Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-1984 Planning Commission Minutes , C.,{TY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~ISSION /' MINUTES " / DATE: Wedne~.~ay, December 12, 1984 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City ,Council Chambers, 15777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ......... Y ............. Y ..... · ........... .~ ...... r ...... - ........ ' ................. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call "'Present: Commissioners Burger, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Schaefer arrived at 9:40 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Crow:her Minutes The. following changes were made to the ~inutes of November 28, 1984: On page S under SDR-1585 and A-10B0, Peter Buck, the last paragraph should read: "Mr. Buck commented that if the Commission could make the findings for the variance as a whole he could cut back the garage to eliminate the post and obtain the 2~- ft setback for the new portion" On page S under the Owen Company item, ~ · · , the following addition should be made: "It was also determined to add a con- dition stating that there Will be a public hearing at the City Council level on the necessity for the traffic light at Quito and Cox Avenue." Commissioner .._~eterson moved to waive the reading and approve the minutes of November.28, 1984 as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani mously. ..ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Joe Pruss, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, addressed the setbacks and fencing restric- tions on scenic highways'." He asked that he be notified of any proposed ordinance changes· CONSENT CALENDAR Item #2, A-1052, Teerlink Ranch, was removed for discussioA'. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the remaining item listed below. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S-0. 1. A-828 David L. Matlock, Parker Ranch Road, Request for One-Year Extension Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use'Committee report on Item #2, A-10S2, Teerlink Ranch, stating that they had met with the landscape architect. Commis- sioner McGoldrick moved to approve 'A-1052, Teerlink Ranch. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR The-.public hearing was opened at 7:34 p.'m. No one appeared to address the Com- mission. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the item on the Consent Calendar listed be.low. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. Commissioner McGoldrick noted' concern ~e.g~rding the guest parking. Staff'cCmmented that within approximately 200 ft. there is a wide area down below the site where they might park. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried unanimously.S-0. S. A-1057 Michael Mauldin, RequeSt for Design Review Approval to allow con- struction of a second-story deck addition to a single family resi- dence on a hillside lot at 15245 Bohlman Road, in the HC-RD Zoning District PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. A-964 McBain & 'Gibbs, IUc., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence that exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. standard at 21441 Tollgate Road, Tract 6628, Lot 14, in the NHR zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued. - 1 - Pl~n~,=ing Commission ~' Page 2 ~e6ting Minutes - 12/12 5. A-1016 - McBain & Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story, single-family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR District at 21409 Tollgate Road, Tract 6628, Lot 5 It was directed that this matter be continued. 6. A-1022 Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 27 ft., one-story single family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at 14575 Saratoga Heights Court, Tract 6665, Lot 4 It was directed that this matter .be continued. 7a. Negative Declaration - SD-1582 Joseph Teresi (A-M Company) 7b. SD-1582 Joseph Teresi (A-H Company), Request for Tentative Subdivision and A-1024 - Des.ign Review Approvals for a 22-unit (detached) zero lot line 'development. in the R-M-5,000 PC District near the southeastern corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall ~oad; continued from Novem- ber 14, 1984 Staff explained the applications and noted that there have been several study sessions on this matter. They described the present proposal and the changes which have been made. They noted that conditions have been added requiring automatic garage door openers and Staff review of the CC&Rs. The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. Ken Riding, of the A-M Company, referenced their letter reflecting modifica- tions to the proposal. He discussed the changes that have been made regarding setbacks, number of single-story units, and the size of units. He commented that they are not able to achieve the play area and there will be no RV parking space, stating that he feels they can cover these items in the CC&Rs. Discussion followed on the building and open space coverage. At Commissioner '~Goldrick's'f'nquiry, the open space figures were clarified. Commissioner Harris asked about ~ncreasing the number of different designs, and Mr. Riding stated that they could include a variation in the elevation and desired to do that. Bob'Black, Paseo Presada, stated that he lives across from the school. He spoke against the two-stories and the density. He indicated that he felt there should be a play area and'noted concern about the parking. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick noted a phone call from Mrs. Ann Snedler, who indicated that,'although there~ are areas with which they are not happy on this proposal, they feel that ~t is certainly better than the original proposal. Chairman Siegfried noted correspondence received on the pro~ect regarding the setbacks. Discussion followed on the setback on the Saratoga Parkside project. Commissioner Peterson commented that he feels this is a creative plan, but he feels it is too dense and.fhe.pa~k'ing'is"not ~dequate. He added that there is not enough open space and he cannot support the project. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed, stating that she feels strongly that there is a domino effect and that the E1 Qui~0 Park area is inundated with P-A offices and two-story condominiums across the park, and the area is just being sur- rounded now with two-stories. She commented that it is ruining the residential neighborhood look. She added that she could better support the project if all the units adjacent to the school building property were single-family. How- ever, she agreed with Commissioner Peterson that the project appears too dense and the parking does not seem sufficient. Commissioner Burger commented that she thinks the applicant has mad. e an effort to respond to all of the Commission's concerns and she is able to support the project as it now stands. She noted that it is residential and she feels it probably answers a need that is not currently answered to any great extent in Saratoga, and that is units that are, in her opinion, ~iny, compared with most of the homes in Saratoga. She added that she ~s not concerned about the lack of a play area or any further guest parking. She suggested that the condition regarding the automatic garage door openers should be amended to read that the garage door be sectioned so that they fold up into the garage, rather than one piece that would swing out into the shorter than normal driveway. 2 Planning Commission " Page 3 ~4eeting Minutes - 12/12 SD-1582 and A-1024 (cont.) Commissioner Harris reiterated what she has said in past study sessions; that she thinks the units are too large. She added that she would be willing to consider a motion that would include additional one story units, in the hopes that the developer might change his mind, and a condition that the setback on the Saratoga Parkside side be increased to 25 feet. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he generally would favor the project, although he has a concern about the parking and. whether realistically ten parking spaces provides sufficient parking. He added that he thinks that overall it is a reasonably good usage of the site, given the location on Saratoga Avenue and the previous proposals. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny SDR-1582 and A-1024. Commissioner Peter- son seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris asked if there was anybody who would support a motion to ask for eight Single-story units and an increased setback to 25 ft. on the Saratoga Parkside side. It was clarified that there would'be no space gained for additional parking and open space because the footprint is actually larger for unit #1 as it is planned. The'~"~s taken on the motion to deny. The motion was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Harris and Burger dissenting. The appeal period was noted. Commissioner Peterson commented that he disagrees with most of the Commissioners .in the single-story vs. two-story issue. He stated that he can see a project with mostly two-story but more clustered and smaller units and giving a lot more open space as being something more acceptable than all single-story units with not too much open space. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed with that premise but stated that she would like the single-story units on the school property. 8a. Negative Declaration SDR-1578 - William Lisac 8b. SDR-1578 - William Lisac, Request for Design Review and Tentative Building 8c. A-1003 - Site Approval for a two-story, single-family dwelling over 26' in height on a hillside lot in the NHR district at 21045 Comer Drive; continued from November 28, 1984 Staff described the current proposal and noted changes made to the plan. They indicated that they were recommending approval of the Building Site but denial of the Design Review because they are unable to make the necessary findings. They noted that the impervious coverage, while it is within the 25% standard, is in excess of the 15,000 sq. ft. limitation. Chairman Siegfried asked how much of the impervious coverage is in the driveway. He stated that he feels the Commission has to give some recognition to the fact that there is a_very long driveway necessary to reach the only logical building site. Discussion followed on the driveway, and Staff commented that it may have a beneficial effect relative to the neighbors because-it is below the developed portion of the lot, so that any drainage that is coming from the home and its impervious coverage will be coming across the road, where it can be collected.and taken to Comer Drive. Therefore, the lower elevations will receive less runoff than they did in the undeveloped stage. The public hearing was opened at 8:33 p.m. Michael Layne, r'epresenting the applicant, gave a presentation on the project and discussed the changes made. The proposed landscaping was discussed. ~r. Layne submitted a letter on the impervious coverage and a product used on golf courses to allow vehicular traffic to cross grass areas and still allow the area to appear as lawn or grass. He indicated that they plan to take part of the impervious coverage and treat it as lawn using this substructure. He also indicated that they were proposing that the pool area be dropped from the appli- cation. Mr. Layne discussed the proposed deck and the color of the house. Mr. Wong, 21327 Comer Drive, stated that he supported the Staff findings. He inquired about the timing of the landscaping plan. ~r. Layne described the landscaping plan and timeframe of the screening to Mr. Wong. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimousl'y. Commissioner Harris stated that she would be willing to vote for the project if the size of the house can be reduced within this plan. She added that if the builder feels that that is something that is entirely impossible, then she would be voting against it. - 3 - Pl.a~n~ing CommisSion Page 4 ~Meeting Minutes.- 12/12 SDR-1578 and A-1003 (cont.) Commissioner Peterson stated that he feels he can make the findings on this project, noting that it is a difficult site. He commented that he could generally support 6100 sq. ft.; however, if the second floor is not allowed the 5,000 sq. ft. would be relatively small coverage. He stated that if the landscaping is carefully done he could make Findings #1 and #3. He noted that the Staff repor~ does indicate that landscaping would probably mitigate these findings. Regarding the finding o'n"Compatible Bulk and Height, he stated that he could make that finding based on (1) the size of the property, and (2). there is at least one .two-story house there. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thinks he can support this, particularly if putting the house a couple of feet into that hill. could be investigated further, unless it is going to increase greatly the grading that is necessary. Commissioner Har~ris indicated that she would like to verify exactly where the deck is going to be. Staff described the deck and location. It was noted that th~ only ne~ighbor who would be impacted i~. quite a distance away. Com- missioner Siegfried commented that if there is a motion to approve, it could be conditioned that it come back to Staff on the basis that it be a smaller recessed deck. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1578. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve SDR-1578, per the Staff Report dated August 22, 1984~ Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A'-1003, per .the.conditions 'in tl~e Staff Report, with the~following changes: (1) the se'cond-story deck shall be reduced and recessed and plans brought back for Staff approval; (2).the color will be as deep a natural earthtone as the applicant can find, i.e. beige, tan, to be approved by Staff; (3) the impervious coverage shall be reduced to 15,000 sq. ft.: (4) the height ~hall be further reduced by some additional grading unless it has a significant impact on the necessary grading; (5) the pad shall be lowered, and (6) the landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by Batty Coates. Com- missioner Peterson made the following findings: #1 ~ It can be mitigated. through landscaping; #3 = based on the use of landscaping; #4 - based on the size of the property, ~.e. 1i0,000-115,000 sq. ft., and there is one two-story house in the general area. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. Commissioner Harris indicated that she still would like the house reduced in size, or she cannot make the finding for perception of excessive bulk. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Harris dissenting. 9a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1581 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher 9b. SDR-15~I - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher, Request for Design Review and Tentative 9c. A~1014 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 Park Drive; continued from November 28,198'4 It was directed that this matter be continued to January 9, 1985. 10. V-666 - Amanna/Schiro, Request for Variance Approval to allow a 12 ft. corrective retaining wall along the property lines at 13898 Upper Hill !Drive and 13902 Upper Hill Court, mn the R-i-40,000 zoning district; continue~ from November 28, 198'4 It was directed t~hat this item be continued. lla. Negative Dec~laration - SDR-1583 - Peter Buck lib. V-667 P'eter Buck, Request for Building Site Approval for a greater llc. SDR-1583 - than 50% expansion, Design Review Approval. ~or a second-story lid. A-1030 - addition and Variance Approval to maintain a 12 ft., 8 inch side yard setback where 20 ft. is required and for an existing accessory structure'that maintains a 5 ft., 5 inch setback where 50 ft. is required, at 15214 Belle Court, in the R-1- 40,000 'zoni'ng district; cont.inued from November 28, 1984 It was directed that this matter be continued to January 9, 1985. - 4 - Pla~ing Commission Page 5 ~eeting Minutes ~ 12/12/ = 12a. UP-571 - Aaron Berman, Request for Use Permit Approval t allow construc- 12b. V-674 - tion of a 15 ft. high cabana in the rear yard and Variance Approval for impervious coverage which would exceed 35% at 19140 Via Tesoro Court, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff reported that there seems to be less impervious coverage than is allowed; however, it is n6t verified. They suggested that the Commissipn proceed with the application as submitted. They described the project, staFing that they · are unable to make the findings relative to the variance and rpcommend denial. The impervious coverage was discussed. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the area. She noted that the Hazel cabana has already been'built, and the Berman cabana is lower. She added that she . feels this is located quite a distance from the Mancuso residence. Commissioner ' al Burger stated that she feels this is a logical siting for the cab ~a and she feels the impact=is minimal. She explained that it is set bac~ quite a bit from the rear property line facing Dr. Mancuso's back yard. She added that she feels with the installation of extensive landscaping any possible m a t e mp c would b even further minimized. The public hearing was opened at 9:05 p.m. ~4r. Berman, the ~pplicant, stated that he had measured the impervious coverage and he feels that it ' , . . j ' ' ' cabana. · ~s under 15 000 sq ft He described the locat~0n of the , d ~ tr t Ron Mancuso the .neighbor directly to the rear, state that t]e s uc ure is going to have a 22 ft. impact on his property, and he does not feel landscaping will mitigate it.l He noted that there is a bathroom which exists off the s~imming pool patio and he does not feel.this building is necessary at all. this will compound it. Eldred Kunkel, 14484 CheSter, stated that he 1 d c ana. He indicated that it has a very serious impact on the neighborhood, and the Berman cabana will ]lave an impact on the P,,~ancuso viewscape. H~ also noted that the soil in that~area does not absorb water. Mr. Hazel spoke ~n sUpport.of' the cabana.- He commented that he feels this is a' good location ~nd the landscaping will mitigate any impact. Mr. Berman indicated that they had mea'sured .where the cabana w~ll be and where Dr. Mancusco woul~d like it, and there was 16" difference in height. He stated that Dr. ~ancuso .will not see the roof of the cabana and it will not impact him. Charlie Kelley, architect, addressed the issue of possibly r d ing the total , e uc height of the str'ucture. He commented that if the roof is lowered then it will take away from the rest of the home, since it ties in with it. He added that Dr.' Mancusco will~ not .be able to see through the fence because of the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Petetrson moved to close the 'public hearing. Commjssioner McGoldrick second~ed the motion, which was carried unanimously. After discussion on the height of the cabana, Commissioner Burger moved to approve UP-571, p:er. the Staff Report dated' December 3, 1984 and Exhibits B.and D, and adding a condition that the height of the cabana is lowered by 1 ft. Commissioner Petelrson seconded the motion', which was carried u~animously 5-0. It was directed that the variance application will be continue~ to January 9, 1984, to determine whether the variance is needed. Break - 9:25 - 9:~0 p.m. 13a. V-673 - CoX Avenue Professional Center, Inc. (Sanfilipo), Request for 13b. A-1011 Variance Approval to allow the' use of compact parking spaces to create additional parking and Design Review Approval to construct a two'-story, 13,200 sq. ft. office building on C. ox Avenue across frQm Quito Sho'pping Center (Building "B"), in thee C-N zoning dist'ri'ct "' Staff described the project, discussing the proposed landscaping. It was noted that this matter had been at a study session. They indicated tihat they cannot make the findings!relative to the Variance and Design Review an!d recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 9:43 p.m. - 5 - Plan~ing Commiss·ion Page 6 ~ee'~ing Minutes - 12/12/i 'V'-'673 and A-1011· (cont.) Joe Sanfilipo, the·applicant, gave a presentation on the project, noting the changes that hav~ been ma·de. He indicated that he would prefer not to put in the 7 ft. solid fence suggested-by Staff because of aesthetics. He discussed the reciprocal easement agreement with the adjacent property regarding a loading berth and handicapped parking ·spaces. Robert Black, PaSeo Presada, asked that the median on Paseo Presada be extended another 10 ft. and Staff clarified to him that the Owen application is con- ditioned for some work on their frontage· Staff suggested that if the Commis- sion approves this application that a condition be added that the median on Paseo Presada be~extended, as approved by the City Engineer. Discussion followed on this~extension, and it was suggested that it be conditioned to examine whether any additional improvement can be done without impacting the neighbors. Staff commented that the ·ordinance on compact spaces that is under consideration would not allow those compact spaces to increase the ·density of space within the site; it would simply in effect allow for greater landscaping. Compact spacing in this instance would not be consistent with the proposed ordinance Commissioner McG01drick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would support the project if the structure could be reduced,in size by approximately 600 sq. ft. Discussion followed on a possible reduction of the structure and the parking Spaces needed· Commis- sioner Siegfriedjcommented that the findings for the variance would be based on the whole history of the site, i.e. the unusual situation here of the exist- ing structure and the parking that was approved for that structure, and the whole thought wa~ that this site was going to get credit for that, at 400 sq. ft., which was the ordinance that was in existence at that time. He explained that now the variance that was approved for this site has lapsed, but the whole past history has!to be taken into account. He added that the Commission is not setting a precedence for anywhere else. Discussion follm~ed on the parking spaces needed if the structure were reduced. Mr. Sanfilipo indicated that he would like to have as many parking spaces on this lot as possible, FIe commented that if the Commission wishes that the·build- · ing-be reduced, by the same token if he can have 25% compact spaces, then in a sense the net end result is advantageous to both parties. Discussion followed on the findings for the variance. The City Attorney stated that the applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the building. He commented that if he had all standard spaces he would then satisfy the parking requirements. Therefore, he wouldn't need the variance if he went standard. However, the Commission wants him to have compact, so the findings are a little different in the sense that the exceptional circumstances are by reason ofmthe interrelationship between the two buildings and the need for additional parking is already expressed by the owner of the adjacent build- ing. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve V-673, based on the findings discussed by the City Attorney, and the compact spaces will be 8' x 16' He added that 25% of the totallspaces will be compact, and, based upon that general formula, he would like to·see as many parking stalls as possible on that site. Dis- cussion followed·on the handicapped parking, and it was clarified that one space is on the adjacent property, one is marked on the plans, and one more space ~s required. Staff asked for clarification on the motion, stating that they understood the motion to be that if additional square footage is generated by reducing the size of the structure, additional parking is to be put in, as opposed to plac·j~ng it in landscaping. The motion was clarified as such, with the understanding on the part of the Commissioners that they understand the objective of the Compact Parking Ordinance! is that it allows for more landscaping· However, in this case and the Commission desires· the additional ing. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she thinks an.issue has been·landscaping and parking, and she ifeels she could vote for the Design Review if the parking is allowed as propos'ed and the structure is·reduced by 1,000 sq. ft. She added that that allows :for the landscaping and.parking, and it also allows for the fact that.it i.s a~ high floor ratio and the staircases etc. insid the building are not inclUded',.which add to the outside appearanc& of the building. 6 Pl-~ning Commission Page 7 ~Me~ting Minutes.- 12/12 V-673 and A-1011 (cont.) The vote was taken on the motion to approve the variance. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-1011, per the conditions in the Staff Report dated October 11, 1984, but reducing the size to 12,600 sq. ft. Dis- cussion followed on the solid wall and the fence on the other property. it was determined that Condition 7 should read "A 6 ft. fence similar to the existing fence shall be located along the northern property line, and a solid wall shall be located along the western property line." Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was going to oppose the propos. al, which is a change from when it was first proposed. She explained that unfor- tunately Floor Area Ratios were not really an issue until the Owen property. She indicated that if the applicant were willing to go to the same Floor Area Ratio as Building "A", she certainly would take a look at that. Commissioner Harris indicated that she also would be voting against this, for mainly the same.reasons. The vote was taken on the motion to approve A-1011, which resulted in a split vote 3-3, with Commissioners Harris, McGoldrick and Schaefer dissenting. The City Attorney commented that the split'vote is d.e~med~ a'denial and-the applicant 'ha~ the optiQn 0f..Appealing to the City Council or waiting until the next meeting to have a full CommissiOn present and to have the matter voted upon again. Commissioner SChaefer stated that she would vote for the proposa! if the structure were reduced 1,000 sq. ft. The applicant stated that he would like the matter ~.onside~e'd at'.~he.ne~t mFeting. tt was directed that this matter will be rea~endize~"~or'th~"'janh~ry ~"Y98~ meeting. 14a. V-670 - ~Bill and Barbara Sudlow, Request for Design Review Approval to 14b. A-1035 iconstruct a new two-Story residence and Variance Approval for a 25 ft. front yard setback where 75 ft. is required at 21502 ~Saratoga Heights Drive (Tract 6665, lot 11), in the NHR zoning .district It was directed that this item be continued to January 9, 1985. 15a. V-672 - 'Bobbi Canha, Request for Design Review Approval for a second- 15b. A-1038 story addition and Variance Approval to maintain a 15 ft. ~exterior side yard setback where 25 ft. is required for an 'existing one-story residence at 12784 Paseo Presada, in the ~R-I-10,'000 zoning district Staff described~the proposal, stating that they can make the findings for the variance for the 'existing house. However', they are unable to make the findings for the second-s'tory addition or Design Review. Commissioner McGoldrick ga~e a Land Use Committee report, noting that the drawings are reversed and the garage is on the side next to the neighbors. She added that there is a great deal of room in the back for expansion on one level. The public hearing was opened at 10:22 ~.m. Glen Cox, repres:enting the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He described the existing home and the other homes in the area. Commissioner Schaefer commented that it appears in the front that the addition goes straight up~ over the garage. and there is no tie-in with the rest of the house. She adde'd that she thinks it will look like a massive add-on on top of a garage. Mr. C~ox indicated that he could leave the eaves on to make the addition look less obtrusive. Robert Black, 12~750 Paseo Presada, noted how the houses sit on the lots and indicated that he has no problem with the addition i~ it is done neatly. Chairman Siegfried noted correspondence received in support of the project. Commissioner ~cG01drick moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGOldrick indicated that she lives' two doors down and has com- plete'sympathy with the applicant. However, she expressed concern about having two stories near:the park. School property. She explained that the neighborhood is afraid that when' the E1 Quito Park school property gets developed it will become two-story~because there is a precedence of two-stories near it. She ~P~anning Commission Page 8 .Ivleeting Minutes - 12/1 _. V-67.2 and A-1038 (cont.) stated that she will have to oppose the application on the basis that they can expand on one level. Commissioner Harris stated' that she looks at the proposal differently. She explained that she is not opposed to there being a two-story, especially since it is not that large an addition. She'indicated that she is concerned that it is only 15 feet back from the street; however, she does not feel it is impacting the neighbors directly behind them. She added that when the time comes for the park to be developed the Commission surely would not put all two-stories in there; she does not think that is the goal 6f*-any of the sub- divisions that'have been approved. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to see the two-story set back to give it some architectural relief. Commissioner BUrger moved to approve V~672 to maintain a 15 ft. setback for the existing house, per the Staff Report dated December 4, 1984 and Exhibits B-l, C-1 and D-1. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the variance for the second-story addition, .making the following findings: Practical difficulty - There is a problem where the house is situated on the lot; Exceptional Circumstances - also the way the house is.situated on the lot; Common Privilege - There are other two-story homes within'the neighborhood, and Special Privilege - For the applicant to have a second-s:tory home would not be a privilege that has not been extended to othe'~ homes .within the 'neighborhood. .Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. Commissioner Schaefer suggested a condition to the Design Review that ~ the second-story be set back a minimum of 18" from the front for some 'archi- tectural relief. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she cannot make Findings #1 and #2 and agrees with Staff that there is 'room':-~.O'r:-~'.expansion, despite the fact that the house is set on the lot differently. Therefore, there is no practical diffi- culty or unnecessary physical hardship. Regarding Finding #2, she stated that she agreeslwith Staff's reasoning, and #3 - There are no two-stories within 500 ft. Of this home. The vote was taken on the motion to approve. The motion was carried 5-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner Burger moved to approve. A-1038, making the findings: #3 and #4 - The extent of the addition to the home is such that the perception of excessive bulk will not be increased that much. The height and bulk of the home is compatible with. other two-story homes within the neighborhood. She added Condition #S, to state that the addition be moved back a minimum of 18" to provide some architectural relief on the second floor, the eaves shall be retained, and sgme composition be put on (anything except tar and gravel). Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Com- missioner McGolarick dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that another. baSis for voting for this proposal is the height of 20'5". She added that she thinks that is significantly different than if it had come in at 25' or 30' 16. C-215 - Cit~ of Saratoga, Consider amending the text'of the Zoning Ordi- nance (Ordinance NS-3) to allow bed and breakfast establishments as conditional uses in certain R-1 districts per Ordinance NS-3, Articles 3 and 18 'staff reported ~hat this item'had been discussed at the last study session, and at that time it was felt that it should be continued until after the Village Task Force comes up with a definition of the Village. The public hearing was opened at 10:43 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Com- missioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was directed that this matter be continued. '17. C-216 - Cit~ of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning Ordi- nance (Ordinance NS-3) by adding Article 14A Tree Regulations and .repealing the existing Tree Ordinance in the ~4unicipal Code per Ordinance NS3, Article 18 The City Attorney described the proposed amendment. He commented that speci- fically the scope, coverage and penalties of the ordinance have been expanded. - 8 - yl~a'hning Commission Page 9 ~Meeting Minutes - 12/ C-216 (cont.) The additional :definitions of trees were discussed. The City Attorney noted that appeals nolw go to the Commission instead of the City Council, and a violator can be required to plant replacement trees of comparable size and quality and if .that is not feasible, to be fined for the value of the tree removed. Commissioner MctGoldrick referenced a letter from the McIntyres, which dis- cussed the fact. that there are not many oaks in the Golden Triangle where they live. However,. there are many liquid ambers which have reached their maturity but do not fall under the measurements in the o~dinance.. The City Attorney stated that the. Commission can certainly define what constitutes a protected tree in any manher that they feel is appropriate. Discussion followed on sidewalk trees.~ The City Attorney commented that with respect to street trees, if they are in a Commercial zone, the City would have the maintenance respon- sibility unless. some landowner has been specifically given that duty. However, in residential districts, while the City has overall control, essentially it is the landowners' responsibility to maintain street trees, being defined as in the public right-of-way. He comment'ed that to the extent that a street tree may ]have been required as part of an original subdivision approval, he would. make that interpretation that they are already covered under Item d in Section 14-5 asia tree required to be planted. However, he commented that he would ]have no problem if the Commission wanted to add another specific desig- nation of any street tree as being a protected tree irrespective of size. It was determined that the standards for removal of trees could be further dis- cussed at a study session. It was also determined that the phrase "any street tree" be added to Section 14A-S. The public hearing Was opened at 11:00 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend Resolution C-216-1 to the City Council, with the insertion of the condition about street trees. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. DESIGN REVIEW 18. A-1042 - Joseph Masek, Request for DeSign ReView Approval of a restaurant/ apartment"at 1.'4'4'67 'Big B'asi'n Way Staff described the proposal, noting that other applications are needed for the project. They discussed the parking and landscaping. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report. She commented that Mr. Masek would prefer to put in street tree's' instead of the '5 ft. of landscaping, and he would like to work out some other means for the siding other than the wood requested by Staff. The City Attorney explained that the City is working on Parking Assessment District #3, and if all the property owners agree there will be opportunities for transfer of.development 'right's from-those people who have access area from their site. Therefore, this project should comply with 'the present standards and the use of the deck should be restricted. He commented that if Mr. Masek acquires development rights from other people within the district there could be outdoor dining on that deck by ]his acquisition of parking spaces that could be assigned to other property. Herb Cuevas, the architect, gave a presentation on the project. He indicated that the applicant is willing to provide a letter to the City, stating that when the deck is in use he would reduce the seating in the dining room by the amount of seating that is in the deck. In the future when the Parking Assess- ment District becomes a reality he would acquire whatever rights he would need so he would not have to do that. Mr. Cuevas commented that they disagree with the condition in the Staff Report that requires the project to start construc- tion in six months. He indicated that he felt a nine-month or one-year period would be more reasonable. The timeframe of the process was discussed. He discussed the present and proposed landscaping, the exterior of the building and the parking~ Commissioner Peterson indicated that he can support this project on that par- ticular parcel and he thinks that a restaurant is an excellent use. He added _~nhing Commission Page 10 '~eting ~.~inutes .- 12/1 ~- IA-1042 (cont.) that he feels that restaurantsare the draw for the Village and he feels that'they should be encour~aged. He indicated that he likes the redwood deck and would be more than happy to add a condition that says the applicant needs to close off the eating a'rea in the dining room to b~lance what he would have in the deck. The City Attorney-~xpressed concern about the practical ability to enforce that. He explained that~ he'Commission wants to permit the applicant to alternate the use in that'fash~ion he would definitely want that incorporated into the terms of the use permi·t so that the applicant .is aware that if there is a violation the Commission retains continuing jurisdiction on the Use permit. Discussion followed on the ·seating capacity of the dining room. The City Attorney com- mented that the best solution would be for Mr. Masek to' acquire the development rights from othe:r people in the district, and he would like the applicant to be under some incentive to do that. He added that, in the meantime, until that district is form·ed, the ·Commission can impose a condition of maximum seating capacity, tie that into the use permit, and periodic inspections will ]have to be made to make sure it is not violated. Additionally, the applicant should clearly understand that the whole operation could be shut down if there is such a violation. Discussion followed on the long stucco wall on the eastern side, the compact parking and the landscaping. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-1042, per the Staff Report dated December 12, 1984, changing Condition #6 to read "4 compact spaces",#11 to read "9 months from the date of this approval', and add #15, to condition this approval for a total of 85 seats. The City Attorney stated that by ordinance the applicant would need a use permit for the outdoor dining, and that could be incorporated into the other use permit portion. He added that he would like to see some date for the submission of the applica- tion for the use·permit; basically all of the documents are here so the appli- cant can resubmit almost immediately. It was determined that Condition #5a, regarding the siding, is to be eliminated, and Condition #7 changed to read that street trees can be used, wi·th review and approval by Barry Coates. Com- missioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written ~ 1. Letter from Mind-Tree Signs regarding A-1002. Staff explained the request. A~ter discussion Co'mmiss~oner McGoldrick moved to approve the request to mount the "Right to Pass" and "No Solicitation" signs for the Bank of America in the sign frame, below the "Customer Parking" sign. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 2. Staff reported that they are reviewing the Petition for Traffic Con- trol devices on Saratoga Avenue and will'pursue it. 3. Letter,from Lathuras dated December 1, 1984. The City Attorney reported that this letter had also been re~e'ived by the 'City Council. He stated that a nuisance abatement proceeding ]has been started regarding the accessory building, and that will be continued unless the City Council directs differently or if the applicant chooses to apply for a variance. Oral 1. There will be a joint sessio·n.'with the City Council on February 12, 1985 to discuss the recent developments of the Paul Masson property. 2. Commissioner Schaefer requested that the Community Services Officer, Fire Chief~· City~Geoiogi~'t'and·the"City Horticulturist give input to the Com- mission regarding possible changes in the ordinances. 3. CommisSioner Schaefer suggested that the lighting for the Saratoga National Bank sign·be redonsider~d. "'[t-was det'ermined tha~ this matter will be agendized. 4. Chairman Siegfried thanked· the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned RSS:cd tary