Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~B~ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 25, '1984 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Ergwther,-'S~haefer' and Siegfried "' Absent: Commissioner Peterson Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of July 11, 1984: On page 3, under A-983, the last part of the second sentence in paragraph 3 should read: "...and also an enlarged photograph~, of the site and the home drawn to scale." On page 4, 'in the third paragraph, it should be added that Annelie Long is the designer. Commissioner Harris moved to waive.'.t]~e'reading of the minutes of July 11, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer abstaining since they were not present. Item 4, A-958, Dewey, was removed for discussion. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed below. Commis- sioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. R. M. Flynn, 19290 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Construction of a 6' high gray wall within 100' of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 2. A-807-A - Marion Calderone (Amato), 12651 Saratoga Avenue, Request for One- Year Extension 3a. Negative DeClaration - SM-4 Donald Rumph 3b. SM-4 Mr. and Mrs. Donald Rumph, 14968 Granite Court, Request for Site Modification to construct a single story addition and deck on a slope greater than 10%, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district; continued from July 11, 1984 Discussion followed on A-958 - Robert Dewey. Staff explained that this was a referral from the City Council, for the Commission's review and comments regard- ing the modifications. They indicated that the instruction from the Council was that the house shall not be visible from the opposite side of the ridge, and stated that it is very difficult to comply with that in all instances. Staff commented that they have concluded that the matter has been improved over what the original application was, and on that basis they have recommended that the Commission give a positive recommendation to the City Council. The screening was discussed. Commissioner Crowther stated that he had a number of comments, but he noted that he would be speaking on the matter as a member of the public. Commissioner Harris asked if the house has been moved to the furthest point. Staff '~ated. that it would be difficult to move i't further back on the lot. They clari- fied the height issue, stating that it is listed as 32 ft.; however, actually it is still the same, from finished floor to roof, i.e. 25~ ft. They added that in this application there is a cross section that shows an area from 4 to 8 ft. high underneath the subfloor. They added that the grading plan only indicated a 2½ ft. subfloor, which would give a height of 28 ft., as was in the original application. They indicated that this has been pointed out to the architect. Bill Heiss, the engineer, stated that basically the house had been shifted as far. to the south and to the w~st as it" could without getting into very steep terrain. He stated that basically he was working with the same house. He gave a slide presentation, showing the house from different locations. He indicated that most of the visibility ~s in the 4 to 5 ft. range, and the structure could - 1 - P~'a~ning Commission .... Page 2 Meeting Minutes 7/25/84 ~ A-958 (cont.) be simply shielded with'very low 'growing plants. Mr.'Curt Anderson, the architect, clarified that there was an error in the architectural section and the grading plan was not interpreted correctly, and the house is 29 ft. in height. Commissioner Schaefer inquired about the scale, and Mr. Anderson clarified that the overall height of the house would be 38'6" if you look at it in a two-dimensiQnal state. Mike Dillon, the landscape archirect, addressed the landscaping. Russell Crowther, Norada Court, asked how much the peak elevation had changed 'on the new plans versus the old. Bill Heiss stated that the actual peak was lowered by one-half foot. He added that the finished floor of the bedroom and the main section was lowered by one-half foot. Mr. Crowther stated that one of the things that the City Council wanted looked at is the issue of vegetation on scenic ridgelines. He indicated that he felt the concern was that you really need a careful plan for vegetation on a scenic ridgeline, and if you let a particular homeowner put whatever he wants on the ridgeline, they are liable to end up in a situation where the vegetation actually contributes to the destruction of the scenic character. FIe ~de~ that he is very concerned about this and the General Plan calls for strict control of vegetation on scenic ridgelines. Mr. Crowther commented that he thinks this issue needs to be addressed and that there should be a uniform plan that doesn't change from one applicant to another. Mr. Crowther stated that he is still very concerned about this house and thinks it still sticks up considerably above the ridgeline. He commented that he thinks the home could be located differently on the pad that was previously approved and that it'might require design change, but it would result in meet- ing the General Plan and the criteria that the City is try.ing to achieve to preserve the scenic ridgelines. Chairman Siegfried asked Mr..Heiss for clarification, stating that he did not get the point from Mr. Heiss's comments that there was any significant change in the visibility of the house. .Bill Heiss stated that he assumed the basic house design stayed the same and he was working with the pad elevations that he had established, and when they lowered the pad it came down about one-half foot. Chairman Siegfried asked to what extent the overall visibility of the house had changed. Curt Anderson stated that the first proposal was 21 ft. at peak height at the ri'dge; it is now down to 11 ft., being reduced by almost 50%. Chairman Siegfried asked, other than at the maximum point, how has the house changed? Mr. Anderson stated that, as had been pointed out by the slides, as you change in the direction of the house, the angle of the visual approach will change the elevations. Chairman Siegfried asked if there was any thought given to changing the design of the house. Mr. Anderson commented that he spoke with his client and this is the ~Fpe of house he wants. He stated that it would be difficult to.have a different t.ype of house on this site because of the slope. Chairman Siegfried noted that this was a 6700 sq. ft. home, and asked if there was any thought to reducing the size. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the house 'was on 2.7 acres so it would meet the size require- ments. Mr. Anderson commented that they were very willing to work with Staff on whatever typ'e of landscaping would be needed to meet the ridgeline environ- ment. Mr. Anderson stated that they were not flexible on the design of the house. Commissioner' Harris asked if that would be the case even though the City Council expressed that they couldn't support the house going up on the ridgeline. Mr. Anderson stated that the. Council did not really address the design of the house as much as the location and the impact upon the ridge. At Commissioner Harris' request, the City Attorney explained that this matter had been referred back to the Planning Commission for them to consider other alternatives for the placement of the house so as to mitigate its visibility from the ridgeline. Procedurally that issue is now before the Commission, and" they would then make their recommendation back to the Council as to whether they feel this latest proposal mitigates the impact on the ridge to a sufficient degree that they can recommend that the Council approve it. He added that, by the same token, if Mr. Crowther is satisfied with the change and he elects to withdraw the appeal, that would be the end of it. He added that Mr. Crowther is entitled to a decision on his appeal, however, and if he's not satisfied with this change, then the matter'would still remain back with the City Coun- cil. He commented that the main issue tonight is whether, in the Commission's judgment, the relocation of the house has mitigated its impact upon the ridge- line and whether the Commission is satisfied with that or whether further efforts should be made to achieve that result. 2 Preening Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 7/25/84 A-958 (cont.) Commissioner McGoldrick asked if the applicant accepts the Staff recommenda- tion that the retaining wall be no higher than 5 ft. or 125 ft. in length. She stated that she was ready to suggest.to the Council that they accept the proposal based upon landscape screening. Commissioner Schaefer stated that She felt the applicant has made every effort to relocate the house on the property. However, she does not see where it meets the CounCil objectives where they have stated that the house must not project 'above the ridgeline. She added that if that is what the Council means, she does not know if'this can even be addressed. The City Attorney stated that he never understood the Council to say that no portion Of the house must project above the ridgeline. He commented that he thinks.it was clear_~that no matter where the house is placed, even a single story house may be visible from the ridgeline. He commented that the Council's main concern was to lower the visibility of the house and screen it with land- scaping. 'Mr. Crowther commented that he didn't think the 21 ft. was ever admitted to the Council and that the basic thing that was presented to the Council was that it wouldn't extend anymore than 4 ft. above the'ridgeline from most practical views. Commissioner Harris stated that she appreciated the effort that has been made by the applicant. However, she still thinks that ll ft., particularly on the slide that Bill Heiss showed from Maureen, is very visible. She indicated that she did not feel comfortable with the explanation of the landscaping and would like to see the Commission have tighter control over what plants will be used. Chairman Siegfried stated that he was prepared to vote favorably on this but perhaps with a condition that there is some detailed landscaping and some thought given to co.nsistency of landscaping. He commented that, given the nature of this property, even if a single story 20 ft. high house is put on this site, a house cannot be placed there that will not be visible from some- where. Discussion followed on another condition regarding the landscaping. Staff suggested that the condition be amended to make the landscape plans subject to Planning Commission approval rather than Staff approval, and at a study session Mr.'Crowther's concerns could be addressed. Chairman Siegfried stated that maybe the Commission should see the landscape plan simply from the stand- point of an overall concept, since.it is a ridgeline. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend approval of A-958 to the Council, making the findings, per the. Staff Report dated July 20, 1984, with Condition #1 amended to read that the landscaping plan will come back to 'the Planning Commission. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Schaefer and Harris dissenting and Commissioner Crowther abstaining. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she was not voting for this~ however, she had voted for it the first time because she felt she could go along with it within the parameters that were being used at that time. She added that now .she. feels ~'wi~]~= the directive that has come from the Cit. y Coun- cil ,~ .'.'e~e'n' '~'f.'.~'l~y _.fnterpret .it .th'at ' it w~ll 'Show. Somewhat ~ove 'the ridg~!ine, S!ie""feel'~ that it does have t'he impression of being bulky and' she feels the Co~'nci~ should realize that. She added that if they want a two-story home she thinks this is fine, but it is 29 ft. high and on a ridgeline, and that is ]~igh- er than what a home needs to be if the Council is trying to keep to what they · have stated they want.. DESI'GN REVIEW 5. A-990 - Clarence'Neale, 14230-C Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Request for Design Review Approval for an accessory structure to be moved onto a lot currently occupied by' apartments Staff explained the application, recommending approval. Commissioner ~cGoldrick g'ave a Land Use Committee report. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-990, per the Staff Report dated July 17, 1984 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously 6-0. PI~nning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 7/25/84 P.UBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR No. 6, A-991, Shasby, was removed in order to add a condition to it relat'ive to the removal of the concrete and addition of landscaping. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve Items 7 and 8 listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 7. 'A-992 - Mr. and ~Irs. Alfred J. Cali, 19939 Charters Avenue, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second story expansion to an existing two-stOry residence and to exceed the 4,000 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. 8. V-646 - Michael and Barbara Ulrich, 21235 Deepwell Court, Request for Variance Approval for a wood deck in the required sideyard set- back, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Discussion followed on A-991, Shasby. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that on the Land Use Committee inspection, they had clarified with the applicant that he would be removing the concrete and putting landscaping in; however, she felt that a condition should be added to the Staff Report. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing on Item 6. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-991, per the Staff Report dated July 19, 1984 and Exhibit B, adding a condition That the concrete driveway shall be rem6ved and replaced by landscaping. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9a. E-1183 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Considera- 9b. SDR-1539 - tion of EIR and Request for Use Permit, Building Site Approval 9c. UP-535 - and Design Review Approval for 129,999 sq. ft., in 3 office 9d. A-989 - buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenue in the P-A zoning district; continued from July 11, 1984 Chairman Siegfried commented that the matter tonight is the adequacy of the EIR. FIe noted additional amendments to the EIR, addressing the addition of an alternative consideration, which was single family residence and what its impact would be on traffic. Collin Russell, architect, represented Steve Douglas from the Owen Companies. Ite commented that they have done some studies on the traffic channelization and the question of the extension of Route 85. He noted that Jack Peers, of PRC Engineering, the traffic engineers, is present tonight. Mr. Russell indicated that Mr. Peers has forwarded to them a very diagramatic scheme for the channelization of Cox, which they have drawn to scale. He submitted this, explaining that what they are proposing is a restricted left-hand turn into the site as you are heading west on Cox.' tte indicated that it is restricted by a center median. He further described the proposed channelization of Cox. Jack Peers, from PRC Engineering, further discussed the channelization, along with the additional residential developments, the appropriateness of the trip generations,'and the Route 85 issue. He reported his conclusions, after talking to the Transportation Commission and Caltrans, regarding the schedule for the 85 West Valley Freeway, indicating that the project will probably be initiated as early as 1990 and completed in approximately 2005. He addressed two key elements in relation to this project, (1) changes in land uses that are going to take place as a consequence of the freeway, and (2) the change in existin2 traffic as far as its impact in the immediate vicinity of this site. A~the~requeSt-'o.f ~he-Commission, Mr. Peers stated that he would be happy to provide a summary 6f the points made tonight at the meeting. Bob Mulford stated'that his property borders on Cox and inquired about the channelization of Cox. He indicated that he is also a Public Safety Commis- sioner, and one of the things they are int'erested in.is that particular inter- section and the lights. He stated that his concern, from a commission point of view, is how the current two lanes of traffic, feeding westbOund on Cox across Saratoga into a single lane, is going to be dealt with. Planning Commission' Page 5 Meeting Minutes 7/25/84 .... Owen.(cont.) Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Wood Homeowners Association, submitted a traffic analysis chart and addressed the traffic. He stated that he feels that the north commercial growth has not been factored into the traffic c-ounts. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, stated that she would like to have the Jobs Housing and Balance issue addressed, and also what the traffic will be when the 85 'corridor goes in, and what it will. be under metered conditions as it backs up. She added that she feels the Commission should talk to the Safety Commis- sioners i,n general before approving such a project, so the Planning Commis- Sion can get the same report and input they do as to where the problem areas in ·the City are. Craig Scott, cox Avenue, expressed concern over the visual impact, the 'traffic flow and circulation. Staff discussed the channelization on the · McFarla~d side into the project. Commissioner. Crowther s.tated 'that.he feels the issue of traffic coming from the east should be addressed, specifically identifying the most likely streets and what the impact will be. Mrs. Sabella, Devon Avenue, expressed cQncern regarding the traffic and accidents that the project will generate., indicating that she cannot get out of her driveway after 2:00 p.m. Mary Beth Gandrue, from the E1 Quito Homeowners Association, asked if the Paul Masson's undeYeloped property had been considered in the traffic flow, and'Staff clarified that'all of the empty sites were considered. Chairman Siegfried noted that the recommendation from Staff is that the public Rearing be closed, which would gi-ve the consultant time to respond to any of the concerns tonight. .Th'e"Commissio'n' c~'fi fhen 'r~vi~ those responses and vote on the adequacy of the EIR at the next meeting. CommisSioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris asked if the public hearing is closed on the EIR, when is the public going to respond to the responses from the applicant. It was noted that the EIR consultant responds to the concerns, not the applicant.. Staff also noted that' the public input would be closed on the EIR; however, there will be public hearings on the project itself. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would be strongly opposed to c~osing the public hearing. Chairman Siegfried stated. that at the last sessions there were some rather detailed reports on traffic and the Commis- sion is asking for some additional responses,-and reiterated that there will be furth·er hearings on the project. The City Attorney explained the procedure, indicating that in :Future public hearings any member of the public has the right to comment on the EIR. He commented that if additional concerns should surface, i.e.,·further changes in the circulation pattern, there is nothing to foreclose the Commission from requesting additional information at a future date from the applicant or traffic engineer aS additional traffic patterns are'studied.' He sta'ted that nobody has bought into the channelization of Cox or any other traffic proposals, and those issues are not really before the'Commissfon directly other.than the overall'traffic impact of the project. He added that all op- tions 'remain open and all possibilities can be explored. He commented that there will be a public hear.ing on the aspects of the project. Commissioner Crowther asked if the public hearing could be reopened on the EIR if there were a request for some reason based on-the responses. The CitynAttorney answered that he is not sure that it could be because in effect what the Com·- mission is doing now is making a determination that the EIR is a·dequate, and Commissioner Crowther's question presupposes inadequacy of tile EIR. He added that the Commission might be able to supplement it. Commissioner Cr·owther commented that he still believes that the public should be permitted to com- ment on the adequacy at that point after everything is there, and if it is not possible for the public hearing to be reopened to let the'public do that, should they request it, then he Would be opposed to closing it. The vote was taken on the motion to close the public hearing on the EIR. The motion was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Crowther and Harris dissenting. B~eak 9:40 - 9:55 p.m. P1Enning Commission. Page 6 ~ =~eeting Minutes 7/25/84 10a. A-983 - Mr. and Mrs. Geno, Request for Design Review Approval to con- 10b. V-654 - struct a 3-story, single family residence and Variance Approval to exceed the 30 ft. height limit at 21449 Tollgate Road, in the NHR zoning district; continued from July 11, 1984 It was directed that this matter be continued to August 8, 1984. 11. "UP-562 - Mr. and Mrs. Gene Oberhauser, 14462 Black Walnut Court, Request for Use Permit Approval to construct a gazebo in the rear yard setback area, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district It was directed that this item be withdrawn, at the applicant's request. 12a. A-986 Tim and Carla Robinson, 15097 Park Drive, Request for Design 12b. SDR-1577 - Review Approval to allow a two-story addition to an existing single story, single family dwelling and Tentative Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expansion Staff explained the project, recommending approval. Commissioner ~cGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that they agree with the Staff Report. The public hearing was opened at 9:57 p.m. Mr. Robinson asked about the fees on the sewer connection and clarification of the Deferred Improvement Agreements on the conditions. Condition II-D was specifically discussed, which requires a 32 ft. radius. Staff noted that this is a standard condition; however, the applicant can deal with the Fire Depart- ment to see if they might waive it or modify the condition in some way. Com- missioner Schaefer commented that she did not feel that Condition II-D was necessary in that particular location. Staff noted that the turnaround is on- site.. Mr. Robinson clarified that his setback off of Park Drive is 78 ft., and Chairman Siegfried noted that since the house is within 100 ft. of the road- way, the condition is not applicable. Mr. Robinson addressed the landscaping for the dormer window, indicating that the sycamore tree is now obstructing any view of the adjacent yard. He also inquired about Condition Ill-A, stating that he had understood that a soils report was not needed. The applicant was requested to discuss this condition with Staff. The 'applicant commented that he feels the existing driveway meets COndition II-E. Chairman Siegfried stated that if it i's found that the drive- way is substandard the condition can be discussed with Staff. 'Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close.the public hearing. .Commissioner Burge~'=-seconded the mot. ion, which was carried unanimously.. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR-1577 and A-986, per the Staff Report dated July 25, 1984 and Exhibits B, C and D, eliminating Condition II-E and Condition B regarding the evergreen trees, and stating that the applicant can come back to Staff r~garding Condition II-E. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 13. V-647 Floyd Gaines, Northeast Corner of Fourth and Oak Streets,.Request for Variance Approval to allow a proposed multi-family structure to maintain 13' side yards where a minimum of 15' is required in the R-M-3000 district Staff explained the application. They commented that they feel there are other means of architectural relief relative to the walls that would not require a variance; therefore, they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 10:18 p.m. Sergio Ramier~z, representing the applicant, stated that they have from the beginning shown those windows in the proposed plans in all elevations except the site plan that has been cited in the Staff Report. He commented that they feel they add to the building. Chairman'Siegfried asked why they have to be this'type of window, as contras.ted to some other type that would also provide relief. Mr. Ramierez discussed the green house windows, stating that the style of those windows would be inconsistent with the style of the building. 'He added that they are not applicable to the way the building was designed. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she could not recall in any discussions that the setbacks on this project were going to be less than what is legally allowed. Mr. Ramierez replied that they were under the assumption that there' was no objec. tion to the bay windows when the project was approved. Commis- sioner Schaefer' stated that she did not feel that, in voting for this project, - 6 - 'Planning Commission Page ~ '~.~eeting ~4inutes 7/25/84 V-647 (cont.) there was any understanding that any kind of variance was being granted for this side yard setback. She added that she thinks there are windows that can be set out 6" or can be very creative architecturally that will not be decreasing the setback and still can be a real asset, and she agrees with Staff. Discussion followed on other possible concepts. Commissioner McGoldrick noted that a possibility would be for the applicant to make the 'living room smaller to accommodate the windows he' wants. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris- seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to deny V-647 for the reasons stated in the Staff Report dated July 16, 1984. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously 6-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. Staff commented' that last week at the study session the Commission reviewed other aspects of this development, and-they would like the. Commission to verify the Staff interpretation of the deliberations relative to the earth retaining wall as a substitute for the concrete wall, specifically relative to the con- cerns the Commission had on the planting of trees, etc. in that reinforced earth wall and the information that Staff has obtained that essentially indi- cated'that there was no problem of the trees deteriorating the reinforcing, but that in fact they would supplement the reinfor'cing with their root system. They commented that the 'second item had to do with the reconstruction of the pedestrian way on 4th Street, to make necessary the access to the parking and garages to this site. They indicated that after some considerable work with the applicant and his engineer, a much safer pedestrian way will be provided than'was originally proposed by the applicant. Staff added that they would recommend that the Commission give their indication here this evening on the approval of those two aspects of this development. Commissioner Crowther stated that, regarding the retaining wall, the plastic mats that are being used already had a hole in them for the tree and the con- cern was that the roots would grow through the plastic, expand out and break it up, and he still believes that is going to happen~if certain types of trees are planted. Staff commented that ~hey had discussed that matter with the expert in the field from the Federal Highway, and he felt that, whereas that might happen, the root structure of the tree would substitute for that rein- forcing, and ther'efore would add to the amount of reinforcing in the areas where that root was, as opposes to detracting from it. Commissioner ~cG~ldrick moved to approve the reinforced wall. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting, and Commissioner Burger abstaining since she had not seen the plans. Commissioner Crowther stated that he had voted against it because he thinks in this situation it is not the same as what is along the highway.'He added that he feels it is too risky in this particular location. -Commissioner Schaefer.indicated that she had voted against it because she.had seen it used back east or a very similar product, and it was two years old and there was a slight movement. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the revised sidewalk plans. Commis- sioner S6haefer seconded the motion,'which was carried 5-0, with Commissioner Burger abstaining. 14. V-648 -. Mr. and Mrs. Ira Lohman, 20201 Kilbride Drive, Request for Vari- ance Approval to construct a one-story addition with a 6 ft. side yard setback where 10 ft. is required, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district Staff described the proposal, recommending denial. They noted that if the Commission denies the variance they must make 'findings to allow an existing shed to remain or it must be removed. Chairman Siegfried noted that there is just one little corner of this proposed shop area that encroaches into the setback. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that she feels she can make the findings. She described the site, stating that she feels the addition could not be placed anywhere else without great hardshfp for the applicant. She'stated that the site is an irregular shape and different from the neighbors, so it would not be granting a special privi- lege. She added that Mr. Lohman has agreed, with the neighbor, to put tall cypress trees between them fo'r privacy, and. he is quite 'happy to~-remove the concrete pad and the shed. ?l~'nning Commission' Page 8 Meeting Minutes 7/25/84 --' V-'6'48 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Lohman appeared and described the proposal. He indicated that he would like to use a dumpster that is now on the property for removal of the shed. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V-648, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated July 18, 1984 and Exhibit B, with Condition 1 changed to read that the existing shed shall be removed prior to final approval, rather than issuance of building permit, making Findings 3 and 4 for the reasons stated. Commissioner BUrger seconded the motion, which was carried unani- · mously 6-0. 15. V-649 - Mr. Fred Schumacher, 14561 Westcott Drive, Request for Variance Approval for an existing carport in the required side yard set- back area, in the R-l-10,000 zoning district The proposal was explained by Staff. They indicated that they were not able to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, agreeing with the Staff Report. She added that she sees the carport roof as a fire hazard and feels that the applicant can still park a car there. The public hearing was opened at 10:41'p.m. Mr. Schumacher described the lot, commenting that it seems that this is pri~ marily an issue between him and.his neighbor, as no one else is impacted. FIe stated that he would like to have an opportunity to discuss this with his neighbor before he is forced to tear down the structure, to see if there are any other options. He explained that he had been out of town and would like to have the matter continued. It was directed that this matter be continued to August 8, 1984. MISCELLANEOUS 16a. SM-7 - Steven Dorcich, 18570 Sobey Road, Site Modification and Design 16b. A-912 - Review Modification Approval for rear decking and an enlarged Mod. driveway backup area on slopes O10%, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the modification, recommending denial. Commissioner ~cGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report, discussing the trees on site. She agreed with the Staff Report. Commissioners Harris and Burger agreed, indicating that it will be very visible and from down below it will give more of a perception of bulk. Chuck Miller, landscape architect, explained the current proposal and reasons for modification. He discussed the proposed landscaping and possible alter- natives for the'deck. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the swimming pool and play areas o.f the house are assumed to be in the front around the pool, so that the back of the house where the decks are is not their primary recrea- tional area. The architect for the project commented that the primary purpose of the rear decks is to soften the effect of the height of the building and is a design element of the building. Commissioner Schaefer asked if it were logical to build in planters on the top rail so they would drape over the deck. He indicated that that would be a possible solution. He discussed the plantings in the interior courtyard. Commissioner Harris asked if the concrete area on the driveway needs to be that large. The architect discussed the driveway and possible options for the.extension of the backup area. He indicated that they would be raising the wall around that area to create a barrier to prevent people from either driving or walking over the 'edge of the paving. There was a consensus to take the matter to a study session, to further revi'ew the proposal and possible options. Chairman Siegfried commented that the Commission would like to see some 'other possibilities in terms of reducing the size 'of the dec'king, maybe stepping it down, integrating some planting, pull"ing the 'driveway back, and some options showing how the applicant reached · ' Planning Commission Page 9 ~.i'~4eeting Minutes 7/25/84' SM-7 and A-912 (Mod.) (cont.) the conclusion they did on what they wanted, and possible reduction in con- crete. Commissioner Harris asked that the decks and wall be added to the model. It was directed that this be continued to the study session of August 28, 1984. and the regular meeting of September 11, 1984. CO~.~UNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Saratoga Fire Chief Regarding O'Meara Residence at 12395 Farr Ranch Road. Staff explained the letter relativ'e to a concern about some of the attic areas in this particular house and asking that access be placed there. They commented that, in addition, the builder has also asked for a further modification. They noted that because of previous confusion relative to attic areas that could be converted to living space, this particu- lar application has the specific condition that the attic areas not be con- verted. However, placing doors into these areas creates confusion and increases the.likelihood of their conversion. Staff commented that it would be their recommendation that if a door is placed into an area it should be assumed that it is going to be converted into living space and collect the appropriate building permit fees. Further discussion followed, and Staff noted that Chief Kraule.does.feel"th~t.it_iS~appropriate tO have"tOtal.access to the~e are'as..= CommisSioner Schaefer stated that she had discussed this with Chief Kraule, and feels very strongly that if there is going to be a very large space up there thai has very strong possibilities of being converted, then we have to consider what happens if there is a fire. She commented that the other alternative would be to consider having a sprinkler system put in the upper part so there doesn't have to be a door. Commissioner Crowther commented that he thinks it is going to be very easy to have these areas be converted later on without anyone knowing it. Commissioner Schaefer agreed, but feels then the Commission should require that if it is for safety reasons that these areas be~calculated'into the measure ments in the future and have a door built in. Chairman Siegfried commented that this issue can be discussed with the Committee on the Design Review Ordinance at a later date, but this specific issue needs to be dealt with now. He suggested having some kind of safety door that wasn't standard size. Staff noted that the applicant has requested that there not only be a door there, but that there be a double door. Bill. O'Meara stated that the type of door is not a big issue. He commented that their concern is that the area is right in the middle of the home on the second floor. He added that there are sensors in the rooms and this one has no access to it. He added that he feels that safety is the issue. Commissioner Schaefer moved to allow a door for safety purposes, as approved by Chief ~raule. Commissioner Harris seconded.lthe motion. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to give any consideration to permit fees. It was noted that the original Staff R~port would have to be modified. Staff commented that the Commission might want to consider the option here of dealing with the whole matter as a modification to the original design review approval and just approve all the additional square footage. Commissioner Schaefer removed her motion. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to 'bring the matter back as a new design review modification. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the timeframe. Commissioner McGoldrick then removed her motion. Commissioner Schaefer moved to allow a door for safety purposes, as approved by Chief Kraule, with permits and fees. subject to Staff review and any work subject to Staff review. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. Chairman Siegfried asked that this whole subject be brought to a study session to resolve future issues. 2. Letter from Pacific Bell Requesting Clarification of Utility Installation. Staff explained the request, recommending that the Commission agree with the policy that allows these facilities to be relocated from under- ground to overhead where there are existing overhead facilities.~ Discussion followed and it was the consensus that this matter should be continued to a study session for further review. I~ was directed that it be continued to the study session on August 28, 1984'. ~Add ~ Chairman Si.egfried indicated-tha.t-he-w'oUld not be. taking any~part in the matt'er .because i~t, was-h.is .employer. He commented that they ~e~e talkin. g. about .the rep'lacement of ekisting' underg.round. facilities. tha~ h~d~not been · bu~ied- in conduit ~ -. I 9 !Pl~anning Commission ~ '~ Page 10 1 ~M'~eting ,Minutes 7/25/84 Oral Communication 1. City Council Report Commissioner Harris gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held. on JulF 18, 1984. A copy 6f'~the minutes of that meeting are on file'in the City Administration Office. 2. .It was noted tha~ there would be an on-site visit to the Geno · home on Saturday made by Commissioners Burger, Harris and McGoldrick. It was also noted that Commissioners Harris, Peterson and Siegfried will be on the Design Review Committee, and Commissioner Burger was appointed to the Land Use Committee. 3. Mr. Ramierez appeared, asking for clarification on the definition of. garden windows. He was asked to discuss this matter with.Staff. 4. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga'News .for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. .ADJOURNMENT 'Commissioner.Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. RSS:cd