Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAKeTOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .....DATE: Wednesday, September 26, 1984 - 7:.5D p.m.' PLACE: City Council Chambers, 1.3777 Frui..~.~le Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ./~.....~- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION "" " .... Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Crowther, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following change was made to the minutes of September 4, 1984: In the second paragraph, in the eighth line, the word "~llow" should be changed to "regulate". Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of September 4, 1984 'and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The following changes were made to the minutes of September 12, 1984: On page 1, in the second paragraph under SM-7, the word "red" should be "redwood". On page 7, in the last sentence of the eighth paragraph, the word "properties" should be "'lots" On page 7, the fourth sentence in the sixth paragraph should read: "They added that they think it is somewhat unusual that someone comes in, .does illegal grading, and then uses hardship and expense as a means of making the findings to allow it to remain as illegally graded." Commissioner Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of September 12, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present. CONSENT CALENDAR Items #1 and #4 were removed for discussion. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the balance of the items listed below. Commis'sioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 2. UP-531 - ~'Iartin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for One-Year Exten- sion 3a. Negative Declaration SM-10 - John Brady 3b. SM-10 - John Brady, Request for Site Modification ·Approval for a swimming pool to be constructed on a slope greater than 10% at 14287 Chester Avenue, in the R-I-40,000 zoning dist·rict Discussion followed on Item #]., SDR-1576, Dorothy Shaw (Pollack). Commissioner Schaefer asked for clarification o'f the condition that had been revised. She stated that, in reading the minutes, she felt it was the intent that the real estate offices move upstairs. She stated that she feels v'ery strongly in oppo~ sition to that because she feels the business doesn't have much of a chance to succeed upstairs and she feels this is very discriminatory. It was clarified that the condition states that they have'to come in for a use permit, at which time a determination can be made whether that space will be retail. Commissioner Harris moved to approve #1, SDR-1576, Dorothy Shaw (Pollack), Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, Which was carried 6-1, with Com- missioner Schaefer dissenting. DiScussion followed on Item #4, A-1012, Wilson Development. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she feels this is a rather large sign to have in that location, and she expressed concern with the color. Discussion followed on the sign, and Commissioner Crowther agreed that %he sign is excessive. It was noted that this sign will be temporary until the homes are sold. Commis- sioner McGoldrick commented that she feels it is a disruption to have homes for sale.~,. in your neighborhood, and she would like them to be sold as possible as possible. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve Item #4, A-1012, Wilson Development. - 1 - P~al~n~ng Commission Page 2 F eti g ~inutes 9/26/84 A-1012 (cont.) Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the mot.ion, which was carried 4-3, with Com- missioners Harris, Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Items #5, #6, #7 and #9 were removed for discussion. The public hearing was opened on Item.#8, A-1010, Smedley, at 7~:51 p.m. It was moved. and. seconded to close the.public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve #8, A-1010, Clifford Sme'dley. Commissioner Peter- son'seconded the motion, which was carrie'd unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on #5, A-1004, Robert.Schiro. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that she would like to add a condition stating that there be no kitchen in the new development, so there is no con- fusion about second units.. She .stated that the applicant had indicated that he would like to make some changes to this plan since he and the architect were not commUnicating. She commented that she wanted to make it very clear that changes over a certain .amount of square footage'would have tO go through the whole process. Staff c.ommented that the=applicant was talking about possibly adding some additional second floor decking. It was clarified that if more than 100 sq. ft. were added on the second floor it would need to come back to the Planning Commission. ~he public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1004, Robert Schiro, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report dated September 21, 1984, amended to include the above two conditions. Com- missioner.Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on Item #6, SM-6, A-1009 and V-665, Joseph Kennedy, and #7, GPA-84-1 and C--210, Joseph Kenn~.dy. At Commissioner Schaefer's request, Staff dis'cussed the square footage allowed on these lots, indicating that the floor area standard for the zone.is 6200 sq. ft. They gave the history of the proper- ty and explained the applicati'ons. They indicated that there is a requirement for a Deferred Improvement Agreement if Peach Hill is.to be improved in the future; however, no widening of it is contemplated at this time. Discussion followed on notification if an assessment district were formed. Commissioner Crowther commente'd that Mr. Kennedy is taking some very positive steps with this property in bringing it into' HCRD. The public hea'ring was opened at 7:59 p.m.. John Walsh, Peach Hill'Road, a'sked for clarification of the Deferred Improve- ment Agreement. Mr. Walsh indicated that none of the neighbors want any part of the widening of that road. He added that they do not want curbs and want to keep it rural. He 'described' the slope of his site. Staff explained that the City standard improvements are deferred; however, Condition F does suggest that there'.be a widening of the pavement to provide .18 ft., in effect a minimum access road on the Peach Hill Road frontage, with a standard asphalt curb along the frontage. They noted that under the condition of the 'Lot Line Adjustment the road will be nearly 20 feet. Mr. Walsh 'expressed concern about the 20 feet and what it w. ill do to his hill and driveway. Commissioner Schaefer commented that if they go..over into the Kenned'y proper'ty it would involve significant engineer- ing; otherwise, it would go into Mr. Walsh"s proper'ty. She added that she thinks that'is 'a major issue here.' She also asked who ~s responsible for maintaining the road in the 'case of movemen't and part of Mr. Walsh's property goes over onto the road. Mr. Walsh added' that he fee'l's that when you go from a road that is 14 ft. wide to one that is '20 ft. wide, you. h~ve a hodgepodge and it is terrible looking. Commissioner McGoldrick commen~ed that she thinks it is also a safety p~oblem, since joggers expect that wi'dth.~all the way. She asked if it could just be blacktopped and not have a curb. Staff commente'd' that this 'is a public road; it is 14.ft. wide, and it is certain- ly not'adequate for two lanes of traffic. Staff stated that they are suggesting that the Commission at lea'st provide for the barest minimum 9 ft. wide lanes there. Commissioner Harris commented that she feels, in view of the 'fact that the appli- cant is changing the location of the driveway, that the safety factor is being addressed as far as the approach to. the 'property. She added that she thinks it is out of character to widen this 'street in that.area'. Mr. Walsh commented, at Commissioner Schaefer's inquiry regarding bicycles, - 2 o P~l~ng Commission Page 3 ~ s Meet~ngl~inute 9/26/84 Kennedy (cont.) that he feels it makes more of a safety hazard to go from wide to narrow and he thinks the road should be consistent and have the same basi.c width all the way along, so people are used to it. Commissioner Crowther stated that he thinks it is the steepness of that road that creates the safety problem, and whether you make it wider or not isn't going to make much difference. Lester Sachs, 19941 Sunset Drive, stated that he is one of the parties taking access from Hume Drive. He indicated that he is concerned about the Staff analysis which states that the proposed structures will be well screened from the Peach Hill area but will be somewhat visible to homes taking access from Hume Drive. He requested the Commission to have some reasonable screening requirements as to the homes that take access on Hume. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SM-.6. Commissioner McGoldrick second the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SM-6, V-665 and A-1009, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report dated September 20, 1984. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimouslye7-0. Commissioner Crowther moved to recommend approval of GPA-84-1 and C-210 to the City Council, per the Staff Report dated September 17, 1984 and Exhibit B. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Crowther moved to bring Item #15, LLA #4, ~rward for discussion. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the. motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Crowther moved to defer Condition F of LLA #.4, but require the overlay on the existing road. Commissioner Siegfried added, on the basis that, with the change to HCRD and basically at this point with the same struc- ture that is there, there is no change in the use today. After discussion it was determined that Condition F would read: "One inch over. lay of existing entire street fronting property. City Standard asphalt curb along frontage. Engineering plans, fees and bonds for these improvements." Condition H is to read: "Widen pavement to provide two nine (9) foot lanes plus one foot shoulders. (D.I.A.)" D.'I.A. was added to Condition P regarding the access road. It was noted' that there is a condition for landscaping under Design Review. It was determined that Staff will work with the applicant regarding the grading for the sprinkler system in front of the swimming pool. Com- missioner McGoldrick noted that there is a fence there and the applicant was informed' he would have 'to come in for a variance or take it down. Commis- sioner Burger seconded the motion, whic.h was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on Item ~t9, V-659, Duppen. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the Staff Report asks that the setback be 6 ft.; it is now 3~ ~t' She commented~, that she feels t'he applicant is' Willing to make ~ Compro.m~s.e on the se'~back~ whi'ch the 'Land Use Committee found reasonable. The public hea~ing was opened at 8:20' p.m. Mr. Duppen, the applicant, stated that a setback of 6 ft. would mean that a couple of large trees are encroached upon. FIe suggested a compromise of 6 ft. from the side yard wi~h the neighbors for safety reasons and 4 ft. for the front yard. He indicated that he will then make the garage 2 ft. narrower to ac.complish that. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V-659., making the findings, and changing the condition to a 6 ft. setba'ck at Yhe side and 4 ft. at the front, per the Staff Report dated September 21=, 1984 and Exhibit B-2. It was noted that the garage 'width will be 'reduced.-' Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10a. SDR-1539 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Request 10b. UP-535 for Use permit, Building Site Approval and Design Review 10c. 'A-989 - Approval for 115,600 sq. ft., in 4 office buildings, one of which'is two-story, at the 'southeast corner of Saratooa and 'Cox Avenues in the 'P-A zoning district Chairman Siegfried reported tha't since 'the last public hearing the applicant - 3 - . P~a.nn,~.ng Commission -' Page 4 .M~etr~-iilg· Minutes 9/26/84 SDR-1539, UP-535 and A-989 (cont.) has made some modifications and described the currently proposed project. Staff commented that, with the modifications the applicant has made, they are able to make the findings and recommend'approval of the applications. They noted that they have had conversation with the applicant regarding the con- dition concerning the parking ratio of 1':250. They indicated' that the appli- cant has explored that and, through a variety of means, would be able to achieve that. The parking, stall widths, and building height were discussed. The public i~earing was opened at 8:30 p.m. Steve Douglas, of the 'Owen Companies, stated that he would like to address condition 17 at a later time and introduced. Colin Russell, the architect for the project. The.City Attorney addressed Condition 17, commenting that it is phrased in terms of "could". Therefore, there has to be some. discussion so the applicant is clear as to what is or is not being required. .He commented that,.~as presently Worded, it is more of a suggestion or possibility. Colin Russell, the architect, gave a presentation on their current proposal. He described the changes made, including the height of the .structures, the number of buildings, consolidated parking, additional landscaping, and mater- ials. He discussed tl~e parking ratio and parking spaces. A diagram of the proposed heigl~t of the buildings was also submitted by Mr. Russell, who addressed the present height. Steve Douglas addressed the projected occupancy load for the buildings, using the other office buildings that the Owen Companies have constructed as a basis. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels the applicant can meet the parking through compact and the 9 ft. wide combination. She commented that she is still concerned about tl~e size of the buildings. She suggested a greater set- back from Saratoga Avenue. She noted that it is now a 50 ft. setback on one of the buildings, and she would propose that one cube of that building be made smaller...She added that she has the feeling that these buildings are going to appear from Saratoga Avenue to be one large building. Colin Russell commented that one of the.things that reinforces the fact that they will appear individual is that the roof does have an up and down profile and is not a straight roof. He added that they appear in plan and will appear in elevation as. separate building. DiscuSsion followed on the elevations and setbacks. Mr. Russ'ell addressed the suggestion to increase the setback off of SaratOga Avenue. Fie indicated that'he feels that setback could be increased by 10 ft. without giving up much landscaping. Commissioner Crowtl~er noted that the proposed bermS would tend to reduce the perception of building height. Steve Douglas gave a history of the pr. oject, stating that he feels they have complied with the recommendations in the EIR about the redesign; have respond- ed. to the comments of the Commission relative 'to the redesign and materials of the project;~ have 'decreased. the density from 147,000 to. 115.,600, and have done all of those 'things even' though the City's ordinances and General Plan would have defined the original project. He added that he believes that they have cooperated and are at a point now where they believe that the project deserves the Commission's support and asked for their favorable decision. Mr. Douglas addressed the conditions of the Staff Report, specifically Con- dition 17. He spoke 'to the channelization of Cox, indicating that they do not believe it is. neces'sary; howeZver', if the City deems it necessary they are prepared to do 'it.. .Commissioner Crowther commented that he would like to see that as a deferred improvemen't which is going to be conditional on whether a problem occurs; if a problem occurs then the applicant would be committed.to go in and fix i't-. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he is not so concerned about the 'channelizati'on as l~e is the straigl~tening out of what may just be a matter of striping. He commented that 'he thinks it is a major problem the way it goes from two lanes' to one lane as cars cross Saratoga. It was noted that Item C would take care of that issue. Staff commented that they are not sure that in fact .the channelization would affect the pattern of traffic approaching the 'site; ther'efore, they feel the idea of a Deferred Improvement Agreement for Item A makes a great deal of sense. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to see Items C and D made firm that the.applicant will do those, but feel that A and B should be open if a problem occurs. It was determined that the applicant could work with Staff on Item D. Discussion followed on Condition 18. The City Attorney stated that this whole subject is strictly contractual. It was a consideration in terms of whether the pro- ject should or should not be approved in terms of land use. Basically the 4 Pta'n,mi. ng Commission Page S '~ i%B~.~eting Minutes 9/26/84 SDR-1539, UP-535 and A-989 (cont.) applicant has responded to that by saying that they think the use is appro- priate and if the City has determined that they are going to suffer a net revenue loss the applicant will pay each year the amount of that loss. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the fact that their Area'D is highly sensitive to the General Plan change from P-D to P-A. He stated .that their area's concern is crime, safety and the configuration of the parking. He'addressed Condition ·18, as to the basis under which the City can request adjustment. Mr. Russell spoke to the proposed buildings, and the two-story building that already exists..in the area. He..indicated that the recommendation from the Homeowners Association was to be single-'family detached, and they would like the Commission to recommend that this be. rezoned to R-1. Commissioner Siegfried pointed out that if it were single family residential on the corner, the thought occurred to him that, given traffic patterns and what has been done on other streets, that we might be looking at a wall there. The Ci'ty Attorney clarified Condition 18, regarding Mr. Russell's question. He commented that it is really a matter of contract and negotiated item between the applicant and the City; however, once that agreement is executed, then it is an enforceable document and then becomes a potential lien on the property. He added that once the contract is in place it becomes almost equivalent to a tax assessment and it will be'of record and a financial' obligation of the property. ' Commissioner Crowther asked, if there were a consensus among the Commission that we should make 'this site single family residential, and the applicant has been proceeding.based on the current General Plan and zoning, how would you implemnt that sort of thing? The City ~ttorney explained that a rezoning pro- cedure would have to. be initiated, and he thinks the General Plan would have to be changed b.ecause it .calls for a P-D mix. He commented.that that use includes residential, but he thinks a reasonable interpretatio. n is that it calls for either a mixed use 'or would allow .office use. He added that he would have to look more carefully at how. the designation is described. However, his initial reaction without checking the exact language of the General Plan is that it would require both a General Plan change and amendment to the Z'oning Ordinance. Carol Machol addressed the Commission, stating that· she would like to support Mr. Russell's statement about having single family and stres.s the detached part, rather than single family condominiums. She stated that she feels that this will bring the lowest possible traffic pattern as well as upgrade that section, which she feels is something the City has been trying to do. She commented that you won't see another project of this size consisting of office buildings anywhere 'in the 'City.. She asked why the Commission is considering anything that is two-story. She added that the thing that.bothers her the most is that people will start using the neighborhood streets., She urged that the Commission redesignate it as single family detached residential. Dora Grens totaiiy agreed with Ms..Machol and Mr. Russell. She-stated that the General Plan Committee indicated that they wanted single family residential; the Planning Commission agreed with the General Plan recommendation, and'the present City Council overturned that. She stated that she feels the Commission would be setting a terrific precedent in approving this project. John Lundel'l, 189S1 Ainsley Place, stated that this would be a significant change in th.e character of this portion of Saratoga. He commented that he also feels that it will set a precedent. He added that he feels that such a project, if it ~ere to be located in Saratoga, would be more appropriate on a site along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Lundell commented that for the subject site'he f~el's it would be more appropriate for single family residential or condoS at worse; or if need be, ~Ven'~a'single st'o.ry medical complex such as is across the street from the s.ubject site. Michael Millhall, Ainsley Place, agreed with the previous speakers. He stated that he hates to ·see the area deteriorate, and he would like it to keep its special character. Adnan Daoud asked for clarification regarding the figures of occupancy rate. Mr. Douglas.explained that they did a survey of the actual. footage rented in those buildings. Mr. Daoud stated that the total square 'footage is far too large for a development for this area. He added that it will create a lot of traffic and the congestion will be much greater than depicted. - 5 - , Pl~nn'~,in~g Commission Page 6 "' '%~e~ing Minutes 9/26/84 SDR-1539, UP-535 and A-989 (cont.) Joan Faunce, Bucknall Road, stated that she feels the 'comments regarding access onto Saratoga Avenue are relevant; however, s.he feels the parking on Saratoga Avenus is probably more relevant. She commented. that one of the things this project.addresses is apparently adequate and maybe more than ample parking for the occupancy that they have. She indicated that they had gotten feedback from 500 homes in the area. and residential was preferred. However, they also felt that maybe something else may be good as long as there was some open space and a good. feeling that 'it.was Saratoga. She commented that this project brings to mind the fact that there has not been a consistent effort made by all the parties in Saratoga to ~oordinate Resolution 897 with current activity, when there is much developable land yet on Saratoga Avenue and also land that is developable that will impact on some of the residential areas that are adjacent. to that. Ms. Faunce commented that single family housing can be cluster housin.g with lots of open space; it can be townhouses crammed together, and it can be lots of single story condos. She stated that the people in. her area' have said verb'ally many times that they would like single family dwellings; they did not ever.say that they had to be separate houses. However, they were concerned' about traffic, and the traffic through E1 Quito Park is their major concern, more than even the residential nature or not of that particular development. Laurie Landwehr, 18803 Devon Avenue, stated that they had moved here because Saratoga has a quality of life that they wanted. She described the low key shopping center four years ago and stated that they did not want this proposed development in'the neighborhood. She expressed concern about the traffic and crime, and stated that they wanted single. family dwellings, basically detached. She added that her' neighbors feel the same way. Eleanor Sabella asked for clarification of the height and spoke against the project, stating that she wants to keep. Saratoga the way it is. Terry Griswold addressed the Commission', stating that she was involved with some of the poll-taking in the Quito area and was pres'ent at some of the board meetings. .She indicated that after they had walked all of the streets surrounding this project and any street that would be affected by the traffic, the poll turned out to be 40% for it, 40% against it, and 20~ could not make up their mind. The public hearing continued at 10:00 p.m. after a break. No one else appeared to address the Commission.. It .was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. The following comments' were made by the Commissioners: Commissioner McGoldrick referenced the packet that she gave the Commissioners containing the minutes of the General Plan. meetings and prior meetings on this property. She stated the following: Unfortunately I was not..able to attend the meeting of the homeowner's when Building A, wh'ich is across from was discussed. However, I remember distinctly Cheriel Jensen talking about how mammoth.'that building was going to look. and the. people who were in the homeowners group at that time,'iHc~ud!ng oH~ is'a"City'fi'gure now, fully b0~ght the '~act'that"there'we~'~omecompromises being maae and that the building'was not going to be as overwhelming as it was.: We bought it, but we were very unso- phiscated at that time. So that was the major error,.'Which set the :..prece~ent. We have the opportunity now to prevent that same sort o~' thing from happening. I am sure that when the homeo'wners looked at those drawings they had no conception of how overpowering that building was going to look. When I look at this it.looks wonderful, and when I hear 40%. landscaping, that's almost half--that sounds terrific. So visually I don't know what it is going to look like, just like I didn't know what Building A was going to look like. So I think the Quito homeowners' point that it is a moot question as to whether berms are better than walls is indeed a moot question. All I know is that after it is built it is too late 'to do anything about it. So I am going to direct my thoughts to the traffic, because that is one issue that, no matter where you are in Saratoga, it is a primary concern. I refer to th.e response dated July 24, ].984 to the Planning Commission for the EIR single family alternative: "This alter'native 'would generally have less impact on traffic congestion and circulation than the project. It would generate about 290 vehicle trips per day, about 20% of' the trips generated by the project. That is tremendous to me. That has a lot of impact. I don't think there is any question as to how I am going to vote. - 6 - · Pl~a~noing Commission Page 7 ~!~eting Minutes 9/26/ SDR-1539, UP-S3S and A-989 (cont.) Commissioner Burger· stated the following: I would like to make the point that my decision tonight to approve or deny this project I feel has to be based on the current zoning of·that ·particular parcel·. HoweVer, I feel that what happens there is going to'.have 'an impact on every Saratqg.a~, not just the people in Area F or the people 'whO' live 'in areas matter where you live 'in Saratoga, it will have an impact De·cause it sets a precedent 'for future development along Saratoga Avenue. I th.ink'the precedent that it sets will. have an adverse impact on Saratoga. I think the project, · from my·point of view, is too massive and it defeats .the .Character of the surrounding nei'ghbo'rhoods. I cannot,' under any circumstances, vote for any two-story building on the project. T]lerefore, I will not be voting in favor of the project. Commissioner Crowther stated the following: I feel we have some very major problems in our ordinances and·our General Plan. I think the plan the appli- cant has come up wi.th is a major improv. ement. I agree that it is going to have 'a lot less impact than the 'other plan, and.I sort· of feel he has been led down the primrose 'path a bit, in that I·think we haven't moved. as quickly as we should ]have 'to straighten out our General Plan and our. ordinances. to get thi"s zoned to what it should be. I would hope that we can move as quickly 'as possible to do that, because I think we' need to straighten out the existing pr0ble~.s..that we have in that ·area. .I don't think the proj..ect is.in character -~tY.,."~a~.~o~.a.~'L."-I~=° da~"t ~e. 'for' it '.'~e.~'s'.e.'~'0f'..that..' I feel· it is jUs't too large an·office Commissioner Schaefer stated the following: I want to compliment the developer on this particular project that they have put ~ogether and the fact that I think it has tried to meet our concerns. She reiterated what she had said before, that she thinks P-A is appropriate but she would want the smaller scale. Commissioner Harris stated the following: Being as new as I am on the Com- mission, I still am·.·'very confused about the General Plan and the way it is stated, and I certainly appreciate Commissioner ~IcGoldrick's .time and effort in bringing me up 'to date on what exactly went on. Even in. reading· those minutes I am confused, but I ·still feel that the residents were not asking for this type of·development 'on that property. I-tad the developer even come in with a mix of P-A and residential, that might have been something I could c'o'nsider, because I think that's· what the residents were saying all along. I can't go along with this as it is. Commissioner· Sieg-fried stated the following: t. Iaving been on the Commission the longest· time, I agree ·that it is unfortunate perhaps that it has taken us so long to reach this point.' I would agree with Commissioner· Schaefer; I think 'P-A is 'appropriate. I do not,.however, believe that this proposal has reached the point that it is in character with the style, the feel of the medical-dental complex across the street. It still gives me a feeling of much ·greater density, al.though the numbers don't say that; the size and style does. It is unfortunate that the ·two-story building cannot be reduced to.'lje~s'.than 27 or 28 ft. in hei'ght. It seems to me ·that maybe it says you have'~o go back to the ·drawing board. I am not necessarily opposed to a two-story building on that site. I like the concept .of the offsetting of the modules.. I can't get 'a-feel, however, from this architectural style. I think that, even though the roof line differs, you are not going to get the sense of independent buildings.' If you had that sense, if the buildings were sep- arated', which probably means they would end up being somewhat smaller in s~ze, I would be s.omewhat inclined to vote favorably. I will not be ·voting favorably. One additional thought, 'if in the ~U.t'u~e'a proposal came forward to change this zoning to. residential, I would not be opposed to that if it were clustered or condominiums. I think we are all making a mistake if we think you are going to end up with single family detached housing on th'at corner. The reason I raised the point about th'e wall is, given the style, the size of homes that are detached, as much as we try to restrict them and limit the height~ there is a fee'ling of density. I am afraid if this were single family detached you would have a very dense feeling. So I would say okay for residential, but it would have to be clustered or condominiums. I think P-A is appropriate, but it ]has to have a different feel·, so I will be voting against this. Commissioner Schaefer· added that the idea has been brought up as to ]having mixed, and she thinks if you will look at what happened on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, where that got to be a compromise' of commercial/retail. and multi-family or single ·family units, nobody really ended up·very happy with that at all. Therefore, she really thinks that P-A is very appropriate for this if it could ~?'~n~ng Commission Page 8 Meeting Minutes· 9/26/8 " SDR-1539, UP-535 and A-989 (cont.) oet a smaller feel to it, or possible condominiums However, she really · thinks that P-A, with a little bit of working over' it, is an appropriate use for this site. Commissioner Crowther stated: Since ·the neighb·Orhood wants· res·idential on this·site, and since ·traffic is a major issue that affects all of Saratoga, it seems to me ·that the traffic issue is the key· one. If you go with any kind of a P-A·complex there it is··going to have a major impact on traffic. It would just seem to me that maybe· there ·is a way to combine·single family residential with some form of clustering or low density condominiums, which · '-~'i~.~!~ give'~some ·open space near the corner·. I am just· wondering if there · sn't some way we can get' that resolved and move on, and get our General Plan and ordinances changed. We are ·in a bad situation here. We have it zoned P-A and we have ordinances that can lea·d to a project that we are not going to approve. I think we ·need to change ·that as quickly as possible. A'··mixed use is a disaster; we have it over on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and it hasn't worked. I don't think that is the right way to go, and we omght to go for residential. Commissioner Harris moved to deny UP-535, SDR-1539 and A-989. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. Discussion followed on possibly voting to deny without prejudice.~ There was a consensus that'a change of significance is necessary. Commissioner Schaefer asked if the Commission wanted to give indications of whether there is a majority on the Commission who will Consider P-A without having any res·idential put in it. She ·commented· that she thought she heard Commissioners SiEgfried, Peterson and her·self saying.that P-A would be fine. CommissiOner Burger also agreed to that. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would prefer residential. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would go for P-A if we are ·talking about small little pods that are not very huge numbers of people. Commissioner Peter·son commented that one of the advan- tages to P-A is ·the fact that it is in use from 8:00 t~ 5:00 and empty on weekends and at night. He indicated that he is very leery of anything mixed; in his mind it should be P-A or single family, and he feels P-A does have some advantaoes relative to the use There was a consensus to let the motion · stand, and the applicant was informed of the 10-day appeal period. lla.' Negative Declaration - SDR-1578 Will'i'am Lisac llb. A-1003 - William Lisac, Request for Design Review and Tentative·Build- llc. SDR-1578·- ing Site Approval for a two-story, single-·family dwelling over· 26' in height on a hillside lot in·the NHR·district a't '21045 Com'er Driv'e It was directe·d that this matter be continued to October 24, 1984. 12a. Negati"v'e Decla'ration - SDR~1581 Wilbur & 'Gay.le Fisher 12b. SDR~1581 - Wilbur and Gayle Fisher, Request for Design Review and 12c. A-1014 ·Tentative Building Site Approval to allow ·an existing single story dwelling to be'converted to a two-story dwelling in excess of 4800 sq. ft. in the R-I-20,000 district at 15069 Pa'r'~ Drive' " It was directed that this matter be continued to October 10, 1984. 13. V-658 - Mr. and Mrs. Ron Martin, Request for Variance Approval to allow .the construction of a one-story addition that will maintain a 15 ft. rear yard setback where 25 ft. is required at· 12420 Radoyka · Drive ·in· the· R-l-10,000 zon·i·ng di·strict Staff explained the ·proposal, stating that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the house has mature landscaping along the edges. She noted that ·the ·Other logical place 'for putting on the addition might be where the site plan says existi·~g deck and concrete. She added that if the applicant were ·to build the·re the·re ·is a huge ·tree that would prevent having any access to the ba·ck yard. She ·commented· that ·the ·applicant had an older proposal· for building up and had opposition from the neighbors, so they with- dr~w that proposal. She noted that th~r·e ·are no other two'-story homes in this neighb·orho·od and the Homeowner·s Association is ver·y opposed to having any. ~ a. .~tion~ on Pa~-e 8a . ~:Z--~.- '.-:~'°:- .-' ' ...... = -. '-, :.'g - ':P~a'n~i~ Commission Page 8a Meeting Minutes 9/26/8.4 Owen Companies (cont.) ~Commissioner McG~ldrick stated that what she heard her neighborhood say is that traffic is the most important concern. Therefore, if this P-A was reduced significantly.. maybe in half, and She does.not know if that is feasible, then we are diScUssing.th-e'traffic~they had in mind.' (She n~ted at the .October lOth meeting, for the Council's information, that she distinctly remembers posing to the applicant at a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting a proposition that was smaller than the number of square feet they presented to the Commission at the last meeting; however, it was certainly not half.) ~'~P.~.j~'~n.ing Commission Page 9 =~-~=-~=Meeting Minute's. 9/26 SDR-1539, UP-535 and A-989 (co~t.) The public hea'ring was opened' at 10:25 p.m. The 'applicant .discussed the application. He explained that two years ago they did go 'thr'ough .the design stage of adding a second.story and encountered opposition from the 'neighbors. He added that he feels this is a very logical one-story proposal. Bob Doamaral , the 'architect, gave a presentation on the project. He noted that all of the 'neighbors have been contacted and there is no opposition. It was moved' and seconded' to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner' McGoldrick moved tO approve V-658, making the findings 2, 3 and 4, as follows: Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances Although the home'could go up, due to neighbor complaints' and setti.~g a precedent in the neighbo.rhood, and since going..out to-~be Side WoU~d encroach-~n the ~cCe.~s to.the back yard, I feel there are extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, it would withhold the'i'r common privilege~and is not a special privilege. Commissioner Siegfried reemphasized.the fact that there are two rear yards facing on what is his side yard, which is the only location that you could put the building and stay within the 'setbacks, and it seems to him that, again because of the odd configuration also of the lot on Lolly Court and ~he location of the house, that has a.much more si.g~ificant impact on the neighborhood. .He added that this becomes essentially a side yard situation, the way the house is configured. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 14. UP-567 - Michael and Diane Reed, 13728 Fortuna Court, Request for Use Permit Approval for an accessory structure to be located in the rear yard setback area 4 feet from the property line, in the R-1-12,500 zoning'. district' The proposal was explained by Staff, who stated that they are unable to make the findings relative to this and recommend denial. Staff explained the interpret'ation of the side yard and rear yard. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. The public hearing wa's opened at 10:35 p.m. Peter Saitta, the '~rchitect, described the lot and the proposal. He also discussed the findings, stating that .the purpose of the garage is to store a boat and also provide the cabana. He indicated that he thinks that any noise that would.come from the pool area would be mitigated, rather than increased by this.structure, because the cabana will act as a sound screen. He added that it.will also act as an macoustic screen for the pool equipment. Mr. Saitta commented that they are prepared to provide safety precautions for fire 'considerations. He commented that, in terms of maintaining a rural atmosphere, he feels that because of the irregular nature of the site the proposed structure is not visible from the street, and in addition the home on the site is the only single story house in that group of buildings there. He added that if this 'h~d been a normal ordinary building lot they would not have a problem. He clarified that ther'e would not be a problem if this were 6 ft. instead of 4 ft. from the property line, because there is room to still stay wi'thi'n the 10 ft. He added that he feels a compromise could 'be done.' The proposed drainage system was discussed. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP~567, per the Staff Report dated October 21, 1984 and Exhibit B. He stated that, regarding the findings, he disagrees with. t.he Staff on public health, safety and welfare because he does not think the structure will have an impact because of the distance between it and.the houses tha't are on adj.acent lots. Regarding Finding #3, he would base that determination on the uniqueness of this lot and the fact that there aren't.other suitable locations for the structur.e on the lot. He added the condition that fire resistant constr.uction sh'all be used. Commissioner Burger se'conded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. - 9 - ~' ,' !t~,l~n.ning Commission Page 10 ..-:~i~ ~l~ing Minutes 9/26/ MI'SCEEL~NEOUS 1'5. LLA #4 -. Joseph Kennedy, 15480 Pea'ch Hill Road, Reconsideration of 'Co'n'ditiDn 'o'f Staff Report This item was discussed simultaneously with Items 6 and 7. CO~MUNICATIONS : Written 1. L'et't'e'r'.'f~'om CUrt Anderson 'da'ted 'Sep'tembe'r 21, 1984, regarding SDR-1327 and A-981.' Staff explained the request and gave the background, stating that the applicant is now asking the Commission to forward a recom- mendation to the 'City Council that they abandon the Offer o£ dedication. They noted that the' Commission did, at a study session, conclude that they would do that but it wa's never"formalized. Discussion foll6Wed on the ~equest. Commissioner. Schaefer' moved to' forward a recommendation to the City Council that they abandon the 'offer of dedication for the 'roadway access from Quito Road to the property known as SDR-1327. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 2. L'et:t~e'~s.'from Mario'n'Caide'rone 'dat'ed September 12, 1984 and Roy A. James"d'af'ed AugUst 28, 1984, regarding A-807-A. The history of the appli- cation and the request for a second extension was discussed. Staff spoke against the request for delay of the ~andscaping here and suggested that there 'is time between now and Octo.ber 12, 1984 for the landscaping to be installed. Mr. Roy James stated that they are victims of a problem with the developer and requested at least 90 days to complete the landscaping. He indicated' that it was only within the last 30 days that PG&E gave final approval. After further discussion there was a consensus that two months would be a maximum amount of time to complete the landscaping. It was deter- mined that a two-month extension would be allowed. 3. 'Letter from Gary E. Hansen, dated 'September 14, 1984, regarding A-768. Staff explained the request,~for remo'val of the requirement to plant evergreens on his .side.. After discussion there was a consensus to approve the removal of this 'condition. 4. Negative Declaration.'and Letter from San Jose residents regarding changing the Quito School site at McCoy and Quito to residential. Staff explained that the San Jose residents feel it is inappropriate to have a Negative Declaration on this matter and are requesting that Saratoga send Staff to hearings to.speak against it. After discussion it was determined that this matter will be forwarded to the Sunland Park Homeowners Association. 5. Letter from Lou Mclntyre regarding the removal of trees in the City. 6. Letter.'from the Santa Clara Medical Society, asking for the Commission's support o~ prohibition ot sale o~ alcoholic beverages at the site of gasoline sales. It was noted that there are none currently in Sara- toga that sell alcoholic beverages and gas stations are regulated by a use permit. Oral 1. Staff explained that they have a number of requests at this time of year for repair work from slides, and they have taken a p.osture that says that Staff does not have time to do a total and complete review of the geo- technical aspects of it and require them to submit their own expert advice and hold harmless clause that says they take responsibili'ty for their con- sultant's work. FIe indicated that he had brought this request from Mr. Jones to the Commission for their information because it involves removal of over 2,000 yards of material from the 'site and elimination of a great number of ordinance size trees. They noted that there has been movement in the area and described the 'site. The City. Attorney commented that this happened last year, where all of a .sudden there is repair work needed at a point in time that if it went through'the usual review. by the City Geologist it would be too late to do the work. The procedure that has. been adopted then is for the applicant to execute w'ith the City'an Indemnity Agreement, which express- ly recites that the City has no~ had the plans reviewed by the Geologist and the applicant is 'expressly assuming the risk of any damage to his own pro- per'ty, .as well as any other property or any person, and agrees to indemnify and defend the City and hold it harmless' if ther'e is any claim. These docu- ments are recorded, so any successive owner of the prope.rty is also aware of the si'tuation. Mr. Roy James, 21127 Bank Mill Road, stated that he has been working on the 10 ~i~~ ,'~Z~'~'~n.ning Commission Page ll : :'r.~et"ihg Minutes 9/2 Oral (cont.) situation for a long time and has submitted a copy of the soils report to the City. He commented that he would not take the 'trees away if there was any way to. avoid it, and is trying to stabilize the property to the best ofh~s ability. He reported that State 'Farm is processing litigation with the City of saratoga for improperly compacting the street above his house, and he:'has no intention of signing any kind of waiver. The City Attorney commented. that he was unaware that. there is litigation.pending. He stated that if the gentleman is saying he wi.ll not sign a waiver, then the .attorneys should get together, because without a waiver we cannot issue a permit'unless it goes through all the process. He added that.the agree- ment is used.when the normal process is basically thrown away, and if that is-not going to be done then some other accommodations are going to have to be worked out. 2. Chairman Siegfried thanked the 'Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting ended at 11:10 p.m. RSS:cd