Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CI. TY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COB~ISSI'ON F~INUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 13, 1984 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE' ORGANIZATION 'Roll 'Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Harris, Hlava, ~cGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried' (.Commissioner McGoldrick arrived at 7:59 p.m. and Com- missioner Peterson arrived at 8:08 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Schaefer Mi'nut'es Commissioner Crowther' asked the City Attorney if he could comment on the minutes' of May 9, 1984 and May 15, 1984,-'.S.fn6'd he"'~d '~bs'ta"{¼~d'.O~ appI'i'Cation A-.958, R0be'r't Dewey, and the City Attorne~"r'epl'i'ed that'he could. He ~a'de the following ~Or~'ections~Onpage 4 "because of pending litigation".should be deleted from the 'firSt sentence under A--958. The 'first sentence in the sixth para- graph. 'should state that ~lr. Crowther's home is located directly to the east of the project. On page 5, the last sentence in the first paragraph should read ~'Staff was aske'd to see if there were any setbacks from ridgelines in NHR.~' (th.e tapes reflect that the other addition to that paragraph suggested by Mr. Crowther was not so stated by Staff). Commissioner Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of B~ay 9, 1984 and approve as amended, pending a check of the 'tapes.' Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried with COmmis'si:oner' Crowth.er' abstaining. Comissi.oner Harris made the following correction to the minutes of May 15, 1984: The second'sentence in the fifth paragraph on page 2 should read.: "She stated tha't sh.e realizes that it does not come under the 'Specific Plan but., having sat through the General Plan and Specific Plan hearings and listening to the"citf.zens, she feels. that the. ridgelines should.88t'lBecOme"'0bs~Ure wi~h:'d~elon- s i.0 , s 't 0 't-h :.m i n 'S' iv.l 't'C h: '.]'~'~'d'[6 his comments and those of Staff'and the City Attorney. The City .::Afit'6'~i'e~-;' '.lsta~f' 'a'Hd' S.6me":dK"~!y¢ '7~.~iB.~j~h~rs'2'b~as~h~f~. d i d no tag re e t o the s e CQrreCtibhs and. the matter' was delayed until the end of the meeting when a full CS'mmission would be presen't. At that time the City Attorney explained that when he had replied to Commissioner Crowther that he could comment on the minutes, what he had in mind was correcting his own comments. He went on to explain that Commissioner Crowt'her had abstained on the matter and now has appealed the Commission's dec'is'ion to the City Council. He stated that the minutes include comments made by Commissioner Crowther as an interested party but not as a Commissioner. The City Attorney commented that he had thought that if the commen'ts by Commissioner Crowther ~ere incorrectly transcribed he had every right to point tha't out. However, he went beyond that and suggested changes to the 'comments of the City Attorney and is now suggesting a change to Staff's comments.. It was determined that Commissioner Crowther should go ahead and make commen'ts and the Commission would decide what to do relative to the minutes. Commissioner Crowther then made additional c0~'rectionsF.:7'Th-e 'C'ity Attorney.commented that he feels, in view of the magnitude'of the changes rec'ommended by Commissioner Crowther and the fact that there is an appeal by hi'm, there 'shOuld be 'a verbatim of the tapes. It was noted that there were no tapes available for that meeting. Commissioner Hlava commented that she feels that when'a Commissioner abstains and does not participate, they do not have the right' to come back and change the minutes, narticularly' since :~i.~'~al~f~)-.t'h-~ ~eCi~i:on...'&.h'S"j,'~18'd'.bd:~h~.tE.a~'i~'~il6'n'd~ Craw't;her c.an go to the CouHcil and. state that the minutes don't reflect what'he said and state the changes then; howe'ver, s'h.e' does not feel that h.e"sh'ould make changes' now'.. Commis. si.oner Peterson moved to waive the' rea'ding of the' minutes 'of May IS, 1984 and approve as dis'tribu'te'd. Commis:s'i.oner McGoldrick' se'c'onded' the motion, whi'ch was carried, ~i.th. Commi. Ssioner'Crowther abs'tainfh'g.'and Commi.ssi.on'er Harri. s' dissenting.. Commi.ssi.oner H'l'ava mov'ed to'waive the 'reading of the minutes' of May 23,' 1984 and approve as: di.s-triSuted.. Commissioner'Harris seconded the motion, wh'ich was' carri.ed unanimou's'ly. ~'-Pl Page 2 ..~, ,...~Ie~Djning .