Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-1983 Planning Commission Minutes ~ ... CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 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, McGoldrick and Schaefer (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Nellis and Siegfried Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of February 9, 1983: On page 3, the first paragraph under SD-1509, (3) should read: length of cul-de-sac. On page 5, the last sentence should read: " .... there ·may be some danger of an attractive nuisance." Commissioner Bolger moved to waive the reading and approve the minutes of February 9, 1983 as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Resolution to City Council re Equestrian/Pedestrian Easement, Tracts 5575 and 6722, Carnelian Glen Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the'resolution, amended to have the third paragraph read: "Now, therefore·be it resolved that the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council retain the equestrian and pedestrian easement along Tract 5575 and Tract 6722'and enc6urage the citizens in the area to solve the problems associated with the easement. Should the property northwest of the subject property come in for development, the Planning Commission should consider relocation of the easement." Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2a. A-849 - William Belote, 12414 DeSanka Avenue, Request for Design Review 2b. SDR-1534 - and Tentative Building Site Approval to construct a second-story addition to a one-story single family dwelling; continued from January 26, 1983 Staff described the proposal, indicating that there is room on the site to pro- vide for a single-story addition. The correspondence received in favor of the project wa·s noted. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Bill Belote, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He referenced the petition submitted in favor of the project. Bob ·Do Amaral, the architect, described'the design of the home. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report on the project. Com- · missioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve ·A-849, per Exhibit "B", making the findings that it is compatible with the larger surrounding neighborhoods; the size of the lot warrants this size home, and it'does not interfere with ·the view and privacy of the neighbors. Commissioner. McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SDR-1534, per the Staff Report dated· Februa·ry 17, 1983 and Exhibit "B". Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. - 1 - P'l~ning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 2/23/83 3a. A-857 - Campbell and Van Valer, 14721 Sixth Street, Request'for Design 3b. V-605 - Review 'and Variance Approval to add a multi'-story addition to a .two'-s.tory dwelling wh'ich 'will maintain a 16' front yard setback where "25" 'is requir'e'd 'in"th'e"'R'-.l'--'10.,00'0'. zo'ni'ng dis'tri=ct Staff 'described the proposal. The'correspondence received on the project was noted. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report., stalting the. t- could n~ see'that the p~oject would h~er the' view. Commissioner Hlava not. ed~ · that.'all'.'of.'th.~ h~'UseS-on~h.at.'~'de'~o'f ~th'e'.~stre~.t"!-ha~e,.g.-arages · Sta~'f des'c~ibed'the entry i~to the driv.eway. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Dennis Burrow, the architect, gave a presentation on the project and discussed the driveway. Chairman Schaefer expres~sed her concern regarding setting a precedent for three-story structures. Mr. Burrow explained that the three-story aspect is primarily a technical definition, because the lower level where the garage is going is an illegal space for' any kind of habitation from the stand- point of the Building Department. He indicated that it would be partially screened by a deck, shrubs and landscaping. Staff noted that there are three levels. Harold Blair, 20761 Pamela Way, spoke in opposition to the driveway on Pamela because of'the steepness of the grade. 'Staff explained the construction of the driveway, indicating that it would enter onto Pamela near the corner, approxi- mately 20-25 feet from the pavement on Sixth Street. They added that there is a lesser' slope across this direction than coming straight' out to Pamela. They indicated that they did not believe that the location of the driveway would be a hazard, since it enters onto Pamela rather than Sixth Street. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the p~blic hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V-605, making the findings as stated in the Staff Report dated February 11, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-2, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A-857. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Hlava and McGoldrick dissent- ing. Commissioner Schaefer and Commissioner Bolger indicated that they had voted against the three-story aspect and because of concern regarding exiting near a corner on a driveway with a grade. Commissioner Schaefer added that she had no opposition to converting the garage into living space if a new driveway.' could be a little bit-further from the corner'. Commissioner Crowther stated that his basis fo.r denial was the third-story appearance from Pamela, the drive- ~ay being at the slant that it is near the corner of Sixth, and the traffic coming down Sixth. The 10-day appeal p~riod was noted. 