Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-1995 Planning Commission Minutes_ .~ s•1= :~~~ - ~NNI\'G CO~IA~IISSION i\IL\'UTE~ JULI' 12, 199 - -• City' Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular >\ieeting The meeting vas called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Murakami Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Siegfried, Murakami Late: None Absent: Caldwell. Patrick City Attorney Riback was present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Minutes - 6/28/95 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 28. 199 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING ANIEI\TDMENTS: - Page ~, paragraph 1, line 4 amended to read: next door and that no trees would need to be removed.... " - Page 6, paragraph 8 amended to read: Commissioner Asfour stated that the main issue was not the view perception but the concern ~ of establishing a two story precedent. He stated that he could not penalize the applicant because the proposal is not really a nvo story design even'tlaug~'`~t:: has :at~vo sivi~element. " ................ - Page 8, last paragraph, line 4 amended to read: "...of the m~°*°~'~°~'~°°~ °'°~°+ seGOnti ::.;: story balcony- to the north property line...." - Page 9, paragraph 4 amended to read: "Commissioner Kaplan asked if it would he possible to eliminate the pool because it would require a lot of n e~ca~~atori to install the pool.... " - Page 12, page 4, last paragraph amended to read: "...He felt that it was important to know the s~vimmina pool dimensions because it adds considerable dimension on the len¢th in terms ~ of being able to change the house design slightly, turnip the house slightly; or per~iaps some other alternative. " y - Page 22, paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Kaplan commented that the south elevations of lots 2 and 3 appear to look like railroad ~ cars and felt that they were unpleasant to look at.... " THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 ~'VITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL Al`TD PATRICK ABSENT. -,~~ -PLANNING COMMISSI(~VVIINUTES • JULY 12, 1996 • PAGE - 2 - ORAL COit~I>\IU\ICATIO\S No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI\ G AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 64964.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 7, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner ~Valaren informed the Commission as to the follo~vinQ: - Items 1-4 and items 7 and 8 were continued from the Commission's June 28 meeting. Therefore. staff did not redistribute the planning staff reports nor exhibits. - Noted was one correction with regards to agenda item 6, DR-96-030: Rollins; 19661 Farwell Avenue, the second page of the staff report, under staff analysis, the size of the structure table indicates that the garage is proposed to be 762 square feet and the residence at 6,366 square feet. This is incorrect as the residence is 4,602 and with the addition of the garage, the size would be 6,366 square feet. CONSENT CALE\DAR PL?BLIC HEARING CO`TSEI~TT CALE\DAR PL?BLIC HEARI\TGS 1. SD-90-003.2, UP-90-003.2, DR-90-034.2 & V-90-039.2 - ~1ISSI0\T PARK HOMES; 12297 SARATOGA-SU\TNYVALE ROAD Request for modification consideration of a Tentative Map approval to subdivide a 2.67 acre lot into 26 multiple-family to«=nhome parcels and two 10,000 sq. ft. commercial parcels fronting Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Use Permit approval was Granted to allow the 26 townhomes within a Commercial Visitor (C- V) zoning district. Design Review approval vas Granted for the entire project. Variance approval vas granted to allow 32 parking spaces in lieu of the 37 parking spaces required for the commercial buildings pursuant to Chapter 16 of the City Code. An environmental 1~'egative Declaration has been adopted for the project. The modification request is to allow 26 detached homes on parcels ranging from 2,206 to 3.249 sq. ft. in size versus the approved attached townhomes and "cottage" type homes. Architectural modification of the homes and the commercial structures is also requested. Planner Wal¢ren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the applicant is proposing 62 covered spaces with two car garages for each of the units plus 14 uncovered guest parking spaces. Staff recommended that a minimum 18-20 foot driveways be incorporated into ~~ ~~~ PLANNING COMMISSI(~VIINUTES • JULY 12, 1995 = PAGE - 3 - the individual homes to allow for both additional on-site parking for guests or residents. This modification would open up the development and reduce some of the dense feel that the detached units tend to have. With regards to the commercial parking, staff recommended that the commercial component meet the minimum 37 space requirement with full size regulation spaces. Staff indicated that it vas supportive of the commercial design as a whole, but recommended that the symmetrical layout of the two mirrored commercial buildings be broken up to provide for some variation of the two buildings for aesthetic reasons. Planner Walgren requested that the Commission direct staff and the applicant regarding any recommendations that it may have. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with parking. He noted that not everyone uses their garage for parking. He asked staff to clarify its recommendation on the use of a lon<7er driveway. Planner Walgren responded that the incorporation of a longer driveway would require the rearrangement of the 26 units and possibly a reduction in units to achieve the minimum driveway for each unit. Commissioner Sie¢fried stated that he did not believe that there vas an accurate count on the number of driveways provided. He felt that there was more parking than is being reflected. He recommended that the applicant address this issue. Commissioner Asfour inquired if the approval of this amendment would cancel out the already approved plans. Planner VValaren responded that this modification would rescind the earlier approval. Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff clarify its comment about the substandard commercial spaces (were the parking spaces smaller or fewer in number). Planner Walgren responded that the parking spaces were smaller and also fewer in number. He indicated that 32 spaces are proposed where 37 spaces are required and that several of the spaces do not meet minimum width and depth standards. Commissioner Kaplan noted that at the site visit, it was observed that the site was being used as a commercial parking storage and indicated that she found it objectionable. She asked if there vas anything that could be done to require that the vehicles and abandoned trucks be removed from the parcel. Planner Walgren responded that the Commission could require that the site be cleaned up. Commissioner Abshire asked staff as to the amount of paved surface proposed in this development versus that of the original approval. Planner Walgren responded that staff did not have that number this evening in terms of streets. driveways and building envelops. Commissioner Abshire stated that there appears to be a lack of green space proposed compared to the first plan. Planner Walgren responded that the green space appears to be similar or close to that of the original approval. However, the addition of private drives would probably create more hard surface than the original approval. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the plans did not show any perimeter trees along the project and that there were Drily two trees in front of the whole commercial structure. Planner `~~algren responded that in regards to the residential development, the trees are internalized and were not shown on the conceptual landscape plans. He further stated that the commercial landscaping plan appears to be primarily shrubs and groundcover within the median and that there are t~vo .~ :: .~~ PLANNING COMMISSI(~VIINUTES • JULY 12, 1995 • PAGE - 4 - trees on either side of the commercial buildings. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:~0 p.m. Anthony Morici, 1855 Park Avenue, San Jose, representing the development, requested modification to the approved plans only for the residential portion of the project. He indicated that the retail portion is to remain the same except for the change in the exterior elevation to better conform/compliment the 26 single detached units. He felt that the architecture for the retail portion ~;could blend with the residential portion of the project and would define the entrance. He indicated that the square footage of the two commercial buildings has been reduced by 210 square feet to provide for hip roofs. He indicated that the only requested modification for the retail was that of the exterior architecture. He addressed staff's concern regarding its concern regarding inadequate parking. He informed the Commission that the Oak Creek Homeowners Association support the single family detached home proposal. He stated that no trees are proposed in the residential area as homeowners ~;~ould be installing their o«~n trees. The architectural style proposed for the single family detached homes would be that of a European traditional style. He felt that the separation of the detached homes ~~ould allow for more light, air and visibility versus the row house look of being stacked up on the property line. He indicated that 62 covered spaces are proposed and that 14 Quest parking spaces would be interspersed within the development. He felt that he has met the parking codes. He indicated that 16 of the 26 homes have driveway aprons of approximately 18 feet. He felt that this would supply an additional 32 parking spaces (46 `~ increase in parking) for a total of 98 parking spaces. Mr. Morici stated that this was a difficult site to work with. He noted that the original plan proposed t~vo green areas and a pool area and that this proposal would allow each home to have individual separate private fence ~z=ith backyards. He felt that the proposed modifications would improve this project. He informed the Commission that he would be meeting ~yith staff tomorrow to discuss the traffic light at the intersection of Sea Gull and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He indicated that a traffic study had been completed and that this project would impact the area approximately 1 ~~ and that there is no impact that this project creates at the intersection of Sea Gull and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Chairman Murakami asked as to the sizes of the backyards as they appear to be very small as depicted in the drawings. Mr. Morici responded that the rear yards would be 12-18 feet in depth with a total square footage of 1,000-1,63 square feet. Commissioner Abshire asked i~Ir. Morici to indicate the amount of space between the units. Mr. Morici responded that there would be a five foot setback for each side for a total of 10 foot setback between buildings, separated by a six foot fence. Commissioner Kaplan asked if any consideration was given to include below market rate housing on the site because it would be in keeping with the City's General Plan. She noted that page 94 of the staff report contains statements regarding the Housing Element of the Saratoga General Plan which identifies affordable housing as a goal to be constructed on a site such as this one. Mr. Morici responded that no consideration has been given to providing below market rate units as these 26 units would be at an affordable price range and would be at the lower housing price range for Saratoga. ~~ > > PLA1~'NING COMMISSI(~VIINUTES • JULY 12, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Siegfried commented that when this item was appealed to the City Council at the time of its original approval, the project was almost rejected until the applicant reminded the City Council of the fact that it had met all density requirements. Therefore, the Council had no choice but to approve the appeal. He asked the City Attorney if there has been a change in legislation? City Attorney Riback responded that there has not been a change in legislation. He explained that the Government Code has a provision which states that when a property meets all the density requirements of a city, the city cannot impose additional density requirements for the purpose of reducing the density. Commissioner Kaplan asked how this issue would affect the fact that this proposal appears to be a mini "Greenbrier". City Attorney Riback reiterated that this project meets the City's density requirements. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he raised the density question because he remembered the issue. He felt that this was a difficult site to work with and that he did not feel that it was a mini "Greenbrier" as there are storage units located on one side and condominiums on the other side. He did not feel that this project could be developed as commercial and that there was not enough frontage to build anything else. He indicated that he had spoken to the applicant twice and that he felt that the request vas a reasonable one. He stated that it was difficult to obtain financing for condominium projects and that financing could be obtained for detached single family homes. The alternative would be to have this site sit the way it is for years. Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. tlorici if he has visited the site and if so, did he notice the storage that is takin¢ place. She asked if it would be cleaned up. Mr. Morici informed the Commission that he does not own the property at this time and that he would be willing to discuss this issue with the property owner. Commissioner Asfour asked if these lots would remain as separate lots and noted that there is no mention of lot merging. Planner ~?Valgren responded that the original project proposed 26 air space parcels and that the conunon spaces were to be owned collectively with the two commercial parcels to be located in the front. He indicated that this proposal would provide 26 residential parcels and t~vo commercial parcels. Mr. Morici informed the Commission that there would be 26 single family individual lots with one additional lot that would be a private roadway. He further indicated that there would be two additional commercial lots to be located in the front. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he prefers this development over the previously approved project but expressed concern with the proposed density. He noted that this project meets density requirements as explained by the City Attorney. Therefore. he would vote to support the modification. t ;` PLANNING COMMISSI(~~INUTES • JULY 12, 1995 = PAGE - 6 - Chairman Murakami stated that this vas a difficult site to work with and concurred that this project was a much better project than the previously approved proposal. He indicated that there were special circumstances that should be looked at. He stated that he originally wanted to see a reduction in the number of lots because the single family homes appear~to be too dense. but that after hearing the City Attorney's opinion, he would move away from that direction. Commissioner Siegfried stated that this vas a difficult site to work with and that it would not allow for the development of significant commercial uses because there «~as not enough frontage. He did not feel that the site would support a large commercial development and that the homeowners next door would object to a large commercial development. He noted that when this project vas originally proposed, there were no objections from the adjacent condominium owners and that their only concerns were the location of the parking, how the buildings were going to face, and what was proposed along the fence line. He felt