~ Commi s s i on eting Minutes 6/15/84 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1Sll - Clarence.Neale, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for One-Year Extension 2. SDR-1S30 - Anita Korts Bolin, sopey Road, Request for One-Year Extension 3. SM-2 - Russell Schneider, Request for Site Modification Approval to con-' struct a driveway and elevated stairway on a slope exceeding 10% at 14425 S'obey.Road in the R-1-40,0O0 zoning district Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Crowther seconded'the motion, which was carried unani- mously 4-0. BUILDING SITE APPROVAL 4. SDR-1566 - Jonathan Roelolls, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval, 1865S lVoodbank Way, 1 lot, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district; continued from May 23, 1984 It was. directed that this item be continued to June 2?, 1984. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 5. A-'972 Mr. and Mrs. Michael Clair, 21100 Saratoga Hills Road, RequeSt for Design Review Approval .to construct a 2-story addition to an existi'ng 2-story residence'in the R-l'-4'0,000 zon'ing district 6a. NegatiVe Declaration 'SDR-1572.- Richard Ward 6b. SDR-.1572 - Richard Ward, 20472 Glasgow' Drive, Request for Variance Approval V-6.45 - for an existing structure with a 27'4" rear yard setback and Building Site Approval to split a lot, in the R-1-12,500 z'o'n'in'g 'district It was noted that a letter had been received regarding A-972 and it has been rescinded. It was also noted that a letter had been received on SDR-1S?2. It was clarified that the Negative Declaration should read that the site is 26,603 sq.'ft. The public hearing.was opened at 7:58 p.m. No one appeared, and Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanfmously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the Public Hearing Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 4-0. PUBL'I'C HEARINGS 7.. A-.928'-. D~ayne Richards, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a split level' single family residence at 14612 Palomino Iqa 'in the NHR 'zo'n'ing' d'i's't'r'i'c't; con'tinue'd 'frOm May '9', 19'84 It wa"s.directed that this item be continued to September 12, 1984. 8a. Neg'atiV'e"De'cla'ra'tiO'n'-' S'DR'-15'63 -' JOhn' ZaChes 8b. A-952 -. Mr.'an& Mrs. J; Zaches, Request for Design Review Approval to SDR-1563 --construct a new,'two-story single family residence and Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expansion at 15400 Peach Hill Road in the R-i-40,000 zoning district; continued from' May 23, 1984 i.t was directed that this item be continued to a study session on June 19, 1984 and the regular meeting of June 27, 1984. 9. A-964 - McBain & Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a 2-story single family residence on Tollgate Road (Lot #14, TraCt 6628), in the NHR zoning district; continued from May 23, 1984 It was directed that this matter be continued to June 27, 1984. - 2 - ~ Pi~ning. Commission Page 3 "~Meeting Minutes 6/13/84 PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) 10a. Negative Declaration SDR-1570 - Gerald Schiffman 10b. A-967: Mr. Gerald Schiffman, 14925 Sobey Road, Request for Design' 10c. SDR-1570 Review Approval to construct a 2-story single family residence over. 26 ft. in height on an infill site and Building Site Approval for a single lot, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal, .~3~!~")that there would 'have to be an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. CommiSsioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, noting a concern about the screening for the neighbors to the southeast. She also pointed out the fact that there was no decking on the west side and the applicant might want site modification for that at a later date. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. The applicant gave a presentation on the project, discussing the fill and the height of the structure,' indicating that it was measured from the base to the peak. Staff stated that it was 30 ft. in height and explained the method of the calculation. Commissioner HCGoldrick expressed concern relative to privacy. impacts to the neighbors because of the windows on the right side. She inquired about the proposed landscaping and it was suggested that additional landscaping could be conditioned on that side. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that She feels comfortable with making the findings, as did the Staff, for the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, in that this slope was artificially created. Commissioner Harris suggested that a condition be added to.'read "Landscaping is to be added to provide screening from the south and southeast, to be installed prior to final occupancy.": Commissioner'McG01drick moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1570. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner HcGoldrick moved to approve SDR-1570, per Exhibit B and the Staff Report dated June 5, 1984, and A-967,'per the-Staff Report dated June 5, 1984 and Exhibits B, C and D, making the appropriate findings, and adding the con- dition for the landscaping on the 'south and southeast, and also a condition stating that any decking toward the west of the property shall come back to the Commission for review. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. lla..A-969 -- The Hazel Family Trust, 1916'0 Via Tesoro Court, Request for llb.'UP-559 - Use Permit Approval'for an accessory structure in the rear yard setback, Site Modification for the accessory structure to be located on a slope greater than 10%, and Design Review Approval t0' exceed the 6200 sq. ft. standard in the R-I-40,000 zoning " district ..... Chairman Siegfried noted the correspondence received on the project. Staff explained the application. They indicated that they had difficulty making the necessary findings for the cabana due to its size and its location. They added that they were 'able to make the necessary findings subject to the cabana being reduced-in size by half and appropriate conditions. Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that the cabana would go on a very prominent knoll which would be visible fr'om several houses and that there appeared to be an alternative site nearer to the home. The public hearing was opened at 8:17 p.'m. The applicant referenced the letter they had submitted and indicated that they had delivered an alternative site plan. He commented that his wife had medical problems and he would like to resolve the issues' and would be willing to reduce the size of the' cabana if necessary. Ron Mancuso noted the letters from Mr. Kunkel and Dr. Betman and stated that he was-representing them. He stated tha't he feels that they should have an opportunity to respond to the new plan and suggested a study session. 3 ~ Plan.ning ~' Commission Page 4 ,~eeting Minutes 6/1.3/8.4 A-969 and UP-5S9 (cont.) Carl Franklin, the builder of the homes which are to the south of the Hazels, described the area and agreed with Staff relative to the size of the structure. He stated that there should be some consideration given to eliminating the privacy problem betweens Lots 3 and 4. He also recommended that wood fencing not be used,' since everything in that area is cyclone and is much more attrac- tive. The setbacks and the slope of the knoll were discussed. Marty Oakley the designer discussed the alternate plan · Mr. Schiffman discussed the proposed fence and landscaping. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she sympathizes with Mrs. Hazel's medical problems, yet she would be willing to negotiate this. at a study session. She commented that the pool.and cabana are going to be so imposing on the neighbor- hood because the knoll is so obvious.' She added that she Could not accept the proposal in its present state. Discussion followed on the elevations of the home and the pool. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve UP-559, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report dated June 9, 1984, showing a 30 ft. s'etback and a reduction of the cabana to 600 sq. ft. Commissioner Hlava suggested that if the cabana is that much smaller, the pool could be moved over to have a 15 ft. setback. Commissioner Peterson accepted the amendment. It was noted tha. t the condition in the Staff Report covers the landscaping. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the.motion, which was carried 5-1 with Commissioner Harris dissenting. Commissioner. Peterson moved to approve A-969,.per the Staff Report dated June 9, 1984 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Crowther and Harris.dissenting. Commissioner Crowther stated that he 'could not make the first finding'~ in regards to view and privacy. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 12a. NegatiVe' De'cl'a'r'a't'i'on '-. Site ~od'ifi'cati'on - David Mackie 12b. A-970 - David and ~eriel Mackie, 21208 Haymeadow Drive, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2-.story addition to an existing -2-story residence and 'Site ~odification for a turnaround area on ...... a slo'p'e"gre'ate'r' tha'n 10'%, in the' R'-l-4'0,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee indicatin~ that they could. not se.e any houses as they stood on the report, . -loc.ation...Of .the.. prQposed addition. She stated that a retaining wall would be a good addition beca'use it' slopes down quite a bit from the existing driveway. The public hearing was,opened at 8:50 p.m. William DuQuette, architect, addressed the 8 ft. retaining wall. He asked if it would be possible t.o te'rrace two retaining walls so they would not be over 6 ft. tall, and step them back perhaps 5 ft. He explained the procedure to be used. Commissioenr Peterson moved to close the public. hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner' Hlava moved' to approve the Negative Declaration on the Site'~odi- fication. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried un'animously 6-0. Commissioner.Crowther moved to approve A-970, per. the Staff Report dated June 5, 1984 and Exhibits B and C, modifying Condition 1 to add "or use two stepped retaining walls". Commissioner B~cGold'rick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6~.0. 13a. A-973 -. Stev'an and Lynn Berardo, 19600 Farwell Avenue, Request for 13b. SDR-..1569 ~ Design Review Approval to construct a 2-story addition to an 13c. V-.-.637 ~. ex'iSting 1-story residence, Building Site 'Approval for a greater than 50% expansion and Variance Approval to allow a 1.5 side ....... yard.setback.for an..existing.detached garage and a 6 ft. dis- ta'nc'e= be'tWe:en' 's'tr'uctu're's', in th'e' R-l'-'40,'0'00' 'z'o'n'in'g 'distr'ict Chairman Siegfried noted the correspondence received from the applicant. Staff - 4 - .. Pl.a~.~,ning Commission Page S .~=Meeting Minutes 6/13/84 A-973, SDR-1569 and V-637 (cont.) explained the project. They commented that the applicant has indicated they are only applying for a 6.5 ft. side yard setback and would be willing to d. elete that portion of the garage that would maintain the 1'.5 ft. setback. Staff stated that they feel the garage could be relocated on the site without J a variance, even though this does create some economic hardship for the appli- cant in terms of removing the garage. They noted that the applicant has also indicated that they would remove the second level deck and replace it with a patio cover, which would eliminate one of the privacy impacts. Discussion followed on the.sewer requirement and the request from the applicant for a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a I. and Use Committee'report, describing the site. .She commented on the possibility o'f reloca~ing the garage, not~ng'tHat'.th.e'~. ~a's-space 'to do.thi'.s~ how'ever', the ~ppli.cant would have to redeSign a great deal and there 'are's:ome"beautiful planrings 'that would have to be removed. Th.e public hearing was 'opened ~t .9;00 p.m. .. Mr.. and Mrs. Ber'ardo 'inquired regarding the 'conditions of the Staff Report. Staff explained the Deferred Improvement Agreement.and the 'conditions. Mrs. Berardo 'commented th.at~ regarding Condifi0n I.I=-.O, it was their understanding tl~at Farx~el'l Avenuw w'ijll be res'urfaced in two weeks and the 'requirement to overlay it a few'months 'later' would seem to be inappropriate. After discussion 'i.t was determined that Condition II.-..O would read: "Overlay full width of Fameell Avenue 'across frontage unless work has prev'iously been completed to S'taff.'.s satisfaction.."., and II.-L to' read: "Enter into Improvement Agreement for required improv'e~ents' to be 'completed within on'e (1) year of calling up the Deferred Improvement Agreement'-'., Mrs:. B.erardo 's~tate'd' that the neighbors have 'seen' the plans and have no problems w.'i. tti the garage 'remaining where it is, and she 'clarified that they are willing to Cut the'garage back so' it will have a 6.5 s0tback. Commissi.oner' McGoldrick moved' to close 'the 'public hearing. Commissioner Peter'son seconded the 'motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. Discussion foliowe'd on Condition II-..G, and it was determined that it should · rea'd::~-'Con'struct Driveway Approach' 12 ft.. wide at property line flared to 16 ft.. at street' paving..=' Commissioner Hlava discussed' the 'findings, stating that, in t'erms' of common privilege, the 'Commission has very often made variance findings based on the 'fact that a structure was existing on a site for a long peri.od of ti.m~.. Regarding Finding 1', because 'the lot is so much narrower than iS normally' required in this zoning district, it would create an unnecessary pt~ys.'ical hardship to try' and move the 'garage someplace else. She commented that obvLously the Commissi'on doesn't want it moved back on the lot because ~e 'don'.t'want more impervious coverage, and therefore it would have to be moved to.the front wh.e'r'e. th_er'e 'is existing mature landscaping. Regarding common pr'ivi.l~ge, i't w'ould be 'a denial.of that because the Commission. has in the past, to those who have.structureS of long standing in older areas of the City, allotted variances'; therefore 'itwo'uld be a'denial of common privilege to not do that.. Therefore, if it is 'a common privileg'e it is not a special privilege. Re'Carding Finding. 