Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wedhesday, April 13, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Bolger Minutes The spelling of Joan Bose's name was"noted. Commissioner Nellis moved to waive the reading of the minutes of March 23, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,~which was carried, with Commissioner McGoldrick abstaining since she had not received a copy of the minutes to review, and Commissioner Crowther abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR SDR-1272 was removed for discussion. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the balance of the items on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 1. .SDR-1453 - Michael Conn and Carole Wellbeloved, Vaquero Court, Request for One-Year Extension 2. A-775 Dividend Development Lot'4, Tract 6722, Carnelian Glen, Request for One-Year. Extension Discussion followed on SDR-1272. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was troubled by the wording in Mr. Cotton's letter regarding the si. te.and wanted some reassurance that there will be no future problems, especially since the site is so close to the creek. Staff commented that Mr. Cotton does recommend approval subject to the usual condition'that the soils engineer submit a report, and no subsequent major problems are anticipated. Mrs. House, the applicant, discussed the location of the deck relative to the creek. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve the site modification for SDR-1272. Com- missioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. GPA-83-1-A - Consideration of Draft.Housing Element of the City of Saratoga and Environmental Impact Report; continued from March 23, 1983 Chairman Schaefer noted that at the last study session the Commission had review- ed and omitted many items that referred .to waiving fees in order to reduce the cost of building and comments about increas. ing the density of homes in order to allow more homes on a one acre site. She added that there was emphasis that people were .in favor of alternative housing for Seniors and the Commission would welcome'input. She noted that they are considering the housing plans of other cities similar to Saratoga. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that he had distributed an outline listing the basic requirements of the major housing legislation in the State. He commented that he would be happy to focus in more detail on any of the items if the Commission wishes. The public hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m. Staff noted letters received from the Senior Coordinating Council and the Los Gatos-Sarat0ga Board of Realtors. Paul Stewart, representing the Building Industry Association, commended the Pi~ni~g Commiss'ion - Page 2 · Meeting Minutes 4/13/83 GPA- 83-1-A (cont.) Commission on deleting the section regarding mandatory inclusionary housing. He suggested keeping the section regardi=ng waiving fees as a goal if not a specific guideline. He inquired regarding the PRD Ordinance, and Staff explain- ed that if the Commission does not support the notion of higher densities to meet the needs indicated by ABAG in terms of low and very low income households, then there is no reason to modify the PRD Ordinance. He added that, in terms of deed restrictions to ensure that low to .moderate income households are main- tained in a particular project, Staff does not see a need for that unless the Commission decides to deal with that as part of the second unit ordinance. Carol Connors, of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realtors, referenced their letter and asked the Commission to reconsider some of the deletions regarding 'reference to higher densities, and sta~ed that they were very supportive of second units. She questioned the implementation of second units, and Chairman Schaefer clarified that rental control is not being considered nor deed restric- tions. She added that the intent is to legalize second units so they could be counted as part of the housing stock. Ms. Connors indicated that they did not want the ordinance to classify second units only fo~ low and moderate income households. She added that the division of existing single ~amily homes into duplexes should be included in the consideration of second units. Commissioner Crowther stated his opposition to second units because he feels it would be di. fficult to set standards or ~estr'ictions, and it violates the funda- mental principle of single family residential. Discussion followed on the setting of standards and the use permit. procedure. Commissioner Siegfried com- mented that he feels the City should at least look at the idea of second units to see if it is a way to provide some alternatives. Chairman Schaefer stated that by State guidelines the City must address the issues of second units and manufactured housing. Mildred Gordon, of the Senior Coordinating Council, referenced their letter and stated that they were in favor of alternative housi-ng for seniors. She urged the Commission to keep options open when planning the zoning. R. E. Kaufman, member of the Senior Citi'zens Coordinating. Council, stated that if the City removes all of the options and limits the density to that 'achieved only with single family units, they will' create a hopeless situation for the senior citizens or disabled retirees. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels that the City needs to look closely at the senior citizen projects that have already been developed in Saratoga. He noted the Lohr development and the f~ct that they asked the Commission to change the standards away from senior citizens. He added that the cos~ of the units' were far above what most senior ci'tizens could afford. Terry G~swo~ expressed the ~ee~ngs o~ the qu~to ~es~dents ~ega~8~ng th~s ~ssue. She ~cate8 that they wou~8 ~ke to see something so that the sen~o~s wou~ have a~o~dab~e housing. She aBde8 that ~t ~ou~d a~so. o~en u~ the ne~gh- boH~oo8 ~th mo~e a~o~Bab~e homes ~ot young ~a~Z~es. She u~ged the Commis- sion to co~s~e~ so~e ~o~ cost housing ~ot sen~o~s. Ca~o~ ~acho~ a~scusse~ the ~o~nt o~ v~e~{ that oCcu~re~ .at :the .CAC ~eetings. She ~o~ted out that the~e had been unanimous consensus that u~deve~ope8 s~tes zoned ~o~ s~ng~e [a~y ~es~Bent~a~ sha~.} temaj_n so designated; the~e was gen- e~a~ d~sa~ova~ o~ dap~ezes o~ ~a~o ho~es; a m~xe8 vote 'on 'condos ~n support ~o~ ~enta~ apartments ~ed to the V~age a~ea, ~th a m~no~ty A~eas D an~ ~ ~avo~ng mo~e tenta~s ~or 'sen~o~ c~t~zens; an overwhelming C~ty- ~de opposition to mu~t~-~am~Zy sabs~d~ea housing, a~d 8~scuss~o~ o~ schoo~ s~tes Eo~ ~o~ dens~tl. ~s. ~acho~ questioned the concept o~ manu{actu~ea housing ~ general. Chairman Schae~e~ commented that ~t was mentioned at the study session that the~e ~s no ~ten~cm o[ suggesting that aanufactu~e~ hous- ing go o~ any schoo~ s~tes. ~s; ~achol .also addressed the ~e~o~sh~ ~aza an~ Loht ~oject, ~cat~ng that a very sma~ percentage o~ the occupants Satatogans~ and that Saratoga sen~ot c~t~zens can not 'qua~y ~o~ subsidized housing. She u~ged the Commission to no't ~et ~n ~o~ cost sabs'~a~zea housing ~hen ~t ~s ~ot meeting the needs ~o~ which ~ ~as intended, a~8 also to not have h~gh density ~enta~s. B~an ~ZZs, Ve~ae Cou~t, questioned ~ewt~t~ng the Housing ~ement at th~s t~me when t~o-th~ds o~ the c~t~es ~ Ca~or~a a~e not. Chairman Schae~e~ ~na~cated that a~ o~ the c~t~es a~e beginning te ~ev~e~ the Housing ~ement an8 a88~ess- ~g how they ~ntend to meet ot not meet: 'the guidelines ~oa A~AG ot the State. ~s. ~s a~so commented that at the Genera~ ~an meetings the~e was an agree- Pl.~ning CommiSsion -- Page 3 Meeting Minutes 4/13/83 GPA- 83 - 1-A (cont.) ment that they do not want to increase density in single family residential units. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Drive, urged the Commission to follow a path of moderation and balance in lOgoking at the Housing Element. He noted that he understood that the people in the Quito area-gave senior housing top priority among their list of roles and objectives. He commented that Saratoga is aging and the situation calls for some compassion in dealing with this problem. ~Addition listed on Page 3a It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on April 26, 1983 and the regular meeting of April 27', 1983. 5a. Negative Declaration SD-1512 - Los' Gatos Joint Union High School District 5b. SD-1512 - Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 5-lot subdivision for a site off Herriman Avenue near River Ranch Circle (with access from Alta Vista Avenue) in the R- 1-12,500 zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued. to May '11, 1983, at the request o.f the applicant. 6~ A-861 Gerald Butler, Lot #4, Tract~6632,.Montalvo Road, Request for Design Review Approval to construct'a two-story single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning d'istrict (near Lira Drive) Chairman Schaefer noted the concerns of th'e neighbors at the previous meeting and stated that this matter had been continued in order to get input on the appro'ximate size of the homes in the area. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Gerald. Butler, the applicant, stated that he felt the letter from the Montalvo Homeowners Association regarding the size of the homes in the area is completely biased and the sizes of the homes stated'~ in it are not accurate, noting that Mr. Shortino's home was left completely off. He indicated.that he meets the ordinance.requirements and feels that th~ house is adequate for the area. Don Call, of the Montalvo Homeowners Association, referenced the letter they had submitted. He described the homes in the area. He noted that they were concerned with traffic and specifically Setting a precedent ~i~nde ~his is~'th~ first of 13 sites on which the applicant will be building in the area. Winifred Miller, 20~60 Montalvo, voiced Objection to the large .house on a small lot. Alma Arata, 20400 Hill Avenue, described~ the area and asked .for a balance. She commented that if expensive homes were allowed in the area the senior citizens would be' forced to go elsewhere because of increased property taxes. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close th~ public hearing. 'Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she feels the house is too .large. She stated that the house is set up above the road level and the look provides more bulk because of that fact. .She added that she could not make the findings. Commissioner Crowther agreed, stating that he could not make the third finding. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he. could not make the finding if someone were attempting to set this house in the middle of homes that were 3,000 or 4,000 sq.. ft. He stated that he feels that this house is not impacting visually anyone else and he feels it is compatible with. the area. He noted that a number of. the other homes in th~ area, while they are single story and smaller visually, appear to be quite large. He added that he can make the findings, at least for th~s particular site. CommisSioner Schaefer agreed~,' Stating fh.at sh~ did not see this as a precedent setting kind of situation and would only. see it as applying to this one lot, since she understands the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-861 per the Staff Report dated April 6', 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". The motion failed for lack of a second. - 3 - ~Planning Commission ~' =..~... Page 3a Meeting Minutes 4/1.3/ GPA-83-1 (cont.) Commissioner Crowther commended the Deputy City Attorney on the comprehen- sive legal review of the new Housing Element and mobile home laws, He requested that a similar review be completed on the open space laws which were legislated in the early 1970's and expressed the concern that the City was still in violation of these laws and indicated a concern that the City was focusi~ on recently adopted legislation while ignoring earlier Open Space legislation, Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 4/13/83 A- 861 (cont.) Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A-861, based on the· discussions. Commis- sioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Siegfried and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Hlava commented that the ma'jor reason why she voted tO deny this application is because she does see it as setting a precedent·.` She'-·a~de·~L that she feels that this subdivision in its entirely impacts the other homes in the area, and there is a problem with compatibility. Commissioner Nellis also noted that he cannot make the findings regarding compatibility. The 10- day appeal period was noted. 7a. A-852 - Thomas Whitney, 14880 Sobey Road, Request for Building Site 7b. SDR-1536 - Approval and Design Review Approval to construct a two-story addition to a one-story single family dwelling in.the R-I-40,000 zoning district (near Springbrook Lane) Commissioner McGoldrick gave an on-site .inspection. Staff described the pro- posal. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. The conditions of the Staff Report were clarified to Roger Kohler, the architect. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve :A-852 per ·the Staff Report dated April 6, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C", and SDR-1536 per the' Staff Report and Exhibit "B". Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 8. 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 Zonino Ordinance for a restaurant/retail sales in the C-C zoning district (near 3rd Street) Chairman Schaefer gave the history of the application. She noted that some cities are now requiring in lieu payments for parking spaces not provided from a business. It was the consensus that this matter be continued to May 11, 1983 so that this information may be obtained from Carmel and Monterey. The public hearing was opened at 9:02 p.m. Mr. Doug Adams stated that he would give comments at the next meeting. The Deputy City Attorney asked Mr. Adams to coordinate with ·his office prior to the next ~eeting. H~ added that he will review the legislation from Carmel and Monterey to determine if it would be an option. He stated that if it is an option it would be an option possibly to be adopted on a much broader scale, no doubt in connection with the Village as a whole and not just simply confined to Maddalena's. It was directed that this matter be continued to May 11, 1983. Break 9:05 p.m. 9:20 p.m. (Commissioner Crowther left at 9:05 p.m.) 9a. 'V-605 Campbell and Van Valer, 14721 Sixth Street, Request for Design 9b. A-857 Review and Variance Approval to add a multi-story addition to a two-story dwelling which will maintain a 16' front yard setback where 25' is required in the R-l-10,000 zoning district (recon- siderat ion) · Staff described the proposal and gave the history of the project. The issues of the project were noted. A letter from the residents on the street stating their concern about parking, the driveway and setting a precedent was noted. · The' public hearing was opened at 9:21 p.m. Vicki Van Valer·, the ·applicant, thanked the Commission for their reconsidera- tion. She· ·addreSsed the peti··tion.of the four neighbors and also submitted a letter· in support of the project ~ She commented that they had shown their plans to all of the neighbors. She described the proposal and existing landscaping. Mary Moss, 20777 Pamela Way, spoke ·to the exit of the driveway and the dangerous corner at Sixth Street. She· ·indicated that the ·eXisting building is at the highest point on the street and if a second floor were built it would be tower- ing over. the street. She also noted the springs in the hillside. ':"'.'::' ':"':' : ': "' :' 4 :: Pl~anning Commission Page ., _~eting Minutes 4/13/83 V-605 and A-857 (cont.) Sue Robertson, 14730 Sixth Street, spoke in favor of the project. Mr. LeisH=~'~,-- 20770 Pamela Way, voiced 'his objection'to the project. He stated that the existing home is now a two'-story home and a three-story home would be an eyesore to the neighborhood,' would depreciate his property and take away his privacy. He noted that he had given up his previous plans for a second story because of the neighbors' wishes. Dennis Burrow, the architect, described the driveway and addressed the slope of it. ~ Mary Lynn Dutro, Pamela Way, spoke in support of the project. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava stated that she had voted for the application at the previous meeting because she did not have a problem making the variance or design review findings. She commented that she feels 'that it is a very unique lot and sub- standard in size. She added that she feels this will be an enhancement and the driveway access will be safer than what is currently there. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed. She stated that, although she is very sensitive to the neighbor's feeling about privacy, she feels that with the existing land- scaping it will not impact, and the height falls within the range of the ordi- nance. i Commissioner Nellis commented that he can support the variance and design review. Commissioner Schaefer "asked Mr. Eeishman if removal of some of the windows and adding sky lights, specifically in the rear, would help mitigate some of his privacy concerns. Mr. Leishman commented that this would not help; he would still be opposed to the project. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels that the applicants have done a nice job with tILe plans and have offered to do everything possible in terms of their not being able to look down on the adjacent property. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V-60S, making the findings in the Staff Report dated February 11, 1983, per Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S-0. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-857, per the Staff Report dated February 11, 1983 and Exhi- bits "B" and "C", making the findings. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 'Chairman Schaefer added that she would encourage the applicant to work with the neighbor to see if something can be done to'mitigate his concerns. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 10a.A-862 - Michael EIder, Request for Design Review and Building Site 10b.SDR-1S3S - Approval to construct a second story addition to an existing single story structure at 19208 Panorama Drive (near Via Colina) in the R-i-40,000 zoning district · Commissioner Nellis gave an on-site report, noting the site and mitigating privacy impacts. Staff described the proposal, stating that the sport court is not part of the approval.' The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Stan Winbeck, the neighbor on the westerly side, expressed his support for the project. He noted that he felt it would be an enhancement and the windows on the second floor pose no problem. Mr. Eider, the applicant, clarified that tILe neighbor. acrOss the ~tree~-haS: " no problem with the plans. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava stated that, in making the findings for compatibility, they had noted that there were a lot of two-story homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve SDR-1S3S per the Staff Report dated - 5 - Pia~.ning Commission Page 6 ~ M~e~ing Minutes 4/13/83 A-862 and SDR-1535 (cont.) April 6, 1983 and Exhibit "B", and A-862 per the Staff Report and Exhibits "B" and "C", making the findings. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 11. A=865- Ja'ckson & Gail Fisher, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a second sto.r_y addition to an existing two story structure at 14728 Barksdale Co~i~ (near'Juniper Lane) in the R-I-20,000 zoning district ~ Commissioner Nellis gave an on-site repo.rt and described the proposal. He indicated that the addition is not visible from the street and does not appear to impact the privacy of the next-door neighbors. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that this appears to be a second unit and it should be noted that a kitchen would not be allowed. Staff described the proposal, pointing out the size of the house but stating that' this home does not appear to impact the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. The builder, representing the applicants, spoke to the project. It was pointed out to him the fact that this could not be a second dwelling unit and 220 volt wiring would be prohibited. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick expressed concern that this lot appears to be.higher than the vacant Spaich property and their privacy will be impacted by this st. ructure, especially from the rear. Chairman Schaefer noted that it was under- stood that the Spaich property will not be developed in the near future. It was also noted that the Spaichs were noticed on this application and had not appeared to object. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-865 per the Staff Report dated April 6, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Chairman Schaefer suggested a condition stating that this is not to be a second living unit and that 220 wiring will be prohibited. The amendment was accepted- by Commissioners Siegfried and Hlava. The motion was carried unanimously.5-0. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that s~e was approving ~'hi~ "oH'l~ be'aause ~here is no opposition from the neighbors'. She added that ~h~ '~s o'pposed to tH'i'S size of a house on this size lot. 12. UP-532 - Slobodan Galeb, Request for'Use Permit Approval to construct a tennis court at 19160 Via Tesoro Court (near Chester), in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Commissioner Nellis gave a on-site report. He noted that' t~.~ i~ueS~'~ha~.~..have'''' , b~?~ised are grading, the proximity of the tennis court to the a'djacent ~ro'p'erty owners, and the removal of a tree. The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Galeb, the applicant, des~r~ibed the proposal, noting that the neighbors to the south, specifically Mr. Franklin, would not be affected at all. He added that it would enh'ance the area and noted that there is no other place on the lot to build a tennis court. Chairman Schaefer explained that the restriction in the subdivision Staff Report 'regarding recreational courts was put in because of the topography of the land and the neighbors' concerns; therefore the Commission had conditioned that there b.e a use permit for any courts. Ron Mancuso, Chester Avenue, addressed the drainage problem from the subject property to adjacent properties. He stated that he feels some type of require- ment .should be placed on this piece of property to prevent future problems. He added that he is in 6pposition to the project, but feels that if the use permit is approved or not a soils engineer should review the runoff. Carl Franklin referenced his letter in opposition. He explained that he is building his own home on Lot #1 on Via Tesoro and also owns Lot #4. He commented that when he purchased the two lots he was told that the City would never allow - 6 - Pl~n.ning. Commission Page M-eating Minutes 4/13/83 UP- 532 (cont.) t'ennis courts so he basically designed the house on those lots in that manner. He indicated that Lot #4 is designed with the backyard facing the proposed tennis court. He added that it is going to be a speC home and it will impact the lot at least $100,000. He domfnented that the location of the court will impact five properties. Mr. Franklin stated that the City had required that one court service 17 lots in his previous subdivision, and he suggested that there is an area between Lots #5 and #6 th. at would be appropriate. Jim Jesperson, Chester Avenue, voiced opposition based on impact of privacy. James Burn, 14506 Chester, stated that he is President of the Emerald Hills Tesoro Homeowners Association. He explained that in planning their develop- ment they looked at this potential probllem and chose to put a community tennis court in an unobtru.S'r~'~fe 'area.. He suggest:ed that the area referenced by Mr. Franklin be considered. Chairman Schaefer stated that they had considered the idea of community tennis courts during the subdivision process, and the majority of the Commission felt that it was too difficult to predetermine a site because the owners 'of the property were changing periodically. Mr. Galeb described the plan, stating that Mr. Franklin will not be able to see the fence of the tennis court. He added 'that the neighboring children can play there and all will benefit. He addressed the d.rainage plan for the runoff. Staff explained that the improvements in that subdivision have not been com- pleted or accepted. They commented that they do have bonds and the work will either be completed by Mr. Haas' heirs and assigns or the funds from the bonds will be used to accomplish the completion of the .improvements, including those regarding drainage. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick i. ndicated that she feels there will be privacy impacts. She added that she feels when specific conditions from previous Commissions have been set down, such as restriction of tennis courts, they should be followed thr. odgh. Commissioner Hlava commented that when you take the highest knoll in this entire area and then put a 10 ft. fence on top of it, there is no way to screen it to make it look reasonable from the rest of the neighborhood. She added that she cannot make the findings. Commissioner Nellis commented that he appreciates Mr. Franklin's concerns; however, the Subdivision Staff Repor~ states that there 'must lbe'a .Uls,.'_c'9~'t ;' "-it-" 'd'j~S" lH'0t';~-mrShib;if"' 'them. Regarding privacy impacts, he s tate~ that he fe~ls if adequate landscaping is put in it would satisfy that concern. He added that he could make the findings. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it is'his concept that this is not really an area where a tennis court would normally'be approved. He added that in one sense he wants to make the findings, but'has to go back to the original concept that the Commission viewed this as hillside type of property, and he does not feel that putting this tennis court almost on the peak of the knoll is an appropriate location. He indicated that.he was influenced by the point that Mr. Franklin made that he did situate his house in a certain way based on the fact that he did not feel that tennis courts could be built; therefore, his backyard is in a peculiar location and he feels it would be significantly impacted. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny UP-532. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Schaefer and Nellis dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 13a.V-606 - George & Judith Claussen, Re. quest for Variance and Design Review 13b.A-864 - Approval to construct a two=story accessory structure over 12' in height at 14728 Bougainvillea Drive (near Tollgate) Commissioner Nellis gave an on-site report and described the proposal, stating that the impact to the adjoining neighbors would be minimal. Staff described the proposal, indicating that they could 'make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 10:30 p.m. No one appeared, and Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - 7 - p.