Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAKeTOGA PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 22, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, CrowtZher, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried .Absent: Commissioner Schaefer Minutes The following addition was made to the minutes of July 25, 1984, on page 9, under the written communication from 'Pacific Bell: Chairman Siegfried indicated that he would not be taking any part in the matter because it was his employer and noted that they were talking about the replacement of exist- ing underground facilities that had not been buried in conduit. Commissioner Harris moved to waive the reading of~the minutes of July 25, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick.seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The following change was made to the minutes of August 8, 1984: On page 6, the seventh sentence in the last paragraph under A-983, should read: "Commissioner Peterson added, regarding the perception of bulk findings, the fact that the chimney on the northeast was relocated to the back of the build- ing mitigated the excessive bulk." Commissioner Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of August 8, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining since he was not present. BUILDING SITES la. Negative Declaration SDR-1573.- Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda lb. 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 construdtion of a new parking deck and paved area over 1,000 sq. ft. in area', in the C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district Doug Adams, representing the applicant,. requested a continuance of this matter to a study session. It was directed that it be continued to a study session on September 4, 1984 and the regular meeting of September 12, 1984. DESIGN 'REVIEW Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-1002, per the Staff Report dated .August 13, 1984 and Exhibit B. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Items A-1000, Danielski, A-995, Desert Petroleum, and A-897, ~yres, were removed for discussion. The public hearing on Item 5, A-1006, was opened at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the 'public hearing. Com- missioner Peterson seconded the motion,. whi'ch was carried unanimously. Com- missioner ~cGoldrick 'moved .to approve this ite~ listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 5. A-1006 - Richard H. James III, Request for Design Review Approval to relocate and add a secOnd-story to an existing single-story, "s'i'ngl'e family dwelling'at 20260-'A S'arato'ga-L'Os Gatos Road Discussion followed on A-1000, Danielski. It was clarified that a corner of the COp~ng'- around the pool is in th~ setback. The Dublic .hearing on this item was opened at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - i - Planning Commission ' Page 2 Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 A-1000 (cont.) Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-1000, Danielski, per the Staff Report dated August 16, 1984 and Exhibits B-·i and C. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Discussion followed on A-995, Desert ·Petroleum. The public hearing was opened on this item at 7:41 p.m. Rick Norman, the designer, explained the modification. Relative to Condition 2, to change the main body of the sign from painted metal to wood, he stated that at the previous discussions he clearly understood that the Commission was not violently o~.p0sed to a painted metal surface, as long as the illumination, q~eigh't·,· mate~ials'·and colors were handled properly. He indicated that, for maintenance reasons, cost and the visibility issue, they would like a painted. surface. Discussion followed on the=sign. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he agrees with Staff and feels that wood would look better. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, stated that they oppose any type of sign anywhere in a residential area, and they still consider Saratoga Avenue a residential area. ·He indicated that this sign is very visi- ble to them. Charles Schnedler, Paseo Cerro, agreed with Mr. Russell's comments. Joan Faunce, President of E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association, stated that the sign appears to be of a size that is larger than is normally given and feels that the service station should not have a special privilege as far as their signage is concerned. She commented that it should be kept low and be illuminated only for the required'number of hours the station is open. She added that she would like to see a sign that is consistent with other approved signs in the area, and would like a'requi~ement that the other things that need to be accomplished on that~corner, i.e., walls, landscaping, and reduced lighting, be done prior to allo.wing a sign. Chairman Siegfried noted that there is a slight difference in this case, only in the·sense that by law gas stations must display their prices in a way that is visible; therefore, the Commission has to take that into account. Larry Henlin, 18789 Woodale Court, spoke against the proposed sign, stating that the sign and the gas station are ugly. He added that he believes the sign should not be approved as proposed. CommisSioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed with the Staff Report and moved to approve ~-995 and the modification of UP-550, Desert Petroleum, per the Staff Report dated August 8, 1984 and Exhibits B and C. CommissiOner Harris seconded the motion. Commis- sioner Crowther stated that, although he agrees with Staff that wood is likely to make it look better, he would like Some kind of condition, if it is feasi- ble, that permits review of the sign after it is constructed, and the require- ment that it be torn down and replaced if it is not a good looking sign. The City Attorney stated that this is design review on the sign and he does not ever recall giving a design review approv'al subject to a second look. He commented that if the Commission has concerns about the sign they might ask for a render- ing or more detail, but to have the ·applicant expend the money to put it up on a contingency he does not feel would be appropriate. After further discussion Commissioner Crowther suggested that Condition No. 2 be modified to read: ~'Natural wood background with lighter Colors~is preferred. A color rendering shall be ·submitted to Staff for final approval." Commissioners McGoldrick and Harris accepted that amendment. The~ vote was taken and the motion was carried unanimously 6-0. The 10-day appeal .period was noted. The public hearing was opened on A-8~97, David ~Iyres, at 7:56 p.m. Charles Guichard, 21130 Wardell Road, spoke in opposition to the project. He indicated·that his privacy is severely compromised by the way the house is now built. He noted that the plans reflect that the Commission never approved a deck on the left side of the house', and in addition there are two parts of decks that are not covered in the plans, which are now built. He also spoke against the large 11 ft. retaining wall that faces his house. ~r. Guichard · added that that the landscaping shows no trees between the applicant's home and his home. Commissioner ~cGoldrick stated that the Land Use Committee had not been on- site, and she suggested that it be continued to another meeting or a study ~for the lettering and numbers - 2 Flanking Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 A-995 (cont.) session. Staff indicated that it is their understanding that there will be backfill placed against the wall, which will in effect reduce its visible height to 5 feet. Staff also noted that they have reviewed the plans that were approved by the Planning Commission, and the deck was shown there. How- ever, they did find that there are approximately 45 sq..ft. of additional deck that was not on the plans. It was directed that the Land Use Committee will review. this on their next visit and it will be continued to the regular meeting of September 12, 1984. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7a. SDR-1539 - Professional Village of' Saratoga (Owen Companies), Request for 7b. UP-535 Use Permit, Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval 7c. A-989 - for 129,264 sq. ft., in 3 office buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue in the P-A zoning district; continued from August 8, '198'4 Chairman Siegfried noted that there had been previous public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report on this project, and it was certi~fied adequate at the last meeting. Staff referenced a memo dated August 17, 1984 to the Commis- sion, expressing their co. ncerns relative to the use permit. They suggested that the public hearing be opened, testimony taken, and the matter continued to a study session on September 4, 1984, for a more detailed discussion of the application. The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. Coilin Russell, the architect, reviewed the basic planning principles employed in the design of the project. He gave a presentation on the project, dis- cussing the setbacks and height. Ite".'.~dded .that they felt they had complied with all ordinance requirements. Steve Douglas, of the Owen Companies, discussed the Staff memo regarding'the' '~-~ fiscal impacts, indicating that they have offered a fee in lieu of tax agree- ment. Relative to the comment concerning potential income to the City from a commercial mixed use project, he stated that he believes that the Area F guide- lines say that there shouldn't be another shopping center on this site, and he thinks the only way the City is going to get any tax revenue is with shopping. He addressed Resolution 897, indicating they are not going to be asking the City Council to amend or rescind this resolution. However, what they are say- ing is that this project can be reviewed on its own merits; a decision made as to whether or not an e~ception will be granted from that resolution for this project, and then in the future any other project could be judged the same way on its merits. He addressed the Staff Report dated August 1, 1984, pointing out that they waited from December of 1982 to June 1983 for the General Plan amendment and the zoning to be brought into compliance with the change for the P-A zoning of the property. Therefore, they believe that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Staff Report notes that it is con- sistent with the zoning. He commented .that he. thinks it is important that it is a transitional piece of property and is heavily impacted by the surrounding development. Mr. Douglas discussed access, circulation and design. FIe stated that, if approved, they would take issue with Condition No. 2 in the Staff Report which says the project shall incorporate the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit E, only to the extent of basically calling for the redesign of the project as far as the aesthetics. He also discussed the parking, stating that they were prepared to go forward with the 1:300 basis, since they feel that yields more 'landscape areas to the project. He indicated that they would like to resolve Conditions No. 6 and 16, relative to the exterior lighting and wall, with the City at the appropriate time. Jim Russell, SaratOga. Park Woods Homeowners Associ~.tion, addressed the project. He indicated that .~.F_.~.~6mmenaat'iOn :is anything residenfial'in nat'ure within ~e~tain..const'raints. He added that, if not residential, their suggestion for an alternative would be professional and administrative similar to the build- ings across Saratoga Avenue. He referenced the Owen let'ter re a timeframe. Joan Faunce, President of the E1 Quito Homeowners Association, stated that they have been interested in having a residential development on that property. She noted that they have not had the question answered as to the potential kind of trips that might be made if that particular block was developed into town- houses or condos, which appears to be what might be the only other feasible Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 SDR-1539, UP-535 and A-989 (cont.) project for that area. She' commented that, however, they are looking at this project and traffic is their main concern. She indicated that they appreciate the fact that there is a reduction in the amount of access onto McFarland. She stated that they have in the past proposed that there be on Cox Avenue some kind of a divider which will eliminate left hand turns for people who would come from the east on Cox Avenue. She suggested a barrier she had seen on Austine Avenue in Santa Clara., to be used in the E1 Quito Park area at Cox Avenue · .and also on Bucknall Road and on Paseo Presada. Ms. Faunce discussed the design and color of the proposed building and suggested a masonry wall between the project and the six houses that are on the McFarland-Devon circle to help the noise factor. She also suggested.low level lighting.. When asked by Chair- man Siegfried what'their preference would be other than the proposed project, she indicated that they have always and continue to prefer a single family development, which could be houses on lots, condos, townhouses or a blend. Chairman Siegfried discussed the letter from Owen :Companies relative to the time- frame of the consideration of the project. He assured the applicant that when it becomes the appropriate time for a vote, he would assume a vote would be taken. He addressed the comments as to time limits of speakers, stating that they are not limits, they are guidelines. He added that the thing that dis- turbed him the most about the comments is that those limits have never been imposed on the applicant at any time and they have been allowed to speak for far beyond the ten minutes that any applicant would get normally. It was noted that the City Attorney had commented previously that Commissioner McGoldrick could request a full commission for the'vote. Commissioner Peterson commented on the project, stating that he is fairly new to. the Commission and is having a difficult time dealing with the question of whether this project should be houses or offices. He discussed the zoning and stated that, in his mind, if the consensus over the year would have been that it should have been houses, he feels it'would have been zoned residential. lie commented that he is not an expert so he has to look to the EIR as his guide- line for this particular project. Regarding land use, he has to go along with the EIR; it is relatively compatible with the existing land use, the shopping center, the winery, the offices across the street, and the church on the other corner. He indicated that he has some significant reservations about the visual impact and will not support the project as it stands now relative to the visual impact. Regarding traffic and circulation, he stated that he reads nothing in the EIR that says this is going to significantly impact the traffic. Regarding noise, whatever is done on that site there is obviously going to be a significant amount of noise during the construction and the 'noi'se problems will have to be mitigated. He added that he cannot go along with any kind of two- story along Saratoga Avenue and could only support single-story. Regarding the access on Saratoga Avenue, he can see some advantages to access on Saratoga and would leave it up to the City Council to resolve the issue of Resolution 897. He indicated that he agrees with the Staff and the EIR and would like to see the buildings along Saratoga Avenue moved up; he would like to see at least a 4 ft. berm with some very nice landscaping to mitigate any kind of impact. He commented that he would like to see some answers to these concerns at the study session. Commissioner McGol'drickadded'that, even though there is Paul Masson and the shopping center adjacent to this project, there are also houses on McFarland and an orchard across the street, with a great deal of open space and a church. She stated that she could not support a. second story anywhere in the vicinity of the houses on McFarland. Commissioner Burger noted that she is also new to the 'Commission and agreed with Commissioner Peterson's commen~s and echos his concerns. She added that not only is she concerned about any two-story buildings on that site, she would not at this point even be able to support a two-story nearest to the commer- cial area on Quito. She stated that she would also like to consider and possi- bly suggest that the developer dedicate a portion of their land to improve McFarland from Saratoga Avenue into the entrance to the project even further than what has been proposed. She added that, to be more specific, she would like to consider somet'hing like an expanded median strip that would include berms and trees in the center of McFarland Avenue. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has substantial concerns about the project in ~otal. He indicated that, while it is zoned P-A, he has serious reservations about P-A buildings of this size. He stated that he thinks he expresse~ tho'se before~'when the proposal was for rese'arch and development. He Planning Commission .Page 5 Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 SDR-1539,'UP-535 and A-989 (cont.) commented that his concern still is that in the future, with moves and changes, although the'City would restrict the use at this time, we ~re..going to be in a position where that is the kind of use that is going to end up. He added that he thinks that it will promote an entirely different kind of P-A use than any one of us ever thought,"'.and'.he d~e~n't'thfnk anyone ever conceived buildings of this size. He stated that he has serious problems about the access; he really doesn"t think it is good access the way it is proposed, and he doesn't think there is good access for this kind of development. He indicated that he has serious problems about what this