Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-1981 Planning Commission Minutes,.. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CiOMMISSION M I NUTE S DATE: Wednesday, October 28, 1981 - 7:30 p.m~ PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitval. e Ayenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call. Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Laden Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of October 14, 1981: On page 1, under SDR-1S03, the first sentence in the second paragraph shou_l.d read "mandatory EIR". On page 3, under SDR-.!503, the first sentence in the fourth paragraph should read.: "Commissioner Crowth. er expressed concerns regarding berming the channel and its effect on water levels in the 1% flood...". On page 3, the first sentence in the 'second paragraph,"-.,':c0hd-ldk~o'~. ~'hoUld be changed to approval. On page 6, the following should be added to the fifth sentence: "and that a concession has already been made in reducing the age limit to SS." On page 7, in the second:sentence in the second paragraph, they should be changed to the applicant. Under the section of V-S56/A-780, Jackson/Woods, the comment should be added that it was the CommiSsion who suggested .that Mr. Jac'obsen not put in a sliding door in the rear corner of the office building. With those changes, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, to waiv~ the reading of the minutes of the meeting of October 14, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioner King abstaining since h.e was not present at the meet-ing. CONSENT CALENDAR. A-791, Ilal' Johnston, was removed for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar, listed below, was approved, with a motion by Commissioner Zambetti, which was seconded by Commissioner Monia. The motion was carried unanimously. 1. Steve Dorcich, 18570 Sobey Road, Moaification to Site Development Plan for pool 3. SDR-'1419 - John Quanstrom (Bob Card), Carniel Avenue - I LOt, Final' Build- ing Site Approval Discu~sionTfollowed on A-791. CommissiOner Zambetti stated that this applica- tion concerned a free-standing sign, and when the Argonaut Shopping Center was given approval for this sign there was an agreement that anchors or sub- anchors would not continually be added." He commented that when the sign was originally erected Long's Drug Store wa~ alrea'dy i.n the shopping center, and this request is for another increase in the sign to include I.,ong's. He stated that he has problems with free-standing signs along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and he feels if this request is approved, there wil. 1 be other areas along that road requesting free-standing signs. Hal Johnston, representing the Shopping'Center, stated that Long's Drug Store was not in the center at the time of the initial 'approVa!'2'. He stated that Long's feels that having their name on the sign will help their business and the center in general, and Safeway concurs. He noted that the square footage is actually reduced in size, compared to the present sign. Commissioner Zambetti commented that, at the time of the use permit for Long's Drugs, they also requested that they be on the free-.standing sign and they were told in committee at that time that they would not be allowed to - 1 - · ..~ P'tanning Commission ~"~ Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 10/-"~'~'7'8'~L .... A- 791 (cont.) go on the free-standing sign. =,~?f'jY~.'j~_sTi'Z~suggested that Staff review the record to see if there' is anything relative to the agreement that Commi. ssioner Zambetti suggested. was made at the time of the original application. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he felt the proposal should be evaluated on its merits at this time. He moved to approve A-791, pe~ the Staff Report. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion,.stating that there is a reduction in the size of the prese'nt sign. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt it would be worthwhile to have Staff review the original appljcatio. n. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger' withdrew their motion and second to .approve A-791. Staff was asked to review the file, and it was directed that thi'S item be continued to the meetiZng of November 1.7, 1981. BU.[LDING SITES 4a. Nega. tiVe Declarat'ion - SDR-1503 - Oudewaal, et al 4b. SDR-~1503 -. M. Oudewaal, 'et al, northern term'~.nus of Third Street, Construc- tion of a five-story, 45-:room hotel, Tentative Building Site ApproVal; continued from 'October 14', 19.81~ Staff gave a report on ti~e 'project, stating that it has been changed from a 4 to 5--story structure. It was noted that there were major issues relating to parking and access. They noted that the Staff Report is written in such a way that if the determination is made that the number of .parking spaces that are required 'cannot be met, then the structure would be reduced to accommodate that. The parking problem and options were 'reviewed. Staff noted that the applicant feels he can meet the loading berth requirement if it can be located at the terminus on Third Street near the entry; this would ne'cessitate the granting of an encroach- ment per'mit. · l,etters from the City Geologist and the Police Department were noted into the record. Staff indicated that the Sheriff's Department was unable 'to elaborate on the cost to the City for additional protection. Discuss'ion foilowed on the' 'conditioning of supplementary police services to be funded by the 'operator of-' the hotel. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that he would have a serious question as 'to the legality of .requiring the applicant to pay for. additional police services, should it become necessary due 'to the activities of the hotel. He commented that that would be in effect a special tax. He expla._ined that the applicant would make arrangements for a security guard, if necessary, at his own cost. He added that there are vehi'cles by which an oper'ation of this kind can be taxed, but he would not want to tie it directly to police enforce- ment. Commissioner Bolger commented that he -Feels this problem should be addressed, so, that in the event additional police service i's needed, the City does not become impacted in a negative way. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the philosophy of a room tax is:perhaps the necessity for additional police and otl~er services for 'a project of this kind. However, in that 'case the tax would be applied to any. establishment operating as a hotel or inn, and not particularized to one proper~y owner. Commiss'ioner Crowther passed out the' State guidelines and discussion foilowed on the Negative Declara. tion. He commented that he was con- cerned that, because of traffic and other issues, the project might have a significant effect on the environment,. a'!H'~:'~._Hef'~'f'~re, an EIR must be prepared. The Deputy Ci.t.y' Attorne.y. stated. that th'e='EIR in this situation "Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes -. Meeting 10/.72'j.,~'/81 SDR-1503 (cont.) is essentially a judgment call. He explained that the City Council adopted some guidelines; this particular project is in a commercial area, so there is no presumption one way or the other that it would have an effect. Therefore, the guidelines' adopted by the City Council as they would appl'y to this project..are simply neutral.; they neither require or prohibit an EIR. He added that the Commission could certainly require an EIR and support that req'mjrement by these guidelines; by the same token there is some history as :to this project that might similarly support a finding for a Negative DeClaration. FIe explained that, accord- ing to the Staff Report, there was an earlier requirement of an EIR by the Water District, which they have since 'abandoned, and no other agency reviewing this proposal has requested an EIR. He indicated that he d. id not feel the Commission is necessarily bound to require an EIR, i.f someone comes along and requires it, if they are otherwise satisfied that whatever effects they perceive are being mit.igated by the restri. ctions on the development. It was noted that the. City Geologist has not requested an EIR on the project. The initial. study done on the project was discussed, and Staff reported that it was thei~ determination that the project would not have a. significant effect on the environment, primarily because it is an. infill project; .i.t had. been reviewed before as a restaurant proposal, and the soil and foundation study d6ne at that time did not indicate any particular problem. Regarding the traffic impacts, Staff commented that their assessment determined that th& 'inn would not have a greater tra. ffic impact than a proposed restaurant. ,They added that they determined that the Negative Declaration would. be the appropriate 'document, ~.ecause =' any impacts the proposal would have,could be mitigated by using the current cod. e and ordinances, as well as ~pecific conditions in the Building Si. te Approval. They noted that a geologic study will be completed before final approval is granted. Commissioner Crowther noted that there has" been no negative public input on th. is project, and he feels that is important. He added that if there is widespread public concern on a project, then he feels an EIR should be prepared. The number of required parking spaces was discussed, Commissioner Monia commented that he felt the Commission should. require a few more spaces than the absolute minimum. 