HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-1986 Planning Commission Minutes C'ITY.. OF':.SA'RATOGA. PEANNI~G. COMM~SS'iON ." ........ ,:'::'~
... · u .' '.,. .,,. , ~ ;~; , ,.,../ : ............
· .' .' MINUTES · ~. /'/
,.. .....-, .. . ~..
.. .-.... . .,. ... '(' . ....-- .
DATE: Wednesday, April 9,' 1986 '="7:~0 P'..M. "~
F'LACE.~ Community Center~ 19655 Allendal,e:
TYPE= Regular Meeting ..... ..
: .. ~_~.~ ....... . .....
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION '.:'
Roll Cail-
· Present:'..'Commissi'oners, Burger,. euch, Harris, Pines and Siegfried
Absen.E: COm.miss~oner-Peterson "..
· i MtnU~eS . ' ' '
F'ines/Sieg~ri'd moved to approve as submitted. Passed ~-0. Commissioner Harris
abstai.~ed because she was not present.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NOne· :
"" PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR
1. V-615 Warren Stu'rla, reqOest for one-yepr extension of a variance for
side yard setback. for an of.fice project at the southwest corner
of Cox Avenue and Saratclga' Cr..eek Drive in the P'-A zoning
district.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/SUCH MOVED TO APPROVE V-615 LISTED ON
,. '.' THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 5-0. Item" numbers 2a. and 2b.
(A-1178 and SDR-1617).were removed'from the consent calendar for
discussion as fo,1 lows.
~a. NegatiVe Declara.tiOn - SDR - 1617 -'jerry Houston
2b. jerry Houston,' request for tentative 'building site' and design review
approval to construct a new"Single family residence at 1'4~82
' Chester Avenue in the R-1r4~8~ zoning district~ continued from
5./26/86.
St~ff recommended approval with conditions. The City Attorney
clarified the abandonment condition. The abandonment, if any, is
to be' by the Ci. ty by its own initiative. The property 'Owner
Eould not affectuate abandonment. It 'requires action -by the
City Council,. sO it should not be construed as a condition of
the applicant."Commissioner Guch reported on her site visit.
.The publ-~' hearing opened at '7:4m P.M.
Bill Heiss, Civi'l Engineer 'for the applicant, spoke'on the
project. Mr. Heiss had a q6estion on the.repor~ to the Planning
'Commission 'on page 4~ item D relative to constructing an' access
'road. He requested the t8' widening be required only to N. here
the road served two 'residences.
He also r~'4'ueSted'th'b acc~s"e'as~m~h't 5e"granted to the Gampers
along the southern portion 'of the property rather than the
sc, utheastern. "
. ~'
.-"""' ·" Mrs. Gamper,..~'~.li=l -C'h~e~ Avenue~.. C'ame to the podium. She
F'lanning Commision Midu'~es'-.4/9/86 Pace 2
'."... stated'tha~'th~ Dampers and Ho~tc, ns have agreed .on the driveway
a. nd ev~,r=~c,n.e isvsa. t.i.sf~ed with the agreement.
Commissi'oner'H~rriS.~ '~'t'~t~d she preferred the 4-6' fill be
removed. Mr Jerry H&UStOn'~ 1091F'oxworthy, San Jose, stated that
, .. ..:. . .... '-~. .
Commis~ion'er Si~fr~ed'qL~stioned"the staff as tO whether they
· ' had any':c.once~ns about w~ere to stop the 18' access· road,· and
Luciile'Hise ~tated'~the..Planning Department talked to the Cit'y
':, e~gineer that day ah'~'ha~"none.
'Commissioners Si~gf.r"ied/Pines moved to close the public hearing.
...., COMMISSIONERS 'HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE' A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ON SDR-1617. AND 'A-1178. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO
APPROVE.SDR-1617 AND A-1i78 CHANGING THE CONDITION THAT ii. 'D.
· " SHOUL~ SAY.THAT THE ACCESS ROAD IS 18' UP TO THE POINT INDICATED
BY THE.CIVIL ENGINEER, THE POINT. AT WHICH ONLY THE GAMF'ER HOME
IS BERVICED AND CONDITION VI!-C. SHOULD READ THAT A 20 FT. WIDE
INGRESS/EGRESS .EASEMENT SHALL BE GRANTED ALONG 'THE SOUTHERN
PORTION OF THE SITE. HARRIS/GUCH RECOMMENDED THAT THE
ABANDONMENT BE DONE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Passed 5-0.
F'UBLIC'HEARINGS "'
5a. Negatiye Declaration - UP-5~9 - ThO's Garden Restaurant
-. 5~L.. .UP-.599 A~ule Crossing. Tho'S' Garden."Restaurant' requests use permit
approva! to allow oUtdOoF,dining on an existing patio in front
of Tho's Garden Restauran~ at 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvaie Road and
"' ':-' to. allow. the existing i76 parking sp'aqes, 'including three·
loading space~,'whe.re approximately '267 parking spaces and 4
loadin, g' space.s are'FeqUired for the Azule Crossing Center in the'
C-N zoning di'strict.'