4. A-853 -.~enneth J. Naber, 12460 Ted Avenue, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second-story addition to a one-story single family dwelling at Ted Ave. near Zorka Ave. in the R-l-10,000 zoning district; continued from February 9, 1983 The proposal was described by Staff., not'ing that there-is sufficient area on the site for a single-story addition. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use ~Committee Report. She commented that CommissiOner Nellis had noticed that the present deck outside seemed to have a pool in it and it appeared to'be very'.~ctose to ~he lot. line. She indicated that they saw 'no problem with the screen'ing .at the rea'r. Possible landscaping for screening purposes from a new'subdiv=is~on was discussed'. The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. The applicant spoke on the project, indicating that there is a two-story directly behind his property. He stated that he did not have room on the site for a one-story addition. ' "' ...... -- " " = '- - 2 - Plapning Commission '- " Page 3 Meeting Minutes 2/23/83 A-853 (cont.) Commissioner Crowther expressed a conce.rn regarding the' north side standing out. Mr. Naber stated that the additi'on will be in the back, and the view will be minimal from the front. Winston Chew, 12501 DeSanka Avenue, spoke in favor of the project, stating that there was minimal'impact. Commissioner Crowther moved. to approve A-853, per Exhibits "B" and "C". He made the findings, based on the evidence presented, that the perception of bulk will not be a problem and that there is not a compatibility problem because of the neighboring two-story and the.fact that 'the railroad tracks and the new sub- division are along the south side of this particular lot. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. The landscaping was discussed. Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to include the condition that there be appropriate landscaping on the south side to shield the structure', to be approved by Staff. Commissioner Bolger seconded the amendment. The vote was taken, and the amended motion was carried unanimously 5-0. 5. A-854 - Eugene and Jane Zambetti, 20680 Marion Road, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a one-story single family dwelling which 'exceeds the 'standard floor area at 20680 Marion Road (near Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) in .the R-1-12,500 zoning district; con- tinued from February 9, 1983 Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 8:23 p.m. Michael Lane, the architect representing' the applicant, submitted a model of the structure and gave a presentation on! the project. He explained that, along with the appearance of the house, they had chosen a roof angle to allow placing solar panels on the rear of the house as a part of the roofing design. He indicated that they would be happy to delete one of the car stalls or the solar greenhouse if it becomes necessary because of square footage. The telegram received from one of .the neighbors in opposition was noted. Dis- cussion followed on a possible additional condition regarding the access of that neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Campbell. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. · Commissioner Bolger commented that he thought that this was a lovely home; however, the issues he voted against regarding the Wilson home several months ago are essentially here again. He explained that this is an area that is primarily single-'story homes of considerably smaller size. He noted that this home is nearly 30 feet in height and he feels it is out'of character for a very lovely older n6i~gh'borhood. Commissioner Hlava commented that she had a somewhat similar reaction when she first looked 'at the home; she was really.concerned about the height of the roof and also the size. However, a good part of the reason why the size is large is because of the greenhouse, and the roof is the way it is because of ~pving the built-in solar panels. She added that she finds herself in a quandary because the City encourages the use of solar and more energy efficient designs'; however, when such a home comes in it does not meet the standards. She stated.that she probably will vote for'the design, since'it does not seem that anything is gained by taking one 'car stall away. Commissioner Schaefer stated, from her knowledge of solar designs, that the essence of the height of this home comes .more just from the design and that solar could be built in by having a much lower pitched roof. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that sh'e feels that this is a beautiful home, and in a differen't location she would be able to vote for it; however, she can- not make findings No. 2 and 3. Commi.ssioner Bolger moved to deny A-854. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner Schaefer stated that s'he would vote for..~h'e'a~pl'~cati'o'n 3 - e~ Pl.