Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: February 25, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Pines, Callans, Tucker Absent: Commissioner Guch Approval of Minutes: Meeting of February 11, 1987 Commissioner Tucker requested an addition on Page 4, AZO-87-001 to read, "In response to Commissioner Tucker's comment that obtaining a Building Permit did not automatically imply that the structure had been built according to Code unless final approval had been granted, he stated that the burden of proof was on the applicant since the City could not, in many cases, establish that the structures were lawfully constructed. The Commissioner stated that she was not in favor of lowering building standards nor was she favorable to a reduction in the amount of the application fee." Commissioner Harris asked that on Page 2, secohd paragraph from bottom to read, "...the original house was poorly designed." On Page 3, fifth paragraph, to read, "19870 Lanark Ln." Final paragraph to read "...moving the proposed cabana forward toward the pool 13 ft." and in the Motion, "...that the cabana be moved 13 ft. forward toward the pool." HARRIS/PINES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 1987, AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0. Deletions to the Agenda: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on February 20, 1987. ! PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-86-061 Gallo, request for design review approval to construct a 5,502 sq.ft. new two-story single family dwelling at 20097 Mendelsohn Lane in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. 2. SD-86-001 Goni, request for building site:and design review approval for construction of a new two-story single family dwelling at 14080 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., in the R-l-10,000 zoning: district. Also consider granting variance approval for a carport to be loc. ated 9 ft. from the .front property line where 25 ft. is the required setback at the above address per Chapter 15 of the City Cede. Variance no longer required. 3. DR-86-028-2 Wayne Miller Investment Co.; request for design review approval of seven townhomes on .88 acres of vacant property in the C-N zone, located at the westerly terminus of Pierce Rd., east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. 4. UP-86-004 Miller, request for use permit approval of plans to construct a new 450 sq.ft. accessory structure at 20261 La Paloma, in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR'. Continued 5. DR-86-064 Murano, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,736 sq. ft. two-story single family home at 12413 Parker Ranch Rd., in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. DR-86-069 Johnson, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 3,744 sq. ft. one-story single family dwelling at 18935 Monte Vista Dr. in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. DR-86-063 Yu, request for design review approval of plans for a 1,771 sq. ft. second story addition/first floor remodel to an existing one-story single family home at 14680 Sobey Rd. in the R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Caldwell noted the following changes to .Public Hearings Consent Calendar: - Item 1, the Report of the Horticulturalist had been received; approval of this Item would include removal of Trees no. 5 and 15 from the site. - Item 3, addition of a Condition 14, to read, "Height not to exceed 25 1/2 ft." Plans presented were mislabeled 26 ft.; the Use Permit restricts height to 25 1/2 ft. - Item 5, proposed colors were posted for review of the Planning Commission. In "Report to the Planning Commission" delete 20 ft. and replace with "proposed home will be 30 ft. in height." :: In Technical Information and Staff Analysis'; Proposed Setbacks, Right side: "80 ft." - Item 6, Letter from adjacent neighbor noting:concerns; of the concerns addressed, the location of the driveway had not been resolved. Staff recommended Continuation of item. Planning Commission requested removal of Consent Calendar Item 6. Commissioner Pines requested removal of Consent Calendar Item 3. Commissioner Harris requested removal of Consent Calendar Item 4. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED' APPROVAL O~ CONSENT CALENDAR WITH REMOVAL OF ITEMS 3, 4, AND 6. Passed 6'0. 3. DR-86-028-2 Wayne Miller Investment Co.i request for design review approval of seven townhomes on .88 acres of vacant property in the C-N zone, located at the westerly terminus of Pierce Rd., east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Commissioner Pines questioned the Net Parcel Size, stating that his figures indicated 33,410 sq.ft., which did not include reduction of site for the 15 ft. easement; he asked that plans and Staff Report be corrected. In addition, Commissioner Pines asked that it be understood that the fence to the rear of the townhouses, adjacent to Argonaut Shopping Center, was to remain 6 ft. in height. He noted that second floor bedroom windows of the townhouses overlooked the shopping center, trash and loading dock areas and did not wish prospective owners of the townhouse to request the height of the fence to be raised. In response, City Attorney Toppel suggested the addition of a Condition that the 6 ft. limitation on fence height' be included in the CC&R's. Staff will confirm technical information and record the net parcel size. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Architect, accepted the proposed Condition and stated they would confu'm figures in technical information. Commissioner Pines noted he did not wish this Application approved and later changed, raising the height of.the fence. He acknowledged that a problem existed; however, the density of the site created such a situation. The Applicant noted that substantial landscape along the property line would adequately address concerns of prospective homeowners. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:17 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFR/ED/PINES MOVED APPROVAL DR-86-028-2 WITH A CONDITION ADDED STATING THAT THE CCNR INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT THE FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED 6 FT. IN HEIGHT. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: Continued 4. UP-86-004 Miller, request for use permit hpproval of plans to conswuct a new 450 sq.ft. accessory structure at 20261 La Paloma, in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Commissioner Harris questioned whether a Condition could be added, restricting the addition of a kitchen to this unit and that this accessory structure not be used as a second unit; the City Attorney continned that such could be added as a Condition of Approval. Planner Caldwell noted that Condition 2 addressed the concern raised by Commissioner Harris. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:20 P.M. Th, ere were no speakers. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:21 P.M. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-86-004, CONDITION 2 TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE THAT A KITCHEN MAY NOT BE ADDED TO THE STRUCTURE. Passed 6-0. 6. DR-86-069 Johnson, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 3,744 sq. ft. one-story single family dwelling at 18935 Monte Vista Dr. in the R-1-40,000 zoning distdc~ per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Caldwell noted the letter received from Mr. Ernst H. Gemassmer, an adjacent property owner, listing three areas of concem. A revised .site plan was presented showing the proposed relocation of the driveway; Staff understood that neighbors were not agreeable to this relocation of the driveway. With regard to the second concern listed, a revised Exhibit "A" was presented showing the addition of a Condition 14 to read, "Prior to issuance of a permit, applicant shall submit the plans to the City Horticulturalist for review of the paved turn around in relationship to the eucalyptus trees. All recommendations for protection of the eucalyptus trees shall be incorporated into the project." With regard to the third concern, the address maps of the City had been changed to reflect that the address of the new residence would be 18955 Monte Vista Dr.; both the second and third concerns had been resolved. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:24 P.M. Mr. Rex Morton, Cobb & Morton Architects, stated that he had met with Mr. Gemassmer to discuss proposed relocation of the driveway. When the original entrance was unacceptable, a Civil Engineer was asked to create a new entrance which was safe, related to vegetation and minimized the cut and fill required; the adjacent property owner had requested that the driveway be moved an additional 15 ft. Continuance of the Application would be an extraordinary hardship; he asked that approval be granted with the Condition that a mutually agreeable solution be found and that such be submitted to the City for final approval. Mr. Ernst H. Gemassmer, 18935 Monte Vista D~'., Saratoga, was confident that an amicable solution could be found and was favorable to the .proposal made by Mr. Morton. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:27 P.M. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney stated that the Application could be approved subject to a Condition, addressing the location of the driveway; however, approval should not be conditioned upon agreement of the adjacent property owners among themselves. Suggested Condition: 1. Building Permits shall not be issued until the 'driveway location has been approved by the Planning Commission, and 2. Location of the driveway shall be subject to subsequent approval by the Commission. HARRIS/PINES MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-86-069 SUBJECT TO ADDITION OF A CONDITION AS STATED BY THE CITY AT'FORNEY. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. Saratoga Village Plan - Consider preliminary public input on draft Saratoga Village Planning Program Planning Director Hsia reviewed the status of the'.Saratoga Village Plan and asked the Planning Commission to direct Staff to prepare a draft; he noted a change in the existing Zoning Map. The Public Hearing was opened 7:35 P.M. Mr. Miles Rankin, Village Merchants Association Task Force, made the following comments: Parking District 6; he asked for further consideration of this proposal by the Commission In-lieu Fee; asked for consideration of this issue Favored only one zoning district in the Village No three story buildings jn the Village Existing office use; he suggested consideration of a time limit for inappropriate uses Businesses with intensive uses, i.e., real estate or phone sales offices; possible creation of a separate standard for intensive office use verses general office use? Requested clarification of the number of parking spaces gained from parking districts Design guidelines were too general; he asked' that a "flavor" for the Village be agreed upon Enforcement of guidelines Col. E.T. Barco concurred with the comments made by Mr. Rankin. Mr. Dennis Aidridge, 14607 Aloha Ave., Saratoga, questioned whether the Saratoga Village Plan was related to the extension of the Village boundary 500 ft. to include Bed and Breakfast establishments; Chairwoman Burger reviewed the decision of the Commission on this issue. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Passed 6-0. The Planning Commission reviewed and commented upon the Report from Stephen Lafer, Consultant, dated February 5, 1987, as follows: Land Use and Zoning: Comment 1: Commissioner Tucker asked that a Traffic Study by done. Commissioners Siegfried and Pines favored the retention of two .zoning districts and noted differences in the two districts. Consensus reached by the Commission in favor of retaining C-H-1 and C-H-2. Comment 2: Consensus reached to prohibit the third story on street; however, a third story to the rear of the building would be allowed. Parking needs to be addressed. Comment 3: Commissioner Harris noted there was no testimony that would change the plan to phase out office use at street level; she favored the use of a time limit. The City Attorney stated that a time period was already specified; he noted the distinction between a non-conforming use and a non-conforming structure. The question was whether the City would enforce the removal of a non-conforming use for which the time had expired. A non- conforming office use at ground level could be legitimized through a use permit and subject to conditions imposed by the Commission. He confirmed that the devise was already in place as the Code presently existed. Request made that the report state any applicable Codes; the Commission wished to see the Code enforced as outlined by the City Att.omey. Comment 4: The City Attomey stated that the Code defined various types of services; these definitions were consistent with comments made by the Consultant. Comment 5: No additional comment made by the Commission. Vehicular Circulation: Comment 6: No additional comment made by the Commission. Comment 7: No comment necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Design Guidelines: Comment 1: Commissioner Siegfried noted the ,unspecific nature of design guidelines. Consensus reached to support the proposed mini-plaza on the south side of the Village. Comment 2: Design review guidelines need to be specific for the Village. Comment 3: As above Comment 4: No additional comment. '. Comment 5: No additional comment. Comment 6: Commissioner Harris asked that a limitation regarding size and non-moving images be placed on neon signs. Chairwoman Burger favored a ban on all neon signs. Consensus reached that neon signs not be banned, however design and size to be severely restricted; Chairwoman Burger dissenting. Comment 7: Commissioner Harris cited comments made at Study Session; consensus that Sign Ordinance already in place be enforced. Comment 8: Details to be addressed in Design Review guidelines. Comment 9: Details to be addressed in Design Review guidelines, concurrence with Consultant's comment. Comment 10: Concurrence with Consultant's comment. Comment 11: Concurrence with Consultant's comment that "all awnings should be canvas." Parking: Comment 1: Commissioher Siegfried asked that long term parking requirements be met and enforced. Consensus that employee and proprietor long term parking be provided and enforced; in addition a Traffic Study was requested. Comment 2: Commissioners were favorable to in-lieu fees but asked how other cities handled similar parking situations. Consensus in favor of in-lieu fees for every parking district. Comment 3: No comment save that a parking structure was considered a long range issue. Comment 4: No recommendation at this time; requested a Traffic Study for further information Commissioner Siegfried questioned the effects of intensification of office use (less square footage per user) in the Village as well as in Saratoga. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's comment, the City Attorney stated that the Ordinance did not address this issue specifically; however, the use permit could regulate intensity of use. Commissioner Harris noted that a turn around was already being used; a Traffic and parking study could address the issue. Consensus reached in favor of the turn around; Chairwoman Burger and Commissioner Siegfried dissented. The Commission requested a detailed study. Consideration of the establishment of a Design Review Committee as a decision making body; consensus reached that the Commission wished to retain decision making power in regard to the Village. However, consideration would be given to the establishment of a design review committee as an advisory body. 9. DR-86-028-1 Wayne Miller Investment Co.~ request for design review approval of 15,400 sq.ft. retail Center on 1.42 acres of vacant property in the C-N zone, located east of Saratoga.-Sunnyvale Rd. approximately 300 ft. south of Cox Ave. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to Planning Commission, February 25, 1987, and noted the revised Condition 16. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Pines questioned sources of fundi.ng referred to in Condition 16; he noted that the development of this property would cream gre'ater demand for a signal light at the intersection of Pierce Rd./Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.. The City Engineer stated that Caltrans funded traffic signals if an obligation on their part existed and funds were available; he estimated the cost to be $100,000 for installation 9f the traffic signal with additional expense for conslraction of a left turn lane or any other ch'anges necessary. Commissioner Callans questioned the time flame !for installation of the traffic signal and suggested the possibility of 50% payment by the State for costs incurred; the City Engineer stated that a commitment had not been received from the State as yet. He reviewed procedures used to determine an obligation of the State and noted that funding, even when an obligation was realized, depended upon funds available. He had received indication that this project would be funded. Commissioner Callans noted that the signalizafion at Herriman Ave./ Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. extended over a three year period and commented that the proposed development could be built well before occupancy was allowed due to incomplete traffic improvements. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:39 P.M. Mr. Norm Hulberg, representative of the Applicant, noted that the Traffic Study had been completed; he stated that the Applicants were prepared to accept the requirements requested. The question was cost of the traffic signal; he cited comments from the Traffic Study which stated that a signal was already warranted at the intersection; Commissioner Siegfi-icd commented that development would substantially increase traffic at this location. Mr. Hulberg stated that the Applicants were willing to pay a fair share of the cost of a traffic signal. Chairwoman Burger read the revised Condition 1.6; Mr. Hulberg responded that this was a reasonable requirement and concurred with the concern stated by Commissioner Callans regarding the time required to complete the instaliation of necessary traffic modifications. He confirmed that he was aware of the revision of Condition 16. The City Attorney reviewed discussions at a Staff level that the cost breakdown would be: 25% from the developer of the City-owned property 25% from the developer of the property under consideration 50% from Caltrans or advanced by the City. The City Attorney stated that the above percentages were reasonable and appropriate. He noted concern with respect to the second sentence of Condition 16; once the developer paid their share of the cost, they had performed their obligation in this respect. He suggested that if the Commission wished to commit the City to 50% of the cost, then the occupancy provision could be eliminated. PINESfrUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried reiterated concerns regarding traffic safety if development were allowed without the necessary traffic signalization; he would concur if the consensus of the Commission were to commit the City to 50% of the cost. In response to questions, the City Engineer responded he knew of no instance where funds put up by a city were reimbursed by Caltrans. Commissioner Siegfried favored a 50-50 split of the cost to be borne by developers of this property and the adjacent City-owned property; he stated that he would never agree to any Condition allowing occupancy of the buildings without a traffic signal at the intersection. The City Engineer reviewed the position of the COuncil on the City-owned property; it was his position that if the development were occupied prior to installation of a signal, that no left turn be allowed exiting the property due to severe visibility problems to the north. Chairwoman Burger questioned the viability of such a temporary solution. Commissioner Pines noted for the record that a cOmmiunent of 50% paymen~ for the traffic signal on the part of the City would be excessive; :he suggested that a 25% reimbursable commitment would be more appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7. FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Engineer urged if there was no traffic signal at this location, and none anticipated in the near future, there not be a driveway opposite Pierce Rd; the proposed driveway could be blocked until the installation of a traffic signal. Commissioner Pines noted that a blocked entrance inferred another entrance. The City AttOrney stated that a series of Conditions could be used to regulate entrances before installation of a traffic signal. Commissioner Pines noted the following comments: Exhibit A-l; according to his figures the gross area is 1.42 acres or 61,855 sq. ft. The actual net area must still subtract the additional 15 ft. Santa Clara County Flood Control District easement or 6750 sq. ft. The net square footage then, equals 45,325 sq.ft. He noted that the project would not be allowed to develop without creating the 15 ft. easement for the flood control diswict; he cited the definition in Section 1506.620 Modification resulted in only 7.2 % open area of which 99% was behind the buildings; between the buildings and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. only four to five Oak trees remained. He suggested the addition of trellises to promote plant growth, shade the buildings and soften the appearance of the front elevation. - Use of turf block in the easement instead of pavement - Placement of a bench and trellises near the Creek - On Exhibit A, 6, to include a guarantee of landscape maintenance - Prohibition. on window signs - Hours of operation to be conditioned - Screening of the transformer when installed, and trash enclosure area On Traffic/Circulation, allowance for one driveway only On Signage. he favored similar lettering style; however, size of lettering to be reduced. Questioned the need for free standing signs in addition to building mounted signs On Signage. 