Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-1998 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF S:~RATOGA PLANNI\G COMMISSION ~1INliTES SEP"I~Eiv1BER 23. 1998 Ci~-ic Center. 13777 Fruit~~ale A~•enue. Saratoga. CA Regular A~Ieeting --------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the ineetin~ to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Conmiissioners Bernald, Kaplan. ~lurakami. Page, and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioners ~~ilrtlage. Patrick Staff: Director ~'l~ algren y Pledge of Allegiance 1~Iinutes -September 9, 1998 On a motion b~~ Commissioners Bernald;`Murakami, the Commission appro~~ed the September 9, 1998 minutes amending page 3, paragraph 4 to add the follo«ing: "...sa~-in~= that because the ne«~ Hillside Ordinance excludes houses in this zoning district. she ~i-i11 agree to this request." The motion carried 4-0-1 «~ith Commissioner Pave abstaining and Commissioners ~lartlage and Patrick absent. y y Oral Communication No comments «°ere offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director ~~'algren declared that pursuant to Government Code ~49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting ~-as properl~~ posted on September 18. 1998. Technical Corrections to Packet ~To corrections ~~ere noted. CO\SENT CALENDAR 1. DR-98-007: (APN 503-23-006) - JAYAKti_11AR, 1265 Burns «'a~-: Request for Design Revie«- approval to construct a ne« t~t-o stor~•, single family residence, 4.043 square feet in size. ?~ feet in height. on a 29,020 square foot lot in an R-1-1,000 Zoning District. A single story- residence currentl~~ exists on the property-. (APPLICATIO\ ~V`ITHDR_4~'~'N BY APPLICANTS] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director ~~'algren informed the Commission that this item ~°as continued from a prey ious meeting. Ho«-ever, the applicant is requesting that the application be ~~ithdra«-n. Therefore, no • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 2 - action is required. PL BLIC H EARI\ GS 2. llR-97-032 (~03-72-012) -MOORS, 2167 VIi\TAGE LA\E: Request for Desi<~n Reyie~y approval to construct a ne«- 6.737 square foot single store residence on a 131.387 square foot lot. The application also includes a request for an exemption from the five loot underfloor clearance limit and a request to exceed the 1.000 cubic yard grading limit for lots in a Iillside Residential zoninv district. The height of the residence is 23.E Feet. Director ~~'algren presented the staff report. He recommended discussion re~ardin`~ the grading to construct the home separate from the landslide repair. He said that there are still appro~imatel~- 1,400 cubic yards of cut and fill necessary to construct the home. separate from the landslide repair, much of ~i-hich is necessary for the drive~say itself. He informed the Commission that a vehicular driveway will be necessary to access the ~~arage but that there may be some room to reduce the amount of turn around area adjacent to the ~ara~e and to reduce the amount of grading. He indicated that a letter «°as received from John and 1\anc~- K«~ong, 1481 Saratoga Heights Court, requesting that sufficient landscape screcnin~ be planted along the elevation to reduce the drive~yas's impact on their yie«~s. y Commissioner Bernald asked if it «-as staff's belief that this piece of propem- «-ould be better off for the entire neighborhood in terms ofgeolo~ic concerns ifthe landslides arc to be repaired`? Director ~t~ al~ren stated that in order to build the home. the geologist has indicated that the landslides are severe enough that they need to be repaired to accommodate this proposal. He stated that there ~;-ould be a benefit in repairing the landslide. Ile said that another issue that is unique to this propem~ is that it is not a hillside that is densely wooded -here a lot of vegetation would have to be taken out in order to repair the landslide. if the slope is recontoured propcrl~~, the end result should not be noticeably different. He clarilied that the 1.000 cubic yard limitation is mostly a design standard relative to ne«- construction in the hill to present large grading of hilltops or lame till plateaus to c~tend a ~~ard area. He said that when this limitation «-as adoptod, it ~-as not adopted to address limiting landslide repairs. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Ton~• Jeans, project designer, submitted a list of immediate neighbors above the propert~~ in support of the request. Ile said that the nei~~hbors have asked that strong consideration be given for the construction of a single stork- home. llc ryas also asked by the neighbors on Saratoga Heights to consider a single store home. He felt that a single story home was much more in keeping with what the nei~,~hborhood ~~ants to see. Ile addressed the design of the hOlne, including the use of stone trim. IIe also addressed the request for the two exceptions. He furnished the Conunission with a model of the proposed home that depicts the additional landscape screening to address 1\~Ir. and 1\'[rs. K~~-ong's concern. He said that he tried to design a • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE-~- home that presents itself well to individuals across the valle~° and to the benefit of his client. He did not want to destroy the architectural integrity- b~~ having to step do«n the extra t~yo feet. He felt that the n;-o store home approach ~~-ould ha~~e pushed the home much closer to the neighbor above and block a view corridor. He said that the back of the home has been depressed ~~-here the ~~radin~ issue comes into pla~~. IIe informed the Commission that there have been four landslides on the propert~• in the past 11 rears. One of the masons for repairing the landslide is to provide a safe feeling to the propem- o«ner and to the adjacent neighbor. He informed the Commission that the landslide repair ~~°ill take approximately- 10 da~~s to complete and that it can be repaired without the removal of any trees or landscaping. The soil ~i•ill be put back at its current level and that immediate planting areas will be provided. ~•lr. Jeans said that the dri~~e«-a~~ is required for emergence ~~ehicle turn around and parkin~~. He said that he has depressed the drive~~~a~~ into the ground so as to allo~~ the nei~=hbor to get as clear of a view corridor as possible. I-Ie stated that it is proposed to have 900_ yards of cut for the drive~yay and that the cut ~~•ould be exported off site. He said that the driveway could be sloped a little more «-ith minimal ~radin~. Karlina Ott. ? 170 Vintage Lane. inforn~ed the Commission that she supports the desi~m of the single store home as it does not block her view and that it would not provide her with an expansive view of a big roof. Dipak Basu. 21777 Vintage Lane, resident directl~~ up the hill from the subject property-, said that he appreciated the fact that his concerns «-ere taken into account. He stated his support of the single story design. including the installation of trees to screen the two properties to address his view corridor and privac~~ concerns. He requested Commission approval. Jon K~yon`~. 14x81 Saratoga Heights Court. expressed concern with cars turning around on Cony=ress Iiall Lane and the impact of light beams creating a ni~~ht nuisance. He said that he has spoken with Mr. Jeans «~ho has assured him that sufficient screening would be installed to address his concern. He also expressed concern «°ith the installation of a fence around the vineyard. He said that a deer fencin~~ «-ith the use of 6 x 6 posts and the use of netting does not add to the neighborhood and detracts from the open space. Director Vl`al~ren informed the Commission that the fencimT «ould not only enclose the vines°ard but would enclose more than 4.000 square feet of the propert~~ ~-ithin the Hillside Kesidential zoning district. This «-ould require a separate application process ~~ith its o~i-n set of findin~~s. As the fencing was not proposed until after the point that it ~•as too late to advertise this component of the project. it will be a later application if the homeo~~ner wishes to pursue the request to enclose the ~~ine~°ard. Mr. Jeans informed the Commission that the request to enclose the vineyard came at the request of the neighbors who reside across the s-allev. He said that he ~i~ould agree to install a vineyard if PLA\TNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 PAGE - 4 - some sort of invisible fencinv is installed. acknowled~in~ the fact that the request for fencing «~as too late to be included as part of this application. Commissioners _l-]urakami;`Bernard moved to close the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Chairman Pierce noted for the record that the Commission was in receipt of a petition with the names of approximately 16 individuals in support of the application. Commissioner Page stated his support of the desivn and the presentation of the model. He said that in light of the two other applications the Commission received rep=arding landslides. he has concerns about building a home where the property- has had four landslides in eleven years. IIc recommended additional landscape screening in the back area «-here the pool is to be installed for privacy- reasons. He appreciated the fact that additional screening is proposed to address ~1r. K«°ong's concerns.