~l~nn~ing Cornmiss ion Page 8 · Meeting Minutes 4/13/83 V-606 and A-864 (cont.) It was the consensus that a similar condition be added 'regarding the second dwelling Unit. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-606 and A-864, per the Staff Report dated April 6, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C", making the find- ings, with the add6d condition that this~ cannot be a second dwelling unit and 220 volt wiring is prohibited. Commissi'oner McGoldrick seconded the motion. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting, stating that she cannot make the variance findings. She added that it does appear that it will have a cluttered appearance and she could not make the physical hardship finding. MISCELLANEOUS 14. A-831 - Steve Scialabba, 12501 Woodside Drive, Reconsideration of Design Review Approval for construction of a two-story addition to an existing one-story dwelling' Staff gave the history of the project and described the proposal. Commissioner Nellis gave an on-site visit. He described the site and noted that th'ere were not many two-story homes in the area. Commissioner Hlava added that in the immediate neighborhood the lots are much smaller and the two-story homes in the area are primarily on lots that are larger. Mr. Scialabba submitted .a map of the general neighborhood and pictures of the two-story homes in the area. He also submitted additional signatures of neigh- bors in favor of the proposal. He indicated that he is now renting the home but plans to live in it when the addition is completed. Commissioner Hlava commented that she does not feel the addition is compatible with the neighborhood. She noted that there is only one second addition on that block of smaller lots. Commissioner McGoldrick pointed out that all of the people on the cul-de-sac approve, and the people in opposition live several doors away. She commented that she feels this neighborhood will have to either move or increase the size of their home. She indicated that she had voted .against this previously because the applicant did not come to the meeting; however, he is present and he seems to have some neighborhood support. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he had come very close to making .Lhe"'comp~t'~- bility findings; however, he-was unable to do so. He stated that it bothers him that this is a rental home and he would have felt better about it if the applicant had actually resided in the home for some years. He added that there are only a few homes in the area that are two-story and it is not the predomi- nant character of the neighborhood. The Deputy City Attorney commented that there is no reference in the ordinance to the nature of the occupant. -" It is basically geared to the physical compati- bility of the structure, although he thinks that as a matter of practice the Commission sometimes takes that into account if someone is building for specu- lation as opposed to occupancy; however', in terms of the' ordinance itself that is not one of the criteria. Commissioner Hlava moved to deny A-831, 'based on the fact that the findings cannot be made. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Siegfried and McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she voted to deny because she feels that the particular configuration of the lot and the size of the lot creates more of a visual concern for the design of the hofne. She added that she would not be 'completely opposed to a two-story on that site, but she feels .that the design of the proposed' 'two-story is a concern. She noted the 10-day appeal period. Mr. Scialabba asked for direction, stating that in August 'the Commission had indicated that they had no problem with the two-story design but could not make the findings for the necessary variance at that time. He added that he is within the ordinance and does not have room for a single-story addition. He commented that this is not a spec home; .he 'does intend to live in the home. Commissioner Nellis commente'd that in the final analysis it was the compatibility finding that he could not make 'that prompted his vote, and not the fact that it was a rental. Commissioner Siegfr_ie~d commented that he feels part of the problem is that' ,-.-.. . ...... .: .. ....--7- :.-. ,.-.:. ~ ... - 8 - ~?-=~Plann~ing Commission Page 9 ~j~1~'ting Minutes 4/13/83 A-831 (cont.) the applicant is one of the first coming into a neighborhood of essentially single story homes'and the Commissioners who dissented could not make the compatibility findings. Chairman Schaefer suggested that the applicant should get signatures in support from the people in back of him. The following options were pointed out to Mr. Scialabba: (1) consider some other design for a second- story that has less visual impact, and (2) appeal to the City Council. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. It. was noted that the Commission has requested that a tree be placed in Hakone Gardens in memory of R. S. Robinson. Discussion followed on resolu- tions for his daughters from the City. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked former Mayor Kraus, Councilmember Fanelli, and the Saratoga News for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to adjourn the meeting in memory of R. S. Robinson. The motion was carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. Robert S.. Shook Secretary RSS:cd