HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: January 28, 1987 - 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Guch, Pines,
Callans, Tucker
Approval of Minutes: January 14, 1987:
Commissioner Harris asked that on the first Page, Approval of Minutes, third paragraph, delete
"Wren" to read "the Renna case..."
On Page 3, fourth paragraph, final sentence, to read, "...the 15 ft. difference in pad elevation;"
On Page 5, fifth paragraph, first sentence to read, "...The house was pushed back allowing the
required 30 ft. front yard of the house would be within 22 ft. of the rear."
On Page 6, third paragraph, to read, "...Saratoga-Sunnyvale intersection ..."
Same Page, sixth paragraph, second sentence, to read, "..there will be a perception of
impervious coverage on the commercial portion .... "On the same Page, final paragraph, final
sentence, delete "utilized" and replace with, "incorporated as open space."
Commissioner Tucker asked that on Page 5, fifth paragraph, sixth sentence, delete "that" and
replace with "than"
HARRIS/PINES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 1987, AS
AMENDED. Passed 7-0.
Deletions to the Agenda:
- Applicant requested Continuance of Item 5 to February 11, 1987.
- Item 10 to be Continued to February 11, 1987.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Gary Gettleman, 13929 Vista Regina, Saratoga, asked about the widening of Vista
Regina; Staff was not aware of any Agenda. Item which included street widening.
REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING QF AGENDA;
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
January 23, 1987.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR;
1. 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.,
V-86-004 in 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 February 25, 1987 at the request of the applicant.
2. DR-86-059 Lohr, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,215
sq.ft. two-story single family home where 4,000 sq. ft. is the maximum
allowable floor area at 19560 Chardonnay in the R-1-12.,500 zoning district.
3. UP-86-005 A-M Company, request for conditional use permit approval to allow a model/
sales office to be located in one of the units of a 21 unit condominium project
under construction on Biarritz Ln. (at Saratoga Ave. & Bucknail) in the
RM-5000 zoning district.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: Continued
4. DR-86-053 Sanchez, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
two-story home at 15187 Blue Gum Ct., in the R-I-40,000 zoning district.
5. SD-86-009 Woolworth Construction, request for tentative map approval for a 3-lot
subdivision on a 1.48 acre site located at 13095 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. in
the R-1-12,500 zoning district.
6. DR-86-048 Robert Morriss, request for design review approval of plans to construct a
new two-story single family dwelling at 21356 Diamond Oak Ct. in the NHR
zoning district.
7. DR-86-066 J. Lohr, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 3,574
sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling where 3,500 sq. ft. is the maximum
floor area at 18748 Cabernet Dr. in the R-l-10,000 zoning district.
8. DR-86-067 J. Lohr, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
one-story single family dwelling at 18778 Cabernet Dr. in the R-1-10,000
zoning district.
9. DR-86-068 Brian Kelly, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
one-story single family dwelling at 19313 Lisa Marie Ct., in the R-I-20,000
zoning district. :
Planner Caldwell noted an addition to Item 8, Exhibit B, 1., add the word "not" to read, "does
not unreasonably interfere with views..." and on Item 10, plans indicate that the project was
located on Scott Ct.; the project is located on Lisa Marie Ct.
Chairwoman Burger noted that Items 1 and 5 were Continued to February 11, 1987.
SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10. 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 19 136 Springbrook Ln., in the R-1-40,000 zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
..................................................... L .....................................................
Continued to Planning Commission Meeting of February 11, 1987.
11. UP-86-006 Saratoga Ave. Office Center, request for use permit approval to modify the
regulations contained in City COde Sec. 15-3.0.090 [(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 12950 and 12980 Saratoga
Ave. in the PA (Professional Administrative) zoning district.
Planner Caldwell stated that Staff recommended the first option. She called attention to
photographs presented at the last Public Hearing and noted that one of the free standing signs
located to the south was placed on top of a mound; this was in conflict with the site plan
presented for review. Staff noted that any approval of the six monument signs, if granted,
would be for the monument sign in line with the building and in a depressed area.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:16 P.M.
Mr. Steve Douglas, Representative of the owners, stated that Option 1 was preferred.