5 with 'a 6 5 setback the fire hazard would go away.. Com- m~.ss'~.oner Hlava moved to 'approve V-.637, making the 'findings. Commissioner Crowth.er seconded' the mot'ion, wh'ich was carried' unanimously 6-0. Commissioner' Crow'th.e'r' moved to.approve SDR~-1569 and A-973, per the Staff Report dated June '1, 1984 and Exhibits B and C, with the previously discussed changes to Conditions 'I.'I'-G, I'I.'-:I~ and II--O. Discussion then followed on Condition IV-A, and it was the consen's-us to modify it 'to allow'for a Deferred Improvement Agreement for0ne year for. the sanitary sewer connection. Commissioner Hlava ~'tated that sh'.e' would go along with that change 'only because the applicants have submitted the 'paper's 'showing that their application for the Sanitation District'.s.'speci'al proration program for this excessive sewer line cost has 'b'een submi.tted. She added that she does not want this to be interpreted as any kind of special exception or any indication that the Commission in the future 'will not require the sewer h.ookup, and the Deferred. Improvement Agree- ment i.s only for one year. After further' discussion Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to modify Condition'IV-A to read: "Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement to connect to sanitary sewer, as required in the'letter' dated May 7, ]~984 from the 'County Sanitation District #4, within one year f~om' the time of' approval."' I't was 'clarified. to the applicant that this wo'uld mean one year from the-time of his Final Approval on the project. -'S - ,-. Pl~a~ing .~,Commission Page ~.~'~Jeeting ~inutes 6/13/84 A-973, SDR-i569 and V-637 (cont.) .Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Break 9:25 - 9:40 p.m. 14. A-974 - Parnas Corporation (American Construction/G. H. Farsio), 14580 Saratoga Heights Court, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2-story single family residence, in the NIIR zoning dist'rict Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She commented that the lot slopes down in the back and it will not appear to be a second-story house from the front because of that fact. She added that this home will be visible from several vantage points in the Parnas area, but should blend in nicely with what has been previously approved. The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. The applicant agreed to reduce the height to 30 ft., as conditioned in the Staff Report. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commis- sioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Harris commented that they were a. little concerned with the caps on the 'chimneys, since they would be so prominent. Discussion followed on this subject. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-974, per the Staff Report dated June 6,. 1984 and Exhibits B, C and D, making the height 30 ft. or less, and adding a condition that the top of the chimneys will be subject to Staff's approval. Commissi'one.r Hlava seconded the motion', which was carried unani- mously 6-0. 15. SDR--1571 Richard James III, 20260 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a two-lot subdivision in ....... the 'R.-l~'20','0'00' zo'ning d'i's't'rict Staff described the project. They commented that there is a condition in the Staff Report to have the 'two accessory structures removed as part of the pro- ject, and the applicant is requesting that this condition be changed so as to allow the structures' to be used during construction, but to have them removed prior to final occupancy. Staff indicated that they have no problem with that modification. Staff also suggested that Condition II-E be modified, to delete II.