the first
floor of. the home, they average somewhere between 2,100 ant( 2?00 square feet, giving the
perception of a wall to wall building. 1-fe understood the support of the existing neighbors,
but the Commission h;ls a ~_reatrr duty a; to wh;u the approval nl this development would
do to this community. Fle felt that the issues ncedt:d to he addressed al this lime.
Cununissioner Kaplan concurred with Commissioner Siegfrietl's comments. She still felt that
the homes were too large ;uxl that as long as the Commission has the authority to deal with
that issue, she would recommend that the size of the hornes be reduced and that the designs
be alternated betw~cen tw~u and three car t',ara>;cs to reduce some of the mass. She also
recommendal restrictions to acres;oq- buildings discussed including limiting of the
impenious coverage hcrutse there would be no control of backyards when homeowners
mOVe In.
Cormissioner Patrick commented Ihat the Commission has a duh~ to follow the guidance
of the City Council. 1lo~yeyer, she was nut satisfied that the plan; meet that guidance. She
did nut feel that the lot sizes meet the 10.11011 square tout average nor did the homes meet
the stipulated avcra«c house sizes ;r~~reed to by the City Council. She did nut believe that
the spirit of the City Council cuneeln approval was that of a throe car garage. She had a
difficult time believing th;u hyu to four people ~~rould use the three car garage. The homes
are perceived to he for larger f:unities, putting a greater strain un our already over burdened
resources (i.e., impact to traffic, schools). She stated that she could not support the proposal
PLANNING COM~11~N MINUTES
SEPTEMBEit 23, 1994
PAGE - 17 -
as presented.
Commissioner Ahshire defended the Ihrec car garage because in today's world, people use
their gartgc as stor:l~~e space. Ile was inclined to supl:wrt the three car savage. i~owever,
he was overwhclmcdwith the size of the homes on the lots. Particularly when there are so
many piled together. The proposal is one of condensed housing ;mrl m;)y appeal to
perspective homy buyers who do not want a large yard. Ife was sympathetic that this
situation was different.
Commissioner Calchvell commented that this was a difficult position to be in. She felt that
the City could have been more effective in explaining what its expectations were for this
development and should have done so at the conceptual plan stage an(I the $peCIfIC plan
stage. She was nut supportive of the size of the homes.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not comli)rtahle with the hUlileti Ixoposed due
to the size and bulk. Ile agrecri with the concept, bul th:u there was no reason that with
a fourth model, th:u one or even nvo models could exceed 320(1 syuarc feet in total.
However, the avcrt~•c should be no more than the nuixinunn allowed in the R-1 10,000
zoning district. "1"his would allow for some differentiation in roof line. i1e recommended
that the plan lie approved with an added condition which would require that the average
house size, including the gara~_e, not exceed 3?00 syuarc feet. This means that Greenbriar
would need to come up with a different variation of homes. ilc felt that some variation in
the second story mi~_ht make a diffcr~nc~ (providing ti>r a greater variation in rear
elevations). -
Vice-Chairman r\•lurakami stated that the way he looked at the situation was that the area
was intended fur multi-uses. Ile did nut feel that the Connnission was dealing with a
situation where it's totally R-1 even though all that is being proposed is residential.
Commissioner Siegfried responded that if the district was that of an R-1 10,000 zoning
district, in this configuration, discussion would not be that of 3,2(10 square feet but that of
an a~•erage of 2.(Ilf) or 2,700 square foot avenge.
Vir•e-Chairman n4urakami rmm~)ented that his main concern was that of the 3,Oli6 $C1Uare
foot average. y'~'hen staff revicwc(1 the figures with the applicants, they were willing to
reduce the homes.
Commissioner Ikaplan commented that the Commission was not implying a change to the
basic configuration. however, she did not believe that the Commission had to accept the
size of the homes as presented. She felt that a disservice would be done to the City of
Saratoga and to the obligation that the Commission has to the underlying rules and
regulations that it is told to implement.