Planning Di~ec.to~ YOchuek Hsia summarized that sta~ recommends
.. (i) Negative Declaration (2) approval of outdoor dining·area'and
.... existing non~conf~,rming parking, 'and (5) denial of the
existlAg-loading Spaces where 4 are rmquired.
i .-
"' The Pianninq Commission requested clari;'ication of the loadinq
""'- Spaces. Lucilte Hise stated the loading Spaces are not marked,
; but are not Eequired"t~' be m'arkedo'
Public h~aring opened at 7:55PM.
'.- Mr. Charles' Tran, 12378. SoL~th Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road stated he
.was the·applicant.· 'He did not want to address or make any
comments to the Planning. Co'mmission.'
-. 5 .. '.
MF. John Mal~ory~..!225 Kirkmont Drive, would like to endorse the
use 'Of t.he space .for additional.dining.
'Commissioner Siegfried commented that the parking has existed"at
.. this rate for quite-some t.ime.
.:-
.. : ,.
.... ' ' Noreen Henrahan
..~. he lives ,directly: nOrtheas-t of the restaurant. She ·has·been
. .', affected by all of the parking over there.' She and her
neighbors .have had their ·driveways blocked; She had 'two
... . ~ . >. '.! .~. ~'= .. ,: .....~ '; .. ,... =:'.,'
· ,~:.
. ... .. ~-' ,. ,,.~.,~.." ...
Planning Commision Minutes - 4/9/86 Page 5
are the hours for the outdoors dining? She also stated the
patrons do not use the parking available to the restaurant.
Mr. Tran'sta~ed the hours would be llAM-gPM.
The commissioners and 'st&ff. discussed seating and hours of
operation. Commissioner Harris commented it was pretty· similar
to Crepe Danielts, while Commissioner Burger was concerned about
the neon sign in the window.
The City Attorney stated our zoning ordinance doesn't address
the issue of signs in windows because it was never dealt with in
great detail. As a matter of interpretation, to the extent the
.sign is visible, it'is a part of the wall and therefore part of
the signage. But staf~ has not really enforced the
interpretation that the sign regulations apply to signs in
windowS. The City Attorney advises we address the signage
separ'at~ly.
CommisSioners Harris/Siegfried moved to close the public
hearing. Passed 5-0.
':.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND APPROVAL OF UP-599 WITH A CONDITION STIPULATING HOURS OF
OPERA~'iON' WOULD BE 'llAM-~PM. PASSED 5-0.
4. A-li44 - ~ Ken Chan, request loft design' review approval for a new
. ~wo-~!'oPy, single-f2amily residence in the NHR zoning district
CONTINUED.TO APRIL 23 AT REOUEST OF APPLICANT
5a. V-725 - PMS Management's requestsfor variance and sign permit approval
5b. to permit .a 24 Sq. ft. freestanding sign in addition to
approximately 17 sq. ft..of signage which already exists for the
Saratoga Walk-In .Clinic. The proposed sign is not in
conformance with the previously approved sign program, exceeds
the total square'footage allowed for signage, and does not meet
the required '20 ft. exterior sideyard setback requirement at
1224 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; continued ~rom 3/28/88.
Chairman Burger presented a letter from Richard Brayden, 20388
Kirkmont Drive, restating his opposition to the Saratoga Walk-In
Clinic and a letter from Gall Ralph and Richard Brayden opposing
a signage program'at this site.
Planning Director HsiaI pointed out that i~ the Planning
Commission approves the two signs, the total signage will be
more than is allowed. =They have one sign already. Staff
recommends denial of this variance request.
Chairman Burger restated for clarification that the applicant
would be allowed 20 sq. ft. of signage, and the request'is for
30-1/4. Commissioner Harris suggests we remove the sign from
the side of the building'and have a monument sign for safety
reasons and signage in general. She also suggested that because
shrubbery hides the sign until you are right up to it, the
applicant could consider. a monument sign vs. a sign on the
building.
Chairman Burger requested clarification from staff on signage.
Does internally illuminated mean neon? Consensus was that neon
was not intended.
, Planning Commision Mi:n~tes''~ 4zgY'86 Page 4
'The public.'heai~'~pg.wa~ dpenpd. a~.8:O5'.P~M~ ..
.Commissioner ~i~gfrie.d S~ated the-'only reason the Commission was
considering a' Var. ia'nce"'was be-caused.of the nature of the business ..
'.. -" '-'. ~ - urgent medical'care 'for S~r'atog~ families.
...'.. ., ... ·Chairman Burger stated. that 'she is concerned about people
"' looking for the clinic '~o.are Under a certain amount of strain
· ' because of an in.j'ury.