4.B, questioned the meaning : On Retail Center., 3, questioned the meaning .and noted that by his calculations, every tree on site would be removed with the exception of trees in the Creek right-of-way He noted for the record concern regarding site coverage; there remained only 7% landscaping, with 92.8% impervious coverage. He favored a limit of impervious coverage in the C-N zone and noted that this site plan demonstrated his contern. The City Attorney advised the Commission to renew the sign program proposed by the Applicant. Commissioner Tucker questioned the' size of proposed signs; Mr. Anderson stated that it was difficult to ascertain size of space leased by any one tenant; he confirmed that the signs would not be neon. The Commissioner felt that 15 by 12 inch lettering was excessive. Commissioner Siegfried asked that the Applicants address the issue of access; Mr. Hulburg cited a study which showed that a center of the si.ze proposed required more than one driveway. He concurred that placement of the driveway on the property line between the two projects created the problem of an immediate turn to the fight or left upon entrance. He favored building both driveways and barricading one if necessary. Mr. Gary Black of Barunan-Ashmann, stated thai the preferred driveway design was the one presented on exhibits; in their opinion, a second driveway was necessary due to constraints of the site at the second driveway. In addition, them was no "stacking distance" and noted that congestion would occur at peak hours. He favored the northernmost driveway as shown since maximum stacking distance was available. In response to Commissioner Pines' comments a.bove, Mr. Anderson stated that Santa Clara Water District would not allow the use of tuff bloCk. Use of trellises were not complimentary to the architecture; however, benches on site were acceptable. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's concerns, he stated that it would be difficult to add landscaping to the site without another design review; consideration of elimination of some parking spaces was requested to allow additional landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-86-028-1 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE APPLICANT SHALL ENTER INTO A WRITYEN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO RELOCATE THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE IF REQUESTED BY THE CITY TO DO SO; LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WILL BE REQUIRED ON SITE; SIGNAGE PROGRAM TO BE SUBMITtED TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL; A BENCH TO BE INSTALLED IN THE REAR AREA; THE ELIMINATION OF ONE PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF BUILDING A TO PROVIDE FOR EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPING ACROSS THE FRONT OF BUILDING A; REVISED CONDITION 16. Planner Caldwell stated that the reason for a revis~xl Condition 16 was that the City could more effectively negotiate with Caltrans. Commissioner Harris noted concern regarding the possibility of a 24 hours of operation at this center; the City Attorney reviewed procedures concerning regulation of 24 hours of operation and signage. Chairwoman Burger amended the Motion, to eliminate the possibility that the northerly driveway could be closed at a future date. Commissioner Pines stated that he would vote against the Motion under consideration. Any questions regarding parking spaces for the handicapped would be resolved by Code regulations. Commissioner Harris also stated that she would not vote favorably. Commissioner Callans noted concern allowing this Center to open without a traffic signal at the intersection and noted the lengthy process of installing the necessary signal. Commissioner Siegfried stated that Applicants had been informed that changes were needed to relieve the expanse of the buildings; he noted that no revisions had been offered and concurred with concerns expressed by Commissioner Callans. Chairwoman Burger called for a vote on the amehded Motion as presented above. Failed 1-5, Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Pines, Callans, Tucker opposed. Chairwoman Burger noted for the record that she. voted in favor of the an~ended Motion since she had introduced it. Chairwoman Burger recessed the Meeting from'9:50-10:05 P.M. 10. DR-86-062 Lee, request for design review approval of plans to con stxuct a new 7,252 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling where 6,200 sq. ft. is the maximum floor area allowed at 21301 Diamond Oaks Ct., in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 25, 1987, and noted the three major issues involved. Staff recommended denial of the Application, Commissioner Harris stated that the Applicant c.alled her and that she had made a site visit. She questioned the calculation of square footage and asked whether it was due to the underfloor which might be used as living space; Planner Caldwell confLrmed that it was and added that lowering the level further east would help. If the new Design Review Ordinance were in place, and given the slope of the lot, a 2500 sq.ft. house would be allowed; even with the elimination of the underfloor area, square footage of the proposed house would still be well over that allowed under the new Ordinance. Color samples were presented and a recommendation made that earthtones be conditioned a medium to darker tone than submitted. The Public Heating was opened at 10:10 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, addressed issues of bulk and visibility. He noted other homes in the subdivision that were "three stories" when stepped down; these homes were sometimes very visible. He questioned the computation of .the underfloor in determining allowable size. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Heiss presented a map and an aerial photograph. The proposed house had been aligned with contours of the lot; using fill to minimize the underfloor area was wasted effort and needless grading. Visibility of the site was negligible. Mr. David Pruitt, Architect, stated that the site was sufficiently covered with existing vegetation. A grey tone was submitted in replacement of the white tone previously submitted. Applicants were willing to place a deed restriction on the house insuring that the underfloor area would not be used as living space. The house was designed not to interfere with the natural flow of water off the property. He responded to questions concerning square footage, elevation, decks along the back of the house, the possibility of stepping down the house and the addition of windows to the rear. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:32 P.M. Passed 6-0. : Commissioner Harris concurred that the proposed house was visible only from Comer Dr. and to the immediate neighbors. She wished to condition the proposed color to be a medium or darker tone than presented and noted the benefits. of landscaping. In response to a question, the City Attorney stated that a Condition could be~ added requiring the Applicant to execute and record an agreement that the underfloor area shall not be converted into living space. Chairwoman Burger noted that Commissioner Tucker made the site visit. Planner Caldwell noted the agricultural preserve to the east of the property and asked the Commission to consider the possibility of a subdivision at some future date in making a decision on the visibility of the proposed house. Commissioner Siegfried noted the benefit to be derived from landscaping. HARRIS/PINES MOVED APPROVAL OF DR~86-062 MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT 1. THE VIEW OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS WILL BE MITIGATED WITH LANDSCAPING REQUIRED ACROSS THE EASTERLY ELEVATION ADJACENT TO THE STRUCTURE. THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSE WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE VALLEY. 3. THAT THE PERCEPTION OF EXCESSIVE BULK WILL BE MITIGATED BY THE DESIGN ELEMENT OF A DECK. DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY THE HOUSE HAS BEEN PLACED ACROSS CONTOUR LINES. 4. THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS COMPATIBLE W1TH HOMES IN THE AREA. CONDITION 3 TO BE AMENDED TO READ, ."5457 SQUARE FEET"; CHANGING CONDITION 10 TO READ, "EXTERIOR COLORS SHALL BE MEDIUM TO DARKER EARTH TONES..."; CONDITION 11 TO STATE THAT THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE EASTERN ELEVATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL AND SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A! CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.; ADDING A CONDITION 16 TO READ, "THE .'APPLICANT SHALL EXECUTE AND RECORD AN AGREEMENT THAT THE UNDERFLOOR AREA SHALL NOT BE CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE." HARRIS/PINES AMENDED THE MOTION TO READ, THE WINDOWS CAN BE REMOVED PER THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND THE DECK EXTENDED AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT. Passed 6-0. 11. AZO-86-001 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance amending Article 15-56 of the City Code to modify the p~'ovisions concerning legalization of certain existing second units. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application. . The City Attorney reviewed the status of the am6ndment to the Second Unit Ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:47 P.M. There were no speakers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:48 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Pines noted a concern that encouraging property owners to legifimize illegal units when, in fact, they will fear the expense required or know that these units cannot be brought up to Code; a reduction of fees will not change the problem. The City Attorney stated that the main inducement was establishment of a different standard for the issuance of a use permit, namely, if the unit complies with the housing code, meets fire and safety codes, it would qualify for a use permit and not be required to meet the standards applied to second units. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, the City Attorney defined the criteria for a legally built unit; he added that the Ordinance placed the burden of proof on the applicant, which could be difficult to prove. Commissioner Tucker stated for the record her concern that the City could be responsible if a Use Permit was acknowledged when standards may not have been met; the City Attorney responded that in order to obtain the Use Permit the structure would have to be brought up to Code. He noted that the relevant issue was whether structures comply with the Code at this time or could be brought into compliance through modification of the structure. Upon review of the proposed Ordinance, CommiSsioner Tucker felt that requirements were being relaxed; allowing lesser standards on existing structures that may have been illegally used as second units or as rentals was not the answer. The Commission should do the upmost to maintain safe building standards for all residents of the community. To relax these Codes to the benefit of those who have been illegally providing potentially unsafe housing was not only unfair, but unsafe. Citizens who remodel their homes are required to meet current codes; residents desiring second units should also be required to meet these standards. The Commission has an opportunity to provide safe, desirable housing and at the same time do away with unsafe or undesirable housing. This could possibly be done with cooperation of the realtors; she noted the full disclosure law. A realtor, listing a house with a second unit, could check with the City to insure that a Use Permit had been granted; if not, the City could investigate and give the owner the opportunity to'bring the structure up to Code or dismantle it. She was not in favor of providing potentially dangerous, nor substandard housing to any citizens; certainly seniors are not second rate citizens and deserve better. The City Attorney commented that the City was not modifying the housing Code nor the technical Codes listed in Chapter 16; the structure had to comply with these standards as they currenfiy exist. What will not be applied to existing units are the standards that a_re designed specifically for second units as contained in the zoning ordinance; however, Section 15-56,030 of the City Code, owner occupancy requirement and the age requirement are still applicable. He concurred with Commissioner Tucker that the special standards developed by the City for second unit ordinances were being relaxed; however, the City was not relaxing standards of the housing code, fire code or any building codes that would be applied. Commissioner Pines noted that those with unsafe units already knew that and thus would not come in; Chairwoman Burger concurred. Commissioner Tucker noted that the required findings were also being reduced in number and Changed in content. TUCKER/HARRIS RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF AZO-86-002 FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED. Passed 6-0. 12. AZO-86-002 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance mending Sections 15-80.020 and 15-80.080 of the City Code pertaining to radio and television antennas. A Negati~,e Declaration has been prepared for this application. : The City Attorney noted that individuals who wished to speak on this' issue were no longer present; he asked that this Item be Continued to the March 25, 1987, Meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING Continued MISCELLANEOUS: 13. EP-87-001 Kovacs, request for an encroachment permit to allow a 4.5 ft. high wooden fence in the public right-of-way at 14280 Paul Ave. in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 14'. of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to planning Commission, February 25, 1987. Commissioner Tucker reported on the site visit.. Mr. Joseph Kovacs, Applicant, presented a series of photographs and sketches. He believed that it was incon'ect that his fence encroached further into the public right-of-way than other fences along Paul Avenue. The fence on his property was designed to be both decorative and protective due to the special circumstances on Paul Ave. as well as the fact that he had been burglarized twice. Reduction of the height of the" fence would completely destroy the middle, solid section. The applicant felt that the fence was compatible with the surrounding environment. He called attention to photographs ~ showing the variety of fences in the area and noted the state of disrepair of many of the fences'in the neighborhood. Mrs. Maria Kovacs, Applicant, noted that the fence was to protect and beautify their house and property. The fence was hand built and carefully;designed; the middle section of the fence would compliment remodeling to be done on the house. She stated that clear visibility was available to adjacent neighbors. Mrs. Margaret Sherrill, 14290 Paul Ave., Saratoga, stated that the fence in question was of particular concern to her. She noted the ramifica.tions of this fence: Fence was higher than represented since the right-of-way was increased in height in the last 9-12 months; the fence was actually 5 1/2 ft. in height. Setting of a precedent for fence heights, design and encroachment of the public right-of-way. : Difficulty in making a safe exit from her drix;eway which was within one foot of the fence. Density of the fence as opposed to other fences in the area, which prohibited clear vision of small children and pedestrian traffic. Lack of plans connecting side fencing with the panel of fence already built. She stated that safety factors were her primary concern; Saratoga had always stood for the safety, well being and protection of its residents. She presented a photograph taken from her driveway and noted that the fence was unique in the combination of factors. Mr. Kovacs responded that the right-of-way had not been raised; he cited the Report of the City Engineer, January 30, 1987. He stated that the side yard fence had already been planned and would be compatible with the front yard fencing. Commissioner Harris noted that a fence at this height would block the view in exiting the adjacent driveway; Commissioner Siegfried noted the attractiveness of the fence but stated that he was not in favor of placement of a fence Within 2 ft. of the street. He concurred with Staff recommendation. Commissioner Tucker concurred that the fence was attractive; she noted her concern regarding safety, especially for the children of the neighborhood. She also favored requiring the applicant to lower the fence. The City Attorney noted that even if the CommisSion required the lowering of the height of the fence there was the question of granting an encroachment permit; he suggested a condition stating, "The Applicant shall sign the written form of the encroachment permit which the City will record." : Commissioner Harris concurred with Mrs. Sherrilrs statement that granfi ng the request would set a precedent; she felt that fences over 3 ft. should not be allowed. Commissioner Pines favored a lowering of the fence; he concurred tha~ there was a danger in exiting the adjacent driveway and that a precedent would be set by allowing this fence at its present height. SIEGFRIED/CALLANS MOVED APPROVAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH A LOWERING OF THE FENCE TO 3 FT. IN HEIGHT WITH A CONDITION STATING THAT "THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN A WR.rF~N ENCROACHMENT PERM1T WHICH THE CITY WILL RECORD." Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 FEBRUARY 25, 1987 COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation CommissiOn dated February 4, 1987. - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Chairman Burger presented the City Council Report. AD.|OURNMENT: The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. . . ReSpectfully submitted, .. Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary