Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-27-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION M I NUT E S DATE: Wednesday, June 27, 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, McGoldrick, Peter'son, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following corrections were made to the minutes of June 13, 1984: On page 1, the fifth sentence in the second paragraph should read: "...she feels that the ridgelines should not become obscure with development." The seventh sentence should read: "The Ci:ty Attor~eB Staff and some of the Commissioners present did not agree to these corrections...". Relative to Commissioner Crowther's corrections to the minutes of May 1.5, 1984, it should read that he made corrections rather than changes. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 13, 1984 and approve them as amended. Com- missioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the items listed below on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 6-0. 1. SDR-1462 -. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Schaffer, Cox Avenue, 2 lots, Request for One-Year Extension 2. A-980 S.K. Brown, 1228.0 Saratoga-.Sunnyvaie Road, Design Review Approval for a sign and logo to be attached to the front elevation of a 'commercial building BUILDING 'SITE' APPROVAL 3. SDR-.1566 - Jonathan Roeloffs, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval, 18665 Woodbank Way, 1 lot, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district; "'cont'in'ued' from"June 13, 1984 Staff explained' the project. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve SDR-1566 per the Staff Report dated B~ay 18, 1984 and Exhibit ~'B". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded' the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. DESIGN REVIEW APPR'OVAL 4. A--975 - Moreland School District, 18720 Bucknail Road, Design Review .Approval for a sign on the northern edge of the property facing 'B'uckn'a'll' Ro'a'd Staff ex'plained that there is somewhat of a problem in the interpretation of the ordinance relative to signage for this particular application and, that being the 'case, Staff_.l]as made the most liberal interpretation in.their recommendation for'..~his' approval. They commented that the confusion lies in the somewhat contradictory statements that there shall be a total of only 24 sq. ft. of signage for a public building, but it also indicates that there be 16 sq. ft. allowed for signage for a day care nursery. They added that the 24 sq. ft. doesn't seem to include the 16 sq. ft. for the day care nursery, and therefore it would appear that 40 sq. ft. of signage is allowed because of that special condition on the nursery. They stated that if the Commis- sion feels that this is an improper interpretation, then the total square footage 'would have to be cut back. The City Attorney indicated' that there 'is no real guidance in the ordinance. - 1 Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes Meeting 6/27/84 A-975 (cont.) He stated that there is one requirement for identification signs with respect to public buildings, private institutions and churches in one category.allow- ing 24 sq. ft., and a totally different restriction with respect to nurseries for signage of 16 sq. ft. He added ~hat there is nothing in the ordinance that could be found that says what happens when there are two uses on the same site. He commented that he is not sure that it was intended that each Use would have its separate signage, so it is a matter of interpretation. He stated that if the Commission says that 24 sq. ft. is the maximum, then both uses would have to bring themselves within that requirement. The City Attorney indicated that when the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance come to' the Commission, this will be one of them to clarify the present ambiquity. Staff commented that there is no evidence that the existing day care center sign had design review, which is required, and that is a condition of their recommendation. 'Discussin followed on interpretation of the ordinance. Floyd Little, designer of the Sign, discussed the sign on the building, ~xplaining that it is a temporary sign. He commented that Campbell Christian SchoOl holds the master lease, and he had just learned that they have Care and Share. Mr. Little discussed the signage. Donald Beal, Chairman of the Board of the Campbell Christian Schools, ref- erenced a letter from the ~oreland School District. It was noted ~hat there is a third small sign above the Campbell Christian sign. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-975, per the Staff Report dated June 21, 1984 and Exhibits "B" and "C'', for the 40 sq. ft. of signage. The motion. failed for lack of a second. Commissioner' McGoldrick moved to deny A-975. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther suggested that it would be more appropriate to approve the application, limiting the signage to 24 sq. ft. Discussion followed on reducing the size of the signage. Commissioners' McGoldrick and Harris withdrew their motion and second to deny A-975. It was noted that the Share and Care sign will come back for design review and perhaps at that time it can be determined between the two parties how the 24 sq. ft. is to be allocated. Mr. Little commented that he does not feel that 12 sq. ft. is enough sign for people to find the s~ho'ol and identify it. Commissioner'Peterson agreed, stating that this is a 30-acre parcel, and he feels that the school should have identity and visibility~ Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-975 for a maximum of 24 sq. ft., per the conditions of the Staff Report dated June 21, 1984. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. Commissioner McGoldrick noted that this is an area, even though. it is 'a 30-.acre parcel, which is totally surrounded by residential homes because it is on a corner. .The' 10-day appeal period was noted. "PUBLIC HEAR'ING"CONSENT"CA'L'ENDAR Staff noted a letter from Mr. Heid relative to V-642. Items 6 and 9, V-642 and A~972, wer'e 'removed from the 'Consent Calendar for discussion. Commis- sioner McGoldrick move~ to approve.'the balance listed below.' Commissioner Crowth.er seconded' the motion, which 'was carried unanimously 6-0. 5a. Negat'ive D'e'cla'r'atio'n'-."S'D~-~'1'5'63 Jo'h'n Z'a'ch'es 5b. A-.952 - Mr. and Mrs. John Zaches, Request ~or Design ReView Approval 5c. SDR-.1563 ~= to construct a new, two'-story single family res'i'dence and Building Site Approval. for a greater than 50%'expansion at .... ~. 15400-.Peach'Hill Road..in. the R~i-14~,000 .zoning district; con- ...... t'inu'e'd"fr'om~ ~un'e '13,"19'84 7, V~650 ~ Lillian Beckmeyer, Request for Variance Approval to allow con- s'truction of a carport wijth a 21 ft. front yard setback where · . 25 ft. is required at 14270 Elva Avenue.,.in. th.e R~I~10,000 zoning "d'i's'tri'c't UP-..560 Alan Nonnenburg, Request for Use Permit Approval to construct a ............ cabana in the..rea'r..yard. setback ar~a'.at l~589. No~thampton Drive, ...... i'n"th'e'R~'l'-~l'2',5'0'0' zon'i'ng"d'istr'ict - 2 - .... ~Plahning Commission ~ Page 3 ~inutes - Meeting 6/27/84 CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC· HEARING (cont.) Discussion followed on V-·642. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern rel~- t·ive to the cantilevered portion of the building. She suggested claimer be added. After discussion it was determined that a condition should be added that a clearance sign be posted at the cantilevered part of the building. Commissioner Crowther stated.that he feels this is packing things in too tight on this'site, and he will Vote against it. CommiSSioner HcGoldrick moved to approve V-·642, Saratoga Real (Oudewaal), with the condition that a clearance sign be posted. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 4~·2, ~ith Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner.CroWther indicated that he would abstain from the voting on A-979. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-979, Sinsley Construction. .Com- missioner Schae·fer seconded the motion, which was carrmed 5-0, with Commissione~ Crowther abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10a. V=641 - California Real Estate Investment (Saratoga National Bank), 10b. A-976 - Request for Variance Approval for sign area which exceeds the 10c. A-709 - maximum allowable and Design Review Approval for signs on the ~od. north and west side of the building, and Approval for B~odifica- tion of conditions of Design Review Approval A-709, at 12000 Sara·t·oga-Sunnyval·e Road Staff explained the applic.atiQn·s, r.ecommending denial of the variance. They 'noted correspondence from Mr. Sudlo in opposition to the variance. The public hearing was opened at 8.:06 p.m. Dick MOunt, President of SaratOga National Bank, ~ave a presentation on the project, describing the building and site.. Staff explained the calculation of signage if there were ·multiple t~n'ants and discussed the ordinance as it relates to one use. The sign program for Park Saratoga was discussed. Com- missioner Schaefer expressed concern with the size of all of the signage. H·r. B~ount stated that since 'there is a lot of landscaping and it is a very long building, they feel the 'additional size is needed to make any impact whatsoever. Bob Huntsberry, the architect, discussed the building and the sign program. He commented that he feels it is very important to have illumination, especial- ly in the winter' months when it gets dark earlier. He explained the design and materials of the 'sign. Staff gave the background of the building, Commenting that this is the entrance to th~ gateway to the City. They stated that the Commission should keep in mind that it was the intent to have a low-.profile use on the site, and not a lot of signage. Commissioner Crowther asked if the square footage could be determined by i~tegrating over just the letter's, since. the·re is nO background. Staff ex·plained th·e calculation of the sign area. Discussion followed on the size of the· emblem· and the possibility of eliminating it to· reduce the overall square footage of the ·sign by approximately 9-10 sq. ft. Commissioner·B~cGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner PeterSon seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner· McGoldrick commented that it changes things considerably if just the surface of t]~e·'let·ters themselves· are considered. Staff indicated that they would be hes-itant for the 'Commission to set that kind of standard. Commiss·.ioner Crowt·her· commented that there has been a lot of concern about this building by the ·public; it is located' on a site that was designated in the General ParkL·as a park, at least' the northern par.t.of the site, and the setbacks are 'much'too' tight He 'added' that he thinks the. Commission considered that in d~nying Randalls 'their request for a sign on the west side. Commissioner· Schaefer indi·cat~d that she sees the iss~e as two separate ones.. She explai·ned th. at she thinks ·the setbacks with Randalls were totally w·rong for the bui·lding~ there wa·s a lot of anger about the 'building, and therefore everybody tookj it out '.on the"sign. She stated' that she thinks this kind of sign is so much··mor·e ·artact'ire ·tha·n many of the others that have been approved. - 3 - ~.lPla-nning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 6/27/84 V~.6'41,' A~9'7'6'.'a'n'd' A~.'7'09'~od~ (cont.) SZhe i.ndicated that she. would not' vote 'for it for the 'proposed size if it were a whole sign put up ther'e 'because 'she feels 'it would be too massive; however, she could conS. ider. thi's one. Commissioner Siegfried asked what kind of precedent would be set, since the Commission h.as' been. very careful about square footage on signs. Staff reminded the .Commission' that, regarding the'Randalls sign, in the final analysis they did place a board beh'i'nd the'ir script writing so that it could be more readily seen. Comm'iss'i'Oner Crowther' stated that he"thinks a 14 or 15 ft. sign is too large. He indicated that he 'feels maybe an 8 ft. sign on the west elevation might not be too bad if the"emblem we're dropped off of it. Commissioner' Peters'on' commen'ted that he thinks the logo over the years is as important as the script. He 'stated that the Commission should make it very clear.before a use is-approved exactly what the signage is. FIe commented that he feels-very strongly that one of the' problems wi'th 'Randalls is that it did not have th.e"ri.gh.t kind of identity and visibility and no~one knew what was. H.e stated that he is not suggesting that th. ere be a lot of sign pollution in S. aratoga, but he' feels that the Commission ought to thi'nk very clearly and strongly about allowing people 'to have 'reasonable 'identity and visibility if~ th.ey are 'going to.open.a busines's.' He added that he agrees that the 14 ft. is a little long; however, it is 'an awfully long plain building; the west e.leva- ti.on ha~ no relief, and th.ere are 'fairly mature 'trees. He recommended 11-12 ft., making everyth.i~ng a little smaller. Commissioner Harris commented that she has never bee'n happy with that building because of the way.it is situated. She disa'greed that people don't know what it is' and feel's-'that it is' very visible 'because it is so far out next to the road. She 'indi. cated tha't s'he 'feels the Commission needs to modify the original approval and feels 'that some sort 'of si'gn needs to be on that building. She added that it does not fit our City, which 'is suppose'd to be supporting its mer'chants'and ~usines's'es, to not' have 'anything. Further discu's's-ion' followed on the measurement of the sign. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve V--641,' A~-976 and Modification of A-709, per the con- diti. ons 'of the"Staff' Report and adding a condition that the' sign on the west elevation be' reduced to no more than'.ll ft. long. He made the following find- · ings-: #1 -~ Th.e' ordinance, as 'it relates' to 40 sq. ft., is primarily to limit the 'smaller s-h~o'ps',. the 'single uses. What is he're is a 7,000 sq. ft. building, and based on that the 'exception could be made. #2 -~ We are faced with a very large plain building that .req'uires~ more than 40 sq. 'ft. split into two signs for adequate 'identity and visibility. #3 ~ The~ need two' signs of approxi- matel~ 20 and 30~3'5 sq. ft. to adeq'uate'ly~n~if~ theT-"~ank~ commissioner' Crowth.er' asked' if Commissioner Pet'er'son would propose to make similar exc'eptions for every other building in the City that might fall under similar circumst'ances.' Commissioner' Peterson answered that he 'would not be. He would be prepared to make tha't finding in a si'tuation where there is a 7,000 s'q.. ft.. kind of ba'rn looking plain building and the' Commission voted to allow a use in the're,.the'n he would go along with them coming in for an excep- ti.on to the '40 'sq..ft. He Went on to make Finding #4 -..H.e feels"'~a~.'l~there are exceptional c~jrcumstances because the building is so' large and there would be a denial of common privilege. Chairman Siegfried added' to those findings the nature of th.i.s.' si~gn, the"fac~ that it is 'open let'tering, no backing,. the. land- s'capi.ng that exists,' and.the location, because 'it is the entrance to the City, and the 'Commi.s-s"ion'prefer's this kind of open let'ter sign to what is in the re~t of the s'hopping center'. It was also noted that there is a condition in the Staff Report that the're be 'no 'illumination of signs, and that condition might help' make .the 'findings in the 'sense that the 'Commission is allowing 25--30% coverage.' .Commissioner Peterson made the balance of the findings: #6 - Th.e nature of the sign bl'end.~"i.n very' ni.cely with.'the' concept of the. gateway to the City. #7 The 'Commission has~'reduce'd the size of the sign on the west elevation. Com- missioner' Sc~.aefer ~econde~ th.e motion~ Discu~sion followed on the"condition' regarding the' awning. There was a con- s'en's-us' that the approval would be for 54 sq. ft. maximum of signage, and if the ~applicant wants signage on the awn'ing~ then they' will have 'to reduce the other two signs..' - 4 - -Pla~n~ing Commission Page 5 Minutes -. Meeting 6/27/84 ~641, A-976 and A-709 Mo'd. (cont.) Commissioner Crowther stated that, although he is willing to go along with some signage on the west and north elevations, he feels this is excessive. He thinks it is setting a dangerous precedent; he does not feel it looks good, and therefore he is strongly opposed to it. CommisSiOner Schaefer stated that she feels that because of no illumination, it makes a great deal of difference as far as the precedent is concerned, and because of the kind of sign that it is, i.e., it is not any big block plastic typ~ nor is it freestanding. The vote,was taken on the motion. The motion was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. il. A-892 Bing Lee Tsai, Modification to Design Review Approval for floor area which exceeds the standard for the zone at 18691 Vessing Road,' in the V-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the modification. They indicated that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and indicating she was in agreement with the Staff Report. She noted that there is a large oak tree on site and measures would have to'be taken to protect that tree if the application is approved. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Jim Chang, representing the applicant, explained the modification. He indicated that the oak tree is not on the proper'ty line, and that the fence is also about.20 ft. dway from the property line. Discussion followed on the size of the home, and Mr. Chang indicated that he could cut the size of the house back down to the original size. Don MCKenzie, the subdivider of the property, also clarified that the tree is not on the 'property. Richard Merwin stated that he has a home under construction to the wes~ of this property. He 'discussed the application relative to his property, indicat- ing that he would prefer that the house be m~ved up the slope, as suggested in the modification. CommisSioner' Peter'son moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconde~ the' motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner Harris' suggested' that a condition be 'added to read: "Landscaping shall be installed' before 'final occupancy (whi'ch was not a condition' in the original approval), wi'th approval by Staff, and with particular attention to screening on the we'stern boundary." Commissioner McGoldrick moved' to approve ~odification to A-.892, per Exhibit "B" and the conditions of the Staff.Report, red'ucing the square footage of t'he original proposal by 5~1 sq. ft., deleting Conditions 1 and 2, and adding the 'condition about the 'landscaping. She' stated' that Finding #3 can be made because 'of the reduce'd size. Commissioner' Peterson seconded the motion, which. was carried unanimously Break 9:05 ~ 9:20 p.m. 12. V~639 -. Mr. and Mrs. D. Keen, Request for Variance Approval to construct a on'e~story addition wi. th. a '26 ft. rear yard setback where 35 ft. ......... is.required,~at..12326.Golet~..Court in the.R=-l~10,000 zoning "d'ijstrict.' ........ Staff explained the proposal, rec'ommending denial. They commented that if the variance is denied the' Commission should make the findings for the existing arbor or h.ave that portion which encroaches into the setback removed. Commis- sioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use"Committee"report, describing the site. She indicated th.~t she 'sees no way. to build out into the side yards without some real problem. SHe noted that there are mature trees in the 'rear yard adjacent to th.e fence and the 'existing arbor has not caused any major problem. She commented that, regar'ding common privilege, she feels she can make the findings. The public he~ring was opened at 9:24 p.m. - 5 Planning Commission Pa~e 6 ~inutes·- Meeting 6/27/84 V-639 (cont.) The applicant submitted pictures of the ·site and described the proposal. He referenced the letter he had· submitted relative ·to the project. He noted similar variances· ·that have ·been· granted· wi·th the ·same problem in their tract. Mr. Keen indicated tha·t he ha's contacted· the neighbors and they have no objec- tion to the plans'. Bob Dumaral, designer, gave a presentation· on the addition. Commissioner Schaefer inquired· about an overhang, suggesting that she feels it would be wise to put an overha·ng on for protection from the sun, so there wo·uld be no problem later on. Commissioner Cr0wthe·r moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner HcGoldriCk seconded the· motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowthe·r moved· to approve V~-639, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated June ·21., 1984, making findings #3 and #4, based on the fact that this is an uniquely ·shap.ed lot; it has 3,780 sq. ft. excess area over and above ~hat required by the zoning district;' ther·e is unique vegetation on the site and other conditions that would make ·it difficult to go into the side yard; i't i-s being limited to a single story addition, and it is within the 25 ft. rear ·yard setback for a single ·story structure. Commissioner Crowther added that a condition be put ·in the report, stating that an up to 3 ft. overhang is allowed. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Chairman Siegfried added that this is-not a proposal to add rooms to the· house; it is an expansion of a kitchen, dining room and family room. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried unanimously 6-·0. 13.·- V--644 ~ Edwin and Kathleen Epes, Request for Variance Approval to allow construction of a one--story addition with a 31 ft. rear yard ....... set·back where .35 .ft.' is required at 20394 .Manoa Court, in the R ~.1 --12', '500' 'PD"'z'oni'n'g 'd.i's't r i'c'.t Staff explained· the· 'proposal, noting that this is quite similar to the previous application. They indicated· that they are unable to make Findings #3 and #4 and rec·ommend denial.· Commissioner ~·~cGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that·the d·ining room is very small and there is no question that that is where ·they need to 'extend their home and there ·is no other direction to go. She ·added that t]~eTVa~'i-~-'~0~ 'in'~o'-l'V~'.on'e""'s'~'all=~'~rh'e~""of'.-'~he dinin~ room The publi·c hearing was opened· at 9:35 p.m. Shirley MCCartney, th.e neighbor most affected· by the proposal, spoke in support. Commissioner· ~cGoldrick moved to close 'the ·public hearing. Commissioner Peterson se·c·onded the· motion, whi·ch was carried unanimously. Commi.ss"i,on'er' .McGoldri.ck moved to approve V~644, per' the conditions of the Staff Report dated June 20, 1984, making Findings '#3 and #4, ba·sed. on the ·fact that the variance ·is for just one sm·a·ll corner of the ·dining room, approximately 4 ft..·; th.ev have an excess side ·yard area, and the lot is large and very uniquely shaped·., COmmissioner· Peterson-seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous ly .. 14'a.. V-.643 ~: K.en Daniel, Request for Variance. ·Approval to allo~ a free'stand- 14b.~ A~977 ~. i. ng sign where ·none· is per'mitted (.5' setba'ck wh'ere ].~.' required) ~ by ordinance and allow a total of· 66 sq.. ft.· of signage where .............. a. maximum -of--~1~.25 .sq.. ft...is ·permitted .at 12335 Saratoga- " 'Shn'ny'val'e 'ROad',' in 't'h'e' 'C~-V Di's'tri'c't S·taff explained the· proposal, recommending approval of the variance with the s. quare footage being reduced to 54 sq. ft. ~ and that it be accomplished by reducing the 'ex'..ist'ing signage 'by 12 .s'q. ft. l't. wa.'s noted that a letter had heen received·, ~n opposition·to the 'variance. The· public hea·ring ·was opened at 9:38 p.m. Ken Daniel·, the 'applicant, s'poke 'relati.ve to the recommendation to reduce 'the Si.rloi.n & ·Brew 'sign.. He stated that th.e'y h··ave .'a per'mit for the ·sign at its p.res"en't si.ze 'and ha're a lease.. He commen'te'd that he doubts ·very much if he can force ·Sirloin & ·Brew to reduce the ·size ·of the si'gn until the lease expires. Mr. Daniel discu'ss'e'd' the"'s-igna~e' in the' ·area Edwin O'Farriel architect, gave a presentation on the Droposed si~na~e Dis- cussion followed on the setbacks and the design of the sidewalk in relation to 6 ..'PlaNning Commission Page 7 "Minutes - Meeting 6/27/84 V-643 and A-977 (cont.) the signage. Bill Lang, 12324 Julie, a member of the Oak Creek Homeowners Association, spoke ' support of the sign.· It was determin d that the si ~ shal b located to the r¢~ar of l~e prant~ng area, with a'meandering sldewal~ between the ~gn an~ t~e street. Mrs.' Dauberr, of Daubert Printery, asked for approval of the signage so that they would be able to advertise their business in front of their building and have'some identification. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner HcGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that Staff has proposed taking 12 sq. ft. of signage out by reducing the existing Sirloin & Brew sign., and that doesn't seem to be practical. He proposed to reduce the size of the 'freestanding sign by 4 sq. ft. He explained that he feels the freestanding sign perhaps has a greater impact than the signs on the building; therefore, it would have bigger effect and would still give them sufficient area to identify the busi- nesses. Discussion followed on the Sirloin & Brew sign. The City Attorney commented that normally the owner is required to apply, as opposed to the occupant. He explained that it is customary for Staff to treat signage based upon the property as a whole. He 'indicated that he has no problem saying that upon expiration of the lease Sirloin & Brew should reduce the sign. He added that he does think, however, that the Commission is entitled to treat the entire property, and if that means reducing the 'signage of one. area to accommodate another, that can be done. That doesn't mean the applicant has the present ability to comply. It may mean postponement of his freestanding sign unless the Commission wants to grant him some relief in that regard or waive the condition. He added that he assumes the owner applied for the permit, and even if he didn't the Commission still has jurisdiction over it. Commissioner Crowt'her moved to approve V-643 and A-977, per the Staff Report dated June 20, 1984 and Exhibits B, C, D and E, changing Condition No. 1 to state that the· existing Sirloin & Brew sign shall be reduced to a total of 17 sq.'ft. when and if the lease expi'res on that particular portion of the building, thus reducing the total signage permitted on site to S4 sq. ft., and adding a' condition that the freestanding sign be held to no greater than 8 sq. ft. and'have 'a minimum front yard setback of 8 ft. instead of S ft. It was also determined' that COndition. No. 7 should read that all sign illumination sha'll be turned off by 10:00 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the lettering of the sign and the Sirloin & Brew lease. It was determined that Conditi'on NOj'i should be amended to read: "'.The' exi.st~ ing Sirloin & Brew' sign s'hall be 'reduced' to a to't'al of 17 sq~ ft. when the present .term of the lea'st expi.res, not considering any potential. renewal terms, thns reducing the total signage permitted on sit~ to '54 sq. ft." Commissioners Crowther and McGoldrick acceptedTM that amendment.. The motion was 'carried unani- mously 6~o0... 1S.. A-~-.964 ~ McBain &'Gibbs, Inc., Req'uest for Design Review ApproVal to con-. struct a. 2~-st'ory single family' res'i!dence' on Tollgate Road, Lot ......... ~14~.Tract' 6628,..in the..NHR. zOn'ing.district; continued.from ..... June :13',""1'98'4 It was· directed that this matter be continued. 16a. SDR~d539 _I ProfeSsional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Considera- 16b..· UP~=·535 ~.- tion· of EIR and Rkquest for USe Permit, Building Site Approval 16c. A~·989 ~- and Design Review Approval for 129,000 sq. ft. in 3 office ............. Buildings-at the ·southeast corner· of Saratoga and Cox Avenue " '. .... i'n' the'P-A Zon'in'g 'D'is't'r'i'c't Ch·airman Siegfried commented that the public hearing on the Draft EIR would be opened tonight, and the applicant has asked for a 10~15 minute slide presenta- ti. on. Staff commented' that after the input ·from the public hearing, the·EIR cOns·ultant nee·ds to answer· the comments from tonight·, and the Commission might continue··th·e ·hea'ring until the·neXt meeting or to another date certain if the consultant feels th.at would not allow enough ·time ~ · The ·public hearing was opened at 9:42 p.m. - 7 - PlaRn:-ing Commission .... Page 8 ,['Minutes --Meeting of 6/27/ SDR~1539',' UP--535','.A~.989' and EIR (cont.) The Owen Companies gave a slide presentation on the project, describing the character' and intent of the' project~ They discussed setbacks, parking, land- scaping, materials and appearance of the building. Steve Douglas, of Owen Companies, indicated that they do not agree with the findings in the 'Staff Report and commented on the General Plan and area of guidelines as they relate to the project. Chairman'Siegfried noted' that there is a copy of the EIR at the Library and also a copy for loan at the City Hall offices. Betty Laughlin~ a merchant in the Quito Shopping Center, submitted signatures from the merchants in the' center', strongly supporting this project. Robert.Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, expres'sed concern regarding the traffic, specifically the"area of Cox Avenue 'and McFarland. Jim Russell, repres'enting the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the EIR. He expressed concern regarding traffic, stating that the traffic e.ngineer never addresses Mellon, Saratoga Glen Place or Palo Oaks. He suggested that the traffic study be done again at a time'when the schools are operating and residents are 'not on vacation. !te added that it is not rele- vant today because of the high growth that has taken place in the last year and because' it was taken during the 'summer. Mr. Russell also expressed concern regarding smog. He 'stated' that he did not agree with statements that residences cannot be 'built in a well traveled area. He questioned how the 129,000 sq. ft. is going to be filled, and asked what ]happens if the'offices' don't rent. He indicated that the Homeown'er's Association would like residences, a combination of condos and single family, maybe"seniors, who will best represent Saratoga and observe 'traffic and take.'care of the landscaping. He commented that if the office.buildings are 'allowe'd, that they be one story and at the same den- si.ty as the medical professional buildings across the street. J~ck Key, 18774 Devon S'tree't, expressed concern with the traffic. He indicated that if an office building is built that it be one-.story; however, he would rather' see"it residential. Marve Christal, 18993 Palo Oaks Court,-expressed concern over additional traffic. He c'ommented that he 'does not feel the traffic report is correct .because 'of timing.. He also indicated that he does not want twos. story build- ings. Mary Hawk'ins, representing Quito Park Homeowner's, expressed concern regarding the 'traffic. She 'commented that she feels the Commission should just con- centrate On traffic now"and not plan anything until that problem is solved. She commented on' the current traffic problem on Paseo Lado. A resident at 18955 McFarland address'ed the'traffic and suggested making McFarland one--wa'y..- He commented that the"building will be ~n his back yard and suggested s. ome kind of wall to cut down' th.e noise of the cars. Joan Faunce, President of E1 Quito Homeowners Association, stated that the traffic i.s' of prime importance to them. She"commented. that their area seems to be the 'shor'tcut for' people to avoid the 'signal light at Lawrence Express- way.and Bucknail and Quito.. She commended' the developers for the manner in whi'ch.'th.ev have worked with her group. She' suggested that if a curb avhi'ch was ]~r~`~h~h~he~n~:a.t~a~e~es~da~and~C~x~was.~nsta~ed~that.wa~-also 'longer, · ~l~%~']~'~O'~!'~'~f'nbf"~b~"~ny ].e~ 'rump .'~n. ~bx..into ~'~he project, they f~el that would also eliminate through 'traffic through the' area from Quito to the project. She added that they would also be,supportive 'of a general traffic study and one that parti'cularly looks at the area' of Saratoga Avenue and Quito and areas that are impacted by the 'traffic. She noted tha~ RV vehicles and trucks are parked on Saratoga Avenue in front of the 'vacant lot between the townhouses and th.e"medi.cal area~ and also that the 'medical area has access to parking, all of this'on the 'bifke' lane. She' commented that she 'feels this should be reviewed and bOthOf.tho's'e 'sh:0uld be con'sidered to be 'eliminated.. She suggested an: 8 ft, stucco' Or concr'et'e wall..along DevOn' in.'order to provide a sound buffer. She dis'cus. s'ed' the developments' speci'fically the"s'etba'cks and height. She indicated that 'in general tlle HOmeowners Associ'ation would have preferred to have a.mix wi. th 'some ~es'idential in it. HoweVer'; they are aware of some of th.e problems' in deVelOping the 'property in general. She 'added that, with the present project as presented, it may be one of the better developments that 4.Pl~n~-i. ng Commission " Page 9. ~-~'Minut~Is - Heeting of 6/27/ SDR-1539, UP-535, A-989 and EIR (cont.) they might have seen, and it will eliminate a corner that is becoming a garbage dump and·a fire trap. She added that she feels that the developers have done a reasonably good job, but feels that there needs to be continued attention spent on traffic and noise. In relation to the traffic and the number of parking spaces, they would encourage excluding professional like dental and medical in that facility, which can add to car trips, as opposed to other types of admin- istrative offices. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels a new traffic study should be done when West College and other schools are in session. Commissioner Siegfried· stated that he would like to know when they did the study, what average was being used, and what happens if you are at the low end of use vs. the high end of use, and what square footage assumptions are used in'terms of employees per sq. ft. He stated that he would like the answers to those questions, and if they don't agree he would like to see another study. Commissioner Crowther added that ~.he would like to see an analysis of coup'ling of any traffic peaks with West Valley peaks. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would support a new traffic study but would like to hear why the study was done at that time and th~ methodology of factoring. Commissioner Harris commented that she would like to see figures' on the traffic that would be generated. Commissioner McGoldrick asked if it would be feasible to !o~e'rv't'~=e ~Ui'l.din~ the ground, so maybe half of the first floor would be below ground. Woul·d drainage be possible? Commissioner Schaefer asked if perhaps the parking lots could be lowered. She added that another concern that she has is the square footage in those buildings, since she feels it would affect the traffic. Com- missioner McGoldrick noted that in the EIR, under S-2, Noise, it reads: "Once occupied, the project would generate intermittent noise typical of commercial development but average noise levels on the site would not increase." She commented that she does not want it to be typical of commercial development-- it is not commercial; why was there no mitigation mentioned? Commissioner Crowther stated that many people ha~e mentioned residential as an option. He commented that he is not sure the EIR has done justice to the residential option, and he would like to see more evaluation, particularly single family resident·ial coupled with perhaps condomi·niums. Chairman Siegfried commented that the Commission needs to have a session where the applicant can go through the traffic study' and allow the questions to be asked, to.see wh·ether the traffic study is adequate and the assumptions were reasonable '-'I.f -~h-e-~--~r~e:-n~-~--theL-C-~m~ss~i~.-sh6-u~d--d~-~t-e-r~neLw~a~--~needs to be done. ~[' --'-" " ' " ' Commissioner Crowther added that he would like to know what basis was used for .estimating the noise impacts and how they correspond relative to the Saratoga Noise Ordinance.. It was'directed that this matter be continued to July 11, 1984, at which time the traffic consultant should be present and the Commission will be looking at the EIR mainly from the traffic standpoint. COMMUNIC·A·TIONS Oral 1. Commissioner· Crowther gave a brief report on the City Council meeting' held on June '20, 1984. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. It wa·s noted' that the 'League of California Cities Conference will be held September 23-.26. 3. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee'. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Peterson seconded the mot'ion, which was carried' unanimously. The 'meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. RSS:cd