~nning Commiss ion O ~' Page 4 Meeting Minutes 2/23/83 A- 854 (cont .') because she feels that when it is appealed to the City Council they will approve it. She 'added that she did vot'e against the Wilson house because there was a question of compati'bi'lity regarding the height and size. The vote was taken to deny A-85.4. The motion w~s carried Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. ,6a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1527 - William Johnson. 6b.' SDR-1527 - William Johnson, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 2-lot subdivision 'at 18935 Monte Vista (near E1 Camino Grande); continued from February 9, 1983 7a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1533 - James & Michael Foley- 7b. SDR-1533 - James & Michael Foley, Monte Vista and Sobey Road, Request for 7c~ V-506 - Subdivision Approval for. a 3-lot subdivision for a site with access on Monte Vista Drive (betwe'en Montewo'od and E1 Camino Grande) and Sobey Road in the R-i-40,000 zoning district and Variance Approval to all~ow 'an existing garage to continue with' nonconforming side (10' where 20' is requi~ed) and rear yard (23 ' where 50 ' is requir. ed) setbacks; continued from February 9', 1983 It was noted that SDR-1527 and SDR-1533 will be continued. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Jim Foley stated that they were concerned about the timing of the Rounding Down Ordinance, since it adversely affects the project. He asked for a con- tinuance to March 9, 1983.' Dr. Johnson commented that he would be out of town for six weeks but would agree to the continuance to March 9th if Mr. Foley could represent them. It was directed that these items be continued to the meeting on March 9, 1983. 8. UP-528 Dwight Caswell (San Jose Symphony), 15095 Fruitvale Avenue, Request =for Use Permit Approval to conduct a "decorator's show- ho'use"' for a one-month period in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Chairman Schaefer discussed this. proposal and noted concerns regarding parking and traffic on Fruitvale and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. It was reported that Staff is asking that thi's item be continued so that the applicant may provide additional parking information. It was directed that this item be continued to March 9, 1983. 9. A-855 John Bergman, 1434'1 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review and Site Modification Approval .to construct a first and second story addition to an existing garage on a site of greater than 10% in slope in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. Commissi'oner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report, indicating that they had found no problem with the project. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p..m. Steve 'Elmore, the architect, gave a pre~sentation on the project. The existing retaining wall was discussed. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-855 per the Staff Report dated Febru- ary 15, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Myers, Farr Ranch Court (Parker Ranch), Request for Design Review Approval to construc.t a two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district Commissioner Crowther stepped down and abstained from the discussion .;..as. a""." - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 2/23/83 A- 856 (cont.) Commissioner and the voting on this item. The' Deputy City Attorney indicated that any comments Commissioner Crowther makes regarding this item should be 'as a citizen of Saratoga, instead of as. a Planning Commissioner, because of the pending litigation regarding thi's subdivision. Staff described the application. The'y' .explained that this is one of the two lots combined as a result of the reduction in density in the' negotiated settle- ment. They stated that these 'lots' were prohi'bited in the original development from having pools;' however, with 'th'e combining of the lots the 'applicant is requesting that a pool be allowed and that the CC&Rs be modified accordingly because of the' additional area involved in the lot. They added that the appli- cant intends to file a further application on the other lots on which they wish to request modification at a later time. It was noted that this applica- tion is for One site only. The public hearing was opened at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report. She reported that the pool is in the flatest spot and' the're are scenic easements to the rear of the house. Therefore, the nearest hous.e will be quite a distance downgrade. David Myers, the applicant, addressed the retaining wall, indicating that they have changed the material of the wall s.o it does not stick out. He stated that they plan to landscape in front of the wall. Mr. Myers expressed the importance of having a 5 ft.' wall and indicated that it would be of natural rock. Russell Crowther, Norada Court, stated that he had no specific comments on this particular design review,' except with r. espect to the background of-the'de. sign review. 'He made two points for the record: (1) He believes that the settle- ment that was negotiated in private bet~ween the developer and the City violates the constitutional right's of the SaratOga citizens and is not legal; and (2) The combination of lots he does not believe, to be a legal item because of the fact that a tentative 'map change was made wi'thout reissuing the tentative map. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously. The retaining wall and grading were dis.cussed. It was determined that the Staff Report should be amended to add the condition that the retaining wall be of natural rock. Commissioner BOlger moved to approve A-856 per the amended Staff Report ~dated February 16, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C", and also to recommend to the 'City Council to amend 'the CC&Rs to allow 'a pool on this site. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the action by the City Council would be 'to consent to an amendment of the CC&Rs; however, the amendment itself would have to be'. by the homeowners association. He added that the City would expect 'the applicant to provide .eV.fd'en.C~e _of_.'~}~e.='Vot'~"b'~'~'th-e a'~S"oci~'t'iO'~'~""" Commissioner Bolger added the condition' that there be an appropriate attach- ment from the homeowners association. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the amended motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner Crowther.abstain. ing. It.._was clarified to the.applicant that the .aijprova.l.was for"a 5 f.t...'~'].'ong rbt'ain- · .~i~g..~--a].l made. Of' h'at'ural'-rock. 11. V-541 - J. Brozda, 14503 Big Basin Way (Maddalena's), Request for Variance Approval from the parking requirements described in Section 11.2 of the zoning ordinance for a restaurant/retail sales in the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district Staff reviewed the history of this applzication. They noted that it had been extended for a six-month period to allow the applicants to obtain the required parking and thus far they have not been able to do so. The public hearing was opened at 9:28 p...m. Doug Adams, attorney representing the applicant, explained the history of the application and discussed the different. approaches 'that 'had been used to obtain parking, i.e. the Sorenson/Garner, Bank .of America and the Kocher properties. He also discussed the previous Van Arsdale judgment in which an agreement was entered into which gave the Van Arsdales parking spaces along the side of the public street. He explained that the parking places are on - 5 - Plann~ing Commission Page 6 Me~ting Minutes 2/23/83 V- 54 1 (cont.) the applicants' property.; howe.ver, the ~City h~s a public easement across that property which they call a public street'.. He cornmen'ted that 'the Staff has taken the position that these parking places' do not count because they are not on site. Mr. Adams noted th.e support for th~ project in the Village. Mardi Gualtieri Bennett addres'sed"the Commission, stating that she had written the Heritage Preservation Ordinance fo~. the' 'City. She 'quoted sections of the ordinance wh'ich 'she feels. pertain to' .this prop'er'ty. She referenced the Los Gatos Ordinance which' wa's applied to 'the 'granting of a variance for park- ing to the' Toll House, a historical str'ucture in Los Gatos. She commented that the same language 'is 'contained in Secti'on 9 of the City of Saratoga's ordinance and added' that sh'e feels it w. ill cause a hardship. for the applicant if this parking variance is not granted. She indicated that the Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission feels that Maddalena's i'~' a distinct addition to the viability of the historic Village neighb'orhood, and the preservation of the building should be maintained at all cost. Barbara Baylson, 178 Loma Alta Ave., Los Gatos, spoke in favor of the project. She explained that she had owned a store in Los Gatos and could not make it through the economy. She indicated that part of the problem was that a lot of the restaurants were closed on Sundays and Mondays. Ms. Baylson added that she feels that Maddalena's is an enhancement to all the other businesses and. urged the Commission to keep it open. Bunny Rouse, Mr. Maddalena's partner, spoke in favor of the project. She described the Upstairs project and stated that they have spent a lot of money preser'vin-g the historic value of the house. Commissioner Schaefer asked if she coula see the possibility of the applicants paying the amount per year that it would cost to be 'in a parking district until the parking could be worked outS' She explained that thi's money could be used for the beautificati'on of downtown Saratoga, etc., and Ms. Rouse indicated that she felt that could be a poss'ibi'lity. Staff clarified that, regarding the Van Arsdale settlement, it is the inter- p~etation of the City. that the parking spaces are in the public right-of-way and are no dif'~er'ent than those 'parking.spaces on any other public street which are not counted as on-site spaces. They pointed out that the Kocher parking spaces referred to previously by Mr. Adams may now be incorporated in The Inn. development and may not be available. Mr..Adams indicated that the Bank of America had stated that it was their policy to be very cooperative with merchants regarding parking when they are not using it, but not to tie themselves 'up in any way legally by putting it in writing. Commissioner Crowther suggested that perhaps if the Bank of America were approached by the City the~ would enter into an agreement with t]~e C i ty. Chairman Schaefer questioned the Deputy ZCity Attorney regarding the applicants paying a yearly amount until the parking is resolved. The Deputy City Attor- ney commented M~at he would have to check to see if there were any legal rami- fications regarding the "in lieu of fee's"'. concept be'i'ng applied with respect to a variance. ~ He indicated'.that he would review the' present ordinances to determine if the City has the authority to impose that particular kind of con- dition for the granting of a variance. Commissioner Crowther noted that the historical aspect had not come up before. He stated that the major concern of the Commission had been to not set a prece- dent, but if this is indeed designated as 'a historical site and th'ere is a reason to-grant an exception, then he would perhaps see fit to grant the vari- ance if some relief on the parking could be achieved. He indicated that he would like to give the Deputy City Attor'ney time to look into the legal aspects of a financial payment by the applicants until such time as the parking is resolved and to give his opinion regarding the Van Arsdale settlement. He commented that he would also like to hav'e Staff determine wh~ther there might be some way to approach the Bank of Amer'ica. Chairman Schaefer' ex'pres's'ed her concern regarding the City getting involved for the benefit of one busines's. Commissioner Crowther commented that it should be done on a generic basis. Commissioner Hlava moved to close. the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Planning Commission " Page 7 · ~ Me~ting Minutes 2/23/83 V-541 (cont.) 'Commissioner Hlava commented that when a Specific Plan for the Village Was' discussed this~was one of tile topics. .She pointed out that there are numer- ous problems with it, because today there may be a restaurant there tha~ is compatible with the bank, and tomorrow 'there may be another bank which would be incompatible relative to shared parking. She added that she'would be will'-' ing to discuss doing it on a generic b~sis along with the Specific Plan for the Village; however, she does not think it is appropriate to do it before that time. She also indicated that she has .a real problem in considering public parking spaces on a public street as be'ing designated for part of the on-'site parking.that is required from different' businesses. She commented that it would be a terrible precedent to set when' other people are asked to provide private' parking. (~the idea of businesses.sharing parking) Com'missioner Bolger stated that he feels this particular situation is .in a great deal of flux, with the Historical Preservation Ordinance and the Village Specific Plan now coming into being. He commented that, because of those two particular issues and the fact that there is a very successful business there which is a real asset to the business Community, it would be inappropriate to ask Maddalena's to cease and desist. He added that he feels that there are a lot of issues that have to be addressed further and one year would be a mini- mum timef~ame in order to resolve them. Staff commented that .the Van Arsale site includes not only this structure but the two other structures. Therefore, even if it were concluded that those four spaces could be assigned to this site, it would then be a matter of d~termining whether they should be assigned to this specific use. There was a consensus to defer this matter until.the two issues discussed can be reviewed. It wa's directed that this item be continued to April 13, 1983. 12. GPA 83-1-B - DiManto, Consideration of Changing the General Plan Desig- nation from Very Low Density Residential to Slope Conservation of a portion of a 7.4 acre parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 517-22-77, located at the terminus of Madrone Hill Road, Saratoga, CA, and consideration of designating in the General Plan three parcels (16+ acres) as partially Very Low Density Residential' and partially Slope ConServation. Said.parcels to be annexed to the City of Saratoga. These parcels are designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 517-23-35,36,37 and are located adjacent to, and south of the parcel men- tioned above and on the west side of Peach Hill Road, in Santa Clara County 13. C-200 DiManto, Consideration of Rezoning from R-i-40,000 to HC-RD a portion of a 7.4 acre parcel designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN 517-22-77, located at ~he terminus of Madron~ Hill Road, Sara- toga, CA, and consideration of zoning three'parcels (16+ acres) partially as R-I-40,000 and partially HC-RD. Said parcels to be ~nnexed to the City of Saratoga. These parcels are designated in the Santa Clara County Assessor's Book as APN-517-23-35,36,37 and are located adjacent to, and south of, the parcel mentioned above ~nd on the west side of Peach Hill Road in Santa 'Clara County, CA. The public hearing on the above two items was opened at 10:15 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the project, appeared.to answer questions, stating that these applications would realign the zoning lines to conform to the ultimate property lines. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava s~econded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt Resolution 83-1-B, recommending approval of the General Plan amendment to the City Council. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Hlava moved to adopt Resoiution C-200, recommending approval of the rezoning to the City Council, per-the Staff Report dated February 16, 1983. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. - 7 - ~la.~nning Cornmiss ion Page 8 Meeting Minutes 2/23/83 14. Amendment to Section 13.9-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Consideration of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to require that the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a subdivision as determined through the slope density calculation be rounded down to the next whole number for -.~ any. fraction of a unit It was reported that the previous discussion by the Commission on this matter had been held at a study session; therefore, the Council had referred it back for recorded public input. The correspondence received on this matter was noted. Chairman Schaefer gave "the history of the change to the ordinance 'regarding this subject. Commissioner Crowther noted that the change that was'made in. the ordinance to permit rounding up was made in 1976. He stated that one of the major reasons that many of the Commissioners favored .rounding down' in the previous discussion was because other ordinances in the City, i.e. the HCRD Ordinance, require rounding down' and therefore the're 'was an issue of consistency. He noted that there was also a concern regarding resubdivision. The Deputy City Attorney clarified to Commissioner Crowther that if the individual lots as established under one 'ordinance are large enough 'that they would then permit further sub- division under' later ordinances,' they could be split. The public b. ea'ring was opened at 10:20 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, spoke in favor of rounding to the nearest whole numbe. r. He stated that he had determined that there would be about 30 ultimate lots that would be affected and he feels that it is wasteful. just to arbitrari- ly round down if it meets all the other~ requirements. He pointed out that the slope density concept already reduces density; there would still have to be the 40,000 sq. ft. minimum si. te area. Mr. Heiss commented that he did not feel that this issue would affect the big subdivisions but would affect the small projects, since all of the develo.pment costs would remain the same but ~utting fewer homes on the site would be economically unfeasible. Commissioner Crowther asked Mr. Heiss i'f he felt that it is good planning to lay out the streets of a subdivision and do the overall broad 'planning, and then later On subdivide the lots within that subdivision, which in effect this rounding up change permitted. Mr. Heis's commented that as a principle he thinks .it would be inappropriate. He e.xplained that h.e .does not do any densi- ty computations un. til he first does an .analysis of the building sites. If the building site is not appropriate then i=t makes' .no sense to allow it to be divided either in the original instance or later. .He added that it seems that the City has adequate regulations and controls to prevent resubdivision if it is inappropriate. Mr. Heiss noted the .exceptions to the City regulations that are made. Co'mmissioner Crowther commented that in cases where they were not part of a major subdivision he would have no problem with that rounding procedure. How- ever, for cases where there is a major subdivision and it comes back for sub- dividin~ individual lots after all planning has been done he feels it should ~ ' be on a rounding down basis. FIe added that he would be in favor of somehow tailoring what the 'City does to .distinguish between those two types of situa- tions. Mr. Heiss suggested that perhaps Staff could analyze the R-I-40,000 district to see just who and what will be affected. Jim Foley spoke in favor of rounding up, stating that the amendment would adversely affect his property. He commented that he feels if the ordinance is changed to round down there is the possibility in the future that there will be large pieces of land that could be adversely developed with much higher densities. Shelley Williams, representing the Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of ~ealtors, reference~ the letter from them' in favor of rounding up because of the tre- mendous housing shortage and economy. James Foley, Sr. spoke in favor of rounding up, stating that he feels there should be an extremely compelling reason for it to be changed now. Commissioner. Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 'unanimously. 'Commissioner McGoldrick stated that sh~ believes in the Specific Plan and feels that it was built on the idea that things are different in the hill- sides, so to say that consistency is needed does not make any sense at all. - 8 - · Planning Commission Page 9 Mee~'i'ng Minutes 2/23/83 _,, ,Rounding Down Ordinance (cont .) She ,.'~"~'~'~'.~'F ~' ~"~'i'at'i'~e~!' ~'i'~."' l~n'a~' are d.i~gr~H't ~.a'.."~-' f~=~.~_-~.f~,'a~ ~h~~ c~.~ has adequate control'on the resubdividifig without 'any problems. She added that she would be in favor of rounding to the nearest' whole number. It was noted that this issue only applies to lands with 'slope over 10%. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he'would like to postpone a decision on this matter until Staff can do a summary of how many of.these sites which would be affected are in major subdivisions. The time involved for this summary was discussed. Commissioner Hlava stated that she feels a lot differently about the matter after having heard the public input. She' indicated that it now seems that rounding'to the nearest whole number is:certainly a logical way to go about this. She' explained that 'the City still has the option of determining if a site is an appropriate building site or if there is access. She noted the e~ceptions that have been made'on more than four houses on a minimum access road. She added that she felt the ordinance should be left the way it is, with- out Staff doing an enormous study. Commissi.oner' Schaefer ~ommented that 'sh~ has felt very strongly that it should be rounded.down because she lives in an~area where there are lots that are~..6 acres, and if it is rounded up a home for-a 1-acre site could be built on ~tH~-m. It was pointed ou~ that a lot would still need the site area of 40,000 sq. ft. net, and that roads or private accesses :are not now included in the net. I~ was noted 't-hat a resolution had previously bee.n forwarded to the City Coun- cil, recommending that the ordinance be rounded down. Commissioner Hlava moved that Staff should send a report to the City Council stating that the Commission has reconsidered their decision and would like to recommend no change to this ordinance. .Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the'motion. The motion failed.3-2, with Commissioners Bolger,. Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. It was clarified that a report will go bac~ to the Council that there is a recom- mendation with a 3-2 vote for the amendment to round down. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger listed their reasons for their vote: (1) con- sistency with the HCRD Ordinance, and'(2) avoiding resubdivisions in existing subdivisions wi'th associated access and other problems. MISCELLANEOUS 15. A-850 - Wells Faro Bank, Sara~oga-Lo.s Gatos Road, Reconsideration of Design Review Approval to construct illuminated sign It was noted that this item is being reconsidered'because there had been a misinterpretation in the Staff Report. Staff described the proposal. Deb Patton, from Mina Tree, Inc., discussed the proposal., explaining that the 24-hour sign is needed to direct customers to the 24-hour banking and the automatic teller machine. Commissioner Hlava asked if there were some kind of.light'ing in the alcove at night so it is already lit up. Ms. Patton explained that the automatic teller itself is lit and also above it. She pointed out that there are other busi- nesses surrounding th'e area that are very well lit. The safety aspects were discussed. It was clarified that there was a similar sign on Saratoga Avenue and it is not very bright. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she would deny any kind of lighted sign because she does not care for any kind of lighting along that area, and she feels that the people who bank there will know that it is 24-hour. She moved to deny 'A-850. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she'had voted against the application because she thinks that it is the beginning of a rural dark area and residents in that area stated that they.do not like lights. She added that they feel th'at burglaries and. crime have been kept'down in that area at night because there are no lights. She commented that she feels that the people who bank there are basically Saratoga residents and they will know that it is there. Commissioner Bolger cited the safety issue as well. Commissioner Crowther stated that 'he feels it would detract from the aesthetics of the building and he does not feel it is a very attractive sign. - 9 - '~' P~nning Commission Page 10 · , ~eeting Minutes 2/23/83 A-850 (cont.) Commissioner Hlava stated that she had voted for' the application because the sign meets all of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. She added that she feels. that this is basically part of our downtown' commercial area and is .shrr.ou~'~l'~d' by buildings which 'also have lit signs. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter dated February 8, 1983 from Saratoga Real, Inc. Discus- sion was held on the request to add savings and loan institutions as a con- ditional use in the P-A zoning district at the corner o.f Saratoga .Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The possible bank traffic going in and out of that location was noted. There was a consensus not to add this as a conditional use, and Staff was directed to send a letter to Saratoga Real to that effect. Oral 1. Commissioner Bolger was appointed to represent the Planning Com- missi'on on the Advisory Committee on Utilization of School Property. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked the' Saratoga News and Good Government Group for attending. Respectfully submitted, SeCretary RSS:cd