Commissioner Caldu-ell slued she did not disagree with Connnissinner Kaplan's assessment
of the proposal from the design revie(+• standpoint or conceptual plan standpoint. However,
she felt that it w•as a little late to be raisin(; some of the fundamental concerns with
P-..ANNINC cOMa-n~)N ~11NI,TFS •
SFPTENiBFR 38, 199a
PAGE - lii -
development that has n) do +vith aver:r~•c house sizes. She felt that from a I:)ractical st;uld
point, the Commission would not accomplish very much if it makes dramatic changes in
syuare footage or average square footage. She believed that it was at the conceptual and/or
specific plan stage that these issues should have been more fully addressed.
Commissioner Kaplan responded that the Commission was charged \vith the design review
of the project.
Commissioner Siegfried felt that it would be a disservice to the City Council if. the
Commission did not state that given the parameters of the concept that was approved, that
a more aesthetically pleasing exterior he required. He did not know how the City would be
able to explain to other zoning districts how this size home was approved on this size lot.
He would recommend approval of what is before the Commission with the exception of the
concept that the average home size would he that of 3,06ti syuare feet of liveable space.
He would rather send a mcssa~~c to the City Council that states that the Commission has
bought into the concept, but shat it would want to sec a variation in the hvo story homes.
He would also stipulate that the average home size be that oC 3.300 square feet, including
the garage with greater variation, including variation in roof lines. y
Conul)issioner Ahshire commented that the project has approximately 4 acres of open space
around the freeway. He felt that it \vas a nice feature. If you divide those 4 acres into the
lots, he questioned \vhat would the :overage lot size would be? Community Development
Director Curtis responded that the lots would equate to 9,(100 syuare foot lots. He informed
the Commission that the d.73 acres of common open space was a requirement of the MU-
Pf) zoning irrespective of what land use ~~oes there.
Community Uevelopntent DIrCCtni' Curtis clarified that the change in setback along
McFarland +vas incomistcnt \vith the approved conceptual plan. Ile agreed that the
sound\vall does not chance. Ho\+e+•er, stalls CUI1CCrn \1'a5 the creation of a tunnel affect
without proper setbacks.
COMMISSIONERS SIF_GI=RIf-:I)/K~\1'I.;~N MOVED TO APPROVI?'1'HF-: NEC;ATIVE
DEC,LARATIO\ FOR PD-9~3-003. T'H6 ~1O'I'IO\ C,4RRIED (,-0 (CHAIRMAN
ASFOI~R AI3SEN'f).
COM~~IISSIONEP.SSIGGFRIf:D/KAPI.AN NIUVED'I'OAPPROVE R~SOI.L'TIO\ NU.
PI)-94-003 ~'v'fl lI 'I'1-IE FOL.L.O~liINC; MODIFICATIONS:
- "I'HE 1O1AL AVERAGE OF Tllf: 94 tTC)M1-:S IS NUT 70 L=XCEGU 3,200
SQUARE FOO"I', INC'LUUIN<; (iARA(il
- 50 FOOT BUILDING SLR I~BACK 1'R0~4 CURBLINE ON McFARLAND AS
RECOMMENDED 61" S'f.4FF A\D TII~ APPI.IC'A\"I~:
- STAGGI~RING OP LOTS 90-93 ~1S RF_COI\4~18NU[iU BY STAFF:
- SOUNI)WAI.I. O1 LOT 13 SHr1LL Bf SIB 1'f3ACK 35 FFF.T FROM
MCFARLANll AS RI_CO~INIF-.NDF.D Bl' STAFF;
- 3DII TO BE SETBACK FR(:)VI CURB LINE AS RI('OM~IP.NDED BY THE
_ '' PLANNING COMNII~\ f~91NU7-ES •
SEPTEMBER 28, 199
PAGE - 19 -
- C'ONI)I'fIC)NS ~.A ANI) 4U I AS t\CiREEll'I (:) BY STAFF AND GRF-.F_!vBRI.AR
USING ThIE \VORDING OF P;\GE_ OF "Il1E GREENBRIAR AMENDMF_NT
(1'ARAC;RAI'H BECi1NNING \VITII "REAR YARDS" AND ENDING WITH
"BASIS.") PF:RTAINIIG TO THE PLANTING OF "FREES FN TIIE REAR
YARDS, REQUIREME\T OF TIIE 1NS~1'AI..I_A'I~ION OF IRRIGATION FOR
ALL INSTALLED LANDSCAI'INC;, ANU'I'HATT[IE LOCATION RELATIVE
'f0 "1'HE ~~fONT'ERE1' Pl\F:S OF TIIE 'TREES/LANDSCAPING TO BE
INSTALLED TO BL• APPROVII) Bl' S"I'AFF TO /\CCOMPI_ISH SCREENING
OBJEC"I'IVFS;
- NO ADDI"fION.<\1. .4CCF,SSOR1' S'1~12U(:'1'IJRES TI-IAT WOULD COUNT
AGAINS"I' S()1~.4RE FO(_)TAGE TO "1'FIE FI_.0012 AREA, \VHILE
PER~11'I'I'INC. OPEN GARUIN S'TRI;CTURES. NO LOT COVERAGE "1'O
E?(CEEU tiU°•~. OP ANY INUIVIllI;AL LOT;
- TWO FIRE=. F'I .<\C'F:S'I () BE ALLOWED PL-R I IOUSI: \\'I I'H THE L'SE OF GAS
LOG ONLt'; ANU
- ALL OF "hFIESE CONDITIONS TO BE CONDI"1lONS IN THE CCfiRS AN'll
CONUI"110\S OF .41'PROVAL.