~E.1, modify I'I-.E.2 to read: "PC concrete curb return to. Saratoga-Los Gatos ROad, and leaving II-.E.3 as is. The public he'aring was opened at 9:48 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil. engineer, reiterated that they would like to keep the acces- sory buildings' to be used' as construction storage areas during construction, and would like to change that condition to read that they be removed prior to occupancy of eithe'r of the 'two new buildings. Herman Shapiro, the owner of the adjacent property, recommended that the build- .ing ~e'i'ng proposed'for that site 'not be above onesstory because of privacy impacts. Staff noted' that the existing house"seems to be single story from the street; however, the'applicant has indicated that there is a basement level that technically would make 'it a two--story. Mr. Heiss commented that it is an 80-year old house and there is a basement under a portion of it-" Dis~Ussion followed on conditi.oni.ng th.eZ'he'igh.t' of the' ne~{'ti.o'me~ Th.e'r'e. was a co'n. sensus not to. condition it to he one-ds't'ory. at thi. s' time w'iZ~ho'ut se'eing plans. It was noted that 'it will have':to com'e back"'for design review and during that time the Commission will keep the Commen'ts" regarding a one~s'tory in mi.nd~ IZt was pointed' out that this would be 'a public hearing which. would be noticed' to the 'neighbors. Commis-si. on'er Pet'ers'on' moved to close~..'the 'public hearing. Commissioner ~cGoldrick seconded th'.e. mot'ion',' which 'was carri.ed unanimously~ The 'appli,cant di.scus's'ed' the dimens'i'ons. of the lots'." Commissioner McGoldrick moved. to' approv'e SDR~..1571., per' the' St'aff Report dated' June 5, 1984 and Exhibit B'~' ~itll_ the 'ch.anges'to the..St'aff Report. previously discu'ssed. Commissioner Harri. s 's'ec'onde~ the moti.on,.~h'iZch. was 'ca'rried unanimously 6--0. - 6 - oPla~ing,.Commission Page 7 ~Meet'ihg Minutes 6/13/84' 16a. A-978 - San Jose Water Works, Request for Use Permit Approval and 16b. UP-561 Design·Review Approval for a pump house at the intersection of Parker Ranch and Prospect Roads, Lot #31, Tract 6528, in the NHR zoning district The proposal was described by Staff. Commissioner Harris gave a Land USe Committee report, pointing out that there is an open space area across the road but there are building sites that will have clear visibility of this and many of the residents of Parker Ranch Road will be entering and exiting at this point. She commented that there is no screening other than that backing up against Prospect. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that they felt strongly that one public entity should not disrespect the ordinances of another, and find it hard to believe that San Jose Water Works would go ahead and do things and not get proper permits. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p.mi Bill Heiss, civil engineer for Blackwell Homes, indicated that they are in agreement with the conditions. lie explained the history of the project, stating that this ·is a case where everybody else thought the other party was doing what was necessary to get proper .approyals. He discussed the trees that had been removedi~'jthe..p.~opose'd'.l~d~dapi~',o..and'..~.~terials for the pump house. Commissioner F~cGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded· the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-978 and UP-·561, per the Staff Report dated June 4, 1984 and Exhibits B and C,.adding the condition that the finish shall be wood siding. Commissioner HcGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. Staff clarified that there was a condition for extensive. landscaping. 17a. Ne'gati've De'cla'r'a'tion-.' V-638 -' Marshall Hall 17b. V-63S Marshall Hall, Request for Variance Approve- for a 120' lot width 17c·. LL-2 where 150' is required in order to adjust the lot line between 19525.Glen Una Drive and ].9519 Glen Una Drive, in the R-I-40,000 z'oning d'is't'r=ic't ......... .. ' Staff gave 'a report on the proposal, recommending denial of the variance because they are ·unable ·to make all of the findings. They discussed alternatives for the lot line adjustment. Commissioner B,!cGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site.' The public hearing was opened at ].0:13 p.m. The applicant gave a presentation on the project. He indicated that he would be more than happy to put words on the ·deed to state that when Parcel A is sold the carport will be·removed. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded th·e motion, which wa·s carried unanimously. Commissioner Peter·son stated that it seems clear that something should be done about the lot line adjustment. He commented· that the question is how to best solve that problem without creating any other problems. He suggested two solutions:· ('1) take the existing property line ·and somehow straighten it out a little more ·and maybe allow more of a variance in terms of the square footage for one lot ver·s'u·s another, or (2) keep the ·existing property line but create a landscape easement on the ·applicant's part which would follow the proposed property line (as suggested by Staff). Commissioner Crowther· indicated that he does not have any problem with this lot line adjustment, provided that the ·conditions by Staff are met, the impor- tant one being the'·removal of the garage.. Discussion followed on removal of the garage. Staff commented that the appli- cant wo·uld either have ·to· remove it or get a variance for it. The City Attor- ney wa's' asked if .t]~e"'l'ot'."i"~'n~e-'~.djUs~.~'e~.~..~.Oi, ld be approved without a variance on the·condition that the·applicant wo·uld have to remove it prior to transfer of title.· The City Attorney replied that he ·is not sure that the City has allowed·either lot line ·adju·stments or creation of ne~ lots without legitimat- ing.structures by a variance. He ·stated· that at a minimum 't!here"wo~l~' ]~aVe - 7 - ~i p!.~.~n,i~.g~ Commission ~' Page 8 'V-'~e"e~'ing Minutes 6/13/84 V-638 and LL-2 (cont.) be something of record so a future owner would be alerted to the condition. He added that the normal procedure would be that if the proposal is approved the applicant would have to come in for a variance on the garage or take it out. He commented that the Commission is perfectly entitled to grant a conditional Variance, and in that event it would be recorded indicating that it has a termination date. The conditions of the Staff Report were discussed, specifically the potential for hook up to the sewer. The findings for the granting of the variance were then discussed. The lot width was discussed and the City Attorney clarified that the findings must be made on the lot width, since there is no applica- tion before the Commission with respect to the garage. Commissioner Siegfried commented that, regarding exceptional circumstances, while there was the 150 ft. at t.he time these lots were subdivided, they have to be taken as they are now, with structures on the lots,~'as~.in t]Ye' ca~e'of-.'Y~ar.~'~.I'.B, ~ha~ a0 n~t..]~a've appropriate setbacks. He explained that what t~e Commission is trying to do is eliminate existing problems of inadequate setbacks, and that is the tradeoff. He added that the variance would give appropriate setbacks for the house by reducing the width, and that is somewhat exceptional; no additional lots are being created, and the applicant is not being granted any additional privilege in terms of building anything extra. It was noted that there is a condition that reads that the applicant has to come back for a variance for the garage or remove it; thereby. the ~roblem with respect to the garage will be alleviated, and the existing problem of ~ house' that is 8 ft. from the property line will be eliminated with the granting of this 'variance. Commissioner Crowther added to Finding No. 2 that he thinks there is. a fire hazard now with the existing lot line because someone could plant a tree very close to the house on Parcel B and cause a fire hazard. He added that he feels there is an exceptional circumstance in that these homes are on semtic tanks and will be going on sewers. Commissioner ~.~cGoldrick moved to approve V-638 and LL-2, per the conditions in the Staff Report dated June 6, 1984 and Exhibit ~'B~', making the findings discussed above. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Negative Declara- tion for V-638. Commissioner Hlava seconded the 'motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. C O~UN I 'C'AT 'I '0 N S Written 1. 'L'ett'er .'.from' 'Se'r'gio' Ramire'z-B'ati'z, dated Ma'y 25, 1'98'4, re Floyd Gai'nes' 'Co'nd~Fn~ Yr~)e~t. ~,4r.' Ram~rez ~iscussed t~e bay w~ndows. Staff ~~ed that they have stated' ~hat bay windows are not architectural features. T'here was' a consensus that it was the inten't of the Commission that this project was approved' with bay windows'. Staff noted that they we're shown on the eleva- tions bu't not on the' floor plans or the site plans. Discussion followed on setting a prec'edent~ and it was determined that a noticed public hearing should -be held for the 'bay wi'ndows. The City Att~r. ne.X stated that the. applicant could proceed simultaneously wi'th planchecking for '~he"'bu'ilding' w]~.le th.e 'window.s.' is,~ being not'iced and considered. Or'a 1 .......... 1. C~lairman Si. egfried' presented Commissioner Hlava wi.th a resolution, commendi.ng he'r for her service to the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. 2.. Ch.a'irman Siegfr. ied 'thanked' the~ 'S'a'r'a~t'o~"a' NeWs for attending the meeting and the' Good Government Group for ~'~~.ng ~' serving coffee. .ADJ OU RN~E NT Commissioner Hlava m~ved to ad~bu~n the me.e.tin~ Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried ~n~ar~f~0'u~'~y...."" The~me~'.~ing wa's adjourned at 10:57 ..... Res'Dect.F~lly s'ubmitted', Secretary RSS:cd