~s the applicant has support ol'his neighbors. he ~~-ould support the request. Commissioner Bernald expressed concern with the four landslides. She said that she has repeatedly- inquired about the ability to correct landslides and that she has been given some assurance that the repairs ~~-i11 impro~~e the property . She appreciated the fact that the home is to be a low- profile home from the galley and that it «-ould not block ~-icw corridors. She also appreciated the fact that the applicant; designer «-orkcd with the neighbors. I Io«~e~-er. she expressed concern ~yith the drivee~~a~~. From her experience. when she has lar~c ~=coups come to her home. her visitors park on the street and do not use her driveway. She stated her support of a smaller driveway with less cut as she was not convinced that it «-ould help people driving in the area and that Quests would park on Vinta~~e Lane. ~'~~ith the exception of the drivewa~•. she stated that she could support the application as presented. She noted that the fireplace ordinance condition was not included in the resolution of approval and recommended that it be included as a condition. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by~ Commissioner Bernard. I-Ic appreciated the fact that this is not a t«~o-stow home as it protects view sheds. He expressed concern with the slide areas as far as the way that they are to be corrected and ho~y stable they will be in the future. He said that the Commission has to rely- on the <~eolo~=fists and that itJives him comfort ~i-ith their review. He said that he «-ould be «~illina to approve the home as he likes the ~yav it is sited on the slope. IIe also expressed concern with the driveway raid recommended that it be reduced in size. If there are turn around safety reasons that ~i-arrant the size of the driveway. the Commission may- be forced to approve it. Therefore. he «°as ready to approve the application. Commissioner Kaplan said that while she appreciated the continents regarding= the applicant's efforts to «~ork «-ith the neighbors and the fact that she likes the models and drawings presented. she has vet to have any- confidence in building a home in a landslide area. l~~o matter ho~y much • PLAi\'NING COIVi_VIISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 PAGE - ~ - envineerin~~ is put into it. she does not kno~y ho~~~ one can possible place a home on a landslide. She noted that there are t«-o other items on the agenda this evening. both requiring si~~niticant landslide repairs. She felt that a short two stor~• alternative design can be built. She said that she would not approve this project as it ~~-as her belie~-e that the cite and the propert}~ o~iner «-ero looking for trouble by allowim~ the construction of a home in a landslide area. Chairman 1'icrcc felt that it was important to repair landslides and that the Cite has to rely on its engineers on ho«~ landslides are to be repaired. He felt that the property- «-ould be better oft once repaired. He liked the design of the home but ~i~ished that it ryas not quite as big. Ho«-ever. it «•as a nice design as it tits in «°ell «~ith the property, it has a logy profile design and that it ~i-ould be a good addition to the area. He said that he too «ould like to see a vineyard installed some day. He said that he ~~-as not concerned with the size of the driveway and that he did not believe that individuals ~yould park on the cul-de-sac. I-Ie Ielt that extra parking in the drive~yav «-as appropriate. Therefore, he ~yould support the application. Commissioner Kaplan said that should the project be approved. she recommended that the least amount of driy°e«~ay cut and fill be required. Ho~~-ever, she said that she «-ould not support the project. She reiterated her concern ~yith the safety of the property. She said That she has faith in d7e ~~eolo~=fists and technician. However. she has a certain amount of common sense in life experience. She reminded the Commission that at a Planning Commission retreat. the city's geologist ryas in attendance. I-Ie explained the technical items that can be performed to stabilize the land, later to state that bedrock also slides. Commissioner Pa~~e said that reducing the size of the drivewa~° ~;gill not make a difference one «~a~~ or another as there will not be enough square foota~=e taken out. Director ~~'alUren said that there «~ould be approximately- 1.000 cubic yards of `~radinu to construct the drive~t~ay and the turn around. He said That his comments are t~yo-told: 1) reduce the grading to the extent that it can be reduced and vet provide some guest parking on site: and 2) reducing the amount of paved drive~~-a~• surface. Reducinv the amount of paved surface can be done by incorporatin~~ turf block or pervious paving treatment into the guest parking areas where it is not voinv to be traveled frequentl~~ b~ vehicles. He recommended that a condition be added to state that to the extent possible, the drip°ewa~~ paved area is to be reduced. pervious pavers are to be used in the vuest parking areas. and that the grading quantit~• be reduced as much as possible. y On a motion by Commissioners Bernald ~lurakami, the Commission approved Resolution \o. DR-97-032, incorporating stal'l's recommendation re~~ardinv the