Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-1984 Planning Commission Minutes f CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 8, 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, Peterson and Siegfried Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner McGoldrick moved to above the item on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 5-0. 1. SM-8 Mr. Kemp Garter, 19306 Pinnacle Court, Request for Site Modifica- tion Approval' for Grading and Retaining Walls on a slope exceed- ing 10% in the R-1-40,000 zoning district BUILDING SITE APPROVAL 2a. Negative Declaration SDR-1573 .Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda 2b. SDR-1573 Dr. and Mrs. Joseph.BrOzda, Northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval to allow the construction of a new parking deck and paved area over 1,000 sq. ft. in area, in the C-C (Com- munity Commercial) zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to August 22, 1984. PUBLIC HEA~ING CONSENT CALENDAR Items 3, Clarence Neale, 4, James, and 5, Meringo and Feiler, were 'removed for discussion. The public hearing was opened on Items 6 and 7 at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing on these items. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner ~cGoldrick moved to approve Items 6 and 7 listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 6. UP-563 - Mr. and Mrs. Robert Callejo, 18564 Bucknail Road, Request for Use Permit to construct an accessory structure in the rear yard setback area, in the R-l-10,000 zoning district 7. SDR-1575 - Lazlo Sipos, 18883 Allendale Avenue, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a lot split in the R-I-20,000 zon- ing district Discussion followed on A-993, Clarence Neale. Staff described the proposal, recommending approval. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site, and indicating that they'feel there should be some additional landscaping placed on the corner since the extension of the second floor is going to be quite boxlike and the Saratoga High School property is being developed in that area. She pointed out that there is a bungalow on the site Which is a second unit, and she would suggest that something be done about that. The public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Neale stated that there are two separate lots, with two deeds, that have been there since 1942. Staff was asked to review to verify that there are two separate lots. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The landscaping was 1 Pla~nning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 8/8/84 A-993 (cont.) discussed. Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that there are some beautiful old trees On site, but she feels there. is a real barren area on the corner. She mo~ed to approve A-993, with an additional condition that a landscaping plan be submitted for'~ site, to be .approved by the Staff. Commissioner Burger s~conded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion followed on'A-994, Richard James. Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that she feels that: the 'applicant has a good point cOn- cerning the condition requiring that there be no'fencing within 20 ft. of the front property line, and she will rlet him address that. She noted that, regarding privacy, there is a home adj.acent that will be affected, and the applicant has agreed to plant whatever is appropriate for screening. She indicated that it appears that the balcony will be facing more'into the woods and not at that home. The eucalyptus tree on the site was discussed, and.=she commented that the applicant has expressed willingness to build around it'; however, the committee had indicated to the'applicant that he might consider asking that that condition be removed. S'he added that she did not see that the gate being 10 ft. from the road was going to change any visibility problems as far as where the driveway entered the street. She described the location of the bridge on Herriman, and Commissioner Harris described the access to the property, indicating'that it appears that there are no options to getting to that property other than going across a bridge. Staff clarified that they did issue a permit for Mr.'James".bridge premature- ly. They explained that they were of the impression that Mr. James had obtained the approval of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, who has an easement for the creek. However, it has been brought to Staff~'s attention that Mr. James has a number of verbal approvals, but does not have a permit from there, and work has been stopped on that bridge until he satisfies. that matter. The public hearing was opened.at 7:55 p.m. Mr. James, the applicant, discussed the project, noting that he wants to put the bridge in first before construction. He indicated that he had contacted some of the neighbors, stating that some of them were present and submitting letters from others. Mr. James submitted pictures showing the driveway and the fence. Discussion followed on the fence and the tree on the site. FIe also indicated that he had found out yesterday that he needs a permit from the Fish & Game before they will approve the bridge. Chairman Siegfried noted the correspondence received on the project. Michael randeven, 13930 River Ranch Circle, stated that he had discussed the plans with the applicant. He indicated that he had not seen the plans for a balcony. He added that it would be nice to have a big house there because of the dangerous corner there, but he was bothered by the size of the proposal. Commissioner Harris commented that she feels it is important that Mr. Vandevan look at the plans so that he knows where the balcony will be located. · Honore Zenk, 19970 Herriman Avenue, submitted a letter from 12 property owners in the neighborhood. She expressed-tHeir concerns, the.'primary one being the obstruction of the.creek by the fill that is going to be put in for the parking area and pier. She noted that the creek has a history of erosion and high water during winter runoff and expressed concern that putting additional fill on the westerly side and putting the pier for the bridge in that area can cause additional debris which will clog the stream and change the course of the water. She stated that the files show that there have been numerous recommendations not to build anything within the stream that will obstruct it, and this plan seems to be' directly contrary to that. She cited a letter from the Water District to Hr. James, indicating that they would accept no responsibility for the maint'enance or repair of the parking area if it were damaged by creek erosion or ba~k failure, or responsibility for repair to the bridge abutment or bridge from floating debris. Mrs. Zenk commented that the Water District had indicated that they had not issued a permit, and one reason was because Mr. James has not given them an easement. She stated that no environmental impact report has been prepared either by the Planning Commission or. the Water District in relation to the fill for the parking area or the bridge. She asked that the bridge permit be recon- sidered, since it was issued prematurely. She stated that if the project proceeds, one of the mitigating measures that they are asking for is that the easterly embankment of the creek be filled or lined with erosion resistant :,Pla~hing Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 8/8/84 A-99'~ (cont.) material, so that'the course of the stream cannot erode further into the easterly bank. She also expressed concern regarding the traffic hazards, and she urged that a 20 ft. setback be required. She described the numerous accidents that have occurred on Herriman. Mrs. Zenk also asked that' during the course of construction that there be a condition that there are signs posted between Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the bridge and also on the other side between Saratoga Avenue and the bridge, warning cars that there are con- Struction vehicles out in.the roadway. She also asked that there be a restric- tion of parking of vehicles on the easterly side of the creek. She added that they'are requesting a condition that any fencing be set back and provide for the access of the district into the creek, and urged that the bridge be con- structed before the house, as the CommiSsion has instructed. She also asked the purpose of the "gathering room" designated on the plans. Mrs. Zenk also inquired about'the fill ~e~essary for the parking pad. She indicated that that was another reason for an Environmental Impact on this; it is a separate project; does have a significant impact on the environment~'~. and it is the type of project that requires an Environmental Impact Report. 'W~lter Hall, 14927 Jerries, expressed concern about the environment and Saratoga Creek and what the-.proj.ect is going to do to it. He discussed the property that he has lost to the creek in the last ten years. He added that-,he thinks it is dangerous to talk about additional fill to change the course of the creek. He indicated that he feels that this lot is nearly close to being unbuildable. Mr. Palo, 20030 Herriman, spoke in support of the project. He statea that he feel that all of the accidents in that area have been caused by reckless drivers. He commented that he welcomes somebody coming in and cleaning that corner up and building there. John Crystal, 20040 Herriman, spoke in support of the project, stating that he w~lcomes a substantial house on that horrible lot. He added that his only con.~ cern is visibility coming out of the driveway. Helen Reese, 19985 Herriman, also spoke in support, indicating that she feels the project will enhande the neighborhood. Mr. James stated that there is no fill in the creek at all, nor any piers in the water course. He indicated that the Water District is having him put in a 70 ft. bridge so he ~tays clear out of the creek area. At Commissioner Peterson's request, Staff clarified that the City issues the permit for the construction of the bridge, so we have the structural adequacy investigated; the Water District issues the permit to'~even allow that and sets the parameters. Commissioner McGoldrick asked whose responsibility environmentally is the creek, to make sure it is not unduly disturbed. Staff indicated that they feel the City would be considered the lead agency. They indicated that Staff has review- ed this and have determined that there is no need for an EIR. Chairman Siegfried asked for clarification regarding the parking area and fill. Mr. James stated that there will be no parking out in front at all. Staff added that in the area of the homesite and that turnaround area by the garage there is to be some fill near the house, but not 'in the creek itself. Mr. James indicated that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has the signed easement in their possession, and they will be recording it in the next few days. The easement was discussed. Mr. James also clarified that the gathering room is a living room. He commented that there will be a separate entrance to the fence and sufficient landscaping regarding the balcony. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that, having seen the difference between the 10 and 20 ft. setback, she does not see that as making a major. difference. She added that the fence is wrought iron and you will see right through it. Com- missioner Harris suggested putting in a condition that Staff check that the pillars are spaced appropriately so it maintains proper vision. Commissioner McGoldrick added that it would certainly not hurt to just alert the Staff to take a second look at the ecology of the creek; however, it is her understand- ing that there is no more fill, nothing going into the creek proper from this building at all. She commented that, should the neighbors see something that is contrary to what the Commission is understanding here tonight, they are free to call Staff immediately and work could be stopped. Staff addressed the condition referred to by Mrs. Zenk relative to placing bank' protecti6n..i. on one side of the creek. .They commented that if the Commission - 3 - ~,lan~ng Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 8/8/84 A- 99 4 (cont.) wishes to provide any conditioning along' those lines whatsoever, they would suggest that the CommisSion put them in the form that the Water District review it, because it is quite possible that putting bank protection on one side of the creek simply causes a redistribution of the flow and the velocity, etc., and it may be worse than leaving as is. Chairman Siegfried indicated that he feels the point' about the signs is an appropriate one, since people ought to be aware that there is activity going on there. Commissioner Harris added that she would like to see a condition that there be no parking of any type of vehicle outside the fence. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-994, per Exhibits B, C and D and the Staff Report dated July 31, 1984, as amended. After discussion the following amendments were made to the 'Staff Report.: (1) D'elete Condition #1, but Staff should approve the location of the pillars so they not obscure vision; (2) Modi- fy Condition #2 to state that the second. story balcony on the rear elevation is to be deleted or landscape plans that wi:ll minimize the potential privacy im- pacts to the adjacent property shall be submitted, to be approved by Staff; (3) Add Condition #6, to state that Herr'iman Avenue shall be properly signed during construction, and2;:'C.'4)'.Condi~id'n #'7, t-o state that there shall be no parking on the James property between the fence and the street. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion followed on A-999, Meringo and Feiler. Commissioner HcGoldrick commented that the house that ms a~jacent to the proposed property is to be sold, and she was concerned that no one would appear here tonight because of that. She explained that the proposed windows of. the family room of this application appear to be looking straighZt into that home, and she feels that the're might be ways to either mitigate it with landscaping or adjusting the angle of the house. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Don Coffey, representing the applicant, 'commented that the Staff Report recom- mends landscaping along the property line to take care of the privacy issue. 'He indicated that they agree with that, in fact their plan does show landscap- ing down that side of the property line. Staff noted that the plan calls for specimen trees. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve. A-999, per the Staff Report. Commis- sioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. E-1-83 - Professional Viiiage of Saratoga ~Owen Companies), Considera- 8b. SDR-1539 tiOn of Final EIR and .Request Use Permit, Building Site Approval 8c. UP-535 - and. Design Review Approval for 129,264 sq. ft., in 3 office · 8d. A-989 - buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenues in the P-A zoning district; continued from July 25, 1984 · Chairman Siegfried reported that the issue tonight is whether the Commission can certify the EIR as adequate. He stated that the Commission has received the Consultant's' responses to the comments raised during the public hearing, and the public hearing is closed on the EI'R.. He commented that, if there is a vote in favor of the adequacy of the EIR, it in no way reflects any Commissioner's feeling on the merits of the project; it is simply the first step in the whole process. He noted that there is a public hearing scheduled on the various stages of the project for the meeting of August 22, 1984. Staff noted that. the EIR consultant is here to expand on :the ~esponses if the CommiSsion wishes. The City Attorney emphasized that the public hearing is closed on the EIR deter- mination, and it would be inappropriate to take further public testimony on that subject. However, the Commission is certainly free to make its own deter- mination that they need additional input or not. He stated that the decision before the Commission tonight is whether the EIR, as supplemented by the respon- ses based upon the public input, is adequate. If it is adequate the Commission can make that determination, and again that does not speak to the merits of the project itself, only the adequacy of the EIR. He noted that there will be addi'tional public hearings on this project. Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 8/8/84 E-'1-'83 (cont.) Commissioner' Peterson moved to accept E-1-83, acknowledging that this project will have a significant impact on the environment. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. It was directed that the applications on the project be continued to August 22, 1984. 9. A-998 Mr. and Mrs. Donald Rumph,.14968 Granite Court, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story addition to an ex:ist.ing"one'-story 'r'es'idence .in the 'R-i-40,000 District It was directed that this be 'continuedito September 12, 1984. 10. 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; continued from July 25, 1984 Staff explained the application, recommending denial since they are unable to make the findings. Mr. Schumacher addressed the proposal. He stated that the only one that it impacts is the neighbor, Mrs. Smith, and she also feels that it is attractive. He noted that behind his home there is'a two-story structure that is sitting on the property line, and he does not believe there would be any precedent setting problem in granting this variance. Dolores Smith, 14560 Westcott, spoke in support of the project. She indicated that she would be most affected by this carport, and she feels it is a posi- tive addition. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger commented that if the Commission did grant this variance there would have to be what appears to-be some substantial changes to the carport as it now stands, so that it would meet the Building Code. Staff agreed, stating that when it is that close to the property line the Building Code calls for.a one-hour fire wall, and it is an .open structure at the moment. Therefore, that side, next to the fence, would have to be enclosed and be of substantial construction. The findings were discussed, and there was a con- sensus that they could not be made. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to .deny V-649, per the Staff Report dated July 15, 1984 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Chairman Siegfried stated that the Commission feels that the granting of this would set a rather dangerous precedent and noted the 10-day appeal period to the City COuncil. Break - 9:0S - 9:15 p.m. 11. A-983 - Richard Geno, Tollgate Road, Lot #15 and #16, Tract 6628, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district Staff. noted that, because of modifications to the proposal, the variance application iS no longer applicable. They indicated that the height limita- tion has been modified such that it is within the 30 ft. They added that there is no longer a need for the grading permit because it has been reduced. Staff explained the proposal, indicating that they cannot make the findings and recommend denial. They noted the applicant's comments in the packet rela- tive to the Staff Report, specifically No. 13, which is not applicable at this time and should be struck from the comments. Commissioner Harris questioned Condition 9, stating that she did not recall any discussion regarding decks, and 6" does not seem appropriate. Staff was asked to review this and clarify. The public hearing was opened at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Geno submitted pictures of the site and discussed the modifications that have been made. He discussed the findings in terms of the bulk issue, noting that there appears to be a wide range of sizes in the homes and properties with- in 500 ft. of the subject property and .there has been design review approval for homes up tO 10,195 sq. ft. in the NHR zone. - 5 - ~'Plan~ing C6mmiSsion Page 6 =~jleeting ~l~inutes 8/8/84 A-983 (cont.) Bob Araldi, Tollgate Road, spoke in support of the proposal. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the.issue of excessive bulk was satisfied for her at the on-site visit. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was going to vote in favor of the application. He stated that he does not have any con- cerns in terms of its bulk .or the fact that it is on that particular ridge. He added that if this were some other ridgeline or some other place, i.e., Parker Ran'ch, he would have a problem. He stated that he, like many others, was concerned by the uniqueness of the structure. However, as long as the applicant has met all of the requirements of the codes and so long as he is not attempting to build this in the middle of the Golden Triangle or Parker Ranch where everybody can see it, Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has to stop at some point and say, I wouldn't build it but that is not my decison to make. He added that he does not think that the Commission, as members of government, need to make that kind of a determination unless it is going to have some dramatic impact on people who are already there or on the town as a whole, so he will be voting in favor of it. Commissioner Peterson concurred. Commissioner Harris commented that so much emphasis was given to the screening on the east, that the screening on the south was not emphasized to her satis- faction. She added that, although there are only five lots and they are still owned by McBain & Gibbs, she feels that it is her responsibility as a Commis~..'