Facsimile signs were used on photographs presented to indicate position and backdrop of the
proposed signs; however, the appearance was not represented. He noted that the location of
the signs shown was the location intended and stated that the signs were in response to
requirements and requests of tenants. With respect to the interior signs, there was a very
limited angle at which these signs can be seen.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
JANUARY 28, 1.987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question, the Applicant noted the two address signs
and the directories at each of three entrances; the~e sings had already been approved. In
response to Commissioner Harris' question, he stated it was their decision to have entries off
interior corridors for smaller tenants; if exterior entries had been used, then each tenant would
have had a sign. The Commissioner noted that this statement was misleading; Mr. Douglas
responded that there wasn't a limitation to only one building entrance. He confirrned that there
was no parking area on Saratoga Ave. for Building 4 and that the directories were for
addresses only. He noted that the tenant in Building 1, used the entrance facing Saratoga Ave.
as an employee entrance. He noted that smaller tenants do not have the same requirements for
identity.
In response to Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Douglas stated that every tenant leasing space would
be entitled to an exterior sign, regardless of the amount of square footage leased. The
Commissioner presented a series of photographs 'of signs used in other locations. She stated
that signage requested in this application was more appropriate for an induslrial complex; signs
as proposed would impact the neighborhood, were unnecessary and not in keeping with a P-A
district. The Applicant responded that the greatest difficulty in obtaining approval of this
Application was recognition of the fact that this project of 10.25 acres, four buildings and
90,000 square feet of office space did not exist elsewhere in the City; the sign ordinance did
not address such a project. Commissioner Siegfh'ed concurred with the previous statement.
Commissioner Pines noted that he opposed the use of facia signs (Option 2) which would
destroy the lines of the building and have a negative effect on the area.
Commissioner Tucker noted her difficulty in making Finding 1. ACCordance with Objective of
the Ordinance. The proposed signage was not in keeping with the intent of the development,
namely, to conserve the residential character of the community, nor was it low in profile or
compatible with the neighborhood.
Planner Catdwell commented that conspicuously missing from photographs presented by the
Applicant was the monument sign on Mc Farland/Saratoga Ave. intersection. She noted the
discrepancy in placement of the proposed sign by Building 4 as shown on the site plan. Staff
felt that existing signage would conflict with the proposed sign and not contribute to the
orderliness and purpose of signage regulations in a P-A zone. In response, Mr. Douglas stated
that there was an error. The intent was to have a visible sign; if the location depicted on the site
plan was below the berm and not visible, then it would not make sense to erect a sign there.
He would accept another location if the sign would be visible. The intent was that the
monument portion of the sign would look as if resting on the lawn.
Commissioner Pines commented that there was a difference in the way tenants occupy space
and require identity; he concurred with the opinion expressed at the previous Public Heating,
namely, the signs proposed were understated and were not disruptive to the area. He would
not favor signs larger than proposed. He would vote favorably for the proposed location of the
signs with the exception of Building 4; this sign should be relocated.
In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question, Mr. Douglas stated that the six proposed
signs were the completed plan for signage of this site; additional tenants will not require
another request for signage.
Commissioner Tucker noted for the record that Mrs. Margaret Russell voiced her opposition to
the Application under consideration.
HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Harris stated that she did not see the need for the signs to be so visible from
Saratoga Ave. since there is no parking for Building 4 adjacent to Saratoga Ave; with respect
to Building 1, employee parking will be facing Saratoga Ave., thus it was unnecessary to place
signage visible from the street. She was favorable to proposed interior signs and stated that the
City of Saratoga was unique; the City was not interested in commercial property at this site.
She noted for the record that she was strongly opposed to the proposed signage on Saratoga
Ave. :
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
TUCKER/GUCH MOVED TO DENY UP-86-006 ON THE GROUNDS THAT FINDING 1.
COULD NOT BE MADE. Failed 3-4, Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Siegfried, Pines,
Callans opposed.
Commissioner Pines asked that the location of the sign for Building 4 be stated and suggested
that the sign be located further northeast, toward Cox Ave./Saratoga Ave. intersection. The
Applicant was agreeable to placing the sign further north along Saratoga Ave. closer to the inset
of the building. The sign will be moved approximately 60 ft., with the base of the sign is to
be on the back of the berm, 6 inches below the crown of the hill.
