Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-09-1999 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999 Civic Center, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, Waltonsmith and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: Commissioner Jackman Staff: Director Walgren Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - May 12 and May 26, 1999 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 12, 1999 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 6, paragraph 4, last sentence amended to read: "...approval of the variance with the minimal penalty that the Commission has in hand the resolution before us." - Page 7, paragraph 2, line 13 amended to read: "... that lot line projects problems are endemic . . . " - Page 7, paragraph 3, last sentence amended to read: "...uphold her previous vote and vote against the project." - Page 20, paragraph 7 amended to read: "Commissioner Page stated that there was had been some discussion regarding Measure G related to this property . . . " - Page 22, paragraph 4, amended to read: "He said that the processes are in place because it was found that overtime over time, they work. He recommended that they keep the little this neighborhood beautiful." - Page 29, paragraph 6, line 5 amended to read: "...that can be made to deny the tentative map: 1) the site is not physically suitable . . . " - Page 35, paragraph 10 amended to read: "Chairwoman Bernald noted that a representative from the Public Safety Committee Commission . . . " THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 26, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 2 - MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 5, paragraph 4, line 6, replace the word will with may. - Page 6, paragraph 3, amended to read: "Commissioner Page said that this is a diagram that is flattened out and that the Commission does not get to see it does not show how the home actually looks. - Page 9, paragraph 3, the motion should reflect a 4-1-1 vote. - Page 11, paragraph 5, line 3 amended to read: "...He said that he appreciated empathized with Mr. Keenan . . . " - Page 12, paragraph 4, line 10 amended to read: "...Commission saw an extensive driveway at elsewhere during the site visit . . . " - Page 17, paragraph 2, fourth sentence amended to read: "He felt that there may be alternative designs but that he was not sure if any of them would be acceptable to the neighbors because there will be serious impact to neighbors' privacy and views caused by the configuration of the lot on the privacy and impact on views and the placement of the home on it . . . " - Page 20, deletion of paragraph 5 relating to the "Consensus of the Commission." THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ROUPE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Director Walgren stated that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 4, 1999. Technical Corrections to Packet Director Walgren indicated that there were two technical corrections to the packet as follows: 1) Agenda Item 2, DR-98-067 & F-98-006; 15001 Bohlman Road, page 5, under tree protection, several trees were cited. The error is the first reference contained in the second sentence. The report notes that tree #13 and #14, both Coast Live Oaks, would be removed by design. He stated that these are actually tree #14 and #15. Tree #13, a coast live oak, would be subject to construction impacts. On page 8 of the same report, Condition 3 in the Resolution indicates that the only trees that are being approved per this project approval would be trees #3, #14, and #15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 3 - (not tree #13). 2) Commissioner Kurasch noted that staff omitted in the resolution for two projects (Agenda Item 2 and Agenda Item 3) two of the necessary grading exception findings, noting that only four of the six findings were cited. He said that he would expand on the two missing findings in the presentation of the staff report as they need to be included in the resolution for it to be complete. He indicated that he would discuss a condition to the Woods’ resolution when the project is considered by the Planning Commission under public hearing. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR-98-014 (503-13-059 & 503-13-122) - FOSTER, 22217 Mt. Eden Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,507 sq. ft., two-story residence on this 2.25 acre vacant lot. The property is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. In September 1998 the two assessor parcels were merged and the one adjacent to Mt. Eden Road was annexed to the City of Saratoga. (CONTINUED FROM 5/26/99 FOR A RE- VOTE AFTER MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED ON VOTE OF 3-3). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren informed the Commission that this is a continued design review application presented at the Commission's May 26, 1999 meeting. At that meeting, staff presented its findings for the project, noting that the grading exceeded the 1,000 cubic yard limit for the hillside. Staff further noted that the majority of the grading was necessary to get to the house via a relatively long driveway. At the hearing, both adjacent neighbors were present to express their concerns and views about the project. Following the public hearing, the Commission discussed the project, noting that the project met all minimum zoning ordinance standards. However, the Commission noted concerns with the grading necessary for the proposed length in driveway and the physical appearance of the home. A vote was taken by the six Commissioners present which resulted in a 3-3 tie vote with Commissioner Roupe absent. He informed the Commission that a 3-3 tie vote is a failed motion and is automatically continued to the next available meeting for a revote. He indicated that the action before the Commission this evening is a hearing of a revote of the project. A second 3-3 vote would result in a denial of the application. He recommended that the Commission ask if the applicant has any new information to present this evening. If so, the Commission will have to make a motion to reopen the public hearing, taking only new testimony, close the public hearing and then take a revote on the application. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Kim Foster, applicant, addressed the previously stated concern by the Commission regarding the landscaping. She said that she obtained the services of Jeffry Heid, landscape architect, to come up with a landscape plan for the project. She said that the landscaping plans will be made available next week. She said that in attendance were Barry Milestone, Milestone Geotech and Yitka Cymbal from Westfall Engineers to describe in detail the location of the house, the driveway and the grading volume. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 4 - Barry Milestone, geotechnical consultant, informed the Planning Commission that the map prepared by William Cotton and Associates originally showed an old landslide on the property. He did some sub surface work and dug large diameter bore holes. He was able to identify the top of the old landslide that is shown on the upper limit of the landslide. He took samples and did a slope stability analysis and demonstrated that the old landslide is now stable. He said that he did not want to site a house on a preexisting fissure. Based on his work, he said that the house has been relocated 6 to 7 feet up slope. He indicated that the bottom of the landslide is located by the creek. Yitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers, civil engineers for the project, addressed the alignment and the location of the driveway and explained the grading quantities. She said that the limitation of the hillside site resulted in having to set back the house from the landslide at the top of the hill. If the house could be built anywhere else, it could be set on a lower bench. However, she indicated that this was not possible because it cannot be done due to the site's geology. In order to make the landslide workable, it would require removing all of the debris and re-compaction. This would result in more grading than proposed with the construction of a driveway. She indicated that the driveway was designed to follow the natural grade, maintaining the 17% slope, the maximum slope allowed by the City of Saratoga. She said that the relocation of the driveway would still result in approximately the same amount of grading. She indicated that the greatest cut is at the entrance of the property. She did not believe that there were alternatives as the existing slopes are too steep to use the existing grade. Therefore, she had to cut down into the hillside until she could catch onto the natural grade (approximately 100-150 feet up). She tried to balance the driveway with some fill and cut. She said that based on the limitations of the site, she ended up with 900 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill. She requested that the Commission consider the difficulty of the site and the requirements which were placed on the Fosters in locating their home. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted that the balcony was supposed to have been eliminated. Ms. Foster clarified that the balcony and the window were eliminated from the plans. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the neighbor's letter and asked what Ms. Foster's feelings were about the change in sentiment of shifting the home as she did not know what the negative impact would have been to the north side neighbor. Ms. Foster informed the Commission that the Keenans decided that they did not want the house shifted to the left. She said that she would do whatever it takes to satisfy her neighbors' concerns. She indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Keenan requested the removal of the balcony and window only, and not the shifting of the house. She stated her agreement of their request. Commissioner Page asked if Ms. Foster explored installing a shorter, higher window to better articulate the side of the house where the balcony/window have been eliminated. Ms. Foster informed the Commission that the balcony and the window were decorative elements. She said that she designed a window to face the back yard. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Kurasch noted that the impervious coverage proposed is 12,288 square feet with the structure being approximately 5,500 of this amount. She requested that staff break down what the rest of the lot coverage is for. Director Walgren informed the Commission that there is 3,700 square feet of lot coverage for the first floor footprint of the home and driveway with the remaining 8,500 square feet taking in the driveway and the driveway apron turn around. These numbers appear to be within the numbers indicted in the staff report. He said that the entire driveway, including the turn around in front of the garage is approximately 8,500 square feet. He said that the zoning ordinance for hillside districts allows up to a maximum of 15,000 square feet of lot coverage, excluding driveways. He said that the Measure G initiative did not include the exception provision and that the Measure G gives a strict 15,000 square foot lot coverage limits. He informed the Commission that staff recently amended the zoning ordinance to match Measure G because staff was constantly trying to explain two different sets of standards to individuals developing plans in the hillside. He indicated that Measure G requirements preempt the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she likes the site and how the building fits into the hill. She said that her primary concern was the siting of the driveway and that she was trying to understand why the house had to be located as proposed. She said that this has been explained to her satisfaction even though the design is a bit intrusive on the hillside. She stated that she was concerned about not shifting the house after the last discussion. She felt that it was a good idea to shift the house as it would fit nicer on the lot and that it would not have the driveway close to a neighbor. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Kurasch. She felt that having a turn around area with a four-car garage capacity is a lot of cement near the property line. She stated that she likes the house as it fits nicely into the hillside. Commissioner Page stated that he remains supportive of the project. He said that when he first looked at the revised drawings, he was concerned because the second story above the garage appears to be bulky with no articulation. However, he did not believe that there would be a view from the street. He stated his support of the request. Commissioner Patrick stated that she is still opposed to the project and that she would vote against it based on the fact that the home's design is not compatible with the hillside as it appears to be bulky. She felt that there may be better design alternative. Commissioner Roupe stated that he was not present at the May 26, 1999 meeting when this item was originally considered by the Commission. However, he stated that he had the opportunity to review both the video tape and the written record as well as to listen to what has been presented this evening. He felt that the design complies with all city ordinances and that there are no variances being requested. He noted that the design seems to have the support of both neighbors and staff. Therefore, he stated that he could support the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 6 - Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Roupe. She said that she previously supported this application. She stated that she could support the application because she felt that the design is compatible with the neighborhood. She commended Ms. Foster for working with the neighbors and the neighbors for working with Ms. Foster. Commissioner Page asked if the resolution contained the amendments from the last meeting such as the removal of river rock and shifting of the house. He asked if the resolution needs to be further amended to delete shifting of the house? Director Walgren responded that the condition relating to shifting of the house can be deleted. The condition relating to the elimination of the balcony and window has been deleted as the applicant has deleted them from the south elevation. He informed the Commission that a new condition has been added that resulted from the last meeting that the property be surveyed prior to the issuance of permits. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-014. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it would be possible to request the inclusion of a design change to allow the support of the project to shift the house five feet to the north? Director Walgren informed the Commission that any Commissioner can make a motion. THE MOTION FAILED ON A 3-3 VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, PAGE, ROUPE; NOES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; ABSENT: JACKMAN. COMMISSIONER KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-014, WITH A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THERE BE A FIVE-FOOT SHIFT OF THE HOUSE DUE NORTH. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the neighbor to the north opposed shifting the home to the north, noting that both neighbors appear to be satisfied with the location of the house and driveway at this point versus shifting the home further to the north. COMMISSIONER KURASCH WITHDREW HER MOTION. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-014. THE MOTION FAILED 3-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, PAGE, ROUPE; NOES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; ABSENT: JACKMAN. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the motion to approve the home and shift it five feet to the north as an alternative would not be such an impact that it would not be acceptable to the neighbor to the north. He recommended that the Commission rescind its motion and make a motion to approve DR-98-014, shifting the home five feet to the north. If it is a great impact, the neighbor would have the opportunity to appeal this requirement. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she could support staff's recommendation if it is geologically sound to shift the home. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS KURASCH/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 98-014 ADDING A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE HOUSE/DRIVEWAY IS TO BE MOVED FIVE FEET TO THE NORTH. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. 