'Discussion followed on handicapped spaces and employee spaces. Commissioner King stated that he felt the site was being ove'rdeveloped. He added tha't he felt an i. nn of a smaller size might mitigate some of the problems regarding parking and loading. Commissioner Crowther stated. that he 'feels that the 'des'ign of the front of the' structure wi. th parking places directly in f'ront 'of the door is unaccep'table. Commissioner' Zambetti s'tate'd th'at h.e feels 45 rooms are app'ropri. ate for this site. He commented that this inn, if developed and successful, will also be successful for all of the' merchants and for the City, and he feels that should be taken into consideration. Warren Held, the architect, gave a presentation on the project; He di. scussed the parking spaces on the. creek and the methods of using these spaces, one of which would be to build a structure and cantilever it out. He described the parking stalls and the service entry. He commented that l~e feels they are 45 spaces for parking and have met the 'ordinance require- ments. FIe added that he has also reached a'n agreement wi'th Chief Kraule regarding access. Staff stated' that they were attempting to be in contact wi. th the bond counsel regarding what needs to be done 'in the assessment district to accomplish' restriping of parking spaces for the' benefit of one of the proper'ty owner's. They explained' that they believe that there is some- thi. ng relative to the funding wi. th rega'rds to restriping, and this will be determined and taken into consideration. - 3 - iF~lanning Commission Page 4 Hinutes -~ Meeting SDR-1503 (cont.) 'Mr. Heid discussed Chief Kraule's re.quirement for an access for fire equipment. He explained that he has shown a ramp on a revised drawing from the Rosenfeld property up to the upper level. He commented that if the parki. ng district were formed;. at some future date the Fire Depart- ment would ha2ve complete access from Third Street in behind the building. Mr. Heid described the proposed ramp.. Chief Kraule .from the Fire Department discussed the conditions in his letter dated October 23, 1981. He s~ated that some type of connection is needed between the Smith. property': and Wallace property and Parking District No. 3, in order to get emergency vehicles through. Mr. He'id stated that it was his understanding. that the concerned property owner does not care to enter into an assessment district at this time. Mr. Heid described the fire precautions he has taken wi'th the design of the building. Chief Kraule commented that he feels'. that the building, as designed, will be a safe one, but it is a high rise, and the only way to control. fire in it if the're is a failure of the system is interior fire fighti. ng. There- fore, h.e feels that there must be access from the outside, through the ramps that would be facing Third Street and the proposed roa. d. Mr. Heid stated that he feels the ac&ess connection to the proposed. park- ing district has to be something that the Planning Commission and City Council ask for. It was noted that ~his access is a condition of the project. Discussion. -followed on an alternate access via the driveway between the Melt on bui].ding and. the Wallace building. Chief Kraule stated that th:-~t is a deadend access. He commented that there is about a 2½-.3 ft. drop; it is very close to connecting, but does not. The parking issue was again discussed... Mr. Heid addressed the loading and unloading zone. He indicated that they would have a day manager and a n:igh. t manager; the other management would be off the property. The issue of a loading area directly in front of the hotel was addressed. :lEt was determined that there shoul. d be one clear space in front of the ing. Commissioner Zambetti moved to jrequire 47 parking spaces with regard. s to Bui. lding Site Approval for SDR-:1503. Commissioner Monia second. ed the motion. The motion was carried, witt.~ Commi. ssioner Bolger dissenting, stating that he would be in favor of a requirement of 45 'spaces. lie added that he felt there wOuld'always be' 'tlie problem of congestion in front of the' hotel, even with. a space there. It was clarified that the 47 spaces would consist of 1 space per room, 1 'for the employee, and 1 clear space in front of the Front door; handicapped parking will be i. ncluded in that number. Discussion followed on a cantilevered structure over the creek to provide 4 spaces. There was a consensus that this would be allowed, provided that the applicant can satisfy the Water District requirements. The DepUty City Attorney clarified tl]at the Negative Declaration is premised on the overall impact of the project... He commented that it specified that it will be mitigated through requirements of the City, and those requirements are listed in more detail in the Building Site Approval.. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR--1503. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mous ly. Commissioner' Zambetti moved to approve SDR-.1503, per Exhibit "B-2", the Staff Report 'dated October 9, 1981 as amended, the Addendum dated October 23, 198]., and the letter from the Fire District dated October 23, ].981, with 47 pa'rking spaces 'required, 1 per room, 1 for the front, and 1 for the employee'.' COmmissioner Bolger seconded the motion. -4- Planning Commission Page 4a Minutes· --Meeting 10/2 81 Addition to SDR-1503 (Oudewaal - Inn) Mr. Heid was asked about the hotel foundation elevation of 368 ft., shown in the exhibit, said elevation being below the 1% flood elevation shown on the map for the Johnston property across the creek. Mr. Heid indicated that this elevation in the exhibit was incorrect and should be 468 ft. Mr. Heid was asked if all of the elevations of the parking lot and the hotel were above the 100-year flood elevation. He replied that all elevations were above the level of the 100-year flood. "P~.anning Commission Page 5 ~Minutes '- Meeting 10~'1/81 SDR-~'i'503 (Cont.) Staff clarified that the condition in the Fire District's letter is for the construction of that access between the Rosenfeld property and Third Street. The alternate of circular access from the driveway between the Melton building and the Wallace building and around Third Street was dis- cussed. Chief Kraule stated that he would like to see a through road. He commented that, as an alternate plan, the loop would be acceptable, but the ideal s·olution would be a connection between Third Street and the Rosenfeld property. Commissioner Monia stated that he WoUld like the motion to allow for the alternate plan as well, since he feels the access with the ramp 'may be a difficult t~ing to obtain, Commissioner Bolger asked for the reasoning of Commissioner Monia's request, since basically both ·of the p'ropertie·s are connected to the same people; the· ·ownership is common, and he feels there will be the same problem with the circular area around those two properties, as opposed to the ramp in the back. He added that he feels Chief ~raule has been most clear that he feels the most appropriate way would be to try to get the ramp through. Commissioners Zambetti and Bolger amended their motion and second to include that the access can be accomplished by a ramp between the Rosenfeld property and Third Street, or a circular loop' from the· driveway between the Melton building and the Wallace building and around Thi·rd Street as an alternate. · Chief Kraule stated that the ramp would be preferred, but the alternate loop could be an option. The vote was taken on the motio~ to approve SDR-1503, with the above amendment· The motion was carried, ~·ith Commissioner King dissenting. It was noted that parking space #19 ~s 3 ft. over the· property line of City~owned property· The Deputy City Attorney commen'ted that on the copies of the map it does not clearly show the boundary line, as opposed to topo- graphy lines and the lines of the Wa,ter DistriCt easement. He stated that he has informed the applicant that,· at the time of Design Review Approval, this issue of encroachment onto City'-owned land will have to be dealt with and the Ci'ty will have to issue it's consent ........................ ' ....."'j'- "" -~' BreakS: ~9: 30 - 9: 50 p .m. 5a. Negati've Declaration - SDR-1508 - M.. Oudewaal 5b. SDR-1508 -- M. Oudewaal, 14629 Big Bias in Way, 1 lot (Condominiums), Tenta- 5c. A- 793 tive 'Bu'ilding Site Appr'oval and' Design' Review' Approval Staff described the 'propOsal~. They. commented that the density of the project should be determined' at the ·'Building Site Approval., since that dete.rmination was not made at the' ti.me 'of the' use permit· They stated that they feel tb~ proposed'density of 4 condominiums was .appropriate for the area. It was determined that Condition VIII-·G should be added to read: "Geotechnical investi'gation' shZall be conducted as described in City · Geologist·'s letter dated October· 22,! 1981. The results of the investiga- tion shall be 'reviewed and approved by the· City' Engineer and City Geologist prior to issuance of the building permit." Commissioner B01ger·stated that he £eels the site is very narrow.and the height of the structure would be sufficient without the towers· Commissioner Crowther comme'nted that, even though the app'licant is now in compliance wi'th the ordinance by the ·change of the roof design, the side yard setbacks are still not in compliance. He added that he considers it to be.'creeping r·ez·Oning to allow deviations from the ·o·rdinance via a use permit and he is opposed to that. Commissioner King moved to approve SDR-1508, subject to the Staff Report - 5 - 'Planning C'ommission Page 6 : ~linutes --Mee'ting 10/:i2.~!,8.~/81 SDR- 1508 and A- 793 (cont.) with the added condition of Mr. Cotton's letter of October 22, 1981. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. Commissioner King moved to approve A--793, per the Staff Report dated October 21, 1981. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. The' motion was carried, wi. th Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. It was noted tha-t:~,Athe Negative Declaration had been approved at the use permit PUBLIC HEAR'INGS ': 6a. Negative Declarati'on - SDR*-1478 -. Thompkins & Associates (Johnston) 6b. SDR--1478 --Thompkins & Associates (johnstOn), Request for Tentative Build.- ing Site Approval for a three-lot subdivision on the southern side 'o'f' Brookwood La'ne; cont.inU'ed' from October 14, 1981. Staff reviewed the current proposal,. They stated that the property is en. tirely within the 1% flood area' and. there would be a need to provide for the protection of the proposed structures against that flooding con- dition. They' indicated that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has provided a series of four potential' solutions. .The' possible solutions and. combinations were di. scussed. Staff commented. that this property takes access from the end of Brookwood, which 'is a private road, and there are two exceptions relating to 'access which need to be 'made i.n order to develop the proper'ty further': (1) a cul--de-.'sac length exceeding 400 ft., and (.2) connecting a minimum access road to a cul-de-sac. Staff stated that they were recommending approval. of development subject to th.e Staff Report and, after review 'of the two alternZatives, they feel' that the' berming of the entire site would be a more log:ical development of the property, if the property is to be developed. Staff indicated that they had discu'ssed the possibility of using the natural berming with the Water District, and the Water District had indicated. that the existing berm is. not high enough 'to protect the pro~ perty, and they would l. ike the ber~ outside of their right-.of-.way. Staff commented that, at this time, they di.d not know of any proposal for the Water District to straighten, deepen or line the channel; however, they may be planning to do something in 'the future. Commissioner Crowther commented that he is concerned that the berming would restrict the channel and make 'it narrower and, since the :flow of water is going to stay the same, th.ere would be greater elevation. Staff commented that the Water District did not feel that that elevation would be significant. The public hearing was opened at 1.0:09 p.m. Bob 'Peck, representing the applicant, stated. that it was the applicant's thought to leave the 'option of using the berm, a combination, etc., up to the Commission. He .indi. cated that they had complet'ed studies that the Commission' had requested on the combination of the four methods and the Water District has indicated' that that would be a viable solution. Commiss'ioner Crowth.er expressed concern about relying on just the berm because, if there was failure of t|ie' berm, it could destroy the structures. He 'stated that he would be 'inclined to require both the elevation of the structure and the berm just' as back, up protection. Mr. Peck indicated that they had done 'a study on the 'removal of trees, and it appears 'that the highest number of trees would be removed by the berm and the combination of all four meth.ods would save the 'most trees. Jitta Cymbal, the engineer', stated.that the berm can meander between the trees to some extent, but not completely. Discussion followed on the 6 ~anning Commission .... Page 7 'Minutes -. Meeti.ng 10/.~'/81 SDR-1478 (cont.) removal of trees. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which Was~carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see a hold-harmleSs agreement with regards to the flooding. He added that he would also like to see a general overall condition!in the Staff Report, stating that the homes be constructed to protect the structures and the residences from flooding. The Deputy City Attorney stated that:he concurred with the condition of a hold-.harmless agreement. He added~that he felt there should be some notation on the map advising people that they are in a flood area.. Mr. Peck commented that a disclosure statement must be used to inform anyone looking at the property that it is in a flood zone, and it will be acknowledged in the sales contract. The Deputy City Attorney commented thatihe would. suggest that the flood zone information be made a matter of'public record to any buyer. He added that, if the Commission approves the~prbject, there 'should be some finding with respect to the' exercise of their discretion to allow a minimum access road entering onto a cul-.de-~sac. He explained that the 'ordinance would require some H_nding that, by rea'son'of constraints of the site or other circumstances, it would justify departure from what is the normal. standard referenced in Section 23.2-.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance~ Discuss'ion followed on the 'alternatiVesm. Commissioner Monia stated that he would have a problem wi'th an 8 ft. elevation on a home,. and, therefore, would opt for berming. Commissioner~Zambetti stated that he would favor the method that would lose less trees. Ms. Cymbal discussed the options. She .stated that they were not proposing the 'option wi'th an 8 ft. elevation because of the visual impact. Commis- sioner King commented that he felt Alternate.B, with partial berm and partial pad, appears to be a bet'ter solution with less damage to the site in general, and still gives protection ~to future homeOwners. Commissioner Bolger stated that he feel's that ther. e are issues that are not in compliance with the 1974 General' Plan, that of public safety as well as environmental damage. He added' that there is also a situation which is not in compliance with the Subsdivision Ordinance regarding the access on a cul-~de--sac which shows' more~ than 400 ft.; therefore, he is very troubled about developing th. is parcel..= Commissi'oner King moved to approve the .Negative Declaration for SDR-1478. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the m~ti.on, which failed, with Commissioners Schaefer, Crowther, Bolger and Monia. di!ssenting. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the 'Commission should give the appli- cant some direction regarding their feeling regarding the tentative map. Commissioner Crowther stated that he wo~uld want to see additional protec- tion. He added that he 'w'ould like an e. levation of the pad. at 4 ft. along wi'th the berm. Commissioner Zambetti commented that~ h~ thought the Council had given direc- tion that they would like to'see thr'ee ~homes on this property; however, it does h.ave the 'cul-.de--sac problem. He stated that he felt it is up to the City Council. to decide if they want .toipurchase the property or if they want to allow the'houses' on it. Commissioner' Bolger stated that he f'eelS the"p.ublic safety aspect must be addressed. - 7 - Flanning Commission Page 8 ~'M]dnutes - Meeting 10~'~'~8="./81 SDR-1478 (cont.) Commissioner Monia stated that he feels '·the safety f~&t. jo'r~:is an issue. In addition, he added, he is ·not sure that the Council really understands the problems of building on this site and he feels the matter sbould go back to them. FIe stated that he woulZd gupport the berm concept but is concerned about the 'removal_ of trees. : Commissioner Schaefer stated that she i.~ concerned· about minimum access, general safety and building on a flood pla:in. The Depu.t·y City Attorney stated that :there should be a motion on this matter, ~n the event the applicant· w.{shes to appeal to the City Council. Commissi'oner Bolger moved to deny SDR-.1478, based upon the findings expressed by the Commission. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which · was carried, wi·th Commissioners King:and Zambe·tti dissenting. The appli- cant was notifi. ed. of the 15--day appeal period. 7. A-795 -. J. Sparanga, Request for Design:Review ApprOval· to allow the con-. struction of a second story addition to an ex_i_sting single story 'dw'elling a't' 15381. Norton Road The proposal was described by Staff,: Tl~ey repo'rted that the City Geologist has indicated that he does not encount. er any geologic or soil constra. ints that wo'uld preclude the ·construction:of'. the planned addition. The public hearing w'as opened at 10:40 p.m. Mr. Sparang'a appeared to answe·r questions. Since there. were no questions, Commissioner King moved to close the '. public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion·, which was carried unanimously. Commissi. oner Zambetti moved to approve A~-·795, per the Staff tieport dated · October 19, 1981 and Exhibits "B" and ",C" Cornmiss'loner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 8a. A-792 -· Pa'rk Saratoga Associates, Request for a Variance and· Design Review 8b. V-561 - for a commercial· sign whi'ch.is' 15.75 sq. ft. in size where 13.75 ..... sq. f't'.' is a'llowed., at 1218'8 'Saratoga-Sunnyvale 'Road' Staff· descrihe'd the current proposal '; !Fhey stated tha. t th. ey ·feel the proposa.1 is not harmonious wi'th th.e '~ig,n program for Building C as well as 'the sign program for the rest of the. shopping center. Therefore, they can not ma·ke the fin·clings and are re.commending denial of the variance and design review. They added that they; feel. adequate signage can be provided under the sign program. The public hea"ring was opened at 1.0:45 p.m.. · Jim McLey, of Cal-.Neon, stated. that the'= reason th.ey were requesting 'the variance is that the building is at ~hei corner of Saratoga-.·Sunnyvale Road. and Kirkmont, beh·ind the Savings & LOan,., and has no frontage on Saratoga- Sunnyvale.' He explained that they f.ee·l~ they need identity to get business. Mrs. Larsen, the· applicant, stated that; she feels there are special circum- stances jn their location. She explained that ·they are facing the back parking lot and cannot be seen from Sar~atoga-Sunnyvale Road, and she feels it is a. d-isadvantage. Commissioner Crowther commented that it! would seem that a sign that com- plies with the ordinance could be visibiie from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and would help the si. tuat:i·on. Commissioner King moved to close the pu:·blic hearing. Commissioner Zambetti· seconded the· motion, which was carried :unanimously. Commissioner King noted that thi. sis;: 'th2e third or fourth r6quest for a sign in this particular shopping centerS. He stated that he feels 8 'Planning Commission .. Page 9 ~4inute's - Meeting 10/~'j~8j/81 ' A-792 and V-561 (cont.) the Commission should be consistent in asking that the sign program in the shopping center be maintained. On that basis, Commissioner King moved to deny V-561 and. A-.792. Commissioner' Zambetti seconded the motion. Commissioner Monia added that he wo'uld have difficulty making the five findings. The motion was carried unanimously. The applicant was notified of the 10-day appeal period. 9a. A-794 -- C. M. Mayo, Request for a Variance and Degign Review Approval to 9b. V-562 -. allow 'the construction of a two-story dwelling which exceeds the :floor area ratio by 18% where 5% is the 'maximum allowed at 18801 Mont'ewood D'r'i'V'e The proposal. for the' two--story dwelling was described by Staff. They reported that they cannot make the necessary findings relative to the variance and were recommending denial per the Staff Report, and that the design review be approved only relative to the 5% increase over the maxi- mum floor area ratio. The public hea'ring was opened at 10:50 p.m. Jim Lyle, architect, submitted a statement of the neighbors in favor of the proposal and gave a presentation on it.' Mr. Lyle discussed the findings in the Staff Report~~ stating that he agrees there is no physical h. ardship, but he 'feels 'the're shouId' also be a basis for a variance where there is abundance. He added that ..this pa'rticular site has a certain type of abundance which makes a variance reasonable and one that does not impinge the community. He indicated that the proposal does not con. stitute an invasion of privacy, nor does it.'unreasonable interfere with views. He added that it does not create an. adverse impact upon the aesthetic character of the 'neighborhood and it preserves the natural topography. FIe pointed' out th'at if the applican.t was to detach the racquetball court it would no longer count against thle 'square footage. Mr. Lyle stated that if that we're done, it would render the use of the racquetbali structure as a h.eat sink impossible, or at least a great deal more difficult and much more 'expensive. He stated that be feels that the proposed location of it is better and asked that one possible consideration for the variance might be that you disa. llow the squalre footage of the court in exchange for the semi-.passive 'features that can .be incorporated into it. Mr. Lyle described the design of th.e structu.re, submitting photos of the p'resent home. A' letter from the applicant was not:ed into the record. Commissioner Schaefer' stated that she felt the h'ome has been designed to take into consideration solar concepts and it' is a good design. She 'added that the area has two--story homes that are. g. en~.r...'O~-s i_'~ '~.~i.z.e-j'on..'.g'e.~.qu~-lots. commi. ssi. oner' King' moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that l~e feels that the impact of the extra. ?00 sq. ft. is not a major impact upon the neighborhood, and the appli- cant could build the plan to completely comply with the ordinances by detach. i'ng the racquetball court.' He added that the neighbors are in favor; the site is unusual and somewhat e~ceptional because of its seclusion and its large setback from the 'street. Commissioner Crowthor stated that he could make the findings and would be 'in favor of the granting the variance. Commissioner Crowther moved to app½ove A-.794 and V-S62, making the necessary findings for granting the variance, subject to the Staff Report dated October 19, 1981, deleting COndition No. 1 <'.f~[0_'~ 7't. he_"~'Staf~f_jlR_epolt-t. It was also determined that a condition should be added', requiring it to be a solar design. Commissioner Bolger seconded the 'motion. The fi'ndings were further discussed by Commissioner Crowther, and he concluded that all of the findings. could be made. Commissioner King i) '~lanning Commissio~ .... Page 10 Meeting Minutes - ~-~7gl4~ and V--5'6~' stated th. at he would be voting against the motion. He commented that he feels that if the Commission' seems t~o wi.sh to alter the Design Review Ordinance, then"possibl'y they sho'uld be dealing more wi'th the fact that the'.'o'rd-inance=.~h'~ch".~as~'pass'e'~ is too"res'trictive. Commission'er Crowther Stated that he 'disagrees; in fact, he might even make it more 'restrictive. He added th.at~he feels the Commission has to be rea'sonable, and when there are 'good'.grounds for granting an exception, he thinks it should be"granted'. Commissioner Sch.aefer state'd' th'~t she would be voting for the 'motion. .She 'commented' th. at she did not feel the 'physical hardship is there except as she relates 'it to so'lar, and tha~ is something the Commission has been promoting. She stated that she also agrees with Commissioner King that the DeSign Review Ordinance, in relationship particularly to 1 acre+ zon- ing, is' very res'trictive, which is bringing .~? many of these difficult variances. Commissioner Crowther commented th.a~ he thinks the ordinance was primarily directed toward affecting a new"subdivision, and this is'not that situation. Commissioner King stated that he feels the ordinance is directed towards infill and conversion', and applies' to thi. s 'situation. Commissioner Bolger indicated that he b~sically cannot agree with Commis- sioner King's analysis of the situation, because primarily he does not feel this home is over the floor area ratio because of the racquetball facility. Commissioner Monia stated that he would not vote for the motion, since he h.as problems making all the necessary findings~ He added that, with reference to the racquetball court,.obviously, in formulating the ordinance, the Commission did not take into consideration secondary structures. He indicated' that he 'felt this 'is becoming quite acute and needs to be address- ed in the future. However, he commented, this situation involves a single stricture that is attached, and the. Commission is dealing with the ordi- nance as it is; therefore, he does not see how this variance can be granted. Commissioner Zambetti indicated that he could not make the findings. Commissioner Schaefer commented that, if any variances are going to be granted under the ordinance, this particular project certainly is one of the first ones that should be grant.ed~ The vote was taken on the motion to approve V--562 and A-.794. Commissioners King, Monia and Zambetti dissented,' therefore; there was a split vote. The 'Deputy City Attorney stated that.~~ under the ordinance, this item should be continued to the next meeting when there will be a full Commission. It was directed that this item be continued to November 17, 1981. MISCELLANEOUS 10. Blackwell Homes,' Tracts 6526 and 6528, Request for revision to CC&Rs regardi'n'g"s'qu'ar'e' fOotage lim.itatio'n 'for residences The request for revision was described by Staff. They explained that, with the adoption of the new Design Review Ordinance, they feel it is appropriate for the Commission to recommend the modification of the CC&Rs to allow for the applicant to come under the provisions.of the new ordi- nance. Bill Heiss, the 'engineer, stated that, four years ago, in the absence of a Design Review Ordinance,' the '4600 sq. ft. size was agreed upon. He added that he 'felt 'the standards for buyers have changed since that time. He explained' that they would like to amend. the CC6Rs to make them consis- tent with'the ordinance. ~Kla.~ning Commission Page 11 · M'inutes - Meeting 10/:~.2~.~'781 "'. Blackwell Homes (cont.) Commissioner Crowther commented that,, for those who say the new Design Review Ordinance is too restrictive,; here is 'an·othe·r example where it is more lenient than what existed in the past. He stated that this project has received more public attention than any other project in the City, and there are several reasons for that: '(1) concern about scenic impact because of tile fact that it is on open scenic hillsides with no foila. ge on them, and· (.2) flooding problem. He stated that he was surprised· to hear about a settlement which would.allow 'more homes than what the voters adopted, and he regards 'that as a violation of the citizens' constitutional. rights. He commented· that that is a totally independent issue, not related to this application. Even with·what the voters had adopted, he added, he thinks the 4600 sq. ft..limit should apply. Commissioner' King moved· that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the requested revision; per the ·Staff Report dated October 22, 1981. commissioner Bolger stated that he l{ad been prepared to vote against this request because he is not in favor Of altering CC&Rs o~i any particular project. However, he commented that he feels that the· engineer has pre- sented t]~e case' very well, in the ·f~ct that there sho'uld be consistency in the City; therefore, he will vote for the recommendation. Commissioner Monia stated that, now .·that there is a new Design Review Ordinance, he would like see 'that it be applied equally as well; therefore, he would vote for the motion. '. The vote was taken on the motion to 'reCommend approval to the City' Council. Th.e motion was carried, wi·th Commissioner Crowt|~er abstaining. 11. Amendment of Zoning Ordinance to Add Bed and 'Breakfast to List of Allowed Us e s: :for "'l-~'-.'A''' 'Di's 't"r i ~'t' Staff described the proposed amendment, They stated that the conditions in the text of th6 amendmen't, as well as conditioning powers of the use permit, should give the' Commission ~ufficient control over any sort of a bed and breakfast establ·ishment in the "P-A" district, only for that district and only for residential structures. The cooking of meals was di_scussed, and there was a consensus that breakfast could be cooked fo'r guests. Commi. ssioner Zambetti moved to approve Resolution GF-332-1, allowing bed and breakfast use in the "P-A" district, deleting the condition that meals cannot be prepared on the premises, and adding that only one meal, breakfast, will be served to guests~ making the findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. C OM~UN I CAT IONS Oral 1. Vice-Chairman Schaefer thanked Mayor Callon for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group for atten,ding and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT :. Commissioner Zambetti moved to adjourn the meeting in honor of Vladimi·r Fabris. The motion was seconded by Comm·issioner King. It was car·ried unan·i- mously, and the meeting was adjourned a.~. 1].:55 p,m. Resi~e,ctfully submitted, Secre'tary RSS: cd