Commissioner Sic~~lried st:ued that his rea~mmendation of the 3?00 aver;t~~e syuarc footage
was to require lurther artieul:ttion +vith the second stop element to reduce bulk. The intent
was to achieve snore v:u i;nion in home sizes. 'I he approval should he that of keeping with
Sartto~a.
Conunissioncr Calchv~ll questioned if the Commission approved the motion incorporating
the average square footage not to exceed 3,?UO fcet, what +vould that do to any design that
Greenbrier may come up +vith. Commissioner Siegfried responded that change in design
would need to return to staff and mavhe to the Commission. i le did nut want to see this
item go heel: to the Council on the basis that the Commission has not addressed the design
review issue.
Community Uc+vlupmcnt Uircctur Curtis requested daritiruion that any changes in
elevation or floor plans that varies Irom Commission approval would return for the
Commission's approval at a public hearing. Cih ,'\tutrnev Rihack ;fated that it [he
Commission su directs, the item does not need to return to the Commission as a public
hearing. It could return to the Commission as a work session or as a consent calendar item.
It was the consensus. of the Conunissiun that a public hearing would not be required.
Commissioner Calchvell ;fated that she felt that the Connnission would achieve its goal
tuni~_.ht for the prc~jcct if the modified designs curate in and tlwse; dcsigm reflects a reduction
in hulk and macs.
'1'IIF; ~~tOIION C:1Rltlla) (-U (CI-1AIRMAN ASFC.)l1R ARSE:N'I').
- PLANNING CO~•1MI~N \~11Ni1TES •
SEPTEMBER 2S, 1994
PAGE - 20 -
4. liY-9-t-00(- Gngelson; 20;R1 Se.r Gull V1'ay, request for Use Permit approval to
construct a 5(16 sy. ft. detached garage located 10 lt. from a rear
property line per Section l5 of the City Cude. The parcel is 11,250 sy.
fl. and is Incased within an R-1-I(I,000 zoning district.
Conunissioner Ahshire stepped do~~-n from discussion of this item.
Planner Walgrcn presented the staff report un this item.
Commissioner Kaplan connnented that at the site visit, it was noticed that the length of the
driveway ran parallel with the length of neighboring backyard. She was concerned that
there was no condition recommended for screening. Several options were discussed as to
how best to mitigate the impart of having a driveway run past the nei~~hhor's house and past
the backvard. She ralucstcd that staff assist with the appropriate language for a condition
to mitigate her concern. Vier-chairman \~turakami recommended th;u a condition requiring
installation of a good neighbor tenet or a chain linked fence hr required. Commissioner
Kaplan further recomntrndcd installation of screening. Planner \Valgren recommended that
installation of a good neighbor fence he required and shrubbery to hr placed along the side
of. the driveway to hr skuawn on the plans prior ur issuance of permits and that it is to be
installed prior to final inspcrtion of the building, including irrigation.
Vice-Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing for this item at 10:48 p.m.
