Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: November 12, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call; Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Guch, Pines, Callans, Tucker Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Addifion~ or Corrections to the Agenda: Planning Director Hsia stated that Item 14 is incorrecfiy listed on Public Hearings Consent Calendar; correct placement of Item 14 is Public Hearings. ApprOval of Minutes: Meeting of October 22, 1986. GUCH/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1986, AS SUBMITTED. Passed 6-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. DR-86-043 Steve Sheng, request for design approval of plans to construct a new two-story 6,346 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 14900 Pierce Rd. in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (Continued to December 10, 1986, at the request of the applicant) 2. DR-86-040 Parnas Corp., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new two-story 4,802 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 21801 Congress Springs Lane in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (Continued to December 10, 1986, pending completion of geology review.) 3. SD-86-001 Goni, request for building site and design review approval for construction DR-86-003 of a new two-story single family dwelling at 14080 Saratoga-Sunnyvale V-86-004 Rd., in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance approval for a carport to be located 9 ft. from the front property line where 25 ft. is the required setback at the above address per Chapter 15 of the City Code (Continued to December 10, 1986, at the request of applicant) 4. SD-86-008 Wayne Miller Investment Co., request for approval of a two-lot subdivision per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Property is located on the east side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. at Pierce Rd., south of Cox Ave. (Continued to December 10, 1986, pending receipt of information on tentative map. 5. DR-86-011 Michael Overhulse, request for design review approval of plans to construct a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 12840 Pierce Rd., in the R-1-12,500 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (Continued from the final SRC Meeting of October 22, 1986. 6. UP-86-903 Gera, request for conditional use permit approval to allow construction of a 1,260 sq. ft. cabana that will be 19.5 ft. in height and located 19 ft. from the rear property line at 19136 Springbrook Lane, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (Continued from the final SRC Meeting of October 22, 1986.) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 7. DR-86-041 Pamas Corp., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new one-story 5,199 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 14920 Vintner Ct., in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-86-042 Keith and Thelma Guericke, request for design review approval of plans to expand the existing second story and exceed the floor area standard of the zoning dislrict at 14341 Lutheria Way in the R-1-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposed addition will result in a 3,945 sq. ft. dwelling where 3,500 sq. ft. is the floor area standard for the zoning district. 9. DR-86-038 J. Lohr Properties, Inc., request for design review approval of plans to DR-86-039 construct two, one-story single family homes at 18767 and 18783 Cabernet Dr., in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede. 10. DR-86-033 Fenyo, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new one-story single family home at 20408 Sea Gull Way, in the R-I-10~000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. DR-86-035 James, request for design review approval of plans to expand the first floor and add second story to existing one-story single family home at 14069 Loma Rio Dr., in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 12. AZO-86-004 City of Saratoga, consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by Amending Sec. 15-12.160 pertaining to storage of personal property on residential sites, Amending Sec. 15-30.100 (c) to permit monument signs on commercial sites that have 5 or more uses; Amending Sec. 15-50.020 (c) concerning the definition of street trees; Amending Sec. 15.50.090 concerning appeals from administrative decisions under tree regulations; Amending Sec. 15-56.050 concerning property inspections on applications for second unit use permits; Amending Sec. 15-60.010 concerning temporary uses; repealing Article 15-75 concerning certificates of occupancy; Amending Sec. 15-80.010 concerning exceptions to yard requn'ements; Amending Sec. 15-80.020 concerning exceptions to height limitations; Amending Sec. 15-80.030 (c) concerning recreational courts. 13. AZO-86-005 City of Saratoga, consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding Sec. 15-80.110 pertaining to convenants for certain easements and mending Sec. 14-25.050 of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning easements and Sec. 14-03.060 of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning trees. Chairwoman Burger noted that Items 1-4 were continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of December 10, 1096. Commissioner Harris asked that Item 6 be removed from Public Hearings Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harris asked that Item 7 be removed from Public Hearings Consent Calendar. Commissioner Tucker asked that Item 8 be removed from Public Hearings Consent Calendar. Commissioner Pines asked that Item 10 be removed from Public Hearings Consent Calendar. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEMS 6, 7, 8, and 10. Passed 6-0. 6. UP-86-903 Gera, request for conditional use permit approval to allow construction of a 1,260 sq. ft. cabana that will be 19.5 ft. in height and located 19 ft. from the rear property line at 19136 Springbrook Lane, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (Continued from the final SRC Meeting of October 22, 1986.) Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission dated November 12, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 7:38 P. M. Mr. Nicholas Gera, Applicant, stated that the proposed cabana would not be visible to neighbors nor from a street level; he presented pictures of an existing barn on the site illustrating that the structure would be not be visible and pictures of a neighbor's cabana. Commissioner Harris noted the Application was far in excess of the 6200 sq. ft. standard; ans approval of such would be inconsistent with Planning Commission decisions in the past and would call into question the standard itself. The proposed cabana is similar in size to a house, whether or not it is visible; the standard is to insure less intense use of a rural setting. She cited other examples of applications made for cabanas and noted that a 19 ft. rear yard setback is not far from the property line, considering use of a cabana. She was not in favor of this Application. In response, the Applicant reviewed technical information on the square footage of the house, amount of impervious coverage of the property and slope of the hill. · HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43 P.M. Passed 6-0. Chairwoman Burger concurred with Commissioner Harris and noted her concern regarding size and height of the cabana and the limited rear yard setback; Commissioner Tucker concurred. In response to a question, Planner Caldwell stated that total square footage at 118% of the 6200 sq.ft. would be 7316 maximum square footage on the lot; this would require a reduction of 874 sq.ft. Commissioner Pines reviewed the layout of the building, noting that a game room in the structure was similar to an addition on a house and not in full compliance with the typical use of a cabana. He suggested a reduction of square footage as an option. Commissioner Guch concurred with the above and noted that rear yard setback is minimal for the design and size proposed. Consensus reached by the Commission that the cabana as proposed was not acceptable. The City Attomey reviewed the Applicants options; the Applicant asked that this Application be continued to a study session, November 18, 1986, with the Planning Commission Hearing on January 14, 1986. 7. DR-86-041 Pamas Corp., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new one-story 5,199 sq. ft. single family dwelling at 14920 Vintner Ct., in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. Commissioner Harris suggested the possibility of landscaping the portion of the property adjacent to Congress Springs Rd.; she noted elevation of the property in comparison with the road. The Planning Director stated adequate landscape screening was present and no additional requirement was necessary. Commissioner Tucker favored a Condition requiring landscaping. In response to Commissioner Guch's question, Planner Caldwell stated that Congress Springs Lane, a paved private road, bisects several parcels of property; the City Attorney provided additional information on private road access and setback requirements. Commissioner Pines noted that he had no problem with the proposed use; he concurred with comments made by Commissioner Harris and stated that he was favorable to a requirement that landscape schematic be submitted with building plans. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:01 P.M. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-041-1, ADDING THE CONDITION THAT LANDSCAPING SCREENING ALONG THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION OF PROPERTY BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND INSTALLED PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 8. DR-86-042 Keith and Thelma Guericke, request for design review approval of plans to expand the existing second story and exceed the floor area standard of the zoning district at 14341 Lutheria Way in the R-1-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposed addition will result in a 3,945 sq. ft. dwelling where 3,500 sq. ft. is the floor area standard for the zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. Commissioner Tucker noted that there was no side yard setback on the west side of the property and this Application requests a side yard setback variance for the east side of the property. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:04 P.M. Mr. George Sinclair, Architect, introduced letters from Calvin and Elizabeth Miller and Wade and Dorothy Shorter, neighbors in support of the Application. In response to questions, he stated that ongoing site improvements require a variance; however, there is access around the building to the rear of the property. Presently, the existing carport attached to the building has a non-conforming 5 ft. 4 inch setback. The bulk of the house is further than 8 ft. from sid.e setback; accessability to the rear yard will more than double. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, he stated that the intent of the Applicant is to reinstate the detail of the original house, eliminated by remodelling and additions through the years. He discussed the function and modification of the roof overhang. HARRIS/CALLANS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 P.M. ' Passed 6-0. Commissioner Pines noted that this was a handsome job and an addition to the community. Commissioner Tucker commented favorably on the enclosed garage and the design of the house. Commissioner Harris stated that she would approve this Application with the change on page 34, 4., second paragraph, adding the word, "not" to read "The project will not interfere..." GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-042 WITH THE ADDITION TO FINDINGS 4, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE WORD "NOT" TO READ, "THE PROJECT WILL NOT INTERFERE ..." Passed 6-0. 10. DR-86-033 Fenyo, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new one-story single family home at 20408 Sea Gull Way, in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. Commissioner Pines questioned Findings, 3.; the word "not" be. removed to read, "The project will minimize the perception of bulk..." PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE AZO-86-004 WITH FINDINGS 3, REMOVE THE WORD "NOT" TO READ, "THE PROJECT WILL MINIMIZE THE PERCEPTION OF BULK..." Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 14. UP-86-002 Wayne Miller Inveslment Co., request for approval of a conditional use DR-86-028 permit to allow seven (7) townhomes in a C-N zone per Section 15-19.030 (b). Consider granting design approval of the townhomes and a 15,400 sq. ft. retail center per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Property is located on the east side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at Pierce Road, south of Cox Avenue. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Hsia presented Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. The City Attorney reviewed the Report presented to the City Council regarding land use options for an adjacent City owned parcel of land and the two development schemes under consideration by the Council. The Council wished the Commission to be aware that an access be reserved to the adjacent site, reducing the number of curb cuts on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. If the site is developed commercial/residential use, there be common retail area with the adjoining site; however, if developed as residential use only, common access would cause retail customers to travel through a residential area. In response to Commissioner Pines question, he discussed the possibility of a frontage road. The Planning Director noted that the City Council had not endorsed any particular proposal. In response to Chairwoman Burger comment, he reviewed Staff recommendations regarding townhouses. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. Mr. Norm Hulberg, representative of the Applicant, stated that the Application is for a conditional Use Permit to build townhouses. The site lends itself to residential use on the east and retail on the west. He presented plans for the proposed project and noted that Staff recommended approval of the Application; changes requested by Staff were incorporated in a modified site plan. He noted that Staff had not had an opportunity to fully review the modified site plan submitted at the Heating. Chairwoman Burger stated that the site plan presented in the agenda of the hearing was the one being considered; City Attorney reviewed the policy regarding modification of Applications. Mr. Hulberg asked that the modified plan be reviewed and feedback given to the Al~plicants. Mr. Kirk Anderson stated that the Applicants have addressed concerns of Staff; he presented a modified site plan to be reviewed. Commissioner Pines noted the potential confusion of reviewing two sets of site plans, one of which was not seen by Commissioners before the hearing; he asked to present his comments to the Applicants on the site plan in the agenda. Consensus reached on hearing the site plans in the agenda; City Attorney suggested that the Public Hearing be continued after testimony is taken, to allow Staff and Commissioners an opportunity to review the revised site plan. Ms. Joyce Lange, Los Gatos Real Estate Broker, noted that Route 85, in close proximity to this site, would remove significant amounts of traffic. She asked if the impact of Route 85 had been considered and noted this was primary to discussions held at the City Council Meeting of November 5, 1986. City Engineer Shook stated that the effect of Route 85 on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd. has not yet been determined. If there are no interchanges on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd.(as requested by the City) there will probably be no decrease of traffic; there may in fact, be an increase of traffic. Until final decisions are made, and a freeway agreement entered into with CalTrans, an answer will not be available. In response to comments by the speaker, Mr. Shook stated that the Traffic Study prepared by the Applicant's consultant for presentation at the City Council Hearing dealt with existing conditions, the proposed projects and the effects on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd./Cox intersection. He added that this intersection was on the borderline of service level C and service level D. Mr. Jerry Kocir, 1355 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, noted his dissatisfaction with the adjacent 24 hour shopping center. Secondly, he stated that traffic will be a major problem. He analysed the traffic study done at that time and stated that he would further research the traffic issue for the Application under consideration. He noted that this intersection had very few accidents and expressed concern regarding the land fil being dumped on free oak trees. Commissioner Pines concurred with Mr. Kocir's concern regarding the oak trees. Mr. Hulberg responded that land around the oak trees would not be filed in and the traffic service level rating noted in the Barton Aschman Traffic Study would be maintained. He stated that a connection between the two properties in question and the Argonot Shopping Center did not make a lot of sense and would not be practical. In response his question, whether there are City Cedes which enable the City to reserve or acquire easements, the City Attorney confumed that the City has general authority to require any Conditions of Approval deemed appropriate in exchange for granting an applicant the privilege of developing a parcel of property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hulberg noted that the plan accommodated possible access to the City's parcel. The City Attorney clarified discussions of the City Council; he stated that the City will not be developing the parcel but will be selling the property for development under guidelines set down by the Council. Access to and from the City owned property has not been decided. The City will reserve right of access to the property being considered from the City owned parcel; it may be determined that no access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. will be allowed. In response to comments by Mr. Hulberg, the City Attorney stated that the City requires easements in many situations; this is not unusual, nor is it by reason that one of the properties is City owned. Easements are required as a matter of good planning. In conclusion, Mr. Hulberg suggested an alternative traffic flow pattern for the proposed center. On recommendation of Staff, Chairwoman Burger continued the Hearing to January 14, 1987, allowing Staff and Applicant to revise the proposed plan and Commissioners to review submitted proposals. The Applicants objected to the delay of the continued Public Heating to January 14; Chairwoman Burger referred them to Planning Staff for further consideration. Comrhissioner Harris referred the Applicants to study session and noted recommendations stated in Staff Analysis, Circulation/Access. She questioned the design of frontage road access suggested by the Applicants; in addition, she expressed concern regarding the design of the townhomes. Commissioner Guch asked that setbacks recommended by Staff be incorporated into the proposal and is not favorable to the proposed height of the townhouses. Commissioner Pines asked for the numbers regarding site area and percentage of coverage allowed; he approved of the mixed use (commercial/retail) plan. He concun'ed with other Commissioners regarding architecture and height of the townhouses and suggested that they appeared massive in comparison with the site. He questioned access to the site and asked that further information be obtained from CalTrans before any decision is reached. Specific concern regarding proposed retail use is parking and noted that although the creek is a significant pan of the property, it is not incorporated into the planning of retail space. Commissioner Callans questioned the amount of impendous coverage on the site. Chairwoman Burger summarized the Commission's concerns, stated in the Staff Report: the proposed height of the townhouses allowance for a frontage road -' orientation of the townhomes breakdown of acreage into percentage of use interaction with CalTrans use of the Creek as a landscaping element protection of oak trees on the property In response to Mr. Duke Wall, Santa Clara, Chairwoman Burger stated that concerns have not been addressed; the Commission will not vote on the Application until such are addressed. She referred the speaker to Staff for consideration of hearing this Application at an earlier date. The Chairwoman recessed the Hearing from 9:15 - 9:29 P.M. 15. AZO-86-001 (Saratoga Avenue Associates), consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial parking lots as a conditional use in the residential zoning districts. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project (Continued from October 22, 1986. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986; Staff recommended approval with the elimination of 3., Section I, of the proposed Ordinance, "The abutting commercial property shall be located outside of the jurisdictional limits of the City." In response, Commissioner Harris stated that she' understood 3. to be the reason for the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The City Attorney concurred; however, he noted that a review of remaining conditions results in only one property to which the conditions could apply. Commissioner Guch also questioned the suggested elimination of this condition. City Attorney advised the Commission that if concerned, condition 3 could remain. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris asked whether, without use of the property in Saratoga, the City of San Jose would have only the parking available on site; in view of this, she asked if use would be less intensive on site without use of the Saratoga property. Staff were not sufficiently familiar with requirements of San Jose to answer the question. The City Attorney summarized the rationale stating that the proposed amendment was viewed as the best mechanism to exercise direct control over property outside city limits. He confirmed that there was no change nor progress in discussions with the City of San Jose. In response to Commissioner Tucker's comments, he stated that the Ordinance could only have effect within the jurisdictional limits; one must review the process-~the Use Permit, which limits its issuance without review of project design and square footage. It is through the mechanism of granting of a Use Permit that control of the adjacent property is exercised. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:45 P.M. Mr. John Gatto, Cypress Properties, reviewed the background of the Application. The Applicants are seeking to develop these properties as a whole. The only way to do this is a Conditional Use Permit. At present the Applicants are seeking the mechanism; approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance does not give project approval; a project has not been submitted for review. The Applicants have met with adjacent residents. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:48 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Guch noted her concern at allowing commercial use in an R- 1 zoning district. Chairwoman Burger stated that an amendment to a zoning ordinance, allowing commercial parking in an R-1 district seems an extreme solution to a small problem. She stated that she would not vote in favor of this amendment to the zoning ordinance for a small parcel of land. Commissioner Callans stated that control of the property not in the jurisdiction of the City is desirable. Commissioner Pines noted that there will probably never be another case like this one; he will vote in favor of the amendment. PINES/CALLANS MOVED GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-12.030 TO INCLUDE PARKING LOTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. Failed 3-3, Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Guch and Tucker opposed. The City Attorney advised the Planning Commission and the Applicant of options available to the Applicant. Mr. Gatto stated that he would accept a denial of the Application and appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. 16. DR-86-003 Rolitz, Inc., request for design review approval for a new 5,731 sq. ft. two story single family dwelling at 15070 Sperry Lane, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (Continued from the final SRC Meeting of October 22, 1986. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. Commissioner Tucker reported on the site visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:57 P.M. Mr. Wayne Leposavic, Applicant, presented information from the original Staff Analysis; Chairwoman Burger noted that despite the original Staff Analysis, the Site Review Committee provided guidance and asked for revisions of the Application. She noted that the current Staff Analysis recommended denial of the Application. The Applicant reviewed the background of the Application, discussed options for placement of the house and problems of lowering the house. He stated that the city lights are directly north; repositioning the house will result in a loss of this view. Mr. Walt Hoetier, stated that the proposed rotation of the house had 10% greater impact on the view than originally presented at Site Review Committee. He presented a diagram for the review of the Commissioner. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Lon Curtis, 15127 Sperry Lanel, Saratoga, supported Staff Recommendation. He favored denial of the Application; the recommendation that the house be lowered on the lot will avoid an appearance of crowding houses together. Dr. Farr stated that he bought his house five years ago in order to have a view of the city; he asked that the house be moved down the hill. Commissioner Harris questioned the placement of the houses and stated that it was unclear to her how Dr. Farr's view would be affected. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:17 P.M. Passed 6-0. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Planner Caldwell stated that from an engineering standpoint, there was flexibility in moving the house and relocating the driveway. An engineer and an architect could design a driveway--the 35% slope would not limit the location of the driveway. She stated that an average slope is approximately 25%. Commissioner Pines noted on a site visit that the proposed house is on a prominent site; regardless of location of the house, it will be visible to other houses. He concurred that there was some flexibility in placement of the house; however, the site is very difficult to work with. Commissioner Harris stated that, as noted in the Minutes of the Site Review Committee, the house should be stepped down the hill and concurred with Mr. Curtis' statement regarding the appearance of crowding. The Commissioner noted that this direction had been given to the Applicant at Site Review Committee. Commissioner Guch noted that the Applicant expressed interest in continuing this item at a study session. Consensus reached to schedule the Applicant for a study session on November 18, 1986, continuing the Public Hearing to January 14, 1987. The Commission asked that the Applicant to present sketches showing adjustment of the house to the northwest of the lot, addressing the issues of crowding the lot and possible obstruction of the view of neighbors. 17. V-86-010 Fred and Diane King, request for variance approval of plans to construct an 8 ft. high slumpstone wall where 6 ft.. is permitted at 15159 Montalvo Rd., in the R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. Commissioner Tucker reported on the site visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:30 P.M. Mr. Thomas Scherer, Landscape Architect for the Applicant, presented pictures for review by the Commission. The purpose of the wall was to prevent privacy and noise intrusion. Due to the elevation change at the location of the wall these purposes are not being achieved; the wall is an effective height of 4 ft. Pedestrians in the area have a clear view of the rear yard. The vegetation, oak and pine trees, were trimmed significantly, to allow for the wall. The use of landscape screen probably would not be effective and would take significant time to grow due to lack of light. He stated that he could not see how the addition of 2 ft. of wall would impact the rural nature of the area; there is a similar wall across the street. An 8 ft. wall would provide an effective height of 6 ft. Mr. Fred King, Applicant, provided information on the pictures presented. Mr. Jack Christianson approved of the variance requested by the Applicant. He stated that residents on what is now Montalvo Heights Drive, were promised from 1978 - 1982 by Councilmembers and Commissioners that development of the area would not impact residents. This has not been true: vegetation has been cut down, the elevation of the road differs from what was promised and parking and privacy intrusion have occurred. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Pines noted concerns on a site visit that: 1) the height of the fence should not hinder the line of sight of cars turning at that junction, 2) the view into the front garage area is somewhat exposed to pedestrians and traffic; however, unless a pedestrian walks up to the fence and peers over, one could not see in the yard area. It is a difficult situation since the fence and Montalvo Drive are at different elevations; in addition he expressed a concern that walls built 20 ft. apart on both sides of a street create an "alley effect." Substantial landscaping, i.e. shrubs, would mitigate such an effect and "break up" the visual impact of the wall. Planner Caldwell, in response to a question, stated that the wall is 6 ft. high, 50 ft. from the intersection of the two streets. Commissioner Guch stated that she initially felt that the planting of shrubs would mitigate the impact of intrusion; however, the statement of the landscape architect that growth is very difficult to achieve at the desired location, the Commissioner now favors the request for a variance. She noted her continuing concern of a "corridor effect." The City Attorney noted the possibility of landscaping in the right of way; if there is no safety hazard, an encroachment permit could be issued. Commissioner Callans noted his reluctance to vote in favor of an 8 ft. high wall. Commissioner Pines suggested the use of landscaping outside the wall; he felt that the house needed additional screening on the side nearest Montalvo Rd. The only remaining question was whether an 8 ft. wall necessary. He noted that adding on to an existing precast wall looks makeshift and unattractive; possibly, additional height could be added with a wooden trellis. He favored the use of landscaping, preventing pedestrians from approaching too closely. The City Attorney stated that plantings in the right of way could be required as a Condition of Approval. In response to Commissioner Pines question, the Applicant stated that he favored raising the height of the wall 2 ft, painting the entire wall so that the additional height will become an integral part of the existing wall and landscaping to soften the impact of the wall. The Applicant confined that he did not wish to consider the use of landscaping in the public fight of way with an encroachment permit in lieu of the requested 2 ft. addition to the wall; he noted that the landscape architect had already testified that obtaining growth in this area was difficult. The City Attorney suggested that the variance could be granted with a condition requiring the ins/allation of landscaping pursuant to a plan approved by the Commission or Staff and coupled with a landscaped maintenance agreement (standard form) to be maintained by the property owner. Commissioner Harris clarified that the fence would be an 8 ft. height toward Montalvo Rd. up to 50 ft. to the comer; Commissioner Pines asked that the fence be stepped down meeting the 3 ft. fence. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:17 P.M. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE V-86-010 MAKING THE FINDINGS OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE, DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT ELEVATION OF THE ROAD ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BE ADDED, STATING THAT THERE BE LANDSCAPING (PLANTINGS) ADDED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL, THAT THE FENCE BE STEPPED DOWN FROM THE 8 FT. HEIGHT TO THE 3 FT. HEIGHT WITH ONE TO TWO STEPS, THAT THE APPLICANT WILL EXECUTE A RECORDED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, PROPERTY OWNER TO MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPING IN A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Callans opposed. 18. V-86-007 James, request for variance and design review approval of a first floor DR-86-036 expansion and a second story addition to a non-conforming one-story single family residence that is 5.5 ft. from the west side property line where 6 ft. is the minimum required at 14057 Loma Rio Dr., in the R-1~12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. Commissioner Tucker reported on the site visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 11: 10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Richard James, Applicant, stated that he owns and is presently remodeling property on Loma Rio Dr.; the existing setback on the property in question is 5.5 side yard setback. He questioned the purpose for setback requirements and presented the dimentions and c~rcumstances of the property in question, asking what would be accomplished by an additional 6 inch setback on a substandard lot. Mr. Ted Fletscher, 7881 Harvard Dr., Saratoga, stated that the distances between the two houses is larger than any of the other setbacks of houses already remodelled. GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11: 16 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Guch questioned the purpose of not granting a variance for a 6 inch difference. Commissioner Tucker noted that the distance between houses is adequate. Commissioner Pines noted the quality and attractiveness of the remodelling of homes in this area. PINES/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE V-86-007 MAKING THE FINDINGS AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT AND NOTING THAT THE LOT IS SUBSTANDARD. Passed 6-0. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-036 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AND EXHIBIT A. Passed 6-0. 19. DR-86-034 James, request for design approval of plans to expand the first floor and add a second story to an existing one story home at 14063 Loma Rio Drive, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:20 P.M. Mr. Richard James, Applicant, proposed that the appearance of the home play a large pan in determining the size of the house. All that is seen of the two-story section of the house as seen from the street, is the roof line; efforts were made to make the house appear as a one-story house. There are existing two-story houses on the street that appear bulky and high; the house in question has attempted to address the problem of bulk and height in a two-story house. He asked for the approval of the Commission for this variance. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:24 P.M. Passed 6-0. 'Commissioner Tucker noted that the house in this Application is adjacent to the house of the previous Application. She commented that two two-story homes are being remodelled with substandard side yard setback requirements and noted that the house under consideration appeared somewhat bulky. Commissioner Guch noted that the variety of building materials and the lowered roof line helped to reduce the appearance of bulk; the aspect that appeared bulky was the rectanglular part of the roof. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-034 MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING DOES NOT BESPEAK OF THE ADDITIONAL FACADE OF 200 SQ. FT. RATHER TREATMENT OF THE ROOF LINE DIMINISHES PERCEPTION OF BULK; REMOVAL OF THE 200 SQ. FT. IN QUESTION WOULD NOT APPRECIABLY REDUCE ANY APPEARANCE OF BULK, DOES NOT AFFECT THE NATURAL PRESERVATION OF LANDSCAPE AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SITE AND PLACEMENT OF BUILDING ON SITE, MAKING THE CHANGES TO EXHIBIT A, 2., HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS PRESENTED AND 3., TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR ALL STRUCTURES ON SITE SHALL NOT EXCEED 3120 SQ. FT. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 November 12, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 20. DR-86-023 McCormick, request for design review and variance approval to allow construction of a new, two-story 5,130 sq. ft. single family dwelling on an average natural slope of 35 % where 30% is the maximum allowed at 12609 Star Ridge Ct., in the NHR Zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, November 12, 1986. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:35 P.M. Mr. Miles McCormick, Applicant, had submitted a revised site plan to the Planning Department in light of the recommendations made at the October 28, 1986, Study Session. Commissioner Guch reviewed suggestions made at the Study Session. Commissioner Pines requested further information on lowering (setting) the house into the hill; Mr. McCormick stated that the goal was to reduce excavation of the hill. Due to the amount of foliage at the rear of the proposed house and since the bulk of the house was not a problem from the northly view, the Applicants elected to retain the house as originally placed on the site. Commissioner Harris noted that the bulk of the house was to the northly view; the Applicant concurred and noted that the house was sheltered by the foliage. Commissioner Guch asked if the Applicant was agreeable to additional landscape screening if determined that present foliage was inadequate. He responded that he was not adverse to such a requirement but did not feel that landscape screening would be a problem. GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:39 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Guch noted approval of changes made by the Applicant upon recommendation at the Study Session GUCH/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF V-86-008, MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS SUITABLE AND WILL BE LOCATED ON THE FLAT PORTION OF THE SITE. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Callans opposed. GUCH/HARRIS MOVED DR-86-023, MAKING THE FINDING THAT THE PROJEff MINIMIZED THE PERCEPTION OF BULK ADDING THE CONDITIONS THAT: 1. THE GUEST PARKING DECK, AND THE DECK/STAIRS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOME SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. 2. THE HOME SHOULD NOT BE SHIFTED FORWARD 6 FT. INTO THE HILLSIDE. 3. THE DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION SHOULD REMAIN AS PROPOSED. 4. THE EXTERIOR COLORS SHOULD BE A VERY DARK EARTHTONE. 5. LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHOULD BE INSTALLED BEHIND THE GARAGE IF DETERMINED BY STAFF AND, IF NECESSARY, LANDSCAPE SCREENING INSTALLED ALONG THE REAR. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Callans opposed. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Agenda for retreat, Jan 16-17, 1987. Consensus reached on Agenda for the retreat. 2. SRC Minutes of October 22, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 November 12, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS Continued Oral bv Commission: 1. City Council Report: Commissioner Callans reported on the City Council Meeting of November 5, 1986. 2. Chairwoman Burger informed the Commission of the annual Christmas party to be held on December 20, 1986. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:53 P.M. Respectfully submitted, .. ::.!!~..' .z'~ ; '; .' . ." "" ..' ./%/. ,/,.4' "7" /. ""