The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-14-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 14, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City C'ouncil Chambers, 13777 FrUitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting -ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther~ Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti (Commissioner Monia arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner King Minutes. Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to waive the reading of the minutes of September 23, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Zambetti abstaining since they were not present at the meeting. BUILDING SITES 'la. Nega'tive Declaration -. SDR-1'495 - S~r'enson & Garner lb. .SDR-1495 Sorenson & Garner,. northern corner of Oak and Third Streets, Amendment to a previous TentatiVe Building Site Approval to allow the construction of 8 condominiums rather than 8 apart- ments .... The proposal was described by Staff'. Commissioner Schaefer moved to apprgve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1495. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner 'Schaefer moved to approve SDR-1495, per the Staff Repo'rt dated July 6, 1981 as amended, and Exhibits "B-i" and "C". Commissioner Zamb'etti seconded the motion, which. was carried unanimously'. 2a. Negative Declarat'ion -. SDR-1503 'O'ud'ew'aal,' et' al 2b. SDR-1503 M. Oudewaal, et al, northern terminus 0f Third Street, Con-. struction of a four-story, 45-room hotel, Tentative Building Site Approval Chairman Laden stated that, as a result of the last study session of the Commission on this item, it was being recommended-that this item be agendized for another study sessi'onm.on October 20, 1981. She noted that a letter had been received from the. Chamber of Commerce. in favor of the project, and also that a written re'sponse had been received from the City Geologist regarding the Commission's questions on this site. Commissioner CrowthOr. questioned wh~ether this project would fall und. er the category of.~ ~d'at0~y.oE_IR',. ~a~h~r..th'~n the'D.fo~osed"'Ne'gati~e Declaration. The Deputy City At~or.ney stated't'ha't h~ would review the state requirements and report on this matter at the study session. Warren He|d, the architect, gave a .presentation on the project. He 'commented that the Village feels that this is a project that could stimu- late some activity. He added that there are soils reports on the site because of a previous application.. Mr. Heid questioned the need for a new tentative map, stating that the~y had Final Approval on this site.' The parking was discussed., and Mr. Heid stated that they were attempting to locate-a document that allows 5,'000 sq. ft. of building, with a ratio' - ~1 - '~Planning.Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 10/1.4/81 SDR-1503 (cont.) of 1 parking space for every 473½. ~This would be in addition to the 4 spaces from the building that is being torn down, and would give a total of 15 spaces, rather than 8. .Mr. ~eid commented that there are comments by the Flood Control that they io not wish them to go over the creek bank; however, the creek bank'is eroding because of improper support. t'Je a~ded.that h~-feels thai th? p~rking irea will not destroy the bank and u r e he earlier approval was for a different project entirely; this is.a la get structure and a totally different tyD~ of use. :He added that es entially this would be viewed as a new applichtion. Staff stated that an fees that have been paid relative to the.prior application that are applic ble to this application would be wford, President of the Village ssociation, stated that his mem- bers were unanimously in favor of the in:~. He added that they had passed out a petition at their meeting, which n~w has 182 signatures on it at · this time, with an additional 50 to'be aided. He read'the petition into the record, listing the reasons for their. support. Mr. Crawford noted that the petition had been signed by the Village Association, the business people, landowners and interested citizens. Chairman Laden requested Mr. Heid tO be able to demonstrate at the study session the building in relationship to the surrounding area; i.e. the creek and the' hill at the end of Third Street, and also the barn at the' top of Third Street. Commissioner Crowther stated that'he was concerned about the closeness of the building to the barn and the'potential fire hazard that it might 'cause. He also expressed his concern regarding the parking situation with the bridge.coming out on Third,Street. Commissioner Crowther added that he feels it is a realistic concern that people will tend to park on Third Street and in.many cases won't irive down to the lower area. Mr. Heid commented that he feels, with the parking in the entrance at the lower level, that the atmosphere will be improved. He described the safety aspects of the building. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she wo'Hd not favor the 2 parking spaces going out into the creek; however, if th parking were taken care of, she feels the idea and concept is good.. She added that she feels it should be determined how much of the building c .n go in to be compatible with the area and allow for appropriate parking. Mr. Heid discussed the creek and aldo th~ pathway that is being required by the Fire Chief. He Commented that th re is a conflict, since the Fire Chief is requiring 20 feet and the Water District have stated that they don't want any trees'taken out along the creek. Chairman Laden stated that Fire Chief Kraule would be invited o the study session, to discuss this matter further'. Commissioner Monia agreed with 'Commissioner Schaefer's comments a~d added that he feels the parking is going to ha~e to be addressed. He added that he did not feel that 38 spaces would be ufficient to handle 45 rooms and visitor and employee parking. .. Mr. Heid stated that he believes there i a document stating that they have a credit for 5,000 sq. ft. He added tha the former City Attorney stated that he has seen this document, and.they are attempting to locate it at this time. Commissioner Monia stated he would also like to consider the poSSibility of sliding the building somewhat forward, b ,cause of the 'trees. He added that he 'is also concerned about the~size of the structure and suggested disc,ussing an allowable footprint, w~th design appropriate for it. - 2 - ~lann~ng Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 SDR-~iS03 (cont.) Commissioner Zambetti stated that he.had concerns reg~arding the parking and the pad, and stated' that he would like more.input from the applicant regarding statistics as to what would be the total.be~nefits to the City. Commissioner Crowther noted that the City Ge61ogist h~as recommended a geotechnical investigation prior to the ~p~0Va'l of~ development. Mr. Heid indicated that they had done this fOr'-the"Drevio~us approval, and they could update it. ~ Larry Tyler, Big Basin Way, addressed the parking. He Stated that there is a parking problem in the Villlage, but not in Parking~ Assessme~ District #1. FIe added that he feels. t'~a.t '~--:d~.cfim~nt-' do~s"e~s'~ (~t~i'Ch':'Wd~'~'l~"' the applicant 5,000 sq? ft. of new building. M~. Tyl, er ~mented that the , ! project will put the.Village together and give it some economic stability:· Commissioner Crowther expressed concerns regarding be!rming the channel and.=rt'~""effe~t""~n'' ~v~'t~r'-- l~i~e.~. ~ n ~h.~' '.1% :flood'? .... '!'[~"':'~.~hat th'~'~.fiCe~nrotection""requ~rements be siubmitted It was directed that thi. s item be continued to a study session on October 20, 1981 and the regular meeting of October 28, 1981·I ! I PUBLIC HEARINGS : ! 3a. Negative Declarati'on'- V-.556 - JacksOn/Woods 3b. V-556 --' Jackson/Woods, 12300 Saratoga-.Sunnyvale Road, Request for a 3c. A-.780 - Variance to allow (1) The construction of a~two-.story office building to maintain a heig!~t of 26' where ~0' is the max. height allowed; (2) Parking~ in the rear yard where it is not normally allowed; and (3) The construction df a soundwall over 6' in h~ight, and Design Review Approval oflthe office building; co'ntin'ued from A'u'gust' 26', '198'1 ...... Staff gave the history of this proje.ct and described~the current proposal. They commented that the applicant has resubmitted pld~s.that deal with the concerns of the Commission during their on-site ~zs~t. The public hearing was re'opened at 8.:20 p.m. Warren Jacobsen, representing the developer, discussed the Staff Report conditions. He commented that he would make all of ~he balcony rails consistent rather than screening jus.t one rear balco~y, as conditioned in the Staff Report. He added that thi.s would be bette~ from a design' stand- r i point. Mr. Jacobsen clarified that.:the loading be th is on the adj.acent property and a letter has been rece'ived from that p~ope ty owne , , r r stating that this is acceptable. i The windows were discussed, and it was noted that th~ second-story windows had not been removed. Commissioner 'Zambetti commented that he did not feel the trash area was sufficient ~or the square fo6tage. The lighting was discussed, and Mr. Jacobsen commented that he felt there was a need for security lighting·. , William Benevento, 12270 Kirkdale, s]tated that he feit the screening for the balcony should be solid as opposed to lattice. He also requested that - there'be no windows above the first .floor; the wzndows and the steel wall on the second floor should be elimi.nated, and-that t~ere be no intense lighting. He stated that he was pleased. that the pa~king had been eliminated in the rear, and the applicant has s:caled down the b~ild'ing and lessened the height ·i ! I The trash location was further discussed. Mr. JacobSen stated that they could put a larger bin in the 30 ft.;.area. The screening on the balcony was discussed. It was suggested that the eastern side of the balc6ny ,-Plann.ing Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 V-556 and A-780 (cont.) be screened, and Mr. Jacobsen stated that instead he would not put the sliding door there. Commissioner Zambetti asked if the applicant were willing to enter into an assessment district in reg.ards to continuing the frontage street improvements along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and also some type of Deferred Improvement Agreement in regards to a traffic light at Seagull. Mr. Wi'nt'e.r, ~f~om the S.K. Brown Construction Company, stated that they would not be the ~wners at that timeZ, so they would have to set it up in the CC&Rs or buy-.sell agreement. Commissioner Bolger moved to close t'he public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which ~was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to appro. ve the Negative Declaration for V-556, amended to read 26,784 sq. ft'. for the size of the building. Commissioner Monia seconded the moti'on, which was carried, with Commis- sioner Zambetti di. ssenting. ~ Commissioner Bolger moved to approve~ V-556 and A-780, per the Staff Reports dated August 6, 1981 and August 17, 1981, the Addendum dated October~8, 1981, and Exhibits "B-l"'and "C-i", with additional conditions to be added: (1) The sliding glass door to the balcony on the northeastern corner of the building is to be eliminated; (2) The second-story windows on the eastern side of the building are to be eliminated; and (3) Lighting after 9:00 p.m. in the rear of the building for security purposes to be reviewed and approved'by Staff. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. Commissioner Zambetti stated tha't he would not be voting for the motion, but he hoped that the motion could be amended to include.a bonding for the traffic light and an agreement for an assessment district for the frontage roads~ He explained that he WOuld be voting no'on=.the motion because he feels very strongly ~&~'the size-of' ~h~"'~s't'ruc~ure"'j~' t~ ~-. .~h~"~7~'~.~h~ lot. commissioner Zambetti added 'that he 'is also c0ncer~ed about the loading berth being on another property and also feels that in the future there will be a problem with underground parking. Staff commented that there is currently no assessment district. They stated that there has been discussion for a number of years for the improvements of this area..with frontage roads on either side of the highway, and both of the developments on the corners of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect have long term bonds guaranteeing the participation in a signal at Kirkmont and the highway. Commissioner Bolger commented that He feels the applicant has expressed a willingness to enter into an agreement that would be favorable to this particular situation. Staff explained that there are a number of ways of bonding for the signal; a'~'5~year.bond could be used or the appropriate funds could be deposited with the City to cover the pro rata share. They explained the use of a Deferred Improvement Ag. reement to cover the assess- ment proceedings, and that. agreemen~ then would run with the land and would carry onto subsequent owners. The Deputy City Attorney stated that typically such a requirement would be ~mposed at the Tentative Building Site Approval stage, rather than with the variance and design review procedure. It was determined that this condition could be placed at that time. The vote was taken on the motion to~approve V-.556 and A-.780. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Zambetti dissenting. ~"~(~d'd~.~F~'~.' m'a~'~ a~'t' c~m~i ~ s~ o'~" ~'~ ~ i'n~' '~H'."~/'1~8 ~"~ i. 7~- w'H ~ 'a~ r'0v'iH g ~' TM I t' s-H'oul d ~e' ~o~e~"~]~" i.'~ "~a~ 't]i~'~i~'~'' W~ Sugg~s't~'a t~"t"~77~a,,~'~'n ~o.t - 4 - =Planning Commission ·Page S .Meeting Minutes· 10/1.4/8.1 ' 4. UP-508 - Saratoga F6othills De·velop~ent Corp., Request for a Use Permit to allow Modification to Condition 4a of UP--353, which would lower the minimum age for Occupants of a multi-.family residential project 'from 55 to 45, at Saratoga Parkside, Saratoga Avenue; ~continued from September 9, 1981 Staff described the current proposal= They commented that they feel that the City has worked with the applicant in granting the 37% density bonus and are therefore recommending denial of ·the request. The public hearing was reopened at 9~00 p.m. Jerry Lohr, the applicant, gave a presentation on the current proposal. He commented that the 72 units, which represents the 37% bonus, was strictly at the suggestion of the City Council and reflected the desire of Saratoga at that time to have some senior citizen rental units. He introduced Mr. Bill Murphy, President of the Saratoga-Los Gatos Board of Realtors, who discussed the status of the real estate market. Mike Trapman, representing the homeowners of the project, indicated his group's support of the project. He amended his remarks in the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981, to read that ~he homeowners, not the City of Sara- toga or some other Government agency, are subsidizing the rental units required by t'he City of Saratoga. Mary Jean·Van·Peborgh, President of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, read a resolution into the· record, stating that th·ey remain firm in their support of the· recognition qf a continuing need for increasing the supply of suitably designed senior housing in Saratoga. It read that, while they are sympathetic to the position~of the developer and Views of the residents in Saratoga Parkside, they:deem it best to take no position on this request~, as they feel this is a~decision to rightfully be made by the ~ppointed Commissioners. ; Colonel Barco, 19101Camino Barco, stated that he feels that the applicant has a real problem, since the real e~tate market is so depressed, and at the same time the neighborhood has a.great concern also. He stated that he feels the key to this issue is that the market demand determines wha~ is going to be there, and the developer adjusts to that. He commented that he does not agree that there is a demand for senior citizen housing in Saratoga at this time. Colonel BarcQ commented that he felt the City should either stick to the contract as it reads or throw it out altogether. He added that he felt the applicant should work out the problem with the people that live there. Jim Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Court, stated that he was a board member of the Saratoga Park Woods Homeside Association, and they had previously expressed concerns over the changes that have been suggested. He'listed specific concern about the potential increase in population and vehicle density, not just from this development, but the whole area. He commented that three cities, including Saratoga, have backed out on senior citizen housing that was·government subsidized because HUD changed the ground rules. He added that this had a great impac~ on senior housing. Richard Martin, 13981 Pike Road, stated that he had. addressed the Commission and Council a great deal on this subject when it was approved. He commented that he felt that the applicant was in the same position as other contrac- tors, and he did not feel this modification should be granted. Mr. Martin added that the Commission and City Council spent a lot of time setting up these conditions, and he did not feel they should be relaxed at this time. Bernard Turgeon,...~.~.26_Atrium, stated that he was one.of the partners in th. is pa. rtner-s=h'Y~ and th~"'c{t.y.~-'~i~i~'~'~-~h~-~--~=a.~n~r~' He. c0~n~en.t.'ed"~|~-~-.~-they had entered into a partnership on a social experiment with ·the City, in which they'were .to provide rental· h6using-and it was to be subsidized by the profits from·the larger units that would b'e built. Mr. Turgeon reminded the Commission that they had asked the Commission what would·happen·if this ~'Plann'ing CommisSion Page Meetin~ Minutes 10/1.4/81 UP-508 (cont.) social experiment got. into trouble, ~nd they were told that they should bring the problem back to the Commission and it would be worked out. 'Mr. Turgeon explained that this social experiment is not working because of the economy. He added that he 'fe~t that wh'at they were asking for was justified, and this modificationiwi'll either solve the problem ol.r they will have to do it all on their own.i Mr. Turgeon commente. d that the're are many buyers; however, the problem is:that they can't sell their homes. He explained that this modification ~ould hel~'until the mortgage money is available again at decent rates. Peggy Corr, 19224 DeHaviland, stated!that she has been involved-for six years with the proposal for senior h~using. She commented that she was o. on the City Council when the contract was made wi. th 'the applicants. She stated that she feels that they provided something for the City that was ve'ry much needed and is still needed~. Mrs. Corr added that, despite. what has been said, she feels there is st~ll a great demand for senio~ housing in Saratoga. She stated that she fe~ls the only people who are really affected by this change would be theipeople who have already bought their homes in the pro.ject. She added that if they are agreeable to the modifica- tion, then she feels the City should!~onsider'their feelings. 'Commissioner Zambetti moved to close~the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the mo~.ion,'.which ~as carried unanimously. i' · .Commissioner Crowther commented that~both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Turgeon had · indicated that the real estate marke£'is bad everywhere, and he is not convinced that this modification wil~'really'help. He stated that he ~.feels that it is possible that the u~'its still. would not sell with the proposed change. He added that, with r'egard to the bonus., Staff had men- tioned that this site was zoned for 12 single-.family residential units, and the PRD Ordinance which was adopted was primarily for senior citizen housing and permitted by a use permi~ this density of 72 units on land that is zoned for' 12 residential units. .He added that he' feels the real bonus is a factor of 6. Commissione~ Crowther indicated that he does not regard someone who is 55 as a seniorScitizen.~ He stated tha't he had a concern that after the applicant sells' his units then the buyer will be ~ ' · responsible for selling the units to-~someone who is 55 years old. He added that, if the interest rates stay up', it is going to be very hard for the City to enforce this'sort of proves.ion. He further stated that the interest rates could drop very quick~y, and he does not think it would be fair that the ~pplicant.could sell these units to 45 year olds,.~even though the interest rates had dropped. He ~ndicated that' he feels that the financing has to be brought in as a ~ondition;if.the rates drop to a cer- tain level th~n it would revert back~to the higher age. Commissioner Crowther added that he thinks that i~' the only reasonable way that it could be done to prevent an unfair situation. He stated that he pe. rsonally believes that the City has a contract; there was a bonus given for that contract; the developer has profited~more than he would have if the resi- dential zoning had been adhered to, ~nd he feels that.the'City ought to hold to the contract. Commissioner Bolger expressed two concerns: (1) As Commissioner Crowther stated, the burden that would be pla~ed. upon a 45 year old person who is responsible to sell it to someone '55!years of age or older at some later .date, and (2) the aspect of changingithe CC&Rs. He feels that that would be.a dangerous precedent, and he personally is not in favor of doing that. Commissioner Monia stated that he feels the remarks made by Colonel Barco should be well studied, and he feels there is a lot to be learned from this experiment. He commented that he is not sure that in the future the Commission should become involved in ~i~t~tin~.'wh'~.~':a'Z~l~'.S"'p~.~'.i.c~.'.._.j~%.~.'be or restricting who should. live or not live within the boundaries of Sara- toga. He added that unfortunately i~ this experiment the City found out that the subsidizing of rental properties by increasing the sale price of homes really did not work; 67% of the' rentals went to non-Saratogans. ~and t'hat a concession has already- been made in reducing the a~e limit to 55.' 'Planr~ing Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 10/1.4/81 UP-508 (cont.). Commissioner Monia stated that the City had wanted to offer a hous'ing stock to the residents of Saratoga, and it should be put into the record that perhaps.~rental housing for Saratogans is not such a bi.g driving force. He added that he did not think the City is responsible for the applicant's problem; it is related more to the risk of doing business, not to any particular agreement made' with the City. Commissioner Monia stated that if the problems were due~ to some land use policies, then the Commission could do something about it; however, the Commission is certainly not in control. of what the' interest rates are going to be. He stated that he also has a concern about changing the responsibilities and the difficulties of selling these properties to other individuals who will eventually be residents and seniors of Saratoga; therefore, he would not vote for approving this request. Commissioner Schaefer indicated.that~ she generally agrees with the comments made by Colonel Barco about the Cit~ not belonging in the housing business. She stated that she does.feel .that a contract was agreed to with 'the Drevious Commission andC&~H~i-l"i 'stat~'~hat"~' ~].i~-~ ~hl~ co~e-'b~k'~'~' .'~ had a problem. She added~thaf she personally regrets that that statement was made; however, she feels that the Commission needs to honor that. She stated that she would like to have t.he Commission consider an age of 50 or 52 as a compromise, because she feels ther'e are other precedents in other Cities that allows that age. Commissioner Zambetti stated. that he was on the previous Commission, and he would be voting for denial, since he believes that there is a partner- ship and he sees no consideration on the applicant's part in requesting the modification. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny UP-.508, per the Staff Report dated October 9, 1981. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Chairman Laden stated that she was a member of the Commission that made this contract with the applicant. She-commented that Mr. Lohr was always aware of the fact that this site was' zoned for 12 housing units and he was willing at any time to build those '12 homes. She explained that the Commission prevailed upon him to work with them to get as much as possible for senior citizens. She 'added tha~ she feels the Commission has established a partnership to some degree, in which there was ho built-.in flexibility but an understood flexibility in case things didn't work out as anticipated. Chairman Laden commented that she is most concerned that, whatever the result of the vote, t~id 'C'~ty ~not los'e sight of the fact that there is a need for senior citizen housing in Saratoga, be it rentals or sales. She also express'ed concern that the City is driving out any possible future development of senior citizen housing through the private sector because the kind of action=~=.when contracts are made that are totally inflexible is not appealing to financial institutions in the future. She added that Saratoga has tried to rely on ~"'~!~at~'s'ector and the City is now turn-. ing their back on the private sector; s'he fee'is that that is not to the City's benefit in the long run. The vote was taken on the motion to deny UP-.508. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. The applicant was noti- fied of the 10-day appeal period. 5a. A-.788 - Sharon and Howard Morse, Request for Variance and Design Review 5b. V-560 - Approval to allow the construction of a second-story addition to an existing two-.story structure which exceeds the floor area ratio by greater than 5% (14% max.) at 20878 Verde Moor Court; continued from September 23, 1981 Staff described the proposal, stating that they were recommending denial of both the variance and design review, since there are alternatives on the site to provide the 'additional area requested by the applicant. Warren Gilbert, the architect, discussed the definition of floor area Plan~ning Commission -. Page 8 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 A-788 and V-560 (cont.) ratio. He sta. ted that it was their contention'that usable floor space or usable enclosed space was space at floor level, not window seats or window sills, regardless of how deep they are. Staff quoted the Design Review Ordinance, which states that the area within the exterior walls is within the structure and is usable space. They stated that Staff has interpreted that as all space within the outer perimeter walls of the building that are potentially usable for living area. Commissioner Crowther stated that it would be his inclination that if it is not"'on the floor and if it is not a big area, to give the applicant the beneficit of the doubt.