that this modification was an improvement because the residential project would provide for small backyards along the existing condominium and that the common parking has been relocated adjacent to the mini- storage area. He felt that this proposal improves the overall look of the project. He recognized that the lot sizes were small but stated that he did not believe that it would be a visible area like that of the Greenbriar project. He indicated that he could support the approval of the parking variance as he did not believe that a parking problem would be created and that he felt that this proposal vas the sensible thing to do. City Attorney Riback recalled that the issue four and a half years ago was whether the City had the authority to reduce the density solely by the virtue of the fact that the Planning Commission did not like the density, even though the density met all of the city's requirements. He noted that there is state law that states that density cannot be reduced below the standards already established. He informed the Commission that it can look at all of the design issues and all of the other issues that the Commission normally looks at when it reviews projects. He stated that should these issues lead the Commission to conclusions that might affect density, that ~i~as another issue. However, the Commission could not state that this particular project was too dense as it meets the City's requirements. He noted that the original denial vas based on density and not any other issues of concern relating to city codes. Commissioner Kaplan asked if an issue of concern could be that the streets were too narrow and created a fire hazard. City Attorney Riback stated that the Commission ~~~ould need to articulate legitimate issues relating to the design of the project. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission could require that each of the homes provide an apron so that additional off-street parking can be provided as recommended by staff. City Attorney Riback responded that this would be a legitimate design issue and that the Commission could condition the project to require that all units provide driveway aprons. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the Commission could require that a performance standard be met and that doing so «~ould not affect density. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the fire department has given approval to the size of the streets and the cul-de-sac. Planner VValgren responded that the Fire District has reviewed the plans and that the Fire District finds it to be acceptable. He further indicated that the project does not .~ ~. PLANNING COMMISSI(~~IINUTES • JULY 12, 1995 PAGE - 7 - need to provide another access to the project so long as there is no on-street parking on the drive aisles. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he visited the condominium project next door and noted that there were not man}~ driveways that you can park a vehicle. He noted that there was no more parking on the adjacent condominium project than is being proposed with this project. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she felt that there vas a parking deficit and recommended that at least one off-street parking space be provided as she did not believe that the project provided sufficient parking. She stated that she would not support the request. Commissioner Abshire felt that there was a viable piece of information missing, that being the amount of pervious landscape. This proposal does not indicate the amount of building and paving coverage. It was his guess that this project would provide approximately 80`~ of impervious coverage. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that staff brought up the issue of parking maintenance. Staff's original concern vas not the parking count but that staff vas concerned about the proximity of the parking spaces to some of the units. He noted that the previous proposal provided for guest parking dispersed throughout the development. Commissioner Kaplan stated that if a clustered community is to be approved, one expects not to have driveways available but that ~;hen you buy a house, you expect to find a drive«~ay apron and that the garage would not be utilized for parking. If driveway aprons are not provided, she felt that homeowners would park their cars in public spaces or in the narrow streets. Commissioner Asfour noted that the City of Campbell has many developments similar to this proposal. A parking committee vas established in a particular development because of the lack of parking. Said committee converted 6~ 9~ of the homeowners to use their driveways within a six month period. He felt that the homeowners would police themselves ~i-hen problems occur. Planner `'~'algren informed the Commission that the lot coverage for this residential component which includes the buildings, the private roads. and private drives would be approximately 61,000 square feet. Commissioner Abshire asked if staff had a percentage number for the residential coverage. He stated that he would like to have a comparison with other developments in Saratoga. Planner Walgren noted that the total hard surface coverage for this proposal was 63%, including the roads, building footprints and parking and that the Peninsula townhomes ~;ere approved at 5~ 9~ for just the residential component. He indicated that this hard surface coverage was still within the zoning requirements. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the Chardonnay development located behind the gas station located on Saratoga Avenue was considered as having drives;=ays. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he did not believe that the Chardonnay development had full depth driveways. Commissioner Siegfried stated that this development vas not any different than other ~: .- PLANNING COMMISSI(~MINUTES i JULY 12, 1995 PAGE - 8 - existing developments and that he did not believe that this development would set a precedent for this type of development. City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that the appropriate procedure would be to approve the project in concept and to direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolutions to bring back to the Commission for final action. Planner VValgren informed the Commission that the applicant may wish to contest some of the conditions following tomorrow's meeting with the Public Works Director. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS SD-90-003.2, UP-90-003.2, DR-90-034.2 AND V-90-039.2; CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARII\'G TO THE COMMISSION'S JULY 26, 199 1~1EETI1~'G; APPROVED THIS PROJECT; AND DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH RESOLUTION OF APPROVALS INCORPORATING THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. Commissioner Siegfried felt that variance findings for the parking could be made for the following reasons: 1) commercial frontage ~;gas needed: 2) this was a difficult site to work with because it is located between a residential area and the mini storage; 3) noted that parking has never been a problem in that area: and 4) the fact that the site was deep and narrow. He felt that all of these factors could he combined to state that there is no special privilege being Rranted to this project that is different than anywhere else. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED AMENDED THEIR MOTION TO INCLUDE THE VARIANCE FII~`DINGS AS STATED BY COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED. Mr. Morici requested that the public hearing be closed and that staff be directed to return with resolution of approvals. Commissioner Siegfried informed Mr. Morici that continuing the public hearing «-ould not change the timeline for this project as the Commission has to make the necessary findings to Grant the variance. Therefore. he would support the motion as stated. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the conditions regarding traffic and the signal light would be superseded by this action as this approval would supersede the previous conditions of approval. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff would provide it «•ith a complete resolution, complete with all development regulations, including the condition that this approval supersedes the previous approval. y THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, MURAKAMI. SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN; ABSTAIN: NONE: ABSENT: CALDWELL, PATRICK. • -; • • JULY 12, 1995 PAGE - 9 - 2. DR-95-021 & V-95-004 - TRIPLETT; 20820 I'OtiRTH ST. Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,378 sq. ft. single story residence and 396 sq. ft. detached garage and construct a new 2,374 sq. ft. two-stor}~ home and 380 sq. ft. detached garage in their place. Variance approval is necessary to allow the new garage to be constructed within required yard setbacks, though at a more conforming location than the existing garage. The subject property is 8,500 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Planner ~Valgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Asfour stated that a case was reviewed a year ago in the general area where the garage was sitting on the street. He asked if this case vas similar. Planner VVal~~ren responded that this case ~;gas similar to the one being referenced by Commissioner Asfour. He indicated that the other case was located on Oak Street and that the ~araRe crossed the neinhbor's boundary line. He noted that there vas no place to locate the garage that would not encroach into the front setback and that the City approved a variance for the garage. Commissioner Kaplan asked what portion of the building was staff requesting to be pulled back and what it would do to the design. Planner VValgren responded that staff was recommendin~~ that a portion (a couple of feet) of the left corner of the second story master bedroom be pulled back. Commissioner Asfour noted that there vas a letter submitted from Ernest Kraule indicating concern with the windo«=s and the skylights (loss of privacy) and the location of the garage. Planner Walgren responded that the letter being referenced was distributed to the Commission the night of the June 28 meeting. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he visited the lot next door owned by Mr. Kraule. He stated that Mr. Kraule indicated to him that his concern vas that of the lack of off street parking and that it vas the only concern that Mr. Kraule expressed to him at that time. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:50 p.m. David Pruitt, project designer, addressed the concerns of the adjacent neighbor. He indicated that the window on the staircase is to be stained class and that he did not feel that there would be a problem of looking out of the stained Mass window. He requested the deletion of condition 2.b. because "chopping" off of the corner ~;~ould cause a problem in roof design. He did not believe that the design would lend itself architectural to clipping off the corners and that the design vas needed for aesthetic purposes. He did not believe that this encroachment would set a precedent. Regarding the parking concern, he indicated that the owner would be willing to install t~vo off-street parking spaces. v Commissioner Kaplan asked hog;~ much cost would be added to the lot to install the additional off-street parking spaces. Mr. Pruitt responded that landscape blocks could be used. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with this alternative. '- `PLANNING COMMISSI(~VIINUTES , JULY 12, 199 PAGE - 10 - Chairman Murakami noted that the design of the home was that of a hexagonal design. He asked if this was a design traditional to that of a farm house design. Mr. Pruitt responded that this was aVictorian-type farm house design and indicated that there has to be a balance and a purpose. He indicated that the requirement to cut back a corner of the roof design would make the design look "weird" . Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Pruitt if a decision has been made regarding transplanting the two live oaks as listed on page 111 of the staff report (item 3). Mr. Triplett, applicant. responded that he would try to transplant the two live oak trees. He indicated that he consulted an arborist to see what would be entailed to relocate the tree(s). Ernest Kraule, 14445 Springer Avenue, owner of the adjacent vacant lot, informed the Commission that he has an approval to construct a two story home. He stated that he did not have any problems with the design of this house. However, he expressed concerned with the way the garage is set as there is a twelve foot apron that protrudes out towards Fourth Street and that it would limit the ability to park a car on the apron without opening the garage door. He asked if consideration could be given to placing the garage door at another angle. He indicated that the applicant was proposing to move the garage three feet off the property line. He did not believe that this would alleviate driving out onto a busy street. He recommended that the garage door be moved to the right of the building, providing for access to the right side of the garage. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Kraule's recommendation would provide for sufficient turn- around space. Planner Walgren responded that there appears to be enough turn-around space with Mr. Kraule's recommendation to relocate the door but that it would use up most of the yard area but that it appears that there is enough radius to have an entrance onto the site. Mr. Pruitt stated that the applicant was not supportive of relocating the garage and using up the entire back yard but indicated that the garage could be rotated or make it parallel ~~~ ith the property line. He indicated his willingness to work with staff to resolve this issue. Planner Walgren indicated that the existing garage fronts to and is perpendicular with Fourth Street. He felt that the garage could be shifted slightly and maintained roughly at the same setbacks. He indicated that the applicant was rebuilding the garage in the same location and pulling it three feet away from the back property line to resolve the boundary conflict situation. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the existing garage was on the street and that if there vas anything that could be done to get a little more area there, even if it vas only three feet, it would be helpful. y Commissioner Asfour asked if the garage could be moved towards the east of the property. Mr. Triplett responded that doing so would eliminate his backyard. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she supported the design of the home and that she could make the findings to retain the corner of the building. She did not feel that there was a problem with r_ PLANNING COMMISSIC~IINUTES JULY 12, 1995 PAGE - 11 - the garage and indicated that she would vote for the project as presented by the applicant. Commissioner Asfour asked if the Commission voted for the resolution as is, would the Commission be denying the second variance. Planner VValgren responded that the resolution -ould require that the plans be modified to eliminate the corner of the second story master bedroom. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the Commission could make the findings to grant the variance to retain the corner of the master bedroom as the site is a corner lot and that the lot vas unusual in terms of shape. He felt that this was a well designed home and that it would be a very minor intrusion. Chairman Murakami concurred with Commissioners Kaplan and Siegfried and felt that the house should be left in whole as it is designed. Commissioner Abshire expressed a safety concern with the garage. He felt that it would be hard to back out of the garage with traffic coming from both directions. He felt that some consideration should be given to moving the garage a little closer to the house and shifting it a little to provide a little more visibility to the driver. Chairman Murakami felt that the garage problem could be worked out with staff as it appeared to be a minor problem. Planner ~Valgren stated that in order to provide a full apron area, it would require that the garage be moved significantly into the backyard area. He indicated that the location of the proposed garage was at staff's recommendation and that the owner could retain the older, dilapidated garage in its current location, crossing the property boundary. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOV ED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS. DR- 9~-021 AND V-95-004 MAKING THE FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE CORNER OF THE MASTER BEDROOM FOR THE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 `'VITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND PATRICK ABSENT. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:00 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:15 P.M. 3. DR-95-027 - LIN/SHIH; 20315 HERRIi\IA\ AVE. Request for Design Revie«~ approval to demolish an existing residence and detached garage and construct a new 3,973 sq. ft. t~vo-story home and attached garage per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 19,388 sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Erwin Haws, project designer, noted that this ~;gas a half acre lot in a 10.000 zoning district. He stated that he has read the letters from the neighbors and indicated that he would try to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He addressed the follo~uring: the two story design, the location ~_ •: ~= PLANNING COIv1MISSIC~r1INUTES • JULY 12, 199 - PAGE - 12 - of the garage, and the location of the trees. He indicated that a breezeway was proposed between the garage and the house. He noted that the garage and the house appear to be lo~v profiled structures. He stated that the garage was attached to the house, therefore, the roof of the garage would need to be at the same pitch to that of the house so that it is a homogenous project. vHe recommended that the floor of the attic over the garage be eliminated versus the reduction of the overall square footage of the house. He felt that the project and the location of the structures mitigate the neighbors' concerns. Chairman Murakami noted that the design of the house does not fit with that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried asked for clarification as to the height of the chimney. Mr. Haws indicated that the chimney would be three feet above the roof line. Joe Ta~lia, 13755 Calle Tacuba, stated that he and his neighbors are happy that the site «-as bein¢ developed as the existing home is old and run down. However, he felt that this was the wrong home on the wrong lot. He highlighted some of the points he made in his letter dated June 21 to the Planning Department. He provided the Commission with pictures of the homes located on Herriman Avenue. between Camino Rico and Calle Tacuba. He did not believe that the proposed Tudor design fits with the single story, ranch style homes in the neighborhood. He expressed concern reffarding the following: the proposal would take away the views from the t~vo Calle Tacuba homes looking west and south; the driveway, as proposed. would affect his privacy as his master bedroom was located on that side of his lot; concern that lights from cars would shine into his master bedroom; and concern with the noise from automobiles. Also of concern was the removal of the two existing trees located close to his property line. He felt that the removal of the trees would eliminate all the screening that he has to the home next to him. He also expressed concern that he would be looking at an open carport and that he concluded that the request for a carport was a means to have a three car Rara~e without includinn the carport space in the square footage. He felt that the carport would be an eye sore. He requested that the Commission view a home located on 20241 Herriman as it was a ~;=ell designed home and that it ~a-as an example of a home that the neighbors ~~-ould support. He submitted a petition from the neighbors requesting that they be allowed to sit down with the property owner to come up ~;pith solutions to mitigate the concerns contained in his letter. He requested that this design request be denied and allow the issues of concern to be addressed/resolved. Mr. Haws requested that the Commission approve the project as submitted as it meets the needs of his client. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:3~ P.M. Commissioner Asfour noted that the privacy issue of the ~ara¢e can be mitigated with landscaping. He stated that he was concerned with the design of the structure as it does not fit with that of the neighborhood. He indicated that he has mixed feelings about this design. ,PLANNING COMMISSIC~~IINUTES • JULY 12. 199 = PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that the home was nicely designed but that he would like to see chances to the ornamental features and the height of the garage. He felt that most of the design could be retained as the home fits correctly on the lot in the sense that it is a linear, deep lot. Commissioner Abshire stated that he drove through the neighborhood of houses that Mr. Haas designed and that the existing homes were very attractive. He felt that this proposal «-as a nice design. but felt that the design vas not compatible with that of the Herriman Avenue neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the site visit, she could not see where there would be a problem with views from the existing neighborhood. Therefore, she did not see views as being a problem. She felt that trees would be installed along the driveway. She liked that fact that cars would be removed from the street so that they are not visible and that this should be encouraged in Saratoga. She indicated that she did not like the design of the home and that she did not believe that it belonged in this neighborhood. Chairman Murakami commented that he felt that the house fit well on the lot and felt that it vas a nice design. However, stated his agreement with the other Commissioners that the design did not fit with that of the neighborhood. He recommended that the design be softened in the appearance of the outer portion of the home. Regarding the issue of blocking of views, he indicated that at the site visit, he did not feel that it ~;gas really a problem. He stated that he had a problem with ho~v this house «~as "maxed" out as far as square foota~~e. He suggested that redesign take into account staff's recommendation regarding the attic to reduce the total square footage. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Mr. Hacvs requested that the Commission explain his options. Chairman Murakami informed Mr. Haws that the Commission would be requesting that the design be softened (i.e., height of the garage). He indicated that he felt that the design problem vas something that could be worked out. Commissioner Siegfried further clarified that the options were that the Commission could vote tonight with a possible denial of the project or that this item be continued so that the applicant can work with staff. Mr. Haws stated his agreement to the recommended continuance. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-95-027 TO AUGUST 9, 199 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS AS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING. REVISED PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF BY FRIDAY. JULY 28. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 ~'~'ITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND PATRICK ABSENT. _-, ' - PLANNING COMNIISSIC~7INUTES JULY 12, 199 ' = PAGE - 14 - 4. DR-95-023 - VA\NIER; 14776 VIA DE _IIARCOS Request for Design Review approval to construct a new x,454 sq. ft., single-story residence on a vacant 42.495 sq. ft. hillside parcel. The subject property is Lot #2 of the San Marcos Heights Subdivision and is located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner VValaren presented the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the relationship of the proposed fencing and the trail easement. Planner VValaren stated that the trail easement is located in front of the property and is within the public right-of-way. He further clarified that the fencing would be located towards the back to enclose the pool and the yard. She (Kaplan) inquired as to why there was a reference be made regarding clean-up of the trail. Planner Walaren responded that it was a standard condition applied to the parcels within this subdivision that have an equestrian easement along the front of the lot. He stated that the trail was original improved by the developer when the subdivision improvements were accepted, but that during construction. the trail tend to get lost. It is required that new mulch be laid down and the trails be redefined prior to final occupancy of a home. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:47 p.m. Roger Griffith, project designer, stated that he believed that this vas a sensitive and considerate placement of the home on this site. Consideration vas given to the contours and that the design of the home followed those contours, minimizing grading to the site. He informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARIi\'G AT 9:49 P.M. The Commission indicated that it did not have a problem with the proposal as it is a well designed building. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 9~-023 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDVVELL AND PATRICK ABSENT. ~. 5-95-003 - ~~IO\TTALVO ASSOCIATION; ~10NTALVO RD. 1\1EDIA\T AT SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD. Request for Sign Permit approval to remove an existing pole mounted Villa Montalvo identification sign and replace it with a 3 ft. tall, 21 sq. ~ ft. , non- illuminated, freestanding Villa Montalvo identification sign. T'he Montalvo Rd. median is located within an R-1-20.000 residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that staff vas under the impression that the existing pole mounted sign that announces Villa Montalvo events was to be removed and that the Villa Montalvo identification sign was to be built in its place. However. the applicants have clarified with staff that they would like to retain the pole mounted sign and mount it on top of s, " - PLANNING COMiV1ISSIC~dIINUTES • JULY 12, 199 - PAGE - 15 - the four foot tall columns. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was a restriction on the amount of si~na~e that would be allowed with the retention of the existing metal sign. She asked how this proposal would fit with the proposed sign ordinance amendment that was before the Commission this evening. Planner VValaren responded that there would be no square footage limitation proposed for identification or directional signs. He informed the Commission that there would be three signs in the median (the proposed sign, the existing pole mounted sign identifying events and the existing county park/state sign that identifies the Villa Montalvo parks ground). Commissioner Kaplan asked what would happen to the green sign that was installed by CalTrans? Planner Walgren responded that he vas not certain who had jurisdiction over that sign and «-Nether it can be removed or not. It was his belief that the applicant intends to pursue the removal of the Green sign or to relocate it so that there are not too many signs in that one median. Commissioner Asfour asked if the City could require the removal of the state's Rreen sign as a condition of approval of the requested signage. Planner Walgren responded that it was not his believe that a condition could be added to require the removal of the state sign because it is not known if it is a state or county sign. Chairman Murakami expressed concern that the median appeared to look cluttered with signs. Commissioner Asfour felt that the requested signage vas an improvement in location but felt that there were too many signs located on the median. Commissioner Kaplan asked if an advertising sign such as the one being requested is a permitted use. Planner Walgren responded that it was staff's recommendation to approve the proposed sign under the assumption that the older sign would be removed. He clarified that the existing sign was anon-conforming, Qrandfathered sign and that the provision to allow identification or directional signs does not allow advertisement. Commissioner Asfour asked if the City could request that the applicant remove the green sign if at all possible? Community Development Director Curtis responded that a request could be made to remove the sign. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the entire median was within the state's jurisdiction and asked if a condition could be added to require the removal of a sign from state property. Community Development Director Curtis responded that an encroachment permit would need to be secured for the removal of a sivn located within CalTrans right-of-wav. Planner Walgren further stated that the applicant would need City approval for the sign and then seek an encroachment permit from CalTrans. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:52 p.m. Jim Compton. 1040 Oriole Road, stated his support of the signage that is being requested by the Montalvo Association. He noted that Montalvo requested that the green sign located in the median be erected and that it would be appropriate for them to request its removal. The ~- ~ i ~ PLANNING CONIMISSIC~7INUTES JULY 12. 199 PAGE - 16 - removal of the green sign would remove the clutter of too many signs in the area to be replaced with an appropriate. beautiful sign at a lower elevation. He felt that sign would enhance the area and that it would also be an identification of a historic site in Saratoga. He stated that approval of the sianaae would improve traffic safety because the sign would be seen at a distance from both sides, a1lo~vinQ time to plan for a turn into the facility. He requested that the event sign be allowed to remain because it would prevent a lot of unnecessary traffic from going into the area because the sign would inform the public as to the events that are occurring or whether the events are sold out. He requested that the sign be allowed to be three feet higher than what staff is recommending so that the sign can be visible and allow for landscape planting that would not obscure the sign. Commissioner Kaplan asked if consideration has been given to low level illumination focused on the sign that would not be a hazard to drivers. She felt that lighting would assist in alerting motorist of where one would turn into the facility. She indicated that she would not support an increase in size for the safety of bicyclist and pedestrian. Mr. Compton responded that it was his belief that there are street lights in the area that illuminates the sign and indicated that there could be an investigation conducted to determine if the existing street lights are sufficient to make the suns visible at night. Allen Pine, 1055 Montalvo Road, informed the Commission that he was helping the applicant with the sign. In response to Chairman Nlurakami's question, he informed the Commission that the sign as depicted in the drawing was 41 inches in height and that he was not sure if the car vas to scale. He informed the Commission that staff has advised him that the City's traffic consultant has indicated that 36 inches vas the maximum height that the sign should be from the street. He stated that the recommendation was lower than what was depicted on the drawing. He noted that it vas staff's recommendation that the maximum height for the columns be 36 inches and 30 inches for the sign. He requested that a 36 inch limit on the entire sign proposal. He would agree to lower the sign to 32 inches and that the columns would be at 36 inches so that there would be a character feel to the columns. Chairman Nlurakami stated that upon clarification, he understood the request from a safety stand point. Commissioner Kaplan asked the applicant to explain the mix-up in the request to retain the existing sign, versus staff's feeling that the existing sign was to be removed. 1~Ir. Pinn responded that there were three existing suns and that there was an attempt to remove the CalTrans sign and have it replaced with this requested directional sign. He felt that the confusion was that it ~;gas thought that there ~i-as to be four signs. Commissioner Abshire complimented the applicant for designing a very attractive, low maintenance sign. He asked if there was to be any maintenance work to the Qate that is located behind the proposed sign. Mr. Pinn stated that it is proposed to restore the gate's color by sandblasting the gates and repainting the metal ffates that are located on both sides so that the whole thing has the appearance of being the same age. COM_VIISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING c.~ ~ a- PLANNING COMMISSIC!/IINUTES JULY 12, 199 PAGE - 17 - AT 10:05 P.M. Chairman IVlurakami noted for the record that a letter vas received from VIr. and Mrs. Ernest Ornellas, Cody Lane, stating their opposition to the sign request. Commissioner Kaplan indicated her support for the sign but stated that she did not like the other metal sign that has been around for years. She requested that the existing metal sign be removed because she did not believe that it would add to the new look that is trying to be achieved. Commissioner Asfour did not recommend that the Commission ask the applicant to remove the metal sign because the si~7n encourages individuals to come to Saratoga. If the sign is removed, he did not know how individuals would know what is playing or whether the activity has been sold out. Therefore, he is of the opinion that there be a condition added that reflects that the applicant will make every effort to remove the ¢reen sign. Chairman Murakami stated that the sign design proposed would be an improvement to what exists. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had no objections to the proposal and felt that the signage would be an improvement to the area. However, he recommended that the pillars be restored to the extent possible and the Green sign removed. He did not object to the 36 inch pillar and 32 inch sign so long as it meets staff's approval. CO1~iMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 5-9~- 003 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE PILLARS BE AT A 36 INCH HEIGHT AND THE SIGN TO BE 32 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND THE ADDED STIPULATION THAT THE GREEN SIGN IS TO BE REMOVED. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDVVELL AND PATRICK ABSENT. 6. DR-95-030 - ROLLINS; 19~~1 FAR«'ELL AVENtiE Request for Design Review approval to construct a 526 sq. ft. second story addition with a deck to an existing 5,366 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 43,00 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Beth Rollins, applicant, informed the Commission that she tried to conform with the existing house and address the neighborhood's concerns. She requested Commission support of the request. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:12 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN IViOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- =`~, PLANNING COMMISSIC~IINUTES JULY 12. 199 - PAGE - 18 - 9~-030 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE IVIOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDVVELL AND PATRICK ABSENT. 7. AZO-95-003 - CITY OF SARATOGA Consideration of a draft Ordinance amending Chapter 15-30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to standards for the placement of temporary signs in Commercial Zoning Districts and consideration of a draft ordinance establishing interim standards for temporary signs in Commercial Zoning Districts (cont. from the 6/28!9 public hearing meeting at the recommendation of staff). Planner White presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that this item «-as a direct result and product of the Sign Ordinance that vas initiated by the City Council in the fall of 1994. Planning staff went through the process of identifying a number of different issues relating to signage in the City (i.e., special event signs, open house sign, signs on major arterials, antiquated sign programs, window and neon signs in the Village area). yHe indicated that the Planning Commission held a number of work sessions and public meetings to discuss these issues and also to work out alternatives or possible solutions to identified problems. Also, the Commission met with the representatives of the business community, specifically with the Chamber of Commerce and representatives of the Village Merchants. In June, the Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment that is before the Commission this evening. He recommended that the Commission review the draft ordinance amendments and forward its recommendation to the City Council to adopt the ordinances. Chairman Murakami asked staff clarification of Exhibit "A", subsection (m)(~) Exceptions which excludes the Village area from having temporary signs or banners. Planner White noted that the Village area vas involved in discussions. However, staff and the Commission tried in great length to get some consensus from the Village business owners but that a consensus could not be reached. Therefore, it vas recommended that the Village be excluded from this amendment. Commissioner Abshire noted that Exhibit "B" stipulates that the interim standards for the placement of temporary A-frame type signs would be in effect for a six month period. He asked what ~;-ould be the next action plan following the six month period. Planner White responded that an assessment would need to be made following the six month period to determine how the amendment was working or whether there ~;sere any complaints or concerns filed as a result of permitting A-frame signs. Commissioner Kaplan asked if each store front would be allowed to have two A-frame signs as defined in Exhibit "B", Section l.e) Planner White clarified that two A-frame signs would be permitted for each store front. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not recall the approval of two A-frame signs and indicated that she had trouble allowing one A-frame sign. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:18 p.m. There was no one in attendance to speak on this item. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:19 P.M. ::-A • w PLANNING COMMISSIC~v1INUTES JULY 12, 1995 - PAGE - 19 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDi~1ENTS AND TO FORWARD STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COiVIMISSIONERS CALD~VELL AND PATRICK ABSENT. 8. AZO-95-004 - CITI' OF SARATOGA Consideration of a draft Ordinance amending Chapter 15-30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to the prohibition of certain suns within the Public Right-of-Way (cont. from the 6/28/95 public hearing meeting at the recommendation of staff). ~ y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner White presented the draft ordinance amendment regarding signs in the public right-of- ways. He clarified that the proposed ordinance would prohibit all signs in the public right-of- way with the exception of certain public notices, public safety signs and open house signs which are permitted under separate regulations in the existing sign ordinance. Staff recommended that the Commission revie~y the draft ordinance and for~yard an appropriate recommendation to the City Council. He indicated that the City Attorney was present this evening and ~yould answer any questions of a legal nature relating to the draft ordinance amendment. y Commissioner Siegfried asked as to the legalities of this kind of a blanket restriction. City Attorney Riback stated that based on his research on this proposed amendment. he found that so long as the ordinance is content neutral, it is a legal ordinance. The City° «°ould not be able to prohibit political signs nor prohibit any other suns. This would be an invalid action which would be viewed as a violation of the first amendment. Commissioner Kaplan asked why open house signs would be exempt from the proposed ordinance amendment. City Attorney Riback clarified that open house signs are considered to be directional and that they are not content issues and because of that, they are taken out of the content issue entirely. Chairman Murakami asked for clarification regarding political signs. City Attorney Riback confirmed that it would be illegal to place political signs on utility poles or in the public right-of- ~yay. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:25 p.m. There ~yere no speakers present to address this item. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she ryas strongly opposed to an ordinance such as this one because she felt that what makes a community operate «~as the fact individuals can communicate. She felt that it was imperative that individuals know who is running for office. She felt that a political candidate with a limited budget would be put out of the political process. Chairman Murakami stated that he felt that this proposed ordinance amendment vas too :.u '_ PLANNING COMMISSI(~vIINUTES • JULY 12, 1995 - PAGE - 20 - restrictive. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not like political signs and felt that if an individual wants to place political suns in ones lawn area, he would encourage that. However, he felt that the ordinance was too restrictive. Commissioner Asfour felt that the deletion of the following phrase: "' -- ~ • ,•, ~ "from Section 3.(a)(4) Sign Restrictions pertaining to the restriction of temporary political signs from being erected within or upon any public highway, public street or public right-of-way would be removing a safety feature. City Attorney Riback clarified that a political sign can be erected as far in advance of an election but that political signs would need to be removed within five days following the election. Commissioner Siegfried clarified that the City Council recommended that political signs be allowed to be erected 30 days in advance to an election but that it was illegal to so. Therefore. it vas recommended that political signs not be allowed to be erected in the public right-of-~vav. Commissioner Abshire stated he did not believe that this vas a bad ordinance. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR. KAPLAN. MURAKAMI. SIEGFRIED: NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAII\T: NONE; ABSENT: CALD~VELL, PATRICK. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. El Paseo Commercial Shopping Center update. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that a letter vas sent to the City of San Jose regarding the El Paseo de Saratoga Shopping Center reflecting the Planning Commission and City Council comments and issues dealing with traffic and the redevelopment of the El Paseo sign. He indicated that a public hearing would be conducted by the City of San Jose's Planning Commission on July 26. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have an opportunity to meet with the City Manager but that he did meet with Planner ~?~'algren. He indicated that Planner VValgren consulted with the City Manager and that as a result of that, the letter dated July 26, 199 reflects what the City Manager was already doing (i.e., asking questions regarding the intersection and other issues that were not clearly identified). He stated that staff was cognizant of the Commission's concerns. CO~II\IISSIO\ ITE11S -.,~ ` PLANNING COMMISSI(~VIINUTES • JULY 12, 1995 - PAGE - 21 - 1. DR-93-009 - Sarkhosh; 18584 Sobey Road -Request for building location modification. Planner `'~~alaren informed the Commission that the Commission approved a t~vo story home on a vacant parcel in July 1994. Staff informed the Commission that the builder has requested site and grading plan modification to move the residence approximately 10 feet to the west and a fe~v feet forward to the north. Staff finds that the request to be in compliance with City requirements and that the aradin¢ quantities do not change significantly. BY CONSENSUS THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. Commissioner Kaplan stated that following the scheduled land use visit, she and Commissioner Patrick visited the site located on Burgundy VVay where the four homes are currently being built. She stated that the site was an absolute disgrace. She noted that there was not one single fence protection in place around the trees; that there were at least four trucks and an out house parked in a group underneath a cluster of trees; that there vas a cement truck actively ~vashin¢ cement debris into the creek area; that cars were parked everywhere; and that trees were cut down with city permission. She stated that she requested that staff do somethinv to stop this problem. She noted that none of the protection measures were in place and requested a staff update of the situation. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that he vas informed by Commissioner Kaplan and Patrick of these concerns yesterday afternoon. He stated that he visited the site this morning with the grading inspector and the assistant city engineer to investigate what was happening. He indicated that the City's arborist is scheduled to visit the site on Monday afternoon. He stated that the Citv has been performing regular inspections of the site and that the City arborist has occasional visited the site. However, when he visited the site this morning. the tree fencing vas installed per the City arborist recommendation. He indicated that the only lot that did not have fencing vas parcel 3. He noted that no fencing was required for parcel 3 because the City accepted the use of hay bales in-lieu of fencing. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the ball was dropped on the site/tree protection. THE COMMISSION REQUESTED THAT STAFF FOLLOW-UP DURING PROJECT CO1V'STRUCTION. C0~11IU\ ICATIO\ S Chairman Murakami stated that he attended the City Council meeting and that the Council, on a 3-2 vote, denied the Heath appeal. He indicated that three Councilmembers concurred with the Commission's recommendation and felt that the Commission vas being more than fair with its recommendation. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he received a call from Mr. Abdullah ~vho informed him that he has appealed the Commission's decision. He stated that Mr. Abdullah has asked him (Asfour) for his advise and that he indicated that he could not advise him on this issue. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would not be present for the work study session scheduled for next Tuesday. y _, # 9 ``~ PLANNING COMMISSI(~ZINUTES • JULY 12, 199 ' PAGE - 22 - «'ritten 1. City Council Minutes - 6/13; 6/21; 6/27 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 7/26/9 Oral City Council ADJOL~IL\~1iENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:3 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 18, 1995, Senior Adult Day Care Center. 1965 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK it+PCO%1295.SAR