Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 9, 1985 - 7:30 pomo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13~77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, i Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioners McGoldrick and Crowther Minutes On page 10 of the minutes of December 12, 1985, the word "if" should be added to the second sentence in ~he second paragraph under A-1042o Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of December 12, 1984 and approve as~ amended° Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Item #2, A-1041, Jim and Ann Hill, and Item #4, V-676 and A-1039, Sidney Smith, were removed for discussion° The public hearing on the balance was opened at 7:37 pomo Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the balance of the items listed below° Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0 A-981 - Robert Dewey and william otterlei, Request for Design Modo Review Modification!Approval to reorient and add 200 sq. ft. to a recently approved 3,608 sqo fto single- story residence 500.fto south of Aspesi Drive and 250 ft. west of Quito R6ad 3ao SUP-2 - Joseph and Ann Cefalu, Request for Use Permit and 3bo A-1043 - Design Review Approvals for a new, two-story, second unit constructed over the garage to be attached to a single-story residence at 13533 Saratoga Avenue Discussion followed on Item #2,i A-1041, Jim and Ann Hillo Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use !Committee Report, describing the site. She commented that she feels !that the developer can answer the concerns of the Staff Report° S~e added that there are two-story homes on both sides° , The public hearing was opened at 7:412 pomo Don Coffey, representing the applfcant, ·addressed the conditions of the Staff Report, specifically the height of the structure, the opaque windows on the right elevation and the gross floor area of the dwelling° Mro Coffey asked the Commission to consider a reduction of 2 fto instead of 3 ft., making the structure 27 fto He explained that he can. change the roof line without ~difficultyo Regarding the opaque windows~ he proposed that it be left open so they can decide later if the windows will be clear or obscur~o He explained that they will provide landscaping for screening° ~Discussion followed on the gross floor area and the calculation of s~cho Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 A-1041 (cont.) Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° The zoning and the size of the homes]in the area were discussed. Com- missioner Har'ris commented that the houses on Pierce tend to be smaller and she would like to see the Commission stay within the stan- dard on this application. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she had seen this developer do an infill on another project where the house that was built was larger than the two on either side, and she~thought the design was very attractive and she thinks that the final proposal looked very good° She added that she would recommend going along with the compromises that have been suggested. She moved:to approve A-1041, per the Staff Report dated December 18, 1985'a~d Exhibits B, C, F and G~ with condition #1 stating that the home will be 27. ft. in height, condition #5 stating that the house will be 6200 sq. ft. with the cabana being 240 sqo ft.~ for a total of 6440 sq. ft., and adding to condition #8 "or landscaping provided for privacy subject to Staff approval°" Com- missioner Burger seconded the motion which was carried 4-1, with Com- missioner Harris dissenting, stating that she was unable to make the finding regarding bulko Discussion followed on Item #4, V-676 and A-1039, Sidney Smith° The public hearing was opened at 7:51 p.mo Judy Bruning, 19315 Titus Court, stated that they have no problem with the variance; however, she expressed2concern with the design review° She commented that the south exposure looks directly into their back yard. She explained that the existing vegetation is not permanent, since there is disease of trees and PG&E has an easement at the fence line and they cut down severely any branches that are reaching the prime lines. She asked the CommissiOn to recommend to Mr. Smith that either a permanent screen be placed there at the fence line or that the French doors and the balcony be changed to the front of the house° Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the balcony is clearly visible frbm Mrs° Bruning's back yard. Commissioner Burger stated that she felt that permanent landscaping might be the better alternative, .rather than removing the French doors° She added that she feels that moving the balcony and French doors to the east elevation would do nothing to enhance the architecture of the home at all. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she thinks that the landscaping is aS high-as it could be, facing the Brunings' home, and that the balcony~and French doors need to be removed to protect privacy. She added that possibly a window could go in that would be higher to allow ventilation~ and perhaps a skylight could go in. Commissioner Harris added that there are large Monterey pines there and you can see through ~he lower branches° Mro Smith, the applicant, discussed the design and'indicated that he would discuss this further with Mrsoe Bruningo He commented that he had not heard Mrs. Bruning's concern~ before° It was clarified to Mr. Kato, 12589 Titus, that the second-story window will be opaque. He suggested that the window be opaque with the top of the ceiling open for ventilation° Mro Smith stated that he was agreeable° Commissioner Peterson moved to close! the public hearing. Commis- sioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was directed that this matter be continued, to allow the applicant, his architect, and Mrs° Bruning to discuss mitigating the privacy impact° Mro Smith indicated that he could not attend the next meet- Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 V-676 and A-1039 (cont.) .ing and he was asked to coordinate his schedule with Staff. It was noted that the neighbors will be notified when the item is reagendized. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5ao Negative Declaration - SDR-12581 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher. 5bo SDR-1581 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher, Request for Design Review and A-1014 - Building Site Apprgval to allow an existing single- story dwelling, %o be converted to a two-story dwelling in excess of 4800 sqo fto in the R-1-20,000 district at 15069 Park Drive; continued from December 12, 1984 Staff reported that this matter had been continued from a previous meeting and discussed the modifications made. The public hearing was opened at 8:06 p.mo Mro Fisher, the applicant, agreed with the Staff Report° Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration on SDR-1581o Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR-1581 and A-1014, per the Staff Report dated December 21~ 1984~ the Staff Report dated October 18, 1984, with Conditions la, lb, lc and 2 deleted, and Exhibits B and C-lo Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0° 6a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1583 - Peter Buck 6bo SDR-1583 - Peter Buck, Request for Building Site Approval for 6c. A-1030 - a greater than 50%~expansion~ Design Review Approval 6d. V-667 - for a second-story addition~ Variance Approval to 6e. SUP-9 maintain a 26 fto front yard setback where 30 ft. is required, 12 fto 81ino sideyard setback where 20 ft. is required, for an existing accessory.structure that maintains a 5 ftoi 5 in. setback where 50 fto is required and to prgvide substandard parking, and a Second Unit Use Permit for an existing second unit, at 15214 Belle court in the R-1-40,000 zoning dis- trict; continued from December 12, 1984 Staff described the project, statin~ that they are unable to make the findings for the variances and recommend denial. They stated that they recommend approval of the Building Site, Design Review and Second Unit Use Permit. The public hearing was opened at 8:14 pomo Mro Buck discussed the project and the various applications. He addressed the condition regarding the sewer, indicating that he was willing to engage in an agreement .tb hook up to the sewer at such time as it is extended and pay a proport]ionate share° Joe Pruss, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road,! expressed concern with the front yard setback and the Second Unit Us~ Permit because of additional parking° He stated that he would like to see a requirement for addi- tional parking space or restriction~s on the use permit° Dan Heindel, 15235 Belle Court, dis~cussed the fencing and expressed - 3 Planning Commission i Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 SDR-1583, A-1030, V-667 and SUP-9 (Cont.) concern about the front yard setbacH, the side yard setback and parking° Commissioner Peterson moved to los' . c e the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which w~s carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer stated that at the study session the Commission e!t c had indicated that the front yard s= ba k should be 30 fto and had asked the applicant to discuss with ,the architect the possibility of changing that° She added that s~e feels the neighbors' comments regarding that setback are very appropriate° She commented that she felt she could work around the side ~yard setback if it were for the applicant's residence, but since it :is for a second unit she feels differently° She added that, regarding the parking, the required width must be there in order for the spaces to be actively used° Staff noted that, under the Second iUnit Ordinance, the sewer requirement cannot be deferred. Chairman Siegfried commented that:he had not picked up on the fact that the house is being expanded from 1200 sqo fto to 5400 sqo fto He explained that he knewthe expansion was significant but did not realize how sig ' ic~nt, nlf and that makes it very difficult for him to make the variance findings for the front and side setbacks. Commissioner Harris moved to deny VAriance V-667, per the Staff Report dated November 19, 1984. Con~missioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0° It was determined that the other issues are rendered ~oot since the variance is denied. The appeal. period was noted, and the City Attorney stated that if the matter.is. appealed and the City Council reverses the decision, the.matter~can then be referred back to the Commission for action .with ~espect to the rest of the application° 7° V-674 - Aaron Berman, Request ~for Variance.Approval for impervious coverage which would exceed 35% at 19140 Via Tesoro Court, iin the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued f~om December 12, 1984 It. was directed=that this item be c~ntinued to January 23, 1985o 8a. V-670 - Bill and Barbara Sudl~w~ Request for Design Review A-1035 - Approval to construct~a new two-story residence and Variance Approval for ~a 25 fto front yard setback where 75 fto is requi~ed at 21502 Saratoga Heights Drive (Tract 6665, Lot 11), in the NHR zoning district; continued f~om December 12, 1984 It was directed that this item be c6ntinued to January 23, 1985. 9o C-213 - City of Saratoga, ConSider amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance NS-3), to allow compact parking stalls in the iVillage District of the City and establish standards for compact parking stalls; continued from November 28, 1984 Staff explained the text amendment, 'recommending approval to the City Council° The public hearing was opened at 8:37 pomo Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing° Commis- sioner Burger seconded the motion, Which was carried unanimously. Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 C-213 (cont.) After discussion'~.- of the changes, Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution C-213-1, recommendi2ng the text amendment to the City Council° Commissioner Harris s~conded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0° It was clarified that this amendment includes the change of the regulariparking spaces to 9-1/2 x 18 but they require double striping° Commissioner Schaefer commented that she disagrees with.the size of the new regular spacing but she voted for the amendment° 10ao E-1-84 - Fremont Union High School District, Consider a 10bo SD-1567 - Draft EIR and Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 55-1ot subdivision on a 47°5 acre site in the NHR District locate~ just south of the inter- section of Prospect~ Road and the SPRR tracks Chairman Siegfried reported that there had been a study session on this matter, and this evening jus~ the EIR will be considered° He explained that comments will be t~ken on the adequacy of it and then the subdivision will be considered at the next meeting° Staff described the proposal iand the contents of the Environmental Impact Report° He inoted that there are three alternatives discussed in the EIR, i'oeo, no project~ clustered planned community design without increasing the number of units and a reduced grading plan, still using single-family detached° Staff recommended that the Commissio.n take public testimony on the Draft EIR, and then close the public hearing so that the con- sultant can respond tO the comments and bring back a final EIR for Commission consideration° The public hearing was opened at 8:4il pomo Mro Santoriello, Norada Court, addressed a trail shown coming from Norada Court up into the proposed ar,eao He submitted a petition and letter objecting to this° He no~ted that there is already a trail on Prospect Creek° He asked a~bout the zoning of that area, stating that he thought it was a 2-acre minimum° The. City Attorney commented that there was litigation by this property owner, who was actually claiming a higher density than set forth in this particular map. When the litigation was settled the density was established for this site° Commissioner Schaefer asked if this trail would be an access for children between the new and existing neighborhoods, and no horses were allowed, if this would pose a problem° Mro Santoriello commented that it is now an existing pedestrian walk- way. Staff stated that it is designated on the map as a pedes- trian walkway, and is not for horseS° They explained that there is a proposal for a small neighborhood park, and this would be a walkway to that area° George Geblepski, Hillmoor Drive, e~plained that this trail is really an access to a drain. He~also addressed the traffic and inquired about a traffic light at Stelling and Prospect° Charles Hunterr 20846 Meadow Oak, s~ated that he would like an aesthetic development if this ar.ea is to be developed° He expressed concern about the traffic~ particularly in conjunction with the development of the proposed development of the Seven Springs Ranch. Dave Ball, Farr Ranch Road, asked ~hat secondary access routes are required and why° Staff explained that it is typical under our subdvision requirements to ha~e secondary access for more than 15 units° Mr°' Ball commented ~hat there is secondary access - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meetiong 1/9/85 E-1-84 and SD-1567 (cont.) off of Burnett and there is emergency access planned'off of Kreisler. He added that the only value he can see'in this proposal is that as secondary egress from Farr Ranch Road; if that would be the case he can see benefit to that. However, he would propose that that road be blocked with a gate. Mr. SUgi, Norada Court, indicated that the purpose of the existing path was strictly for the!Water District people to use. He suggested putting a more scenic wider path by the Prospect Creek for access to. the proposea park. He objected to the policing he has had to do with theiexisting trail and he asked that it be closed ' Commissioner Harris questioned ~he percentages of projected traffic leaving the development and=also the percentages of tax dollars being spent in Saratoga. She also pointed out that the Saratoga Country Club is private and not open to the public. She also questioned the traffic numbers on pages 11 and 12 and stated that she would submit them.to the consultant after the meeting. Mro Russell Leavitt, Program Manager for the'EIR~ from Earth Metrics, indicated that the propo:sed project does propose to extend the pedestrian walkway into ~he project site to the first street available to provide access to a potential park and to provide pedestrian access between the neighborhoods. He explained the benefit of having the proposed trail, rather than one along Prospect Creek. Commissioner Peterson asked what advantage there is in having the trail if it is decided that there will be no park° Mro Leavitt stated that it would be to the advantage of both neighborhoods. and is taking advantage of an existing trail° Mr. Leavitt addressed the traffi~c and a possible signal at Stelling and Prospect. He explain'ed that that intersection is controlled by the City of Cupertin~. He indicated that a signal warrant study probably will be needed in the future if the Seven Springs Ranch is developed. He~ commented that~ regarding secondary access to Farr Ranch R6ad, this was specifically mentioned because it is a connection that is recommended as a goal or policy of the Northwest Hillsides Specific Plan and not so much as an emergency access ro~d for this project, but as a connector to further development2 along Farr Ranch R6ad and beyond. Regarding the traffic numbers, Mro Leavitt indicated that the assumptions they used were based on the existing traffic pattern at those intersections. He discussed the figures used in establishing the percentages° Discussion followed on the figures iused, and it was noted by the Commission that the figures over~ay a great deal of commute traffic. They questioned whether or not the people who live in that project are going to follow that same pattern° Mro Leavitt noted that the trafficsfigures on pages 311 and 312 include trips from other future projects in the area° Discussion followed on the location of the proposed park. Commissioner Peterson moved~"~.3clos!e the public hearing on the. EIR. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° It was directed that this matter~be continued to January 23~ 1985. It was noted that the Subdivision Approval will be discussed ~t--th. at meeting. - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 lla. Negative Declaration - SDR-1586- Los Gatos Jt.Un.H.S. llb. SDR-1586 - Los Gatos Jt. Union High School District, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 3-lot subdivision in the R-1-12,500 District on a sur~plus portion of the 35 acre Saratoga High S~hool site located at the southeast corner iof Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Herriman Avenue It was noted that this item will be continued to January 23, 1985. The public hearing was opened at 9:20 p.m. C. W. Neale, owner of the adjacent property, expressed concern about the road that will feed into this cul-de-sac. He discussed the traffic circulation.. ChairmaniSiegfried indicated to Mr. Neale that this concern will be ~addressed when the map is considered. It was directed that this matter 5e continued to January 23, 1985. Break - 9:25 p.m. - 9:40 p.m. i2a. SUP-3 - Christopher and Ull~a Beach, Request for Second V-675 - Permit for an existing second unit and Variance Approval for a 4 ft., 4 in. rear yard setback and 2 ft., 7 in. s~de yard setback where 25 ft. and 8 ft. are required respectively, and to provide no covered parking space where one space is required ~t 18645 Paseo Tierra, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal, stating that they were able to make the findings relative to the rear yard variance and recommend approval, but were unable to make the findings for the side yard variance or lack of parking, and recommend denial of the application. They indicated that thely were recommending approval of the Second Unit Use Permit. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 pom. Mrs. Beach addressed the conditions regarding the side yard setback. She commented that this ~is an existing unit and is built on concrete and would be dif:ficult to move. Regarding the covered parking space, she i·n~icated that there is very limited space in the front for an. extra parking space. She pointed out that there has been a pre~ious variance to allow for only one covered parking space for t~e main dwelling on the property. She stated that they have been looking into possibly moving a little bit over so they would have two covered parking · spaces, but she does not know if it Will comply with the codes. She stated that they would like to investigate that further° Commissioner Schaefer moved ·to Close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was noted that there are a number~of garages in the area which have been converted to living space, and in some instances garages have been constructed in the rear of the homes° Commissioner Siegfried commented that he h'as a problem making · findings for the side yard setbac~ and additionally, if they can't find a covered parking space, he wonders what kind of precedent will be set· if the variance·is granted. - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 SUP-3 and V-675 Commissioner Harris commented that she looked back to all the deliberations on the Second Unit Ordinance, and that was' definitely a concern throughout the City; therefore, she would not be able to make the findings. She moved for approval of V- 675 for the variance for the rear~yard setback, per the Staff Report dated January 3, 1985, but denial of the variance for the side yard setback and parking,- based on the fact that the findings cannot be made° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. After discussion of the findings for the rear yard setback made in the Staff Report, the vote was taken on the motion~ The motion was carried u!nanimously 5-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted° CommisSioner Harris then moved to approve SUP-3, per the Staff Report dated January 3, 198.5 and Exhibits B and Co It was noted tha!t the approval of the Second Unit Use Per'mit is conditioned upon~ relocating the structure and providing a covered parking space. ~Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1~ with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. 13a. SDR-1585 - Albert and Ann Lorincz, Request for Lot Line 13bo A-1040 - Adjustment, Build.ing Site and Design Review 13co V-680 - Approvals to construct a one-story single family 13do LL-6 - residence on lot b~hind 19605 Glen Una Drive and Variance Approval for 24~ 15' and 35' rear yard setbacks for an ~xisting garage, cabana and respectively where,60' is required and a 17~ and 10' side yard setback for the existing cabana and garage where 20~ is required at 19605 Glen Una Drive, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Chairman Siegfried explained thatithese are two existing lots. Staff described the lots and existing structures. They explained the applications, stating.that ~hey are unable to make the findings for the setbacks for the cabana and arbor and recommend denial. They added that they were Zable to make the findings for the garage and recommend.- approvalswith conditions° They stated that they also-recommend approval o~ the SDR and Design Review° Discussion followed on the flower arbor. Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, d~scribing the existing cabanao The public hearing was opened at 10!:02 pomo Terry Shovchek, representing Nowack & Associates, addressed the findings regarding the cabanao'i He discussed the setbacks, indicating that the variance' for the rear and side yard setbacks only affec~ parcels 1 and 2, and does not affect any of the adjacent neighbors° Dave Morrison, 19590 Juna Lane,'referenced his letter which indicated that he and six of th~ adjoining neighbors are in opposition to the project° He des~cribed the area, stating that- it is a very low density area° ~He described the parcels in question'and stated that the variances would make two nonconforming lots even more nonc~nforming and would have other adverse effects to the neighborhood° Mro Morrison discussed the variances and stated that he feel;s that not all nonconforming lots are buildable. He commented~that granting major variances of this type would set an undesirable precedent in the City° He added that Parcels #1 and #2 are located within a special zone designated Ds, and the applicant h~s not identified this factor° Mr. Morrison stated that he disagreed with the findings in the Staff Report° He also noted that~tbere was no provision for a new leach field. Staff clarified that there is a condition in the Staff Report requiring a septi6 tank permit° - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 .. SDR-1585, A-1040, V-680 and LL-6 (c0nto) Mr. Shovchek noted that there are two other lots of similar size directly adjacent to Mr. Morrison?s loto He discussed ways of reducing the impervious coverage on the Lot #2. He stated that the leach fields will conform with the requirements of the Health Department o Mrs. Lorincz explained that the arbor is open and stated that it shades the largest silk tree in Saratoga. She discussed reduction of impervious .coverage, stating that she would not like to remove any of their driveway since it does provide parking for guests. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was not 'concerned about the arbor because she feels that can be: an attractive asset, and the Commission is in the process of looking at the ordinances on that kind of situation. She commented that she could make the findings on the impervious coverage. However, she stated she is concerned about the cabana and the garage. She added that she did not agree with the Staff .Repor~ that precedence had been set regarding this type ~o'f situation. Commissioner Peterson commented that on'the Hall ~p~lication he believed a lot line adjustment had been granted and'. a variance allowed for an existing garage. Mr. Morrison commented that the Hall lots are far above the minimum zoning requirement, .and the. ir application had no adverse effect on the neighbors. Commissioner Peterson moved to! close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous ly. At Commissioner Schaefer's inquiry, Staff stated that the cabana would not meet the standards for a Second unit° Commissioner Burger described the cabana. Commissioner Peterson commented ~hat he does not like to 'give variances of this type, but he is hard pressed to figure out how it impacts the neighbors. He added that it is 125 ft. from the neighbors' property line. Commissioner Siegfried commented that it only impacts in the sense that there are structures relatively close to the proposed property line', and now there is going to be a home and other structures built on the other property. Whether or not it is visible, there may be some potential for added bulk. However, other than that it does no't impact. He added that he is not'particularly concerned about 'the variance for the garage, because in fact you could stru6ture the adjustment of the property line to probably avoid tha"t variance, and~e thin~s there are precedents, other than the Hall situation, where variances have been granted to maintain exist~ing garages. He added that he does not know that there is any particular reason, although the cabana is there, why it needs to stay~ other than the fact that it is a substantial structure° The fact that they are getting the variance does allow them to go! forward and build the second lot without moving the cabana. Commissioner Harris indicated that she agreed with the Staff Report and would be able to make the findings for the variance for the garage,' but not for the cabana or flower arbor. She stated that she might recohsider the flower arbor if Commissioner Schaefer could inform the Commission about the status of consideration of flower arbors in the ordinance. Commisssioner Schaefer indicated that there would be something in the next few. weeks that the Commission could review. She stated Planning Commission , Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 12/9/85 SDR-1585, A-1-40, V-680 and LL-6 (c6nt.) that the intent was the flower arbors would not be treated as a building as they are open lattice work; it would be treated as a landscape situation. Commissioner Burger stated ·that her impression of the flower arbor was that it actually adds~to a sense of privacy between the parcels. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he_does not have any particular problem with the garage or flower arbor. He commented that he understands the cabana has been there; however, it does have more impact than the other structure's. He added that he would like to see. the applicants get the impervious coverage reduced° He added that they could maintain parking with turf block. Commissioner Burger made· the findings for the flower arbor: The removal of·the flower arbor would be an unnecessary hardship because of the large silk tree and the Commission is cQnsidering changing the ordinance° Commissioner Siegfried added that~ regarding the Hall variance, he had indicated that the line could be drawn in such a way that he c~uld get the setback but you ended up with a property line that did not make any sense. He stated that that is what~happens with this situation; the rear yard setback could be maintained bug it would result in a jagged property line. He added that that could not~ be done with the cabanao Commissioner Burger added that another point wa,s that the flower arbor does provide privacy between the two lots. She moved to approve V-680 for the variance for the garage and arbor, per the conditions in the Staff · Report, and deny the variance for ~he cabana, based on the.fact·that the findings cannot be made. Commiss'ioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0° CommisSioner Burger moved to approve LLA-6, per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1985. Commission~er Harris seconded the motlon, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to appro~e SDR-1585, per·the Staff Re·port dated January 4, 1985 and Exhibit B-1. iCommissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approye A-1040, per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1985 and Exhibits B,: B-1 and Co Commissioner Peterson seconded. the motion, which was Carried unanimously 5-0. Chairman Siegfried noted that there is a condition requiring that either a variance be obtained for the impervious coverage, or that it be reduced to meet that allowed. The appeal p~riod was noted° 14. C-217 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance to ·~ii~w"'a~bulletin board not more than 20 sqo ft. in size on ~he si~e of a school to advertise school activities only , Staff described··the proposed.text amendment° The height limitation was discussed, and·it was n0ted.that~this issue is not mentioned in the amendment. Commissioner Peterson suggested a maximum of 10 ft. The public hearing was opened at 10~42 pomo Commissioner Burger moved to clos!e the public hearing° Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.. Commissioner Peterson moved to adQpt Resolution C-217-1, recommending approval to the City Council, iwith the amendment of the height limitation. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 MISCELLANEOUS 15. A-1011 -.Cox Avenue Professional' Center, Inc. (Sanfilipo), Request for Reconsideration of Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, 13,2;00 sq. ft. office building on Cox Ave° across from Quito~ Shopping Center (Building "B") in the C-N zoning distriict Staff reported that at the list meeting this matter was heard and resulted in a split vote. The~ explained that the applicant has asked that the matter be reconsidered~this evening. Mro Sanfilipo, the applicant, discussed the floor area, stating that the extra 700 sq. ft. does not add a!ny impact to the parking° He asked that the Commission approve a building of 12s600 sq. ft. Commissioner Schaefer stated that the Commission is concerned about parking and the amount of coverage on the lot as far as a precedent for surrounding areas, which ar.e major considerations on her part. Commissioner Harris agreed. Commissioner Peterson moved .to approve A-1011, per the Staff Report dated OCtober 16, 1984, with condition #7 amended to read "A 6 ft. fences similar to that on the adjaceht property, shall be located along the northern property line, and a 6.fto solid wall or fence shall be located along the western property line~ subjec~ to Staff review and approval." Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2s with Commissioners Harris and Schaefer dissenting. 16o Tract 6781, Teerlink (Lamb.ert)s Mto Eden Roads Clarification of Con- ditions It was noted that this item had~been discussed at a study session. Staff explained that the applicant would like the Commission to formalize the consensus of the Commission at this study sessions relative to the conditions. They noted tha~ an exhibit has been provided by the applicants showing the difference in the grading. Jeff Leas representing the applicant, discussed the conditions of the Tentative Map Approval. He addressed the grading plano Staff clarified that a 2-1/2:1 slope would be adequate. Commissioner Peterson asked about the undergrounding of utilities and improvement of Pierce° Staff explained the undergroundlng and improvements° Commissioner Schaefer moved t'o approve the conditions, per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1985o i Commissioner Harris seconded the motions which was carried unanimously 5!-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written · 1. Letter from SaratOga National Bank regarding A-976, askint for reconsideration of original proposal on lighting° There was consensus to direct Staff to~notify them to submit more details appropriate exhibits on their ~roposalo Oral 1o It was reported t:hat Barbara Harris has been appointed the new Planning Commissioner.. 2. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Good Government Group fo, attending and serving coffee, ~nd the Saratoga News for attending° Planning Commission Page 12 Minutes - Meeting 1/9/85 ADJOURNMENT ~ CommiSsioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting° Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.mo Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd 12 i /