2. DR-98-067 & F-98-006 (517-13-012) - CAGAN, 15001 Bohlman Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,122 sq. ft. residence with a maximum height of 26 ft. on a vacant 2.4 acre (net) parcel in a Hillside Residential zoning district. A Fencing exception permit is also requested to enclose 13,000 sq. ft. The Design Review proposal was originally noticed for the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission public hearing, but was continued at the request of the applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 5/26/99). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that this property and the adjoining property were reviewed several years ago and were issued preliminary building site approvals. He said that a building site approval does not vest the approval of a home on the property but that it verifies that the lots are legal lots of records and defines the parameters of what off site improvements are going to be necessary. It identifies a building site that meets geologic, slope, and grading requirements. He indicated that the building pad was pre identified and that the application, as submitted, is within the pre approved building envelope. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the City arborist has had a second opportunity to review this application as has the city's geologist. The city arborist notes that three trees will be removed by design: Tree #3 (English Walnut) as a result of widening the drive and Tree #14 and #15 (Coast Live Oaks) located directly in the center of the building envelope. He further noted that tree #10, directly below the fire district required a vehicle turn around, tree #13 directly below the south wing of the building and tree #28 located at the north end of the building would be severely to moderately damaged by construction. He said that trees #10 and #13, which have been given a marginal rating in terms of health and structure is not proposed to be removed but that staff has included a tree replacement requirement as though they were to be removed. He indicated that the city arborist will monitor their health through the development and construction of the property. Tree #18 is expected to be retained and protected. To ensure that the tree protection measures outlined in the city arborist report are met, staff has required that both a tree security deposit be posted and that a project arborist be hired by the applicant to monitor the project during construction and to provide status reports to city staff throughout the project. Staff finds that the necessary design review and site/tree protection findings can be made to approve the application. Director Walgren indicated that the application also includes a grading exception request. Given the topography of the site and the fact that the grading exception is just a little over the 1,000 cubic yards provided in the Hillside Residential Zoning Ordinance, staff can support this request based on the four findings listed in the staff report. He read into the record the final two findings that were omitted as follows: Finding No. 5 - "The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views." He said that the only views that the adjoining property owners would have of this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 8 - property would be the existing homes potentially off of Hidden View Lane to the north. From that angle, the home is primarily being cut into the site, lowering its prominence from the site. Therefore, finding No. 5 can be made. Finding No. 6 - "No building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure." He said that this finding is intended to prohibit building a home on the hillside and then building out a flat level pad for a pool, tennis court or these type of yard improvements. He said that this design does not have this type of grading. Director Walgren indicated that the applicants are requesting an exception to the hillside fencing limit of 4,000 square feet, noting that it is not a variance request, only an exception request. He noted that the fence will be screened from public views and surrounding properties by topography and vegetation. The fence, at 13,000 square feet, represents approximately 20% of the total site area with the rest of the property remaining open. He said that the fence would not be visible from public views but that it could potentially be visible from homes on Hidden View Lane, noting that in most cases, the existing homes have already been fenced in. Staff feels that the exception finding can be made. Commissioner Waltonsmith requested that staff address tree #38. She said that at the site visit, it was noted that bedroom number 3 overhangs underneath the dripline of tree #38. Director Walgren said that the city arborist provided specific parameters for how tree #38 can be protected and that staff is supporting the arborist's recommendation that the drainage swale not be excavated down into the soil so that the feeder roots are not severed. He noted that between the time that city arborist reviewed the project and the plans were presented to the Commission there has been a slight shift of the home further away from the tree. He felt that the impacts are still relevant but that they have been reduced, to some degree, from the original report. If the tree is impacted, the building would have to be construction of pier and grade beam so that there is no excavation underneath the tree's canopy. This would result in a reduction in root loss. The swale would have to be modified per the arborist report and all of the other tree protection measures will have to be followed. He said that the purpose of having a project arborist on site is so that the trees can be monitored at regular intervals to document progress of construction. Ultimately, the city arborist will be performing intermediate and final inspection on the site and can detect excavation, soil compaction or tree damage. Commissioner Waltonsmith referred to tree #13, a tree that the Commission was concerned about at the site visit because of a car being parked on its root. She asked if this tree would have a fence installed around it too? Director Walgren said that it should be clarified that the tree numbers on the landscape plans should match the tree numbers in the arborist report. He said that tree #13 is addressed in the resolution and that it will have a fence installed around it. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Bob Flury, project designer, informed the Commission that one wood burning fireplace is proposed to be installed in the living room. He said that the copper element can be sealed so that there is no leeching to the soil. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Kurasch referred to the front and rear elevations and stated that the use of stone veneer was very attractive. She asked if consideration was given to wrapping the stone to the rear elevation? She asked what materials are proposed for the pillars that are holding up the patio/deck area? Mr. Flury said that wrapping the stone was considered at one point but that due to budgetary restraints, it was decided to delete the stone from the back side since this side of the home is not visible from off site. He indicated that the material to be used for the pillars is stucco. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked why there is a need for an exemption for the fencing? Mr. Flury said that the request for fence exception was due primarily to a safety concern. He said that there is an existing old barb-wired fence that is in roughly the same configuration where the new fence is proposed. He said that a wrought iron fence material is proposed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 P.M. Commissioner Patrick said that provided that the copper material is sealed so it does not leech, she could approve the design. She stated that she could not approve the exception request for the fence, especially if wrought iron material is to be used. She said that an open-wire fencing material would need to be used in order for her to approve the exception request. Commissioner Roupe said that it was his understanding that the wrought iron fencing being proposed is consistent with what is being used in the neighborhood. Commissioner Page said that when he first reviewed the plans, he found a foot print that intrigued him. As he further studied the plans, he felt that excellent use of the space was made, shaping the available space to maximize it and gave a lot of views from the home. He felt that the architect minimized the amount of impervious coverage the way the drive is designed. He said that he could make the finding for the small amount of cut and fill that is over the amount allowed on hillside lots. He said that he could approve the design review provided that a condition is included to requiring sealing of the copper material. Regarding the fence exception, because of where the site is located and the lack of view that anyone else would have of the fence, he could support the fence exception based on the concern for safety and the lack of visibility. Another reason to support the exception is the fact that 80% of the property is not covered by fencing. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that she too was wondering how the design would look. However, at the site visit, she was able to perceive how the home would be viewed. She said that the design still looks a little busy to her but that she could support the design of the home. However, she could not support the exception. She referred to page 6 of the staff report which provides an argument that everyone else has had an exception, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to one. She stated that she did not like this argument as it is circular. She felt that exceptions are suddenly becoming the rule and that she was concerned that exceptions after exceptions are coming before the Planning Commission to fence off the hillside areas. Therefore, she could not support the exception request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Kurasch said that she also liked the design of the home but that she would have preferred the use of more stone for a small wrap around effect. She expressed concern regarding staff's comment relating to tree #28, an exceptional tree. She asked if staff's recommendations will be followed as they would involve some design changes? She wanted to make sure that tree #28 is safe guarded. She noted that the city arborist recommends that utilities be installed under the drive to minimize impacts. She did not know if this is a possibility that could be explored. Director Walgren indicated that this recommendation would be explored prior to the issuance of any permits for the home. Commissioner Kurasch supported the use of muted colors for the stucco and the pillars. She said that the retained trees that are affected by this project have a considerable value. She recommended that a 25% bond be required, if possible, to safeguard the trees. Regarding the fencing exception, she said that it was her perception that the Commission is not sure whether the other fences are legally permitted. She said that she understood that trying to tie in with the neighborhood is very important. However, she noted that this is a hillside conservation district and that the standard is higher in this district. She said that she would support the use of a wire fence that would not be visible. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the city arborist is making a recommendation regarding the bond for the trees and that it is up to the Planning Commission to accept or modify the tree protection bond amount. He informed the Commission that the conditions of approval require that all of the city arborist's measures be addressed prior to the issuance of permits. Regarding the bond amount, the 15% bond amount is a sizable bond amount (approximately a $20,000 bond). The question is whether this bond amount should be raised to 25% which would be approximately a $30,000 tree protection bond. If the bond amount is to be increased, there would have to be an amendment to the resolution. He reiterated that staff has required that the applicant hire a project arborist to further monitor all of the recommendations contained in the city arborist report. He said that physical changes would have to be done before permits can be issued. Commissioner Waltonsmith recommended that the exception be separated from the design review application. Chairwoman Bernald stated that she could support the project. She said that she shared the Commission's concern regarding the amount of area that is being fenced these days. She supported reducing the amount of fencing being seen. However, in this case, she felt that it was appropriate to fence the amount of area being requested for the use of the property. Therefore, she would support the fence exception. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-067, ADDING A CONDITION TO SEAL THE COPPER. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 11 - COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION F-98-006. THE MOTION FAILED 3-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: BERNALD, ROUPE, PAGE; NOES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; ABSENT: JACKMAN. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KURASCH MOVED TO APPROVE F-98-006 WITH THE USE OF AN OPEN WIRE FENCE MATERIAL THROUGHOUT THE AREA BEING REQUESTED. THE MOTION FAILED 3-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KURASCH, PATRICK, WALTONSMITH; NOES: BERNALD, PAGE, ROUPE; ABSENT: JACKMAN. COMMISSIONER ROUPE MOVED TO REOPEN PUBLIC HEARING TO ASCERTAIN THE APPLICANT'S PREFERENCE ON THE FENCING MATERIAL OR THE USE OF WROUGHT IRON FENCING MATERIAL IN A REDUCED AMOUNT. THE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Waltonsmith noted that this is a hillside area. She stated that she could support fencing material that is less obtrusive that can be seen through versus the requested wrought iron fencing material. She said that she would support enclosing 4,000 square feet with an open wire fencing that goes around the house with the remainder of the land being left unfenced. Commissioner Kurasch said that she sees the logic of where the fence is proposed to be placed as the area has a drop off. If the fence was moved toward the property line, she could support the fence. She felt that the project may be better off without fencing or that the applicant retain the existing fence. She said that she would support a wire fence as there is a large area that is not being fenced. She said that she would not approve the use of the obtrusive wrought iron fence material. Chairwoman Bernald asked if the Commission would support the use of wrought iron at the beginning of the home, coming off of the garage and the northern most point up to the property line, connecting the remainder of the fence with on open wire fencing material? This would allow the appearance of the front of the home having a wrought iron fence. Director Walgren noted that the lower part of the property is not visible from off site. He said that an alternative would be is the installation of a fence directly east off of the residence and then connect with the lower enclosure down below. This would prevent the fence from being visible from public views and from residents on Hidden View Lane. He clarified that just because Hidden View Lanes residents received approvals of exceptions that other exceptions would not automatically be granted. Staff noted that there is an existing wire fence along the property line. Commissioner Page noted that 80% of the property will remain unfenced. He felt that there was plenty of room for animal traffic, noting that the site contained all kinds of natural vegetation. He did not see a reason not to allow the applicant to use the property as they would like to. Commissioner Patrick did not believe that the area of fencing is of a particular concern to her but PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 12 - the fact that the wrought iron fence would face the public area. The use of wrought iron fencing would make the area look less open and less wooded. She said that she could not support the use of wrought iron and that she would prefer the use of an open mesh fencing material. Commissioner Page recommended that the Commission keep in mind that two homes can be built, noting that the property is not located on Saratoga Avenue and having a number of individuals drive by. Commissioner Roupe felt that there is an element of trying to keep a consistent look to the community. Since the rest of the properties are fenced with wrought iron fences, this request would not be offensive, noting that the fencing is limited to a very small percentage of the total property. Chairwoman Bernald concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Page and Roupe. She felt that Commissioner Page made a solid statement that supports the fact that the fencing is not all encompassing of the property. The fence would create and define a back yard and protects seniors and children from rolling into the ravine. She felt that the site would continue to provide a lot of other open space. Given the nice style of the home, it suggests the use of a wrought iron fence. She said that she could support having the open mesh in the back if that would help carry the vote. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION F-98-006. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND WALTONSMITH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. 3. DR-98-051, UP-98-018 & V-98-017 (517-23-036 & 517-23-037) - WOODS, 15595 Peach Hill Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 6,769 sq. ft., two- story residence with a maximum building height of 26 ft. on a 4.6 acre parcel located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Use Permit approval is also requested to allow a water tank within the rear yard setback. Variance approval is requested to allow retaining walls in excess of 5 ft. in height. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that this parcel was a part of a five-lot subdivision approved as early as 1982. He said that lots 1 and 2, located off of Peach Hill Road, are owned by the applicant and that the other three parcels are owned by a separate property owner which are accessed from Madrone Hill Road. He noted that the three parcels are not visible from this site but were a part of the historic development of the property and contain the historic retaining walls, garden walls, walkways, etc., that have been recorded in the City's Heritage Preservation Book. He indicated that the water tower location was pre approved at the subdivision level and that it was a requirement of the fire district that the water tank be provided to provide for both domestic water use and fire protection use. A variance is being requested to exceed the 10-foot height limitation for the parallel retaining walls. He stated that staff can support this component of the variance. A second component of the variance is related to the water tank proposal. A wall of approximately eight feet behind the water tank will PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 13 - exceed the five-foot height limit but would serve to cut the water tank into the site and is physically needed to construct the water tank at its proposed location. Staff is supportive of this component of the variance as well. Regarding lot 2, the applicant is proposing to build a guest parking pad to provide parking for approximately 8-10 vehicles. This request exceeds the grading quantities permitted in the hillside residential district and exceeds the retaining wall height allowed within a front yard setback. It also requires the removal of significant native oak trees. Staff recommends Commission denial of this component of the application, resulting in the denial of all of the improvements on lot 2, including the grading exception and the variance for the retaining wall height. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the staff report contains an extensive series of tree protection reports and outline the number of trees that would have to be removed by design as result of construction. Replacement values have been assigned for the trees that would have to be removed and that a tree protection bond has been assessed for those trees to be protected. Staff is also recommending that a project arborist be contracted by the applicant to be at the site on a regular basis and provide status reports to staff and the city arborist to make sure that the protection measures are being followed. Director Walgren stated that the applicant is also requesting a grading exception for the main residence, noting that hillside grading is limited to a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards in order to protect the natural topography to the extent possible and prevent additional fill grading beyond what is necessary to build the home itself. He indicated that the applicant's proposal is for approximately 1,500 cubic yards for the house itself. However, it was relevant to note that 850- cubic yards of this is excavation for the basement of the home which technically speaking, basement excavation is not grading and should not be considered in the total grading quantity. The true grading, in terms of cut, to put the home on the site is 700 cubic yards with no fill. This is important to know because it is consistent with the city's hillside development standards to integrate homes into the hillside versus building them out and beyond the hillside terrain. He said that 850-cubic yards is necessary for the driveway to access the home. The driveway is approximately 1/10 of a mile and includes 100 cubic yards of fill. He said that 1,250 cubic yards of cut is necessary for the driveway turn around with no fill, noting that this is a requirement of the fire district. He said that staff has concluded that this is an unavoidable impact given the site constraints and the fire district's objectives to provide fire protection. The pool area will require 150 cubic yards of cut and 250 cubic yards of fill. He said that these numbers become relative negligible given the total grading quantities. The total grading quantities of cut are 2,950 cubic yards, 1,950 yards beyond the 1,000 cubic yard limit of cut for the home itself. Staff felt that this can be supported given the necessity of the fire truck turn around, the necessity of a driveway and the nature of the property itself. Director Walgren informed the Commission that the applicant and his representatives have worked very closely with city staff, including the city's geologist and city arborist, to arrive at this proposal. Staff feels that the contemporary design of the home using a dark earthtone wood siding with stone veneer is appropriate and that the massing of the building is appropriate. He recommended approval of the improvements for the lot 1 portion of the application. He said that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 14 - there would be significant grading taken off site even after you account for the fill. He said that significant amount of soil export via trucks would occur. He said that it was his understanding that the applicant would like to perform the rough grading as part of the subdivision improvements that are currently under construction to occur this summer with home construction to occur sometime next year. He clarified that the resolution contains a "whereas" that should state that the variance is approved in part for the parallel walls necessary to construct the house and yard improvements and that it is approved in part to build the wall necessary for the water tank. The resolution denies the parking area improvements proposed for lot #2. Commissioner Roupe asked how much parking would be available on the drive apron? Director Walgren responded that the applicant would have three spaces within the garage and possibly another three in front of the garage door(s). The apron can be used for short term parking but that it is the fire district's position that the turn around be left unobstructed at all times. He said that staff discussed with the applicant the fact that staff could not support the variance for lot #2 but that applicant would not be precluded from submitting a revised proposal in the future that would be separated from this application consideration, working with the arborist to reduce the number of trees to be removed and bringing the grading to under 1,000 cubic yards. This would return to the planning commission as a site modification application. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if the applicant gave consideration to siting the home in the meadow below the proposed pool area versus on top, requiring the removal of so many trees? Director Walgren said that staff has not discussed siting the home in the meadow but that staff has been primarily responding to this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch requested that staff explain the grading again because she did not see the 2,900 cubic yards identified by staff add up. She noted that staff has listed the total as 4,150 minus 850 for the basement area. This results in 3,300 cubic yards. She felt that excavation for the basement is grading. She requested that staff identify the changes/corrections to the staff report. Director Walgren clarified that the changes to the resolution would be the incorporation of the findings that he read into the record for the Cagan property: Finding #5 to read that the increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views (reduce the home's prominence on the hillside); and Finding #6 to state that no building site shall be graded so as to create a flat visible pad surrounding the main residential structure. Staff does not feel that this is occurring in this case and felt that the grading is primarily cut to fit the home on the site. He noted that there is not an expanse of pad grades beyond what is necessary for the home with the exception of fill for the pool. He noted a typo in the staff report. He said that the staff report indicates a different slope number (29% average site slope) which is incorrect. He said that the maximum site slope that is possible to locate a building envelope is 30%. He noted that the building envelope, in this case, is approximately 10%. He said that the overall average site slope dictates how large the lot needs to be when the property is subdivided. The greater the average slope, the larger the lot has to be, noting that this has been predetermined at the subdivision level. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 15 - Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. Murray Woods, property owner, felt that his site is a special site and that it is a very beautiful and natural site, worthy of every effort that is put into the site to preserve and enhance it. He identified key members of his team Sylvia Spracus, consultant; Hugh Kennedy, project architect; and Danielle Machotka and Harold Kobayashi with the firm of Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey. He said that he did his best to design a home that would be unobtrusive. The home has a very low profile and designed with the use of natural materials (i.e., stone and dark redwood) to reduce the visibility to individuals from far way. This is a difficult site to develop as there are only two fairly flat spots on both lots combined. The one relatively flat spot is at 10% grade and is located on lot #1 which will be the house site. He said that an old landslide exists in the meadow area where Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if consideration was given to locate the home. Relocation of the home to this area would result in a lot more cut and fill. The only other area identified as a house site is on lot #2 where he proposes to install a guest parking lot. He said that the fire district prohibits parking in front of the garage as this will be used as a turn around area. He said that the space behind the garage would not allow parking as it is also considered a turn around area. He said that the lower cul de sac is also part of a fire district turn around and therefore does not allow parking. He said that no parking is allowed along the entire driveway area. In addition, Peach Hill Road is only 18 feet wide, noting that a road would have to be 28 feet or wider before parking is allowed. Therefore, there is no parking allowed either on the site or within a reasonable vicinity for guest parking. He noted that the parking lot is over the grading limit and that it also exceeds the retaining wall height limit near the front setback. He said that he is withdrawing the proposal for the parking lot and that he plans to resubmit a new proposal that would have less than 1,000 cubic yards of grading in order to save the tree(s). He said that he would work with the arborist to save as many of the other trees as possible. Mr. Woods informed the Commission that the site is approximately 90% forest and approximately 10% meadow. He said that the meadow runs between the two development sites (between the parking lot and the house site). It is his goal to preserve the trees, the forest and the meadow. He said that the city arborist believes that development of the site would result in the removal or damage of 61 trees. His landscape architect believes that this number can be reduced to approximately 35 trees. He noted that he is being requested to plant $50,000 worth of trees to replace the trees that are to be removed or damaged. He said that it is his goal to try and save as many of the existing trees as possible and not significantly alter the site. He said that he did not want to fill up the meadow area with trees. He said that he plans to backfill the old path and that he would like the new driveway to have the aspect of a mature forest. He felt that some trees are needed in this area. He said that he would also install mature oak trees at the entryway to the home. However, he did not want to install $50,000 worth of trees if it would destroy the basic nature of the site. He said that the emergency generator's location will be moved to the arborist's satisfaction where it does not affect tree #21. He indicated that the generator would be enclosed in its own structure and that the generator would be fed by the natural gas of the home. Commissioner Page inquired as to the height of the crawl space? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 16 - Director Walgren said that the enclosure for the generator would be included in the lot coverage and that it would be subject to the same retaining wall height/wall limits of five feet. If it is truly an enclosed structure, it would be limited to 12 feet in height similar to the height limits of accessory structures. Commissioner Kurasch said that in looking at the site, she said that she understood that due to the lot split, the property owner is obligated for the main access road. She said that the first application had a parking area, noting that it is proposed to have a parking area on lot #2. She asked if Mr. Woods is intending to use the two parcels as one lot? Mr. Woods responded that he is proposing to use both lots as one lot due to the fact that he would have isolation from the neighbors. He did not believe that the parking lot would be visible to anyone as it would be located where the only house site was approved on it. He said that should he ever sell lot #2, the parking lot would be removed and a home constructed on this approved building site. Danielle Machotka, landscape architect, informed the Commission that she spoke to Mr. Bench, the city's arborist and that she reviewed his recommendation about the trees that he felt would be affected by design. She said that Mr. Bench felt that there were no truly significant changes that would have to be made to save a significant number of trees. Moving of pathways and looking at the grading plans may work to mitigate the concerns relating to the trees. She addressed the issue of on site vegetation. She said that there were two primary issues - ecological and visual and that in both cases, you try to avoid a change in character. She looked at how you could plant trees on the site and yet maintain the character of the site both for habitat value and to maintain the visual character. She said that trees exist in clusters of 2-4 and occasionally large clusters of 10 trees with space in between the clusters. Using this layout and trying to maintain the existing balance between woodland and meadow, it is proposed to plant as many trees in this area. Her firm came up with approximately $20,000 worth of trees that seemed reasonable to plant on the site and to achieve the city's and the applicant's goals of maintaining both the ecological and visual integrity of the site. Commissioner Roupe asked if there is flexibility in the dollar amount as specified by the city's arborist relating to the replacement value of trees or was this an absolute figure? Director Walgren responded that the arborist's comments are recommendation. He said that the arborist has determined that there is a much larger valuation of trees that could be impacted in addition to those that would be physically removed. He said that the city arborist came up with a much larger number of over $100,000 versus the $50,000 replacement value identified by staff in the staff report. As the applicant develops the application further and there is a reduction in the number of trees that could be impacted, the figure could go down. He said that the Planning Commission would be the one to make the ultimate decision on how much tree replacement is