Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 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, Pines and Peterson Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Minutes Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of October 9, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried, with'Commissioners Peterson and J. Harris abstaining since they were not present. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1453 -Michael Conn and Carole Wellbeloved, Request for One-Year Extension to a Tentative Building Site Approval for a single lot on Vaquero Court, in the NHR zoning district 2a. SDR-1613 -German Leff Platonoff, Request for Tentative Building 2b. A-1128 - Site and Design Review Approvals to construct a new, two-story residence at 14301 Paul Avenue, in the R-1- 10,000 zoning district 3. SUP-3 - Christopher and Ulla Beach, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one-story second unit at 18645 Paseo Tierra, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district 4. SUP-13 - Frieda McKenzie, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one-story second unit at 20471 Williams Ave. in the R-1-10,000 zoning dis- trict 5. SUP-14 - James and Eleanor Perazzo, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one-story second unit at 15100 Pepper Lane, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Item #4, SUP-13, Frieda McKenzie, was removed for discussion. The public hearing on the balance of the items was opened at 7:34 p.m. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the items on the Public Hearings Consent Calendar. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion followed on SUP-13, Frieda McKenzie. Staff explained that this item had inadvertently been added to the Consent Calendar. They commented that they are recommending denial of the use permit because it does not. comply with the guidelines and requirements of the Second Unit Ordinance. They described the application, stating that they are unable to make the findings. The public.hearing was opened at 7:37 pom. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 SUP-13 Mrs. McKenzie, the applicant, stated that she has had this property for many years as a rental. She noted that the lot is 1/3 acre. Staff explained that one of the requirements of the ordinance is that, relative to detached second units, the lot must be 1.6 times the required minimum lot size in the zoning district. Mrs. McKenzie commented that at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting she had attended when the ordinance was being considered, there were many unhappy people there who felt the fees were exhorbitant and that the people who had come forward and made application were going to be the guinea pigs. She stated that she felt the City was going to be losing inexpensive housing. Chairman Peterson commented that he understands the points the applicant is making. However, he feels that the City Council has made it very clear to the Planning Commission that they do not want the Commission approving second units where there is not an owner occupancy on the property. The City Attorney pointed out to the Commission that the City Council deleted the provision that would have allowed an owner occupancy on an adjacent site. However, they instead provided one avenue of allowing non-owner occupancy or person under 60 if there were exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or showing of extreme hardship. He stated that this is the first application since that amendment to the ordinance which does not involve an owner occupancy or required age, and Staff, as indicated in their report, has taken the position that they do not find any exceptional circumstances or extraordinary hardship in this case. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris commented that , in view of the fact that all of the points that have been brought forward are items that the City Council and Planning Commission felt strongly about in the deliberations, it would be going against the whole process if this second unit were allowed. She noted that the other two second units on the agenda did not meet all of the stipulations, but did meet a majority of them, particularly the owner occupancy and 60 or over requirement. Commissioner B. Harris agreed, noting that in addition there are problems with setbacks, lot size and parking. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny SUP-13, per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. (Later in the agenda it was noted that there were people present who wished to speak on Item #2, SDR-1613 and A-1].28, German Leff Platonoff. The applicant asked for reconsideration of the matter. Commissioner Burger moved to reconsider the matter. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The matter was discussed at the end of the public hearings.) The public hearing was opened at 10:28 p.m on SDR-1613 and A-1128. German Platonoff, the applicant, addressed the conditions of the Staff Report. Relative to the height of the structure, he indicated that he had provided a solar study to ensure that the neighbor did not have any sunlight blocked by his proposed home. Commissioner Burger gave an on-site report, describing the homes in the area. She noted that Mr. Szalay's home is 26 ft., and feels that, if the solar problem can be worked out, a height of 24 ft. for this home would not impact because it will be sitting further back on the lot than the home across the street. Discussion followed on the solar study. Mr. Platonoff addressed the square footage, discussing the other homes - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 SDR-1613 and A-1128 in the neighborhood. He stated that if he had to reduce the house it would have to be redesigned. Mr. Platonoff also asked that Condition #3 read: "on certificate of occupancy", rather than "issuance of building permit". Mark Vanderburg, owner of the home with the solar panels, spoke in support of the proposal, stating that it will not disturb the panels. He addressed a recent home on Elva which is larger and bulky. Bob Croche, 14314 Paul Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed home, stating that he did not feel it appears bulky. Tibor Szalay, Paul Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed home. Maria Colfax stated that she lives across the street and feels the proposal will enhance the neighborhood. She spoke of upgrading the street and in favor of the proposed size. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines stated that he personally has no trouble with the size of the house and feels it does not appear bulky. He added that as long as the extra 1-1/2 ft. does not affect the solar panels, he would be willing to approve it at the proposed height. Commissioner J. Harris stated that her inclination is to support the size of the house as proposed because she feels that the Commission has to consider this very immediate a~ea on Paul Avenue that the neighbors want to have upgraded. She stated that she does not think the standards fit that two-block section of Paul. Commissioner Burger agreed that the upgrading of the neighborhood is extremely important and being done very nicely. Commissioner B. Harris agreed that she would like to see the neighborhood upgraded. However, she thinks it can be upgraded and stay within the standards. Commissioner Peterson stated that he feels that a 2600 sq. ft. home would be just as nice and desirable as 2900 sq. ft. However, he is happy to see the neighbors supporting each other and concerned about the neighborhood and the desire to upgrade it. He added that he feels that is a significant plus for all of Saratoga. He commented that he is a little bothered by the 300 sq. ft., but feels he could go along with it. Commissioner Burger stated that she would submit, in order to remain within our standards and it is a small lot, that she would be willing to approve this at the proposed height and would be happy with 2300 or 2400 sq. ft. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would support the proposed square footage in this case, but he does not want to set a precedent. He noted that these are small lots and it could get out of hand. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she feels the Commission would very definitely be setting a precedent to approve this, and she looks at it completely differently. She commented that if that is what the neighborhood is going to be, she could live with that. However, she feels that it will set a precedent if one is approved. Commissioner Pines noted that the 300 sq. ft. does not add to the bulkiness of the house and could not be cut out easily. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve SDR~-1613, per the Staff Report dated October 18, 1985, changing VIII-D to read "remove prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy", and Condition VIII-E to read 2929 sq. ft. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 SDR-1613 and A-1128 with Commissioner B. Harris dissenting. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1128, per the Staff Report dated October 18, 1985 and Exhibits B and C, changing Condition 2 to read that the square footage not exceed 2929 sq. ft., Condition 3 to read that the existing structure shall be removed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, and Condition #4 to read that the height shall not exceed 24.5 ft. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. The findings. were made, with the first sentence being eliminated in Finding 3 in the Staff Report, and with the first part of the first sentence in Finding 4 being eliminated ("With the condition that the square footage and height be reduced"). The vote was taken on the motion to approve A- 1128. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner B. Harris dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1602 - Tom and Ann Copenhagen 6b. SDR-1602 -Tom and Ann Copenhagen, Request for Tentative Build- 6c. A-1107 - ing Approval for a two (2) 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 October 9, 1985 Staff gave the history of the application, reporting that this item had been continued to this date to allow the applicant to ascertain the quality of the emergency access between their property and Saratoga Hills road. They commented that in the final analysis the title searches have indicated that the applicant does not have the right to grant an easement for this emergency access. Staff indicated that they have revised the Staff Report to include conditions relative to the private road versus the minimum access road. They stated that because the lack of the emergency access road capability does not conform with the General Plan, Staff recommends denial of SDR-1602. They indicated that if the Commission wishes to approve the SDR they have included conditions, and if the Site Approval is granted, Staff then would recommend approval of the design review. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Bill Heiss, engineer, submitted exhibits for his discussion of the three issues. He addressed the issues: (1) Undergrounding the power poles through the property. He discussed the location of the poles, stating that they have no visual effect on anyone. He commented that if the poles are required to be removed, then an underground system would have to be extended and 1200 ft. of roadway would have to be trenched. The cost of the undergrounding was addressed. (2) Roadway width. Mr. Heiss explained that the present road is not 18 ft. in its entirety, and there is one section where it would be difficult to widen it because it is so steep. He asked the Commission to allow him to work with the Staff and permit narrowing where Staff would feel is appropriate or not a safety hazard. He clarified that it would not be narrower than 14 ft. (3) Emergency access. Mr. Heiss gave the history of the easements in the area, indicating that the Miller family legally does not have a way of granting an emergency access easement over the area. He added that, from a practical point of view, the driveway will always remain there as a driveway and utility easement with the necessary access to maintain that facility. He asked that the requirement for emergency access be waived, stating that he does not feel that one more home to the Pike area will represent an overburden. He commented that he feels that it is such a unique situation that it does not create a precedent for the City to grant the development. He explained that it is a family trying to keep their family on the hill together, and he feels that the findings can be made to allow this exception. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 SDR1602 and A-1107 It was noted that Dr. Head has put up a gate over the easement along the northerly 20 ft. strip of the Head/Atwood property. Discussion followed on the easement and gate. Mrs. Dorothy Miller stated that the gate had been put up so children would not walk to school through that area. She commented that it had been determined at a City Council meeting that the gate could be kept but it was to be opened for emergency access. Tom Reddick, 12389 Larchmont, asked that the streets be maintained if this development, or any other in the City, is approved. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner B. Harris asked, assuming that the gate issue can be resolved and there is access, could an easement be purchased from the owner. The City Attorney commented that the applicant could purchase an easement; however, the City could not require the applicant to purchase it. He added that the City cannot impose a requirement for the establishment of access on land that the applicant does not own. He commented that the City can say'that they should make a good faith attempt to buy it, but if the owner of the property does not wish to sell, the option of the City is then to (1) condemn it as a public right-of-way, which we are certainly not about to do because we would have a public right-of-way in the middle of two private roads, or (2) waive the requirement. Discussion followed on the emergency access and the combination of easements. The City Attorney clarified that apparently the Head/Atwood property occupants are the only ones who have the legal right to use the easement that runs from Saratoga Hills Road to the Head/Atwood property. Commissioner Peterson stated that he would support this subdivision. He pointed out that the Commission has pursued at great length to determine if there could be a legally recorded easement; he is satisfied that that is not possible. However, he is also satisfied in his own mind that there will be emergency access in case it is needed. He indicated that he would also support that the road widening be reviewed by Staff with the applicant. He added that if it can be widened, even though it might take a retaining wall, he would like to see that done. He commented that if it is a function of destroying some trees, then he would support the narrower width. Regarding the'undergrounding, he indicated that he could approve this one subdivision and allow the lines to stay up. However, at some point and time if other lots are developed, he would like to see them undergrounded. Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Peterson's comments. Commissioner J. Harris commented that she would hate to see all of that area be marred just to underground the lines if it is only to meet a policy. She stated that it is similar to the situation on the Mt. Eden site. Staff pointed out that the Mt. Eden site was different in that it was so heavily wooded that it was difficult to see the line. Discussion followed on the policy regarding undergrounding. At Commissioner B. Harris's inquiry, Staff discussed the road width condition. Commissioner J. Harris stated that it would be her intent, if she were to support the application, not to have another subdivision in the future. She commented that in her mind four lots is the maximum that this minimum access road is going to accommodate. It was clarified that there is only one other 3-acre lot in that area to be developed. Commissioner B. Harris asked if there was a way to get each of the owners of the various combinations of easement to write some agreement in their easement rights that would assure the City that they won't - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 SDR-1602 and A-1107 block ingress/egress over the portion that they control. The City Attorney commented that the owners could voluntarily agree to grant such an easement; however, there has been no indication of a willingness to do that, not only from the owners of the property leading into Saratoga Hills Road, but also the Head/Atwood property. He agreed that it is a possibility that the issue could be further negotiated by the applicant with the various owners. Commissioner B. Harris stated that she feels more work can be done on this issue, and she is unwilling to accept the subdivision without an emergency access. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR-1602, per Exhibit B-2 and the conditions of the Staff Report, deleting Condition II-E-1 regarding the undergrounding. It was determined that Condition II-G, regarding the access road, will remain as written, and Staff will be working on a reach of the road that may not meet that condition. She made the finding that it is in conformance with the General Plan because the combination of easements, regardless of who owns it, constitute an emergency secondary access if it is ever needed. Commissioner Peterson added that it does not seem that anyone can block that access for emergency purposes. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners B. Harris and J. Harris dissenting. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she would not be able to support the finding of our having been able to find an emergency access. Commissioner B. Harris added that she feels there is still some potential that the access can be blocked by an owner of an easement, so she is not confident that it will always be open when needed. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR- 1602. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners B. Harris and J. Harris dissenting. Mr. Heiss addressed the peak at the front of the house, indicating that to reduce the peak to 21 ft. would require flattening the slope of the roof, which would bring it out of angle with the rest of the house. After review of the plan, Commissioner Burger commented that when Mr. Heiss had addressed this point at'the Committee-of-the-Whole, she recalled that it was not a problem. She moved to approve A-1107, per the Staff Report dated July 16, 1985 and Exhibits B and C, changing Condition 1 to read that the height of the structure shall not exceed.22 ft. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. 7. SUP-8 - Nadine McCullough, 14985 Quito road, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow two (2) existing second units on two (2) separate parcels in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from September 25, 1985 (to be continued to November 13, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to November 13, 1985. 8. 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 dis- trict; continued from September 25, 1985 (to be con- tinued to November 13, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to November 13, 1985. 9a. SUP-12 - Charles Bolander Trust, 14231 Douglass Lane, Request 9b. V-678 - for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing detached, one-story second unit and Variance Approval to maintain a 3.5 ft. rear yard setback and 3 ft. side yard setback where 35 ft. and 15 ft. are required respectively and to provide two (2) covered parking spaces where three (3) are required, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district; continued from September 25, 1985 Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 SUP-12 It was directed that this matter be continued to November 13, 1985. 10. UP-591 - Smilja Maynard, Request for Use Permit Approval for an existing cabana located within the 50 ft. required rear yard setback area 20 ft. and 8 ft. respectively from the rear and side property line at 19330 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (to be withdrawn) This item was withdrawn. 11. V-714 - Ray Haydon, Request for Variance Approval to allow an addition to maintain a 5 ft. side and rear yard set- back where 10 ft. is required, and to allow an 8 ft. soundwall along the front and side property lines, and to allow a 7.5 wall and gate along the street side at 18621 Kosich Drive in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; continued from October 9, 1985 (This item was heard at the end of the public hearings, at the request of the applicant.) Staff described the application, recommending approval of a 6 ft. rear yard setback and denial of the balance of the application. Richard Haro, the designer, gave a presentation on the project. He stated that the 8 ft. wall is a prime concern because of the sound on the road. He described the proposed wall and landscaping. Edward Pack, the acoustical engineer, discussed the findings of the study he had made. He clarified that the major noise does not come from the direction of the empty orchard, but from the Saratoga Avenue traffic. Ray Haydon, the applicant, addressed the sound. He commented that he feels the 8 ft. wall is necessary. Commissioner Pines moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner B. Harris noted that the Staff Report refers to the fact that the City Council has agreed to fund and review the City's noise level. She stated that she would like to see if the City Council can do something to benefit not only the applicant, but many others and be more in conformity. Commissioner Peterson indicated that he could not support a 8 ft. wall on any street, commenting that it sets a precedent. He noted that he lives off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and everyone has 6 ft. walls. Commissioner J. Harris pointed out that the Commission has denied several applications on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Commissioner Burger commented that the applicant, on the on-site visit, indicated that he could reduce the 7.5 wall and gate to the required 6 ft.; however, the 8 ft. wall is a problem. Commissioner Pines stated that he can appreciate the problem with the sound since he lives off of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. He commented on the precedence set by approving an 8 ft. wall and stated that this points up the urgency of addressing this situation. He added that these streets are going to get more traffic, and the acoustical report shows graphically the difference between a 6 ft. wall and an 8 ft. wall. Commissioner Burger moved to approve V-714 (b) for a 6 ft. rear yard setback and deny V-714(a) for the 5 ft. side yard setback, V-714(c) for - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 V-714 an 8 ft. soundwall, and V-714(d) for a 7.5 wall and gate, per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1985 and Exhibits B through E. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion. It was clarified to Commissioner Pines that the applicant does not need a permit to build a 6 ft. fence. on his property line. Commissioner Pines suggested that the applicant do some mitigating landscaping. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. 12a. Negative Declaration - SM-22 - Kemp Carter 12b. SM-22 - Kemp Carter, Request for Site Modification and Variance 12c. V-715 - Approvals to construct a recreational court with 10 ft. high fencing on a 10% slope with no side yard setback where 20 ft. is required at 19306 Pinnacle Court, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (to be continued to November 13, 1985) It was directed that this be continued to November 13, 1985. 13. A-1016 - McBain and Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family resi- dence with gross floor area which exceeds 6,200 sq. ft., on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at Lot 5, Tract 6628, Tollgate Road Staff described the application, reporting that the matter was original ly before the Commission in November, but the applicant requested a continuance to allow for amendment to the CC&Rs that restricted the development to single-story structures. They noted that the Commission had recommended in those changes that the height of this residence be no greater than 21 ft; however, this application does not reflect that. Staff indicated that they could not make the necessary findings and recommends denial. The petition from the neighbors on Bougainvillea in opposition to the proposal was noted. Staff commented that the grading is not consistent with the approved grading plan. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Bob McBain, the owner, gave a presentation on the project, discussing the grading and the height. He explained the changes that have been made from discussions at the last meeting. Discussion was held on the measurement of the square footage. Peter Kynell, the applicant, stated that he feels they have conformed with everything discussed at the last study session. It was explained to Mr. Kynell that by the standards used by the Commission, the home is 8200 sq. ft. house. The City Attorney clarified that the square footage is not calculated according to the UBC; the interpretion of floor area is as defined in the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. He explained the measurement of open area in terms of bulk. Commissioner B. Harris pointed out 'that, by the applicant's measurement, it is still 1,000 sq. ft. over the guideline. The aesthetics of the house were discussed by Mr. Tynell. Commissioner J. Harris commented it is a lovely design and she has no qualms with it from an aesthetics point of view. However, in trying to envision it up on that very high visible pad, it has vertical lines that will accentuate the height. She stated that a 7400 sq. ft. house is a very large house; her perception of it is that it is going to be much too bulky for the site. Commissioner Burger pointed out that the buildable pad on this particular application was also rather small. Discussion followed on the amendment of the CC&Rs. Mr. McBain pointed out that they refer to a restriction of 21 ft.; however, there is wording in them that states that a height greater than 21 ft. can be approved with the consent of the committee and the City of Saratoga. He - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 A-1016 also noted that there is an approved house in the subdivision that is substantially greater in size than the proposal. He discussed the design and placement of the home. Josephine Steinbach, 14600 Bougainvillea Court, stated that they had been told at the time of the development of the subdivision that it was totally inappropriate to build anything other than a moderate single- story home on this site, i.e. 6200 sq. ft. She stated that they were also told that the grading would not be a problem; however, there has been grading for a whole summer. She commented that she feels the builder is showing no intention of trying to fulfill his original commitment. She discussed the grading that had been done and asked that the home be a single-story and 6200 sq. ft. She indicated that she was concerned specifically about the height. Ben Chin, 14632 Bougainvillea Court, gave the history of the subdivision and spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Robert Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea Court, supported the statements made by his neighbors. He addressed the garage which has been moved and built on top of a retaining wall. Margo Heller, 14696 Bougainvillea Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. o Mr. Kynell, the applicant, addressed the grading, commenting that the grading done in the spring had been done to smooth out the lot, since it was full of chuckholes and potholes because of four-wheelers. Mr. McBain clarified that their subdivision had originally been 20 lots and there were 16 approved lots after the compromise settlement with the City. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that he could not accept 8200 sq. ft. He added that it clearly seems that the intent was to keep the home at a height of 21 ft. Commissioner Pines concurred regarding the size of the house, especially considering the nature of the lot. He indicated that he is concerned about the grading of the driveway. Commissioners Burger, J. Harris and B. Harris agreed with the statements made by Commissioners Peterson and Pines. Chairman Peterson commented that there was clearly a consensus to deny. He pointed out the options to the applicant of moving to deny the project and appealing to the City Council, or continuing the matter to a study session. The applicant and owner agreed to a study session. Staff was asked to review the schedule of meetings and inform Mr. McBain of the date of the next available study session. It was directed that this matter be continued to the regular meeting of December 11, 1985. It was noted that the winterization should be accomplished. Break - 9:30 - 9:40 p.m. 14. A-1144 - Ken Chan, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family residence on a hillside lot at Lot 13, Tract 6528, Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district Staff explained the application, indicating that they are unable to make the findings and recommend. denial. - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 A-1144 The public hearing was opened at 9:44 p.m. Gary Schloh, the architect, gave a presentation on the project. He described the site and the other homes in the area. Bill Heiss, the engineer, discussed the grading and slope of the area. He stated that he feels it is the finished product that is important, rather than the numbers involved in the grading. Mr. Heiss also discussed the fill on the driveway. Commissioner Burger inquired about how much of an impact will the proposed grading have on the swale and possible drainage problems. 'Mr. Heiss addressed the swale, which will be put into a concrete gutter. Mr. Chan, the applicant, submitted pictures of his lot in relationship to the adjacent houses. Discussion followed on the findings and alternatives to the proposed design and grading. Mr. Schloh spoke against flipping the design, pointing out that there would have to be cut for the garage and he feels the circular driveway is more appropriate in its present location. Mr. Heiss discussed the alternative of moving the house forward 10 ft. Mr. Schloh commented that if the house is moved closer to the street there will be more of a visual perception of bulk. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she would like to see some alternatives to the way the home is now situated. Commissioner Burger commented that her major concern with the home is that it is a 29 ft. home that has a flat roof, and she feels that the appearance of bulk'is going to be overwhelming. Commissioner Peterson agreed. He commented that, all things being equal, he would prefer the garage to come in from the side because he feels it makes a much nicer looking house. He indicated that he could not support a 29 ft. flat-roofed house. He added that he would like to see some thought given to reducing the cut and fill. Commissioner B. Harris commented that this type of architecture is very linear, and the flat roof accentuates that. She stated that the origi- nal proposal for the subdivision to have the home on what appears to be a slight angle to the road might soften the type of plan proposed for that site. Commissioner Pines added that he thinks something has to be done to perhaps temper the perception of just a solid wall. He could support the garage located where it is; he thinks it works with the concept of the house. He added that he likes the house, but he feels it will stand out and is concerned about the bulk of it. It was clarified to Mro Schloh that the Commission was not saying to bring in a sloped roof. However, they want the perception of bulk reduced. It was explained to Mr. Schloh that because of the flat roof, the perception of bulk is accentuated. Some suggestions to the applicant were: a lower house, work with the cut and fill, possibly move the house down, a different color, and perhaps some feeling as to the landscaping. It was agreed to continue this item to a study session. It was directed that this matter be continued to the regular meeting of December 11, 1985, and Staff was requested to review the schedule of meetings and inform the applicant of a date for the study session. Mr. Schloh was asked to bring in available perspectives. - 10 - Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 15. C-227 - City of Saratoga, Consider Amending Certain Zoning Regulations of the City of Saratoga to change the floor area definition to include all floor area under roof, and to revise the impervious coverage defini- tion; continued from October 9, 1985 (to be withdrawn) This item was withdrawn. 16. C-229 - City of Saratoga, Consider the adoption of new Zoning Ordinance constituting Chapter 15 of proposed City Code The City Attorney referenced the memo which he had distributed, summarizing changes made in the Zoning Ordinance. He discussed the timeframe for the adoption of the Code. It was directed that this matter be continued to a Committee-of-the-Whole on November 5, 1985 and the regular meeting of November 13, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS 17a. Negative Declaration - SM-21 - Raymond Leap and Thomas Const., Inc. 17b. SM-21 - Raymond Leap and C. Thomas Construction, Inc., Request 17c. LL #10 - for Lot Line Adjustment Approval to change the property line between Lot 1 and 2 of Tract 6454 and 14525 Sobey Road, and to shift the approved building site on Lot 1, Tract6454 to an area more than 150 ft. in the norther- ly direction from the approved site and where the slope under the building site will increase, in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district at Lot 1 (Ten Acres Road) and Lot 2 (Sobey Road) of Tract 6454 and 14525 Sobey Road; continued from September 25, 1985 The application was explained by Staff. They stated that they were recommending denial of the Lot Line Adjustment and approval of the Site Modification. Bill Heiss, engineer, stated that he does not feel that there are any features on these lots that warrant them to be larger than 40,000 sq. ft. He gave the history Of the lots and discussed the need for the Lot Line Adjustment. Discussion followed on the Lot Line Adjustment, and Staff explained that the steeper lots in this case are being reduced in size, and the Leap property, which is the less steep site, is getting all the extra land. They stated that that has generally been contrary to the policy of the City, and they quoted the Subdivision Ordinance relative to this. Commissioner Peterson commented that he likes the way the new lots look; however, he can also understand Staff's position. Commissioner Pines stated that in either case the building site is still going to remain the same on the new lots. He added that the lot to which we are adding land already is built on, therefore, no one will want to come in and build a bigger house there. After further discussion there was a consensus to support the Lot Line Adjustment. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SM-21. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve LL #10, per the condition in the Staff Report. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SM-21, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5- 0. - 11 - Planning Commission Page 12 Minutes - Meeting 10/23/85 COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Leter from The Owen Companies, dated October 10, 1985, regarding the Leasing Office, Saratoga Office Center. (Note and file) Oral by Commission and Staff 1. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News and Good Government Group for attending the meeting. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:51 p.m.  E.~.li~ted, Secretary RSS:cd - 12 -