- He added that it is a very small amount of area being considered. It was the consensus of the Commission that they agreed with the Staff interpretation.' The Deputy~City Attorney stated that he concurred with Staff on the 'interpretation. He 'explained that it was the general feel- ing among the Commission ~·d City Council that if there was an area that could physically be used, not necessarily on ground level, that still had some effect with respect to bulk. Chairman Laden commented that, since the window seat area does put the appli·cation·over the allowable use,~the variance procedure can continue, and the variance would be for the window sill, which is 24 sq. ft. The public hearing was opened at 10,:35 p.m. Mr..Gilbert discussed the revised plan and elevations. He explained that the original recommendation for denial from Staff was premature to receiving any revised' detailed drawings. He stated that the reduction did take place without in fact crea~ing an imbalance, and they were request- ing that the design be approved as revised. Mr~ Gilbert described the· current proposal and the alternatives on sight which Staff had indicated. He explained that the area suggested' by Staff is outside the family room, which would shut off the light and ventilation required for the family room. He commented that it would be at the steepest portion of the lot and would create some grading and construction problems. Mr. Gilbert stated that he believes their solution ~oes comply with the intent of the new ordinance. and has the support of the neighbors. He pointed out that the· only neighbor who is opposed to t~ addition is Mr. and Mrs. Hall, whose residence is to the 'southwest of this property, about 300 ft. away. He submitted pictures showing the Marshall residence and stated that it would not completely obscure their view, but would perhaps cut off some of i't. Chairman Laden noted a letter from the MarshalIs in opposition to the project, and ~ letter signed by several of the neighbors in favor of the proposal. Marshall Hall addressed' the Commission and gave the ·b~ckground of the .subdivision. H·e stated that at th~eZ·t~ime ·of the' construction the developer had indicated that they would not 'put two--story houses on the southern side of Verde Moor because it w·Ould be obstructive. Mr. Hall commented that the Morse house has the garage. and utility room th·e lower floor ~nd it will be a three-story home ·if they put an addition on it~ He added t. hat he did not feel this is ·a hardship case; the· home is not overcrowded. Mr. Hall described his view' and stated that the addition would cut out t'heir view' of the very 'center' of San Jose on the valley level. The possibility of having a room goZon in back of the 'garage was discussed. Mr. Gilbe~ explained that there would not be enough room because of the setbacks. He s~ated that there is a back porch 'deck coming ou't from the kitchen in that area·. He added that he feels this is the only place for this addition. He commented that i~ he· slid over the garage then it would be a 3-story building and it would not be in balance, nor would it be - 8 - ,.P].an~ing Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 A-788 and V-S60 (cont.) harmonious to the architecture of th~ neighborhood. Mr. MorSe, the applicant, stated that Mr. Hall's comments are basically correct, in that the addition does impact their view. He stated that he feels the question here is one of reasonableness. Mr. Morse commented that he does believe that this is not an unreasonable impact. He added that they felt it was important to keep a balance of the house and they were concerned that there be a plea~ing aesthetic look about it. Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded:by Commissioner Zambetti, to close the public hearing. The motion was~carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels this site is unique because of the topography, which would make it difficult to locate it anywhere else. He added that he believes the variance is a small extension beyond what the ordinance permits. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V~S60 and A-788, making the nece- ssary findings to grant. the variance for the 24 sq~ ft. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. ~ Discussion followed, and it was determined that separate motions should be made. Commissioner Crowther~withdrew his motion and moved to approve V-S60, making the necessary findings, per Exhibits A and B. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Commissione'r Zambetti stated that he would vote against the motion. He pointed out that the Staff Reports says that Staff cannot make the findings, and he.concurred, stating that he has problems with making the finding for physical hardship and also has a problem with consistency. The vo~'~.""~'s't~ken'~o'~_t~e.'~'~on to!approve V~560. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Zambett{ dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that, regarding the design review A-.788, she feels that the subdivision was extremely carefully laid out, and nothing appears to be any higher than those~two homes that are at the end of Verde Moor Court; obviously there w~s a very logical plan to that street's development. She added that she understands the fact that people need to add to their homes, but she feels this does obstruct the view and she feels there are other options. Commissioner Crowther commented tha~ all of the residents of that area are very concerned about.views and they have been circulating petitions around the City for the last seven years relative to views of the hill- sides. He added that he feels this' is a very small impact on someone's view. ~ Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-~788. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, stating that he feels it is a reasonable amount of obstruction of the view and he doesn't think there is a real major impact. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Zambetti and Schaefer dissenting. The applicant and neighbors were informed of the 10-day appeal period. 6. .A-790 --. Wiebe Kramer, 13427 Christie'Drive, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the 'constructiOn of'~a second-story addition (27.'-6"' maX'. height) to 'an existing singl'e--'story"dwel'l'ing Staff reported that the applicant has requested a continuance. They commented that the 'question has come up as to whether this item should be continued to a date specific or whether there should be some refiling charge to the 'applicant for the.renoticing. The. Deputy City Attorney commented ~hat it would be appropriate for the Commission to suggest to the City Council that they consider'revising the fee schedule for people who file and then keep continuing the matter. He noted that the applicant's letter states that they would like a withdrawal 9 · Planning Commission Page 10 Meefing Minutes 10/14/81 A-790.(cont.) of the plans. He stated that in his judgment the applicant will have to go through the same process over= again. He added that the item could not be continued to a date certain because the date of'the revised plans is not known. It was determined that thi's matter should be reagendized and renoticed at a futu.re date. 7a. Negative Decla'rat'ion -. SDR--1'478'-' Thompkins &' ASsociates '('Johnston) 7b. SDR-1478 Thompkins &.Associates (~ohnston), Request for Tentative Build- ing Site Approval for a three-lot subdivision on the southern side o'f BrookWOod Lane Staff gave the history of the project. They stated that the area is recently subject to a modification Of the General Plan, and they'des- cribed the present proposal. Staff. commented that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has suggested that there needs to be protection against the 1% floor, and they have proposed four different methods of providing that protection. Discussion followed on these methods. Staff indicated that they were recommending that thi's ma'tter be continued to the October 28th meeting, in order to allow receipt :of written comments from the Water District. Discussion followed on the natur'al berm on the property. The public hearing .was opened at 11~:17 p.m. 'Bob 'Peck, representing the' applican't, discussed the berm and stated that the Water District had indicated in all of their correspondence that they did not want any fill, and if the b'erm were built up along the creek that would be considered fill. Mr? Peck! discussed the combination of the methods suggested by the Water.Dist.rict. Jitta Cymbal, representing Westfall Engineers, discussed a flood insurance study done by Nolte Engineering,=~whZich discussed figures for the whole creek. CommiSsioner Crowther asked~ if they had estimated what the uncer- tainty is in the 100-.year flood. Ms. Cymbal indicated that it usually is very small, especially when you get. to the longer frequency floods; the error then becomes less significant~, Chairman Laden stated that the issues that need to be addressed are: (1) A written document from the Water District before the Commission ~akes a decision, and (2) Does the Commission wa'nt this kind of development, this kind of berming? (3) The access of the third lot off of the road. Commissioner Zambetti stated that h.e feels that the access could potentially be a problem, and he feels the Comm'is~ion has 'to be consistent. He added that he feels the Commission needs .to look at other p~rojects on Marion Roads, some of the developments we anticipate on this street, and what the Commission would'like to do in other areas of Saratoga. He also noted concern about the turnaround. Commissioner Zambetti stated he would like something in writing from the 'Flood Control District. He added that he was concerned about the berm and~ tree loss, and would like to see some raising of the pads rather than extensive berming. Staff explained that one of the three lots has an existing home on it, which is on a slab foundation. They commented that to raise that home will be very difficult, if not impo.ssible. Staff stated that if the determination iS.to build up th.e pads on the 'other two lots, there would still have to be some berming done around that existing house to protect it. Dav~ Johnston, the applicant, discussed the '55 flood, and indicated that they then built a substantial stone wall and were better prepared for a second flood in '63. He stated that he did not feel that the problem exists now that did 20-.25 years ago. re flooding. ' Commissioner' Bolger stated that 'he ~had a ~roblem since it appears there is no secondary. ac.cess to Brookwood Lane except through Wildwood Park. 10 l~Plan~ing Commission Page 11 Meeting Minutes 10/14/81 SDR-1'478 (cont.) Discussion followed on the d~dication of the flood plain to the City. It was noted that the General Plan Qhange by the City Council puts the area which ·w~s the ·total ded·icatio·n of the Water District-into a con- servation area. Ms. Cymbal noted that the Flood Control has seen the plans that are in front of the· Commission.. She state·d that they would have to get approval from the ·Control for the· type of construction, after the Commission has approved the Building Site Approval~ She noted that the