Art Engelson, 20,81 Sea Gull \Vav, inforntcd the Commission that hi; architect was present
to address any questions which it naav have. 1-Ie informed the Commission that his
neighbors have stated their support to what is brim, proposed. Ile srtted that he was
pmposirts to repL•ace all tenting and concurred ~~•ith the rrronuneaulcd condition pertaining
Lo installation of a good nri~_hhor lence and irrigation.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned the trenching seem running up to the site. Mr. Engelson
responded that the trench was installed to take the drainage to the rear yard and that he
has made provisions to protect the oak tree roots in the trenched area.
COM~•11SSIONERS SIFGFRIED/P.A'1'RICK MOVED 'I'O CI.OSG TFIE PUBLIC
IIEr\RINC; AT 10:51 P. N1.
COh1MISSl0NE1LS h:\I'I~•\N/1?~\"fRl('K MOVk:I) ~1~0 AI'1'RO~'E'I~HE RES(:)L[.JTION
NO. UI'-94-00(i \'VI'I'H "I HF AI)DEI)CON'DITIC)N TOI2EQl;IR1:"I~1-11-:1\S I'AI.I...ATION
OF A GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE ;\1.O1C; -f~l IF: SIDE: YARD AS \VELL .4S SCREEN
PLAN-PING AND IRRIGATION ('hO BF APPROVED BY STAFF). -fIIE MO'I'lON
CA.RRIF::D 5-0-] (CO~•1'~11SSIONER ABSHIRE ABSTAINING ANU CHAIRMAN
ASFOUR ABSEN"f ).
Commissioner Ahshire resumed his seat un the Commission.
S. UR!)4-(Il4 - 'Tsai: I')498 Burgun[ly 1Va) (Parcel C), request for Design Review
t PLANNING CO V1~11~)N :vllNl.;-I~ES •
SEPTl;h1BER 2R, 1994
PAGE - Z I -
;tpproval to construct a new ~?4ti sy. ft. two-story residence un a
varmt parcel pLll'Snant t0 C;hepter 1~ of the City Code. The subject
property is approximately 44,242 sy. ft. and is within an R-L-40,000
-r..onina district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Calchvell cnmmente(I that a telephone memorandum from Betsy Cory
expressing concern regarding drtina«c was received. Planner Walgren confirmed that a
telephone rnenu)randuot ~~;ts received from Betsv Gory addressing the drainage Swale that
runs AIUng the lower half of the property. lie nutc(I that no culverting, piping or any work
occurring within this drainage Swale and that there was nu development within its proximity.
Commissioner Patrick yueslioncd the sound prublcrn that was raised in the letter. Planner
Walgren clarified that the concern was that the two story homes were bad because sound
bounces off two story homes onto adjoining property. He informed the Commission that
there were no existing homes in close proximity to parcel C. The closest homes to this
development were adjacent to parcels A ;uul B.
Vice-Chairm;tn \lurckami npcncd the public hearing for this item at 10:4 p.n).
David Pruitt. ~S~U Lakeview Urive. San .lose, project (lesigner, :nul Chen Tsai, applicant,
informed the Conunis;ion that they would respon(I to questions which it may have.
Commissioner Caldwell questioned if stall would support a condition which would require
conforming to the Best 1\~Ianagement Practices adopted by the Regional Board and the
Water llistrict for construction activity around the creek or drainage way. Planner Walgren
informed the Commission that it has been included as a condition in the resolution.
Commissioner Kapl:u) ennunent(•(1 that Condition 7 of the resolution states that "All future
landscaping within the storm drain easement area shall be reviewed." She questioned whit
landscaping w•as propuseel'? ~1r. Pruitt respondc(I that nn Lcn(Isr.(pin~~ ryas proposed to be
installed a( this time. y
Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the condition be nuxiificd to change the
condition to read that "Any future landsrtping...."
COIv4i~11SS1ONERS h:\PI.f\N/C:-\I_DWEI_L 1\4OVED 'I'O CLOSE '1'IiE PUBLIC.
Hk-:ARING Al~ 1(I:i9 1'.V'1.
CO h1~11SSl0NERSSIEC;PRIED/K;~I'I.,•\N ~4(_)VEI) I OAI'I'ROVI-; I2FSOI.,IJ'I'IONNO.
DR-94-(Ill A\qE\DI\'Ci C'ONi)1"1'I(_)N i'i'(_) Rf:;\17 "ANti' I~lll'IJRf~ La\NllS('AI'ING...."
THE i\iO'11O\ C::\RRI~D ti-() (C'1-1~11R1`1;\N ASFOI;R ABSt~"1~).
G. L.L-94-0114 - Smith .'t Vnkac/Baba; 13531 K 13553 OId Oak \Vay, request for L.(n
SD1-94-002 - request fur Lot Line Adjustment approval a) reconfigure a property
-`~ PLANNING CON11If~N ~11NU'hES •
SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
PAGE - 22 -
boundary trod transfer an equal amount of land from one parcel to the
other. Site Modification approval is also reyuested to allow the
construction of a garage exlrmsion, requiring two pttrxllel retaining
+valls, on Parcel '. Both Parcel 1 and 2 are hillside lots located within
a ilillside Residential zonine district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Vice-Chairman Murtkumi opened the public hearing for this item at 11:02 p.m.
Mitch Barria, Barria & Associates, 3110 Almaden Expmssway, San Jose, informed the
Commission that he would address any questions which it may have regarding this project.
Commissioner Abshirc noted that at the site visit that there nary he a drainage problem un
the property as indicated by the plastic, flexible luhing. 'hhrre would he an increase in the
water shed with the extension. Ile questioned how the drainage +vould be handled'? Mr.
Barria responded that retaining walls w•uuld be handlin« the drain surface water runoff from
around the house into the existin~~ drainage channels.
COMh11SSIONERS SIEGFRIED/K.:1.PI.ANT MOVED 'I'O CLOSE TIIE PUBLIC
HEARING :~T 11:113 P. N1.
COMMISSIO\F_RS G~I.Dy~'ELL/SIEGPRICD N1OVED'hO APPROVE RESOi..UT1ON
NOS. LI: 94-O(14 ANI.) SM-rt4-OU2. TI11~ iv1O17ON C'ARRI~U 6-U (CI-LAIRMAN ASFOLJR
ABSENT).
7. UR-')-I-037 - Ucnnis; 14291 1?h•a Ave.. request for Dcsi_m revie+v approval to allu+a-
V-94-OIG - a 1,031 sy. ft. second-sorry addition to an existing 2,7(10 sy. ft. one-story
home pursuant to Chapter I~ of the City Code. Variance approval is
also reyuested to allow the addition to exceed the maximum allowable
Iloor area for this parcel by 41~ sy. ft. The hillside lot is 11,475 sq. ft.
in size and is located +vithin an R-1-10,000 zoning district.
COmI7115~111nrr Patrick stepped clown from discussion of agend;t item 7 due to a conllict of
interest.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report nn this item. [le informed the Commission that
staff recommended Benial ul the desi~~n review ;aid variance request because granting a
variance would be granting of special privileges.
Vice-Chairman 1\9urakami opened the public hearing fur this item at 11:0 p.m.
David Curly, 4_'9 North ('corral, Stockton, expressed that this Irroject was an "odd animal".
The owner has I1,47i square fret of L•uul and lives in a 2,101) square foot house on this
laut<l. Under his home is a very lar~~c two car ~~artge +vhich does not contribute to his home.
The owner is goin_~ to marry soon and heals to add square footage to accommodate
" PLANNING COMA4i~N MINUTES •
SEPTEMBER 28. 199
PAGE - 2~ -
additional family members. II a second flour was added to the house, the impact/intensity
would not change. An IS~~ floor area is proposed with a low impervious coverage. The
o\vner wants to increase the floor area so that he does not have to sell the home and
purchase a larger home. I-le did not believe that there were any neighbors in opposition to
the proposal. The neighborhood was a mix of hvo story homes. Ile felt that the variance
could be granted based on the hardship to the property owner. Ile requested that the
property owner be allowed to improve his [he property.
Commissioner Kaplan questioned if ~•ir. Curly untlentood the zoning requirements when
he started the project. Mr. C_'urh~ responded that hr met with staff anti went through the
slope densih~ calculation. 1 he slope ordinance \vas in place to control tlcnsity and impacts
on the site. He stated that he understood the situation and that it w•as suggested to him that
he could apply for a variance to request Commission approval of the extra square foot in
the area so that he could accommodate his client's needs.