PINES/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE UP-86-006, AMENDING THE RESOLUTION
TO READ, THE SIGN FOR BUILDING 4 TO BE MOVED 60 FT. IN A
NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION WITH THE BASE OF THE SIGN TO BE PLACED ON
THE BACK OF THE BERM, 6 INCHES BELOW THE CROWN OF THE HILL. Passed
4-3, Commissioners Harris, Guch, Tucker opposed.
12. Saratoga Village Plan - Consider preliminary public input on draft Saratoga
Village Planning Program
Planner Young presented the Memorandum on the Saratoga Village Planning Program, dated
January 22, 1987.
Mr. Lafer, Consultant, reviewed the Summary of the Planning Commission, study session of
November 4, 1986, adding the following comments:
Chapter II. Land Use and Zoning:
1. Height - He concurred that 3 story buildings on Big Basin Way could be visually intrusive
on a narrow street and was agreeable to eliminating the reference to 40 ft. height
allowance. He suggested the wording, "Three story structures could be developed either
on the rear half of the property or the rear half of the linear length of the buildings, not on
the frontage of buildings."
2. New zoning districts - Additional comment not required.
3. Parking - He noted the need for additional parking studies. As stated in the Report,
parking in small lots with obscure entrances on the north side of Big Basin Way were
inadequately used. He suggested that, rather then looking at other communities to
determine their parking requirements, parking studies be based upon direct observation of
the Village area due to the terrain, dead end streets and other unique characteristics of the
Village. Solutions lie in improved pedestrian access to parking, consolidation of lots and
better lighting of parking areas.
"Automobile-oriented business," such as automobile upholstery or auto parts shops, are
undesirable and should be excluded; such operations occupy space, are unattractive and
attract automobiles. Perhaps drive-in restaurants and similar retail uses should also be
excluded. Business in the Village should be pedesuian intensive.
4. Office and professional uses - permitted to the rear or second story of buildings so as to
not interrupt pedestrian traffic flow.
Chapter III, Vehicular Circulation:
1. Left turn lanes - each left turn lane would remove a minimum of three on-street parking
spaces; however, these lanes are needed especially for aftemoon traffic and should be
considered after the first phase of parking improvements are completed.
2. General - he concurred that additional studies are needed. The turn around has been
proposed for an optimal location; however, it cotrid also be located further west if
necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
3. Parking - if a parking structure were needed, the best place for it would be out of sight of
Big Basin Way.
Chapter IV, Design Guidelines:
1. Design Review Board - design review will require a significant amount of time and work, '
reviewing proposed building designs as well as working with Staff to coordinate details of
public improvements. The Consultants suggested a separate design review committee.
2. Street trees - he commented on the method of calculating cost figures submitted.
3. Public plaza - he felt that the proposed location was acceptable and suggested that a smaller
space could be considered, which would still create a significant visual impact on the street
wew. He noted that leasing land from private parties was often done in the east; any legal
concerns could be worked out by the City Attorney.
4. Signage - Consultants noted that signs which :are too large destroy the architecture of the
buildings and dominate the visual environment.
5. Historic Overlay - Consultants felt that as the:Historic Preservation Con~mission continued
the work, there may be new proposals and mechanisms; a historic preservation overlay
might not be precisely contiguous with the commercial development downtown but might
extend over the residential district. This would not be possible if it were all incorporated in
a conu'nercial zoning district.
Secondly, if such a district were created it might incorporate special incentives for saving
buildings of historic value, for example, reduced property taxes or special building code
applications. If so, it would be better to have these items in a special overlay zone so that
if there were a challenge or litigation, the whole commercial zoning district doesn't end up
in the courts.
Chapter V, Implementation: No additional comments.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M.
Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Merchants Association'. Task Force, stated his personal comments on
the above: :
3 story buildings on Big Basin Way would create excessive traffic, would not relieve the
parking shortage, and were not in keeping with the Village plan.
Questioned the differential in Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the conm~ercial district in density, site
coverage and setbacks. He favored one continuous shopping area.
Parking District 6; he suggested that the turn around area is placed on 6th street.
In-lieu fees to replace on-site parking requirements for property which had no parking and
no parking district existed, a property owner could pay an in-lieu of fee allowing
development of the property to take place, increased square footage could be built and
money would be in place for future parking districts.
- Questioned the concept of placing retail stores along Big Basin Way and asked what would
happen to a service business already located on Big Basin Way.
- Questioned the plans in front of Buy and Save
He presented a letter from the Village Association, stating that the Board of Directors would
approve in concept a plan whereby the developer paid fees in advance and could then proceed
with development.
Mr. Bill Carlson, Bella Mia Restaurant, favored the proposed plan and asked that the Sign
Ordinance include provisions prohibiting use of neon signs. He recommended that replicas of
old fashioned street lamps and park benches be used on 5th and 6th streets.
Mr. McKenzie, 14554 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, discouraged removal of any parking spaces.
He concurred with the idea of in-lieu fees suggested above and was favorable to two story
parking ramps.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Dave Morrison, Saratoga, asked specific questions regarding property he owned, asking
that this property be rezoned for commercial use.'
Ms. Betty Rowe, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, addressed the issue of the Public
Heating to be held on March 4, 1987, on the proposed Bed and Breakfast Ordinance; she is
opposed to extending the Village boundary to allow a Bed and Breakfast establishment in a
residential area.
Mr. John Christian, 19022 Brookhaven Dr., Saratoga, stated that he has the same concern;
since the Planning Commission voted to deny the application, why was the issue part of the
Consultant's recommendations? The City Attorney stated that the Consultant was responding
to the Commission's question whether the heritage overlay was a zoning classification; it was
noted in comments made that it was not necessary to tie the two together, the Heritage
Commission may have different boundary lines.
Ms. Jackie Welch, Chairwoman of the Beautification Committee, proposed the following:
Plan to repair sidewalks for both safety and appearance, asking that sidewalks be uniform
throughout the Village
- Sidewalk between 4th Street and Wildwood Park to connect the Park and the Village
- Unauthorized use of on-street parking by proprietors and employees; she suggested
provision for free proprietor and employee parking to eliminate the problem
- Specifying type of awnings, use of canvas awnings only
- Guidelines regarding temporary signage
- Telephones and benches to be located near bus stops
- Use of specified type of cobblestones
- Restriction of parking lots from abutting sidewalks; only retail and commercial use should
abutt sidewalks
- Questioned parking formulas and asked whether such would give flexibility for uses such
as outdoor dining and historic buildings. :
Mr. John De Manto, San Jose Construction Co., owners of the former Security Pacific Bank
Building, commented on the following:
- Noted in Parking District 5, that Bank property and Village Shopping Center parking had a
differential grade level and questioned whether these two lots were to be combined
Concern with left turn lanes on 3th and 4th Streets and the resulting loss of parking
Provision for doubling office space at the Bank Building, which he wished to preserve
Favored a turn around to the south of the Village
Monitoring employee parking
Questioned the street name, Turkey Track Lane
Questioned the cost of building the proposed parking garage
- Questioned a proposal which would not allow any additional banks; he wished to protect
his investment in the former Bank Building
- Procedures to be followed during the review Of the Village Plan proposal with prospective
tenants
- Use of "maintainable" materials in construction or beautifying the Village
Mr. 'Frank Behnke, President, Saratoga Village Association, stated that the proposed Village
Plan did not provide any information not already known. He noted that retailers are leaving the
Village and asked that the Village be supported and that parking space be increased. He
favored the proposed Parking District.
The Public Hearing Continued to February 25, 1987.
Chairwoman Burger recessed the Meeting from 9:23 - 9:40 P.M.
13. DR-86-054 Krajeska, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new
two-story single family home at 13943 Pierce Rd. (Vista Regina) in the NHR
zoning district.
Chairwoman Burger reported on the site visit.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Planner Caldwell presented the Report to the Planning Commission, January 28,' 1987, and
noted the following changes:
- The new owners are Mr. Toscano and Ms. Cowi ngs
- On Staff Analysis, Page 0091, final paragraph, delete "76 ft." to read, "..there is to be no
structure over 6 ft. in height .... "
Staff had two major concerns, namely;
- Findings 1 and 4 cannot be made by the Staff.
- Incompatibility with the purpose of the NHR.District and the General Plan. Due to the
limited setback from the street, proposed two story house and unhealthy vegetation on the
property, Staff felt that the purpose of the NHR Zoning District to maintain the natural
environment and rural character had not been met. Secondly, the General Plan calls for
preservation of the natural landscape; requirements of the view easement were reviewed.
Staff noted that placement of the driveway on the view easement did not meet the intent of
the General Plan; Staff recommended denial without prejudice.
Mr. Bill Toscano, Applicant, addressed concerns noted above:
Incompatibility of the proposed two story home with surrounding neighborhood: he
stated that they had met zoning regulations with regard to setback requirements and height
of the structure and compared setbacks of adjacent homes with his proposed home; for
these reasons, there was no incompatibility with adjacent homes.
Privacy impact on neighbors: the Applicant suggested removal or relocation of the second
story window.
Easement on the property: Mr. Toscano did not feel there was a violation of the view
easement in placing the driveway in the proposed location: a driveway was considered to
be an access.
Ms. Pat Cowings, Applicant, stated that the location of the driveway was both logical and
aesthetically appealing. She stated that they did not intend to use the driveway for vehicle
storage but only for vehicle access.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:57 P.M.
Mr. Heinrich Hensiker noted a letter written to the Commission. He concurred with the Staff
Report and stated that the proposed house did not.take into account the environment nor the
character of the neighborhood; secondly, the view easement had not been taken into account.
Mr. Gary Gettleman, 13929 Vista Regina, Saratoga, concurred the the findings of Staff. The
other two story houses on the street are less intrusive.
Commissioner Guch reviewed information from the site visit and concluded that a two story
house would be quite intrusive and out of character with adjacent homes. The property in
question could be utilized in another way; Commissioner Siegfried concurred. Commissioner
Harris suggested that the proposed house be moved further to the rear of the property.
Commissioner Pines concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that elements of a two story
house were possible; however, it did not appear that the site was considered in the design of
the proposed house. Chairwoman Burger added that she also wished to see the house moved
further back on the lot and noted her concern regarding the easement. Commissioner Harris
noted for the benefit of the Applicant the purpose of the design review.
HARRIS/SEIGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:02 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY DR-86-05'4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 7-0.
Discussion arnong the Commissioners regarding the possibility of a study session to further
consider this Application. Planner Caldwell noted that the waiving of fees was not within the
authority of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
JANUARY 28, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ;
Mr. Toscano stated that he and his wife were ame. nable to continuance of the Application to a
study session to obtain guidance from Staff. Commissioner Pines informed the Applicants that
the Commission would be looking for working drawings incorporating the comments of the
Commission. The City Attorney asked the Applicant for a waiver of the stated deadlines for
acting on this Application.
PINES/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF DR-86-054, TO CONTINUE
THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 25, 1987, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
\ PRIOR TO THAT DATE, THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT REVISED PLANS FOR
REVIEW BY THE STAFF AND PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION AT STUDY
SESSION PRIOR TO MARCH 25, 1987, ON CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT
EXECUTE A WAIVER OF TIME LIMITS ON THE RUNNING OF THE APPLICATION,
EXTENDED BY NINETY DAYS. Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Siegfried summarized for the Applicants that the Commission would like a new
design, with removal of the driveway from the view easement, a design that was compatible
with the neighborhoed and substantially less in height.
MISCELLANEOUS: - None.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written:
1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting of January 7, 1987.
- Noted and filed.
2. Letter from the League of California Cities of January 13, 1987, regarding Planning
Commissioner's Institute. Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Pines, Cailans
and Tucker tentatively indicated that they would participate.
Planning Commission Meeting of March 11, '1987, will be cancelled due to the Institute.
Oral by Commission: - City Council Report
Commissioner Callans reported on the City Council Meeting of January 21, 1987.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Probst-Caughey
Recording Secretary