reduction of the drive«~a~ payed area and the use of pervious pavers, 117CItldln`,L the reduction of grading; and the inclusion of the fireplace ordinance as a condition of the resolution. "rhe motion carried =t-1 ~yith Commissioner Kaplan votinv no and Commissioners i\~Iartla~?e and Patrick absent. • PLANNING COMMISSIO\T MINUTES SEPTEI~~IBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 6 - 3. ~'-98-008 (503-~3-021 & X03-~3-020) - ANDERSO\/CHA\, 20972 & 20998 Sarahills Dri~-e: Request for Variance approval to construct a new retaining "all with a maximum height of 6 feet. "I-he site is located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director tiValgren presented the siaff report. He recommended the use of ~yood panels instead of the use of precast concrete panels slides as the use of «•ood «°ould be less obtrusive on the hillside. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Hazel Anderson, applicant, stated that her contractor first gave her a bid for the use of wood. She «~ent back to him to request that concrete be used instead of wood because she did not want to deal with the replacement and'or maintenance of wood in ten rears. She said that she installed fencing on a rental property within the last 10 years and that already the pressure treated posts are rotted out. She informed the Commission that her contractor installed a «•ood retaining wall up the hill and that the contractor had problems getting «-ood without cracks. She said that the plantings on the slope were approximateh~ six feet or higher and that the.- have slid down. She proposes to install new- drought resisting plantings in front of the retaining ~yall. Therefore. in a very short time. the ~~~all «ill not be seen at all. She said that the single Camphor tree at the bottom of the hi I I is to remain. Ra~~ Chan. ?0998 Sarahills Drive, adjacent property owner. shared 1\~1rs. Anderson's concern regarding the use of wood versus precast concrete. I-Ie recommended that the «-a11 be done just once. He informed the Commission that he installed a wood retaining w-al1 only to be brought do«n by a landslide. If vegetation is planted. it will screen the ~~~all in a short period of time. Robert Harvancik. «-all desi<~ner. informed the Commission that both «-ood and concrete can be used. How-ever, he supported the use of concrete as it ~~ives his client the sense of security. He said that in 40 years. wood would decay ~•hile concrete will remain. He requested approval of the ~yall height and the use of the materials as submitted. Commissioner ~~Iurakami inquired about the exhibits presented to the Commission. I-Ie noticed that the drainage pipe had been broken. He asked if this area has a drainage problem as the diversion of ~~°ater may be an issue at a later date. y ~~'Irs.:~nderson said that the drainage comes from the patio area to a holdin~7 area. then goes down the hill and into the street. She said that the drainage pipe was broken by the landslide. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the drainage pipe w•as never piped under and that the water flows over the surface. She asked il' the draina~~e is to be corrected? She asked ho«- a retaining ~~~all can be constructed and still leave water cascading ott the face of the hill? • ! PLANNING COMMISSIONT MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 7 - 1~1rs. Anderson responded that there are no plans to correct the drainage and that a new draina~~e pipe has been installed. ~ y Director `~~algren said that it was his belief that the pipe brings the drainage from the patio do«n to the street and into the public storm drain and not from the hill. y Commissioner Page inquired as to what is to be done «ith the soil that has come do«-n with the slide ~~°ith the repair of the retaining wall? dir. 1-Iarvancik responded that the retaining «all would be installed first. The existing material will be used to compact the hill below the «-a11 and that grading will be minimal. y Director Vl'algren said that there is a significant difference between this application and the other retaining wall variance to be heard later this evening. In this case. the landslides are shallow and active as a result of either deep topography or excessive rains and over saturation of loose soils. In this case. the approach is not to excavate the soil but to repair the landslide and to build a retaining wall at the base of the landslide to shore up a much smaller local area. Nir. Harvancik clarilied that a «°ood retainin<J wall «°ould only- last 40 years and that concrete ~~-ould last 60+ -cars. v Commissioners i\'[urakami- Bernald moved to close the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan said that wood looks nicer at the onset. She asked if there is a signiticant life expectancy from the use oi~concrete with the use of steel piers instead of wood? Director ~~~algren responded that steel piers would be used in either event and that either heavy «-ood beam panels or precast concrete beams would be used. He said that concrete would have a longer Tile span than ~~ood. He said that these are major engineered structures that can withstand the load. Ile said as an alternative. the applicant can use a rough concrete panel. painted a dark brown color to resemble a wood beam. Commissioner i\~lurakami said that he would support the applicant's request for concrete. He expressed concern with the drainage pipe and recommended that the drainage be improved so that there will be no problems with the «-a11 in the future. IIe said that he could support the variance. Commissioner Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner ~-iurakami. She expressed concern that there might be some cause above that is causing the landslide. She recommc-nded that the applicant look at draina~~e alternatives that would help mitigate the situation. Given the applicant's strong feeling for the use of concrete and the fact that a color pi~~ment can be placed in the concrete, and knowing that it is getting more and more difficult to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 8 - <~ct quality ~i~ood these days, she could support the applicant's request for the use of concrete and the application. Commissioner Page concurred that the ~-ariance is «~arranted and «-ould support the request il~ something can be done ~~-ith the concrete coloring. Commissioner Pierce concurred ~-ith the comments expressed. I-Ie recommended that a condition be included that requires the installation of landscaping along the retaining wall ~~ith the inclusion of an irri~~ation s~~stcm. y Director ~.~%al~~ren informed the Commission that the installation of landscapin~~ is included as a condition in the resolution but that it could be modified to specify the installation of an irrigation s. stem. Commissioner Bernald recommended the use of a drip irrigation s~~stem that does not require excavation. On a motion br- Commissioners ~lurakami Bernald. the Commission approved Resolution 'vo. V-98-008; 20972 and 20998 Sarahills Drive. requiring that a bro«•n color pigmentation be used in the concrete panels. and the installation of a drip irri~~ation system. The motion carried ~-0 ~~-ith Commissioners illartla~~c and Patrick absent. =~. SD-98-00~ (397-02-002) - SNYDER, 18630 ALLC\DALE AVENUE; Request for Tentative Subdivision ~1ap approval to create two lots from one existing ?.~ acre lot. The site is located in an R-1-=10.000 zoning district. Director ~~%algren presented the staff report. Commissioner Bernald said that staff mentioned that «-ith the drive~~-av situation. the existing home «°ould be removed. She said that she «as confused at the site visit «ith a "For Sale" sign on the property and that the existing home contained a lock box. She did not understand ~~-hv there «~as a lock box on the home if the Commission is lookinU at somethinv that states that the home is to be removed. y y Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:3~ p.m. John Voisinet. 1=108 Peddle `~'a~•, San Jose. informed the Commission that he «-as in the process ot~ purchasing the property. He said that the reason for the lock box ~~-as due to the pending sale. He said that follo«-ina this meeting, escro~;- ~t-i11 close. He said that he has been «-orkin~~ ~i-ith staff to minimize impacts to the neighbors. I-Ic said that the home ~~~ill barely be visible from Allendale and that an 80-foot rear ~~ard setback is to be provided. Inc stated that the road is • PLA1~T;`II~1G COMMISSION ti1INliTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 9 - narrow at the point ~~-here a bridge is to be installed. Afour-foot sidewalk is also proposed down the frontaUe of the propert~~ with the installation of a loot brid~c across the street. "I~his is at the request of the city engineer as it is a dan~~erous area of the road Commissioner Pace asked if a side«-alk is to be installed across to the smaller parcel? Director ~~'al~7ren felt that there ~yould be an effort to have the two parcels connected by a ~~•alk~~-av. The expense for the «alkwav has been arranged through the public ~yorks department. He was sure that them are plans to either pad for that portion or to provide another means to provide the connection. Edward Lone. 1867 Ra~~eln~-ood Dri~-e. stated that ~~'ildcat Creel: is located to the rear of his lot and that the cite is currentl~~ providing repairs to the creek for a washout of a drainage pipe and erosion. He said that there is an existin~~ home on the propert~• bordered b~ the creek ~yith a beautiful natural settinv. He felt that three homes «~ould be too much development and that in the future. there will be a request for the installation of a s~~immina pool. a pla~~ground and parking of RVs. He said that he protests the development of the parcel. However. if the application is to be approved. he requested that the home be moved to the north. that the driveway be shortened to reduce the impacts to the tract homes located to the south. He reiterated his objection to the request and requested a greater setback to allow his right to a quite enjo~-ment. He indicted that he has an oversized lot of approximatel~• one third of an acre. He said that his lot sits up higher and that he would have a view of «-hatevcr is built.:=fit this time._ he has a view of the trees and the creels and that an~~thinv constructed would disnipt his views. Ile requested that the driye«~av be shortened and that the home be setback further to allow for future expansion in aro~yth and activities and that a single story home be constructed in the future. Dave I-Ioer~~er. 1879 Ravenwood Drive. expressed concern ~•ith the rear yard setbacks and how the setbacks relate to this backs°ard. I Ie concurred with the comments as presented by stab: Commissioner Bernald stated that in the past. individuals have come before the CO]111171SS1011 requesting the construction of sin~~le story homes. Once built. ii became apparent that a wide (massive) sin<Jle story home is built. She asked Mr. Hoergcr his opinion on this issue. ~-ir. Hoerger said that he was iar enou~~h a«-av from the parcel that he «-as not affected as directly as other propem~ owners. However, he «-ould support the construction ol~ a single story home and not have a second store home lookin~~ down into his backyard. Jeff I,ichtman. 1861 ~ Ravenwood, stated that he shares a back fence «-ith the applicant. He requested that a t~~°o-stol-v home not be built and that the home be setback far enough from his back fence as it is a deep lot. Commissioner Kaplan said that often, it is requested that single story homes be approved and • • PLANNING COIVIMISSIO\ MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 10 - that vcr~° larae._ sin~~le story homes are eventually built. Shc felt that individuals are more concerned «°ith the total height of the home irrespecti~~e ol~ ~~~hether it is a one store or t~~o stolti~ home. She also felt that a fairly compact. two store home can be designed. She recommended that indi~•iduals keep this in mind. She said that she was not inclined to place a height restriction on the home at this time as it was not warranted. ~~Ir. Lichtman said that the request for the appro~~al of a single stor.• home was more of a priyac~° 1 SStle. Director `~'al~~rcn indicated that the t~~pical height of a contemporary single story building is approximatel~~ 22 feet and that the height can ~7o up to 26 feet with a certain architectural st~•le Frith a steeple pitched roof. Conversely. one can design a nvo-story home that does not exceed ?2 feet in height, keepinv the profile as lour as possible. ti1~-ron Tvgar, 186? Allendale Avenue, stated that he has no real objections to the plans as presented. FIe said that working with LZr. Voisinet has been pleasant and that he has ~~orked ~~~ith him to address his concerns. He felt that this appears to be a reasonable development for a pretty piece o1'propert~•. Commissioner Kaplan asked how long 1\1r. ~1•vgar has resided at his residence. ~~Irs. Tvgar responded that the home .vas built in 194. ~~ir. Voisinet said that he has tentative conceptual plans for a sin~lc story home for lot 1 that is proposed at 4.100 square feet and that it «ill be less than 18 feet in height to minimize impacts to t11E: nei~~hbors. A two-story home is proposed on lot 2 due to the hill. creek and setback requirements at 4.]00 square feet and that it will be less than ?6 feet in height. He said that the request before the commission is for a lot split and that the desi~zn of the home will be addressed at a later date. I-[e concurred that he is proposing an 80-toot rear setback. acknowledging that the homes behind his property- also have a deep rear setback. He noted that screen trees are already in place (24 inch walnuts). He did not believe that the homes would be risible. I-Ie «-ould support a condition «-hick states that the mature trees are not to be removed. He said that the home is being pulled awa~~ as far from the creek as possible to prescr~~e the creek. The footprint of the home is small in order to minimize grading. I-Ie requested that he be allowed to lo«er the home a little bit n7ore. \o tilrther comments being offered. Commissioners Bernald Kaplan moved to close the public hearing at 8:~3 p.m. Commissioner illurakami said that when he first sa~~~ the land he did not like it as he does not like subdivisions on these t~•pes of lots. Ho~rever, this is a legal lot split. noting that the lots are large. I-Ie expressed concern ~yith the «-a~• the property is accessed. but that these concerns can be addressed. Should this application be approved. he recommended that the Commission be watchful of ~~~hat is built on these lots (i.e.. existing creek and access to the lots). • PLANNING COMMISSION MI\?UTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern ~~~ith the application. She stated that she understood the concern of the nei~~hbors to the rear. She said that the Commission has heard from residents that empt~~ lots arc being developed and encroaching their properties. She said that one can't stop development. She said that she would recommend the removal of the small home and make it one lame area. and that access to the subdivision be «-here the little home exists. She said that she does not support the application and expressed concern with the long shared drive«-a_v. It ryas her belief that a land use attorney could determine an alternative that would alloy the existinU small home to use a portloll of the larger lot «•itllout srat1ti11~ a shared access easement. She expressed concern that as people move out and others come in that this kind of shared access corridors create havoc. Commissioner Bernald felt that the two parcels «-ould be beautiful as they «-ould be lame enough to handle the proposed 4.100 square foot home. She «°as pleased that a 6500 square foot home was not being proposed. She expressed concern with the easement but that she kno~ys that they ~~~ork ~r-ell as it ~yorks in her nei~~hborhood. She felt that the lot size ryas comfortable and the size of the home is proportional and that the Commission can ~~°ork ~yith the neighbors to provide screening and an appropriate height to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. She said that she could support the request. y Commissioner Pa~~e asked who ~yould maintain the private driveway? He urged the applicant to work very carefully ~yith the nei~~hbors at the time he is ready to design the home. IIe felt that there ~yould be t~i•o beautiful homes «-hen they are completed. Director ~l'alUren said that the dual driveway is similar to that of a private road. It is a shared. minimum access road that is to be maintained jointl~~ b~ the users. Commissioner Pierce felt that the city should encourage more shared drive~ya~•s to provide less coverage of land. He said that there were other shared driye«-a~-s approved recenth and that the~~ ~~-ork ~ycll (i.e., the Black«-e11 application). He said that this appears to be a good project even thou~7h it «-as unusual with the small home in lront. noting that the Commission cannot do anything about the existing home. He said that he could support the project as presented. On a motion by Commissioners Bernald.~Page. the Commission approved Resolution \o. SD-98- 004. The motion carried 4-1 ~•ith Commissioner Kaplan votin~~ no and Commissioners ~~lartlage and Patrick absent. y 5. `'-9K-010 (503-51-012 & 503-1=t-0~=t) - GODDARll/BI\KLI:Y, 13502 & 13570 Pierce Road; Request for Variance approval to repair and extend an existing 12 foot hi~~h retaining ~yall. Maximum height is proposed to remain at 13 feet. The site is located within a Hillside Residential zonin~~ district. • PLANNII~TG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 PAGE - 12 - Director ~~'al~ren presented the staff report. Commissioner ~-lurakami asked if the applicant has indicated ho~i• the equipment would access the site'' Director ~~'alUren said that he was sure that arranvements have been made on how the equipment is to access the site but that he has not discussed this issue ~~~ith the applicant. Commissioner Page asked if a soil samplinu has been performed to determine if this is just a surface slide and not anvthin~~ deeper? y Director ~~'algren said that the applicant can speak to this question. Ile said that as this is an active landslide and that the application is only to shore up the landslide, the cit~-'s consulting geologist «•as not involved in the review of the retaining wall. Ho«~cver, the geolo~~ist ~~~ill be invol~°ed in the inspection and the construction of the ~~~all. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:0~ p.m. Paul Goddard. applicant, said that the landslide problem occurred iil 199. He said that he has spent approximately $10,000 to clear up the mud and make temporar~~ repairs. He said that he has extensive experience «•ith the existing walls. He said that the original retaining ~-a11 «as built in 1990 pith additional repairs to the hill in 199? and 199=I. Even ~~-ith the extensive rains of last ~~-inter, the hill remains very stable underneath the wall. 11ie problem appears to be extensive subsurface water movement ~~•hich has since been drained oi~f the property-. I-le said that the lack of stability' occurred in 199 «-ith a bad storm. Since 199, he has been in discussion «•ith the insurance companies as to how the repairs should be liuided and that this has been settled in the last few months. He was com~inced that the majorit~~ of the problem would be taken care of ~~-ith this particular «°all. Regarding construction access, he said that he has already- made some minor repairs to the ~;all this ~~ear. There is an access road to get up to the area «~ith the «-a11 itself to be manually built. He said that the existinU retaining? wall is constructed of wood material and that if it lasts X10 years. he «-ould be happy°°. ~ y Commissioners Bernald.'haplan moved to close the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. Commissioner l~lurakami said that at the site visit, he understood the need for shorin~~ up the retaining wall. He said that he has experience «~ith this t~-pe of situation and that he kno«-s that during bad weather it can be precarious to have mud and rocks starting to slide. f Ie said that he could support the variance as it would briny an end to the instability ofthc hill. Commissioners Kaplan. Bcrnald, Page, and Chairman Pierce concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner ~~Iurakami. On a motion by Commissioners Kaplan;'Bernald, the Cormnission approved Resolution No. ~'- 98-010 as presented by stafit. s • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - I ~ - llIRECTOK 1TEItiS Director ~~'algren indicated that there «-ere no director's items to report. COI~I~~IISSION 1TEi<'[S Commissioner Kaplan asked ~~-hat is happening with \Tavico located on Sumi~~vale-Saratoga Road? She expressed concern ~i-ith the ~ro«~th of ~~eeds as it is an c~ esore. Director ~~~al~ren said that he expected the project to pick up again and that he was not certain ~i~hv they have not be~~un to complete the construction of the subdivision. I-Ie said that he met ~~~ith \a~•ico and emphasized that there «-as a strong desire to get the project ~zoing and cleaned up. Navico assured him that this ~t-ould take place as quickl~~ as possible. He said that he «-ould contact Them to find out the status. He said that evcr~~ spring. the fire district conducts a «ccd abatement program and that stmt ~~ill add properties to the list of ~~eed abatement as deemed necessary. Commissioner Kaplan requested an update of the Argonaut Shopping Center. Director ~~'al~ren said that the owners of the Argonaut Shopping Center are still negotiating with one of its major tenants over the parking lot conii~~uration. He said that it is I.onv's police to have larger diagonal spaces for their customers because they are easier to pull into and get out of notin~~ that the parkin~~ lot «-as designed ~~-ith rivht angle spaces in order to meet the city's parking requirements. He said that the cite is holding off on issuing an~~ of the permits until the permits are approved for the overall center improvements. He said that ~r~~onaut has exhausted their extensions and that argonaut has six months to aciivatc the permits for center improvements or the entire project expires. I-le said that Cite ordinance allo«~s either diagonal or right angle parking spaces and that the ordinance addresses minimum spaces per gross square footage of commercial areas. He said that a ver<• specifiic site and use parking analysis «-as prepared that states that based on peak holiday traffic at full occupanc~~. the parking reduction approved allo~~ed just enou_h parking that ~~ould be needed during peak sessions. Commissioner Bernald said that it «-as brought to her attention that the Argonaut center is termite ridden. She asked if the center is going to remain open durin~T the remodel`? Director ~'1~algren said that it is planned to keep both Safewa~• and Longs. including the tenant shops. open during the remodelinv. He said that he was not aware of the tenting of the center for termites. Commissioner Bernald noted that the Commission's packet including a letter to Josh ~~~hite regardin~~ the Coffcc Roasting Club hours of operation. She asked if staff has received a response to this letter`? Director ~~'algren said that he has not received a response from this letter. Ho~yever. he did speak ~~-ith ~1r. ~'~~hitc and explained the benefits in having him accommodate • PLA1Vi\"'Ii~TG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23. 1998 PAGE - 14 - the suggestions in the letter. i\ir. ~~`hite implied that he «~ould compl~~ ~~•ith the recommendations. He said that staff «-ould monitor to see if he is compl~~in~~ or «-hether there continues to be complaints. Commissioner Bernald indicated that she has not recei~~ed an~~ complaints since the letter «~as sent to ~~lr. ~~~ hite. CO~TI~Iti\ [CATIONS Written - Git~• Council ~~linutes dated September ?and September 8, 1998 - Blue Rock Shoot letter - tie«- Assistant Planner memo ADJOUR\yIEtiT TO NEXT ~ZEETIi\G "There being no further business. Chairman fierce adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. to Vl'ednesda~~. October 14. 1998. Ci~-ic Theater. li777 Fruit~-ale a~~enue. Saratoga. C~. 1~~1I1\l;~"I~ES PREPARED :~\D SUBMITTED BY: Irma ~I~orrez ivlinutes Clerk