will engender in terms of future developments on the vacant sites. He added that he frankly has felt that in time the industrial use of the Paul Masson site may very well disappear, just because of the value of the land. He added that he tends to feel that we are headed in the wrong direction. Commissioner Harris stated that she does not think she co. uld say anything better than the way other Commissioners have said it, except that she moved to Sara- toga because it was a residential community, and she would like to see it stay that way. CommisSioner Crowther stated that he knows the applicant has said he is not going to raise the issue on Resolution 897, but ~t seems that it has to be addressed. He commented that he does not know how it can be done and thinks maybe it is an issue for the City Attorney. He commented that, since this is a Council adopted resolution and it would seem that the Commission could inter- pret that resolution that this project is inconsistent with it, it is not fair to the applicant to keep going on without facing up to that issue. There'fore, he would like to see that somehow brought to a head if possible, and perhaps the City Attorney could raise this issue with the City Council and ask them how they want to deal with it. The City Attorney commented that he thought he heard Mr. Douglas say that they did not intend to request the Council to modify the resolution because they felt that it could be interpreted to allow the project. He stated that he looked at the resolution while Mr. Douglas was speaking, and it says in very expressed language that no traffic shall access directly onto Saratoga .Avenue. Therefore, while there may be other language within that resolution which could be subject to interpretation, the restriction on access from Saratoga Avenue is very clear, and he feels the Staff is correct in saying that if this Com- mission does approve the project, it would have to be subject to a condition that Resolution 897 be amended by the Council. He added that perhaps Com- missioner Crowther has a good suggestion for the applicant to assess the feel- ing of the Council. If circulation is heavily dependent upon a~ss from Saratoga Avenue, then there would have to be some determination by the Council. to modify or repeal that r~solution. He stated that he cannot interpret that resolution as allowing the access, in the absence of any action by the City Council. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he does not agree with everything in the Staff Report. He stated that he likes 'the large setbacks from Saratoga Avenue and he would like to see those preserved.. He commented that he agrees, how- ever, that the building near Saratoga Avenue 'should be single story. He stated that if this site could be used for single family residential he thinks that would be a favorab'le use, in comparison to this project. However, if it were to be developed in condominiums, especially any kind of condominium project typical of the density that has been approved on other sites, he thinks that would be much more environmentally damaging that what is proposed here. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on September 4, 1984 and the regular meeting on September 12, 1984. There was a consensus that the CommissiOn would like to see a physical layout of the buildings, by staking them, and having a site visit to get a feeling of height. The site visit was scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 1984, before the study session. 8a. SDR-1576 - Dorothy Shaw, et al, 14502 Big Basin Way, Request for Tenta- 8b. A~997 tive Building Site Approval, Design Review and Variance 8c. V-652 - Approval to allow the construction of a two-story 11,412 sq. ft. office building which would provide 17 parking spaces where a minimum of 28 spaces are required, 0 loading berths where '1 is required, maintain a 0' rear yard where 18' is r'equired, and 0' si'de yards where 8' 'is required Staff explained that 'there was a Committee-of-the-Whole last week on this - 5 - Plan~ing Commission -. Page 6 Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 SDR-1576, A-997 and V-652 (cont.) project, and the applicant has presented new drawings that were in the packet, but were not received in time for Staff to submit input. Staff referenced the memorandum passed out this evening relative to some of the concerns that continue on this proposal and indicated the changes that have been made. The parking and sidewalk area were addressed. They noted the letter from ~r. Heid addressing the conditions of the Staff Report. They stated that if the Com- mission is in agreement with the letter they should so indicate, or if they prefer, after their deliberations, request that a modified clarification be written so the applicant and Staff will know what was determined at the meet- ing, to eliminate misunderstanding. Warren Heid, architect, discussed the project and the proposed modifications. He discussed the parking, the conditions and findings. He commented that there is a perfectly good.sidewalk along Big Basin Way, and 'to tear it up and put in a brick sidewalk that is adjacent to the Village Square has not been asked of other people. Staff explained that any modification of this site would require Building Site Approval before a new one could be erected. They explained that it would have to comply with whatever ordinance standards the City has at the time the struc- tures goes in. They indicated that this structure itself is nonconforming in terms of setback and parking. Theoretically this structure has passed its amoritization period under the City Code and theoretically it shouldn't exist. Obviously that is not the case; there are a lot of places that are very old in the Viiage and other areas of town that continue to exist. However, there are two nonconforming uses existing On the property now, the two real estate offices. Since one of them is being expanded and'the other one probably won't be used while they are undergoing remodeling, Staff feels it is appropriate to require use permits for those uses. They added'that this is not to say that they necessarily have to be eliminated, but they think that a better use of the lower level would be for retail sales and that the real.estate offices could be relocated to the upper level. Commissioner McGoldrick asked if it would in any way foul up their leases if they had to change their location. The'City Attorney stated that he would speculate that both leases have some provisions in terms of illegality or impossibility of occupying the premises, and the use permit in effect allows the continuation of these operations. He added that if the permit was denied there may be some lease problem. He commented that he is not sure that the City needs to be concerned with the leasing arrangement, but they do have to address the nonconformity of the use. Mr. Heid noted that Miles Rankin's lease is for at least another three years and he plans to occupy the building during construction. Mrs. Ronald Knapp, Wardell Road,.addressed the continuation of the Vitaphone Theatre, indicating that she felt it has a lot of value and is very unique family entertainment. She suggested that the building be modernized but that the theatre be kept in the building. She added that she feels it is an addi- tion to the Village and is very unique and worthwhile. Mr. Robert Pollack, the applicant, commented that the th~atre.~is now by membership, and that Mr. Moore has no problem with relocating. He urged the Commission to approve the project, which would enhance the corner. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Harris inquired about the two parking spaces off of the driveway. She commented that she thought it rather ingenious to put them there until Staff pointed out that they might not be safe. Discussion followed on these spaces. Commissioner Harris addressed Condition 5, regarding the tree plant- ing'area. She commented that she does not think.a tree would be an obstruc- tion there. She indicated that she thinks it might provide a good break and natural stopping point for a car to park. Otherwise there could be a car parked so it did. come out and obstruct the driveway. She added that she feels there could be a barricade around it to protect the tree from a car damaging it. Commissioner Crowther agreed. Commissioner Burger addressed the brick paving out in front on Big Basin Way', indicating that she does not feel that is neces- sary. She stated 'that there is a perfectly adequate sidewalk there and would suggest that the 'Deferred Improvement Agreement that Mr. Heid mentioned would probably be more appropriate. Commissioner Peterson asked if there is a consensus on the Commission, based Planning Commission' Page 7 Meeting ~-,~inutes 8/22/84 SDR-1576, A-997 and V-652 (cont.) on making some findings, that we can allow the deficiency of three parking spaces. Commissioner Siegfried commented that, given the nature of this build- ing. and the nature of the use 'and the parking demands that it could put on the City, he thinks it is unique in that sense and probably the findings could be justified; they probably couldn't be 'in any other' situation. Staff clarified with the Commission that if they want to ]have retail space on the lower level and ]have that be the case either now or sometime in the future when the leases go up, then they could consider making the variance for lack of six spaces, whi'ch would be 'the requirement under ordinance standards, rather than just three for an office use. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve V-652, for a deficit of six parking spaces, per the 'Staff' Report dated August 1, 1.984, as amended. He made the following findings: (1) Practical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship - This particular project does lessen the ~impact on the Village by upwards to 125 cars, by eliminating the theatre. Therefore, it reduces the overall impact of parking in the Village. C'ommis. sioner'~cGoldrick added that they have reduced the size by some 800 sq. ft. and to require any more would be a practical difficulty. Commissioner Peterson continued: (2) Exceptional circumstances - He thinks the way we have to look at the entire Village is an exceptional cir- cumstance. We have parking districts that have less of a parking requirement than the normal C-C. Commissioner Siegfried added that the Commission is in fa'ct requiring that the 'size 'of the parking under the building be full-sized, whereas we could in fact consider reducing them to some extent. He added that he feels the Commission has always felt 'that where you get under a building you are better off having larger size parking, and there is no other place for the pa~king to go here. Commissioner Peterson continued: (3) Common privilege - He stated that'he thinks that would be the same findings. We are requiring them, because it is parking under the structure, to go to the standard, and the rest of the Village has other rules. (4) Special privilege - We are eliminating the intense parking that the theatre generates. Commissioner Crowther asked if it was a 'condition of the variance that this parking be public. He added that he would think it should be a condition of the variance, and that is the only way he can make the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed. Discussion followed on the maintenance. The City Attorney commented that the 'applicant would still be required to maintain it. There was a consensus to make it a condition that the parking be public. Commissioner ~cGoldrick stated that she would not mind marking special spaces for the tenants upstairs, stating residents only. There was a consensus to have that condition. Mr. Pollack addressed maintenance and possible lawsuits. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood Mr. Pollack's concern, but the Commission is also doing something in this instance which the City has never done to his knowledge, which is grant a variance from the number of parking places. Therefore, that is part of what has to be considered. Commissioner Crowther stated that he is 'concerned about Staff's proposed con- dition that the lower level of the structure should be devoted to retail use. Commissioner Siegfried commented that, regarding Mr. Rankin's business, retail might be considered if he moves away. Commissioner Peterson clarified that the motion be conditioned that when the office leases are renewed, that those uses revert to retail. He added that it is his understanding that the project can't be built, because they have leasehold interests, if the 'City is going to insist that they be removed and r'etail uses be put in there. Discussion followed and the City Attorney stated that there could be a condition that .upon expiration of the current lea'se terms the space should be used for retail. He added that Mr. Rankin could still move upstairs or come back to the Commission, requesting relief from that condition. Commissioner Harris asked if this could be required before his lease is up for renewal. The City Attorney stated that the City probably could require it, because the City is not bound by the lease. The question is really whether you want to under these circumstances. There is nothing to prevent retail on the second story either. It is just as a prac- tical matter it would be hard to find someone who is willing to go in there wi. th a retail operation. There is nothing to prevent retail anywhere in the building. What Staff is trying to do, because 'the ground floor is more likely to be used for retail, is to encourage that through some conditioning. Findings 6, 7 and 8 for parking were discussed. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the public issue helps to make these findings. He added that the .Plan~ing Commission '- Page 8 'Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 SDR-1576, A-997 and V-652 (cont.) parking required by the theatre currently, and the fact that this .use 'r~quirCs The findings for the rear yard setback were discussed. Staff commented that the applicant now proposes an 11 ft. rear yard and 17 ft. is required. Com- missioner Peterson made the findings for that variance, based on the fact that the applicant has dedicated an additional 8 ft. right of way. Commissioner Crowther also commented that the 'setback will be 'greater than that of the existing building, so it actually is an improvement. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion to approve V-6S2. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-997, per the Staff Report dated August 1, 1984, with the following changes: Condition 1 to. read: "The structure shall be no higher than 32~ ft. maximum in its front elevation measured from top of roof." Condition 2 was deleted. It was noted that the approval would be per Exhibit B-1. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve SDR-1S76, per the Staff Report dated August 1, 1984, amended as follows: The width of the sidewalk shall be 6 ft. and therefore the street is 32 ft. The brick sidewalk shall be put in front, to be consistent with the adjacent propert7. Condition II-M'was amended to read 21 ft. and II-N amended. to read 20 ft. Mr. tleid asked for clarification of Condition II-C regarding the 30 ft. half-street on Third Street. Staff stated that they would review this and inform the applicant as to what the width. on both II-C and II-D should be. There was a consensus that this would be left to Staff, and it can come back to the Commission if there is a problem. There was also a consensus to leave the'two parking spaces in the back and to keep the tree' planting area near the parking district, as shown in Exhibit B-t. Commissioner BkGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was clarified that the 'CommiSsion has no choice relative rO-.~eaving the Vitaphone Theatre on this site. 9. A-1001 - Lazlo and Anna Sipos, Request for DeSign Review Approval to construct a twosstory single'.family residence with a total' floor area which exceeds the 4800 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard next to 18883 Allendale Avenue.in t~e R-i-20,'000 'Zoning district Staff explained the project, indicating that the main issue is that the lower floor'of this proposal is more than 2 ft. above ground, and therefore is not considered a basement under the definition of the Design Review Ordinance. They recommended denial, having been unable to make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 10:23 p.m. 'Mr. Sipos, the applicant, gave a pres'entation on the 'project. He stated that the lower floor is a substandard floor and is not considered to be living area and should not be included. He indicated that it is considered clearly for storage and is substandard in height and lighting. He disagreed with the find- ings, stating that he feels the comparison of the structure to be with the structures on Allendale, since they are'larger parcels, and not with those behind Allendale. He noted that the 'neighbors are in support of the proposal. Mr. Sipos described the basement area, indicating that he was going to store a speedboat and antique furniture there.. He commented that he feels that, relative to environmen'tal impact, it would be better to utilize the basement rather than cluttering up the land with another accessory structure. Dis- cussion was held on the definition of a basement. Commissioner Harris commented that the home looks like a 2-story house from the back. Commissioner HcGoldrick stated that, aside from fhe basement issue, she cannot make the findings for the 1,000 sq. ft. that it is over. She com- mented that maybe th~.'City Council is the body to decide, because the Commis- sion is bound by the ordinance. She added that she 'cannot make the findings #3 and #4. : Commissioner Harris moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny A.-.1001, per the Staff R~port and Exhibit B. Commissioner Crowther commented that the lot size, in his view, is also an · Planning Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes 8/2.2/84 A-1001 (cont.) issue. He stated that if this lot were larger and similar to the other lots on the street, which have larger homes, he would feel differently about it. He indicated that he is going to vote for th.e motion and lot size is a big factor in his decision. Commissioner' MCGoldrick agreed. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried Unanimously 6-.0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 10a. Negative De'cla'rat'.ion '- S'DR-15.78.'-' Wil'l'.i'am"E'i's'ac 10b. A-1003 William Lisac, Request'for Design Review and Tentative Build- 10c. SDR-1578 -- ing Site Approval for a two-story, single-family dwelling over 26' in height on a hillside lot in the. NHR District at 2'.1045 Comer Drive The project was explained by Staff. They noted that they were.'unable to make the findings and were recommending denial of the Design Review and approval of the Building Site. Commissioner McGoldrick gave 'a Land Use Committee report. She stated that ther'e had been some discussion about the possibility of the City Geologist giving an alternative whereby it would be closer to the creek and further off the top of a knoll. However, if that does not come through, she indicated that there was no opposition on the part of the applicant to put landscaping on all sides of this house. Commissioner Harris commented that the applicant had stated that the 'property is not for sale, and Mr. Layne specifically indicated that this house i.s designed for the 'Lisac family of six children. Commissioner Crowther asked about the required lot size in the NHR district. He stated that he objects to the statement in the Staff Report that it meets all of the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, since it is really a substandard lot for the NHR district, which he feels can be a factor in the bulk issue. Staff commented that it is a substandard lot, but since it is a pre-existing legally created, nonc0nforming lot, it is still consistent with the ordinances. The public hearing was opened at 10:41 p.m. Michael Layne, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, explaining the topography and.the proposed grading. He noted that the appli- cant would like to move 'the house closer to'the creek side if geology permits. He submitted a drawing, discussing windows, deck and height of the roof. Commissioner Crowther commented that it was his understanding, when the ordi- nances were implemented related to the Specific Plan or NHR, that the height was computed by taking the minimum of the structure to the maximum elevation of the structure. Staff clarified that they' measure from the highest point of the structure itself to the grade below that high point, either the finished grade or natural grade, whichever gives'the grea'test dimension. They added that the height is not defined differently in the NHR. Fernando Gonzales', owner of the adjacent property, agreed with the Staff Report. He discussed his privacy and preser'vatiQn of the natural landscape. The drainage 'in the 'area and the proposed grading were also addressed. 'y~'. T. Wang, 21027 Comer Drive, also agreed with the Staff Report. He listed the 'follOwing concerns: (1) the distance is short and the house is looking right at his home, (2) it is not compatible with the area, and (3) the drainage pro- blem. He stated that he 'could approve a one-story coupled wi'th landscaping. .He noted that the lot is on the market for sale. Bey j~'~ahari~ 12881 Corte de Arguello, stated that her property abuts this site. 'She noted concerns of drainage and the visual impact on her privacy. She agreed with the Staff Report, and requested, if this is approved, that the property to the northeast also be added to the condition regarding landscaping plans. She added that she feels that a one-story would be more in line, and submitted a letter for the record. Mr. Layne indicated that they are aware of the drainage problem. He commented that he feels the present scheme provides a solution to some of the drainage problem. He stated that he feels the driveway acts as a barrier to the drainage problem. The impervious coverage was discussed. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thinks ther'e are a lot of problems with ~lanning Commission Page 10 Meeting Minutes 8/22/84 A-1003 and SDR-1578 (cont.) this.structure and its location. There was a consensus to have a study session on this matter. Discussion followed on moving the house back further closer to the creek. Commissioner Harris commented that it seems to her that if the house is moved back further to the creek, the bulk perception will be increased from down below, because in essence you are moving that huge structure further up the hill. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he has a problem with the square footage of 6200 in this district. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on September 18, 1984 and the regular meeting of September 26, 1984. 11~. UP-564 Robert Way, Request for Use Permit to allow a gazebo in the rear yard setback area at 19230 Bountiful Acres, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff explained the application, suggesting modification to reduce the Size and height. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report. She s~ated that she feels an important issue is that this is built on fill from their swimming pool; therefore, we are talking about quite a height difference between the rest of their back lawn and where they are proposing to put the gazebo. She indicated that it definitely overlooks the Rossis' back yard. She noted that the hedge al'o~g.~'.the cyclone fence, which was an effective screen, is dying. The public hearing was opened at 11:18 p.m. Robert Way, the applicant, discussed the. project and the Staff Report. He indicated that he has no opposition to reducing the size.and the height. He commented that the hedge can be replaced and there is an orchard between the Rossi property and his and quite a number of trees. He discussed the slope of the property, indicating that where the gazebo is going is not fill and is the natural slope. T]~e setbacks were discussed. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that although there is a distance between the Rossis and this property, the site looks right down ~onto the Rossis' swimming pool. She commented that she would agree to a 15 ft. setback if there was landscaping along the fence. Mr. Rossi, 19255 Bountiful Acres, stated that he feels that a structure on an acre site, which is totally flat, should comply with the ordinance. He noted that the orchard trees are deciduous. He discussed the contour of the lot. Mr. Rossi expressed concern over noise, since the gazebo will be on the side where his bedrooms are. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion., which was carried unanimously. Commissioner HcGoldrick commented that .s]~e was willing to go with the 15 ft. setback, but had not tho'ught about the fact that there is a bedroom close to that. Commissioner Harris stated that she feels more comfortable with the 20 ft. on the side yard. She added that they' might consider keeping it 11 ft. in the rear yard, since it is right up against the tennis court. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP-564, per the Staff Report dated August 14, 1984, with the reduced size and height, leaving the 20 ft. setback on the side, with an 11 ft. setback in the back, and landscaping along the cyclone.fence. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously 6-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 12.' A-1004 - Robert Schiro, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second-story addition to a garage at 13092 Upper Hill Court, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued~to September 12, 1984. MISCELLANEOUS ~3. A-994 - Richard james, 19980 Herriman Avenue, Clarification of Condition to Remove One Eucalyptus Tree · Commissioner' McGoldrick commented that it was always the intent of the Commis- sion' that the applicant remove the tree and replace it with a native. There was a consensus to that effect. - 10 - ~!anHing Commission Page 11 Heeting Minutes 8/22~84 14. A-665 Garner/Sorenson/Fanelli, 14561 Oak St., Consideration of Modifi- cation to Design Review Approval Staff reported tha't the issue is changing from a vertical board and batten to 'the horizontal siding. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report, noting that there is a tree of concern. Staff stated that the ]horticulturist is looking at this tree and have stated verbally that they will be able to save it. Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that the balconies are shown to be open and are quite visible from all around. She suggested that the balconies have closed railings. Discussion followed on the balconies and the siding. There was a consensus to approve both the siding and the enclosed railings. 15. A-814 - Paul and Geraldine DeVos, 14681 Farwell Avenue, Clarification/ ~pproval o.f earthtone color on a wall of the residence Staff asked for an interpretation from the Commission relative to "earthtone". Commissioner McGoldrick described the long rose wall in question. Richard Skowers, the architect, explained the color and showed a sample. He noted that there will be .additional screening between this home and the adjacent houses. He explained the color and design of the house, stating that the rose wall is an integral part of the total design. Commissioner McGoldrick noted that this is a ]huge wall and she would want to see a lot of screening. Dis- cussion followed on the definition of "earthtone", and it was the consensus that it means browns, beiges and tans. There was a consensus to approve this wall as constructed. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested to Staff that any house that is purely stucco should come before the Commission with a color sample if there is any question regarding it. COHMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Richard Powell Regarding Martin Residence Relative to Clarification of Dormer Windows. Staff reported that the applicant to present to discuss his request. They commented that they see this as converting attic space to usable space, and the amount is in excess of the 100 sq. ft. over which Staff has any jurisdiction. They added that their interpretation would be that it is a modification to the structure and would require a new design review. Dick Powell, the architect, explained that this is attic space right now, and the only~thing the 'applicant wants to do is add dormers to the attic. Staff commented that they have calculated the square footage to be 210 square feet. They added that it certainly ]has all the appearance of converting space, and they are also changing the exterior of the structure. Discussion followed on the modification. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would be happy to let Staff make the decision. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that the applicant could bring in specific plans. There was a consensus, because of the size, that this modifi- cation would not require a design review application, and the applicant should work with Staff. It wa's determined that this general subject of conversion. of-. attic space will be agendized for a future study session. Oral 1. Commissioner Peterson gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on September 15, 1984. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News fo~ attending and the GoOd Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to continue the meeting to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on September 4, 1984, in order to hold a public hearing regarding the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Political Signs. The motion was carried unanimously and the meeting end at 11:38. p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd