HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: January 14, 1986 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Guch, Pines,
Tucker.
Absent: Commissioner Callans
Approval of Minutes: December 10, 1986, Commissioner Tucker asked that on Page 2,
Item 8, read, "In response to Commissioner Tucker's question regarding whether the attic
space could be convened into a second story, Planner Catdwell stated that this space could not
be converted., :
Commissioner Harris asked that on Page 6, first paragraph, forth sentence, delete the word
"homes" and add "lots."
City Attorney Toppel asked that on Page 8, final' paragraph to read, "City Attorney Toppel
announced that the United States Supreme Court i had declined to hear the Renna case and that
the trial court had upheld the City on the Hwang, case."
Chairwoman Burger asked that on Page 4, fourth paragraph, second sentence, delete the word
"use" to read, "He noted the cavalier attitude ....".
HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 1986,
AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0.
Additions and Deletions to the Agenda: Planning Director Hsia informed the Commission and
the public that in accordance with the Brown Act, effective January, 1987,
72 hour notice of the Agenda must be posted in a',place accessible to the public prior to the
Meeting of the Planning Commission. No additions to the Agenda may be made after notice is
posted. The City Attorney added that the Commission may not act on Oral Communications,
with the exception of limited situations, such as in emergency. Items may be referred to Staff
for action, however.
Planning Director Hsia noted a change in Item 6, Report to Planning Commission,
Recommendation, to read "February 25, 1987. "'
On Item 8, a Revised Plan was submitted. :
City Attorney Toppel noted a change on Item 10,'. extension of Design Review Approval to be
to November of 1987.
QRAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR;
1. UP-86-003 Gera, request for conditional use permit approval to allow construction of a
1,150 sq.ft. cabana that will be 16 ft. in height and located 22 ft. from the rear
property line at 19136 Springbr0ok Ln., in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to January 28, 1987.
2. SD-86-001 Goni, request for building site and design review approval for construction of
DR-86-003 a new two-story single family dwelling at 14080 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., in
V-86o004 the R-1-10,000 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 January 28, 1987..
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
JANUARY 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued
3. DR-86-005 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-I-40,000
zoning district.
4. 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 Ln.
in the NHR zoning district.
5. SDR-1470 George and Ralsa Kocher, request for an extension of time to complete
requirements for tentative building site approval for two lots located at 15 139
Park Dr. in the R-1-20,000 zoning district.
6. SUP-12 Charles Bolander, one year review of a second unit use permit for propmy
located at 14231 Douglass Lane in the R-I-20,000 zoning district.
7. DR-86-056 Jack Stiles, request for design review approval to construct a 716 sq.ft.
two-story addition to an existing two-story single family dwelling at 20626
Ritanna Ct. in the R-l-10,000 zoning district.
8. SM-86-001 Alan and Gall Wright, request for site modification approval of plans to
construct a redwood deck where' a portion of the deck will be built on a 29%
slope, located at 21081 Canyon View Dr. in the R-i-40,000 district. A
Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project.
9. DR-86-045 Peninsula Recreation, request for a modification to a previous design review
approval to allow enclosure of an existing 520 sq. ft. covered porch at 21190
Prospect Rd. (Saratoga County Club) in the NHR zoning district.
10. A-1027 Pelio, request for an extension of time to a previous design review approval to
allow construction of a 986 sq.ft. cabana where the total floor area on the lot
exceeds the 6,200 sq.ft. floor area standard at 15350 E1 Camino Grande in the
R-1-40,000 zoning district.
Commissioner Harris requested removal of Item 3 from Public Hearings Consent Calendar.
Planning Staff requested removal of Item 9 from Public Hearings Consent Calendar..
Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Item 6 from Public Hearings Consent Calendar.
TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11. Passed 6-0.
3. DR-86-005 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-I-40,000
zoning district. '.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, January 14, 1987.
Planner Caldwell noted in the Resolution, deletiofi of the words "landscaping plans";
On Exhibit A., 5., delete 6 ft. to read, "5 ft."; on 8.b. insert a period after the word "home."
and add "Landscaping to be installed..."
The Public Heating was opened at 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Wayne Leposavic, Applicant, introduced himself to the Commission.
