Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-1996 Planning Commission Minutes~ - -- ~ ` ANNING COMMISSION MINUT'i!_ • JUNE 26. 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan. Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Asfour, Murakami Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walaren, and Planner Bradley City Attorney Riback vas not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance itiinutes - 6/ 12/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 12. 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 7, paragraph 4 amended to add the following to the end of the paragraph: "...events.He also indicated that he would not allow the use of an amplified system nar does lae iiite.nd to charge . fob the.;u~e` rsf t~:e>pre~iises .. - Pane 9, paragraph 3, line 12 amended to read: "...the northwest corner of the ~- access:r~ad and they' have the existing home above.... " ;. - Page 16, paragraph 3, line 5 amended to read "...didr~ot. believe that the home fits the neighborhood.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on June 21,1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 2 - CONSENT CALE\TDAR PLBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALE\?DAR PUBLIC HEARII\'GS 1. SD-95-004 - BURKE, 13485 VILLA OAKS LN.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 15 acre (gross) Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision into three individual lots of 6.1, ~.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located «~ithin a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. from 6/12/96 at the request of the Planning Commission to revisit the site; Cite revie~:~ deadline is 9/20/96) Planner Walaren presented the staff report. He indicated that this item vas continued from the Commission's last meeting to allow the Commission the opportunity to revisit the site and to better understand the location of the three building pads. Staff recommended that the Commission take additional testimony on this item. He informed the Commission that Public Works Director Perlin was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Should the Commission agree that special circumstances exist that ~;arrant approval of the subdivision, staff would return with a resolution of approval. If the Planning Commission does not want to reconsider this subdivision further, staff would prepare a denial resolution for its next meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the Commission could limit the configuration location of the driveway which was viewed at the site visit should the Commission approve the subdivision? She wanted to make sure that there is no access across the canyon. Planner Walgren indicated that a condition can be added that would stipulate that this is the approved development plan and that it cannot be deviated. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Thomas Burke, Jr. , son of the applicant. indicated that he would agree to the condition which would restrict the location of the driveway to save the oak tree located to the right of the driveway. He indicated that this request was a solution to a sedimentation problem that comes from the old quarry. He stated that clean up work to the creek would be completed and accepted prior to final map approval. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. Commissioner Sieufried indicated that he visited the site with Mr. Teerlink on Sunday. He felt that the request was a Qood solution to the quarry creek problem. Commissioner Abshire stated that at the last meeting. the Commission could not see a building site for parcel 3, but he indicated that the Commission could see a building pad at the site visit. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he was also invited to a site visit but indicated that he was not able to make the site visit. He stated that he had heard from Mr. Garrod ~vho had some concerns as a member of the water company, noting that any objections that the water district had have since been withdrawn. He felt that the problem requires extraordinary actions and efforts on the part of the city. Chairwoman Kaplan agreed with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners and requested that staff prepare a resolution of approval with an added condition to address the concern for the driveway and the oak tree. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION SD-9~-004 WITH A CONDITION TO BE INCLUDED THAT WOULD STIPULATE THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY TO PROTECT THE TREE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. 2. DR-96-002 - LLTIINOS0,14010 PIKE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single story 1,721 sq. ft. residence and construct a ne~v 3,917 sq. ft. t~vo-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 22,527 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Chair«roman Kaplan asked if staff had a response to Ms. Witkin's allegation that the slope density calculation was contradictory to Saratoga's HR Residential Hillside District, Article 1~-13? She stated that her reading of this section does not agree with Ms. Witkin's analysis. Planner Bradley responded that there may have been a point of confusion on ho«° staff derived at the allowable floor area calculations. She indicated that there vas no validity to Ms. Witkin's reference to the code requirement. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Fred Luminoso, applicant. indicated that when he moved to the site four years ago, he discussed improvements to the property with the Witkins. He vas surprised with the bitter attack of his proposal. He presented the Commission with exhibits that contained photographs of homes located on Pike Road. He noted that some of the homes were large, dominating, and imposing structures. He indicated that a neighbor contiguous to his property granted him an easement to allow him to access Perata Court. He indicated that for the past three years, he has been preparing a proposal for his dream home. He felt that he resides in a neighborhood that is in transition. He indicated that in 1994. he spoke with Ms. Witkin and informed her that he would be willing to work with her to preserve her privacy in every way possible. He provided the Commission with additional pictures taken in September 1994 that depict the views that he and the Witkins would have of each others PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 4 - home/property. He stated that he took exception that Mr. Fredkin, attorney, and the Witkins came onto his property, unannounced to inspect the property. He indicated that he invited Ms. Witkin to review the dra~vinas so that he could explain the location of the windows, keeping her concerns in mind. Jerry Ceppos, 14550 Pike Road, noted that Pike Road vas in a rural, pastoral state. He felt that the height of the home would clash with the rest of the neighborhood. His view «-ould be that of the gigantic red the roof that would jog through the trees. He stated that he was never consulted regarding the proposal and that he did not kno«- about the proposal until he received notice of the hearing. He recommended that a single story home with the use of different colors be considered with a guarantee that trees would protect views. Mark Fredkin, attorney for the Witkins, indicated that there vas nothing personal about the Witkins' concern about their property. He indicated that the Witkins were not shown these particular plans until they were noticed about this hearing. He indicated that there were three issues of concerns that needed to be considered. The concerns were as follows: 1) this lot has been grandfathered in, noting that the house would not be allowed today; 2) the orientation of the home has been made such that there is not sufficient distance between the homes (setback and grade difference); and 3) there is substantial visibility of the proposed the roof (privacy issue and concern with the existing, diseased trees on the Witkins' property). He requested that additional trees be required to be planted to provide screening. Also of concern vas the color compatibility, the roof, and the size of the lot. Marsha Witkin. 14020 Pike Road, indicated that her view would be that of the western elevation, noting that the elevation of the Luminoso property vas higher than her lot. Her main concern was that of privacy as a large, t~vo story home is being proposed, noting that the home would be looking down into her backyard, pool, hot tub and patio area. She felt that it was intrusive because of the closeness of the home to her property, and also because of the nature of the design and proposed color of the roof. She indicated that what looks like a good screening of trees would not last much longer because the trees are diseased. She expressed concern regarding screening. When she remodeled her home a few years ago, the Commission required that she provide a shield of tall fast growing evergreen trees along the southern property line to shield her home from the neighbors. Another concern vas that the Luminoso's trees would be protected during construction, noting that her trees adjacent to the property line were not being protected. She requested that all trees be protected. Chairwoman Kaplan asked Ms. Witkin if she was planning to do anything with the trees with the knowledge that they were dying. Ms. Witkin indicated that the trees «=ere planted 11 years ago and that it took 11 years to provide the screening. She requested that the Commission require additional screening. Tom Lustenachee, 14220 Pike Road, indicated that he resides a couple of blocks from the Luminoso's lot. He indicated that the roof was virtually im~isible. However, he expressed concern with the use of red the and requested that the color be toned down. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Mr. Luminoso indicated that there are huge trees between his property and that of Mr. Bone's property. He indicated that Mr. Bone granted him an easement to help him build a t~vo story home and that Mr. Bone had no problem with the red roof nor with the two story home. He acknowledged that his lot was grandfathered in. However. he noted that there were several, one acre lots that were grandfathered in. He also acknowledged that he is setback 20 feet from the lot line. noting that the setback is within the Guidelines. He indicated that he vas located 20 feet from the back of the Witkin's garage. He did not know why Ms. Witkin was not replacing the trees if they were dyinG. He indicated that he would be willing to plant a tree for every tree that Ms. Witkin plants between the dining room and the southern side. He indicated that he did not want to be boxed in with a number of redwood trees. closing him in (north of Ms. Witkins dining room). He noted that a private road exists that others are using illegally. Regrading the color of the roof, he indicated that the color was selected to blend with the environment. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the old road that the Commission used to access the property was in poor condition. She noted that the project calls for the construction equipment to use the old road. She asked ho~v the incremental damace caused by construction would be measured. Mr. Luminoso indicated that he has an acreement with his neighbor to the north (Mrs. Carlson) that the construction equipment would access the old road and that he would improve the road this winter. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that he came to the meeting willing to approve the home but that after hearing the arguments from the neighbors, he was not sure if he could approve the project. He indicated that he could not approve the red rile roof that would be visible. He recommended that an alternative color rile be selected. He recommended the use of darker colors for the home. He indicated that he would need to see chances before he could approve the request. y Commissioner Pierce stated that it was unfortunate that the lot vas small. He felt that the applicant made a reasonable effort to build within the lot. He stated that it appears to him that the color of the roof was that of an earth tone color and that it was not offensive to him. He recommended the planting of pines and redwood trees as offered by the applicant. He also recommended that Ms. Witkin consider tree plantings to miticate her concerns. He indicated that he could support the request. y Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she vas contacted by Mr. Fredkin regarding Ms. Witkin's concerns this afternoon. She recommended that a condition be added that would stipulate the planting of additional trees (tree for tree) should the project be approved. She indicated that if the roof color vas that of the blended color indicated, she did not have a problem with it. Regarding the privacy concern expressed, she could not see any issues of invasion of privacy at the site visit, noting that the house vas setback as required. She indicated that she could approve the request. PLANNING COMMIS~1 MINUTES • JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Patrick stated that she wondered why the home was not set more into the hillside. She felt that additional landscaping would mitigate Ms. Witkin's privacy concern. She indicated that she could support the project as long as a red the roof is not used. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that staff would recommend that a condition relating to the trees stipulate that trees are to be planted to provide adequate screening, irrespective of how many trees Ms. Witkin plants. Commissioner Abshire felt that the colors proposed would stand out like a beacon against a green area. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a color sample could be brought back to the Commission for its review. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that staff look at the color and that if staff does not feel that it is the appropriate color. staff is to bring the color back to the Commission for its review. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-002 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE SCREENING AS DETERMINED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. 3. DR-96-003 - ~i'O\G, 2122 CHAD~'~'ICK COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a ne~v 6,133 sq. ft. single story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 2.8 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. The application includes a request for exemption from the Hillside district grading regulations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that staff added a condition to the resolution to clarify that the required landscaping is to be installed prior to final occupancy. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about the cut and fill for the driveway as it would require 11 to 88 cubic yards of fill and the residence has 550 cubic yards of cut. She asked if the fill would be swapped on site? Planner Bradley responded that it appears that additional fill would be required. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. David Britt, project designer, indicated that the home complies with all the hillside zoning ordinances and that variances are not required. However, an exception is being requested for the driveway. He indicated that there was discussion early in the process of shared easement with the adjoining neighbor. However, the neighbor declined to share the easement because it would go through a large flat area on his parcel. He indicated that this PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 7 - was the best location for the driveway. Minimal grading ~;could be required for the porte- cochere area in front of the house for a small turn around. He indicated that his client vas sensitive to the many oak trees located on the property and every attempt vas made to design around the trees to ensure their survival. He noted that the concerns expressed were from individuals ~vho do not reside on Chadwick Court. The concerns expressed were that of changes made to the previously approved plans that expired 30 days after his client bought the property. He showed the Commission an overlay of the previously approved project and the current proposal depicting the location of the driveway and siting of the home. He informed the Commission that the turn around located by the garage is a fire department requirement. He noted that the home is set into the hillside to help minimize the height of the home and to mitigate the view of the home from that of the neighbors. Rosemary Wong, applicant, requested Commission approval of the proposal. She acknowledged the fact that the parcel had an illustrious past but that it was her intention to alleviate some of those ill feelings with the change of ownership. She stated that she positioned the home as far away from the neighbors as possible. The home has been angled so that it runs parallel along the knoll rather than perpendicular across the knoll. She noted that the proposed one story home is four feet lower than the code requires for height. She stated that she has no intention of drawing attention to the home by the use of color, size or its placement. She indicated that she approached the neighbor about a shared easement for driveway access, noting that a copy of that letter was attached to the Commission's packet. As the neighbor was not willing to grant the shared access easement, the proposed location was the only feasible access to the building pad. She addressed the Barka's land swap that was addressed in one of the letters submitted to the Commission and indicated that the land swap served as a fire protection break. She indicated that she intends to landscape that piece of property for protection reasons and to stop the parties that occur. She indicated that her closest neighbors located on Chadwick Court support the proposal. Bob Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, provided the Commission with a handout which depicts how this proposal would affect him. He indicated that his home is sited on the ridge across from this site, 20 feet lower. He indicated that he reviewed some of the Commission meeting minutes of the previously approved plan and that he was convinced that the City was sensitive to the neighborhood's concerns for the site. He indicated that he purchased his home based on this policy. He indicated that the new proposed house plan came as a shock and as a surprise to him as so much effort and time vas spent to establishing a regional plan. He felt that the ne~v plan contradicts every promise made by the previous Planning Commission and violates city regulations. He felt that the City has mislead the neighbors by changing its policy. He identified the differences between the previously approved plans and the proposed plans. He indicated that he would have a view of a «-a11 that is 160 feet long and 12 feet higher than the previously approved plan. The proposed garage doors directly face his views with no buffers proposed. The exposed hillside driveway vas 509 less under the previous approval. Another concern was that the design proposes a 1.000 foot gallery that opens up directly to his home. It was designed for large crowds and gatherings, setting up a high traffic/activity situation. He felt that this use warrants additional buffers. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Ray Pionteck, 21195 Chiquita Way, addressed the difference between the previous proposal and the current proposal. He indicated that the home is proposed to be 6,133 square feet as opposed to ~,6~9 square feet. He addressed the elevation difference, noting that over 15~ feet of roof line will be staring at him. He requested that the proposal be redesigned to address height, bulk and privacy. He also requested that the Commission conduct a site visit to be followed by a work session. Commissioner Pierce informed Mr. Pionteck that the Commission conducted a site visit and that they specifically viewed Mr. Pionteck's site. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not attend the site visit but that he has visited the site many times. Luanne Nieman, 13217 Padero Court, indicated that her property adjoins this site. She addressed the drainage problems that she has been experiencing. She informed the Commission that her home vas located 12 feet from the creek. She indicated that for 9 years she has had to watch the Chadwick/Cocciardi property develop. She expressed concern with grading and setbacks. She also expressed concern with the approval of a lot line adjustment that extends the property by 40 feet with an informal statement that stipulates that no building is to occur within this 40 foot setback. She indicated that the building code allows construction in this 40 feet area. She stated that the property has a lot of history (i.e. drainage erosion and landscape problems). She did not believe that the drainage issues have been adequately addressed. She felt that the plans warrant further consideration. Ms. Wong indicated that her property vas not considered a ridge as defined by city code. She noted that the staff report does not list any violations to city codes and regulations. She stated that she took great care in dividing the walls into four separate portions to provide interesting architectural features. She noted that the driveway does not face Mr. Stark. noting that it is at an angle to his home. Regarding the Pionteks' concerns. she informed the Commission that their home is listed for sale. Regarding the issue of privacy, she noted that all of her living space would be located to the north with her back to the Pionteks. She understood Ms~ Nieman's concern regarding flooding and indicated that she ~i-ould address this concern in the final landscape plan. Regarding the piece of property that was swapped, she indicated that there was a signed covenant that was attached to the bill of sale that states that no permanent structure, decking or swimming pool can be built in that area. Therefore. Ms. Nieman's privacy would not be impacted. Mr. Britt clarified that the height of this home would be 4.5 feet lower than the previously approved home. Commissioner Abshire inquired about the materials to used on the driveway. Mr. Britt responded that the driveway would be asphalt with a decorative border (i.e. brick). He noted that the plans show the use of interlocking pavers around the house but that the driveway would be of asphalt material. y PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 26. 1996 PAGE - 9 - Chairwoman Kaplan asked how big vas the porte-cochere? Mr. Britt responded that it vas approximately 40 feet from the front door to the outside of the circle. He stated that modifications were made to the driveway because of the large oak tree. He indicated that the length of the mandatory turn-around was approximately y180 feet. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern with the amount of paving proposed with the turn- around. She asked if it could be redesigned'? Mr. Britt responded that the length of the driveway= past the garage was required because of the fire turn-around requirement. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the garage could be relocated so that vehicles would not have to go across the hill. Mr. Britt responded that several options were reviewed but that they required additional grading. He indicated that the length of the driveway would not have a retaining wall as the driveway follows the existing contours and that the only grading required would be at the porte-cochere area. In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's concern with the expanse of the paved driveway, Mr. Britt indicated that he would not oppose the installation of additional trees to screen the headlights. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:~3 P.M. Commissioner Patrick indicted that she liked the plans and the proposed landscaping. She felt that the plan works well. She indicated that the swap of the land occurred due to the concern of earth movement. She felt that the colors would blend nicely. Commissioner Abshire stated he likes crepe myrtle but that he did not believe that they would provide sufficient screening. Planner Bradley stated that the retaining wall proposed close to the entrance of the driveway vas only three feet in height. Commissioner Pierce stated that he liked the design and the layout. He indicated that he was aware of the neighbors' concerns. He stated that the applicant has tried to mitigate the neighbors' view concerns. Given the nature of the location and the length of the driveway, necessitated by the lot configuration, he felt that a parking area vas required for guests. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the size of the home vas an overkill in terms of its size and the gallery room. However, he felt that the style of the home is compatible with the existing homes. He indicated that he could support the request. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if this site contributed to the drainage problem. Planner Walgren responded that there is a natural sheet flow of drainage that is coming off of this property that is going to the drainage system both to the north and south. All that can be done with a development like this is to make sure that the additional drainage collected from the building is properly directed into the drainage system through an outflow system with an energy dissipater and other engineering practices to minimize the amount of erosion that would occur. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she could support the request with the added condition that would require additional tree plantings along the driveway. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the additional planting of native trees would occur towards the top of the bank to provide screening. Planner Walgren indicated that a condition vas included that required that the landscape plans be modified. noting that the condition could be modified to require additional screening along the driveway area. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he would be looking for a series of trees that would provide a breaking up of the building and not a solid ro«~ of trees to screen the entire building. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the trees are to provide screening for the driveway so that it does not appear to be prominent. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-003 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PARKING AREA. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. 4. DR-96-015 & V-96-003- `WILSON/DAVISOI`T,1SS80 PEACH HILL RD.;Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,523 sq. ft. two-story residence on an undeveloped hillside parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the structure to deviate from lot depth percentage-based setbacks and to allow retaining walls within the required front yard in excess of 3 ft. in height. The 1.0~ acre subject property was recently approved by the City Council to be annexed to Saratoga and will be in the Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. Michael Garibaldi, architect. provided the Commission with a schematic model of the proposed home. He indicated that the site contained constraints due to the slope of the lot and its irregularity. He indicated that he was sensitive towards any view blockage from adjacent properties. minimizing the building height/grading and respected the privacy of the adjacent parcels. He noted that the site is wooded but that it is not an evergreen-type forest. He felt that the site had a Mediterranean feel as does the home. Simple forms and simple materials are to be used to provide a comfortable feeling. He indicated that the backside of the structure is one and a half story and that the front of the home is a two story structure. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JUNE 26. 1996 PAGE - 11 - Bob Gorski, 15600 Peach Hill Road. indicated that he resides across the driveway and stated his support of the project. However, he opposed the location of the Garage due to the combination of setback and privacy. He felt that the setbacks appear to be wrong according to a survey he conducted on his property in 1993. He felt that there would be a major invasion of privacy. The proposal is for a t~vo story garage and that it would be visible from his living areas (i.e.,kitchen, living, and dining rooms). Also of concern were the t~vo mature oak trees that are 14 inches in diameter that may be at risk. He requested that the lot lines be verified as there are nvo conflicting surveys. He requested that windows be minimized in the garage that are overlooking his living areas. He reiterated that he did not object to the home but requested that the garage structure be setback as far as possible taking into account the constraints of the slope. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she recognized the name of the next speaker (Mr. Massone) and that she was not sure if this was the name of the family who were friends to one of her sons. She indicated that this fact would not influence her decision. William Mussone. 15590 Peach Hill Road, indicated that he is the Wilson's nearest neighbors to the east. He indicated that he vas not opposed to the structure. However, he had concerns regarding oak trees 1 and 2. It vas his belief that oak tree 1 was going to die and that there was some question as to ho~v tree 2 would be pruned. He felt that his curb appeal would be impacted if oak tree 2 dies. He indicated that there are questions as to where the proper lot lines are situated. He requested the opportunity to speak with the Wilsons to resolve this problem. He requested that the structure be setback as far as possible to the west, keeping the slopes and their constraints under consideration. Scott Jaunich, Berliner-Cohen Attorneys at La~v, informed the Commission that he vas retained by William Mussone and the Gorskis who are concerned with the location of the garage and the property line. He indicated that the property was measured and that it appears to be less than 20 feet setback. He requested that this item be continued so that the proper boundary lines can be defined. Also of concern were trees 1 and 2. He noted that the staff report identifies compensation for the loss of tree 1 but that there is no discussion regarding tree 2 other than its pruning. He indicated that the City does not have jurisdiction of this parcel as the annexation process has not yet been completed. Meg Giberson, 1~~61 Glen Una Drive, expressed concern with the possible impacts of this project to the sewer system and the driveway location. She indicated that her concerns were outlined in the two page document she submitted to the Commission. She asked what studies or findings addressed the project's environmental impacts. She indicated that the annexation of the property went unnoticed and that there vas no hearing nor information provided. She indicated that there have been problems with sewer going up the road. She felt that environmental review vas warranted in view of the past history and the future right of way impacts from the sewer extension. Mr. Garibaldi indicated that the issue of privacy has been discussed with the neighbors. He acknowledged that this vas a complex site. The garage is located as close to the road as possible. Shifting the house around would either increase the slope of the driveway or raise PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 12 - the garage structure, noting that it was at its height limit. He did not feel that there vas a lot of latitude to accommodate the shifting of the garage, noting that the garage angles away from the property line. He felt that the removal of the windows from the wall would create a blank wall. He indicated that the oak trees have been protected as much as possible, compromising one of the trees. He requested that the item not be continued because doing so would delay construction into next year. Regarding sewer hook-up, he indicated that the sewer would be Going to the street (Peach Avenue sewer system). Chairwoman Kaplan stated that it was her understanding that the only windows proposed in the garage area are located in the bedroom above the garage. Mr. Garibaldi confirmed that the windows were located in the bedroom above the garage. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the windows cannot be eliminated from a bedroom. She did not believe that individuals would stand at their bedroom windows looking at other individual's property. Mr. Wilson, applicant, indicated that he has in his possession a survey map. noting that his surveyor has located the iron pipes that mark the boundary lines. He felt that the discrepancies were limited to one or two feet. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan asked what should be done about the issue of the property lines. Planner Walgren responded that as a survey has been prepared by a registered civil engineer that shows the property lines noting that there is no reason to believe that this survey is not accurate. Commissioner Pierce recommended that the applicant's surveyor meet with the neighbor's surveyors to confirm property lines. Commissioner Patrick acknowledged the neighbors' concerns. However, in looking at the plans, it was her belief that the house was sited such that it would be least intrusive to the neighbors. Therefore she could support the request. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he visited the site and the he wished that the garage could be further away from Mr. Gorski's property. He felt that it vas unfortunate that the parcel was a narrow lot. He stated that he could support the request. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that the home vas designed nicely on the lot and that she could make the variance findings. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-96-003 WITH THE FINDINGS AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES JUNE 26. 1996 PAGE - 13 - ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-015. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITE~TS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that its next meeting is scheduled for July 9 at 7 p.m. He indicated that it would be a joint meeting with the City Council. Topics to be discussed are as follows: the hillside plan, Saratoga/Sunnyvale specific plan, and a design revie«~ task force presentation. COit~IMISSION ITEitIS Chairwoman Kaplan addressed the actions taken by the Council at its last meeting. She stated that in listening to the Council's review of the Costa's request, she noted that Mr. Costa changed his plans after review/action by the Planning Commission. The Council felt that Mr. Costa cooperated and compromised. She felt that if an applicant states that they are proposing a dream home, it gets approved by the Council. irrespective of the design review findings or anything else that the Commission has to say . She asked if the City Council is swayed by the applicant's comments that they (applicant) rely on staff's recommendationin the staff report to the Planning Commission. She recommended that staff not make a recommendation one way or another to the Commission. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that it was his job to make a recommendation to the Commission when appropriate. CO>\ I~~Iti 1~TICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 6/1; 6/5; 6/7; 6/11 2. Notices for 7/ 10/96 Planning Commission meeting Oral Cite Council ADJOURNAIE\T -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 10, 1996. EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES JUNE 26. 1996 PAGE - 14 - Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk 1T`:.PC062696.SAR