Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 14, 1985 :- 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines and Schaefer Absent: Commissioners B. Harris ~nd Siegfried Minutes The following change was made to the minutes of July 24, 1985: On page 5, the third paragraph, the words "for the Tollgate Subdivision" should be added to the third sentence after the words "water tanks". Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of July 24, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Tibor Szalay, Paul Avenue, explained that he had previously applied for several variances for an addition, one of which was for a 3'4" setback from the property line. He stated that he had proceeded with construction and now is told by the Building Department that the setback is less than 3'4" and the property will have to be surveyed. Mr. Szalay stated that the surveyor and he had discovered that the markers have been taken out on the street. He'described the procedure the surveyor will have to use, at a cost of $75.00 per hour, and asked that the existing property line be used.. Staff explained that the building permit had been issued on the plans submitted by the applicant. They stated that the inspector had found a 30" measurement from the fence line and the applicant cannot verify that the fence is on the property line. Therefore, it is necessary that the property line be established. They added that if the setback is found to be 2'6", then (1) a new variance would be needed for that dimension, 2) he would be encroaching beyond the 100 ft. limitation that Staff has the authority to grant for the square footage within a setback, and (3) any wall that is closer than 3' to the property line requires a fire wall. (This matter was continued until after the public hearings). Discussion followed on the markers. Staff clarified that a variance was not actually processed for the 3'4" setback, since it is the policy that you can expand along a nonconforming line provided that the addition in the nonconforming setback does not exceed 100 sq. ft. They pointed out that it was stated in the Staff Report that the Building Department would probably require verification in the field. The City Attorney suggested that one area of compromise might be if the Commission can express its consensus to favorably consider a variance application, absent a survey, the applicant could proceed with construction on the stipulation that he construct a one-hour fire wall and eliminate a window. The neighbors expressed their support for Mr. Szalay to proceed with his construction. Staff stated that they would have to verify that the Planning Commission has the authority to pull a redtag, or if that is the authority of the City Council. The City Attorney' commented that if there is a consensus to act favorably upon a variance when it is presented, he and Staff can determine some process for the applicant to resume construction. He added this would be on the assumption that (1) a variance is needed because there is no survey to indicate otherwise, and (2) that the construction proceed with a One-hour fire wall so it would meet Building Code requirements even if there was an assumed 2 ft. setback. There was a consensus to that effect. The. City Attorney added that the applicant should determine some figure for a range of variance without a survey, based upon the measurement the inspector made of the fence line and where he felt the property line may have been. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 Oral (cont.) Greg Grodhouse, 20379 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, spoke relative to the Schrager/Young application, stating that the City Council has asked that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration to see if the boundaries of the Village should be moved. He asked that notice of any meetings regarding this be publicized and reiterated their opposition to the rezoning, any change of conditional use permits or ordinances, or any change to the Village boundary and uses there. He asked that all of the letters and data submitted by them be forwarded to the meetings relative to the Village boundaries. It was noted that options for the Village Plan will be discussed by the Planning Commission at their study session on August 20, 1985. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 2a. UP-586 - Los Gatos Joint Union High School District, Request for 2b. A-1119 - Use Permit Approval for a 7 ft. sound wall in the rear yard and Design Review Approval for landscape plans for Tract 7499, Herriman Avenue, near River Ranch Circle, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district Commissioner Burger -moved to approve the item listed above. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 3-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. A-1053 - Robert and Gay Bohn, Request for Design Review Approval Mod. for a new, two-story single family residence over 6200 sq. ft. in the NHR district at 14124 Pike Road; continued from June 26, 1985 (to be continued to August 28, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to August 28, 1985. 4a. V-700 - St. Charles Street Investors, Request for Variance and 4b. A-1099 - Design Review for a four (4) unit, three-story condomin- ium project which would maintain a 14 ft. rear yard set- back 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; continued from July 10, 1985 Staff explained the present proposal, noting that the variance is no longer needed and has been withdrawn. They commented that they are recommending denial of the Design Review. The size of the units was discussed. Staff discussed the number of square footage in other developments in the City. The public hearing was opened at 7:56 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, indicated that they have reduced the size of the units from the original submittal, which has resulted in meeting all the requirements for the setbacks. He discussed the design and size of the units, the grading, the driveway and the landscaping. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the landscaping strip be a 2 or 3 ft. minimum in the area west of the driveway and the emergency access. She also inquired about possible reduction of the units and a less boxy design. Commissioner Pines commented that he feels the project appears somewhat bulky; however, he does not believe it is necessarily because of the size of the units. He stated that he feels it is perhaps because of the architectural treatment. Discussion followed on the materials used. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 A-1099 Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1099, making the findings that the cut and fill on the grading is less than was previously proposed, and also the size of the units are relatively the same size as other condominium units in the Village closeby. She added that the bulk of the units will be mitigated by the fact that the lot is secluded. She commented that in her opinion the bulkiest portion of the units does face inward towards one another, which will reduce the perceived bulkiness from outside the lot. She stated that the approval is per the Staff Report, with the added condition that there will be a 3 ft. landscaping strip in the area west of the driveway and the emergency access. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 5. A-1101 - Mr. and Mrs. Sudin Vittal, Request for Design Review Approal for a new, two-story single family residence on a hillside lot which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. stan- dard at 15265 Montalvo Heights Court in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from July 24, 1985 (to be continued) It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985. 6a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1602 - Tom and Ann Copenhagen 6b. SDR-1602 -Tom and Ann Copenhagen, Request for Tentative Building 6c. A-1107 - Site Approval for a three (3) lot subdivision of a 14 acre site with an average slope of 31%, and Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family residence on lot B in the NHR zoning district at 14440 Pike Road; continued from July 24, 1985 (to be continued to August 28, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to August 28, 1985. 7a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1605 - George Hwang 7b. SDR-1605 -George Hwang, Request for Building Site and Design A-1102 - Review Approvals for a new, two-story single family dwelling which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. standard and is over 24 ft. in height, on a greater than 10% slope at 19288 Bainter Avenue in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County to be annexed to the City and pre- zoned HC-RD; continued from July 24, 1985 Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval of the Building Site and denial of the Design Review, having been unable to make the findings. They noted that the City Council will be acting on the annexation to the City 'at their next meeting. Staff indicated that they had received new plans from the applicant on Friday, which show that the house has been moved. They commented that it now has a rear yard setback of 98 ft. vs. 52 ft., and the grading was minimized somewhat. They added that they still believe that the impervious coverage is over the 15,000 sq. ft. allowed, but they believe that it can be brought down to the requirement. They indicated that the applicant's figures now show the square footage to be 7108 sq. ft., and the Staff's calculations show 7546 sq. ft. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. The City Attorney explained that the annexation has nothing to do with the nature of the development; it would simply incorporate the property into the City boundaries. He added that the annexation is a technical function of the Council, and there will be no public hearing conducted on it. He commented that the development of the site, however, is the subject of this hearing. - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 SDR-1605 and A-1102 William Young, representing the applicant, discussed the revised plan. He indicated that the greenhouse is now a trellis, and explained the changes made to the plan. He showed a model of the revised plan, explaining the contours and grading. Mr. Young submitted letters in support of the proposal. Wanda Alexandra stated that she was not here to protest a house on the property; however, she would like to ask for a delay in any decision until all the facts are known and considered relative to the total proposal. She commented that she feels the proceeding is out of order because the property is not now in the City. She indicated that she feels that annexation is a very serious matter in this application, and asked if environmental consideration had been given to the application. Staff explained that essentially the annexation will be categorically exempt under CEQA provisions. The City Attorney commented that the annexation is proceeding under a special section of the Government Code as it relates exclusively to Santa Clara County. Ms. Alexandra stated that she believes that there is an EIR required before the process can proceed, and will look into that t.horoughly. She added that this kind of annexation is contrary to the spirit of the County and Saratoga's General Plans and the concept of an urban service area. She commented that this will be pushing into a very unstable area, citing a landslide