Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 8, 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, Peterson and Schaefer (Commissioner B. Harris arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Minutes Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of April 16, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner J. Harris abstaining since she was not present. Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of April 24, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR la. Negative Declaration - SM-18 - Phillip Boyce lb. SM-18 - Phillip Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, Request for Site Modifica- tion Approval to construct a parking deck with garage in an area that exceeds 10% slope Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the item listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Item #2, V-667, Peter Buck, was removed for discussion. The public hearing was opened on the balance of the items at 7:37 p.m. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger moved to approve Items #3, #4 and #5 listed below on the Public Hearings Consent Calendar. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. (It was clarified that the applicant on A-1083 accepts the alternatives shown on sheet 8 of the Staff Report.) 3a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1597 - Cox Ave. Professional Center 3b. A-1083 - Cox Ave. Professional Center, Inc., Request for Design 3c. SDR-1597 - Review and Tentative Building Site Approval for a new, two-story, single family dwelling over 26 ft. in height and over 6,200 sq. ft., in size at 14965 Sobey Road on a site with an average s'lope greater than 10% in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district 4. A-1089 .- Benjamin and Dora Ting, Request for Design Review Approval for a second-story addition to an existing two- story home at 21120 Sullivan Way in the R-1-40,000 zon-. ing district 5. A-1090 - Ko-zen Yang, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, 30 ft. high, two-story single family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at Lot 57, Tract 6526, Chiquita Court - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) Regarding V-667, Commissioner Schaefer Doted for the record that she would be voting for approval of the applicati'on with the thought that there would not be a second unit added on in the future. She moved to approve V-667, Peter Buck, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. A-1082 - Charles and Virginia Maclean, Request for Design Review Approval to allow construction of a new, two-story, sin- gle family dwelling which exceeds the 3500 sq. ft. De- sign Review Standard at Lot B adjacent to 20315 Herriman Avenue in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; continued from April 24, 1985 Staff commented that this matter had been continued from a previous meeting and the applicant has provided an exhibit showing the structure moved back so it has a front yard setback of 110 ft. Staff explained the proposal, indicating that they cannot make the findings and recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Terry Collins, the applicant, noted that the rear yard would be 71.69 ft. He commented that he had dealt with the concerns of his neighbors. He submitted a picture, showing what would be seen in the rear from the second story of the proposed home. He clarified that the roof line is imperative to the design. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that she had trouble making Finding #4, compatible bulk and height. Commissioner Peterson commented that the applicant would have to reduce the height before he would support the proposal; however, if that is done and the structure is moved back, he would have no problem. Commissioner Burger concurred. Commissioner Peterson indicated that it would have to be reduced to 25 or 26 ft. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that that would make a difference to her. She commented that she does not feel that this will interfere with privacy, and' she does not feel there will be a perception of excessive bulk because of moving it back. She added that she would be less concerned regarding the compatibility at 25 ft., rather than 30 ft. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the lot is much larger than the ones surrounding it in depth, but not in width. She stated that she would concur with a height of 25 ft. Commissioner J. Harris indicted that she felt some landscaping should be required. Mr. Maclean discussed the pad elevations of the houses directly to the west of the property. Schaefer Discussion followed on the height. Commissioner/moved to approve A-1082 with a maximum height of 26 ft., per the Staff Report, with a condition requiringlandscape screening, subject to Staff review and approval, and deleting Condition #2. It was noted that Staff is recommending a maximum of 4,000 sq. ft., rather than the proposed 4,300 sq. ft. There was a consensus to approve the project for 4,000 sq. ft. Mr. Collins addressed the square footage, noting that two areas with sloping ceilings are counted twice in the calculations. It was pointed out to Mr. Collins that the way the square footage has been measured is - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 A-1082 consistent with the way all proposals are measured. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion. The following findings were made: #1 - By setting the structure back it no longer interferes with potential privacy. #3 - It has been reduced in size and the height is being reduced, which will help the bulkiness, and it is being set back. #4 - By reducing it down to 26 ft, the homes in the area will gradually become larger, and this is a compromise and in keeping with the trend of development in that area. Commissioner Schaefer expressed a little concern about the 12 ft. setback on the side and stated that she would prefer to have it larger; however, she feels that the reduction to 26 ft. mitigates that. The vote was taken, and the motion was carried 5-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting. The appeal period was noted. 7. GPA 85-1 - David Morrison, Consider Amending the General Plan Des- ignation of the property at 20661 Fifth Street and a portion of the property at 14644 Oak Street from Resi- dential-Multi-Family to. Retail Commercial. The Commis- sion may also consider amending Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2 which reads as follows: "Non-residential devel- opment shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan for non-residential uses. Existing non-residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new non-residential zoning districts added. Staff explained the request. At Commissioner McGoldrick's inquiry, Staff explained that the applicant wanted to annex the subject piece of Oak Street to the proposed commercial piece on Fifth Street. They commented that the existing Fifth Street site.would be more than sufficient in terms of size for a commercial property and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements in terms of minimum dimensions. They clarified that the Fifth Street site has independent access. Discussion followed on the 15 ft. strip of land and the proposed wording of Land Use Element Policy LU.4.2. Commissioner Schaefer commented that, during the General Plan meetings, the people in the Village indicated that they did not want any expansion whatsoever of commercial =uses there on any lots because of the noise. Therefore, she feels that the intention was not to increase any commercial space downtown. She added that she cannot see how the General Plan amendment is in conformance with what the intention was, or any recent input she has received from the people who live down there. Commissioner Peterson commented that he felt storage use is an excellent use near the Duke of Wellington. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she shares Commissioner Schaefer's concern for expanding commercialism, but at the same time we keep hearing from the Village people that they want to deal with it in their own way. Therefore, she feels somewhat confused. She added that she feels comfortable' with the way the proposed amendment is worded. The public hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Bonn, Camina Avenue, asked about the application relative to Oak Street. Chairman Peterson pointed'out the parcel of land on Oak Street, and it was clarified that Staff has recommended that the General Plan designation not be amended relative to the Oak Street portion. Dave Morrison, the applicant, described the property in question, describing the lot. He stated that he feels that public storage would be beneficial to the Village. He discussed the use and the traffic. Chairman Peterson commented that the Commission is only concerned with the General Plan amendment this evening; the use and design review will be discussed later. - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 GPA 85-1 Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council amend the L.U.4.2 and designate the Fifth Street site as Retail-Commercial, per the Staff Report dated May 2, 1985o Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she sees this change as being the precedent in expanding commercial in the downtown area site by site, which was not the intention of the people in that area during the General Plan discussions. 8a. UP-580 - Mr. and Mrs. William Benson, Request for Use Permit 8b. A-1084 - Approval to construct a cabana in the required rear yard setback area 25 ft. from the rear property line and 15 ft. from the side property line, and Design Review Approval to exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard at 204.33 Montalvo Road in the R-1-40,000 zoning district The application was explained by Staff. They indicated that they cannot make the findings and recommend denial of the design review. They stated that they could make the findings for the use permit and recommend approval with conditions, such as restricting the height to 12 ft., having the impervious coverage reduced, and reducing the structure to 250 sq. ft. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the applicant had indicated he would move the side yard setback to 20 ft. and the height to 12 ft., but prefers to cut off the roof instead of changing the pitch. She added that he felt that reducing the size would change the architectural style of the structure. The public hearing was opened at 8:11 p.m. Mr. Benson, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He submitted a petition from the neighbors in support. He indicated that he had no problem with reducing the height. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was having a hard time making Finding #3 and asked Mr. Benson to help make that finding. Mr. Benson stated that from the street level only 6 ft. of the structure would be seen. He commented that the landscaping will mitigate it even further. He discussed the trees that will be planted. Commissioner Peterson commented that, regarding Finding #3, it is not the bulk of the cabana; it is the fact that we are exceeding 6200 sq. ft. total square footage on the lot. Mr. Benson commented that the people who would directly be affected by that do not consider that to be a problem. He noted that similar situations have existed on Ashley Way and Via Tesoro Court. John Scott, View Oak Drive, indicated that he plans to build sometime this year. He spoke in support of the' projectf commenting that he was the neighbor most affected. Don Call, 14930 Montalvo Road, indicated that he had been President of the Montalvo Homeowners Association for the past two years and during the time when there had been a great deal of change in the character of that neighborhood. He reviewed the projects that had resulted in this change and spoke in opposition to this project. Jack Christian, current President of the Montalvo Homeowners Association, gave the history of the Butler subdivision in this area, and indicated that Mr. Butler had asked for a variance on this lot and it had been turned down by the City Council. He commented that they would continue to oppose any homes over 6200 sq. ft. because of precedent. He submitted a letter from Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 UP-580 and A-1084 the MacDonalds, in opposition to this'project. Mrs. Marino, 20553 Montalvo Road, spoke against the project. She stated that she would like the Commission to establish a precedent of enforcing the 6200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard for the neighborhood. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she feels that ~n this situation she sees this as a precedent. Commissioner McGoldrick added that she voted against the cabana on Via Tesoro and also on the Benson home previously. She moved to deny A-1084, per the Staff Report dated April 29, 1985 and Exhibit B. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion. Commissioner Burger stated that, after visiting the site, she feels from an eye point of view that the cabana would be an pleasant item to behold on the lot, especially with the reduction in height and making the side yard setback 20 ft. However, she stated, after the comments this evening, she feels that apparently there was quite a bit of discussion about this and a strong indication made to the neighborhood that the structures would not exceed 6200 sq. ft. Therefore, for the integrity of that neighborhood and for the individuals who obviously went through a lot of trouble to preserve that integrity at 6200 sq. ft.~ she cannot vote for the cabana. Commissioner Schaefer added that if this application were for something considered an essential thing, that had been an oversight that was necessary for the enjoyment of this home, she might consider it differently. However, she feels there can be a beautiful backyard entertainment center without the cabana. Commissioner Peterson indicated that he had a very difficult time not approving covering some pool equipment. He explained that he understands the neighbors' view; however, this is for a small accessory structure, whose primary function is to cover up some pool equipment. He added that he does not feel this sets any kind of a precedent. Commissioners McGoldrick and Schaefer indicated that if the applicant would like to come in with a structure that simply covers the pool equipment, they would be happy to vote for it. Commissioner J. Harris commented that there were no cabanas in her neighborhood, but she does not see any unsightly pool equipment. Commissioner Peterson commented that his concern is the noise. Staff clarified that if the applicant were just covering the pool equipment, the structure would not be considered in the square footage. The City Attorney indicated that there should be a motion on the use permit first. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny UP-580, being unable to make the finding Compliance with Ordinance Provision, since the on-site square footage with the cabana will be in excess of the allowable floor area standard. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5- 1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. Commissioner moved to'deny A- 1084, per the Staff Report and Exhibit B. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. The appeal period was noted. 9. V-666 - Amana/Schiro, Request for Variance Approval to allow a 12 ft. corrective retaining wall along the property lines at 13898 Upper Hill Drive and 13902 Upper Hill Court in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (to be con- tinued to May 22, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to May 22, 1985. Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) 10. V-693 - Lawrence and Brookes Brown, Request for Variance Approv- al to allow a 17 ft. rear yard setback where a 25 ft. setback is required at 20264 Lejpava Drive in the R-1- 12,500 zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to May 22, 1.985. lla. V-696 - Jerome Kocir, Request for granting Variances for an llb. A-1088 - existing wall over 6 ft. in height and to allow certain additions to maintaina minimum exterior side yard set- back of 5 ft. where 25 ft. is required and Design Review Approval for a combination of structures, including a two-story accessory structure, over 4,000 sq. ft. in size at 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (to be continued to May 22, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to May 22, 1.985. 12. V-697 - George Berris, Reques~ for Variance Approval to allow a 23 ft. exterior side yard setback where a 25 ft. side yard is required. at 14486 Leland Circle in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Staff explained the application, indicating that they were unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report. Discussion followed on the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick asked if they would pertain to the current situation or before the bay window was put in erroneously. The City Attorney commented that, to the extent the work may have been done pursuant to drawings approved by the City and a permit as issued, it is a factor he feels the Commission can legitimately take into account. He added that, to the extent tht there may have been modifications to the drawings, that is to be disregarded. Commissioner Schaefer questioned the setbacks for the side. She stated that she had remembered the setbacks as being 20 ft. in a R-1-40,000 zone. Staff explained that this is a corner lot, and therefore the exterior side yard setback is 25 ft. The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Mr. Berris, the applicant, described' the application, explaining that the overhang had not been shown on the site plan because it had no foundation, but the bay window was shown on the other sheets. He commented that the problem had been compounded because the planner had marked on the site plan that there is a 20 ft. setback, and the designer thought this applied to the overhang. He submitted a petition signed by his neighbors in support of the variance. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson commented that part of the confusion is that a lot of the plans come in with just a footprint and that would not normally show bay windows. He stated that he would like to entertain a thought that Staff consider changing this ordinance to give some flexibility for bay windows within the setback area. He added that he cannot find a problem with that. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she can make Findings 2, 3 and 4 on the basis that for Exceptional and'Extraordinary Circumstances, Common Privilege and Special Privilege, she sees no harm in a bay window and she thinks it is an architectural relief and makes the side of the building Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 V-697 more interesting. She stated that, had the applicant known the setback before, the building would have been moved back. There is no foundation footprint for it, so it overhangs much the same way as an eave. She added that she has worked with these setbacks a long time, and in her mind it was 20 ft. She commented that she can see where a planner or a checker could also have made an honest error in the 20 ft.; therefore she could justify the findings. She moved to approve V-697. Commissioner Burger stated that the fact that errors were made oD both sides should also be added to Finding #1, because it does represent a practical difficulty at this point. It was clarified that this pertains to the existing bay window. Commissioner Burger seconded the'motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners J. Harris and McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner McGoldrick explained that she would have voted for the variance if it had covered the bay'window before the 6" were added by the applicant, because then she would have felt it was the fault of the City. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she does not like the Commission to accept a variance based on work that has been done. 13. A-1085 - DNS Development, Request for Design Review Approval to allow a new, 27 ft. high, two-story residence on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at 12273 Vista Arroyo Court Staff explained the project, recommending approval. They indicated that the it is Staff's opinion that the stakes placed for the on-site visit were not properly located, and the building site would be situated to the south of the actual site. They added that in one location, the staircase, the structure is in fact three stories and is in conflict with the ordinances. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the house is most visible to the homes on Prospect Road. She noted the steepness of the site and suggested that the item be continued to a study session. '. The public hearing was opened at 9:09 p.m. Kurt Anderson, the architect, gave a presentation on the project, describing the site. He discussed the grading and the design, indicating that it is a stepped two-story house. Sam Espeseth, from DNS, discussed the staking of the home site . There was a consensus to have the actual footprint of the house staked and to have another on-site visit, and. continue the matter to a study session. Concerns cited by the Commission were 1) three stories, 2) height, 3) location, 4) slope and 5) grading. Another on-site visit was scheduled for May 11, 1985 at 9:30 a.m., and the applicant was asked to stake the footprint. After further discussion it was directed that this matter be continued to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on May 28, 1985. 14. V-694 - Marie Rose Gaspar, .Request for Variance Approval to allow a 10 ft., 4 in. fence where 3 ft. are allowed along Vintage Lane and Pierce Road, to allow an opaque fence exceeding 60 .ft. in length, and to enclose an area greater than 4,000 sq. ft., at 14754 Pierce Road in the NHR zoning district MISCELLANEOUS 15. Discussion of Amendment to CC&Rs for Tracts 6665 and 5928 and SDR-1426, Parnas Corporation, Relative to Fencing Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 V-694 and Parnas CC&Rs The above two items were discussed simultaneously. Staff explained the request for variance, indicating that if the variance were granted it could not be implemented until the CC&Rs are amended for that subdivision. They commented that they were unable to make the findings for the variance and recommend denial. They added that if the Commission wishes to recommend to the City Council that the CC&Rs be amended, they would suggest that they be similar to those recently approved for the McBain & Gibbs subdivision, which allows for an additional area to be fenced only if a variance is approved by the City. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and the location of the proposed fence. She added that the Thomas fence which was recently approved blends with the background. She indicated that she has been able to.make the findings for the height and enclosure of the 4,000 square feet,.but is not able to make the findings for the pillars. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Bill Heiss, engineer, discussed the location and proposal for fencing. He showed a scaled rendering of the pillars and addressed the findings for the pillars. He stated that they feel that the pillar and the gate design is an asset to the entrance. He commented that the property is a significant historic property and they feel that a proportion of the gate is an appropriate part of the whole fence. Commissioner McGoldrick asked Mr. Heiss to think about the Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship finding, since she was having trouble making that finding. Mr. Heiss commented that something is needed to hold the gate up, so that is practical. He added that certainly the pillars have to be as high as the gate, and he feels that lighting in. this case is appropriate as a safety feature and identification feature. He commented that the few inches of material from the top of the fence to ~here the lighting begins is practical because it is a logical and appropriate design. Commissioner McGoldrick added that, as people come down the Masson slope, if someone were to go extremely fast and crash into this site, you would need something very tall and very strong. Commissioner J. Harris stated that in her mind the important aspect of this is the historic value, and she feels it is difficult to set this off as a beautiful spot to be proud of in our Saratoga heritage without having attractive gates. Commissioner Burger added that it is all part of the attempt to preserve the history and culture of Saratoga. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she was also basing her findings on an agricultural, open space feature. Mrs. Gaspar could have developed a home on that other parcel and is choosing to leave it to open space and agricultural use. Mr. Heiss added that this property is unique and exceptional because of its agricultural character. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she agreed with the findings, but was concerned about having all of the homes in the area fenced because of the wildlife. It was clarified that if the CC&Rs are amended as those for McBain & Gibbs, it would be on a case by case basis, and the Commission would have control. Mr. Heiss added that this is an unusual situation again, because Lot 5 is zoned NHR and it is also not part of the CC&Rs, so it does not have that limitation. He stated that that sets this up as unique and special because of that and does not create a precedent. Faber Johnston, attorney, described the site and the proposal. He commented that this is part of the. old Paul Masson Vineyards and his parents were good friends of Paul Masson. He indicated that his mother told him that she remembers the gates of the original Paul Masson being - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 V-694 and Parnas CC&Rs high on both sides of Pierce Road. He added that Mrs. Gaspar is recreating a historical gate that in fact did exist. Mr. Johnston stated that he did not feel that the CC&Rs have to be changed because they say that the fencing shall be in accord with the HCRD regulations, and they permit variances. Dan Gears, of Congress Springs Winery, addressed the historical importance and the heritage value of the property. He stressed the importance of having a fence around the vineyard for protection from deers. Mrs. Gaspar, the applicant, discussed the proposal, stating that she feels the proposal will be an asset to'the community and will preserve the heritage of the City. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V-694, making the following findings: #1 - The vineyards are aunique historical heritage. To lose one-third of your plants to deer is a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship. A fence is the most practical and efficient method of protection from deer and there is expert testimony to back this. #2 - This is an agricultural use with soil conditions unique for vineyards. Therefore this is exceptional in that decorative landscaping is not what is being protected. The slope is unique and requires a higher fence over which deer cannot leap. It is an extraordinary circumstance when an owner is willing to put money into planting the property, thereby preserving open space. #3 - It is a common privilege to protect your property and investments from marauders, even four legged ones and agricultural property should be allowed to protect its crops. The fact that we have two parcels here united causes the 40,000 sq. ft. #4 - It is a common privilege, therefore it is not a special privilege. She would be happy to grant the same to anyone who is going to plant vineyards. As far as the board fence, #1 - It is a practical difficulty to look down on your neighbor's back yard and feel like you are intruding on them, as well as to be subject to whatever they have stored in their back yard. #2 - The exceptional circumstances are that this opague fence cannot be seen by anybody but that neighbor. The intent of the non-opaque fences was so that they would not close in visually the hillsides, and to give an open space feeling. This particular board fence is so situated that that will not happen. #3 - Privacy is a common privilege and the extension of more than 60 ft. is due to the layout and the size on these particular parcels. #4 - If it is a common privilege it is not special. Regarding the pillars, the finding for practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship is that an extraordinary strong fence or pillars will be needed in case of an accident. #2 - The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances for a fence here are that this vineyards entrance is opposite the Paul Masson property. The public use of that facility gives this site almost a tourist kind of attraction setting, and a French chateau entrance gate would be very appropriate at this crossroads and does something for the character of Saratoga. An ordinary neighborhood type gate would not be appropriate. #3 - It is a common privilege in that we have set precedence for such gates before, a~d #4 - Therefore it is not a special privilege. Staff noted that Condition #3 should be amended to read 185. Discussion followed on Condition #1 of the Staff Report. The City Attorney stated that, regarding the amendment of the CC&Rs, the McBain & Gibbs' CC&Rs provided that no fencing shall enclose an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. He commented that the modification there was to allow fencing subject to the zoning regulations of the City or the granting of a variance. He added that procedurally here we are talking about the City consenting to an amendment to the Parnas CC&Rs. Mr. Heiss stated that the portion of the CC&Rs for Parnas does not reference back to the zoning; it specifically states that there be no Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 V-694 and Parnas CC&Rs fencing in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. He explained that it should have read enclosing an area in excess of 4,000 sq. ft. is not allowed. The City Attorney recommended that the language be retained and add "No fencing shall enclose the area unless Variance Approval is granted by the City." The vote was taken on the motion to approve V-694, per the conditions of the Staff Report, as amended. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend to the City Council that the CC&Rs for Parnas be amended to allow that the fencing be increased if there is a variance granted by the City. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 16. SDR-1533 - Johnson and Foley, Monte Vista Drive, Emergency Access Gate Staff explained the request, stating that they have noted no objection to this gate; however, the minutes reflect concern over the type of gate installed. They suggested that the Commission may wish to approve it subject to approval of the neighbors. Jim Foley stated that he had discussed this with the Central Fire District, and he submitted copies of the approved plan. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the emergency access gate for SDR- 1533 per the submitted sketch, subject to the written approval of the neighbors within seven days. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter Requesting Reconsideration of A-1080, Allyn Becker, 12264 Farr Ranch Road. Commissioner J. Harris moved to reconsider the application. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was directed that this matter be agendized for a study session on May 28, 1985. 2. Letter from Mark Rapport .regarding A-1052. Staff explained the request. Mark Rapport, the applicant, stated that they were not aware that the stairways and open upper areas are counted twice in the square footage. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she feels this is a very sensitive area and is not disposed to increase the square footage. Discussion followed on possible reduction of square footage'and the existing square footage of the structure. Commissioner Burger Stated that. she considers this as a modification to the design review and would not require a public hearing, understanding that the difference is an addition of 470 sq. ft., but no change in the plans approved. Staff'stated that if the Planning Commission is going to approve this, they suggest that the Commission consider strongly how Staff is to measure square footage. The City Attorney commented that he has a problem if this is called a modification, without a public hearing. Discussion followed on the requirements for a public hearing. Commissioner Peterson asked if an exception could be made on the basis that there are circumstances that indicate that the applicant did not understand the double counting. Commissioner J. Harris moved to stick with the original number of 6930 sq. ft. and not make the determination that this additional square footage was within the scope of the original Design Review Approval. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. It was suggested that the applicant work with Staff to determine if the square footage can be reduced. 10 Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 5/8/85 COMMUNICATIONS (cont.) 3. Letter from Iva Pepper regarding reconsideration of V-688. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to reconsider this matter. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the'motion, which was carried unanimously. It was determined that the matter will be Set for public hearing in 60-90 days, after consideration of the amendment'of Article 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Oral by Commission 1. Staff gave a report on the Sobey Road access road, indicating that there has been construction on this road. However, it has been determined that they can not grade down the top of the hill any significant amount. 2. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. 3. Chairman Peterson thanked the Rotary Club for the new signs at the entrances of the City. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd - 11 -