necessary or appropriate. He did not believe that the amount would be lower than the $50,000 suggested by staff. He understood that the recommended $50,000 is a large amount of money for replacement trees but that in terms of sheer tree numbers, according to the city arborist's tree evaluation chart, this would equate to 10 good specimens, four foot boxed native oak trees; seven 52" box trees; or three 72" box trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 17 - Ms. Machotka said that it is proposed to install 15 gallon trees and 24" boxed trees as the site is wooded. She noted that 48" boxed trees are very large and would require a great deal of care, including irrigation and special installation techniques. The installation of 15 gallon and 24" boxed trees would insure a greater success rate overall. She said that she would agree to plant more trees but that they would be smaller in size to begin with. She said that there are approximately 31 trees to be removed versus the 61 trees indicated in the arborist's report without mitigations based on some of the design modifications. Director Walgren said that the replacement numbers can be revised if the plans are changed. The city arborist can review the design changes to determine if the valuation can be reduced. Commissioner Roupe recommended that the Commission accept the replacement value and that as the project moves forward and it is determined that the valuation number is reduced, the application can return to the Commission at a future date. Hugh Kennedy, project architect, addressed why the house is sited on the hill and not in the meadow. He said that the subdivision had the house sited on the hill. He studied the meadow area, noting that it is located down below and that this is a fairly steep area. When you cut into the meadow, you end up with narrow spaces along the hill. This was not a design that would be satisfying. He said that the current location for the house is on a fairly flat hill and meets all the standards of stepping the site of the excavation, yet achieve a 26-foot height limitation. He said that the height of the crawl space under the living room is two feet. In response to Commissioner Waltonsmith's question, Director Walgren clarified that the retaining wall exceeds 10 feet at the swimming pool area and at the retaining wall behind the home. He said that this is the cumulative height of all of the parallel retaining walls, noting that parallel retaining walls are not suppose to exceed 10 feet. Mr. Kennedy informed the Commission that the reason that the retaining walls exceed 10 feet in height in certain areas is due to the fact that the hill is very steep and to go back 30 feet would result in the elimination of several trees. Commissioner Waltonsmith asked if thought was given to making the pool smaller? Mr. Kennedy said that the pool was not the major issue but that the issue was the parking area. He said that the use of a retaining wall exceeding 10 feet would minimize the impacts to the site as it would eliminate the need for multiple retaining walls versus the two retaining walls being proposed. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that if you have a smaller top that is flat, the project can fit within the 10-foot retaining wall limit. She stated that she did not like external generators as they are extremely noisy. Mr. Kennedy said that an emergency generator provides some safety features for a remote site such as this one. He said that the generator is sized to handle a few basic elements to allow the owner to get out of the building in case of an emergency. He said PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 18 - that it does not run the entire house nor pool. Mr. Woods said that a 30-kilowatt gas generator is proposed and that setting the generator into the woods would help muffle the sound. As it is a gas-powered generator, he did not believe that it would be noisy. He said that measures can be taken to deaden the sound further (i.e., fully enclose the generator or pad the wall). Chairwoman Bernald asked if a natural gas generator is proposed, would it be possible to have a smaller generator as a 30-kilowatt generator is quite large. Mr. Woods responded that the physical outer dimension of the generator does not change based on the type of fuel used. Commissioner Kurasch asked what area would the proposed wrought iron fence enclose? Mr. Kennedy responded that the fence would enclose and secure the swimming pool area. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:58 p.m. In response to Commissioner Page's question, Director Walgren indicated that an ordinance has not been adopted that requires that parking be provided outside of the garage. The ordinance requires a two car, fully enclosed garage. Commissioner Roupe stated that he found the design to be compatible and that a significant effort has been made. It was his understanding that both the recommendation of staff and the applicant are such that there is no conflict on the issue of the parking lot and its associated retaining walls. He said that he would have had some serious reservations on this aspect of the application. Seeing that this is now off the table to be considered at a later date, he does not have any reservations other than the generator seems to be rather large. He felt that a 5-kilowatt generator would satisfy meeting emergency requirements as a 30-kilowatt generator could run a big house. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Roupe. She stated that she liked the design as it was well set into the hillside and that it would not be visible to the surrounding area. She noted that is set into the hillside. She concurred with the recommendation that the tree replacement be monitored by the city arborist's office. She expressed concern with the proposed generator as it will be quite noisy and would be audible to the neighbors. She stated that she could not support the approval of the generator and recommended that it be deleted from any recommendation subject to it returning with a lesser decibel level acceptable to the Commission. She did not believe that the size of the generator is the issue but that the issue is noise. Commissioner Page said that it was interesting to look at the design as it was minimal compared to a lot of other projects that the Commission has seen in the past. He said that at first, he was concerned with the total amount of cut. He said that staff has clarified his concern relating to grading of the basement area. He felt that some of the generator noise may be mitigated by PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 19 - natural vegetation. However, not having the specifications of the generator and not knowing the decibels, this should be an element that should be postponed. He stated his support of working with staff relating to the trees. He said that even if 34 trees are to be removed due to construction, it is 1/3 of the trees in the area. He stated his support of the project subject to the conditions he identified. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with the comments expressed by the Commission. She would agree to look at a parking lot that would fit with the trees and the hillside at a later date. She said that she has heard fired up generators and felt that the neighbors would complain. She recommended that the generator be removed from the application and that further consideration be given to the size/power of the generator. She said that she liked the design of the home as it fits in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would not support the project as she felt that the grading is excessive and represents sizable impacts to the area. Knowing the topography, she felt that a lot of effort has been made to site the home. She said that she spoke to Director Walgren a few times about the problem of having the lot split with a design that is basically on one lot. She asked if there had been discussion about merging the lot. This would result in the entrance road which has a significant amount of the grading of 2,200 cubic yards being replaced with a smaller driveway. However, it was pointed out that because of the changes to the code, the 15,000 square feet of impervious coverage would be exceeded because the driveway would have to be included into the formula. She asked if it would be possible to reduce the driveway entrance, removing the cul de sac in order to mitigate the impacts? She felt that the grading was in excess of that permitted, noting that it would not be permitted for a lot split or development based on the codes in place today. She recommended that a friendly amendment be included that would stipulate that all construction activity is to be monitored by the project arborist or city arborist to oversee all measures. She said that the estimated tree replacement value of $137,000 is a value lost to the environment and recommended that this loss be mitigated. She recommended that the replacement value be left with staff and the city arborist. She said that other trees are in significant danger of later decline. She therefore recommended that language be added to the bond according to Municipal Code Section 14-60.060 - Improvement Security. She recommended that the bond remain in force for a specified period of time as trees will decline many years following damage to them. She stated that she would concur with the city arborist's recommendation relating to the diversity in sizes and types of native trees as this would mitigate the fabric of what is being changed. She said that she would like to find a better solution to 4,000 cubic yards of grading. Commissioner Waltonsmith said that she understood that the grading was due to the two lots being a part of a larger development. Director Walgren said that the large grading amount was a result of the subdivision being approved in the early 1980s. The subdivision established the building site locations. The break down in grading for lot 1 is 1,500 cubic yards for the home but that approximately half of this was for the basement excavation. He said that 850-cubic yards of grading is for the driveway and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 20 - 1,250 cubic yards is for the driveway turn around, noting that these are the fire district's requirements. He said that the decision to grant tentative map approval in 1982 resulted in the need for the large grading quantities. Commissioner Kurasch said that if these two parcels were one lot, the grading would exceed the 15,000 square feet lot coverage because of the driveway. However, in view of much less cost to the applicant and much less grading, the variance probably would be in the best interest in terms of an environmental mitigation. She said that these lots will probably come up again and that it may be useful to think about something creative that could serve the applicant and the city. She noted that this is a hillside area and that every effort should be made to preserve the hillside. Chairwoman Bernald felt that staff has worked hard and long on this project and that staff tried to come up with the best possible solution given the situation. Regarding the driveway, she felt that an ultimate compromise has been achieved by allowing an 18-foot drive versus a 26 or 14-foot driveway. This provides more protection for getting a fire engine up to the site and protecting the hillside, eliminating the cut fill that would be required for a standard 26 foot public access road. She concurred with the Commissions' comment about deleting the generator request from the application and having the applicant return with specifications so that it can or cannot be supported at a later date. She supported the monitoring of tree replacement and monitoring the activity by the city arborist. With the removal of the variance for lot #2 from the table, she could support the other two items before the Commission. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98- 051 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE TREE REPLACEMENT ISSUES, GIVING STAFF AND THE CITY ARBORIST THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH ANY OF THE MITIGATION ISSUES REGARDING THE TREE REPLACEMENT; DELETING THE GENERATOR REQUEST AT THIS TIME. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER KURASCH VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-98-018. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-98-017, APPROVING PARALLEL WALLS WITHIN A 30-FOOT RUN AND A 9-FOOT WALL AROUND THE WATER TANK; AND DENIAL OF THE PARKING AREA WALLS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. DIRECTOR ITEMS - Request for revision to a previously approved Site Modification application: SM-99-001 - Jepsen, 21756 Congress Hall Lane Director Walgren presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the applicant is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 21 - requesting to move the pool from a steeper slope along the side of the home and place it further down slope, directly in front of the home on a slightly more level location. He indicated that the grading quantities have changed slightly as there is also the inclusion of a pool cabana. However, the grading quantities are still under the 1,000 cubic yards permitted by the Hillside Zoning Ordinance. The pool cabana is under the height limit permitted, it is under the floor area and that it meets lot coverage and setback requirements. He recommended approval of the site modification application. He informed the Commission that the location of the pool improvements were approved based on the fact that it is down below the home that is hidden by a very significant, dense canopy of native trees and that it would not be visible from off site. Commissioners Patrick and Roupe indicated that they did not have a problem with the requested site modification request or staff's recommendation. Commissioner Page expressed concern that a fence exception was approved based on the previously approved swimming pool configuration. He stated that he would be supportive of the request with a condition that moves the fence to a point south/southeast to the current existing line on the south side as long as it is in a direction that does not impact the existing tree's root structure. Commissioner Waltonsmith concurred with Commissioner Page's recommendation of moving the fence and said that she could support the site modification request. Commissioner Kurasch and Chairwoman Bernald concurred with Commissioner Page's recommendation. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE MODIFICATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FENCE BE ADJUSTED PER COMMISSIONER PAGE'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER JACKMAN ABSENT. Director Walgren said that he would be redistributing the Measure G document, noting that the City Council adopted implementation measures. Director Walgren informed the Planning Commission that staff and the Commission will need to plan for its annual planning commission/staff retreat. He said that the retreat is usually held on a Friday (approximately six hours). He requested that the Commission give some thought as to what day this should be planned for and to give thought to topics of discussion. He recommended that city consultant's be invited to allow them to make a presentation to the Commission. He indicated that another part of the retreat is to develop goals for the upcoming year. Chairwoman Bernald recommended that a topic be discussion/information on generators. COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 9, 1999 PAGE - 22 - Commissioner Page said that he attended the second annual Santa Clara Planning Commissioners’ workshop on Buildable Living Communities on May 3, 1999. He provided staff with information on upcoming workshops. He said that there were speakers in attendance at the seminar that did a great job of defining a mix of commercial and residential development and that the presentation gave a lot of food for thought. COMMUNICATIONS Written - City Council Minutes for Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 11 and Regular Meeting of May 19, 1999 - Planning Commission Notices for Regular Meeting of June 23, 1999 - Communication to Planning Commission from Saratoga citizens, dated May 21, 1999 Director Walgren said that the letter dated May 21 was addressed to the Planning Commission. He said that staff will look to see if the structure violates any zoning or building codes or whether there are any noise violations occurring on the property. No action is required by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING There being no further business, Chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. to Wednesday, June 23, 1999, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk