Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-1994 Planning Commission Minutes;'_ ~ ~~ANNI\G COMMISSION ;14iNUT~ NOVEMBER 9, 1994 City Council Chamhers, 13777 ['ruitvale Avenue Regular lVlceting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. Roll Call Present: Abshire. Caldwell. Kaplan, Patrick. Siegfried. Asfour Late: None Absent: Murakami City Attorney Rihack vas present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL C014MU\ICATIONS No comments were offered. MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1994 COMMISSIONERS CALDWFI.i./ABSHIRE MOVEll "1'O APPROVE THE OCTOBER 2G. 1994 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: ............................. - Page 1, "Minutes" to read: _ Octol?er::1~;::199.4 - Pasc 3, last paragraph, second sentence to read: "...negate installed. She asked if the recommended condition was an omission in the Plaiihiitg:sfaff report. - Page 4, last paragraph to read: "Commissioner Caldwell commented that given-tktr '~~,-~t;;nr this site was close to the Oden property...She requested that Ms. Ansnes distinguish ~''° ~'~r~;a~ between the two structures...Ms. Ansnes responded that it ............. . was not elett~ accurate: to state that the ilcritagc Commission...." - Page 5, paragraph 4, line S to read: "...theshape that was depicted by::tlic::appl.ii>aiit; ......................... but al that point....." Page C, last paragraph to read: "Chairman Asfour informed Mr. Fine that it was a City policy that a Commissioner could not address another Commission or City Council when;iieriis.;ttiat:have:tir;ria}c~inchefore'usris;aCtiaimi5sii~n:" - Page 8, paragraph fi, to add the fttllowing at the end of the paragraph. "Chaii'iiat. Asfgtyr.::.aui!ise;l thafeertainly::.ihe:hoii5e;:ean::be'turned..aroriiii.:;in..tliai...t;ase," PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 ~ ~~ PAGF,-2- - Page 9, last paragraph amended to read: "...evening her overwhelming concern was that of the preservation of the h°-~ integrity of the property and the tieiitage: structures on it...Slrefelt that the::a~iplcant's! conceding of the fence trod gate wits an excellent otter. She noted that the stucco walls by Sacred Hearth Church have beat a §tiuice: of frustration to those individuals in Saratoga who have been working ae icir Heritage Lane...." Page 10. paragraph 4, last sentence amended to read: "...withhe lotai; Floor area ii .. . ttiat::lot and of [he size of the new. home." - Page 10, paragraph 6 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell noted that the whole issue of there being a preponderance of two:sttirv:Etiimes::iri:tlii:: heizZlit©rtigod` . .......... related to the syuare footage...." - Page 11, paragraph 7, last sentence amended to read: "...islo be submitted for inc usiiin. tn::the;' Commission's packei ;ftix:ais, review." - Page 13, paragraph 4, line two amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell noted that the applicant's engineer has developed sue# a range of corrective measures to aadiess the unstable soil conditions and that the .iiigineisr;sfatis:that:tlje property would be enhanced by a house being built on it." - Page 14, paragraph 3, line 5, atncnd to read: "...CommissionerKaplan noted that Sections 15.70.60(.c)and :1:5::70:020b1...." - Page 16, last paragraph sentence 2 and sentence 10 amended to read: "...CityCode Section 15-13;O10...a~.200syuare foot house supported at an 85%I~pereent steipe!.... " - Page 17, paragraph 5 atnendcd to read: "Commissioner ~°' Patrick yuestic>ned if any damage has been sustained from the landslides to dale...." - Page 18, paragraph 5, amend "-tijrfy" to read "fiiur" eucalyptus trees. - Page 19, paragraph 2, line 2, amend "°••:-~:~:r' to read "I3ass" subdivision, line 4, "road" to read "roads:: tnvglyei] were private" ,and line 5 to read: ... ""fhcCity ended .. ......:.:..... .. .. ... up '-°~-° •'•° '~°~~' ••~~' prpv.iding`a; solution and incurred some cost...." - Page 19, paragraph 5 amended to read: Chairman Asfour stated that it was his undentandiflg- opiniori that the owners were entitled to tl?e; use of the lot whether it be this house a smaller house, or something else. The question ends up being not: whether there is to be development on this lot °` '~'_~ ~~~° ~!~~~, tjut-'what cari'lie: bailt:vn it." PI.ANNiNG COMMiSS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 ~~ ~ PAGE - 3 - - Page 25, last paragraph, line 8 to read: "...ordinance. The Subdivision ^~~.a:,e~ Ivlap.:EYi:t;..."and line ll,amcnded to read: "...somethingth:tt could he revisited ifthc .............. Commission was constituted fh[tF as was discussed at a Council meeting...." THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITII COMMISSIONER SIEGPRIED ABS"PAINING AND COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSEN"P. ORAL C0~IMUNICATION No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGF,NDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,the agenda for this tttceting was properly posted un November 4, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALE\DAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. LL-94-001 - Krzich/Nystrom; 14801 & 14751 Gypsy Hill Kd., request for Lc~t Line Adjustment approval to relocate a parcel boundary between Lots 12 and 13 of the Sobey Oaks subdivision pursuant to Section 14-50.010 of the City Code. Both parcels are within the R-1-40.000 zoning district (cont. to 11/22/94 at the rcyuest of applicant: application expires 2/22/95). Commissioner Caldwell suggested that Agenda Item 5 be moved to the consent calendar as a continuance was being recommended. Community Development llirector Curtis informed the Conunission that staff was requesting that agenda item 5 be continued and that the applicant may wish to address the Commission. COMMiSSiONERS CALllWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 1 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. TIIE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). PUBi,iC HF.,ARINGS 2. S~4-94-008 - Chang/Tsai; Burgundy Way/FruitvalcAvenuc, request for Site Modi- V-94-023 - Modification approval to allow the installation of an entry gate across a private road that accesses four lots pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicants are also requesting Variance approval to PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 ~ ~J PAGE-4- allow an eight foot high m[tsonry wall along the Fruitvale Ave. frontage of Parcels C and D where six ft. is the tuaxitnum permitted. The subject property includes four separate parcels which arc approximately 40,000 sy. ft. each and arc located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. from 10/26/94; application expires 12/1 /94). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the gate would be setback far enough so that the street would not be blocked waiting fbr the gate to be opened. Planner Walgren responded that the gate would not block the street. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the staff report indicates that the gate would not be visible. She noted that should the vegetation shat exists along Burgundy Way be removed, the gate would he visible as you approach the property. Planner Walgren concurred [hat the existing vegetation does screen the gate, but that it was only part of staff's recommendation. The fact shat it was setback the distance that it was away from Burgundy Way and the fact that it was not right on the intersection, he did not feel that the gate would be highly visible. She (Caldwell) stated that the probletn she had was reconciling staff's recommendation regarding the gate with the whole discussion of whether or not there could be a gate for the Gypsy Hill's subdivision. She noted that there was extensive discussion by the Planning Commission as to whether the gate for the Gypsy Hill (San Marcos IIcightl subdivision gate should be pec~rtitted. It was ultimately decided by the Planning Commission that the gate would be inappropriate. She asked why staff did not reconunend the gating of Gypsy Hill and is recommending approval of a gate on Burgundy Way. Planner Wal~~rcn responded that the St[n Marcos Height approval was for an entrance element, not a Batt'.. A Bate would not be permitted because it would eventually be a private road. The decision by the Planning Commission to deny the entry wall gate at Crisp Avenue was due to the fact that i[ separated the S:tn Marcos Height subdivision frotn an aesthetic; stand point from the Crisp Avenue neighborhood and that it was an attempt to retain them as one continuous single neighborhood. Also, the Bate was approved based on topography and screening and the fact that there was a clear distinction between the Gypsy Hill's tract and the San Marcos Heieh['s tract. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the property owners that live on Burgundy Way who have flag lots were interested in sating their driveways, would similar consideration be placed on the requests t[nd whether staff would support the requests'? Planner Walgren responded that a flag lot to a single parcel would not require this kind of review. it would be treated [ts a private entrance gate as long as it meets the fence height reyuirement of five feet. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:52 p.m. 'Pony Wong, designer for the two lots located on Burgundy Way, commented that the Bate was appropriate and should be approved because it is to be located on a private access road. He described the design and the materials to be used for the proposed Bate. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINLJTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 ~ ~J PAGE - 5 - Cltairtnan Asfour asked Mr. Wong if he would accept a condition that would preclude removal of the existing vegetation should the gate he approved. Mr. Wong responded that he would not object to the condition. Planner Walgren clarified that the significant trees as depicted on exhibit A arc located along the property line directly north of the access gate and that they are not located on the subject property. 'flte trees appear to be located on another abutting single family parcel. Chiang-Li Chang, applicant, addressed reasons for the entry gate/fence variance rcyucst as follows: 1) the difference in street elevations on Fruitvale Avenue being two feet higher than the proposed fence; and 2) the noise associated with the traffic of Fruitvale Avenue. She felt that noise levels would increase with traffic from Highway 85. She stated that City codes have allowed the construction of eight foot soundwalls along major streets in Saratoga. She noted that Fruitvale Avenue has not been added as one of the streets which would allow eight foot soundwalls. She reyuested that the City consider the fact that Fruitvale Avenue would have increased traffic. She reyuested Cily approval of her request. Commissioner Siegfried reyuested that staff clarify the elevation change from Fruitvale Avenue. Planner Wxlgrcn stated that the subject parcels arc approximately ten feet lower than Fruitvale Avenue and that the fence location would he five to ten feet lower than Fruitvale Avenue. Commissioner Caldwell cotntnented that the applicant stated that traffic on that portion of Fruitvale Avenue is expected to increase. She stated that all she had was information she received from residents in that area who indicated that the traffic along Fruitvale Avenue has decreased while the traffic on lower Fruitvale Avenue froth the Saratoga Avenue intersection has increased. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it has been his observation that there is a lot more traffic from Highway 85 to Saratoga Avenue to West Valley College and that traffic along Fruitvale Avenue from Highway 9 was not congested. IIc felt that it was too early to determine whether traffic would be reduced on Fruitvale Avenue and increased on Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues. COMMISSTONF..RS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE l'Hl.i PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANTMOLJSLY (7-0) COMMISSIONERS STEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLU'T'ION SM- 94-008 WITH AN AllDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE PRF.SF•,RVATION OF VEGETATION ON PARCEL C ALONG BLJRGLJNDY WAY. Commissioner Abshire stated shat he did not have an objection to the fence because the fence would not be visible from Burgundy Way. However, he would not want to see a trend of families in Saratoga fencing themselves off to the rest of the community. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would oppose the motion because she did not see a necessity for the fence. She felt that anyone could climb the fence. Therefore, the security reasons stated would become a mute point. She did not see the need to close the house PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 ~ ~- PAGE - 6 - from the cotnmuniq~. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 AS FOi.I,OWS: AYES: ABSIIIRE, KAPLAN. SIEGFRIED, ASFOUR; NOES: CAI,DWEI.L, PATRICK; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ML?RAKAMI. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE RL'SOLU'1'ION V- 94-023 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not want to establish a trend which would allow the use of soundwalls. Commissioner Abshire stated his concurrence with Commissioner Kaplan. He also stated that there was no proof as of yet that soundwalls really work. Cltaitman Asfour sttttcd that he could not support the variance because he did not see how the variance could be justified based on the existing codes. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMi ABSENT). 3. llR-94-016 - Chang; 19486 Burgundy Way (Parcel D), request for Ucsign Review approval to construct anew 5,890 sy. ft. single story residence on a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. A swimming pool and 100 sq. ft. pool accessory structure are also proposed. The subject property is approximately 42,410 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. (Cont. from 10/26/94; application expires 3/27/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Tony Wong, project designer, addressed the design and architecture of the project. He infornud the Commission that the house would be situated away from the creek and large trees. Commissioner Abshire complimented the architect for the yuality in design of the one story home. COMMISSIONERS S[EGFRIF,D/KAPLAN MOVED 'f0 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08 P.M. TIIE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Caldwell inquired as to the location of the cuh~ert for the bridge. Planner Walgren responded that the culvert was to be used for [he driveway with tt small pedestrian wooden bridge proposed. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINIJ'I'ES NOVEMBER 9.1994 ~" PAGE-7- COMMISSIONERS SiEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE 12ESOLLITION NO. DI2-94-01C> AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIEll G-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). 4. LL-94-006 - Cornelius/~4oore: 14199 & 14321 Short Hill Ct., request for I,ot Line V-94-O1R - Adjustment ro relocate aside property line between two parcels pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. ['arcel 397-14-023, Lands of Cornelius, is also requesting Variance approval to construct a five foot high wrought iron fence and entry gate within the required front yard setback where three feet is the maxitnutn height permitted. The suhject properties are approximately 40.000 sq. ft. and are located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. (Cont. from 10/26/94; application expires 2/'6/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if staff discussed alternatives with ttte applicant. Planner Walgren responded that staff had the opportunity to discuss the various alternatives available with the applicant. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Pctc Pritchard, 255 North Market Street, San Jose, representing the Corneliuses, requested that the co-applicant, Ron Moore, be allowed to address the Commission a[ this time. Ron Moore, 14231 Short Hill Drive, neighbor of the Corneliuses, informed the Cotntnission that he spoke to the adjacent residents. The residents on Short Mill Court and Chester Avcnuc seem to think that the installation of an entry gate and wrought iron fence would be appropriate. Being the only adjacent neighbor, other than West Valley College, he stated his concurrence with the comments expressed by the neighbors. He felt that it would be more appropriate for the gateway to engulf the property and not shut off the access to the existing orchard. Commissioner Abshire asked if Mr. Moore would consider constructing a similar gate as proposed an his property. Mr. Moore responded that his property does not lend itself to such an entry gate because his house is closer to Short Hill Court where the Cornelius' home was setback further from Short Hill Court and would lend itself to a gateway fence. Commissioner Caldwell stated that there were two points raised in the letter attached to the staff report by Michael Way. The first point rttiscd by Mr. Way was located on page 117, item C, second paragrtph, states shat the ability to build the fence was t}twarted by the topography of the site. She requested that staff respond to this issue. Planner Walgren responded that the letter was referring to the various grade changes that occur at the back of the residence where the pool decking was located. It would be physically difficult fr~r the Corneliuses to put the fencing immediately around the pool and the pool decking. Ile PLANNING COMMISS~ MIN[JTES •_ NOVEMBF.,R 9.1994 PAGE - 8 - (Walgren) felt shat there were other alternatives to fencing in the pool. An alternative which would not necessitate x variance would he to hring the fence 30 feet from the Short Hill property line to provide the enclosure requirements. The second question she (Caldwell) had dealt with the statement that an inspector advised the applicant that he could not cite the owner for a five foot fencing around the pool if Itc could see the situation from the street. Community Development Director Curtis responded that he did not know what that statement meant. Commissioner Caldwell clarified that an inspector could cite a property owner if he observes a situation where them was not fencing around a pool on a public street. Mr. Pritchard stated that under certain circumstances variances could be granted and that the Commission could take into consideration such things as geographic, topography, or other physical conditions of the site or in the immediate vicinity. He Celt that the mast salient feature of the property was that it backs up to West Valley College. A six foot fence along the westerly side of the site exits that extends to the property under discussion. "I'he six foot fence is partially located on top of a 20 foot high mound and that the fence shields the area from the football practice field. The chain link fence that extends right out to the street due to setbacks in certain locations was 18 to 20 feet above the street level. IIc felt that the mound was the most prominent topographical Cealure that distinguishes this particular lot fYom the others. IIc informed the Commission that the fence would be located behind the trees and would extend out approximately ten feet. He felt that special circumstances exist that would apply to this property that would not apply to other properties in Saratoga. Commissioner Caldwell asked staff if the existing pilasters were considered structures under City code. Planner Walgren responded that the columns would be considered as structures and that they were conforming structures. Ile informed the Commission that fencing was limited to three feet in maximum height in the frgnt setback, but that you could have up to five foot tall columns and five foot open bar/open wire entrance gating. So the columns and the gating itself do not rcyuire the variance. Ilowever the perimeter five foot fencing would rcyuire a variance. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it was her perception that the applicant wanted to tic in the existing pilasters to the fence structure. She Celt that it could be argued that the property created the special circumstance. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBi.IC HEARING AT 8:30 Y.M. THE MOTION CARRIED fi-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOI,UTiON NO. I.i.-94-006 PER THE STAFF REPORT. TIIE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MLJRAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Caldwell stated that a fence was warranted because having one would provide safety and security from a public stand point. She felt that some of the reasons behind the PLANNING COMMiSS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE-9- setback ordinance was to have front yards to he front yards and back yards to be back yards and not to have a gated community where there is visual intrusion right up in front of a property. On the other hand, the property already has the basics for the gate. She felt that there could be some compromise to the situation. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Cotruuissioner Caldwell's comments. Ile felt that there were circumstances that could warrant a variance for the fence (i.e.,topography, width of the site coupled with the fact that it fits up against the West Vatllcy College area. He did not feel that it would set a precedent for the neighborhood and he did not feel that the site was noticeable. Commissioner Caldwell felt that the finding that could be [Wade to grant tltc variance was the location of the existing pilaster structures. She felt that at some point, the property owner would need to install a driveway or that they would need to wrap the gate around the house. Commissioner Kaplan noted that there was an option to gate the swimmin, pool and not involve fencing the entire property. She stated that she would be inclined to go along with this alternative because she could not make the findings to approve the variance request and felt that approval would be granting of a special privilege. Conunissioner Abshire commented that the gate would prevent outsiders from accessing the pool. He noted that there was a small child residing on the pretnise attd felt that there would need to he a temporary fencing or obstruction between the house and the pool [o protect the child. Commissioner Siegfried commented that there were several swimming pools in the area that have been fenced oIT from outsiders and yet were not fenced off from the existing home. He cotmented that Commissioner Abshire's concern was the concern of the homeowner and was not one that the code addresses. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not feel that the pillars created a special circumstance. She felt that individuals could construct pillars and thus create special circumstances. She staled that she would have a difficult time making the findings that are required to approve a variance. Commissioner Caldwell stated her agreement with Commission Kaplan's comments that there was a reasonable alternative. Atter consideration, she felt that there could he an alternative solution that can be accotplished [hat would not cause a hardship. Cotttntissioner Kaplan stated for the record that the City Attorney makes a statement on item 3, page 117, pertaining to a retaining wall. As a pool owner with a retaining wall, she stated that an alternate location for the fence could he accomplished. COMMISSIONER PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOI.LITION NO. V- 94-018 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST. . ~ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 10 - "I'IIE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 Wl'fII COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT. 5. DR-94-031 - Constantin; 20855 Kittridge Rd.,rcyucst for Design Review approval V-94-016 - to construct a new 4,390 sy. ft. two-story residence on a vacant hillside I,L-94-012 - parcel witlt an average slope of 73%. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built nn a slope of 85% and to allow the residence to encroach into a required front yard setback. I.ot Line Adjustment approval is also necessary to meet minimum City lot depth requirements. The subject property is 1.18 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (Cont. from 10/26/94; :application expires 2/22/95). City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that the reason for staff's request for a continuance was act respond to several issues that were raised as part of the public hearing on this matter (i.c.,the Commission's legal authority with respect to variances; the potential liability on issues that have been raised with respect to approval of this particular project; health and safety issues). He stated that he would like to have the opportunity to respond to all issues. In order to do so, additional time would be needed to complete the research necessary to address the issues. He recctnttttendcd that these applications be continued [o Decetnber 14. Community , Developntcnt Director Curtis informed the Commission that continuance of these applications to the November 22 meeting would give staff only one week to complete the report. Staff would like act have the information back front the City Attorney so that staff could write a staff report to be included with the City Attorney's report. He therefore requested that these applications be continued to Decetnber 14. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Ile inquired if Ms. Fanelli was aware that staff was recommending that these applications be continued to the Commission's December 14 meeting. Virginia Fanelli informed the Commissioners that her attorney had spoken with the Assistant City Attorney two days ago and that it was her understanding that she had completed her research. She stated that sltc would not object to the December 14 continuance. Beverly Phipps informed the Commission that he lives close to the Constantin property. He felt that the site was one that was geologically challenged. With current zoning, a property would need more than 10 acres for a site with a 50 percent slope. This site was more than 50 percent slope. He suggested a solution that would be of henef~it to the entire community. The solution would he tct convert the site to an orchard and dedicate it [o the public. COMMISSIONERS CALDWEI,I./KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE, I'fFM 5 TO DECEMBER 14, 1994. "fHE MO"PION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONF:It MLJRAKAMI ABSENT). PLANNING COMMISS~ MINLJTES NOVEMBER 9, ]994 PAGE - l l - 6. SD-94-003 - Kennedy; 19900 Cox Ave., request for Tentative Map <tpprovxl to subdivide a 2.G acre parcel into five single-family residential building sites ranging from 13.769 to 22.650 sq. ft. in area pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property is located at 19900 Cox Avc., on the corner of Cumberland Ur. and Cox Ave., and is currently developed with a single residence. All five proposed building sites would access directly onto Cumberland Drive. (Rescheduled from 9/28/94 public hearing due to insufficient public noticing: application expires 3/1/95. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Caldwell commented that a letter was received from Tom Curtis raising concerns relative to traffic issues. Shc rcyuested that staff respond to the concerns raised. Planner Walgren responded that the letter made reference to a combined, single cut-ile-sac access for the subdivision. Staff has reviewed this alternative with the City'straffic engineer. Upon review, it was determined that the proposed curb cuts was the best cimfiguration tirr the subdivision versus having another court adjacent to so many courts on Cumberland, in close proximity to Cox Avenue. "fhe remainder of the letter addresses concern with the existing circulation of the Golden Triangle area, in particular, at the Scotland and Saratoga Avenue intersection. He did not believe that the issues were related to this project. However, staff would forward the concerns to the city's public works department. Commissioner Siegfried questioned if staff addressed the paragraph located on page 2 relating to the corner parcel addressing setback, fcncing,landscaping, etc. Planner Walgren responded that those issues were addressed. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing al 8:50 p.m. Barry Barnes, applicant, felt that the design met the needs of the existing neighborhood. He informed the Conunission that staff has restricted the one story home to 22 feet. llc noted that in [he Saratoga area, single story homes of 18 feet or Icss would not he rcyuired to go throueh architectural review. Commissioner Kaplan inquired as to the location of the driveway for lot 5. Her concern was avoidance of traffic problems with cars driving onto Cumberland i)rive from Cox Avenue. She wondered if there would be enough visibility at the corner? She alsir inyuired if the City Eneineer had an opportunity to review the plans to determine how close to the corner a driveway would be allowed. Planner Walgren responded that standards exist shat stipulate how close to the curb radius of a corner you can have an access point. That would be reviewed at tune of house plan submittal. Mr. Barnes stated that the front of this lot was 145 feet in length and that there was plenty of room to shift the driveway on the parcel. PLANNING COMM[SS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, ]994 PAGE - 12 - Commissioner Caldwell asked if staff would be opposed to Parcels 4 and 5 sharing a driveway. Planner Walgren responded that he did not see any reason why the Cily would be opposed to a shared driveway for Parcels 4 and 5. However, he noted that a 12-inch oak tree exists between lots 4 and 5. Dora Schaffer, 19930 Garnett Court, informed.the Commission that there exists a blind curb as you turn into Cumberland Drive and that many accidents leave occurred in this area. Shc felt that five additional driveways onto Cumberland Drive would create a dangerous situation. Commissioner Caldwell asked how much tlexibility does staff have in addressing potential traffic safety concerns. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the City engineer as well as the City's traffic engineer have reviewed the plans. He informed the Commission shat they did not perceive a problem with the proposal. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the neighbors have provided inside traffic information different than what City staff has found. Chairman Asfour recommended that the City Engineer review the feasibility of the installation of a stop sign on Cumberland Drive. Commissioner Kaplan informed Chairman Asfour that a stop sign exists at Cumherland Drive going onto Cox Avenue. Commissioner Ahshire noted that a fence exists along the property on Cumherland llrive. He felt that the fence reduces the visibility when you drive along Cumherland Drive. He felt that in some way, this development would improve the visibility. Don Schaffer, 19930 Garnett Court. informed the Commission that the west side of Cumberland Drive was a blind spot. IIe responded to Commissioner Asfour's questions by staling that a stop lien does not exist on Garnett onto Cumherland Drive. I-Ic felt tltttt five more curb cuts would create a traffic hazard. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE T[IE PUBLIC HEAKING AT 9:OO I'.M. THE MOTION CARRiF,D UNANiMOLJSLY (7-0) Commissioner Kaplan asked if it would be appropriate to have the traffic engineer meet with the neighbors who have expressed concern with traffic safety and see if the neighbors could provide him with additional information which might affect his judgement about the safety of the five additional driveways'? Community Development Director Curtis responded that any City staff member would be willing to meet with the neighbors to address their concerns. If the Commission would like to have this item referred to the traffic engineer for further review, he recommended that this item he continued. Chairman Asfour and Commissioner Kaplan rcconunended that this item be continued to allow the City traffic engineer to review the safety issues. Commissioner Kaplan further stated that she would like to have all the pertinent information relative to this location prior to a decision being made. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINiJTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that he sees no reason to continue this item as he relies on Community Development Director Curtis' comment that this item has been reviewed by both the city engineer and trtffic engineer to ensure that City standards are met. Commissioner Patrick stated that if this item was continued and re-reviewed, shE did not believe there would be any new information brought forward that the City has not already reviewed. 'Therefore, she would not support a continuance. Commissioner Abshire felt that llte city was dEaling with a safety issue. He did not sec where the Cily would loose anything by waiting a couple of weeks to look over the safety ISSUES. Commissioner Caldwell stated her support to the continuance. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that this item be placed as the first item on the agenda should it be continued so that the applicant would not have to sit through several hearings. Commissioner Caldwell reatmmended [hat the mover of the motion ;ive specifics as to the kind of review the City Engineer is to give to this item that he has not already given. City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that as this would bE a continued public hearing and that it could not be placed on the consent calendar. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the applicant has raised the issue of the.design review coming back to the Planning Commission fora 22 Coot high structure versus an 18 foot structure. He informed the Commission that staff can approve design review on an 18 foot single story structurE administratively. Planner Walgren clarified that the resolution stipulates that any new construction proposed whether it was 18 fee[ or 22 feet would return to the Commission for its review. He inlorrned the Commission that the lots, as proposed, are to be just over 13,000 to over ??,000 syuare foot lots and would allow roughly a 3.500 to 4,400 syuare foot homes, including garages ur accessory buildine. Commissioner Kaplan stated that on the sitE development section of the staff report, the first paragraph states that staff has placed it condition on the resolution which requires that all of the building sites be left in a natural state until they receive design review and approval. She questioned if [hat meant that all of the designs must be approved firs[. Planner Walgren clarified that no sill grading or drainage could occur until such time that the homes arE approved and the grading and drainage plans were built as part of that home construction for each parcel. No subdivision level grading can occur until after the homes have been approved. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. TIIE MOTION CARRiF.ll 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MiJRAKAMI ABSENT). PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE, - 14 - COMMISSIONF,RS KAPLAN/ABSHiRE MOVED TO CONTINUE TfIE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TI-IIS 1'1'F.,M TO NOVEMBER 22 ANll DIRI:CTEll STAFF TO ADDRESS TIIE SAFETY ISSUES RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORS WITH REGARD 1'O T[IE MULTIPLE DRIVF,WAYS IN RELA"I'IONSHIP TO TILE VOLUME OF 'TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD AND THE ACCIllENT REPORTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, CALDWELL, KAPLAN, ASFOUR; NOF..S: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; ABSTAIN; NONE; ABSENT: MURAKAMI. THE COMMISSION RECESSED A'I' 9:10 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:25 P.M. 7. LL-94-002 - Chadwick & Barkas; 21182 Chadwick Ct. & 13245 Padero Ct., rcyucst V-94-015 - for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel per Chapter 14 of the City Code. A Variance is also required to allow one parcel to be under the minimum lot size requirement based on the parcel's new average site slope per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Both parcels are located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (Cont. from the 8/10/94 public hearing at the rcyucst of the applicants; application expires 4/19/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that staf7 has received several letters regarding this item and for Agenda Rent No. 8. IIc informed tltc Commission that the staff update memo to the Cummission addressed the issues raised by the neighbors. Wltilc staff is available tct discuss the issues this evening, the issues raised in the letters primarily address the original subdivision approval or the approvals of homes within the subdivision and are not necessarily related to this particular lot line adjustment request. Staff therefore recommending approval ctf the applications as presented wish the conditions contained in the resolutions. Chairman Asfour asked staff if the Commission should review the variance request before the lot line adjustment because if the variance is denied. then the lot line is also denied. Planner Walgren responded lltat consideration of the variance should be conducted prior to the lot line adjustment request. Conunissioner Caldwell stated that she did not feel that the lot line adjusmen[ could be granted unless the Cotmission makes the findings that is would result in conformance to the zoning ordinance. The only way that the Commission could tttakc that finding was to grant a variance. She noted that the reason that the lctt does not conform to the zoning ordinance was due to the slope situation and that the reason for the variance rcyucst was due to the slope. Planner Walgren stated that it was staff's belief that the findings could he made tct grant a variance based on the discussion as staled in the staff report. If the Planning Commission does not a~rc:c that the three variance findings can be made, [han both the variance and the lot line adjustment should be denied. Planner Walgren further clarified that part of staff's discussion supporting the variance was that the 8,000 square feet that contained the greater slope was located within an open space easement, it is not developable PLANNING COMMISS~ MINU'1'L•S • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - IS - and does not contribute to a larger house being permitted on either parcel. The lot line adjustment would allow for an increased yard area for parcel B. Commissioner Caldwell commented that when she read the report, it struck her that the City was trying to undo something that would indemnify the city's zoning ordinance. Properties arc subdivided according to certain parameters, slope being one of the parameters. She did not know how you could separate tltcm. Planner Walgren responded that the slope lo[ size requirement adopted in 1992 was intended to create new parcels and that this subdivision tract was approved in the 1960s or 1970s. Commissioner Siegfried asked staff if the only reason for the lot line adjustment was to grant some additional t7at yard area'? Planner Walgren responded that was his understanding but felt that the applicant could address this question further. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the applicant was not only gaining a flat pad area but that he was also to gain tt distance from a line shat was located in the middle of the hill that would allow him to build closer to the edge of the hill. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was also interested in the discussion as stated in the letters received regarding the driveway and the additional environmental impacts that would result with the driveway. She inquired as to staff's response to the discussion pertaining to the driveway. Planner Walgren stated that the comments in the letter addressed the driveway for a house that was approved for the parcel in 1991. The driveway wits an approved configuration of that design review application with preliminary grading and drainage plans. He noted that several of the neighbors have raised the question of whether it would make sense to place the driveway along the top of the ridgeline where the existing dirt road is located ratter than having to cut, fill and grade a road down the side of the hill. He stated that the top of the ridgeline was not part of this parcel, but that it was part of an adjacent parcel. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 9:35 p.tn. Allen Chadwick. 21152 Chadwick Court, property owner, informed the Commission that another issue existed. That issue being that the house was located 20 feet from the property line and was designed to preserve the oak tree. In his discussion with Ernie Kraule. Saratoga Pire Chief, he did not feel that the 20 feet was enough of a setback. if you place a deck out there, you would have a parking lot right ofl~ the deck. He inforntcd the Commission that you could not remove the brush and weeds from the property because it belonged to someone else. From a fire standpoint, Mr. Crow felt that the setback for the lot should be at 40 feet. Commissioner Patrick inquired if the house could be moved back. Mr. Chadwick responded that the home could not be moved back because of the large oak tree that is located un the lot. Alex Barkas, owner of the 13245 Paderct Court parcel, addressed the change in slope as PLANNING COMMISS~ MINLJTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 16 - being one degree. He did believe that the small change in slope warranted a variance. The whole issue of the need for this 40 feet of additional space was to make it a saleable house and lot. Ile stated that he would prefer that the property be developed rather than to have the existing situation (a place used for parties). It was his understanding that if he was to transfer property that there would be no possibility for the house to he moved closer to the hill. Ile stated that he would not be supportive of a deck and that it was his understanding that the 40 foot buffer was to have no construction on it whatsoever and that it would only have vegetation or gardening. Commissioner Abshirc inquired as to the actual depth of the lot that would he increased by this parcel exchange (how many feet would be added to parcel B)'? Mr. Chadwick responded that Parcel B would be increased by 40 feet. Mr. Barkas stated that he would not be supportive of a variance that would result in the house being moved closer to the edge of the lot. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that a letter was received from Ray Piontek stating his position on this issue. COMMISSIONERS CALllWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO Ci_OSE THE PUBLIC IIEARiNG AT 8:42 Y.M. TiiE M01'ION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Caldwell commented that in the past, the Commission has been advised that it could not condition lot line adjustments. She inquired if that was correct. City Attorney Riback responded that the Commission could not condition lot line :tdjustmcnt, but that variances could be conditioned. He also informed the Commission that the variance should he considered before the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Kaplan yucstioned what condition(s) could be placed on the variance. She did not feel that the variance would address the concern from the property on Padero Court looking up the hill at the structure. She asked if the exchange of I:tnd was part of the parcel where the development was going to sit. Chairman Asfour responded that the development was going to sit on the existing property. Commissioner Kaplan commented that the applicants were claiming that if the variance was conditioned, that the City could prevent any building from being placed on that piece of land. She yucstioned if the condition would apply to the entire property. Planner Walgren responded that currently, the way that the house was approved, it is 20 feet from the east property -line. He clarified that the approved house could be built at the 20 foot side yard setback. Within that 20 feet. you could not have any structures or any built up decks that were not at grade. Commissioner Siegfried clarified that should the variance be granted along with the lot line adjusunent, it would allow for additional decking on the back of house. Planner Walgren stated that with the :tdditional 40 feet of land, the side yard setback would remain at 20 feet and would allow an additional 40 feet east of the house for decks, accessory structures, arbors, etc. He questioned what the owner was trying to accomplish by the variance. PLANNING COMMiSS~ MINLJTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Caldwell stated that she had a problem with the "boot strap approach" that has been taken to justify the variance on the basis of tfte slope that exists on the site. The slope was the reason the site did not meet the minimum lot size reyuirctncnt per the zoning ordinance. She noted that the city has never approved [his type of variance. Therefore, she could not support the variance. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRTED/PATRICK MOVED 'T'O REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 Y.M. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Chadwick what he proposes to do with the house if the 40 feet variance were granted. Mr. Chadwick responded that the 40 feet would provide a back yard. However, he proposed that no structure is to he built. Commissioner Sicgfricd inquired if Mr. Chadwick was proposing the installation of additional decking to the back of the house because as it now stands, decking would not be allowed in the back of the house. Mr. Chadwick responded that the 40 feet might allow the installation of a raised deck in the back of the house but that it would only go to the original property line, if that. Commissioner Sicgfricd asked Mr. Barkas if additional decking was to be built within the existing 20 feet of backyard area. would that be of concern to him. Mr. Barkas responded that it would not be of concern to him so long as it does not encroach into the additional 40 feet. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/CALDWELL MOVEll TO CLOSE TIIE PLJBLIC HEARING AT 9:51 P.M. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/IiAPLAN MOVF..D TO DIRECT' STAFF "I'O PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO DENY V-94-015 ON TIIE BASIS THAT 'fHE t~1NI)INGS TO GRANT TI-IE VA121ANCE COLJLD NOT BE MADE (i.E., 'T'HE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINES TILE MINIMUM LOT SIZES). Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would not support the motion as he has never granted a variance to create slot/house that would not otherwise have been created. IIc stated that he did nc~t have a problem in granting variances to additions to Houses. It seemed that this variance would allow Mr. Chadwick to do something that he could not do with the existine lot. Chairman Asfour concurred with Commissioner Sicgfricd's comments because he felt that it would be granting of a special privilege. "1'HE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MLJRAKAMI ABSEN'T'). City Attorney Riback clarified that the Commission directed stafT to prepare a resolution and that the public hearing was closed. 'fhe item would appear on the consent calendar of the November 22 meeting with the resolution reflecting the Commission's action. Final action would take place on November 22. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 18 - 8. DR-91-006.2- 21152 Chadwick Ct., reyuest for a second one-year extension of time 1'or a Design Review approval to construct a new 5,416 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The site is approximately 2.79 acres and is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Caldwell contntented that the neighbors have raised tltc issue of new development that has occurred in the area. it has given the neighbors and others cause to look at the development proposal a little differently. She inquired if the fact that new homes have been built constitute a reason to rc-review the design of this proposal. City Attorney Riback responded that the city could review design review only if the new development somehow directly impacts the health, safety and welfare issues applicable to this particular parcel, excluding aesthetics. Chairman Aslbur opened this item to public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Chadwick informed the Commission that there were no proposed design cltan~,.es to the plans that were originally approved. He felt that home buyers should have checked with the city to see what was approved for development prior to the purchase of their homes. He did not feel that it was fair to have the neighbors protest at this tune. Bob Stark, 21247 Chiyuita Way, requested that the extension be denied in order to allow for a more comprehensive review of some of the pertinent issues that may have been over looked (i.e.,safety issues. driveway not traversing a step portion of a hill, etc.). He informed the Commission that et the 1<tst request for extension, staff stated that there would he no retaining wall required for the driveway. After that meeting, his wife asked staff for a soils report or impact report for the driveway. Staff informed her that no report existed and that the driveway was only in the conceptual stage. Staff' also informed her lltat if it was necessary, the owner could construct a four foot high retaining wall over the entire length of the driveway and that it would not require technical review. He felt that there could be an environmental imp[tct to him because the hill would be rearranged. I-Ie felt that there were safety issues involved and that there tnay be alternative solutions. Mr. Chadwick responded that the issues raised by Mr. Stark were addressed at the time that the project was approved by the City. He did not believe that there were any reasons to deny the extension reyuest and that he should not have to go through this process again. He informed the Commission that the only retaining wall to be installed would be around the existing tree and that the driveway would go to Ilat ground again. He felt that the driveway could be moved to the property line and that he would he willing to work with the neighbors. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE TFiF., PUBi,iC HEARING AT 10:05 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 19 - MURAKAMI ABSENT'). Chairman Asfour stated that he did not feel that there were any reasons for denial of the extension request. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Chairman Asfiwr's statement. He requested that Mr. Chadwick follow-up with the neighbors to resolve the driveway issues. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the neiehbors have raised two fundamental heahh and safety concerns. The issue of drainage has been raised as being a continuing problem on this particular hillside. Staff's response to that was that a condition has been added and that the city engineer is addressing the problem. She felt that regardless of what is done tonight, the drainage problem would still need to be addressed. The second fundamental issue that the neighbors have raised was the safety associated with the driveway. Apparently, there is an existing problem +vith the homes that have already been built of which the City has no control. She felt that they were a civil matter. She noted that a similar situation described by Mr. Stark (run away car) occurred on Quito Road and happens elsewhere in Saratoga. The whole idea of having Mr. Chadwick entertain a site modification to reconfigure the driveway sounded compelling [o her. She stated that she would be interested in having some kind of formal understanding of that. There remains a true safety concern in the neighbors' mind and the applicant was open to dealing with the driveway issue again. She asked if it w<ts something that should be left as :t promise given tonight or whether a condition could be added to the resolution to ensure that discussion regarding the driveway occurs to address the neighbors safety concern for the driveway confi~~uration. City Attorney Riback stated that the Planning Commission does have some tlexihilityto state that the reason why it is considering granting an extension :tnd that the Planning Commission can direct the applicant to meet with the adjacent neighbors to address their concerns. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she has not heard anything compelling to prevent the Commission from granting the extension. Regarding the drainage issue, she stated that at her site visit, drainage did not appear to be a problem. COMMISSIONERS KAPI.AN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-91-006.2 PER TiiE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Commission was going to forego the requirement to have the applicant talk to the neighbors about reconfiguring the driveway. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would accept Mr. Chadwicks' word that he would resolve the driveway issue and not condition the extension as such. THE MOTION CARRIF,D G-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). 9. V-94-020 - Mourning; 12929 Pierce Rd., reyuest for V:tri:tnce approval to construct a 171 sy. ft. single story addition to an existing 3,122 sy. ft. residence. The addition is proposed to he constructed 11 feet from the - ~ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 20 - edge of an access easement where 25 feet is required pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approxitnately 40,000 Bross sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented [he staff report. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 10:12 p.tn. Kevin Weimnan, 380 South King Street, San Jose. architect for the owners, informed the Commission that the only area of the existing house that is within the required side yard was the bathroom. Commissioner Abshire questioned what would happen to the existing fruit frees with the addition. Mc Lineburger responded that the existing fruit trees would remain. Steve Mournine, property owner, thanked staff for their professional and efficient review of this request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE TIIE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. TI-IE MOTION CARRIEll 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSENT) COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOI,Li'I'ION NO. V-94-020 PER TIIE STAi~F REPORT. THE MO'T'ION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMiSS[ONER MURAKAMI ABSENT). 10. DR-94-032 - Correia; 14980 Gypsy Hill Rd.,rcyuest for Design Review approval to SD-88-008.3- construct anew 5,135 sq. ft. two-story residence nn a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Modification to a condition of the Tentative Map approval is also reyucsted to allow the maximum height to exceed 20 ft. 'the subject property is Lot #33 of the San Marcos [Icights subdivision and is within the I2-1-40,OOOzoning district. Planner Walgren presented [he staff report. Chairman Asfour commented that at the site visit, the Commission went across the street and climbed up on the steps of the house across the street to visualize what the home would look like. It seemed that there would be a slight impairment of the view to the neighbor across the street. IIe asked if it was staff's understanding that the restriction placed on this lot was to protect the view shed or was it to protect the open space area. Planner Walgren responded that staff thoroughly researched the records for this subdivision to ascertain what the height limits were intended to protect. lle informed the Commission that the only language that staff could find relating to these restrictions was for the preservation of views towards the riparian open space corridor across the road and down the slope from this lot. He felt that the intent was to protect the views of future neighbors across the street looking ° ~ ' PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 PAGE - 21 - back towards the cast. Chairtnan Asfour asked if staff had spoken with the applicant about the possibility of a redesign. Planner Walgren commented that sta1T has encouraged the applicant to work with the plans to meet the 20 toot height restriction. He noted that the original submittal exceeded the 20 foot height restriction by a larger percentage. The plans before the Planning Commission have hccn revised to minimize the increased Height to a very stnall percentage. He (Walgren) further stated that another point illustrated by the height poles on the site was to reflect the ridgcline of the building regardless of whether the one and hall foot exception was approved or not since the majority of the house does conform to the 20 loot height limit. The additional foot and a half occurs to the back of the house as the grade starts to drop. So the ridgelinc was not increasing, it was actually the grade that was dropping. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing al 10:21 p.tn. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Correias, requested Commission approval of the design review and tentative map modification. She infortned the Commission that a letter has heen presented . to the Commission from the three neighbors most immediately across the street that would be affected by the construction of the home. The neighbors have stated their support as indicated in the letter submitted to the Commission. She stated that the 21.5 foot maximum height [hat this home would have would be lower in height than any homes in the vicinity. "1'he highest point of the home was where the height pole was located and that it was al the 20 foot height limit. The location of the house where the 21.5 foot height would occur was located to the rear, behind the ridge as it steps down the hill. She stated that the road was at a 444 foot elevation with the average grade of the original ungraded pad was 434 feet. She noted that the 21.5 feet was lower than the ridge and would only go for a distance of a horizontal length of 6 feet. She requested that the Commission approve the 1.5 foot variance because it would be in keeping with the intent of the subdivision conditions. Cotntnissioner Patrick asked if the area that Ms. Fanelli addressed was depressed by 1.5 feet, would it give the home a squashed appearance. Ms. Fanelli clarified that the change in roof line was made in order to make [he design work. Shc reviewed a design with a small amount of change and found that the home looked "more squashed" and did not give a good architectural appearance. She did not feel that there were any visible impacts associated with the extra 1.5 foot. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED 1'O CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:28 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER MLJRAKAMI ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLLJTiON NO. Sll-88-008.3 PER TIIE STAFF R1:YOR'I. TILE MOTION CARRIED G-0 (COMMISSIONF,R MURAKAMI ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATIt1CK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. ' ~ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINLJTES • NOVEMBER 9.1994 ' PAGE - 22 - DR-94-032 PER THE STAFF REPORT (COMMISSIONER MLJRAKAMI ABSENT). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS TI-IE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 December Planning Commission meeting schedule Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the second meeting in December be canceled. He informed the Commission that the City Council hxs canceled its December 21 meeting. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CANCF..I, ITS DECEMBER 28 MEETING. He informed the Commission that public notices were mailed out on November 8, 1994 for the November 19 Odd Fellows Home follow-up [Heeling. Staking of the buildings would take place [o give the Commission and the public an idea as to where the buildings and the road are to be located. The Commission is to meet at the Grand Lodge at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Abshire informed staff that he would be out of town on November 19 and asked if it would be possible to have the lot staked on Friday. November 18. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it was his belief that the site would not be staked until the Saturday of November 19 if balloons are to be used. Comtunity Development Director Curtis reyuested that the Cotntnission retain the staff reports for the items that have been continued. COMMISSION ITEI\1S .Chairman Asfour noted that a letter was received frotn Pay Mongraw regarding the noise associated with the restaurant located on Big Basin Way. Community Development Director Curtis infi~rmed the Commission that staff also received a Ictter from Ms. Moneraw and that staff would he reviewing the issue. y Commissioner Caldwell informed her fellow Commissioners that she received a Ictter from Marcia Farris, president of Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, regarding a proposed commercial development on a Heritage property located on Saratoga Avenue. She read the letter for the record. Ms. Farris requests that the residents of Saratoga Woods be allowed to review any proposed commercial development. The letter further states that a petition has been circulated by the homeowners association which states their opposition to commercial development. Said petition has been provided to the planning department. 1. DR-93-030, LJP-93-004 & SD-93-005; Gocse, 20661 Fifth St. Review of architectural refinements/modifications to approved five-unit townhonte plans. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • NOVEMBER 9, 1994 ~" PAGE - 23 - Planner Walgren presented the report on the proposed revisions for the Fifth Street townltomes. He informed the Commission that staff has reviewed the proposed changes and felt that they could be supported. Chairman Asfour commented that the revisions were an improvement to what was previously approved. However, he reiterated that the condition that was originally placed on this application stipulates that the people living there could not use this area as their own parking spaces. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that a solid open bar gate along the park district was a condition of approval. BY CONSENSUS. THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE REVISIONS BY MINUTE ACTION. COMMUNICATIONS Community llevelopmcnt Director Curtis informed the Commission that it has been a tradition to have a Chrisunas dinner hosted by the Commission. If the Commission was interested in a~ntinuing with the tradition, he requested that the Commission contact Diane Carnekie from the Community Development Department to set up the event if it is the Commission's desire. Chairman Asfour offered to host the Christmas dinner at his hone. Community Development Director Curtis also reminded the Commission that it would be adjourning to Tuesday, November 22 for its next meeting, with the land use visit scheduled for Monday, November 21. Written 1. City Council Minutes - 10/19 & 10/25/94 2. Notices for the 11/22/94Plamting Conunission Meeting Oral City Council ADJOURNMRNT -There being no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.,'fuesday, November 72, 1994, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvalc Ave., Saratoga, CA. iRMA TORREL MiNLJTES CLERK inPC10.'.G?I ti.4N