Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, April 10, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B.. Harris, J. Harris, McGoldrick, Peter- son, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The phrase "and Mrs. Burke expressed approval" was added to the first paragraph on page 3 of the minutes of March 27, 1985. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioners B. Harris and McGoldrick abstaining since they were not present. Annual Reorganization Commissioner Burger nominated Commissioner Peterson as Chair. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the nominations. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson was unanimously appointed Chair. Commissioners Siegfried and Peterson agreed that they felt it was important to rotate the Chair each year. Commissioner B. Harris nominated Commissioner Burger as 'Vice-Chair. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the nominations. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger was unanimously appointed Vice-Chair. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. CONSENT CALENDAR la. Negative Declaration - SM-15 - Borelli lb. SM-15 - Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle court, Request for Site Modi- fication Approval to permit a spa, pool and concrete deck on a building site area of 10% slope Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the item listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. BUILDING SITES 2a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1591 - Rosing 2b. SDR-1591 - Wayne Rosing, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for the construction of a new single-family residence on a lot with an average sloper greater than 10% at 18642 Montewood Drive Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee, agreeing with the Staff recommendations. Mr. Rosing stated that he took exception to the condition in the Staff Report relative to the improvement of the bridge, stating that he felt it was not reasonable under the circumstances and imposes a severe financial hardship. Staff explained that the property, because of the Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 SDR-1591 improvements that are proposed, comes under the Site Approval conditioning, at which time the City looks at the conditioning for municipal improvements. He commented that the Montewood Subdivision was conditioned for a 25 ft. half width street on a 30 ft. right-of-way, and this conditioning is consistent with that requirement because of the continuity with the subdivision. Discussion followed on the development of the subdivision and the cost of improving the bridge. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested a Deferred Improvement Agreement, noting the other potential developments in that area. Staff explained that the City of Saratoga does not control the properties on the other side of the creek. Discussion followed on a possible expansion of 49%, thereby eliminating this requirement. Mr. Rosing commented that he did not feel that an expansion of that size was practical in the area. Discussion followed on the applicant submitting an estimate of the cost, with a part of it being assessed to this site, rather than the whole cost being borne by the applicant. The City Attorney suggested the possibility of conferring with Monte Sereno to determine whether similar conditions can be imposed on the other developments in the area which would be controlled by them rather than Saratoga. Mr. Rosing described the Austin corner property, which he also owns, indicating that it was not developable at this time because of the easements required by the Water District. Chairman Siegfried suggested that (1) the applicant submit some reasonable estimate of cost, (2) the Staff investigate with Monte Sereno and within Saratoga the possibility of what other sites are in the area that perhaps could ultimately contribute if a Deferred Improvement Agreement were placed on this site, and (3) the matter be continued for two weeks. There was a consensus that the applicant should discuss the specifications for the improvement of the bridge with Staff. Staff noted that the condition only involves the widening the bridge on the applicant's side of Quito Road. 2They commented that there are other areas in the City where there have been bridge widenings required of developments. It was directed that this matter be continued to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on April 16, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Items #3, A-1060, J. Lohr Properties, #5, A-1076, Gerald and Judith Butler, #6, SD-1356, A. Cocciardi, and #9, UP-572, Nel'son Foundation, were removed for discussion. The public hearing on the balance of the items was opened at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the balance of the items on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 4. A-1075 - Richard and Barbara Polhemus, Request for Design Review Approval for a second-story addition to an existing single-story residence at 12999 Paramount Drive in the R-1-40,000 zoning district 8o SDR-1458 - John Rankin, Request for One-Year Extension for a four (4) lot Tentative Subdivision Map at Glen Una Drive in the R-1-40,000 zoning district 10. UP-577 - Albert and Ann Lorincz, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow an existing cabana within 15 ft. of the rear property line at 19605 Glen Una Drive, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Discussion followed on Item #3, A-1060, E - L, J. Lohr Properties, regarding the size of the homes on Lots 2 and 19, and it was clarified that the impervious coverage on Lot 35 is within the standard. Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A-1060 The public hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-1060, E - L, J. Lohr Properties. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on Item #5, A-1076, Gerald and Judith Butler. Commissioner Siegfried noted the problems with removal of ordinance size trees on one of the other lots in this subdivision. He reminded the applicant and the developer that the Commission would like to see the ordinance size trees preserved. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Jerry Butler, the applicant, commented on the 600 sq. ft. discrepancy on the plans, stating that he had no problem with the home being 6200 sq. ft. He also suggested that the ceiling inside of the house be raised 2 ft., rather than lowering the roof, as suggested by Staff. Discussion followed on this condition. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1076, Gerald and Judith Butler, per the Staff Report, changing Condition No. 1 to state that the roof can remain 30 ft. as long as the attic is no more than 6 ft. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on Items #6 and #7, SD-1356, A. Cocciardi, and SD" 1368, A. Chadwick and A. Cocciardi. Commissioner J. Harris asked for clarification on the status of the litigation. The City Attorney indicated that these are two suits relating to Measure A litigation which are in the process of negotiating a settlement but they have not been resolved. He clarified that the tentative maps are prior to Measure A. He added that it has been the consistent policy of the Commission to extend the maps while the settlement negotiations are in progress. The public hearing was opened at 8:12 p.m. Sheila Daley, 21931 Via Regina, inquired about an equestrian trail, and Staff noted that there is a condition for an equestrian trail in the subdivision. Wilheim Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, President of Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, commented that in several areas they have been bulldozing and removing large trees. The City Attorney commented that there should be no subdivision work occurring; however, there is repair work going on in that area relative to Quarry Road and Quarry Creek. Mro Kohler asked that the latest tentative map be included in the packet when there is a request for an extension. He commented that when the final map is processed on this development it should have the density of Measure A. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, commented that she had submitted pictures to Commissioner Harris relative to the brush removal. She indicated that her main concern relative to the development in the hills is that there have never been drainage plans required° She strongly requested that this be done. The Commission reviewed the pictures from Mrs. Grens and also those from Mrs. Daley. Staff reported that the surveys that are being done, through which the brush clearing is being performed, is not for the subdivision itself but it is for the design work for the water assessment proceedings which are underway. They added that orchard trees are being removed, which do not require tree removal permits and can be done at any time. George Tobin, attorney for the applicant, indicated that on the northern lots of the tentative map there is a trail. He discussed the brush removal being done for the water assessment district and for the repair of Quarry Creek. - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 SD-1356 and SD-1368 Staff noted that the actual drainage design is provided for at the time of the final map. They stated that the tentative map probably had some indication of the drainage, but the specifics of that only come forth with the detailed surveying and design for the final map. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motionw which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the extension of SD-1356 and SD-1368. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on Item #9, UP-572, Nelson Foundation. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, agreeing with Staff that the parking situation would be difficult. She suggested thatw rather than leaving the monitoring of parking to the seniors who will be using it, at the beginning a member of the Nelson Foundation should serve as a monitor. Peggy Corr, of the Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council, addressed the parking. She stated that she would like to see limited parking permitted on Pontiac Avenue. Roger Ross, 20850 Saratoga Hills Road, appeared with two members of the Board of Directors of the Nelson 'Foundation and discussed the project. He indicated that they were trying to minimize parking in the neighborhood and utilize shuttles where possible. Discussion followed on the parking, and Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern relative to the parking on Pontiac, which'may add a commercial tone to the neighborhood. Commissioner Peterson commented that he had a problem with limiting the operation only t'o vans and shuttles. Staff noted that the condition also involves carpooling. It was pointed out that the Commission has continuing control .over the parking with the use permit° Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the Negative Declaration and UP'572, per the Staff Report. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS lla. A-1064 - Joseph Waller and David Zicovi°ch, Request for Design llb. V-691 - Review Approval to construct a new two-story, single fam- ily residence and Variance Approval to allow construction of this new structure within 6 ft. of the rear property line and 11 ft. from the front property line, and to exceed 45% impervious coverage at 14035 Saratoga Avenue, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval on the Design Review and Variance for the setback. They indicated that they were unable to make the findings for the Variance for the impervious coverage and recommended denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the design. The public hearing was opened at 8:42 pom. David Zicovich, the applicant, addressed the height, indicating that he could reduce the building 1-1/2.ft. to 24-1/2 ft. He stated that he could reduce the width by 2 ft. Relative to the impervious coverage, he commented that they could have a gravel driveway and be within the standard. Staff commented that it was not Staff's intention to restrict the driveway to gravel, adding that they feel there are alternatives - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A-1064 and V-691 that can be used. Ted Farone, 14041 Saratoga Avenue, asked about the floor plan, and the item was continued to a later time in the meeting to allow him to review it. After review he approved of the plans. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After discussion of the modifications Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1064 and V-691 for the setbacks, per the Staff Report and Exhibits B-2, C and D, with the modification that the height be no more than 25 ft. and that the width be reduced 2 feet, and denial of the variance to exceed the 45% impervious coverage. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 12. A-1063 - Mato Kusalo, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a new 4,735 sq. ft. single family residence which exceeds the 3,500 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard at 12663 Sun Valley Court, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; continued from March 13, 1985 Staff explained the project, noting that it had been at a study session. They explained the modifications made, adding that they were recommending approval with the condition that the structure be reduced to no greater than 4,000 sq. ft. The public hearing was opened at 8:46 p.m. Ron Dick, the designer, clarified .that the house had been reoriented on the lot, eliminating the privacy concerns on the homes to the right and rear. The setbacks and garage were discussed. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was noted that most of the square footage which is over the standard is in the garage. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-1063, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated April 3, 1985, changing Condition 1 to read 4735 sq. ft. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-2 with Commissioners McGoldrick and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she is only opposed because she feels that the front setback is so shallow that it is going to make the house look mammoth on this little cul-de-sac. Commissioner Schaefer concurred. Break - 9:00-9:'15 p.m. (Commissioner Schaefer left the meeting temporarily ) 13a. A-1067 - Wendell Whitfield, Request for Design Review and Tenta- 13b. SDR-1594 - tive Building Site. Approvals for a new two-story, single family residence over 26 ft. in height at 15021 Fruit- vale Avenue, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; contin- ued from March 27, 1985 The project was explained by Staff. They stated that this matter had been continued from a previous meeting to allow the City horticulturist to submit a report on the effect of the oak trees on this site relative to the design. They reported that the report indicates that there are mitigation measures to allow for the home and garage to be built as oriented. Staff reported that they are recommending approval, with elimination of Conditions A and B on page 8 of the Staff Report. The public hearing was opened at 9:17 p.m. Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A-1067 and SDR-1594 Mr. Whitfield, the applicant, discussed the conditions suggested by the City horticulturist, specifically the installation of drain tubes° He questioned this, stating that excessive moisture conditions seem to be a problem in this area. After discussion of this condition there was a consensus to follow the suggestions of the tree specialist, and the applicant should come back to the Commission if there is a problem. Bob McGuire, 15350 Bestview Court, discussed the drainage, commenting that there is a 24" flood controlzdrainage line under the back 10.fto of his property. He suggested that 'some consideration be made to control the runoff on the surface into the control line. He indicated that they do have the plans and feel they could locate the lineo Staff commented that the suggestion was an excellent one and noted that Condition II-B would cover that situation and they will work out the details with Mro McGuire. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1067 and SDR-1594, per the Staff Report, with Conditions A and B deleted and Adding Condition E to state that the applicant shall comply with the conditions of the report from the City horticulturist. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1 with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. He commented that he feels the Commission needs to start staying closer to the guidelines and he feels this house is too large. Commissioner' Siegfried commented that he appreciates Commissioner Peterson's concerns; however, his thought has always been that as long as it does not impact the neighbors and does not create a monstrosity which people can view from everywhere, he is'not particularly opposed to letting people build it. 14. A-1070 - Sinsley Constructionw Lot 21, Tract 6528, Vista Arroyo Court, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story single family residence over 26 ft. in height in the NHR zoning district; cont. from March 27, 1985 Staff noted that this had been continued from a previous meetingw to allow the applicant to consider 2the concerns of the Commission, i.e., the height of the structure and the second-story window that overlooks the adjacent lot to the north. It was noted that Staff was suggesting a reduction to no more than 25 ft. and the removal of the window° The public hearing was opened at 9.:30 pom. William Bean, designer, commented that his firm, Triangle Assocites, also designed Mr. Edwards' home, which is the neighbor to the north. He submitted a plan of that home, explaining that the home is oriented in such a way that he does not feel the second-story window will impact the privacy. He addressed the height of the home~ indicating that he feels toreduce the height to 25 ft. will drastically hurt the architectural appearance of the house. Mr. Bean suggested compromising at 28 ft. maximum, stating that he feels he could still make the home attractive° Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she still feels very strongly about the height. She stated that she is not as concerned about the southern elevation because you don't look at that from the valley and it is up against the hill. She added that it seems, from a visual point of view, that when there is one roof leading into another, it will emphasize the height of the roof. Commissioner Peterson stated that the house looks very massive, and he Planning Commission ~ ' Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A-1070 is not sure that the difference between 2~'and 28 ft. is going to be that great. Commissioner McGoldrick commented-that she thin~s this is a very obvious parcel, and the Commission did make .a commitment towards not having large homes on highly visible ridges. Commissioner Burger commented that it is a visible lot, and she would support the 25 ft. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1070, per the Staff Report dated March 19, 1985, deleting Condition 1A relative to the window in the master bedroom. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. (Commissioner Schaefer rejoined the meeting during the discussion of this item, and stated that she voted on the item since she had been at the previous meeting when this item was disussed.) The appeal period was noted. 15a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1593 - Bohn 15b. A-1053 - Robert and Gay Bohn~ Request for Design Review, Variance 15c. V-692 - and Building Site Approval for a new two-story, single 15d. SDR-1593 - family residence 35 ft. in height where 30 ft. is the maximum height allowed at 14124 Pike Road, in the NHR zoning district Staff described the project, stating that they were recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and the Tentative Building Site Approval and denial of the Variance and Design Review, having been unable to make the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the site would not appear to be seen from any place except Parker Ranch or the roads off Pierce. She commented that they had suggested that the applicant have the architect draw up a line of sight from the two neighboring homes, since it is possible that it might impact those neighbors. The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. Mro Bohn, the applicant, gave a. presentation on the project and discussed the visibility of the lot. He described the area and the design of the home. He added that the neighbors have no objection. Mr. Bohn indicated that there seems to be no way to lower the roof without changing the architecture of the house. Chairman Siegfried stated he has a concern about going beyond the height limitations and pointed out the need to make findings. Mr. Bohn commented that he feels the Commission should consider the neighborhood, discussing the other homes in the area. Commissioner Schaefer asked about moving the house further back on the lot, and Staff indicated that that would cause trouble with the builds. ing site. Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that she had pointed out to Mrs. Bohn that the Commission needs to make legal findings, and even though the extra square footage is not a problem to her because of the location of the home, she cannot make the findings for the height. She commented that if the applicant would like to bring further information to a study session, she would be willing to hear that. She added that she believes the people across the mountain will see this house; however, it is tucked into the setting and it is not highly visible from the valley. Discussion followed on the findings. Chairman Siegfried asked Mr. Bohn if he would like to come back to the Commission with revisions, or if he would like to have a vote takentonight which can be appealed to the City Council if it is negative. Mr. Bohn indicated that he would like the vote taken. Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 SDR-1593, A-1053 and V-692 Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Negtive Declaration and SDR-1593, per the conditions of the Staff Report. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny A-1053 and V-692, per the Staff Report. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. It was the general consensus that the problem was with the height and not the size; however, Commissioner J. Harris indicated that she had a problem with the size, stating that it is only an acre lot. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she dissented because she felt that something could have been worked out with the 35 ft. height if the house could have been moved around on the lot. 16a. A-1074 - Tibor Szalay, Request for Design Review Approval to con- 16b. V-687 - struct a second-story addition to an existing one-story residence and Variance Approval for the addition to maintain a 22 ft. 4 in. front yard setback where 25 ft. is required, and to provide one (1) substandard covered parking space where two (2) covered parking spaces are required at 14328 Paul Avenue in the R-1-10,000 zoning district The project was described by the Staff, indicating that they could make the findings relative tO the variance for the one covered parking space but cannot make the findings relative to the substandard size of the space or the variance for the encroachment into the front yard. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the design. She described the area and indicated that the proposal would upgrade Paul Avenue. She noted the letter received from the Hofstrands in opposition. The public hearing was opened at 10:08 p.m. Tibor Szalay, the applicant, dicussed the front yard setback, commenting that a 25 ft. setback would be bad for the design. He submitted pictures and discussed the design. He.added that extending the garage an additional 2 ft. would also ruin the design, and they only drive substandard size cars. Bob Koche, 14314 Paul Avenue, Spoke in support of'the proposal. He addressed the following points: (1) the Hofstrands have a very high fence and hedge in the front of the property which will block the view, (2) Paul Avenue is a neighborhood of small compact cars, (3) the variance for the setback should be granted to allow the break in the design of the house for aesthetic reasons, and (4) if this proposal is rejected the neighborhood will suffer. (There were a number of other neighbors sitting in the audience who echoed Mr. Koche's comments.~ Gary Platnuf, 14301 Paul Avenue, indicated that he owns this block of land and he intends to build a two-story home, He stated that he was very interested in the outcome of the vote on this proposal because he is about ready to submit his plans. He noted that the lots in the area are very narrow. Mr. Szalay clarified that he would have to destroy two rooms in order to expand towards the rear, and the garage would still have to encroach into the setback. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick discussed the findings, stating that she feels Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A-1074 and V-687 the unusual circumstances involve the garage situation. If the garage is built in front there is a setback problem. The applicant can't build it to the rear so the garage has to be a part of the design of the home. She can see the logic to maintaining this garage at 16 ft. and not making the front of the house on the garage side coming out 2 ft., with the rest of the house being back 2 fto She feels that the applicant has put a lot of time and effort into the research to have a house that is definitely going to upgrade the neighborhood. Commissioner Schaefer suggested'cutting 2 ft. off of the dining room, rather than granting a variance for a substandard garage. She-expressed concern about setting a precedent. Mr. Szalay commented that cutting 2 ft. off of the dining room would make it very small, 10 ft. x 10 ft. Commissioner Peterson commented that he is not sure that, on a small lot like this where they are upgrading it, what will be accomplished by requiring the applicant to move a wall to increase the garage 2 ft. Commissioner Siegfried stated that this is a 7500 sq. ft. lot with an existing 1100 sq. ft. structure on it. Commissioner Peterson commented that on lots like this in the older areas, he feels that the Commission may be faced with this type of situation° He stated that the applicant is trying to upgrade a house in an area where it is very difficult to meet all of the findings. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the additional 2 ft. could be obtained by increasing the variance to 20 ft.4 in., rather than 22 ft. 4 in. He added that Staff is able to make the variance findings for a 22 ft. 4 in. setback for the garage, but they cannot make it because the garage is only 16 ft. in depth. He stated that if the finding can be made for 20 ft. 4 in., it seems the second story is tied to it. It was noted that the Staff findings could be made for 20 ft. 4 in. The applicant commented that a 20 ft. 4 in. setback would throw the design off. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that if the Staff can make the findings for 20 ft. 4 in., then she can make them for 22 ft. 4 in. Staff commented that the findings Which have to be made by the Commission would be relative to the second story question° They added that findings would also have to be made relative to the length of the garage; however, with the 20 ft. 4 in. it would have a length of 18 ft. It was pointed out that there are findings submitted by the applicant with the packet. Mr. Szalay explained on the plan how the front of the of the house is affected if the garage is moved 2 ft. forward. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels the findings can be made, given the circumstances of the size of the lot and the nature of the area. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she feels an additional consideration is the fact that there is an interruption of the line in the design which gives architectural relief. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant has carefully made the second story the front of the house so as to not affect the privacy of the neighbors, and that is a rationale for being closer to the curb. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1074 and V-687, per the conditions in the Staff Report, based on the findings discussed above and those submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. MISCELLANEOUS 17. Discussion of Amendment to CC&Rs for Tract 6628; continued from March 27, 1985 Staff explained the request, rec~ommending approval of the garage size and recommending that the CC&Rs remain the same relative to Lots 5, 6 Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 Tract 6628 and 12 and the single-story aspect, and that the approval of the swimming pool be contingent on input from the City Geologist and an on- site visit. Bob McBain, the applicant, addressed the height issue, explaining that the pads are now lower. This issue was discussed by the Commission, and Commissioner Siegfried agreed with the applicant that when the condition was placed for one-story residences, it was because there was a significant difference in height between a single-story and a two-story house. It was pointed out that the Commission will still have control over the design during the Design Review Approval process. Discussion followed on putting a height limitation, but at a lower height than the 23 ft. requested by the applicant.' Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend to the City Council the amendment to the CC&Rs as listed in the Staff Report dated March 7, 1985, changing Item 2, relative to the height, to read that the height of the structures on lots 5, 6 and 12 be no more than 21 ft. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 18. Report on Lots of Record on Oak Place (for information only) COMMUNICATIONS Written - None Oral by Commission and Staff 1. 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 was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ~~.lY~ted' Robert S. Shook Secretary RSS:cd