= Craig .Maynard, Cal Neon 'S~gns of San. Jose, spoke for- the
applicant. 'He stated he.had been'working with the City.on signs
.compatible with Saratoga. He stated that the applicant would
rather not remove the sign 'from 'the'building. He requested that
if the stipulation is to remc. ve=the sign fr. om the .building,. he
..' 'would'like a generi.c sign to read urgent care medical clinic.
" The Planning COmmission ~sked for 'a definition of urgent care.
Mr. Maynard explained it'.s different' from emergency'room'because
it doesn't have all 'of .the emergency equipment, e.g. heart
attack victims. But the.~rgent care clinic is'not confined--to
general pr'actice either.. The hours·are 9~9 seven days a week.
Cc, mmissioner Pines requests applicant to turn off the sign when
the clinic is not open and.. would like to make it a condition of
approval. Mr. Maynard agreed.·
...' I. Nr. John MallOry, 12258 Kirkhill Drive,. was concerned over the
· ' last 25 years in ~aintaining an attra6'tive entrance to Saratoga
'. consistent with the General Plan.. He is also concerned about
.. .. what it looks like -'whether it looks like a neon sign. He's
also concerned about the'signs across the street at Jake's Pizza
W,hich are also·neon signs in the windows. Mr. 'Mal. lory hopes
=. that if.passed, ~he Commission doesn't endorse Jake's signs. 'If
not legal, would the Planning Commission take Jake's signs down?
!. Mr.. Mallory states,· in his opinion, too many ugly signs don't'
~ ··enhance Saratoga and asks the Planning Commission to do it in
" good ~aste. ·
Chair.man Bur.get stated-this problem (signage) is not currently
addressed in our'Signage' ordinance. The Planning Commission
feels we should·be discussing 'it as a general look at our
signag~. =-
"/ 'Commissioner Pines doesn't see why the applicant has to change
the sign, noting that there is a sign over their entry now.. He
thinks that the applic~ni has worked in earnest .with the
". Planning Commission to. reduce the size of the si'gn.
'.' Commissioner Pines h~s nO p[oblem approving. this with .the'
exception of conditioning the sign will be lit .only. when the
..' faEility is open for' service.
" Commissioner Siegfried had a question r.egarding the r~qUirements
of signage (uniformity). ·Does the sign meet the conditions for
"' · the sign program for the..develOpment? He Stated he was wi'lling
"':' .'~ tO go along'.b'ecau~e of..tb~'nature of..the business~ but ·could 'the
sign be ~rodgh~ ih,~o'-'con~Grman~e ~wit..N,the development? The name
., . was .not .important to hi~: ' as long as the app 1 icant was in
...... ..
.. . . . ~j , ,. ~ .
.. . ~'
. . '. · Z ' -."
Planning C'ommislon " Minutes - 4/9/86 Page 5'
Planner L~c lle Hise stated that one of the conditions was t'hat
the sign be affixed tO the building. She also stated tha.t it
meets all of. the·other conditionS.
'd·o'm·m'issioners Harris/Pines mofe'd'to close the public hearing.
Passed 5-0.
"' COMMISSIONER 'PiNE~'~.SIES~RiED MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE ~ARIANCE
AND SC-2;.FOR THE.SIGN'AS.PRESENTED WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS (1)
· Vari~nE~ app~.~v~i is r..equir~d to encroach into setback areas and
"' td exceed the total' amount.Of s~gnage'allowed. All conditions
of'the var'ian~e'.appro~a.1 shall· be met. (2) Any modifications
to the sign ~ievation o~- the sign location shall be "~eviewed and
.apprOved bY the pla.nning. s.taff prio~ to the issuance of an~
· ' ·permits...15)"~he...sign Sh~ll'be lit only when the facility is in
· ' operation' and (4) RemOval of" th'e existing wall sign on the
'street f.ront~g_e=. Commis'i~z!ner Pines stated that he could make
the fiqdiingS.dE~e to th~ nat'[{re of the purpose and feels 'Due to
the nat(~re 'Of'.'~.he purpose he can approve a non-conforming sign.
· .- It doesn't set.. a .~precedeAt because of the nature of the
-." business. P~ssed 4~1'. Com~iss'ioner Guch opposed.
· . t Commissioner Guch opposes the application because she feels it
is a special privilege. Consensus was that if the lettering on
the sign changes, i.~ comes bac~ to the Planning Commission. "
6. SUP-8 Nadine MCCu!loL{gh, Request ~or a second unit use permit approval
to allow.two existiQg'de'tached one-story second units located on
two separate parcel· at 14985 ~uito Road.
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT.
'.. 2. ' A-1.155. E. J~ Henry Kopa~sEheck," Inc.,' request for design ··review
i. approval for ~he construction of a two-story, single-family
"' residence which exceeds. the. 6,200 Sq. ft. allowable floor area
and approval of the gradingZ. perm~t to move more than· 1000 cu.
.. yds combined c~t and fill.
CONTINUED TO APRIL 25..
8.. V-724 Mr. and Mrs.'RicHard Amen, :request for variance approval to
fence an area in excess of '4,000 sq. ft. at 21510 Saratoga
· ' ' '.' ' Heights Drive.
Planning Director HSia.stated that staff recommends denial of
" the variance for .fenCing per the staff report.
· ' Commissioner' Siegfried as~ed for clarification from the
" applicants. if the fence is built, Commissioner Siegfried is
concerned that or.her neighbors.might .automatically add to. the
· Fence - which' is c, ne of the. things the Commision is trying tc,
avoid.'
.. The publi'c hearing was opened at 8:20 P.M.
.. The public hearing was continued at 9:25 P.M.
Mrs. Am'en, 21510 Saratoga Heights Drive, stated she would like
to fence their entire.property. for 'security reasons. Her main
point was that because of the topography the appi~cants feel it
would be an eyeso. re if they: were to enclose only the. pool and
Planning Commis~on Minutes - 4/9/86 Page 6
..... lawn'area, 4,000 sq.. ft. o~"less.
.. .. Mr.~ Hank Halbish is wor'king'with' the Amens on the landscaping.
He stated that if you lOo~i .at the. landscape, the fence as
... proposed adjacent to the poo~ would stand out.
CommiSsioners.'Pines/Guch moved to close the public. hearing at
9:30 P.M.
· The public hearing was closed at 9:30 P.M.
,Commissioner Harris stated that she' considered it a special
privi.lege, and she would vote against it.
Commissioner Pin~s stated that the Planning 'Commission..could
allow.more than 4,000 sq. ft., but still in the tree line.
Commissioner. Pines does not have a problem if it doesn't have a
visual i. mpact on the neig.hbors. Any movement into the tree line
is better. for everyone.
Commission Guch'haSbeen to the site and reported that the
property ·slopes so deeply that it would be difficult to see the
fence, anyway .... The. ~ide is.~heavily wooded · To move the fence in
would impa'ct.-t~e-.~ituation~.mor~.
COMMISSIONERS PINES/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM VL724'MAKING THE
FINDING T~AT ,t~!e...F~'l~n~inQs. Gomm'iss'ion feels that green chain link
fencing ..~s'.mp~e 'approp~Zate/cln the pr. operty line,
PasSed"'5-1. '.'C6mmissioner Harris opposed.' (Commissioner
Sieg'fried.had le.ft .the meeting.)
9a... Negative D~c!aration -.L'LL15'~' V-73Y"L. Joseph Kennedy
9b. LE-15 - Jc, seph K~nn~,~..~equest ~op .... 1G't l'~ine adjustment approval to
.'.' c~a. ng'~Z' t6e.p~ope.rt~.'!-i.~e=6et~ee~ Parcel A and B so that the guy
~i-res-and proposed antenna would '~e located entirely on Parcel A
" ~nd va~.i~nc.e.'~pprqval"'to.'~'l"lOW a 100 ft. high ham radio antenna
I., with a'se~tba~.k of 10..~t.,'fpr one of the guy wires at 15480 Peach
" Hill Road.
Cha'irman Bu[ger exp. l~ned 'that Mr. Kennedy requested (1) lot
-' line.a'djust.ment' b~t~'~en both properties in"order to make the
line straighter a~d (2) variance fo~ Planning 'Commission to
approye .a i00 ~t. ham. rad'iO'.antenna.. with .guy wires with a
· , setback o~ .10 ft. f~or=one of the guy wires.
=. Yuchuek Hsia recommended the approval. of the property' line
= .adjustment request and denial of'the variance because of the 100
ft. antenna. =
~' The Ci'ty A~tor.n'ey spoke regarding the FCC issue,· who iicenses
.,~ .
· . , ..' r~dio operators. The .FCC has control · over the towers. The
applicant submitted a ruling by the FCC in 1975. The federal
... laws created a limited preemptio~ of some local ord'inances. He
· . also' stated we'can rule on safety and aesthetics. What we need
to' do is es'tal~lish an ordinance. We need to 'study this very
technical' issue Oepending on topography. Height may or may not
'_...' be a consideration of the :antenna.
· "~-'.-"' DiscuSsion was held about re0ula'fions and'technicalities of the
antennas.
· ', '. 'i ..
Planning Commision ·Minutes - 4/9/86 Page 7
Commissioner Guch did a si.te visit and reported her findings.
The public hearing opened at 8:5! P.M.
Applicant JOe Kennedy, 15488 Peach Hill Road, spoke first. He
thanked the City Att,:,rney for his summaries and stated the City
Attorney had reasonably wezll characterized the antenna for. the
variance request. He poin=.ted out that it may be a long time
before the issue is resolved and that he is willing to
participate in technical s:upport. In the interim, because of
the lay of the land., he will have to move the antenna back up
the hill towards Peach Hill. The purpose is to get it away from
most of the neighbors. .This will mean that the antenna will be
located 208 yards closer to Peach Hill. The antenna will be as
close. to Peach Hill as he 'can get it, turning the guy wires away
from the setback. He:'.has 'cor~tacted the amateur radin league who
will supply information discussed on the phone with staff.
Applicant.agreed to withdraw request for variance because he
doesn't .see a need if there will be a more proactive snlution -
based on. 'discuSsioo' wi.~h C.ommission members.
The City Attorney stated'.t'he first step would be to meet with
staff and then we can have a study session. The Planning
Commissic, n asked for clarification of. 45 vs. 55 ft. Lucille
Hise explained there was a recent change .in the zoning
or'd ina'n'ce.
JaCk Connolty, 15485 Hume :Drive, stated he was one who will be
obstruCted'by the"Eiffel Tower" HiS first thought upon hearing
of the-tower was, "there goes the neighb,z, rhood." He lives with
a view of the hills and MOntalvo and is reasonably secluded.
.The City has gone to great lengths to bury everything else
· . undergroupd. He realizes ham radio operators have rights to
broadcast. Mr. Kennedy's' dish does not blend in with the
environment at all and stands out in the canyon.
Henry Bowes lives across Peach Hill and directly above the
Kennedy property. Heverified that the variance is withdrawn.
He also asked if there would· be a hearing to adnpt or modify the
existing ordinance. The City Attorney informed him and the
audience that if anyone wants to be notified they should leave
their name and address with the staff with a request fnr notice
So they will get the riotide mailed personally to them.
Martin Messinger, 1558 Peach Hill Road~ stated his living room
window lcloks out upon Mr. 'Kennedy's 'house and the' canyon. Mr.
Messinger is c~pposed to the 100 ft. antenna and definitely
visually opposes any antenna that he has to look down upon from
his living room window.
.Mr. John DeMont~ neighbor :and landowner~ stated he has 25 acres
just above Peach Hill Road. Ti~e neighbors don't understand the
location of the antenna f~om the staff report. They would also
like a moratorium until a z new ordinance is proposed, mostly
because of the slopes. He feels that they i~ave had to take
special considerations for aesthetics in this residential area
and have done so. He was also concerned that Mr. Kennedy may
have the right to install a 45 ft. antenna at the edge of Peach
Hill Road. Mr. DeMont is in favor of continuing the matter
until guidelines are set ~nd then would like to bring it back to
the Planning Commission.
Bert McCandless own's 5 acr. es contiguous to Mr. Kennedy. He
Planning Commision Minutes -.4/9/86 Bage 8
~outd like to second the ~appea! for a study session for
· , solution.
" Tom WaV~y, 15575 Peach Hill Road, reiterated what was said
earlier. AeSthetically, he would not like to have 'the ·view
.destroyed by antpnnas. In the'neighbors' contact wi~'w the FCC,
they menti:oned '..there ·,would· .be' t~levi~sion interception and
interference../He,'stated:they did"'nOt haVe·cable up there, so
reception is not very'good to begin. with. So he feels it's an
'importa'nt con.'Side'ra'tion..~ =~
.. .-.... .Bill Ei-f~ing,.~'5451Peach. Hil'l Ro~d,.'e.xpressed '[he ~c~ncern that
the ot~er neigb.bors.have~is~ussed.' He would like t'o prevent an
". =' antenna before it actually goes up'. He feels itsshould be given
further study. ."'~" '
'Judy Leavey, 45575 Peach Hill Roa¢, is'opposed to the variance
for aesthetic".~eaSons~ safe~y ~reasons, and interference of
teievisioq..communi-Ea'tion'.Z= She would- like to see (he' matter
continued and t~e neighborhood ~dvi'sed.' She prefers that the'
application not b'e'~rOpped or wit'hdrawn.
Jean DeFino,'15625 Peach. Hil. 1 Road, would like to add support 'to
all the previous speak. e~ {.ee!ings.
Terry Kerry, 15520 PeaCh"°Hill Road, opposes the antenna also.
Tommi Kabara, 15590 Peach.Hill Road, stated that she looks right
down on'the Kennedy drive~!ay and'she is behind everyone' else who
has spoken'this ~vening.
Charles Brooks, 15355' Peach Hill Road, also supports other
neighbors in .t~eir concernS. He had one question that he wanted
to clarify.. What is the oye[all height relative to the horizon
of a 100 ft. antenna.down .the.'hiil as oppc, sed to' a 45 ft~ in
another location'?
Kay Long, 1-5269 F'each Hill'Road, stated she lives below Mr.
Kennedy°s h'ome and that her~.view was looking up 'at Mr. Kennedy~s
home. Therefore she was concerned about the antenna from down
the hill.. "
The City Attor.ney explained the urgency ordinance procedure. If
" you want an.urgency ordinance, it must be addressed to the Cit~
Council.. We certainly aFe not intimidated by the FCC, but
.' cannot pretend. i.t doesn't exist. A discussion 'was held abou~
technicalities. of free-standing 'antennas. as an accessory
structure. Consensus was that the Planning Commission should
make a request. to the City Council that a moratorium be imposed-
.. on t~e'f.ree-standing antennas as an accesso[y separate from the
building and request that. we do more study. It was 'noted that
: the applicant is Withdrawi'n.g the variance application.
Pines/Guch moved to close .the public hearing at 8:55 P.M.
· ."~. COMMISSIONERS"PINES/SIEGFRIED MOVED. TO APPROVE NEGATIVE
.. DECLARATION .'FOR'TH8 LOT~ LINE ADJUSTMENT. pASSED "5-0.
PINES/GUCH MOVED TO ~PF:ROVE LL-13.'.PER STAFF REPORT. Passed 5-0.
.' COMMISSIONERS PINES/HARRIS MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
'RECOMMEND.TO ]'HE CITY COUNCI. L A MORATORIUM FOR FREECSTANDING ....
. ANTENNAS AND'AGENDIZE .IT AS SOON A'S POSSIBLE FOR. A .SOLUTION.
Passed 5~0. z. ..
Planning Commision ,w;'inutes - 4/9/86 Page 9
10. A-1177 - Heber Teerlink, '.
· ' for design review approvat".to construct a.. two-story residence
on a hil.lsid~ lot and to g~ade in excess of 1,000 cu. .yds.
· .. combined cut and fill o.n Heber Way, Lot 13, Tract 6781.
CONTINUED TO 5/!4/86.
~'la..'..Negative Declaration - SD-1619 - Brian Morrow & Hakone Gardens
llb.. SD-1619 - Brian MorrOw Q · Hakone Gardens, request· for building site
approval for a 5 lot subdivision just north c,~ Norton Road and
Big Basin Way/Congress Springs Road in (he HC-RD and R-1-40,~88
c= zoning districts respectively..
Mr. Hsia stated (hat st~ff requests approval subject to reports
from the City Geologist. The City· of Saratoga has not received
infcrmation regarding geological problems on. this 'site; Mr.
Hsia requests the Planni'ng Commission not make a final decision
...... until the next regular mee.~ing. There are two options; (1)
continue entire· item to next ·meeting or open to public hearing
" ~nd (2) continue to the .next meeting to make' a decision.
Chairman Burger suggested we .open the public hearing for input
~' · since people had made the trip to speak.
The public hearing opened at 9:4~ P.M.
Commissioner Pines wanted clarification of why we are waiting
for a report from Mr. Cotton. Ms. Hise advised we are waiting ..'
'. for confirmat'~on 'of a dormant landslide.
.' Mr. Bill Heiss, Engineer for the ~pplicant~ .stated the property·
.. " has four magnificent building' sites and have been located to
minimiz, e tree [emoya!...He ..st~te'd'.that the appliant has asked for "
.~n exce'p'ti'on 'x~o '~he ~,rd'in'a.hc'e tO allow the portion of the a~cess
road t~ be more narrow' in some locations. Because of
sensit~Vit.,~.t,O ~be terrain, secondary access is proposed over tO
the Hakone par. k. ing lc, t. It is a joint pro~ect with the City and
.' Mr..:.,~orEc~W.-' 'He'w~ll-c.rea'te an additional half acre of parking.
~ " lc;t.. '~.~,r Hakpne:.'Ga~'dens. '8ectl'Og~/' has been studied extensively
.~. ...
because of.an-old'~'.and dc,;;man~ landslide..· The applicant iS ..
proposing-"~"W~ll to-k~ep 'the w~ter le'~el below 4~ feet. The
wel'l will..~p.. t. he"'Wa('er out of·the ground to keep. the. water
~' table below '4~ ft. 'Staff' con'dition is that the well ··will
..... replied thmt C~&R'. ~[il'l" ~p established that (i).maintenance and
.. operation wi~'l be a part Of t.he obligation of the homeowners. and
(2) 'speci.f.ic '~Uidel~nes as: to annual inspections built into a
.. specific maintenance body ,(like .a pum'p company who will insure
the maintenance..of"'it). Usi ~o water as a source will insure "
that the water"level will 'be 4~ ft. below and maintenance will
be more. likely as the water is used everyday. Any. excess
surface water'and discharge will go into the storm line.
Discuss'On was held about trenching, ·
. ~ dormant land~l ides, and
anticipation of report from mr. Cotton.. It is important to know
for building tenni. s courts and access· road wheihBr or not it was
a do~man.t landslide.
Don' Steinbach,. 1.46~0 BoOgainvi llea Court was c,:;nce~ned about .the
RlanhinC Commis..ion .,....~ ."".Ninut'es'o.~...4~9Z'86 Page 10
possi.ble landshide. .~r. S~ei.nbaCh was concerned about how a
property owner'q~ts'.i~fc, rmed about the landslide.·
· '~ Chairman Burger ex~Iained .that the City of Saratoga relies
heavily on William Cott~,n's recommendations. The Planning
Commission recognizes the existence of a possible problem
doesn't mean we necessarily deny a prclposal. The state of the
art today does allow us to correct some of. these problems so
they dOn~t remain problems o~ the future.
'Ccinsensus was to continue items.to the next regular meeting of
April ~
· .". 12~ Tr. '~'~28 - McBain & Gibbs (Geno), request to modify Condition VI K.
~ ..- Tract 6628' at the end of Tollgate Road and'Deer Spring Court. to
allow greater than'5 ft. retaining walls.
The public hearing Opened at 10:10 P.M.
· . Dick Gen'o, 12516 Oro de Arbol, agrees 'with staff suggestions. A
""' portion of the wall that e~ceeds 5 ft. is no~ visible from a
public area and is not within view from adjacent property..
.. DOn Steinbach,.14600 Bougainvillea Court, agrees with 'staff's
recommendations except that "adjacent" should probably ·read
,neighboring properties."
'· Bob Sprague stated that there is a very good reason for a 5 'ft.
< wall in that area. All of those lots are. on top of the hill
"' where· they are extremely v=isible. If the COmmission ·wants to
'. pass Something. different, he also agrees wi'th staff
.x recommendation.- ~5 is the. next best opti'on.' He does have two
concerns: (1) ·adjacent or neighboring homes. All the 'houses on
Bougainviliea have a view 'Of the hillside. It would have a very
significant impact on the neighborhood if it could b~ seen from
those lots. .. ·
" "Secondly, Mr..Spragu~ was concerned that there i's ~o height
specified about the r.etai6ing walls at all. The way it is
· .-' written, you Could ·have a 50 ft. retaining wall as long as it
: wasn't'seen fr.om an ·area identified.
.. '.'~"' 'CommisSioners Pi'nes/Guch moved to close the public hea~ing.
· . .- F'asse~ 4-0.~
· ' .A discussion was held about heights and changing public area 'to
.':.' '. .Street~ 'leaving the pub!ic.'area ·terminology and n~t within view
of'neighbor'ing...prop~rties.' We could design it with a maximum
height and anything over 5 ft. would come to the Planning
Commission. An administra(ive review would be all right unless
it did not meet the following 3 cr'iteria:
'.~" :'....""'-,~ ..i .... "".'~' :"..'~;
" public area-and i~ not within view from an adjacent property.
i "
. (5) e~'he"~alI..is'.nc,~locate:d i'n a setback area where. a. variance
· " or use p. el;mit"w'odl. d' ~ormal'ly be requ~redo
b'ommission~i~=,'-;P.'ines w~,d~ld'. like to set a height limit because it
could .b~ve envi~Onme. Otal.effects. Commissioner Pines would like
Planning Commasion Minutes - 4/9/86 Page 11
to set the fence height at 8 ft. Discussion was held about
interpretation of exposed vs. actual height of the fence.
Chairman Burger summarized conditions as follclws:
(1) The portion of the wall that has 5 ft. in exposed face
height and is not visible from a public area and is not within
.view of neighboring properties unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission.
(2) No changes.
(5) 'A wall in excess of 6.ft. is not located in a setback where
a vari'ance or use permit would normally be required.
Chairman Burger/Commissic!ner Pines suggested as a fourth
condition:
(4) In no case shall the wall exceed an exposed face height of
8 ft.
COMMISSIONER PINES/GUCH MO~ED TO MODIFY TRACT 6628 SELECTING
OPTION ~5 OF THE STAFF REPOT AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH
THE CONDITIONS I,. 2, 5, AND 4 AS AMENDED. If it meets these
four criteria, an administrative review will be sufficient and
will not need to come. to the Planning Commission. Passed 4-0.
15a. Negative Declaration - SM-28 - Richard Geno
15b. SM-28 - Richard Geno, request for site modification approval fo~' grading
and retaining wails on a slope greaterthan 10% and for. 'swimming
pool locatic, n at 21449 Tollgate Rd.~ continued from 5/26/86.
CONTINUED TO 4/25/86.
14a. Negative Declaration - C-235 - City of Saratoga
14b. C-235 - Consider amending certain zoning. regulations of the City of
Saratoga to (1) allow for the possibility by use permit of
additional horses in the R-1 zoning district similar to those
allowed in the equestrian zones: (2) eliminate design review
requirements for second story additions when no exterior changes
are proposed other than skylights; (5) restrict building on
slopes exceeding 40% in the R-l, C, and R-M districts: (5) allow
for the conditions on temporary use permits to not be mandatory:
and, (6)"'~llow only 4,000 ~q. ft. of fencing in the NHR and
HC-RD zoning district unless an exception is granted.
The City ~t~o.rn~y stated staff position that this ordinance has
numerous changes'.resulting from a study session on March 18.
The changes are'totally.unrelated to each other.
The City ~ttdrney ..summarized section ! allows as a conditional
use an additional horse so that sites not in an equestrian zone
could be treated like those who are purely use permit process.
· Sections 2 and,'5..are identical to R-l, R-M and C districts -
rules'that ~pply'to'.hillsides - building on a 50% or 40% slopes.
We tc~ok the building rules in the hillsides and applied them to
the other zoning 'districts, mostly for consistency.
Sections 5 and 6 deal with fencing. The City had eliminated a
4,000 sq.' ft. limitation, and it was the consensus of the
Planning ~ommissioh to put!.it back in. But we would not have to
deal with it ~s a variance. It would be approved by staff based
Planning Commision Minute~ - 4/9/86 Page 12
· . upon standards. Thes~ are the City Attorney's suggestions.
'(I) There might ~e'safety reasons to have a fence, even when
was not'.visibte.
(2) SeCtion 7, page 5, amendment to Design'Review. Only change
is last'paragraph which ~starts with notwithstanding the
"~ foregoing .to allow an internal modification if there is no
.. -. change to the exterior structure, it is not deemed' to be a major
addition and would avoid design' ·review.· The applicant would
... .. still need plan check 'and building permit.
-. (3) Section 8 is an amendment dealng with temporary use
permits. The ~onditiO'ns l'isted on the present code are stated
as mandatory and there'~ rea'lly no reason to do that. The. City
" AttOrney suggests there is no reason to have hard and fast
" rules. These' are things that 'can. be imposed but gives more
· . The.public he'aring opened :~t 16:40 P.M. "
Richard Powell,. architect,Z spoke regarding building on slopes
" grea'ter'ihan 50%. He' s~ated he was interested because the
owners he represents were given prior approval ~o build on a ..
~ site whose slope runs '45%.. They intended to build' but never
did, an~ the permit expired. So based on the present ordinance,
-- ." the lot becomes unbuiidabl.~ and 'they .'would need a variance
· ' process to get approval fcir this lot.
.. " " Commissioner Pines/Guch moved to close the public h~aring.
.",' Passed 4-0.
Cc~mmissioner 'Harris was concerned about fencing and stated ~ri. at
" .- almost anyone. could get a fence under security conditions. .The
City Attorney suggests we'change the wccding to read safety
because safety is distingu.~ishable from security in general.
COMMISSIONER PINES/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE· ITEM C-233 AS AMENDED,
.iNCLUDING SECTION 5.2 AND, SECTION 6 AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0.
MISCELLANEOUS ' ,
15. ".Appeal..c,f Tree Removal Permit from Rosemary ~l~kecht, 20190 Winn Road
staff' denied removal"of t~e tr'ee,.and MrS. Albrecht appealed.
" Staff·has no furthe~ input, "'but wan~s us. to uphold their
.. Mrsl Albrecht'was in the..audience-"and" stated .she wants to
'... 'remove the tre.e-'beca~se of damage during the last storm.
Commissioner Pines was EOn. C~'~ned that the neighborhood .was not
" notified about rem~v..~I. ~o-~ the tree. The City Attorney..
~. recommended notif'icatic!~.~ 'the neighbors and we could come back
~or opinions. Cc, mmissioo~r' Pines wants to notify neighbors
adjacent and across the Street. The City Attc, rney stated that
'.' the letter could say, "if .~c,u have an objection you can appear
... at the public hearing or write a letter."
· · .. Mrs. Albrecht'stated that the eucalyptus tree .is located at
'. '13500 Ward Way in Saratc, ga. Consensus of Planning .Commission
was to hear the matter at the Apr. il'25 Planning CommiSsion.
Planning=.Commision ""
COMMUNI CAT IONS
Oral by-Commission
,..'Commi~Sion'e~'~'GUC~ (ZepOrted ~about City Council actions. The City
Council· approved the 5 ft. w-i'ndows for the Harem residence.
Plann'ing 'Commission dec'isiOn was upheld.
'.. Vice Mayor' WlaVa suggested that the CommisSion go down to 5
' commissioners' since there Were only 4 applications received
' 'The' Council d~cid.ed to leave applications open for the Planning
.Commission and. H.e~.i'tage Commission until after the election. A
. Copy of .the Minutes· of the City Council meeting .are on file in
the City administrative office~
Chairman Burger stated· she w~s interested in attending 'the Bay
Area Earthquake PreparedneSs seminar.
Commissioners Harris/Guch mcved' for adjournment. Passed 4-0.
The meeting'was adjourned a'.t 11:0]~ P.M.
Respectfully submitted,'·