in the area. She asked who would be liable when a dangerous situation results. She asked that the Commission not make a decision tonight, but wait until this matter can be reviewed thoroughly. Arthur Slemens, Woodbury Drive, stated that he feels this is spot annexation. He commented that .this property is not contiguous to Saratoga, but is really an island. He spoke against the size of the home and the location, stating that it should be moved another 50 ft. down the hill. He expressed his concern regarding the slope and the runoff. He also commented that plantings should be restricted so as not to obstruct the neighbors' views. Staff clarified that the property is contiguous to the City of Saratoga and is not separated from the City by an incorporated area. Fran Lawrenson stated that she lives down the hill from this house and would be catching the water. She expressed concern about the unstable earth and the removal of it and type of excavation necessary for the building of this home Dr. Richard Sogg, 19262 Hidden Hill Road, spoke in opposition to the grading and discussed the shifting of the hill. Mel Wright stated that his property backs up to the easement road. He expressed concern relative to the drainage. He submitted a letter from Mrs. Joyce Consoli expressing her concerns. Suzanne Shankle, Ravine ~oad, asked about the location of the pool. Mr. Young explained the changes to her that have been made in the plan. She indicated that she still does not feel good about the size of this very large house, and does not feel it is appropriate because of the grading and weakening of the hillside. Diane Jefferson, 15895 Ravine Road, expressed concern about the excavation and the unstable hills. Bill Robson, Ravine Road, stated that he does not object to a home on this property; however, he does object to the size, bulk and facade of this structure relative to the rest of the neighborhood. He expressed concern about the grading, commenting on the fragile condition of the land. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 SDR-1605 and A-1102 Discussion followed on the geology of the site. Chairman Peterson stated that he is absolutely satisfied that Saratoga is on the leading edge of doing the right things to mitigate the concerns expressed. Dave Call stated that he is involved with the Styblo property, which will be most impacted by this development. He expressed concern that if this property is not handled properly it will decrease the value of the Styblo property. He submitted a topo map of the property, indicating that there is only one area where a home can be built. Mr. Call noted that the proposed house has now been moved closer to that site and suggested that it be moved back to the location where it was originally. Mrs. Styblo expressed concern about the the fact that the proposed home is now so close to her building site° Mr. Young discussed options that could be used on the Styblo property. He also addressed the drainage, stating that the water should be in a conduit and they have an easement that takes it down to Redberry. He stated that whatever proper engineering solution is required for drainage problems, they will be incorporated and executed. He indicated that they would be doing more testing on the soil at the time of construction, and they will be consulting the City Geologist at that time. Mr. Young discussed the grading on the site. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. At Commissioner Burger's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that he does not believe that these proceedings are out of order. He commented that any approval would be conditioned upon the property being annexed. He added that the City views the annexation more as a formality, mainly because the applicant is here because the County has insisted that they be annexed. He explained that when there is a single lot such as this, contiguous to the City, which is within our urban service area and the owner wants to develop, it has been the practice of the County to tell him to annex to the City first. He added that the lot has already been prezoned by the City. He commented that the annexation will be based upon certain findings, but they do not relate necessarily to the development and the concerns raised by the neighbors this evening. Staff explained that the County.has a policy that within the urban service area, if somebody wants to develop and they are contiguous with the City, they need to come to the'City first. The City then either has to annex them or waive the rights to annexation. They added that if the City waives the rights then the County would let the applicant develop within the County. The standards of developing in the City and in the County were discussed. Discussion followed on the stability of the property. Staff noted that there is a Condition III-A.1 requiring the geology per the City Geologist's letters. Commissioner pines expressed his concern regarding the stability. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the stability can be dealt with through the City Geologist's comments and Mrs. Young's efforts. She stated that she would be willing to consider approving this in the new location because she feels the setbacks are appropriate. She indicated that her only concern is the size of the home, and she questioned the size of the chimney. Commissioner Pines commented that he feels this is essentially a one- story house, and he feels that the landscaping will break up the sense of bulk. He stated that he thinks that because of the way you look up at the house, and because the two wings step back, it breaks up the perception of bulk. The conditions for the road improvement were discussed. Staff explained that the easement is 16 feet. Commissioner J. Harris commented. that she feels this house is too big - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 SDR-1605 and A-1102 for the steepness of the hill and she will vote against it. Chairman Peterson noted the concern regarding drainage and slides. He stated that he feels that if the City Geologist has said that he thinks the concerns can be mitigated, he would have to agree. He commented that, relative to the size, since there is 3-1/2 acres of land, he could support 10% above the 6200 sq. ft., or something in the 7000 sq. ft. range. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR- 1605. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR-1605, per the Staf Report dated August 1, 1985 and Exhibit B-l, changing Condition II-F to read: "Construct an access road 14 ft. wide with 1 ft. shoulders, and inserting the dates of July 10, 1985 and July 19, 1985 as the City Geologist's letters. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1102, making the following findings: #1 - Interference with the views is not unreasonable as the house has been moved down the slope, and therefore the pad height has been reduced. #2 - The natural landscape has been preserved by the saving of the two large pine trees, and given the difficulty with the geology, the driveway placement is perhaps done the best way possible in order to minimize the impact on the land. #3 and #4 - These would be made jointly by adding a condition that the home be no larger than 7000 sq. ft. per Staff calculation, and that the impervious coverage not exceed 15,000 sq.'ft. She explained that by adding those conditions she would be able to make the findings. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that a condition be added that the height of the trees planted behind the home not exceed the height of the house. Commissioner Burger amended her motion to add to Condition #5, "The height of the trees planted along the southern property line of the home are not to exceed the height of the roof at maturity." Commissioner Pines pointed out that the ground behind the house is higher than the house. He stated that he feels that it should be conditioned by intent rather than by height. There was a consensus to that effect, and Commissioner Pines seconded the amendment. The amended motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. She stated that she voted no because of the size of the home and the incompatibility with the homes surrounding it. The appeal period was noted. Break - 10:00 - 10:15 p.m. 8a. Negative Declaration - SD-1608 - Joseph L. Teresi 8b. SD-1608 - Joseph L. Teresi, Request for Tentative Subdivision 8c. A-1114 - Approval and Design Review Approval for 21 multi- family dwelling units near the southeast corner of Bucknall and Saratoga Avenues, in the R-M-5000 PC zoning district Staff gave the history of the project and explained the current proposal. The access was discussed. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels there is a need for a play area for children. The public hearing was opened at 10:19 p.m. Ken Riding, of A-M Company, gave a presentation on the project. He discussed the changes made, stating that they have tried to comply with everything discussed at the study session. He discussed the Staff Report conditions, and Mr. Riding was asked to work with the City office - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 SD-1608 and A-1114 relative to the CC&Rs. Mr. Riding'discussed the condition for the fire hydrant, asking that it be modified so they could do some of the work before the water is put in. Staff explained that this is a specific condition of the Fire Districts. They suggested that the project be conditioned as written, and if the district gives a waiver it can be dealt with accordingly. Bob Black, 12750 Paseo Presada, asked for a playground for the children. He addressed the traffic and access. It was clarified to him that there is an ingress/egress on Saratoga Avenue. Ben Griner, from Saratoga Parkside~ thanked the applicant for providing the 25 ft. setback next to their development. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the parking in front of the garages. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern about the setbacks, stating that she feels there should be 25 ft. setbacks around the whole project. She commented that she thinks this is a very dense project and that the parking is. very.unr. ealistic. She added that she would not be voting for it. Chairman Peterson stated that he felt the applicant had complied with the Commission's suggestions at the study session. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she has felt all along that the units are too big, and noted the lack of parking at some of the large units. Commissioner Burger commented that she voted for the project before. She stated that she thought it was appropriate then and she still feels it is appropriate. She noted the loss of the turnaround and the lengths of the driveways, but pointed out that some of the setbacks have been increased. She indicated she could vote for the project, given the Staff recommendations. Commissioner Pines stated that essentially he has no problem with the project as presented. Commissioner J. Harris suggested a compromise, reducing #3, #4 and #5, and #11 through #19 in size to get parking spaces in front of the garages and to provide a turnaround at #12 and #15. Mr. Riding commented that they could do a lot of the things discussed, but it would take a lot of the living architectural aspects away from the houses. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD- 1608. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SD-1608, per the Staff Report dated August 6, 1985 and Exhibit B, deleting Condition II-L relative to the turnaround. She commented that relative to Condition VIII-D, landscaping and irrigation improvements probably should not be installed until the construction has reached a pointed where they are not going to drive or walk over or dump cement over the new landscaping. Staff suggested that perhaps landscaping of the area essentially outside of the wall on Saratoga and Bucknall could be installed and the wall installed, which would protect it from damage during construction. The landscaping of the common area might be left for a time when there is less likelihood of it being damaged, and the landscaping outside the wall would be put in immediately.upon completion of the wall. It was determined to modify Condition VIII-D to reflect that intent. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners J. Harris and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1114, per the Staff Report dated August 6, 1985 and Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, H and I, deleting Condition #1, Condition #2 shall read 5 instead of 8 units, Condition #3b changed - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 SD-1608 and A-1114 from 15 ft. to 25 ft., Condition #3d to read "excluding bay windows", Condition #3e to relate to the setbacks as 'provided on the plans currently before the Commission, and Condition #4 changed to read 6 ft. instead of 20 ft. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners J. Harris and Schaefer dissenting. 9. A-1116 - Hashem and Nasrin Farr, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard at 15146 Sperry Lane (Tract 5995, Lot 4), in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal, stating that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site in relationship to the neighbors. The public hearing was opened at 11:09 p.m. Alexander Henson, attorney representing the Farrs, gave a presentation on the project, discussing the size of the home and other homes in the area. The calculation of square footage was addressed. He stated that he did not feel there was an interference with the view of the other homes in the area. He asked that Condition #3 be modified to read that a bond be posted to implement the landscaping plan at a time when both houses are occupied. The architect discussed the design of the proposed home, commenting that it does not interfere with the future house to the west. He discussed the calculation of the floor area and the size of the home. Wayne Leposavic referenced the letter he had sent, opposing the proposed home. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger stated that she did not have any concerns regarding the placement of the home on the lot. However, the lot is 1.3 acres, and her concerns regarding square footage are always in relation to the size of the lot. She commented that she believes that the square footage of this home is excessive for the lot size, and she also feels that the 30 ft. height in a hillside area like this may also be a bit excessive. Staff clarified that the tennis court is not part of this application and the landscaping in the rear would not be part of the approval. Commissioner Peterson expressed concern that this application will be approved with the proposed grading, and then the applicant will come in at a later date lasking for a tennis court, with more grading involved, etc. Commissioner Pines stated that the tennis court is on the plan and he feels it has to be considered, even though it is not approved. He commented that he thinks the tennis court is one of the reasons why the house has been put into the narrowest part of the lot. He indicated that he did not have a problem with the size of the house. He commented that his initial feeling was that'if the house were moved down the hill and towards the tennis court, it might fit on the site very nicely and not have much of an impact on the houses around it. Mr. Henson indicated that the location of the house is not dictated by the tennis court. He explained that the location of the house is because of the overall slope of the lot, and if it is moved further to the south it will increase the slope. He stated that it could be conditioned that a tennis court not be allowed. Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 A-1116 The architect stated that if the house is moved further down the hill the swimming pool will have to be moved. There was a consensus by the Commission that this matter should be agendized for a study session to resolve some of the concerns, and the applicant agreed. It was pointed out to the applicant that the concerns are excessive height, excessive size and location on the lot relative to view impact, and these should be addressed at the study session. It was directed that this matter be continued to a.study session on September 3, 1985 and the regular meeting of September 11, 1985. Mr. Henson was asked to get the definition of calculation of square footage from Staff. 10a. A-1117 - Rolston Johnson, Request for Design Review Approval 10b. A-1118 - for the construction of a two-story single family residence on Parcel B and Parcel C at the southwest corner of Quito and Sobey Roads (14229 and 14269 Quito Road), Site Modification for the proposed driveway on Parcel B, and approval of the grading permit to move more than 10000 cubic yards of dirt on each site Staff explained the applications, recommending approval, with the condition that the structures be reduced in height, and the applicant has submitted revised plans. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the concern by Staff regarding the driveway slope was noted and the applicant is going to address that concern, as well as the height. She discussed the access and the screening on the lot. The public hearing was opened at 11:40 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, explained the changes made to the plan to meet the 30 ft. height. He stated that he feels it is an important feature of the house to have the circular driveway because of the large setback from Quito Road. He addressed the trees on site. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1117 and A-1118, per the Staff Report dated August 8, 1985 and Exhibits B-1 through E-1. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. lla. Negative Declaration - SDR-1606 - Smilja Maynard llb. SDR-1606 -Smilja Maynard, Request for Tentative Subdivision llc. V-703 - Approval for two (2) lots and Variance Approval for .one (1) lot to have a width of less than 150' at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Staff explained. the application, recommending approval of the Variance and Building Site Approval. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that it was difficult to walk the land from Bainter. She commented that she feels that access will be difficult because a bridge will have to be built, but she thinks that the end result would be a very secl'uded entrance to a lot that would hardly be visible. The public hearing was opened at 11:47 p.m. Mrs. Maynard appeared, asking that the Commission approve the application. Donald Lucas, resident of the parcel that is contiguous to the Maynard property. He discussed the previous variance application and described the area. He stated that he felt that one of the reasons the previous - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 application was denied was because the Commission did not feel that one landowner should be allowed to disrupt this very serene and peaceful area to build on a nonconforming lot. He described the lot, asking that the Commission deny the variance request. Commissioner Burger clarified that the Land Use Committee could not access the property off of Bainter, and she thinks that the reason was that there is no bridge currently. Mr. Lucas stated that they could give the Committee access off of Highway 9, and then they could really see how a home at the bottom of that large area really would disrupt the open space. Mrs. Maynard explained that she does not need that much property and wants to sell Lot B because it is not feasible for her to keep it. She described the site. Frederick Door, owner of the property on Bainter, across the creek, expressed the concern that Bainter would not be left open for the public to use. He explained that Mrs. Maynard's property goes to the center of Bainter Avenue and she has erected posts there now which block the public. Staff explained that the center line of the creek is the City limit line, and the portion to the south is within the County. They referred to Condition II-R that indicates that the applicant is to comply with all street improvements required by the County, and conditions relative to the bridge over the creek which is partially in the County. They stated that undoubtedly the County will require a dedication and improvements to Bainter Avenue that would preclude the cut-off of access to Bainter. Mrs. Maynard stated that the barrier had been put up by the County a long time ago. Miles Rankin addressed Condition VIII-B relative to relocation of the pool house. He asked if it would be possible to have the engineer change the line so that the pool house will be further away than 20 ft. Mr. Rankin stated that the engineer could probably make the setback larger without changing the area of either lot. Staff noted that changing the angle of the back property line could very well affect the computation of the width. They stated that if the Commission is inclined to agree to that suggestion, they would suggest that this matter be continued, in order to have an exhibit submitted for the determination of the width. Commissioner Burger commented that she really feels that the Land Use Committee has not completed its job relative to this site, and she would like to go back and walk this land well and take access from the applicant's property by the existing house. It was suggested that this visit be done on a weekend, so that more Commissioners could attend. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer stated that one consideration that had come up was that if part of the front of the lot that faces toward Bainter were taken off or donated to the City, etc., then it could be refigured where the middle of the lot was, and the required footages could be met. There was a consensus to have an on-site visit, the date of which will be determined. It was directed that the matter be continued to the regular meeting of September 11, 1985. 12. V-705 - Patrick and Barret Moore, Request for Variance Approv- al to allow an addition to maintain a 13 ft. side yard setback and a 45 ft. rear yard setback where 20 ft. and 50 ft. are required respectively, at 14133 Sobey Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district - 10 - Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 8/14/85 V-705 It was directed that this matter be continued to August 28, 1985. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Joyce Lyang dated August 2, 1985. Referred to Staff for report on options. 2. Letter from John A. Saunders dated July 29, 1985. Noted and filed. 3. Incident Report dated August 5, 1985. Staff asked to proceed with appropriate action regarding violation of the ordinance. Oral by Commission and Staff 1. Chairman Peterson gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on August 7, 1985. A copy of'the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Pines moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. RSS:cd - 11 -