Flood Control will be specifying what type of berm, what kind of fill, etc., and will be reviewing the construction drawings. Chairman Laden stated that the Commission would '·like some word from the Flood Control that they approve of the plans, and that they feel that the way·this berm is to be constructed will in fact resolve the problem. Commissioner Crowther commented that he felt the combination of berm and raising pads would be the best solution. He asked if there was any way to write a hold-~harmless agreement with ~egard to th~ flooding issue. The DepUty City Attorney stated that there have been hold-harmless agree- ments · n connection with geologic conditions, and he ·felt the same could be done'with respect to flood conditions. He stated that he would recom- mend that as a condition on any future development here. It was the consensus of the Commiss:ion that they would be in favor of this subdivision of land, provided ·that the requirements of the Flood District can be met in a way that is appropriate from the Commission's viewpoint of developing the proper·ty. Commissioner Monia stated that he would prefer to see the houses elevated, and he does have some concern about whether the berms are going to have a long range damaging effect on·the trees. Mr. Peck stated that they were trying to save trees also, and by using a combination of 'm~fhbds, the mound a'round the house will be reduced sig- nificantly. Mr. Johnston asked for a clarification regarding the dedication. It was clarified that the area between the berm and the area that the Flood Control is asking for would go into a conservation area. The Deputy City Attorney stated that if this area were an easement it would be owned by the property owner, but it would be restricted as to any use or develop- ment · and would have to be kept for~conservation purposes. Mr. Johnston Stated that he felt the easement requirement by the Water District would be sufficient for any municipal public works or water works function. commented that what the residents of that street do not want to see is a walkway or an addition to the park~ Chairman Laden commented that she did not think that· was contemplated. Staff stated that they felt the City Council did in'fact wish to retain and Created the conservation designation on there'for the very purpose of allowing some of these uses between the actual c. reek· and the b~rm. The~ Deputy City Attorney noted that the condition from·tHe Santa Clara Valley· Water District is to dedi- cate flood plain. He stated that he interprets the word "dedicate" as implying something akin to a street and not simply an easement. Chair- man Laden commented ~h~t the decision ~ould be at the Council level; not at the Commission level. It·was directed that this matter be continued to the October 28, 1981 meeting. 8a. Nega'tiv'e Declar'a.'tiOn -. SDR-.1506 -- Ralph Renna ('LaGuisa) 8b. SDR'-·1506 - R. Renna (LaGuisa), ReqUest for Tentative Building Site 8c. A-·789 Approval and DeSign Reviiew Approval'··to allow the construc- tion of a single-~story .structure over 22' in height (22'6") 'i'n a'n··in-··fill· si'tuation at' 15'0'41"S'ob'ey' Roa~d' Staff described the proposal and stated that they were recommendi. ng -,P'lan~ning Commission [ Page· 12 Meet~ing Minutes 10/14/81 SDR- 1506 and A- 789 (cont.) approval. The public hearino was opened at 11:45 p.m. (Commissioner Schaefer left the meeting'at 'this time). Mr. LaGuisa, on behalf of Mr. Renn,' the applicant, stated that he concurred with the conditions in the ·Staff Reports. Commissioner· Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1506. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which ·was carried un animous ly. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR-.1S06, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-789, per the Staff ,Report dated September 21, 1981 and Exhibits "B"' and "C". Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 9. .UP-509 -. Robert Pemberton, 12782 Ca.rniel Avenue, Request :for a Use Permit to allow the erection. of a. fence over 6' high (8' max.) in the rear yard ......... The proposal was described by Staff, and they stated that they were recommending approval. ;. The public hearing was opened at 1E:4.5 p..m. Mr. Pemberton, the applicant, .described the slope of the property. He stated that the houses nearby have 'retaining walls and' a 6 ft. high .fence on top of that; he is asking for a similar type of structure.- Chairman Laden po:inted out that if this proposa. 1 is approved, the fence w-ill be measured from the original .g.rade of the land and not on top of the fill that is in the yard now. Commissi. oner'Monia moved to close 't~he public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. COmmissioner Zambe'tti moved to approve UP-509, per the Staff., Report and Addendure, making the necessary findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried hnanimously. IT WAS DIRECTED THAT ITEMS 10 THROUGH 1S WOULD BE CONTINUED TO A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING ON OCTOBER 20, 1981 AT 7: 30 P ,M. COMMUN I CAT 'IONS Oral 1.. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serv:ing .coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zambett-i moved to adjourn the meeting to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on October 20, 19'81. Commissioner Moni~ seconded. the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was 'adjourned at 12:07 p.m. · Se r ary c et RSS;cd