HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COB~ISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, January 26, 1983 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION ,
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried
Absent: None
MinutesTM ~:
· The following changes were made· to the minutes of January 12, 1983: The
second paragraph on Page 4 should read:' "The Deputy City Attorney disagreed,
explaining that the Council did enter into a stipulation with the developer
as a way of settling pending litigation. However, it was his 'understanding
that they had not given specific direction to this Commission, and it would
be his opinion that it would not have been appropriate to do so. The stipu-
lation provides that the application is. to be processed in the normal fashion,
and from his point of view the Planning Commission should treat this applica-
tion in the same manner as any other and either approve, deny or modify. He
added that the Commission should ignore the fact that there was litigation
pending and that the City Council did enter into a stipulation with the
developer." An Addendum 7a should be added to the Oral section of the minutes,
indicating further discussion on the Wilson application SDR-1531. The second
'sentence of the fifth paragraph on Page~ 7 should read: "He commented that the
Commission has not seen or reviewed and integrated the document as a whole,...".
Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 12,
1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. SDR-1496 - Robert Araldi, Canyon View, Request for One-Year Extension
This····i'~e'~· w··a·S pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Staff reported
that M'r.t Ha~ison and the Fire Chi·ef h~Ve verified that they in fact have
reviewed the' loc'ation of the driveway and do not object 'to it. However, they
did not give an approval for the construction prior ·to the modification of
the site and obtaining of the necessary permits. They noted that when grading
is done without permission the ·City requires that the necessary permit be
obtained and the app·ropriate plans provided, and there is a doubled fee as
a penalty. If there is a problem wilth the grading the applicant is required
to modify the work to meet the standards of the City's Grading Ordinance.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he has a real problem with the fact that the
applicant has indicated he is not going· to follow the plan for which he is
asking an extension, and he has started grading according to another plan.
FIe indicated that he does not feel it i's appropriate to grant an extension
for SDR-1496; he feels that the applicant should apply for a new SDR which is
similar to the plan he intends to follow.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny the. extension of SDR-1496. Commissioner
Bolger seconded the motion.
Commissioner Nellis stated that·the applicant has done the grading at his
own risk, and he would rather grant the extension and look at the modification
at that time. He noted that Staff is approving the modification. Commis-
sioner Siegfried agreed, stating that it is not uncommon for someone to come
in with changes at the point of building. He added that he does not see this
as a significant deviation from the original plan. It was clarified that
whe·n the applicant applies for Design Review they can ask the applicant to
change ·the new· driveway if they do not approve of it.
Commissioner Bolger indicated that he feels that the City has procedures and
there has been a good deal of work done on this p_articular site. He added
t.~'-~'he~.fe~'ls'-t-here· is a..=~'igni"f-~."c-a. nt.~-~ch-ang~ ..~ha~.t~-'..has t.ak'en pla'c-e and".tHe
- 1
Planning Commiss ion Page 2
~Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
SDR-1496 (cont.)
applicant should come in with a new sit'e Development Plan. Discussion
followed, and Commissioner. Crowther pointed out that there had been a lot of
neighborhood concern about this project regarding the access. He commented
that he thought it was'unfair .to the citizens to allow a major change in the
plan where the driveway is' coming off of a totally different si'de ofr'.the site
and off of a road that previously. was a'priVate road, without bringing it back
for another hearing.
Mr. Araldi stated that there was a great deal of concern in his favor by the
citizens of upper Canyon View Drive, because they did not like the way the
driveway was put in initially. Staff noted ~hat the Design Review will be a
public hearing.
The vote was taken to deny the extension for SDR-1496. TH~"~g't'TOH.'{'alled'~.u2,
'..~e.K.~ie. gY~'i.~ ~o'~ed to.ap~'~ove""the extension. Com'~i~sion'er N~ll~s ~'econded
the motion, which ~as carried. 4-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissent-
'BUILDING SITES ing.
2a. SDR-1532 - Cashin/Dean-Turner, Sara~oga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Build-
2b. A-846 ing Site.Approval and Design Review Approval to Construct a
Gas Station (adjacent to Blue Hills Shopping Center)
Staff described the project.'
Warren Heid, architect, asked for clarification of the conditions of the Staff
Report, and discussion followed specifically on Conditions II-C, D, E, P and Q,
VtI-A and VIII-C.
Richard Green, Union Oil Company, addressed the location of the kiosk. The
landscaping plans were discussed by Mr. Heid., Commissioner Bolger expressed
his concern that there is no overall concept of what the master plan or land-
scaping is going to be at the Blue Hills Center. He added that this was a
concern because it is a very large parcel of land in a very sensitive area.
The signage was discussed, specifically the price sign and the lowering and
relOcating of it. It was the consensus that the applicant should bring in the
sign as a separate application when'it is to be installed. It was also
suggested that.additional input on the randscaping be submitted at a later date.
Commissioner Crowther stated that the St. aff Report..'jsa~':'t'h~t'.'thi's .~roject is
totally i-n conformance with the 1974 General Plan, and the General Plan states
that this site shall be a park. He commented that he would have trouble
accepting that statement and he felt it 'should be eliminated.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified that ~that finding was made at the time of
the granting of the use permit and is re.quired for the Tentative Building Site
Approval; howe.v'er, it is not required fo'r the DeSign Review.' He added that,
with respect to landscaping and signage, the Commission can reserve final
judgment on it and have the applicant co.me back with final plans.
Commissioner Nellis stated that he felt 'the Commission could make the inter-
pretation that this is consistent with the 1974 General Plan, on the basis that
it is not feasible to put a park there under the current economic conditions
that the City is faced with.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the granting of the use permit indicated
an interpretation by the CommissiOn that the project could be considered as
consistent wi'th the General Plan based on the language concerning removal of
the existing station and reference to desire for landscaping.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR-1532, per the Staff Report dated
January 19, 1983 and Exhibit "B" Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion.
The motion was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-846, per the Staff Report dated
January 19, 1983 and Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E", excluding the landscaping
and signage. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1,
with Commissioner Bolger dissenting.
*Addition - CommiSsioner Hlava eXpresse~.rli~-"deslre..to have a'='c(~.ii~n~a'~'~'
sidewalk along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
- 2 -.
Planning Commiss ion Page 3
Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3a. V-597 - Gerald Butler, Lira Drive and Montalvo Road, Request for Design
3b. A-839 - Review Approval and Variance Approval to construct a two-story
single family dwelling on Lot 8, Tract 6732 near Lira Drive and
Montalvo' Road"in' the 'R-1-4'0','0'0.0..'zOning 'd.i'st:rict'
The proposal was described by Staff, who reported that because of the change
in the Design Review Ordinance the variance is no longer' required.
The public hearing was opened at. 8:35 p.m.
No one appeared, and Commissioner Siegfried moved.to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approvE A-839, making the findings in the
Staff Report dated January 11, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner
Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Bolger
dissenting.
4a. Negative Declaration SDR-1531 Wilson Development'
4b. SDR-1S31 Wilson Development, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval
for a 9olot subdivision for a site on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
near Tricia Way
Chairman-Schaefer discussed the 'study s'ession on this item and the three
traffic reports. She reported that the' neighbors had expressed concern
regarding (1)r~f~"~.~'the..Ch.f'l~r~B. on the street, (2) people moved in not
expecting that the street would. continue out, per their discussions with
Mr. Pinn, (3) the U-turns required if. access is off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,
(4) the noise abatement might' not be as' great because of opening up an area
onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and it would cause division of neighborhoods.
She added that the options that'would be considered tonight are whether the
project should access off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or Tricia Way, or a com-
bination of both. She indicated that the Commission is treating this as a
new application; however, realizing that whatever decis'ion is made will be
appealed to the City Council because of the agreement reached between the
developer' and the City Council.
Staff submitted the preliminary.map that had been submitted by Mr. Pinn in
1978, whjich' shows his intent.ions if he were to develop the two properties.
They explained that his map shows the extension of Tricia Way and shows some
10 lots proposed on the two adjacent 'parcels. They added that his map is
basically the same as has been presen'ted. The traffic studies that have
been done and the traffic counts in the 'area were discussed.
Commissioner Crowther asked' if it were futile'for the Commission to even con-
sider this issue of 9 lots 'off of Tricia because of the stipulation. The
Deputy City Attorney commented that his previous advice still stands. He
explained that thi's is a new map and the Commission should give their recom-
mendation to the City Council. The 'Council can stay by' the stipulation or it
can elect to go back to court. He added' that he feels it appropriate for the
Commission tO vote if there is a consensus for an alternative arrangement.
The public hearing was opened' at 8:50 p.m.
Dave Wilson, the applicant, compared the present proposal with the previous
one of 10 lots accessing off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road relative to the grad-
ing and the' impact on the pedestrian bike path and trees.
Alfred Ruffo, attorney representing the:homeowners in the area, discussed the
Negative Declaration regarding traffic. FIe discussed the traffic reports
that have been made and referenced the Subdivision Ordinance which relates
to more than 15 homes on a cul-de-sac. He commented that on the basis of the
ordinance and the General Plan it seems'that the weight of the language
definitely 'favors a rejection of a subdivision having more than 15 units unless
there is no other feasible method of development. He pointed out that the
developer did submit plans that did show 'otherwise, and there is an indication
that there 'is another feasible way of developing this property. He added
that he feels that the developer should be willing to compromise, as the
homeowners are. He indicated t. hat they would be willing to have 6 lots onto
Tricia Way and the othe~ on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
3
Planning Commission Page 4
Meet'ing Minutes 1/26/83
SDR-1531 (cont.)
Ron Piziali, 13123 Regan Lane, stated that all of the neighbors had approved
the map that the developer' had presented showi'ng 10 lots off of Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road and the developer' at 'that ti'me had stated that he was very
willing to develop the 'property tha't way. He 'indicated that there had been
a 2-2 split vote by the 'Council at that. time, and he urged the' Commission to
send that map back to them.
William Gloege, 13109 Regan Lane, submitted a petition against the present
proposal. He urged that if the project' is approved exiting onto Regan Lane,
that it be limited to 6 homes., He stated that the issue to consider at this
time is the impact of the proposed proj'ect on existing residents, proposed
new residents, and the City as a whole. ~H~' cited the followi'ng advantages
for 6 lots': (I) it remains consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance, (2) it
mitigate's the 'safety impact On the 'children in the area, (3) it mitigates the
negative impact that the sound b~rrier opening would have if there were either
emergency or complete access onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, (4) it reduces the
general impact on the Regan Lane area, and (5) it does not have the disad-
vantages Of the safety factors of opening on. to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
Bob 'Granum, Tricia Way, expressed his d. issatisfaction with the.process of
the development. He stated that there .is no way that t'he City can defend the
fact that there is not a feasible alter'native to developing this property. He
explained that he had researched the Subdivision Ordinance before he bought
his home, and it states clearly that yo~u have to show that there is no other
feasible alternative to developing that' property, and the applicant has pre-
sented such a plan. He added that he h'as had to come down to the City three
times' to protect his rights and~he is very upset with the process of exclud-
ing neighbors from the meeting where the stipulation was signed by the City
Council.
The Deputy City Attorney explained that there are only two situations where
a public body is allowed to meet in private, one beino to discuss litigation
and to receive 'advice and review the status of law suits with the City
Attorney's office. The resolution concerning the stipulation was discussed
and voted upon at a public meeting. He. added that litigation sessions do not
involve any other parties except the City Council; it is not a situation
where the developer or his attorney was present at any private meetin~ solely
between the Council and the City Att'orn~y's office where this lawsuit was
discussed. Discussion followed on the 'procedure 'used regarding litigation
SeSSiOnS. ~
Vera Carroll, Tricia Way, commented that they had not been told of the public
hearing on this matter or th~ acti'on taken.. It was noted that the hearing had
been agendized and published in the paper. Chairman Schaefer encouraged
everyone to either subscribe 'to the Saratoga News or the mailing list for
Council and Commission agendas.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that there is something here to be learned
by everyone, including the Council. He=stated that it is his personal opinion
that when that matter did come to vote as to the settlement, which was a
public matt6r., some effort should have been made to notify the people involved.
Mr. Gloege commented that there has been over th·e whole history of the project
a very good interchange of communication between the City and the residents
except during the issue of the settlement; there was no notification and no
communication on that.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Siegfried asked the City Attorney for clarification regarding
the section of the Subdivision Ordinance relative to a cul-de-sac and the
limitation of 400. ft.· He commented that it states that the advisory agency
has to find .~hoat' ..it'~'is the only feasible method of developing the property
unless any other m~thod of subdividing the property would create block lengths
of less than 800 '°ft.C .... He indicated that he inte'rpreted that to read that in
fact there need not be a finding in thi~ case that it is the only feasible
way of developing th~ property; the finding could be that the extension of
Tricia Way is appropriate in that any other method of developing the property
would·create block lengths less th~n 800 ft.
The Deputy City Attorney agreed that the sentence reads as a disjunctive. He
- 4 -
~la~ning Commission .... Page 5
=.Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
SDR- 1531 (cont.)
stated that he would like to check with Staff to see if this interpretation
has been a plied in any other situation. Commissioner Crowther indicated that it
appeared t~at the proposed interpretation did not make sense.
Commissioner Crowther expressed hi·s ·concern with ·the· Negative Declaration.
He indicated· that he feels with the number of public inputs and concerns on
this project,' particularly regarding tra'ffic, that the ·traffic reports are
grossly· .deficient and they don't really 'address thi·s project. He~_'j~·~m~n~e.·d"'~]~at
Commissioner '."Siegfried moved "'t6"'~.~p~'5'VS. 'thue' N~g.ati_ve "D~'dl'hratiSn~ .st.at~hg"' that he
Bolger and Crowther dissenting.
Commissioner' Siegfried moved that the access be as proposed by the developer,
namely an extension of Tricia Way as shown on his .map. Commissioner Nellis
seconded the motion. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he had not been
on the Commission. during the previous applications, and while reviewing the
reports several things came to mind: (1) the question of inconsistency with
the' Subdivision Ordinance. He indicated' that he feels that there is really
not an inconsistency because the only other way of accessing this property
results in a stree.t of SO0 or 600 ft.; (:2) If the access is off Tricia Way,
should the Commission consider limi[ing ,it only to 6 lots, thereby meeting the
situation of there only being IS homes' Off of the cul-d'e-sac. He stated that
he could think of no such instance'where the Commission denied an application
for more than 1-S homes' where a secondary' access could be provided. He added
that it was also his remembrance. during .the time that the Pinn Brothers sub-
division came in that the street was purposely stubbed where it was so that
it would provide access to the remaining: undeveloped properties. Commissioner
Cro~ther reminded Commissioner Siegfried that the applicant had indicated that access .off-..9.f
· .:'ga' ' og iglyvai&"f 6h'd"w6iild'2' ult' '.' ' ..........--.
.-,-':' .....~" ,::~ ......:· · ' '~'- .......~- _ "' ' j ' "'j:'2 ........'~' .... - ' - ,- -' .................. · . "" ' ~
"~'.C.ommiss io-n'er: Bolger stated that--he'-'cannot":-e'n'visiOn-this': _emergency ~Ce'S's' i's B.e_i__ng
.?'a, nyt-hi-ng more:-thanr.a~t-r.y~'to get 'the'-"maximuin""densTty out 6f-'th¥::'~g'ubdivisT6~-. He '~
-~d . .~-'t-.. -'-i.f-.-t,h:e-'appli'cafft 'wi'sh'~'s' to"--a'cc~ss-- off 'of:-Tricia' 'it "s't~6'til'd' '-b-e -st'ric'~t -
.................... the entire two' parcels which would be combined into one.
Commissioner Nellis stated that he could not agree with that comment re the
density, noting the 'fact that the zoning is R-1-12,500 and the size of the lots.
Commissioner' Bolger commented that if they wish to access them some other way
the R-i-12,S00 is 'applicable.
.:
Commissioner Crowther agreed with Commissioner Bolger', stating that he feels
that the access as shown is not protected and is a phony 'emergency access.
He stated that it is part of an individual's lot without anything separating
it from the' lot, and within a year or two it is not going to exist. He added
that he' thinks the project is not consis'tent with the General Plan, in addition
to not being consistent with the Subdivfsion Ordinance.
Commissioner Nellis commented that the iissue 'at this time is the difference
between the 9 lots proposed by the developer and the 6 lots favored by the
residents. He stated that he lives in an area that has a higher traffic
count than what is presented here, and he does not feel that his children's
safety has been jeopardized; he does not! feel that with. the addition of 3 lots
the safety of the residents on Tricia Way is jeopardized.
Commissioner Hlava stated that her prima'.ry concern is that she does not feel
the access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is: appropriate. She explained that she
feels that it would isolate the resultin!g street from all of their neighbors,
and she feels that it 'wOuld be very unsa'fe.
Commissioner Schaefer also strongly disagreed with the access to Saratoga-
Sunnyvale for the reasons stated by Commissioner Hlava, and in addition it would
also reduce the' noise barrier. ,
The vote was taken on the 'motion to have'. the access off of Tricia Way. The
motion was carried 4-2, with Commissionelr Bolger and Crowth'er dissenting.
Commissioner Crowther then moved to restrict this project to the conditions of
the General Plan, which 'states that there should be no more than 15 lots off
of a cul-de-sac; this would mean 6 lots 'in this subdivision. Commissioner
· *addition the project was res.:tri~'t'e_:d to 6 lots off of Tricia the applicant
5Z..'i~6=Ci.i~a:;i_~'Y~ii'~ a way to get access f6'r"th.e remainder of the lots.
~Pl~nnino Commission Page 6
· Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
SDR-'15'31 (cont.)
Bolger' seconded the motion.
Commissioner· Schaefer· cornmen'ted that when sh'e· voted· before on the previous
application she felt ·that the access sh·duld only be Tric'ia Way, and she
believes she voted for 6 lots;' she may have compromised for· 8.
The vote was taken on the motion, which resulted in a split vote 3-3, with
Commissioner Nellis, Hlava and·Siegfried dissenting.
Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve:SDR-1531, per the Staff Report and
as propose·d by the applicant. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which
resulted in a split ·vote 3-3, wi·th ·Commissioners Bolger,· Crowther and Schaefer
dissenting.
The Deputy City Attorney stated that the split vote constitutes a denial, and
the applicant has the right of appeal tO the City· Council within 10 calendar
days. He ·commented that he feels it has been indicated to the City Council
that the maj·ority of the Commission would consider Tricia the appropriate
access, but there is not a majority vote for 9 lots.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he voted for the SDR-1531 as proposed
be·cause he feels that it is a genuine secondary access. He reiterated that,
given that fact, he knows of no instance where the Commission has denied an
application for a number of lots that meets· the underlying zoning, provided
that the secondary access is there.
Commissioner Bolger commented that he· personally cannot make a finding that
this would be a secondary or emergency access.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would pr.e. fer'a compromise. She added
that she thinks the width of one of the. lots i·'s. 88 feet, and she feels that
because the development is abuting Sarafoga-Sunnyvale Road the' lots need to
be a little bit larger for more noise abatement. She commented that she
feels the· traffic is secondary; she doesn't think the traffic will be that
great· of an impact.
Break 9:55 - 10:10 p.m.
5a. A-8·45 Don Coffey, 13217 Padero Court, Request for Design Review and
5b. V-602 Variance Approval to construct a two-story single family dwelling
which encroaches into the ~equired side yard set·backs (20' where
· 3'0 ' .is re'qui're'd')'
The Land Use Committee gave an on-site visit, noting the following issue. L:
-"(~.i_.) .'~s'i.Z'e'.".qf~-ith.e.h'ome "for.~'th~-'.n'e"~ghb'0'.~hddd.~'. (2) compatibi'lity of design, (3) set-
backs, (4) What will happen to' th·e ·velocity of the creek· water when the creek
is straightened out; will ther·e be problems downstream to neighbors' land,
(5)' possible destruction of tree·s·,· and (6) proposed dec·k, its location and the
fact that it Spans the' creek.
Staff described the proposal. They reported that they received today a modi-
fication to the originally submitted plan which in effect reduces the work
witlain ·the swale ·and does not relocate the swale. They noted that the change
in zoning to NHR has changed the' setback standards for this lot, whereas the
balance of the ·subdivision was developed with 20' setbacks.
The public hearing was opened at 10:20 ,p.m.
Bill Heiss, civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project. He described
the changes which have been made to the plan. The setbacks, deck, and the
channel· we·re ·discussed. Mr. Heiss discussed the additional development in
the area wh·ich would increase the runoff.
Don Coff~5/;""'-tH~""'.~'~'ii~/~ant, described the project and discussed the size of
the other h'0ma'S in 'the' 'subdivision.
David House, 13223 Padero Court, inquired about the decking. Mr. Coffey
compared the amount .of decking on this home to others in the area. Mr. House
expressed· concern with the size ·of the house. He also noted that there had
been consider·able ·problems with 'slides· in the area.
The let·ter· from Mr. and Mrs. Franklin, expressing concern about the size and
6
.Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
A-845 and V-602 (cont.)
design of the home, was noted.
Nancy Olsen House, 13223 Padero Court, stated that some of the concerns 're
· the swale and the tree have bee'n answered. Mr. Heiss iclarified for her that
no excavation of the nose of"~h~ ~e~_~.jb_'ena':~'fl!'~'b~""~'~:~'.'' He .:ei~p~eS"~at"t~.~'e.,will be
a series of piers for the deck to avoid tH'e '~b"~"'o:~"the large oak tree.
Mrs. House expressed additional concef'ns regarding the siz~ of the house,
sin~e the buildable area is very small, and also that the house is located
too close to the cre~k in the new plan~
Jim L'ally, 13245 Padero Court, stated that there should be no variances to
the NHR Ordinance:~_for this development, since there are'a number of ways
that a home ~an:.~e".b~ilt that is consistent with the style of the neighborhood
and ordinance.
W.i'lliam Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, President of the Pierce Canyon Homeowners
Association, stated that he felt' the COmmission should have a study session
on this matter and listed the following concerns: (1) I't is not conforming
with neighborhood, since there are no two-story homes there; (2) It is
dangerous to build up to the creek; (3) the size of the lot. It was explained
th'at this is a lot of record and was subdivided before the Initiative.
There was a co'nsensus that the .major issues are design, size and compatibility
with the lot. ~I~ ~V~s'-Fj~7~.~'~'~Yd:-t~..'~'h~.j..~'~te'~7 ~.:...co~tinued to a study ses-
si'on on February 1, 1983 and the regular meeting on F~bruary 9, 1983. It
was.'suggested to the applicant that he 'come back with some other .alternatives.
Commissioner' Crowther requested Staff to supply information as to what would
be .required under the NHR Ordinance, to give some idea what the maximum size
.should be. Staff indicated that NHR .requires 3.9 .acres for a single house on
a lot with 31% slope.
6. A-847 - Ernest Westbrook, 14689 Aloha Avenue, Request for Design Review
Approval to locate a two-story single family dwelling
The proposal wa's described by Staff. The public hearing was opened at 10:55
Roger Kohler, the architect, ~poke on the project and appeared to answer any
questions.
Tony Pozos, 14704 Aloha, stated that there are only three two-story homes on
Aloha, all very close to the highway and not visible. He added that he would
prefer that the Commission give a variance to build a large single story
rather than a two-story. :
Jack Martin, 14718 Aloha, eXp'res'sed his opposition to a two'-story and the
'fear that the other vacant lots in that area would be built with two-stories.
Ann Onton, 14690 Aloha, inquired about .the 'tree'~ on the property.
Carol Kosos commen'ted that it should be. pointed' out that there have been
recommendations in the past that only single-story houses be constructed in
that area.
Hugh Brunner, Aloha Ave., spoke against. 'the two-story design.
Mr. Kohler' explained that if they go to'a one-story home the land will be
covered ~p much more and they would have to come forward; with the Tudor
~.'F~:~"f_"~.$~'dh the' impact wou].d probably be more than this design. He indicated
fhat they would be willing to set .the house 10 or 15 ft. back to lessen the
impact of th~ two-story house on the street'. The landscaping plans were dis-
cussed.
It was noted that in 'the original SDR approval it was stated that single story
structures shall be encouraged. Staff stated that the Staff has reviewed this
.application and concluded that this particular design will be compatible with
the neighbo'.rhOod'.
Kay Crawford, 14711 Aloha, indicated that when they were going to add on to
their home they considered a two-story design, but decided against it after
talking to .th'~ neighbors.
Commissioner Nellis stated' that he 'agreed that the character of the neighbor-
hood is single-story dwellings and he feels that it should be preserved. He
- 7 -
'Planning Commiss ion Page 8
"Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
A-847 (cont.)
indicated that he could not make the 'fihdings regarding the' excessive bulk
and compatibility wi'th the neighborhood.
Commissioner Crowther agreed that he 'could not make 'the findings, stating that
he would like to stay consisten't with 'the tentative map approval.
Commissioner' Siegfried moved to close 'the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried Unanimously.
'Commissioner' Siegfried stated that hE question~ the bulk; however, he does not
know that the answer is necessarily no two-story. He added that he is not sure
that a large 'single story home is always the bes't alternative.
Commissioner Hlava s'tated that, even though she was not on the Commission at
the time, there was a commitment made that the Commission is going to encourage
single story homes and she feels that should be followed. She indicated that
she could'not make the findings, and that a two-story will stick out in the
area.
Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A-8~7. .Commissioner Nellis seconded' the
motion.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she lives in a neighborhood where there is
a mixture of different types of homes; yet she understands the total desire
for privacy. She commented that she will vote against the motion, only because
she feels th'at perhaps with greater setbacks this could have been worked
through in a study session.
The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried.~'-!g.~ with Commis-
sioners Schaefer and Siegfried. dissenting.
The applicant was encouraged to work with the neighbors, to take a look at
.the .setbacks and some different options. The 10-day appeal period was noted.
7. A-848 - M. C. Johnson, Parcel A, Tract 6526, Parker Ranch Road, Request
for Design Review Approval to construct a onesstory s~ngle family
design
Staff discussed the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 11:20 p.m.
Bud Johnson, the applicant, spoke to the application. It was noted that the
location map was incorrect. Commissioner Crowther commented that he apparently
had looked at 'the 'site marked on the map and asked that this matter be con-
tinued so he could look at 'the proper site. Discussion followed on the white
color used, rather' th~n ea'rth tones, as other's in the subdivision. There was
a consensus to add a condition to require 'it to conform to earth tones.
Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
There 'was a consensus to continue the item to the Consent Calendar for the
meeting of February 9, 1983, to allow viewing of the proper site.
8. A-849 - William Belote, 12414 De Sanka Avenue, Request for Design Review
Approval to construct a second-story addition to a one-story
single 'family dwelling
It was directed that this'matter be continued to February 23, 1983.
9a. A-851 - Michael Mauldin, Bohlman Road, Request for Site Modification to
9b. V-603 - modify a front yard setback and Design Review and Variance Approv-
al to construct a two'-story single family dwelling on a site of
over 3'0'% in slope =
The Land Use' Committee gave a report on.the on-site visit. The public hearing
was opened at 11:30 p.m.
Bob Schwenke, the designer', concurred wi.th the St~ff Report. He commented
that he felt they had~addressed th'~ questions that the Planning Commission
had last 'year with'the larger home.'
Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried Unanimously.
- 8 -
· Pl-anning Commiss ion O Page 9
~Meet'ing Minutes 1/26/83
A'-'8'49 (cont.)
Commissioner Nellis moved to approve V-603, making the findings in the Staff
Report dated January 20, 1983. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion,
which Was 'carried' unanimously 6-0'.'
Commissioner' Crowther moved to approve A-851, per the 'Staff Report dated
January 20, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C", subj'ect to receipt of a letter
verifying adequate water' ~flow. Commissioner Nellis seconded the' motion, which
was carried unanimously 6-.0.
10. V-601 Glen McLaughlin, 20264 Ljepava, RequeSt for Variance Approval to
allow the construction of a one-story addition to a single family
dwelling which encroaches 'in'to 'the 'req'uired rear ya'rd
The Land Use Committee gave an on-site'v'isit report, noting no impact on the
privacy of the neighbors.
The public hearing was opened at 11:35 p.m.
Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Nellis moved to approve V-601, per the Staff Report dated Janu-
ary 17, 1983 and Exhibits "'B" and "C" The motion was carried unanimously
6-0.
DE'SIGN REVIEW
11. A-850 - Wells Fargo Bank, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Request for Design
Review to construct illuminated signs
-T'h~ pro.~s-al.-W~s 'de.scribed by Staff.
Commissi. oner Crowther stated that he did: not feel the signs appropriate for
Saratoga. He moved to deny A-8S0. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion,
Which was carried S-l, with Commissioner' Nellis dissenting.
12. A-832 - Slobodan Galeb, Tract S924 (yia Tesoro), Referral from City Council
to Consider Site Development' Plan Modification, Design Review,
Variance and Grading approval to construct a two-story single
family dwelling on a site of. greater than 10%
Staff' gave the history of the project, stating that under the new Design Review
Ordinance the variance is no longer needed.
Marty Oakley, architect,. discussed the circular driveway, wh'ich has been
lowered to reduce the amount of grading. The removal of trees was discussed.
Commissioner Hlava stated that she had made the motion to approve the variance
on the previous design, finding it compatible with the neighborhood, and she
would have 'no problem making the findings at this time. She moved to approve
A-832, mer the Staff Report dated January 12, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C"
making the findings. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion.
Commissi'oner Crowther stated that he opposes the proposal because he feels
that the garage could be located out toward the circular driveway and that the
20" oak tree could be saved. He added that he does not believe that this plan
is consistent wi'th that which the Commission discussed previously.
The' vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried 5-1, with Commis-
sioner Crowther dissenting.
COMMUNC IAT IONS
Oral
1. Discussi'on was 'held on a possible replacement for Commissioner Bolger
on the Heritage 'Commission. The scheduling of the meetings and time constraints
were discussed'. Staff was requested' to Write a letter to the City Council,
pointi'ng out 'the difficulty wfth the 'schedUling and suggesting that that they
look to citizens who' 'can provide that time 'during the' day.
2. Staff was reques'ted' to look into the 'meeting of conditions on the SDR
on Camino Barco previously 'discussed by the 'Commission.
9
~Planning Commission Page 10
Meeting Minutes 1/26/83
Oral Communications (Cont.)
3. It was directed that a request from Ruth & Going regarding the
removal of an oak tree at Montalvo and Lira Drive be continued to the study
· session on February 1, 1983.
4. City Council - Commissioner Nellis gave a brief report on the City
Council meeting held on January 19, 1983. A copy of the minutes of that
meeting are on file in the City Administration Office.
5. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attending
and serving coffee, and the Saratoga News for attending the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bolger moved to adjourn the' meeting. Commissioner Siegfried
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned
at 11:55 p.m.
Respect'fully submitted,
~ ~Shook
Secretary
RSS:cd