Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA~PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, April 24, 1985 - 7:30 pomo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger~ B. 2 Harris, Jo Harris, McGoldrick and Peterson Absent: Commissioners Schaefer ~nd Siegfried Minutes Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of April 10, 1985 and approve as dist~ibutedo Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR lao Negative Declaration - SM-16 ' Jones lbo SM-16 - Roy Jones, Request for Site Modification Approval to allow grading which exceeds 1000 cubic yards for a landslide repair at 21127 Bank:-Mill Road in the R-1-40,000 zoning district 2ao Negative Declaration - SM-17 + Kirkham 2b. SM-17 - Neal Kirkham, Reques~ for Site Modification Approval to allow two additions to an existing single family dwelling where the slope of the site is greater than 10% at 18630 Sobey Road in the R-i-40,000 zoning district It was directed that Items la and !b, listed above, be continued to May 22, 1985o Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Negative Declaration and SM-17 listed~ above on the Consent Calendar° Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Items #3, A-1079, Maureen and P~t Wright, #4~ SDR-1512, Los Gatos- Saratoga High School District, . and #7a and 7b, V-689 and A-1081, Jonathan Roeloffs, were removed for discussion° The public hearing was opened on Item #6 listed below at 7:37 pomo It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing° The motion was carried unanimously° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve #6 listed below° Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously 5-0° 6o UP-579 - William and Joyce O2'Meara, Request for Use Permit Approv- al to allow a "Home.. Tour" from September 13, 1985 to September 14, 1985 2for the benefit of the Good Samaritan Hospital which will~ involve guided tours at 12343 Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district Discussion followed on Item #3, ~-1079, Maureen and Pat Wright° Staff explained the application, recommending approval° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee reportw describing the site° The public hearing was opened at 7:39 'p.mo Mr. Wright, the applicant, described the addition, noting that the neighbors are in favor of the proposal° Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 4/10/85 A-1079 Richard Haro, the designer, addressed the 98 sqo ft. over the standard and asked that it be allowed. H~ discussed the calculation of this area, stating that they had a high ceiling area which allows for a loft to look into the living room below° He added that it is not actually floor area and to reduce it wouId drasticallly hurt the design. He commented that ~f the square foo~age is reduced from the back it will not reduce the bulk in any way. Bob Drew, Braemar Drive, spoke in;support of the project, stating that he feels the plans would blend well with the neighborhood. Commissioner Burger moved to clo~se the public hearing° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, wh:ich was carried unanimously° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1079, Maureen and Pat Wright, per the Staff Report dated Apri~ 12, 1985 and Exhibits B, C and D, allowing the addition to be 3600 sq. ft. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carjried unanimously 5-0. Discussion followed on Item #'4, SDR-1512, Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District. Staff explained'the request° The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m. Donald Miner', 14000 Alta Vista Avenue, requested that a barrier similar to that along the roadway into:the property be put up between the proposed subdivision and his pr6perty. He clarified that he meant a concrete barrier, rather than landscaping, because of his dogs° The City Attorney stated that if the School district wishes to do that as a matter of good neighborliness th2at would be fine; however, State law would prohibit the City from imposing a new condition as part of an extension of a tentative map. Staff suggested that any agreement of that type be subject to design review by the Planning Commission° Bill Heiss, civil engineer for th~ applicant, commented that they intend to put normal fencing in that area° The City Attorney indicated that the Planning Commission would hav~ an opportunity at the time of design review to impose a condition. Mro Heiss indicated that they would be coming in soon for design review of the soundwall along River Ranch Circle. Mro Miner was asked toifile a request for special notice of that hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which!was carried unanimously° Commissioner Burger moved to approve the request for extension for SDR-1512w Los Gatos-Saratoqa High School District, per the Staff Memorandum da~ed April 10, 1985. Commissioner Jo:Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion followed on Item #5, UP-578 and A-1087, Paul Heath. Commissioner McGoldrick noted th~ letters regarding this application° She gave a Land Use Committee Reportw describing the site° She noted that the garage/guest house is q~ite low; therefore, she did not have the concerns for privacy or interference that she might have had if she had just looked at maps° She added that she does not see how it would affect the Bolin property, even if it were subdivided, since it is higher and is off to the side° She commented on the beautiful' landscaping in the back of the, applicantus property° Commissioner Harris added that the fence allong the back line did appear to be directly in line with the surveying stake at the edge of the applicant~s property, which was an issue in'one of the letters received° Staff indicated that they were able to make the findings and recommended approval of the application° The public hearing was opened at ~:55 p.mo John Pope, 14356 Evans Lane, spoke in opposition to the application° He commented that he felt the structure could be moved back 30 ft. to Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 UP-578 and A-1087 mitigate the impact on their property. Anita Bolin submitted a map showing the area, noting that she owns three building lots adjacent to this property. She also submitted pictures showing how the property has not been kept up. She commented that if the commissioners had gone onto her property and looked down, they would have seen the refuse there. She expressed concern over the appearance of Mro Heath's site because of the fact that she is subdividing and selling two lots and will build a~retirement home on the third loto She discussed the debris on Mr. Heathus property° She clarified to Commissioner McGoldrick that one ~ould have to look down on Mr. Heathus property from her parentsu home to see all of the debris on the site° Commissioners McGoldrick and Burger commented that they did not see much of the debris shown on the picture~ when they made their on-site visit° Mso Christensen, 18510 Sobey Road, commented that the debris has been there for over a year and is still there° Pat Pope, 14356 Evans Lane, stated that she would like to make arrangements to show the Plannin~ Commission Mr. Heathus site from her home, since she was unaware of .the previous visit. She expressed concern about the debris. Commiss~ioner Jo Harris commented that she was concerned about 7500 sq. ft. of building on a 1-1/2 acre, and Mrs. Pope clarified that she has visibility bf all three of the buildings from her home. Mrs. Pope indicated that they feel the storage shed is a real danger because of security. Mr. Heath, the applicant, explained the application° He indicated that he did have lumber on the site and was trying to build the storage shed to respond to the criticism fromithe neighbors and resolve the issue. He described the location of the storage shed and the plans for landscaping. ~ Commissioner McGoldrick move!d to close the poublic hearing° Commissioner Jo Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ~ Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she is very uncomfortable with neighborhood disputes. She stated that she would like to add a condition to the Staff Report, requiring trees around the accessory structure and around the perimeter where the huge piles of wood are. She added that she feels tall trees would protect the neighbors' view of the site and would cover the safety aspect. Commissioner Burger asked if a condition could be added, sa=ying that all debris, machinery, etc. be stored within the accessory structure by a date certain° Staff noted that there would be an enforcement problem with such a condition and recommended that such a condition not be placed. Commissioner J. Harris indicated again her concern regarding the 7500 sq. ft. of structure on this site, especially considering that two of the structures are large two-sto~y houses. She added that if she felt that all of the debris would .disappear because of the accessory structure, it might be a nice~ compromise. However, there is no guarantee of that. Commissioner Bo Harris agreed with those comments° Commissioner Peterson noted that the Commission has recently been approving some large garages because it is a storage area for cars, and he is feeling the same analogy!here° He commented that all of the neighbors who are opposed are all looking down on the site; therefore, he does not know what is gained by moving it back° Commissioner McGoldrick stated ithat she would be happy to take this matter to a study session or make another visit to the site if she felt it would make a difference. HoweVer, even if there are large amounts of debris there, she does not thi!nk it is within the province of the Commission to discuss it on this application. She moved to approve UP- 578 and ~-1087, Paul Heath, per, the Staff Report with an additional Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 V-689 and A-1081 condition on the design review requiring landscaping around the structure and the perimeter of ~he property, with Staff review and approval. Discussion followed on~ clarification of the location of the landscaping. Commissioner Burger ~econded the motion~ which was carried 3-2~ with Commissioners Bo Harris~and J. Harris dissenting. The appeal period was noted° : Discussion followed on Items #7a and 7b~ V-689 and A-1081~ Jonathan Roeloffs. Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report~ stating that it is not very visible from Sobeyo She stated that she does not feel there is any problem with the setback and feels that landscaping would mitigate any privacy problems° The public hearing was opened at 8~:35 p.mo Dr. Lund, 14720 Sobey Road~ spokeiin opposition to the project~ stating that the guest house now impacts his privacy, and the new home will destroy all privacy° He also expressed concern about the drainage° He noted that Mr. Thompkins~ who lives south of him~ agrees° Commissioner McGoldrick commented that the Land Use Committee was not concerned with the guest house~ s6 they did not look at privacy impacts from the guest house or from the balcony° Therese Feigl~ 14710 Sobey, spoke in opposition to the project. She addressed the drainage in the area° Mro Roeloffs, the applicant~ addressed the privacy aspect relative to Dro Lund's and Mso Feigl~s home~. Regarding the drainage issue, he commented that he had not altered ~the slope of his lando Commissioner McGoldrick moved to Close the public hearing° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested,a condition stating that drainage will be subject to Staff review and approval° Discussion followed on the landscaping. Commissioner J. Harris commented that when she was on site she was particularly concerned where the balcony was and the impact on privacy'. She added that she cannot say in her own mind that there is not an impact from the main part o.f the two-story structure that will be built° She indicated that she would like a condition to have Staff review landscaping in general to mitigate any privacy impacts. Commissioner McGoldrick moved t!o approve V-689 and A-1081~ Jonathan Roeloffs~ per the Staff Report dated April 15, 1985 and Exhibits B and C~ with the conditions regarding~ landscaping and drainage previously discussed° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0° The appeal period was noted° PUBLIC HEARINGS 8ao A-1039'- Sidney Smith, Request for Design Review Approval for a 8bo V-676 - second-story addition to an existing single-story resi- dence, and Varianc~ Approval to maintain an existing 24 ft. rear yard setback where 25 fto is required for a one-story structure and where 35 fto is required for'a two-story structure in the R-1-12~500 zoning district at 12599 Titus Avenue Staff explained that this matter was before the Commission several months ago~ and the applicant was instructed to meet with the neighbors in an attempt to mitigate their concerns° They indicated that they had received word today that the neighbors~ Mr. and Mrs° Bruning, were withdrawing their objection. Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 A-1039 and V-676 The public hearing was opened at 8 53 pomo Mro Bruning addressed the Commiss~on~ stating that they have withdrawn their objection to the application~ Commissioner Jo Harris moved to cliose the public hearing° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner J° Harris moved to approve A-1039 and V-676, per the Staff Report dated December 26, 1985 and Exhibits B and Co Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting° She stated that she felt the applicant could expand in the front yard, even t~ough there are a lot of trees° She added that she only could see that the spruce and orange trees would have been harmed, leaving the the 6ak trees unharmed° 9o A-1078 - Ali Mozaffari, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a new two-stOry single family residence on a hill- side lot at the end, of Vintage Lane, Lot D, in the NHR zoning district The proposal was described by Staff and the grading was discussed° Staff indicated that they were unable to make the findings and recommend denial° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report~ describing the site° She commented that the home is visible from Saratoga Heights Road and indicated that the design is different from those previously seen in the hillsides° She suggested that the matter be continued to a study session, with the architect submitting a three- dimensional mock-up° The public.hearing was opened at 9~:00 pomo Morris Stark, the architect~ ad2dressed the heights of the various pavillions and the grading° He clarified that the height is from the natural grade° Staff questioned this because there are no contours on the map that have not been modifie~o There was a consensus to continue this matter to a study session° Chairman Peterson explained to Mro Stark that the concerns of the Commission are height and cut and fillo He requested him to show the heights on the elevations and some cross-sections of the steepest portions of the slope° Staff al~so requested a more detailed grading plano Mr. Stark indicated that he~agreed to the study session and would submit the information requested, along with a simple model made to scale° It was directed that this.matter be continued to the Committee- of-the-Whole on May 28, 1985 and the regular meeting on June 12~ 1985o 10 A-1080 - Allyn Becker, Re u~ o q est for Design Review Modification Approval to construct a new two-story single family residence on a hillside lot at 12264 Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district The proposal was described by Staff° They indicated that they were unable to make the findings and recommend denial° They noted that~ at the request of the Land Use Commi~ttee~ an overlay of this proposal was done, overlaying the previous approval for this site° They pointed out that in that approval this structure has been moved to the east and lowered, and the amount of grading is less than 100 cubic yards° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, commenting tht the applicant continually seemed to feel that there was no difference between the footprint of the proppsed project and the previous project; therefore, the committee had asked for the overlay° She stated that they suggested that the applicantSmove the home towards the east, and he seemed to feel that the portion that goes above the existing timberwall Planning Commission .'.' : Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 'A-1080 was the master bedroom wing and they had purposely planned it into the hill because of the trees that w.ere surrounding it. She pointed out that this home will be quite a bit below Farr Ranch Road and therefore the neighbors on that road wil~ probably not be impacted at allo Commissioner J. Harris described t~he other homes in the area° The public hearing was opened at 9~:14 pom. Mr. Becker, the applicant, gave~a presentation on the proposal° He discussed the grading and the landscaping° He indicated that they could compromise and lower the house to 29 feet or change the pitch of the roof. He commented that he has letters from the neighbors in support of the project. He described the homes in the area° Staff clarified that, in review of the building plans~ they would assure that appropriate retaining structures are provided. They also noted that the Staff Report would be ~hanged to reflect that the fill is already on the property, as noted~by the applicant, and the total amount of grading would be changed to 2,000 cubic yards. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to ~lose the public hearing° Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which:was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was having a difficult time with the difference of opinion between the Staff Report and the applicant regarding the elevations, footprint, and disturbance of the slope. Staff explained that moving the home to the east and bringing it down to a lower elevation of the finished floor would reduce the grading and appearance of bulk. Commissioner Peterson commented that this appears to him, by looking at the east elevation, to be another very huge house looking out over the valley, 30 ft. high. Mr. Becker noted that the surrounding homes are larger, and they had purposely designed the house to be small. He commented that they could change the house to make it look smaller° He stated that the home is running perpendicular into the ridge so that the impact from the valley is going to be half of that of his neighbor° Commissioner J. Harris commented that her concerns are the fill and moving the house back against the hill, when Staff feels so strongly that it should not be. Mr. Becker asked that the Commission tell him what changes they would like and he will do it. He commented that he feels that the lot has no impact.on any of the neighbors. Commissioner Peterson pointed out that there. are going to be 55 neighbors that are going to be looking up at his house, and that has to be part of the Commission's consideration. Mr. Becker described' the trees that he has planted. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she cannot make Finding #2° She noted that the Land Use Commi.ttee had pointed out to Mro Becker that the Staff recommendation was to!move the home to the east; however, he would not entertain that idea. Discussion followed on this alternative. There was a consensus that Finding #2 cannot be made for the proposed design. Chairman Peterson explained to Mr. Becket that he had the option of going to a study session or having a vote taken tonight and appealing it to the City Council° It was clarified to him that the previously approved plan is stil~ valid. Commissioner Burger commented to Mr. Becker that she feels tha:t the concern of the Commission is not so much the size of his home and the perception of excessive bulk~ but the fact that Finding #2 cannot~be made, which is the preservation of the natural landscape, and the amount of cut and fillo The options and the timeframe were explained to Mro Becker. Mro Becker indicated that he would be out of the country when the next study session occurs, and he also has:a possible capital gains impact this Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 A-1080 year. Therefore, he asked for a vote at this time on the matter. Commissioner Burger moved to deny A-1080, per the Staff Report dated April 15, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion° The City Attorney suggested that the motion be denial without prejudice. Commissioners Burger and J. Harris amended their motion and second. The motion was carried unanimously 5-0 Break - 9:45 - 9:55 p.m. 11. A-1082 - Charles and Virginia Maclean, Request for Design Review Approval to allow cgnstruction of a new, two-story single family dwelling which exceeds the 3500 sqo ft. Design Review Standard at Lot B adjacent to 20315 Herriman Avenue in ~he R-1-10,000 zoning district Staff explained the application, describing the site° They indicated that they were unable to make the findings and' recommend denial° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She indicated that the applicant was willing to change the front yard setback for the home,, which would result in a very long driveway. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m. Terry Collins, the applicant, submitted pictures of the lot and the other two-stories in the neighborhood. He noted the large lot size and indicated that he would propose [to move the residence back 110 ft., which would reduce the bulk appearance of the home from the street and mitigate impact to the neighbors oh the side. Charles Maclean~ the owner of the~ property, indicated that they had at first concurred with the Staff Report relative to the bulk aspect from the street. He stated that he now~ feels that the impact from this two- story home 110 ft. back from the street will be negligible and withdrew any objection to the plans with that setback° Walter Meyer, 20345 Herriman, stated that he was opposed to the original proposal, pointing out the height and the impact on privacy° He commented that the current plan to move the home back 110 fto took away almost all of his objections° He~ added that, from the aesthetic point of view, when the house is moved back from the street~ with trees and landscaping and a long driveway,.then the perception of mass and bulk changes and is reduced. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff recommended that this matter' be continued to the next meeting, to allow them to review the new plan relative to the driveway and impervious coverage. It was suggested that the applicant discuss the new plan with neighbors who might possibly be impacted by the new plan. Mr. Maclean explained that there!is no drainage problem in that area, and he does not feel that the impervious coverage from the driveway would be a problem. It was directed that this matter:be continued to May 8, 1985, and the applicant'was requested to submi~ a new site plan for Staff review as soon as possible. Mro Maclean requested that this matter be put on the Consent Calendar for the next meeting if Staff has no problem with the plan and there is no objection from neighbors° Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 12. SDR-1507 - Joe McDowell, Request for Modification to the tenta- tive and final mapSfor-Tract 7382 to change the restric- tion on Lot 4 which would permit construction of a two- story home where a, single-story structure is required in the R-1-40,000 Zoning district at Lot 4, Tract 7382, Ten Acres Road Staff explained the request, recommending denial to the City Council. They commented that if the Commiss~ion wishes to make a recommendation to the Council to give relief to this condition, they suggested that the Commission make a recommendation relative to limiting the height, rather than the number of stories. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that they feel this is a prominent ridge and are not in favor of waiving the requirement° She noted that she would be willing to recommend a height r2estriction of 22 feet. The public hearing was opened at 1~0:22 pom. Gary S~hlOh,· the architect, addre'ssed the request, indicating that he felt there would be little grading on this lot, whether it be a one- story or two-story design. He commented that he has not worked with a height of 22 feet, and it will. be more difficult to get a pleasing roof. Staff noted the letters received in opposition to the removal of the condition° Yung Chu, 18858 Ten Acres Road, spoke in opposition to a two-story home on this lot,·stating that it will have an impact on his privacy° Mro Schiohindicated that he would try!to screen the upper floor and keep the privacy issue in mind when designing the home. Spencer Profit, representing the applicant, described the site, indicating that it is 1-1/2 acres, is level~ and has relatively no impact on the valley. Don Jones, 18850 Ten Acres Road~ referenced the letter from him and immediate neighbors. He voiced his concern over the impact of a two- story home on top of a hill on a flat pad in that area. He commentd that, since there are no plans, ihe is going on the principle~ as the planner did, that there is a concern relative to the destruction of the contour of the overall area by the mass of a two-story° Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner J. Harris stated that she would like to see a height limit put on the lot; she does not care~whether it is one or two-story. There was a consensus 'tht a height limit of 22 ft. is realistic° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend to the City Council to remove the restriction that there must be a ~one-story home~ but have it subject to a overall height limitation of 22 feet° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0° It was clarified to Mr. S~hloh that the height would be 2from natural or cut grade° The City Attorney explained that the final action will be taken by the City Council on May 15, 1985. 13o V-667 - Peter Buck, RequeSt for Variance Approval .to expand a residence and connect the structure to an existing accessory structure and thereby maintain a 12 fto 8 ino side yard setback'at 15214 Belle Court in the R-1-40~000 ~ zoning district (to be continued to May 8~ 1985) Staff explained that this variance is being continued to the next meeting because there· is a question of interpretation. They stated that Mro Buck at this time is requesting that the Commission review the matter Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting4/24/85 V-667 and possibly make some other interpretation than that of Staff. They explained that Staff has made the determination that when Mr. Buck expands his residence and connects the second unit, the square footage of the second. unit is included 'in the final square footage, which carries him over the 50% expansion and therefore subject 'to site approval. They commented that Staff has made that interpretation based on the fact that the main structure and the second unit are not connected. They added that Mro Bu~k would like the Commission to review his site and make a determination'that the structures are not detached° Staff referenced the letter from Mro Buck° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, and it was clarified to her by Staff that 'if a house is connected to another structure by a breezeway with a roof, it is considered connected° Discussion followed on the definition of a breezeway. Commissioner McGoldrick noted the noise and closeness of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and commented that a huge area on t,he map in which she had previously thought Mr. Buck could expand no l~nger looked feasible. Mr. Buck submitted pictures of hisi home. There was a consensus that the patio is a breezeway, and therefore the second unit is attached to the main dwelling. It was directed~that the public hearing on V-667 be continued to May 8, 1985. 14. ~-688 - Iva Pepper, RequeSt for Variance Approval for the loca- tion of an existing pool house, constructed without benefit of permit,z 8 ft. 8 in. from the residence where 10 ft. is required between structures at 13505 Wendy Lane, in the R-1-15,000 zoning district The application was described b~ Staffs and they explained that the matter is before the Commission because of a change in ownership which has brought the matter to the Ci'ty"s attention° Staff discussed the various options available to the, applicant. They indicated that they were unable to make the findings and recommend denial of the variance° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, and the basis for the 10 ft. ordinance was discussed° It was noted that this is one of the issues in the Zoning Ordinance which is being considered for amendment° The public hearing was opened at 1'0:53 pom. Iva Pepper, the applicant, explained that they sold the propertys and the one condition on the sale was .that there be permits° Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner Burger seconded the motions which ~was carried unanimously. Dicussion followed on the findings, and it was pointed out that the requirements for a variance are based on the physical characteristics of the property. There was a consens'us that the findings cannot be made° Commissioner J. Harris moved to d~eny V-688, per the Staff Report dated April 16, 1985s being unable to make the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motions which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. 15ao V-695.- Classic Car Wash, ~Request for Variance Approval to allow 15b. A-1048 - the letters of a new sign to exceed 18 inches in dimen- sion and Design Review Approval for a 34 sq. fto free- standing sign to ~eplce the existing sign at 18560 Pros- pect Road in the q-N zoning district Staff explained that this matter iwas before the Commission earlier for the signs and the applicant is now requesting a variance for the Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 4/24/85 V-695 and A-1048 letters. They indicatd that they!were unable to make the findings and recommend' denial. The public hearing was opened at 11:00 p.m. Stu Barlamier, Manager of Classic Carwash, explained the proposal, stating that the sign was in accordance with the other signs in the area. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger made the following findings on the variance: Literal interprettion of the sign - Thisavariance is required because of the size of the letters C and L. Any Change in the letter size destroys the concept of an easily identifiable company logo. There is an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance b'ecause of the location of this site within the City of Saratoga. It i!s a common privilege to compete in a free enterprise system along a street that, although it is in Saratoga, is made up entirely of commercial establishments which are directly across from San Jose. She comme'nted that she feels that if it is a common privilege to compete, it no longer is a special privilege. The business is set back from the street to an extent that it is difficult to locate it. In terms of the haturalness and orderliness of the community and the inharmonious v. isual elements - It seems that this location has absolutely no application at all to the natural beauty of Saratoga. It is entirely commercial, and it has no impact on the harmony of other signs that are n~ar residential areas. She moved to approve V-695 and A-1048, per the Staff Reports, with the report on A- 1048 being amended as follows: Cohdition 2 will be deleted; Condition 3 shall read 34 sq. ft., and COndition 6 shall read 33 inches° Commissioner J. Harris seconded thCe motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. She commented that she could not make Finding #1, even though she c6uld make some of the other findings. COMMUNICATIONS , Oral by Commission and Staff 1. Staff gave a status report on the private road off of Sobey, commenting that the contractor had received a call from the developer of the home which has just been completed in that area, indicting that he was cancelling the contract and ~ould have Mro Evans restrained if he appeared on the site. Staff stated that this would delay the work on the road, while this matter is resolved between the developer and Mro Evans. They noted tht Mr. and Mrs=. Johnson were aware of this. 2. Chairman Peterson 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 wa adjourned at 11:14 p.m. ReSpectfully submitted, RoBertuS. Shook Secretary RSS:cd 10 - ;