Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-22-1985 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 22, 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, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes With the addition that it was Commissioner Schaefer who moved to approve A-1082 on page 2, Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of May 8, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he was not present. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR' la. Negative Declaration - SM-16 - Roy Jones lb. 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 Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve the item listed on the Consent Calendar above. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR The public hearing was opened at 7:36 p.m. Item #5, A-1093, Charles Gaynor, was removed for discussion. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing on the balance' of the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve these items listed below. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 2a. Negative Declaration - V-666 .- Amana/Schiro 2b. 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; continued from May 8, 1985 3. A-913 - Charles Masters, Request for One-Year Extension for a previous Design Review Approval to permit construction of a two-story residence on a hillside lot, that exceeds the gross floor area design review standard, in the NHR zoning district at Lot 24, Tract 6665, Congress Hall Lane 4. A-1092- Sam Espeseth and David Campbell, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a new, two-story resi- dence on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at 12601 Star Ridge Court, Lot N, Tract 6528 '~iscussion followed on item #5, A~1093, Charles Gaynor~ CommiSSioner Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 A-1093 Schaefer commented that she agreed with the Staff Report regarding the reduction in size and would also like to have the staircase in the back removed. She commented that she feels that the staircase makes it appear to be a two-residence dwelling. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, and Staff clarified that the lot size is 10,155 sq. fto, instead of the 9,135 sq. ft. indicated in the Staff Report. Staff suggested that the number in Condition No. 1 be changed to 3495' sq. ft. The public hearing was' opened 'at 7:41 p.m. William Gaynor, the applicant's son, stated that they considered the stairs a fire egress. Commissioner Schaefer stated that'she feels that the large entertaining area upstairs, with the irregular shaped lot~ would have a significant impact on the home in the back. Mr. Gaynor addressed the reduction of the addition, indicating that he felt the addition would look more box- like if this were done. The resident living across the street spoke in support of the project as proposed. Curtis Harris, owner of the house on the south side, also spoke in support of the architectural presentation proposed. He added that he feels the staircase is an important feature. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-1093, Charles Ga~nor, per the Staff Report, amended to require the staircase to be removed, and with Condition No. 1 changed to read 3495 sq. ft. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Siegfried dissenting. The appeal period was noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. 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; continued from May 8, 1985 Staff explained the application, recommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. Owen Brown, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He indicated that he was opposed to the alternative suggested by Staff to build inward from the master bedroom into the back yard, because it would give the house a choppy look and would take away the back yard. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner J. Harris commented that she feels the applicant's comment is well taken that their backyard 'would be virtually non-existent. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that the back yard is very small and the alternative suggested by Staff would preclude the use of the small portion of grass and would necessitate the removal of the barbecue pit. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt the Commission should take cognizance of the shape of the lot, and noted that there is just roughly one corner of the bedroom into the setback. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve V-693, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated April 30, 1985, making the findings that the alternative would mean reducing the livable yard area, which would be a hardship. She added that the irregular shape of the lot also makes it a Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 V-693 hardship. She stated that she feels the residents have the common privilege of enjoying a sizable back yard, and therefore this would not be a special privilege. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 7a. V-696 - Jerome Kocir, Request for Variances for an existing wall 7b. A-1088 - over 6 ft. in height and to allow certain additions to maintain a minimum exterior side yard setback of 5 ft. where 25 ft. is required and Design Review Approval for a combination of structures, including a two-story acces- sory structure, over 4,000 ft. in size at 12855 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; continued from May 8, 1985 Staff described the project, indicating that they recommend a 10 ft. setback for the accessory structure and only from 13 to 24 ft. for the addition. They stated that the applicant has submitted a drawing of the Site Plan, showing the actual area of encroachment if Brandywine is thought of as an interior side yard, which would require only a 10 ft. setback. They added that they were recommending that the applicant maintain the 25 ft. setback for the addition at the southeastern most corner, and were recommending approval of the design review. Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot and the wall, indicating that'she feels that a wall of the proposed magnitude is necessary. The public hearing was opened at 8.:03 pom. Bob Schwenke, the architect, gave a presentation on the project, addressing the setbacks. He indicated that they could maintain a 10 ft. setback for the poolroom addition and the accessory structure. Mr. Kocir, the applicant, addressed the removal of the sidewalk, as conditioned by the Staff Report. He suggested cutting 2 ft. away from the wall and installing landscaping. He explained that he has been held up by Caltrans on the front landscaping because of coordination of paving to the street. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern regarding a timeframe on the landscaping. Staff commented that, relative to planting on the highway frontage, the pavement that the applicant has placed adjacent to the wall appears to be filling the space between the wall and the existing asphalt pathway; therefore, there does not appear to be any area left to plant. They added that, regarding the Brandywine frontage, there is a gate in the fence and to provide for access to that gate a sidewalk could be allowed between the gate and the curb. This would allow access to and from the lot from Brandywine. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. CommisSioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve V-696 and A-1088, per the Staff recommendation regarding the wall and accessory structure; that the pool covering maintain a minimum setback of 10 ft. at all points; that a minimum 2 ft. strip of the paved areas adjacent to. the exterior of the wall shall be removed, including the concrete strip on the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road side of the wall and the sidewalk along Brandywine Drive; that a minimum 2 ft. strip of landscaping, including climbing vegetation, shall be installed to partially screen the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road side and the Brandywine Drive side of the wall and the applicant shall submit landscaping plans for Staff approval, showing how this condition shall be complied with; and paving shall be removed and landscaping installed within 120 days of the approval of this variance. Commissioner J. Harris seconded. the motion. Commissioner Schaefer amended her motion to add that the landscaping is to be maintained by the applicant. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the amendment. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. The appeal period was noted. Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 8. A-1052 - Mark Rapport, Request for Design Review Modification Mod. - Approval to further exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard by increasing the size of the recent- ly approved two-story residence from 6,930 sq. ft. to 7,429 sq. ft. on Lot #4, Tract 6732, Montalvo Heights Drive (to be withdrawn) This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 9. DH-1 - Rhett's, Request Approval of a Dance Hall License for an existing establishment at 14577 Big Basin Way, in the C-C zoning district Commissioner B. Harris abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff explained that the ordinance requires that the Planning Commission review this application before a dance hall license can be granted. They described the location and operation of Rhett's and gave the history of the complaints lodged against them. They noted that, in addition, there are problems relative to traffic, parking and lack of restroom facilities. Staff stated that they have determined that the use is inappropriate for the area and are unable to make the findings and recommend that the Commission recommend that the City not issue this license. The correspondence received in opposition was noted. The public hearing was opened at 8:26 p.m. Ron Troyan, president of Saratoga Associates, which owns and operates Rhett's, commented that, after reading the Staff Report, he wondered how he had gotten himself in this situation. He explained that in the original formation of Rhett's he invested as a limited partner, and because of some management problems it was decided that he should take over the management and operation of this facility, and he has done this to the best of his ability. He submitted a list of names and addresses of clients of Rhett's who would like to see it continue, noting that quite a few of the names are local residents of Saratoga. He addressed the noise nuisance noted in the Staff Report, and indicated that inside they had just added curtains across the front windows, which will mitigate the noise. He added that they have required their sound equipment operator to keep the noise level below 8 decibels above the local ambient, and have instructed them to keep it in the range of 4. Mr. Troyan commented that they are suggesting to clients waitihg in line to go to other local establishments. He explained that he had discussed the noise problem with the Sheriff's Department and submitted a letter he had sent to them. He noted that Lt. Wilson has indicated that he has received no complaints within the last three months about any individuals who participate in the' activities of Rhett's. He added that Lt. Wilson had commented that he has no more trouble with Rhett's than anyone else in the area, and he has the area patrolled heavily. Mr. Troyan commented that he had asked Lt. Wilson how they might help, and he had suggested a sign on the exit door, asking patrons to leave the area quickly and quietly. He indicated that they were going to follow that suggestion. He commented that they were trying to work the problems out and be a good neighbor in the area. He addressed the restrooms, noting that there were also restrooms upstairs. He also indicated that they keep their noise level relative to amplified sound below the standards. Mr. Troyan commented that they had not known the awning and signage were in violation and will correct them. He concluded that he has tried to conduct a good business and comply with all the known codes and laws. Lynn Gilmartin Lindsey, of the 'Stone Pine Homeowners Association, submitted a letter in opposition to the application. She commented that Rhett's primary customer base is that of surrounding college students and advertising appears in all the college newspapers, promoting low- cost alcoholic beverages and entertainment appealing to the age group of college students. She indicated that this has resulted in anightly Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 influx into the Village of large groups of college students who do not respect the rights of the surrounding personal residences as to peace and quiet, private parking areas,'disposal of drinking containers and related debris. She added that groups of patrons congregate outdoors and create disturbances within the area by the level of noise. She indicated that, as a general rule, the patrons have been unresponsive to requests to move on or lower the level of communication. She commented that they have spoken to the patrolmen and the Sheriff's Department has increased their trafficing of the area as a direct result of Rhett's. She indicated that they could clearly hear the music in their area. She added that the Village has had a unique atmosphere of quaintness, serenity and peacefulness, and.this has been adversely affected by the influx of students. She stated that the City has a responsibility to the community to protect the residents from actions of others which violate the private residents' rights to peace and quiet, protection of private property and privacy. Frank Benke, owner of property at 14590 and 14573 Big Basin Way, and 14655 Oak Street, spoke in opposition to the license. He stated that he lost three out of six tenants in an apartment building located across the street from Rhett's, due to noise from loud and abrusive language, music from car stereos and racing cars. He pointed out the trash which litters the front lawns after a weekend and the illegal parking. He also noted that they stored trash in his easement, which he believes to be a health hazard. Mr. Benke also noted the number of male customers he has observed using the walkway and side of his building as an outhouse. He urged that everyone work together to keep the Village be- autiful instead of letting one undesirable element ruin it for everyone. Mary Boscoe, of Stone Pines condominiums, noted that there had been a bloody man on her patio who had been in a fight. Jeanine Lapanier, manager of the Saratoga Motel at 14626 Big Basin Way, spoke in opposition. She addressed the fights and the urinating. Carol Resner, 14611 Big Basin Way,'indicated that the problems outlined tonight started 1-1/2 years ago. She commented that there have also been patrons of Rhett's having sexual intercourse in their front yard. She also pointed out illegal parking on her property and parts of their fence have been removed. She added that these people are often quite drunk and very hostile. She commented that the people in the neighborhood have no recourse and are innocent victims. Gladys Hernandez, owner of the Saratoga Motel, noted that their driveway is blocked, property destroyed, and vile language used. She also pointed out that there were fights outside their motel. Doris Benke, 14655 Oak Street, stated that she has had a lot of complaints from her tenants regarding Rhett'so She addressed the noise coming from the establishment. Leanne Hernandez, 14626 Big Basin Way, stated that in the thirty years she has lived in Saratoga she has never seen anything so out of keeping with the character of the Village of Saratoga. The owner of Rhett's seafood restaurant stated that he would like to have the privilege to stay on with any decision that is made. Chairman Peterson then asked Mr. Troyan if he wished to respond to the persons speaking in opposition to the application, and he declined to do so. Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by J. Harris, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger commented as follows: "Because of the number and nature of complaints that were received in the packet, I made a site visit to Rhett's, accompanied by my husband on Saturday night and Sunday morning. We arrived in the Village at 12:45 and departed at 2:00 a.m. Between 12:45 and 1:15 we sat in the Duke of Wellington. We left there at 1:15 and spent about 15 minutes walking up Big Basin Way towards the Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 DH-1 residential area, crossing the street and coming back down, passing the front of Rhett's, and then recrossing the street. From 1:30 until 2:00 a.m. we stood directly outside the Duke of Wellington on the corner and observed what happened for half an hour° I will report exactly what I saw. Bathroom facilities apparently are inadequate. The males relieved themselves outside. Females came across the street to use the facilities at the Duke of Wellington with no objection from the 'management at the Duke of Wellington. As far as nuisance, noise and traffic are concerned, I observed, between 1:30 and 2:00 a.m. high decibel music when the door of.Rhett's opened, loitering outside Rhett's, drinking outside Rhett's, 'yelling and screaming in the streets, excessive use of foul language, 'prolonged honking of horns, reving motors, racing around corners, use. of Big Basin Way in front of Rhett's to double park, back up, turn around, drive down the wrong side of the street, patrons of Rhett's standing in or running across Big Basin Way, necking and petting along the sidewalks on both sides of the street. a lot of parking up Big Basin Way adjacent to residences, with no attempt by the patrons of Rhett's to quiet down as they entered the residential area. There was an employee stationed outside the front door of Rhett's. He was totally useless. He made no attempt to regulate noise, foot traffic, auto congestion or loitering. The dumpster next door to Rhett's was open and almost full. Between 1:30 and 2:00 I observed the Sheriff's car ride by once, shortly before closing time. There was little or no disturbance outside2Rhett's at that time; people had not yet spilled out on the streets. There was no evidence of a Sheriff's patrol during the peak time of disturbance." Commissioner Siegfried noted that he had observed many of the same things pointed out by Commissioner Burger. Commissioner Peterson commented that this is a use that is frankly incompatible with the Village; it is too close to residential; it takes up parking; it is noisey, and he certainly cannot support it. Commissioner Siegfried pointed out that, on the petitions signed by customers in support, approximately 20 out of 100 live in Saratoga. Commissioner Burger moved to recommend denial of DH-1, per the Staff Report dated May 16, 1985. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. The City Attorney stated that if there:is no appeal, the Planning Commission decision would be effective in ten days. If there is an appeal and the decision is affirmed, it would be effective at that time. If there is an appeal the dancing could continue until the decision by the City Council. 10a. GPA 85-2 - Joseph Kennedy and Karen Mayers, Consider Amending the 10b. C-219 - General Plan and Z6ning Designations of the northern- 10c. LLA #7 - most 1.525 acres of a 5,485 acre site from Residential- Hillside Conservation Single Family/HC-RD (maximum density of .5 DU/Acre) to Residential-Very Low Density Single Family/R-i-40,000 (maximum density of 1.09 DU/ Acre) at 15480 Peach Hill Road and Grant Approval for Lot Line Adjustment Staff explained the application and the history of the site. They indicated that they were recommending that there be a change to the General Plan and the zoning, but that it be to the existing lot, rather than the area to be attached to that lot, and the change be from R-1-40,000 to HCRD, which would preclude any further subdivision of the property. They added that, with that provision, they would recommend approval of the lot line adjustment. Discussion followed on the options° The public hearing was opened at 9:07 p.m. John Carey, who is planning to purchase the property, described the Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 GPA 85-2 existing site. He indicated that he intends to purchase the 1-1/2 acres and combine it with the 2-1/2 acres, and make it into a parklike area. He described the plans for the area. He added that he would like to combine the two lots and make it into residential, very low density, single family R-1-40,000. William Young, 15391 Hume Drive, commented that he was told the 1-1/2 acre lot would be a green belt area, and he designed the house toward that area. Therefore, he would like to see the green belt conditions remain. Kay Long, 15629 Hume Drive, stated that their home was also oriented to the green belt and the view, and q~estioned the change. Commissioner Siegfried explained to Mr. Carey the history of the site and the discussions that were held'with the neighbors on every side who wanted that area to be maintained as a green belt. Mr. Carey stated that he is not planning to change the nature of that land at all. Commissioner Peterson pointed out that if the 1-1/2 acres is changed to R-1-40,000, Mr. Carey might sell it and someone else might have some different ideas about use. Staff clarified that Mr. Carey could split his parcel under current R-1- 40,000 standards, and if the 1-1/2 acres is added and the combined area zoned HCRD, he could only get one parcel. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would like to find a way to preserve the 1-1/2 acres but not impact Mr. Carey in the sense that he somehow loses a building site by adding some acreage, which somehow should be conditioned so he doesn't get a net of three houses. Commissioner Schaefer agreed and discussed the options. She added that the other question is do we allow landscaping, other than natural vegetation, in a scenic easement. The City Attorney stated that customarily the City has not allowed structures or even landscaping in scenic easements that they have obtained. He explained that under' the normal scenic easement Mr. Carey would not be allowed to do any of the things that he has described as his intention this evening. Further discussion followed on an option of accomplishing what Mr. Carey wants without causing him to lose a building site. The City Attorney stated that he wanted to emphasize that the reason for the Staff recommendation of HCRD is that in their opinion it is a HCRD lot. He commented that the only other option he could see would possibly be recording some document which would constitute a relinquishment of development rights that would apply to the entire combined parcel and specify a site density with respect to that combined parcel, and having that as a relinquishment of any right Mr. Carey would otherwise have to subdivide that into three parcels in consideration for having this matter in the form of a lot line adjustment. Staff suggested that another possibility, other than the outright purchase of the property, might be some kind of easement granted from Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Carey. They commented that they would not think that would allow for the construction of any accessory structures because those would have to be folded into the major structures on the lot, whenever that lot is developed. It was directed that this matter be continued to June 12, 1985, to allow the applicant to consider the options and discuss them further with Staff. 11. A-1080 - Allyn Becker, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a new two-story, single family residence on a hillside lot at 12264 Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district (to be continued to June 12, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to June 12, 1985. Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 Break - 9:30 - 9:45 p.m. 12. A-1091 - Bas Homes (dba Eden Ranch), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a new two-story, single family residence on a hillside lot on Lot 13, Tract 6701, Albar Court, in the NHR zoning district Staff noted that they had just handed out the sketch received from the applicant, who wishes to modify the proposal on this lot. They recommended that the matter be continued to allow Staff to review this new submission. The public hearing was opened at 9:46 p.m. Michael Layne, representing the applicant, stated that they would like the matter considered this evening. He stated that they would like to give a presentation on the siting of the house and the location of the driveway across the fault line easement. He indicated that the new drawing is a clarification or an alternative plan that Staff had requested. Staff described the proposal, noting that they have concern relative to the encroachment of the driveway through the fault zone. They indicated that they were unable to make the findings and recommended denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. Staff noted that the new sketch shows the driveway more in line with where it was shown on the tentative map approval. Mr. Layne addressed the square footage, indicating that they were unaware that volumes were calculated into the square footage. He described these and clarified that the total square footage is 5513 sq. ft. He described the siting of the house, stating that it reduces the necessity of tall retaining walls and reduced grading. He clarified that there are no towers, but chimneys that are 26 ft. Steve Stern, President of Bas Homes, addressed the proposed plan for the driveway relative to the fault easement. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that logic tells him that if you are going to build a house a few feet from a fault, there is nothing wrong with putting some.asphalt over the fault. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the street crosses the fault line and fault lines have been crossed in other areas. He stated that he thinks it is more a question of what is most reasonable from a safety and aesthetic standpoint in terms of crossing the fault line. Discussion followed on the location of the driveway. Commissioner Burger stated that it appears that changing the driveway to the other side would require more grading. Commissioner J. Harris expressed concern about a house of this height upon such a visible site. She requested that some screening be provided on the eastern frontage of the house. The City Attorney commented that if the Commission wishes to approve the application he would like a condition added that the applicant execute an indemnity agreement, to be recorded, releasing the City from any liability for allowing any improvements on the fault line. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1091, making Finding #2 - The siting of the house as proposed by the applicant, will reduce the grading required, as opposed to coming in from the other side in an attempt to avoid the fault setback, and adding Condition No. 9 to state that an indemnity agreement be executed, and Condition No. 10 to require landscaping along the eastern side of the building site, towards Mt. Eden Road, for Staff approval. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 13a. Negative Declaration - SD-1596 - John Chu 13b. SD-1596 - John Chu, Request for Tentative Map Approval for a 10-lot subdivision on 4.27 acres in the R-1-10,000 zoning district at 13744 Quito Road Staff explained the project, stating that Lot #5 is the most difficult lot to develop in the subdivision because of the Water District easements, and if the cul-de-sac is pulled further back access to this lot would essentially be eliminated, at least in terms of complying with ordinance standards. They indicated that if that is the case, then Lot #5 would have to be eliminated from the s~bdivision. They stated that they need to get further details from the Water District to see if their requirements can be met. They noted correspondence received from the neighboring property owners, expressing concern relative to the project. Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that their main concern was with the property line along the southern portion, which adjoins to an existing neighborhood. She noted that Lots #2 and #3 are about 6 ft. lower than the pads behind them, and Lots #4 and #5 about 8-10 ft. lower. She described the pepper'trees on the site. Commissioner Schaefer commented that, relative to Lots #1-5, although the backyards look like they are 25 ft., the hill is very steep and takes up between 8-10 ft. of depth, so there is really a backyard of about 15 ft. She stated that if those five lots were combined into four, it would make two-story homes much more logical to be put on Lots #3 and #4. The public hearing was opened at 10:20 p.mo Maurey Nelson, civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project, discussing the Water'District easements. He stated that they would like to leave the cul-de-sac bulb where it is on the plan and have the right- of-way come right up to the oak tree. He addressed the access for the subdivision. He noted that there is a fire hydrant within 300 ft. of lots #1 and #10, and the applicant would like to be able to begin construction on these lots and at the same time do the off-site improvements. He requested that two-stories be allowed on Lots #1, #2 and #10, explaining that Lot #2 is lower than adjacent lots, and homes on Lots #1 and #10 could be designed so as to not impact the privacy of the neighbors. He also proposed that they post a bond for the landscaping. Dale Drumm, 18395 Montpere Way, spoke in opposition to the project, noting that it is too dense. He also expressed concern about a two- story structure behind his house. He requested that, if the subdivision is approved, that there be a retaining wall so he can use his property, because of the drainage. Mr. Drumm also asked that the trees be preserved. Don Adsac, 18383 Montpere, spoke in opposition, addressing the drainage and traffic circulation. He expressed concern about the privacy impact from two-stories. Mr. Nelson addressed the engineering of the drainage system. He also noted the lot sizes and the width of the proposed street. A1 Woolworth, one of the developers, addressed the design of the proposed two-stories, to mitigate privacy impacts. He indicated that they would be one-story in the rear or south side and will slope to two stories in the front. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would favor combining Lots #1-5 because of the particular slope that they have in the back yard, and because of the configuration of the land, it gives the impression that those lots would be very tight. Commissioner Burger agreed, stating that 4 lots, rather than 5, is preferable. Commissioner Peterson agreed, stating that he would like to see single-story homes on Lots #1 Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 SD-1596 through #4. Discussion followed'on the siting of two-stories and the size of the lots in the subdivision. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD- 1596. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SD-1596, per Staff Report dated May 16, 1985, making the following changes: Lots #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 be changed into four lots, with Staff.approval; deleting specific condition G, changing the language in condition H relative to the access road, changing Condition J-5 to read that Lots #3 and #4 shall be single story or single story in appearance when viewed from the south property line, changing the numbers in the Staff Report to reflect the changes, and adding a condition that the healthy pepper trees be preserved. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The appeal period was noted. (Commissioner Siegfried left the meeting at 10:55 p.m.) 14. V-698 - Bernie and Nancy Sun, Request for Variance Approval to allow an addition to maintain a 10 ft. exterior side yard setback where 25 ft. is required at 12541 Sara- toga-Sunnyvale Road, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district Staff described the application, stating they were unable to make the findings because there are other areas on the site where this addition could be made, and therefore recommend denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that the addition will be very close to the street. She stated that from the existing residence on around the bulb, there is no fencing or landscaping. She stated that the first impression would be that the addition could be moved farther into the back yard; however, the logical family room addition would be off the dining room. Therefore, the committee felt that perhaps there could be some shift in the placement of the bath and the storage area. The public hearing was opened at 10:58 p.m. Mr. Sun, the applicant, stated that the proposed location was the only place where it would be feasible to have the addition of a family room. Commissioner B. Harris asked Mr. Sun why he could not extend the living room so it is flush with the two-car garage, and put the dining room where the back part of the living room now is and eliminate this family room, and call the dining room the new family room. Mr. Sun commented that it would be expensive and.not feasible. He added that he is hesitant to add anything further towards Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she did not think she could make the findings; however, she would be able to make them for a compromise if the applicant were willing to move the patio area more towards the north and have the bath and storage someplace else. She added that she would also like to see some landscaping go up around the turnaround to screen it. She noted that there 'are only two homes served by the access. Commissioner Burger commented that the major point that Commissioner J. Harris made is the fact that this is a road that serves two homes. Commissioner J. Harris explained that she feels that is an exceptional circumstance, in that it is not the typical corner lot that is being viewed by into their neighborhood. Commissioner Peterson added that Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 V-698 there really isn't any other logical place to put the family room. Commissioner J. Harris added that another exceptional circumstance would be that the applicant is so close.to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, with all the noise. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve V-698, adding the condition that the new addition terminate at the point that is flush with the dining room wall, making the southern setback off of the turnaround 16 ft., instead of 10 ft., and making the findings previously discussed. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner B. Harris dissenting. It was clarified to Mr. Sun that, since this is a corner lot and he only has a 10 ft. rear yard setback, there should be no problem in flipping the bathroom addition over to the other side of the addition. Mr. Sun was asked to work with Staff in determining the correct placement. (Commissioner Schaefer left the meeting at 11:10 p.m.) 15. V-699 - Phillip Sanfilipo,'Request for Variance Approval to per- mit a restaurant use in the Argonaut Shopping Center, when the amount of parking at the shopping center does not meet zoning ordinance requirements at 12940 Sara- toga-Sunnyvale Road in the CN zoning district Staff explained the application, giving the history of the matter. They discussed the parking on site. They commented that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 11:12 p.m. Angelo Karavaras, the applicant, stated that he had nothing further to say on the issue at this time. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris stated that the Commission has been so concerned about parking, and she could not make finding #4, since she believes it would be a special privilege. Regarding finding #7, she shares concern that if the parking were to overflow, there is no place for it to go. She noted that there is going to be a stop light at Blauer and it is going to be a very busy street; therefore, the parking would have to be in back of the center and she would hate to see the residents in that area bear the burden. She moved to deny V-699, per the Staff Report dated May 15, 1985, being unable to make the findings. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0. The appeal period was noted. 16. C-220 - City of Saratoga, 'Consider Amending the text of the Sign Ordinance regarding: 1) The types and sizes of signs needing Design Review or Sign Permits; 2) Increas- ing the aggregate sign area permitted in commercial dis- tricts; 3) Adding Definitions; 4) Adding criteria for Sign Review; 5) New regulations for freestanding signs; and 6) Other amendments clarifying or creating more flexibility in the ordinance per Ordinance NS-3 (to be continued to June 12, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to June 12, 1985. 17. C-221 City of Saratoga, Consider Amending the text of the Non- conforming Uses and Structures Ordinance regarding: 1) The continuation, maintenance, expansion and replacement of existing nonconforming uses and structures; 2) Elimi- nation of nonconforming uses and structures after lapse of time; 3) Nonconforming sites; and 4) Other amendments to clarify the ordinance per Ordinance NS-3 (to be con- tinued to June 12, 1985) Planning Commission Page 12 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 C-221 It was directed that this matter be continued to June 12, 1985. ' .... 18'. GF-344.1 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending the text of the Second Unit Ordinance to allow greater flexibility in the standards for legalizing existing second units in terms of lot slope, Building Code compliance, Zoning Ordinance compliance (setbacks, height, etc.), parking requirements, sanitary sewer hook-up, occupancy, and other ordinance requirements per Ordinance NS-3 The City Attorney explained the changes to the ordinance with respect to existing units. The public hearing was opened at 11:19 p.m. Doug Adams indicated that he has three clients who have existing second units. He commented that he feels. that the City should permit existing units to continue, except to inspect them for health and safety reasons. He stated that the reasons for this are (1) the State Legislature mandated the creation of second units in 1982, and unless'the City made a finding against all second units, that is a mandate° He commented that, to his knowledge, there has not been a history of any objections to any second units that existed. (2) He feels that the existing units of his clients are legal. He pointed out that his clients have existing units that have existed prior to 1961, which was when the Building Code was adopted in Saratoga. He referenced his letters of January 29, 1985 and April 8, 1985, and quoted from the Government Code Section 65852.2 relative to the findings and declarations. He stated that he feels flexibility is needed in the following areas: (1) more than one second unit, (2) owner-occupied units, (3) limit of two people in a second unit. He clarified that he was only discussing existing second units. Jesse McGuire, of the Good Government Group, commented that they are in the process of restudying the ordinance and will give the report to 'their board next Tuesday. She stated that they will be submitting a letter, stating their position. ~ John Kahle stated that he believes a real clear-cut distinction between existing units and future units needs to be made. He commented that the Commission should retain a jurisdiction for flexibility on every one of the standards. He added that the whole idea behind the ordinance is to provide housing, not destroy it. He commented that if we find that the standards are rigid to the point where we are going to lose housing, it does not benefit the citizens of Saratoga. Louise Cooper, Mt. Eden Road, commented that the second units are needed by the City, and everything should be done to retain that housing. She stated that the proposals for liberalizing these changes probably will eliminate some of the concerns that people have who have second units, and have not wanted to acknowledge them. She added that she would like to see the ordinance allow new units and structures in the R-1-10,000 zoning if such changes did not reach the exterior walls of the original structure. Harriet Handler, 13385 Ronnie Way, made a plea for new second unit housing, and to broaden the ordinance in the R-1-10,000 district. Staff explained that Mrs. Handler is on a dividing line between zoning districts and she is asking for flexibility to consider second units on certain R-1-10,000 lots, i.e., larger than normal lots. The City Attorney explained that one of the .policy issues that the Council wanted the Commission to consider is whether second units should be allowed in the R-1-10,000 zone where they could be created in the fashion that does not change the exterior appearance of the structure. It was determined that this matter should be continued, to allow the Planning Commission to further discuss the changes and the issues at a study session. It was directed. that it be continued to a study session on June 4, 1985 and the regular meeting of June 12, 1985. Planning Commission Page 13 Minutes - Meeting 5/22/85 MISCELLANEOUS 19. Review of Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1985-86 (Information only) COMMUNICATIONS Written - None Oral by Commission and Staff 1. The City Attorney submitted copies of the pending ordinances to the Commission. 2. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on May 28, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary RSS:cd