Vice-chairman Murakami questioned if the existing home was previously remodeled. Mr.
Curley respontlai that there have been no previous remodels.
Conunissioner Ahshire questioned it the addition \vas prou'uding over the backyard. Mr.
Curley responded that +\•hat was seen +vas a hay \vindrn\•, a projection over the gartgc door.
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the square footage of the structure. Mr. Curley
responded that the garage aryl .vas Gti(1, the first floor area was '_.100 and that a 1,03
square foot second story addition \+•as being proposed for a total of i,79i square fee[.
COMM[SSIONEl2S KAPI.r~N/SIEGFRIED MOVf:D '1'O CLOSE TIES PUE3LIC
IIEARING A"I' 11:17 1'.~I.
Commissioner Kaplan suucd her sympathy with the applicant's personal situation. t-Eo\vever,
under the design rcyic\+~ lindings, the Commission cannot make the varitutce findings based
upon the size of the famih- or whether the neighbor, object to the proposal or not. She did
not feel that the area \vas a predominantly hvo story nei~~hhorhuod. P.ven if i[ was a
predominate two stun- neighborhood, the honse \yas rnaXlml'Led, Shl' sealed that she would
vote a, deny the variance.
COMM[SSIONEE2S KAPI.A1/SIEC;[=1t1EU A1OVED TO UENY Al'PE_ECATIONS DR-94-
037 AND V-Olti. 'hHE >\4OTI0\ CARRIEll ~-O-I (COM~~IISSIONER PATRICK
ABSTAINING AN'E) CIIAIRNI.AN ASI=OI!R AI3SI:N'I').
Mr. Curley rcyuestetl to readdress the Commission.
City Attorney Rib:lck recommended that the Commission ret•onsidcr it; motion and then
reopen the public hc:u'in`a if it wished to take additional ustinunp~ Irom the public.
COMMISSIONER SII:CI~RIEU/CALDWEI..I. MOVED TO RECO\SIDER 'THE
1\ROTION AND REOPENEU'fl IG YCIRLIC HE;V2ING.'I'I-iF. MOTION CARRIED 4-1-1
` PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES •
SIP'I'E~1BER 2K, 199
PAG1; - 24 -
(KAI'I,AN VO~I~IN'G NO,C;OM\-11SSIONER PATRICKABSTAININC; ANUCFi~\IRMAN
ASf=OUR ABSENT).
Vice-chairnum Mural:;uni reopened the public he:rrin~~ a 1120 p.m.
Mr. Dennis, applicant, commented that this was the oldest neighborhood in Sarato};a. He
felt that the Commission should consider approval of his request because the neighborhood
has 3 homes over ,,000 square feet and one over 5,000 square feet. All of his neighbors
were supportive of the request. Ile requested that the Commission consider what the
approval would due to the value of the property.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIF.D/K,4PI.f\N ti1OVF..D TO CLOSE PUBL.iC EIEARiNG
f\T 11:25 P. NI.
Commissioner Siegfried cunnnenti•d th:0 the Iegal Cinding> arc very specific and he could
not make the findings in this case.
COMMISSIONERS KAI'LAN/SIEC;FRIED MOVEU'1'O UENY AI'PLICA'11ONS UR-9~-
O:i7 i\ND V-9~3-016. THE MO"PION (:r\RRIED 5-0-1 AS FOLLO\VS: AYES: ABS[IIRE-,
CALD\VF1.1., K.<\PI.AN, \IIJR~\K~\\11, SIE(.iFR1EU; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN:
PATRICK; f\BSE\ 1: ASI=(.)l.iR.
Conunisioner Patrick resumed her scat un the Commission.
8. SD-94-0(11 - Kennedy; 1'1900 Cox Ace., request for `I'enuuive Map approval to
subdivide a 2.G acre parcel into five single-famih~ residential building
sites ranging from 1 ±,769 to 22,(iS0 sq. ft. in area pursuant to Chapter
14 of the City Code. 'I he subject property is located at 19900 Cox
Ave., on the corner of Cumberland Dr. and Cox Ave., and is currently
developed with a single residence. All five proposed building sites
nuuld access directh- onto Cumberland Drive. An Environmental
Initial Stuch~, as required by the California Invironment:tl Quality Act
(CEQA). has been prepared. Based upon review of the Initial Study,
staff is recommending adoption of a "Negative Declaration" fur this
project.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item
Vice-Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing for this item at 11:2;1 p.m.
Barry Barnes. Lewis Uevelupment, 172 South SaranrRa/Sunnyvale Road, stated his
concurrence with stzrtt s recunnnend:uiun.
C0~11N11SSIONEKS C.~I.D\VEJ..1../SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE T1IE PCJBLIC
IIEAI2[NC; A'I' 11:2!) P.M.
,~ `~` J PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, :1)94
PAGE - 25 -
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL N EGATIV E DECLARATION AND RESOLUTION NO. SD-94-003.
THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT).
DIRECTOR'S ITE119S
Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of the October 11 joint
Council meeting. He requested that the Commission consider agenda items for that
meeting. Topics recornmendecl were as follows: 1) tree policy; 2) presentation by
Commissioners Caldwell. and Murakarni regarding the Tree Ordinance Committee's work
and its direction; and 3) Santa Clara County General Plan -public hearings are scheduled
for November.
Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the Commission do its homework for that
meeting because comments are due to the County prior to the November hearing dates.
Some discussion is needed regarding the substantial issues. She also stated that Tree
Ordinance Committee was working on --evised policy and close to completion. of the
ordinance and guidelines. But the Commission has not come up with a new policy regarding
other jurisdictions repl~rcement policy. She was not sure if she would be prepared to address
and provide feedback to the Council regarding what other jurisdictions are doing and what
the alternatives are. She recommended that there be discussion regarding the
"Commlrnication Policy" adopted by the last City Council.
Development Director Curtis requested that tl~e Commission provide staff with an update
of phone numbers and addresses.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Patrick reported that she attended a Planning Commission seminar in
Oakland and has material from the City of Carlsbad's General Plan dealing in particular
with signage and facade of the building that she would share with the Commission. Also,
an individual frorTi a Sacramento Group (a Ralph Nacler type of group) would agree to
speak to groups regarding planning and environmental issues. She also requested a copy
of the City of Danville's Design Review Plan which deals with hillside issues.
COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN
1. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Piontek elated 9/9/94.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the letter he wrote
to Mr. and Mrs. Piontek was in response to a letter they sent to the Commission dated
September 9. The letter c~crtlines the issues of concern (i.e., tree planting, drainage, wood
PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES '~
~ SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 "
PAGE - 26 -
pile and the dog house).
Mr. Piontek responded that the source of. his comments stemmed from what has occurred
in the neighborhood for the past three years. He did not believe that individual property
owners have a say. The Cocciardi's were required to plant trees because existing trees were
illegally removed. The trees that were replaced appear to be dead due to lack of watering.
If policies exist for landscape preservation, it is not being enforced. Discussion has occurred
regarding the original preliminary landscaping plans for the Hongs. He felt that a
communication problem. kept creeping up continually. The residents believe that something
was approved, later to find out that the plans have changed without notification. He
requested that there be better public notification when projects are submitted or modified.
He invited the Commission to the site so that he could point out all the issues of concern.
He was never notified with a new landscape plan being developed with Mr. Hong.
Community Development Curtis responded that a letter was not written to Mr. Piontek
because he was in discussion with Mr. Hong to ensure consistency with the landscape plans
approved by the Commission. He stated that he did not approve a plan that was
inconsistent with those approved by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Caldwell. learned from this situation that the Commission made an error with
the approval of. a conceptual landscape plan. Current practice of requiring detailed
landscape plans needs to be adhe--ed to.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he has spoken with
Larry Perlin, .Public Works :Director, upon receiving this letter. He informed the
Commission that Mr. Perlin was attempting to obtain some cooperation from Mr. Chadwick
to deal with the problem of drainage and erosion.
Commissioner Siegfried agreed to meet with Mr. Piontek on site to listen to his concerns.
2. City Council Minutes - 9/7 & 9/13/94
3. Notices for the 1.0/"12/94 Planning Commission Meeting
Oral
City Council
ADJOURNMENT -There being Teo further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:59
p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Octoher 4, 1994, Senior Day Care Center, 1.3777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga,
CA
IRMA TORREZ
MINUTES CLERK