Mr. Walt Hoetier stated he understood at the study session that location of the proposed house
was moved closer to the bottom of the hill and, in another proposal, to the west. Neighbors
did not appear since they were under the impression that it was not a public hearing. At the
previous Public Hearing, he had asked that this house be moved to the north; he presented
pictures showing the impact of the proposed house on his view. He asked that this house be
moved 20 - 30 ft. northerly to increase the 20 ft. setback; this would accommodate Mr.
Hoefler's needs. He presented a letter from Mr. Leposavic addressed to him, dated November
13, 1986, to be entered into the Public Record.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
JANUARY 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR. Continued
In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Mr. Hoetier stated that his house was 26.9 ft.
in height and cut 8 ft. below grade; the Applicant has no cut in the grade. Commissioner
Harris stated that the Applicant'S house would have no more impact on the view of neighbors
than the speakers home; both houses are compatible in style and size with other homes in the
area. Mr. Hoetier noted the difference that the A'pplicant's proposed house was not centered
on the lot but was at an extreme end of the lot.
Mr. Lon Curtis, 15127 Sperry Ln., Saratoga, stated his concern that houses on this cul-de-sac
will be unnecessarily grouped together and asked that the proposed house be moved down the
hill 20 - 30 ft. for aesthetic purposes. :
Dr. Farr stated that the proposed house as shown.would disturb his view to the north; he felt
that the location of the house had not changed from the ftrst Public Hearing. Commissioner
Guch noted that at the study session, a number of plans were submitted by the Applicant; she
suggested that from plans submitted at this study session, moving the house would require
significant amounts of grading and an extensive retaining wall. Dr. Farr_Stated that everyone
would be satisfied if the house were moved sligh.tly to the north and west.
Mr. Leposavic stated that since he did not know which of his two letters to Mr. Hoefler was
presented to the Commission, he was unable to respond. He contacted the Planning
Department and as asked, moved the house to the north. He noted that the only access to the
house was from Sperry Ln. and that it was a difficult site to develop. Commissioner Harris
noted that if the house were moved further to the west, Mr. Hoefler's view would be more
impacted than if left as shown; Mr. Leposavic cohcurred and added that one of the plans
submitted clearly showed the impact of moving the house to the west. Four sets of plans have
been submitted. In response to the Commission6r's suggestions that the house be rotated, he
stated that Mr. Hoe~er's view would not be improved; if the house were lowered on the pad, a
retaining wall would have to be installed to the front of his house. He stated that the only
difference between his proposed house and Mr. Hoefler's house was the 15 ft. difference in
pad elevation; both are compatible in design and shape; at only one point would the height of
his house impact the view of Mr. Hoetier.
In response to Chairwoman Burger's question reghrding the letter entered into the record by
Mr. Hoetier, the City Attorney confirmed that the economic value of one proposal over another
has no bearing on applications before the CommiSsion; the Commission has it's own
standards under which it operates.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Pines noted that wherever the house was located on the site, it would have
major impact on neighboring homes; a judgement:was made that the house was better sited
with reference to streetscape and without retaining walls. The Commissioner noted the
approximate 20 ft. difference in the finished floor of the Applicant's house and Mr. Hoefler's
house as noted on the site plans; pictures presented appeared to indicate a much greater
difference in height. Commissioner Harris noted concern regarding any unnecessary elevation
of this house; she noted that since the tallest point:of the house was toward the street, the view
of Mr. Hoetier would not be impacted more than other homes in the area.
SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-005. Passed 6-0.
6. SUP-12 Charles Bolander, one year review of a second unit use permit for property
located at 14231 Douglass Lane in the R-1-20,000 zoning district.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, January 14, 1987.
Planner Caldwell noted that Santa Clara Co. Health Department indicated a permit had been
applied for to remove the on-site fuel tank; date of closure will be January 26, 1987. Condition
1 of the Report will be complied with at that time."
In response to Commissioner Tucker's questions, the Planning Director stated notification of
the Hearing on the extension was done. He conf'n'med that the Applicant would have to
comply with the age restriction on occupancy of second units.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
JANUARY 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Commissioner Siegfried stated for the record that if all necessary steps were not taken, the
Commission would be reluctant to consider further extension of this Application. Chairwoman
Burger concurred.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:15 P.M. There were no speakers.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE SUP - 12. Passed 6-0.
9. DR-86-045 Peninsula Recreation, request for a modification to a previous design review
approval to allow enclosure of an existing 520 sq. ft. covered porch at 21190
Prospect Rd. (Saratoga County Club) in the NHR zoning district.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, January 1/4, 1987.
Planner Caldwell called attention to the Revised Conditions 2.A. and B.; the Fire District
requires an early warning fire system to be installed due to the location in a hazardous fire
zone. The City Attorney noted that the Fire Chief has been concerned about this property due
to lack of water flow; because of a requested design review, the City now has the jurisdiction
to require an early warning fu'e system.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 P. M. There were no speakers.
HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:21 P.M. Passed 6-0.
GUCH/PINES MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF DR-86-045 WITH REVISED CONDITIONS
2.A. AND B. Passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. V-86-009 Mulert, request for variance approval to allow a front setback of 22 ft. where
30 ft. is required at 13750 Harleigh Ct., Saratoga, CA, in the R-I-20,000
zoning disuict per Chapter 25 ofthe City Cede. Continued from December
10, 1986.
Planning Director Hsia presented Report to Planning Commission, January 14, 1987.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the site visit; she presented a letter from the Applicants and
a Petition of Neighborhood Support to be entered into the record.
The Public Heating was opened at 8:26 P.M.
Mr. Scott Cunningham, Project Designer, reviewed a history of this Application. Rear yard
setback requirements were defined by the Planning Department in July and in August of 1986;
eight sets of plans were developed, all of which required a variance. Of these plans, the one
with the least impact to the front was submitted in. September, 1986. A tentative Public
Hearing of November 12th, was postponed to DeCember 10th; on November 21 st, Applicants
were notified that the rear setback requirement was 22 ft., not 35 ft. as originally informed.
The Public Hearing was again delayed to January : 14th.
Mr. Cunningham questioned Staff Analysis statement that there was an additional 15 ft. of
building area; in fact, 6 ft. of this area is already being used. The designer was quoted as
saying that there were other options considered not requiting a variance; this is true. However,
under the original setback requirements, this was not true and a variance would have been
required. Due to a change in setback requirements and delays in the Public Hearing, the
applicants decided to submit the plan being considered rather then develop another proposal.
He addressed Staff Analysis II, stating that trees providing landscape screening will be
retained, the size and shape of the driveway will remain the same size so as not to increase the
impervious coverage nor increase the perception of bulk.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
JANUARY 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
With respect to Variance Findings:
1. the house is inadequate to accommodate the .'Applicant's growing family.
2. the cul-de-sac leaves the Applicants with the~narrowest workable portion; in addition,
efforts were being made to preserve existing 'trees at the front of the property and to limit
the amount of impervious coverage.
3. other property owners have similar square footage and in two previous cases approval was
granted with smaller setback requirements. ~
4. there is no detrimental effect to public health, safety or welfare.
Mr. William Mulert, Applicant, reviewed the needs of his growing family and visiting parents; "
the addition of a garage would accommodate on site parking of a van. He discussed the
various plans considered and stated that the plan submitted was the best alternative.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:38 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
In response to Commissioner Pines' question, Planner Caldwell stated there was a
misunderstanding when the Applicant was notified that Staff would be recommending denial of
the Application and discussed with the Applicant ~options that would not require a variance.
The Applicant did not contact the Planning Depam'nent regarding a possible revision of plans in
time to be placed on the Agenda; thus, the Application was automatically continued. With
regard to setback requirements, it was not clear initially that the lot was substandard and would
be under substandard regulations. In response tO Commissioner Harris, Commissioner
Siegfried stated that the variance was for an area 8 ft. in depth by the width of the garage.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt the necessary Findings could be made based on
shape of the lot, substandard size, and consideration that if an addition to the house was
pushed back allowing the required 30 ft. front yaed of the house would be within 22 ft. of the
rear. In addition, a single story house was compatible with the neighborhood. Chairwoman
Burger noted that there was an already existing home on the narrowest portion of the lot.
Commissioner Siegfried concurred, noting that this Application would have less impact on the
neighborhood than other alternatives which could substantially change the size of the house.
