Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 1985 ~ 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of June 26, 1985: On page 9, in the first sentence in the sixth paragraph, the word "wall" should be replaced by "number of lights". The fifth sentence in the last paragraph should read: "Commissioner J. Harris commented that as the lights go back along the property line on both sides, one neighbor will see the interior lights on the opposite wall, and the other neighbor will see the lights from the opposite wall. Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 26, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present. Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 18, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dave Smith thanked the Commission for the time they spend on applications and suggested that the "Welcome to the Planning Commission" pamphlet. be given to applicants at the time of application, to explain the procedure. He also suggested that informal pre-application meetings be held to give some indication as to whether approval of the proposal is feasible. It was noted that this subject will be discussed at a study session. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. A-892 - Mr. and Mrs. Bing Lee Tsai, Request for Design Review Mod. Modification Approval to construct a two-story single family residence and Approval of Grading Permit at 18691 Vessing Road in the R-1-40,000 zoning district This matter was removed for discussion. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Mr. McKenzie, developer of the property, explained that he is Mr. Tsai's neighbor. He stated that he still owns a lot just above this property which will be developed further in the future. He expressed concern that this development may impact the privacy of Mr. Tsai's lot if a shield is not provided. He added that he did not want trees planted that will destroy the view, but he does want landscaping planted. He commented that he feels that the house has been moved so close to the property line that there will not be room for landscaping. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that there is presently screening on the eastern property line. Mr. McKenzie commented that that screening is'on his lot and is old, and it will have to be removed when his lot is further developed. He stated that he would like to have it on record that the applicant will not complain about privacy when he decides to further develop his lot. Commissioner Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 A-892 Mod. Burger added that the lot in question does slope downward rather sharply to the west, and a privacy impact, if any exists at all, would be~o. the home on the west since the proposed home would look directly down into their back yard. She noted that landscaping there is a condition of the Staff Report. She described the site. At Commissioner Siegfried's inquiry, Jim Chen commented that there is a space of 2'6" from the driveway to the property line, which will be a landscaping area. He discussed the setbacks and the location of the driveway, indicating that he could move it so there would be 5' between the property line and the edge of the driveway. Staff commented that reducing the pavement area in the parking area may create a problem relative to the need for a turnaround. It was determined that it would be conditioned subject to Staff approval. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-892 Mod., revising the conditions of the Staff Report so that from the edge of the driveway to the easterly property line there will be a 5' landscaping area provided, subject to Staff approval. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. A-1095 - Nino Gallo, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story single family residence over 26 ft. in height and over 4,800 sq. ft. in size at 20107 Mendel- sohn Lane, in the R-20,000 zoning district; continued from June 26, 19'85 Commissioner B. Harris abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff explained the application, stating that their recommendation is for a structure of 4800 sq. ft. The public hearing was opened at 7:56 p.m. Jack Christian, President of the Montalvo-Mendelsohn Homeowners Association, stated that their feeling on this matter is split and they take no position, primarily because Mr. Gallo has built very tasteful homes in the past. He expressed concern that this is a third home with a variance, and they would like to set some limit to the amount of variances. He explained that Mr. Gallo will be building more homes in that area, and they do not want to have to appear to review a variance with each one. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried explained that technically these are not variance applications in the sense that the very difficult findings have to be made; they are variance with the guidelines. He commented that this home presents a somewhat unusual problem. He stated that the Commission believes that it is important that we measure and sometimes double count space simply because of the bulk appearance of the home. However, when you look at the actual home it is just slightly more than 200 sq. ft. above the guideline. There is another almost 500 sq. ft. as a result of open beam ceilings and an open entry area, which could not conceivably be closed in. Therefore, it is not a situation where we are allowing someone to come in and build substantially over the guidelines from the standpoint that it is usable space. He added that he was convinced after the architect's presentation that it is really is tastefully done; the home is well set in the trees, and he thinks it will be a good addition to the area. He stated that he hopes that, in the future Mr. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 A-1095 Gallo will be as sensitive not only to the sites, as he has been in building the homes, but to the fact that his neighbors are concerned by the fact that he may in some cases exceed the guidelines. Chairman Peterson agreed, and told Mr. Christian that his point is well taken and the Commission will 'be discussing variances at a study session. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1095, making Findings #3 and #4 with regard to bulk, given the reduction in the height of the home and the square footage, and with reference to the homes in the area in terms of height and square footage this home is compatible. The following changes should be made to the Staff Report: The exhibits will be B-l, C, C-1 and D-l; Condition #1 changed to reflect a height of 28.5 ft.; Condition #3 changed to state that abridged foundation shall be used within 8 ft. of a tree, and Condition #4 changed to read "not exceeding a gross floor area of 5,444 sq. ft." Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining. 3a. GPA 85-2- Joseph Kennedy and'Karen Mayers, Consider Amending the 3b. C-219- General Plan and Zoning Designations of the northern- 3c. 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; continued from June 12, 1985 Staff explained the history of the application, noting that the applicant has determined not to landscape the property at this time. They commented that their recommendation remains that the designation on this property remain HC-RD. They recommended approval of the Lot Line Adjustment and explained the proposed conditions for such an approval. Discussion followed on a development agreement, and the City Attorney noted that he would be drafting such an agreement. The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. Dottie Bilner, representing the buyer and seller of the property, clarified that the applicant has seen and understands the conditions. David Brown and Harold Long, adjacent neighbors, stated that they purchased their parcels with the understanding that the parcel under discussion was HC-RD and that nothing could be built on it. Chairman Peterson commented that it is clearly the Commission's intent, other than the possibility in the future of some kind of landscaping, that there be no development on this site. Commissioner Siegfried explained that today on the property the applicant owns, he could have two sites, and by adding this parcel and zoning it all HC-RD, he ends up with only one site. He commented that the Commission has attempted to come up with a compromise, which says that it will all be zoned R-1-40,000, but it will have very specific recorded conditions on the property, so that the applicant can never have more than the two existing sites that he could have today without buying this piece of property. The City Attorney explained to Messrs. Brown and Long that when this application was started it was the intent of the applicant to submit some form of landscaping plan, showing how he proposed to improve with landscaping only, not structures, the 1.5 acre parcel he is acquiring from Mr. Kennedy. He commented that the matter was then continued for several weeks, and the applicant decided not to landscape the area. Therefore, at the applicant's request the matter was brought back to the Commission, with the understanding that an open space easement would be put on that 1.5 acre parcel covering all of it, and that would be the Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 GPA-85-2, C-219 and LLA #7 standard form of easement which would not allow any form of development, either structure, landscaping or otherwise; it would have to stay in a natural state. He added that that is an easement that will go on record as a condition of that approval. The Staff Report says it cannot be terminated without the consent of the City, and to make sure that adjacent neighbors have knowledge if the applicant does want to do something, that easement document will require a public hearing of any request to change it and notice of that hearing will be given to everyone within 500 ft. of the site. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to recommend approval of GPA. 85-2 and C-219, with the conditions discussed, and with the condition that the City Attorney draft the development agreement. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve LLA #7, per the conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 4a. A-1097 - James and Roxanne Axiine, Request for Design Review 4b. SDR-1600 -and Tentative Building Site Approval to remove an existing residence, construct a two-story, single family residence and'exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. on site allowable floor area standard at 20170 Tehlma Avenue, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; continued from June 26, 1985 (to be'continued to July 24, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to July 24, 1985. 5. SD-1584 - J. Lohr Properties, inc., Request for Tentative Map Approval for a 28-1ot subdivision on 10.2 acres in the R-1-12,500 zoning district at the northwestern corner of Via Escuela Drive and Glen Brae Drive; con- tinued from June 26, 1985 Staff explained that this matter had been continued so that there could be additional information relative to the grading, pad elevations and the structure heights. Commissioner' Schaefer expressed concern relative to the number of lots at the end of the cul-de-sacs, stating that she feels it is crowded. Staff explained the frontage for those lots and noted that they are within the ordinance standards. They also noted that the homes will be coming before the Commission for Design Review. The public hearing was opened at 8:21 p.m. Jerry Lohr, the applicant, stated that three-car garages seem to be standard, but a tandum garage has a 'lot of merit. He added that he does not anticipate any problem with the lots and described the garages. Staff discussed the height changes in the subdivision. Dr. Wood stated that he he backs up to lots 5 and 6, and Mr. Lohr has agreed to lower the pad on Lot 6 to help his view. He expressed concern with Lot 7 as a possible two-story with a 26 ft. height. He asked that Lot 7 be changed to a single-story with an 18 ft. height. He explained that the pad on Lot 7 is going to be another 2 ft. taller than the pad on Lot 6. He commented that he feels there are too many two-stories in the subdivision. The pad elevations' were discussed. Mr. Lohr stated that he did not have a problem with limiting Lot 7 to a single story. He commented that he would like to keep as much flexibility in the subdivision as possible, and probably will have 8-10 two-stories. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 SD-1584 Commissioner Siegfried agreed with Mr. Lohr, stating that the Commission does not want this to end up with all single-story, massive homes, spread all over the lots. He added that the Commission should put some caps so the homes are not too high, yet allow some flexibility. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve SD-1584, per Exhibit B, with the modified conditions, and in addition the height shall be reduced to 18 ft. on Lot 7. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. There was also a consensus to change the conditions in the Staff Report dealing with height limits and pad elevations; specifically Condition I on page 8, to reflect what is on the exhibit, and to have a blanket 26 ft. height limit on any lot that is not otherwise specified in the conditions. The vote was taken on the motion to approve SD-1584. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. 6. A-1101 - Mr. and Mrs. Sudin.Vittal, Request for Design Review Approval for a new,. two-story single family residence on a hillside lot which exceeds the 6,200 sqo ft. standard at 15265 Montalvo Heights Court in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from June 26, 1985 (to be continued to July 24, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to July 24, 1985. 7. SUP-11 - Vuka Stepovich, 14233 Old Wood Road, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing, detached,one- story second unit in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from February 27, 1985 (to be continued to September 25, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985. 8a. GPA 85-3- Ary Investments, Consider Amending the General Plan and 8b. C-225 - Zoning Designations of a .78 acre property at 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road from Residential-Medium Density Single Family (M-10) to Retail Commercial and from R-1-10,000 to C-N (Neighborhood Commercial) The application was explained by Staff, indicating that they were recommending denial because the parking is insufficient and the noise relative to any commercial use here would be a problem for the adjacent residential. They added that they feel the proposal is incompatible with the residential surroundings. The correspondence received on the proposal was noted. A petition from Mary Lou Taylor with 9 signatures, in favor of the proposal, was submitted. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Edna Young, the applicant, explained that they had purchased this property with the intention of moving both their residence and the art gallery which they own in San Jose. She explained that Ary Investments is a four-family corporation. She noted that they do have a 1973 letter on stationary from the City, written to Alice Schrager, regarding a grandfather clause. She referenced their letter describing the proposed operation of the gallery. Ms. Young stated that the gallery use is lower than a residential use that would utilize six bedrooms. She cited the history of the site, noting that there have been no complaints from neighbors regarding the usage over the last 25 years. She pointed out that the home is on the Heritage Commission's inventory and they would consider applying for landmark status with that Commission. She added that.they would be glad to abide by reasonable conditions put on a conditional use permit to make it compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 GPA 85-3, C-225 Young suggested that if the Commission has concern about controlling uses in the future, one possible. alternative would be to expand the borders of the Village to include this property and develop some special rules that would allow the gallery, keeping it a residence. She added that the home could also revert back to residential at the time they would sell or vacate the property. She stated that they would appreciate a study session with the Commission, adding that they do not feel they are asking for any different kind of use than has been consistently in the home and on the property for the last 25 years, and would like to discuss any adjustments that the Commission feels might be necessary. She submitted letters in favor of the proposal, the deed, and some signatures of people who live in Saratoga, in support. The hours of the operation were discussed. She clarified that all business of the gallery could be conducted by appointment. Steve Richard spoke in favor of the application, stating that he had always considered the Schrager property to be a commercial venture and urged the Commission to recommend approval. He commented that the new neighbors certainly were aware of the commercial development that was there when they purchased the property, and he feels this would be an asset to the longstanding neighbors and would not impact the value of their property or their life style. Richard Arian, 20160 Mendelsohn Lane, spoke in favor of the application, stating that he feels the Youngs would be a wonderful asset to the City and the use is perfect for the building. Tom Tish, 14735 Aloha, spoke in favor of the application, stating that he has known the Youngs for a long time and also the Schrager gallery. He commented that he feels it would be an outstanding addition to the City and submitted a letter to that effect. Mr. Tish noted the other commercial uses in the neighborhood. John Witkin, 14020 Pike Road, spoke in favor, stating that he feels the Youngs should be allowed to use their talent in this community. Ken Rodriquez, architect, stated that he has known the Youngs for eight years, both on a professional level and as a homeowner. He noted their integrity and commented on the availability of parking at their present gallery. He commented that he feels that the driveway in front of the Schrager mansion would support very adequately the amount of cars that typically the use has generated. Mr. Rodriquez commented on the quality of their gallery. He stated that he feels that it would be an asset to the community to have this use, which is an appointment only type of traffic, vs. a high and walking traffic. He noted the low noise involved with their operation. Debbie Rodriquez stated that she was a former neighbor of the Youngs and spoke in favor of the application from a personal standpoint. Terry Rose, Carnelian Glen, spoke in favor of the application, stating that he has personally known the Youngs for years and has done business with them. He stated that he feels the intended use of this building is consistent with the use that has been there for many years. Betty Maus, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that she has lived next door to the property for thirty-three years and spoke in opposition to the application. She commented that she has a feel for the historical significance of the area. She indicated that Greg Grodhouse would speak further for her this evening. Jack Christian, President of Montal'vo-Mendelsohn Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition. He commented that one day there could be a 7-11 on the same site if it is rezoned. He stated that he does not feel that people are thinking to the future. He added that that operation has existed for twenty some odd years without rezoning, and he does not see any need to rezone it now. He commented that, if the City wants that Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 GPA 85-3 and C-225 gallery to be there, there must be some way to do it without rezoning. Commissioner Siegfried asked the people in opposition to indicate if the issue was (a) rezoning commercial or (b) the gallery operation, and whether if a way was found to allow this gallery, would they be opposed to that. Mr. Christian stated that their homeowners group does not want a zoning change, and they have no opposition to the gallery on the site. Greg Grodhouse, 20379 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, spoke in opposition, representing the Davies, the Coughlans, Ms. Maas, the Mattis family, the Campbells, and himself. He indicated that these are the families most affected, in that they border the property. He submitted a petition, signed by 73 people, in opposition to the application. He stated that they all feel that the Youngs operate a very quality gallery, are nice people, and they welcome them to Saratoga. However, they all support the arts, noting that they just loaned their neighborhood in support of the San Jose Symphony for the Designer Showcase, but would like the Youngs to place the gallery in a place of commerce. Mr. Grodhouse commented that the grandfather clause, if there was one, expired and the neighborhood would like the property to be used as stated. He gave a history of the site, indicating that in 1979 it had been subdivided and two additional homes were formed. Therefore, the buffer between this property and the other homes has been reduced by these additional homes. Mr. Grodhouse noted that they share common easements and private easements. He pointed out other commercial uses that could go on this property if it is rezoned. He also discussed the access to the property and the potential traffic. He stated that he explored the grandfather clause when he purchased his property, and there is certainly a difference in saying. that you purchase a property with a limited time left for a home business, vs. saying that you purchase the property when it has a full retail use. Mr. Grodhouse pointed out the residential in the area along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. He urged the Commission to reject the application and maintain the consistency of past decisions. He clarified that they are opposed to the rezoning and any use other than residential. Suzanne Lorshbaugh, 14475 Oak Place, spoke in opposition to rezoning to commercial use and the property 'being used for anything other than a residence. She gave the history of the structure, stating that it is a private residence. She discussed the traffic problem in the neighborhood already caused by the Federated Church, stating that this use would add more. She stated that they have a very historical neighborhood, and she feels that they are under severe serious attack from commercialism in their neighborhood. She commented that she is wondering how far is it the City's intention to extend the business district or the Village area of Saratoga. She explained that she is in the process of petitioning for historical landmark status of her home, and are interested in possibly the whole neighborhood being designated as such. She added that this is a residential area, not commercial. Frank Mattis, the next-door neighbor, stated that if this is rezoned commercial he will be sandwiched in between commercial, and he added that his property value will decrease. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, stated that she lives directly on the alley which would become the ingress and egress for the site. She noted that Charlotte Wendell lent support to the application as an individual, and was not speaking for the Montalvo Board. John Saunders, Aloha Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application. He noted the traffic and parking involved with the Showcase Mansion. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger asked if the nonconforming use that was enjoyed by the gallery and the antiqueshop was in effect solely because this operation was ongoing before the City's incorporation. The City - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 GPA 85-3 and C-225 Attorney stated that was his understanding, and that use has expired. He explained that the City's ordinance has never contained a grandfather clause beyond the amortization period, and that period would have expired long ago. He commented that there is another provision in the ordinance that says once a use is abandoned for 90 days, then regardless of the amortization period, it expires by reason of that 90-day termination of use. He explained that the particular use of this property as an antique shop was discontinued for more than 90 days, so the nonconforming use has both expired and been abandoned. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she is not anti-arts, and she thinks that were this building located in any other area, it would be a wonderful use. However, having been very active in the General Plan process, she feels very strongly about the Land Use Element, which states that anything that is presently designated on the General Plan as residential shall stay that way and the City shall not expand commercial into that which is residential.. She added that it is her duty as a Commissioner to make sure that is upheld, and she sees no need to change it. Commissioner Burger agreed and added that the proposed use by the Youngs would, in another area, be ideal and she welcomes it into Saratoga. She stated that the problem the Planning Commission is faced with is that the only way that use can be brought into that building is by rezoning, and she feels that would essentially be spot zoning. She commented that she feels that is very dangerous, because as soon as it is zoned commercial the City does not have any protection for the future as to what sort of a commercial establishment goes in there. Therefore, for that reason alone she would vote against the application. Commissioner Siegfried concurred. He stated that, having been on the Commission for a long period of time and being sensitive to not expanding commercial areas into residential areas, he would have to vote against the application. Commissioner Peterson stated that he wished he could find a way to support the gallery there in a very limited use. However, he cannot support a change to the General Plan or the rezoning because of lack of parking, the proximity to the existing residential, plus the fact that it is in a sense spot zoning. CommissionerJ. Harris moved to recommend denial of GPA 85-3and C-225. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was pointed out that this matter will be noticed for August 7, 1985 to the City Council. Discussion followed on the possibility of operating a gallery as a home occupation. The City Attorney stated that the present Home Occupation Ordinance would not allow this activity to be conducted in a residential zone by reason of the fact that (1) There are sales being conducted on the premises, and (2) There are employees on the premises. He stated that it might be possible, but some of the issues may not be acceptable, to have the Village boundaries drawn to include this parcel, with the understanding that the underlying parcels are still zoned residential, and developing a special Home Occupation Ordinance that is applicable only to the Village. He explained that that would be under a use permit process. The property would remain residentially zoned, and there could be a home occupation in that Village district, which would become a separate zoning district overlay, that would allow it to operate under a use permit. He added that the only difference between that type of home occupation and a home occupation in other residential districts would be that this would require a use permit; it would allow employees, and it would allow on-site sales. He explained that the problem with that is that there may be some objection to drawing the Village boundaries to include these properties, even though the inclusion of the properties within the Village would not change the zoning. He added that additional language could be added to reaffirm the policy that the properties remain residential. - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 GPA 85-3 and C-225 Chairman Peterson commented that he and Commissioner Siegfried were on the Village Task Force, and they spent a lot of time looking at the Village and the boundaries. He indicated that they had discussed that very item, and he stated that he does not feel there is much support from the Village Task Force level to i-nclude the three or four residences in question. Break - 9:15 - 9:35 p.m. 9a. A-1105 - Brett Cross, Request for Design Review Approval to 9b. V-704 - allow a second-story addition to an existing one-story residence and Variance Approval to provide one covered parking space where two are required at 12601 Paseo Cerro, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district Staff explained the project, stating that they were recommending approval of the design review and denial of the variance. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the usable yard space in the rear appears to be small. She commented that there is heavy screening on both sides of the lot. She added that there is very little room on either side of the home to accommodate a driveway, since the lot is substandard in width.' She stated that the placement of the garage in the rear yard would necessitate a change in the proposed design of the home. The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Cross, the applicant, submitted a model of the proposal. He commented that, looking at the plans, the structure looks flat and high. However, in viewing the model it does not appear that way. He described the design, noting that there are no windows on the southerly side, in order to avoid impacting the neighbor's view. He noted the letter from the neighbor, in support of the project. He discussed the parking area, stating that he did not want to place a two-car garage in the back yard because of needing space for children and heavy landscaping there. He discussed a tandem parking arrangement, stating that that would shade two windows which would eliminate 25% of the solar capacity. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she felt , since the use is being intensified so much, that it needs to have covered parking spaces, rather than having cars parked out in front which depreciates the value of a neighborhood. Mr. Cross stated that the only feasible way to get two covered parking spaces would.be to put a covered space in front of the garage, i.e., in tandem, and he indicated that that could be done. Discussion followed on this possibility and the solar aspect. Commissioner Siegfried asked if there is a way of extending the rear wall a little and the wall a little in the front, to have a tandem garage. Mr. Cross indicated that.it would probably be more feasible to come out from the front. Commissioner Peterson stated that he felt if there was a carport out in the .front it might make the design more attractive. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus to support a carport in tandem. It was clarified to Mr. Cross that the code says that a carport must be 9-1/2 ft. wide, and anything outside of that could be open. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1105, per the Staff Report dated July 1, 1985 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was noted that if Mr. Cross has the covered parking he does not need the variance. Therefore, Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V-704. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 10a. A-1106 - Timothy and Theresa Sherer, Request for Design Review 10b. V-702 - Approval to allow a three-story addition to an existing three-story residence and Variance Approval for the 32.8 ft. height of the residence which exceeds the 30 ft. height limit, and for the additions to maintain a 21 ft. front yard setback where 30 ft. is required and to maintain an 18 ft. rear yard setback where 20 ft. is required at 15172 Peach Hill Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district The proposal was described by Staff, recommending approval of the variance for the front and rear yard setbacks and the design review, and denial of the height variance, having been unable to make the findings. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that there are no possible privacy impacts from the height of the existing roof because the site is very heavily wooded. The public hearing was opened at 9:56 p.m. Frank Allen, the architect, submitted a model of the house and addressed the height of the roof. He discussed the design relative to the existing trees and the solar panels. He submitted two letters in support of the proposal and a photograph, showing the existing house. Staff suggested, relative to the trees and the bridging foundation, that the City Horticulturist review this for any additional recommendations at the expense of the applicant. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he does not have a problem with the 32'8" height in this case. He pointed out that it is an existing structure and it does not add any visual impact on the neighborhood. He added that he does not think any kind of precedent is being set. Commissioner Peterson stated that, in looking at the plans, he was prepared to say that he would like to see the addition only 30 ft. However, looking at the model, he can see the architect's point and can support the 32'8" ft. Commissioner Burger agreed. Commissioner Burger moved to approve V-702 for the setback variance and the height variance, based on the fact that when making reference to the existing roof line, the proposed extension becomes more a part of the current home. It represents an unnecessary adjustment to the design of the home to lower the roof line 2 ft., because then it will look more like an addition. This way it becomes an integral part of the existing home. It is a common privilege for your home to look like it is all one piece; therefore, it is not a special privilege. Commissioner Siegfried noted for the record that, because the Commission has been so careful about heights, it is an existing home; it has absolutely no visual impact on the neighborhood, and we do want to preserve the integral nature of the home. It was noted that it is an unusual lot. Commis- sioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1106, per the Staff Report and Exhibits B and C, adding Condition #4 to state: "The City Horticulturist shall review the trees near the additions and the bridged foundation for the protection of those trees, at the expense of the applicant." Condition #1 was deleted. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0.. la. UP-584 - Bryce and Lova Reynolds, Request for Use Permit Approval llb. A-1110 - to allow an accessory structure to be located in the required rear yard 31 feet from the rear property line and Design Review Approval to exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. standard at 12182 Parker Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 UP-584 and A-1110 Staff explained the application, recommending approval of the design review relative to enclosure of the main structure and denial of the design review relative to the accessory structure. They stated that they are unable to make the findings on the use permit and recommend denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lots. She stated that the proposed accessory structure would most likely not be an impact to the eye; it is contingent, however, upon a lot of conditions, i.e. heavy landscaping. Discussion followed on the building envelope and the site development plan. The public hearing was opened at 10:15 p.m. Jeff Warner, design coordinator for the project, submitted a site plan and a rendering of the proposed accessory structure. He gave a presentation on the project, explaining the design. He described the landscaping, indicating that there are no privacy impacts to the neighbors. At Commissioner Schaefer's inquiry, Mr. Warner commented that they would consider a reversion to acreage. Commissioner Peterson noted the size of the structure and stated that there are guidelines. He asked if the applicant is willing to revert this to be one lot only, instead of the two that it is now. He added that if it were one lot, he certainly would not have any problem with the proposal. Bryce Reynolds, the applicant, stated that he would entertain combining the lots into one. He stated that they have landscaped both lots as if they were one. Discussion followed on the access. There was a consensus that there should be a reversion to acreage. The City Attorney suggested that it be conditioned to state that the two lots be combined into one. He explained that procedurally the City may simply want the applicant to record a new parcel map, rather than going through a reversion to acreage process. He stated that he would check with Staff to determine the best procedure. Mr. Reynolds stated that he has two separate deeds of trust with different lenders. The City Attorney commented that that could be a complication, because if it is combined, in effect a single parcel is created. He suggested that the Commission go ahead with the condition and let Staff work with the applicant to see if there is a problem. He stated that another alternative would be to continue the matter, have the applicant contact the respective lenders and find out what options are available, and bring the matter back to the Commission. There was a consensus to that effect, and also to vote on the design review of the deck at this time. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1110(a) for design review of the addition to the residence, per the Staff Report dated July 3, 1985 and Exhibits B and D. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was directed that UP-584 and A-1110(b) for the accessory structure be continued to August 28, 1985. 12a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1603 - St. Charles Street Investors 12b. V-700 - St. Charles Street'Investors, Request for Variance, 12c. A-1099 - Design Review and Tentative Building Site Approval for 12d. SDR-1603- a four (4) unit, three-story condominium project which would maintain a 14 ft. rear yard setback where 25 ft. is the minimum rear yard and would not provide a 5 ft. landscaping strip for a parking area required in the R-M-3000 zoning district at 20703 St. Charles Street - 11 - Planning Commission Page 12 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 SDR-1603, V-700 and A-1099 Staff explained the project, stating that the applicant is willing to modify the project such that some of the concerns expressed in the Staff Report could be accommodated, i.e. the reduction in the size of the units, therefore reducing the bulk. They stated that this might possibly eliminate the need for a variance. They suggested that the Commission can approve the Negative Declaration and the SDR, and continue the design review and variance applications, to allow the applicant to resubmit the drawing'showing those reductions for the Commission's review. They noted that the other alternative is to continue the entire matter and deal with it when the drawing has been resubmitted. Commissioner'Burger gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the site. She indicated that it appears there will be no privacy impacts from the proposed development. The public hearing was opened at 10:32 p.m. Bill Heiss, the engineer, stated that the applicant has agreed to redesign based upon the Staff Report. He requested that the Commission proceed with the SDR and continue the design review. It was determined that the variance would also be continued, in case a variance is necessary with the new submittal. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1603. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve SDR-1603, per the Staff Report. commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was directed that V-700 and A-1099 be continued to August 14, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS 13. EP-20 - Robert Pollack, Request for Encroachment Permit for second floor wall and planter on 3rd Street side of 14502 Big Basin Street. Staff described the application, recommending denial. Warren Held, the architect, discussed the need for an encroachment permit. The planter in question was discussed and Mr. Pollack described the ground planting area underneath the planter. There was a consensus that the matter should be continued to a study session, so that the Commission can review the elevations. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on July 16, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Neal Cabrinha dated June 28, 1985, regarding Remodeling at 14561 Big Basin Way. Mr. Cabrinha indicated that he was the attorney for Benz and Poellot and described the request. After discussion the Planning Commission made the interpretation that if the total square footage of t.he proposal is equal to or less than the existing structure, reassessment of the parking will not be required. 2. Letter from Richard Geno dated July 3, 1985, requesting Modification to a Condition of Design Review Approval A-983. The architect for the project explained the request. Staff noted that the deck now is 3-1/2 ft., and Condition #9 of the Staff Report states that decks in the setback areas cannot exceed 6" in height. After discussion there was a consensus to delete Condition #9. - 12 - Planning Commission Page 13 Minutes - Meeting 7/10/85 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 3. Letter from Universal.Enterprises Co. dated July 1, 1985, requesting Modification to a Condition of Design Review Approval A-1090. Mr. Joe Wu, representing Mr. and Mrs. Yang, discussed the trees on the site. After discussion there was a consensus to have the trees in question reviewed by the City Horticulturist, and if he agrees to their removal a tree removal permit will be issued. 4. Letter from Warren Heid, dated July 8, 1985, re a stairwell to the basement area of the Previte home. Mr. Heid discussed the request, and after discussion it was the consensus that the basement would not be interpreted as a third story. Oral by Commission 1. It was determined that2Commissioners B. Harris and Schaefer will alternate on the Land Use Committee, and Commissioner Siegfried will replace Commissioner J. Harris for the time being on the Site Review Committee. 2. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for ;attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Siegfried moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. RespectfUily 'submitted, 'Secretary. RSS:cd - 13 -