~... sioner to assure tha~ that southernly exposure, which is the most bulk, be appropriately screened. She suggested that as a separate condition. Staff commented that ~r. Geno has suggested that in lieu of taking the cut material and placing it on the site, that it be removed. The cut material is coming from under the structure and had.been intended to be placed on the site, and the Commission may want to. speak to that in their motion. Discussion fol- lowed on the fill and the o~k tree on site. Commissioner Harris asked for clarification that the height is 28 ft. Staff indicated that there have been modifications to the finished grade. They stated that there is a slight discrepancy in the plans, but the applicant has with- drawn the request for the variance and we know the intent, and when those build- ing ~lans' come in they certainly will be. checked to assure that they are at the 28 ft. height. Commissioner ~cGoldrick moved to approve A-983, per Exhibits B through F and the conditions of the Staff Report dated August 1, 1984, with Condition #10, to read that the fill be taken away, #11, that adequate screening be provided on the south, with Staff approval, and #12, that the huge oak be protected during construction. She made Findings #2 and 3, based on the site visit of August 4, 1984 and the fact that the excessive grading is not going to happen now. Commissioner Peterson added, regarding the perception of bulk findings, the fact that the chimney on-the-northeast was 'relO~'ated t'o' the ba'ck of ~he~ Staff s~ggested that the City Arborist look at the oak tree to determine what the mitigation measures should be, with the applicant making a deposit for the examination. It was determined that that wording should be added to Condition #12. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 12a. SDR-1576 - Dorothy Shaw et al, 14502 Big Basin Way, Request for Tentative 12b. A-997 - Building Site Approval, Design Review and Variance Approval to V-652 - allow the construction of a two-story 13,235 sq. ft. office building which would provide 17 parking spaces where a minimum of 29 spaces are required, 0 loading berths where 1 is required, maintain a 0' rear yard where 18' is required, and 0' side yards where 8' is required in the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district Staff noted that this item has been scheduled for a study session on August 14, 1984 due to the complexity of the issues. Staff explained the project, indicating that they cannot make the findings for the parking variance or the rear yard setback. They added that they feel the loading berth is not neces- sary because of substantial street parking or street availability for loading for this site. They indicated that they do have particular concerns regarding the use of the lower level of the structure, since they feel that it should be devoted to retail commercial uses. They added that they realize this requires b~ilding mitigated the excessive bulk. - 6 .... Pla~ing Commission Page 7 M~e£ing Minutes 8/8/84 SDR-1576, A-997 and V-652 (cont.) more p~rking than offices and, therefore, the applicant may have to reduce the size of the structure in order to accommodate that increase in parking need. It was also noted that the Staff Report requests a dedication to the rear of the property to provide adequate access to Parking Assessment .District #4. The conditions of the Staff Report were discussed. Commissioner ~cGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, agreeing that the matter should go to a study session. The public hearing. was opened at 9:45 p.m. Robert Pol!ack, the applicant, addressed the project. He submitted a letter giving the details of the proposal. He discussed the Staff Report, indicating that he feels the Staff Report should have provided the Commission with both the positive and the negative 'side, and that the positive aspects were not brought out. Warren Heid, architect, gave a presentation on the project. He discussed the standards for parking. Mr. Heid stated that he feels using the existing struc- ture is appropriate. The Staff Report and findings were also discussed, and he urged the Commission to look at the project as an improvement to the Village. Commissioner Peterson asked about the history of this property becoming part of the parking district. Staff reported that they did not join it, and at the time the district was approved the City did not require them to join. However, there was property acquisition required to make the connection to 3rd Street, and as part of that negotiation .there is an agreement with the property owner, indicating that if in fact this property were to be developed, the parking ratio of that district could be achieved if in fact the parking that was developed there had'the same status as the parking district itself. DiscUssion followed on the parking ratio. Don Eagleston, Saratoga Village Association, spoke to the parking. He stated that he agrees with Mr'. Heid that there'really isn't a parking problem in the Village; there is an oversaturation of the prime parking spaces in the Village. He indicated that they have reviewed the plans for the project and have come up with the following conclusions: They see that the developers in the theatre project would be deintensifying considerably in this area, i.e., by providing a pedestrian walkway from the Village Square parking district, by choosing a professional administrative status project to minimize parking requirements, removing the theatre and the burden of the spaces in the Village that are being used by the theatre participants, and by completely replacing the theatre area with a parking lot which provides 2~ times more parking than now exists. He commen.ted that with all of this they still do not meet the parking requirements and they have deintensified as much as they possibly can in all directions. He stated that the Village and City have a problem on their h~nds, and sooner or later they are going to have to solve the parking problem. He commented that the COmmission and the City must attempt to make special exceptions for the Village in the area of parking or there. will be little development in the Village, if any. He stated that for any business that is now now in a parking district and wishes in the future to chang. e the use, t]~ey can not do so without a parking variance. There is no more area to accommodate the type of parking the retail ordinances now ~equire. He added that the Saratoga Village Associ- ation asked the City to reconsider and reconstruct the parking ordinances in the Village area and to encourage retail development wherever and whenever possible, as per the General. Plan. He indicated that a formal resolution · regarding this matter will be'on record at City Hall next week. He stated that they have no problem with the beautification of the project or the overall appearance of this project; in fact they do encourage that something be done with that corner. FIe commented that this project has really opened their eyes to. the problem that parking requirements are making anything impossible in the Village. He added that they are asking for the Commission's help to come up with a parking solution that will help remedy this situation. Staff noted that they have been working relative to a solution for Parking District #3. However, the Village Specific Plan and parking need to be addressed at a future study session. Bob 'Cancellari, of the Saratoga Bakery, expressed his concern about parking in the Village. Mort Mann, 19986 Mallory Court, stated that the theatre site has always annoyed him'. He indicated that the City should take this opportunity to get rid of the quonSat hut. He added that keeping the theatre there would make the park- ing situation worse. 7 · Plan~ing Commiss ion Hee~ing Minutes 8/8/84 ~ Page 8 SDR-1576, A-997 and V-652 (cont.) It was directed that this be continued to a study session on August 14, 1984 and a regular meeting of August 22, 1984. 13. V-651 - Charles & Karen Aring, 20080 Mendelsohn Lane, Request for Variance Approval to allow an existing garden shed to continue to maintain a 14' exterior side yard setback where 25' is required and allow an existing firewood storage structure to maintain a minimum 6.5' interior side yard setback where 15' is required. and a minimum front yard setback of 15' where 30' is required, in the R-I-20,000 zoning district The application was explained by Staff,.recommending denial since they cannot make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 10:22 p.m. Mr. Aring discussed the structures for which they are asking a variance. He submitted photographs showing the side of the shed and discussed the options. He gave the history of the fire wood storage structure, indicating that he had built it to the Code Inspection Officer's specifications and had informed the Oxendines of his advice. Bill Henderson, son-in-law of Mrs. Oxendine, discussed the application and agreed with the Staff Report regarding the.wood storage structure. He inquired about the previous condition relative to the oleanders being trimmed. Staff was asked to review that condition. Staff stated that it was their recollec- tion that they were to be trimmed back, and they were not sure that the con- dition included trimming down. Dr. Aring stated that the condition required that the oleanders be pruned back to the trunk. Margaret~Dennis, Hill Avenue, spoke against the variance, stating that she believes the structures set a bad example. Bill Brittenback, 20130 Bonnie Brae Way, addressed the garden shed. He stated that it is in a very good position and is very difficult to see from the Men- delsohn side and it cannot be seen at all from his side. He indicated that he feels it is an ingenious siting of the shed and he would be very disappointed if they had to move it out into the middle of the yard. He noted that the shed is good looking and blends in. Mr. Bill Bell, Mendelsohn, stated that he is the neighbor closest to the wood storage area, and it is not bad looking. He agreed that the garden shed is in the best possible spot. William Garcia, 15000 Bonnie Brae Lane, stated that neither one of the sheds is noticeable, and he sees no reason to move them. Gloria Henderson, Mrs. Oxendine's daughter, stated that the reason the garden shed is the least obtrusive of the two is because of the color. She commented that it is visible but almost non-existent because of its shade. On the other hand, the wood storage structire is very visible from Hill Avenue and is very obtrusive. Commissioner HcGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested taking the two variances separately. She indicated that she 'can make the findings for the garden shed. She stated that she agrees that it would be a physical difficulty or unnecessary physical hard- ship to move this elsewhere in terms of the trees that would have to be taken down and not being able to visualize another place for it. She added that she feels that the extraordinary and excepti'onal circumstances are the mature land- scaping that is already there, the well screened position of the shed itself, and the trees that are adjacent to it. Relative to common privilage, she stated that she feels tha't she has voted on issues somewhat similar to this in the past, so she does not see this as a special privilag~. She added that she cannot make the findings for the wood storage structure. She commented that she is concerned about the 30 ft. front yard and she feels that this is something that can be placed elsewhere on the lot without unusual hard- ship. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the variance for the garden shed, 8- *~Pla~ning Commission _~ ~ Page 9 'Meeting Minutes 8/8./84 ' V-651 (cont.) making the findings, and denying the variance for the wood shed, based on the reasons stated, per Exhibits B through D. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. 14. A-996 - Mr. and Mrs. Corrales, 13767 Serra Oaks, Request for Design Review Approval to'construct a two-story residence and to exceed the 4,000 sq. ft. standard in the R-1-12,500 zoning district Staff described the proposal, recommending approval. They noted the letter received from the applicant. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that they had discussed with the applicant the thought that, on the partial rear elevation, the window on this new second floor be moved to the left of the fireplace. She added that they could see no problem with the balcony relative to a privacy impact. The public hearing was opened at 10:56 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Corrales submitted a new plan, describing the changes regarding the windows. The applicant was asked to show the revision to the neighbor. Mr. Aulakh, 13775 Sara Oaks, described his site and stated that the proposed addition is very close to the fence. He discusse~ the proposed windows in relation to his home. He suggested the following: (1) have no window in the rear at all, (2) put in a skylight, (3) combination of above, (4~ ihcre'ase-'. the sizes and numbers of the front windows, and (5) put small opaque and pitcried windows in the rear. He commented that putting in a smaller sliding window at the rear does not solve the privacy problem. He noted that approval would entail extail exceeding the square footage of the zoning district; the struc- ture will exceed the perception of excessive bulk, even though it is minimized, and the design does not meet the required side yard clearance requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Aulakh indicated that he is willing to work with the appli- cant, to make sure that he can have the addition. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The proposed modifications were discussed by the Commission. It was noted that the basic problem was the large window right over the pitch of the roof, which the applicant has now proposed to move all the way over to the side. Staff also noted that the setbacks do conform to the ordinance. Commissioner' McGoldrick m o approve 'A-996, making the findings, per the r~er Staff Report u '~ o ~1 e seconded' the n i period was noted. ~ISCELLANEOUS ~" .~., 15. LL #4 Joseph S. Kennedy, 15480 Peach"Hill Road, Request for Lot Line " Adjustment to construct accessory Structures and add on to exist- 'ing. res'idenc~ in the 'R~'l.;24~,000 and HCRD' zoning districts Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval. Robert Peterson, architect rbpresenting Mr. Kennedy, discussed the conditions of the Staff Report. He inquired, re~rding Conditions S & U, if the new water line had to be installed when the building permit is issued. Staff commented that it is the intent to have that water line in place before there is any intensification of this site. The City Attorney added that there has been extensive discussion concerning this with respect to ~r. Lauer, and the City has been fairly firm on that condition. Stafl-.stated that Mr. Kennedy has been aware of that fact all along also. They pointed-out that there are also two or three other property owners who have an interest in this water line. Staff recommended that the Commission hold fast on the requirement. Commissioner Peterson asked about the condition regarding a General Plan change and rezoning prior to issuance of building permit. The City Attorney explained the~process.'that Mr. Lauer had gone through with his project. He stated that Mr. Kennedy has now come in with a proposal which changes the lot lines, and he explained the necessary requirements regarding the General Plan change and rezoning relative to ~ir. Kennedy's proposed lot line adjustment. Discussion followed on these 'requirements and the timeframe. 9 - "~l~nning Commission Page 10 =Me~ting Minutes 8/8/84 LL #4 (cont.) Commissioner Peterson moved to approve LL #4, per the Staff Report. Commis- sioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Richard Powell regarding Martin Residence. Staff explained the request. It was the consensus that the 'modification should go through the design review process. Oral 2. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on August 1, 1984. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is on file in the City Administration Office.. 3. Chairman Siegfried thanked tile Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURN~ENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn tile meeting. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectful'ly submitted, Secretary RSS:'~d