Commissioner Pines concurred and commented that this was an example of the need for
guidelines to assist applicants in the planning stages of a project. He noted that the design
presented was more pleasing than alternatives considered. Commissioner Harris noted that
rear yard setbacks are to provide privacy in neighborhoods; in addition, the proposed design of
the driveway would reduce off-site parking. Chairwoman Burger noted the benefit of
preserving the rear yard, centering family activitie. s in this area.
Commissioner Tucker concurred with Staff Recommendations and stated that she would not
support the variance. Alternatives were available and a large rear yard could be utilized without
impacting adjacent rear yard neighbors. She cited a variance granted to another property owner
and noted that visual impact from the street occurred.
SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED FOR APPROVAL.OF V-86-009, NOTING SUBSTANDARD
LOT, POSITION OF LOT AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC, PLACEMENT OF HOUSE
ON LOT, THAT AN ADDITION WILL NOT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND, IF
DENIED, ENCROACHMENT WOULD OCCUR IN THE REAR YARD; THE PROPOSED
ADDITION HAS MINIMAL IMPACT OF ENCROACHMENT OF SETBACK REQUIRE-
MENTS. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Tucker opposed.
The Chairwoman recessed the Meeting from 8:47'.- 9:05 P.M.
12. UP-86-002 Wayne Miller Investment Co., request for approval of a two lot subdivision
DR-86-028 and a conditional use permit to allow seven (7) townhomes in a C-N zone per
SD-86-008 Sec. 15-19.030(b). Also, request for design review approval of the
townhomes and a 15,400 sq.ft. re. tail center for property located on the east
side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. at Pierce Rd. south of Cox Ave. A Negative
Declaration has been prepared for the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
JANUARY 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, January 14, 1987;
Staff recommended that the Applicant be asked to provide a detailed study of traffic circulation
patterns wi.'th particular attention to ingress and egress of the property. In response to
Chairwoman Burger's question, Mr. Hsia confn'med that Staff had discussed this request with
the Applicant and the Applicant was agreeable.
In response to Commissioner Guch's question, the City Attorney noted that a decision on the
development of City owned property wasn't necessary to consider this Application. There
seemed to be agreement between the Planning Department, City Engineer and City Manager
that there should be only one access to the property, minimizing traffic on Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Rd. There was concern regarding point of entrance; the City is attempting to avoid traffic
impact on Cox Ave. Use of a median, fight turn only lanes, traffic impact on Cox Ave., and a
left turn on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and frontage roads were reviewed.
The City Attorney noted that there were differing views on this issue:
- Applicant have requested two driveways with a turn allowed in either direction, providing
greater accessibility to the property
- City Staff is in agreement that there should be only one driveway. The City Manager
favored allowing turns in either direction, alleviating impact on Cox Ave. intersection
and impact on the City owned property. The possible access to and egress from the City
owned property to short circuit the traffic light at the Cox. Ave./Saratoga-Sunnyvale
intersection was noted. Them has been a preliminary determination that the City does not
want access unto Cox Ave; depending on decisions reached in Application under
consideration, the City may be forced to accept such a situation.
Commissioner Pines asked that the traffic study extend from Cox Ave. to Blauer Dr. at a
minimum. He noted that his calculations of the site plan indicate 93.4% impervious coverage;
while there is no maximum impervious coverage in the C-N zone, he noted that this pointed to
a major problem. On property, them was 7% landscaping, which was essentially an easement
for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, very little landscaping on streetscape; there was a
52.9% impervious coverage on the residential portion.
In response to Commissioners' questions, Planne/' Caldwell stated that based on the net site of
45,065 sq.ft., which excluded the 15 ft. easement, there remains 34.1% building coverage,
55% parking and driveway space, and 10.9% landscaping. Them is 89% impervious
coverage. She noted that at the meeting of the Committee of the Whole, the landscaping plan
was presented; this presentation should be noted in the record. It is Staffs understanding that
the Committee came to the consensus that the landscaping plan addressed the issue
Commissioner Pines commented on, namely, wa~ there a feeling of excessive impervious
coverage or does the revised landscaping plan address this issue. She asked that the
Commission reach a decision providing guidance :to the developer and Staff.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that Commissioner Pines' point was well taken; however, there
would not be a perception of 90% impervious coverage due to the presence of the Creek and
the easement. Commissioner Pines disagreed stating that in his view there will be a perception
of impervious coverage on the commercial portion since the Creek was blocked from view by
buildings; however, he concurred with Commissioner Siegfried regarding residential use of the
property. He felt retail use was excessive in dens.ity.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:27 P.M.
Mr. Norm Hulberg, representative of the Applicant, concurred that a traffic study was
necessary. Issues of concern were: :
- Two applications before the Commission; design review and subdivision of the property.
He asked the Commission to vote on the subdivision application at the hearing.
- Driveways. The Applicants agreed to work with the Traffic Engineer on this issue.
Mr. Mike Dillon, Landscape Architect, presented exhibits; effects of the Oak trees on the
project as a whole was pointed out to the CommittEe of the Whole; plants to be used were also
discussed. The goal was to combine existing landscaping with plantings to present a
homogeneous project. Applicants agreed to put in 24 inch box trees along the road and stated
that the best part of the Creek was being incorporated as open space.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
JANUARY 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Kun Anderson, Project Architect, stated that the Conditions of Approval were acceptable.
In response to his question, Planner Caldwell confh'med that if the additional 15 ft. easements
for Santa Clara Valley Water District were included in the figures, net site area would be
reduced. :
Mr. Bill Hirshman, Civil Engineer, requested approval of the subdivision application with the
understanding that further Conditions of Approval regarding site access might be added. He
asked the Commission to consider architectural features, so that building plans could proceed.
In response to his question whether the ingress/egress easement was a Condition attached to
Tentative Map approval or Planned Development application, the City Attomey noted the
Commission had three applications under consideration. In the attempt to streamline the
process, applications were processed together with a uniform set of Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that if the residential site was dependent upon access or parking
in the commercial area, he would agree; it seemed that they are separate issues and could be
addressed independently of each other. Staff was concerned that City Cedes allowed off-site
improvements in the subdivision process, not design review. In response to Commissioner
Pines' question, Mr. Hirshman stated the Applicants were willing to accept all Conditions of
Approval and would not object if these Conditions were applied to Tentative Map Approval;
additional Conditions could be imposed when remaining Applications came before the
Commission. In response to Commissioner Pines' question, the City Attorney stated that a
Condition could be added to the Tentative Map Approval requiring a Traffic Study and
whatever mitigation measures were deemed necessary by the Study and the Planning
Commission; however, this process was usually Completed before Tentative Map Approval.
He noted concem regarding process and possible' vagueness of such a Condition.
Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Pines and Tucker favored voting on the Application as a
whole; Commissioner Harris noted lack of adequate time to separate the Applications.
Commissioner Siegfried asked that if the residential portion were acceptable, the Commission
indicate such to the Applicant. The City Attorney' suggested adding a Condition providing for
any other requirements necessary. Commissioner Guch concurred with Commissioner
Siegfried and asked that there be a procedure to address ingress/egress of the property at a
future date. Chairwoman Burger was agreeable to separation of the applications with an
assurance that the City Attorney's and Staffs concerns had been addressed. Commissioner
Pines requested correction and clarification of information on Staff Report; he was agreeable to
the separation of the Application.
SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:58 P.M.
Passed 6-0. ..
Commissioner Pines asked that the Traffic Study include the area from Cox Ave. to Blauer
Dr., impact of all ingress/egress accesses and street intersections and address the impact of a
frontage road in Argonaut Shopping Center; Commissioner Guch asked that impact of the
alignment of Pierce Rd. be included. Commissioner Siegfried noted concem regarding number
of driveways on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and concurrent safety factors.
SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, UP-86-002
AND SD-86-008, SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADDING THE
CONDITIONS: THAT THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY BE DESIGNED AND ANY
ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES NECESSARY, AS
SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BASED UPON A
TRAFFIC STUDY, BE FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner
Harris abstaining.
Application DR-86-028 Continued to February 25, 1987, pending receipt of the Traffic Study
by February 2, 1987. Commissioner Siegfried noted concern regarding access to commercial
property and the major impact traffic this development will have. Commissioner Pines asked
for clarification of technical information; Planner Caldwell provided the figures requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
JANUARY 14, 1987,
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
13. UP-86-006 Saratoga Ave. Office Center, request for use permit approval to modify the
regulations contained in City COde Sec. 15-30.090 [(d) (2)] pertaining to
signs and allow two free-standing identification signs per building (excluding
Building 2) or one free-standing and one identification sign attached to the
roof facia of the building (excluding Building 2) at 12900, 12950 and 12980
Saratoga Ave. in the PA (ProfesSional Administrative) zoning district.
Planner Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, January 14, 1987.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the site visit; in response to Commissioner Harris' question,
she stated that in her view, interior signage would be visible from Saratoga Ave.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:17 P.M.
Mr. Steve Douglas, Representative for Saratoga Office Center, stated that since completion of
construction, more that 50% of the buildings have been leased; Building 2 has become the
multi-tenant building. The Center has tenants who lease large portions of buildings; one of
their tenants has leased an entire building. These tenants relocate from office buildings where
they have identity; this proposal addresses the question of a comprehensive signage program
in keeping with the motif of the project and reasonable concerns of these tenants. Factors
important to consider .are:
Difficulty of seeing internal signs from Saratoga Ave.
Distance between signs, setbacks of the signs
175 ft. of building frontage where monument signs are being proposed
Site of 10.25 acres, of which 4 acres is landscaped
This request would make tenants happy and would not change the look of the project nor
would proposal signs clutter Saratoga Ave. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's
question, the Applicant stated that he would prefer monument signs (Option 1); Staff
recommended monument signs also. Commissioner Pines concurred, noting that Option 2,
signs placed on the roof facia, would be disastrous to the building. Photographs of the office
site were presented. The Applicant answered technical questions addressed by Commissioner
Harris. In response to Commissioner Pines' he stated they would not be coming before the
Planning Commission requesting additional signs for Building 4, of which only half is
presently leased; there are two signs per building and additional signs will not be added to
accommodate new tenants.
Mr. Douglas presented several photographs shoWing the proposed placement of the signs.
Planner Caldwell noted for the Commissioners that the photograph showing the sign at the top
of the mound in front of Building 4 along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. did not agree with the
placement shown on the site plan (i.e. behind the mound). The Commission stated that the site
plan would prevail; setback as shown was 50 ft. behind the property line.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:28 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Guch stated for the record that she.received a phone call from Mrs. Margaret
Russell expressing concern about additional commercial signs.
Commissioner Tucker noted that this request was' for commercial signage, not P-A signage.
Proposed signage is not according to Code for multiple buildings, on 3 acres or more; the
Commissioner reviewed COde regulations and noted that the Applicant was requesting:
- free standing identification signs are not to exceed 30 sq.ft. in area, 4 ft, in height; the
Applicant already has two such signs.
- an identification sign for each office building .in the site not to exceed 6 sq.ft. in area nor 5
ft. in height.
The Planning Commission has already granted one sign over that allowed by COde; now the
Applicant asks for additional signage, which is larger that previously granted. She felt that
such signage was inappropriate for a P-A area in the City of Saratoga. Mr. Douglas responded
that the two signs per building are address signs and are required since there are three entrances
to the project. According to criteria already approved, every tenant leasing 2,000 sq.ft. would
be entitled to an exterior sign. He noted that if this project is to be successful, tenants must be
identified; tenants interested in this project are from larger companies and therefore the issue of
signage has been raised.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
JANUARY 14, 1987
-- PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Tucker questioned signs almost two and one half times allowed size and the
excess of signs. She noted them presently existed address signs with space for identification
of companies. There are only four buildings; it should be easy to give directions to clients.
She noted concern that if this Application was ap:proved, signage will be requested by others.
Commissioner Harris concurred and noted the commercial flavor of the signs. In response to
Chairwoman Burger's question, City Attorney Toppel stated that the "Owens Sign
Regulation," quoted by Commissioner Tucker, was in fact, a City Code provision giving the
Commission authority to modify any P-A sign regulations for multiple buildings. There was
no uniform program since occupancy was unknown at the time; the City made no agreements.
Commissioner Pines commented that the project and landscaping were well designed and noted
a problem in leasing large buildings; such tenants wish company identity. He acknowledged
size of the signs, however, the proposed signs were well designed. He stated he would be
flexible, allowing signs as proposed since they provided identity to corporate tenants and were
well designed. Commissioner Tucker responded!this was a P-A area, not commercial area and
noted that the number of signs was cun'ently fo~ over the allowed amount. The Applicant
now requests an additional eight signs, which is excessive.
Planner Caldwell noted a change in the Resolutic~n, 3, add the word "each" to read, "Total area
of each monument sign shall not exceed 15 sq. ft.'."
SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE UP-86-006 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS
AMENDED, APPROVING OPTION 1. Split vote, 3-3, Commissioners Harris, Guch and
Tucker opposed.
The City Attorney reviewed options available to the Applicant; Mr. Douglas asked that the
Application be Continued to January 28, 1987, Planning Commission Meeting when the full
Commission would be in attendance.
14. AZO-86-006 Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add Article
15-29, pertaining to fences, walls and hedges. Essentially, the proposed
amendment consolidates the various regulations into one section of the City
Code and adds requirements for fencing along the scenic highway to allow a
minimum 15 ft. setback with appropriate landscaping A Negative Declaration
has been prepared for the project.
The City Attorney stated that this Application is a proposed amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. He called attention to the Memorandum of December 15, 1986, and suggested the
following changes:
On "Fencing in the hillside districts;" he suggested that the role in the NHR of no
retaining walls having a height in excess of 5.ft., be removed from the above section and
placed in the regulations applicable to retaining walls on any hillside lot. The purpose was
to avoid excessive grading and prevent visibility of retaining walls on hillside property.
This is an appropriate rule to apply to any hillside lot, i.e., any lot with a slope in excess of
10%.
- Prohibition against electrified fences. :
With regard to issues for consideration by the Planning Commission, he stated that most
regulations were currently in effect; this proposal Was a reorganization. He called attention to
the Memorandum, "Fencing in the Hillsides," the restriction of no more that 60 ft. in length of
solid fencing and the issue of enclosure of areas Within the hillside districts; he stated that he
attempted to strike a compromise in the Ordinance by an exclusion of fencing of a corral, or
fencing around recreational courts. He noted a difference of opinion between the City Council
and the Planning Commission on this issue.
The Section "Fencing adjacent to scenic highways" was new, creating an area of jurisdiction
100 ft. within the scenic highway; any fencing within this area now requires a review. With
respect to "Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets," applicants must demonstrate
unique situation to their property. In response to Commissioner Pines' question, Mr. Toppel
stated that as long as a fence does not exceed 6 ft. in height, no permit required; perhaps
through publication of notice and written notice to individual property owners adjacent to
scenic highways, there will be adequate information on the new regulation if approved.
· ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10
JANUARY 14, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:50 P.M. :
Mr. Berry Aberzini, 20280 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, recommended the Planning
Commission vote in favor of the proposed item. :He stated that he needed a 6 ft. wall due to
noise abatement.
SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:51 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
Chairwoman Burger reviewed the changes as stat. ed by the City Attorney. Commissioner
Pines asked that the wording in "Fencing adjacent to scenic highways" be clarified. Consensus
reached by the Commission that the Ordinance aS proposed by the City Attorney was
acceptable as presented.' :
HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0.
HARRIS/PINES MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO-86-006 AMENDING AND
CONSOLIDATING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES
AS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE. Passed 6-0.
MISCELLANEOUS:
1. Planning Commission discussion re: priorities for 1987-88
Planning Director Hsia presented a Memorandum dated January 14, 1987, listing possible
priorities for the 1987-88 year. Commissioner Pines requested guidelines be written for the
benefit of applicants. Consensus reached that the Commission would further review and
discuss this Memorandum on the Planning Commission/Staff Retreat, January 16 o 17, 1987.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written:
1. Memorandum re: Landscaping in Parking District 4
Chairwoman Burger called attention to the Memorandum of January 14, 1987. Staff will
review the Conditions of Approval to determine the possible responsibility of the Applicant to
plant and maintain the landscaping and report back to the Planning Commission.
Oral by Commission: City Council Report
The City Attorney noted the brevity of the recent City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:17 P.M.
'\
\ Resp. ctfully sub ' ",
·
"Carol A. Probst-Caughey / 7
Re,cording Secretary
\
\
X