HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: February 10, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Tucker,
Clay, Kolstad
Approval of Minutes: Meetings of January 13 and January 27, 1988
Chairwoman Harris requested the following amendments to the Minutes of January 13, 1988:
On Page 5, seventh paragraph, "Mr. Maynard responded that a number of individuals were
favorable to this project and had planned to attend the February 10th Meeting."
On Page 7, tenth paragraph, to read, "...an additional 4 ft. in height to the rear of the house."
GUCH/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF. MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1988, AS
AMENDED. Passed 5-0-2, Commissioner Tucker, Clay abstaining.
Commissioner Siegfried asked that Findings in Application DR-87-095, V-87-025, add, "The
existence of an easement allows for the placement of a two-car garage."
Chairwoman Harris asked that the following be added to Findings 2. of this Application:
"Required mitigating landscaping precluded the installation of a driveway."
The City Attorney asked that on Page 4, second paragraph of Item 7, read, "Findings could
not be made for waiver of the age and owner occupancy restrictions."
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 1988, AS
AMENDED. Passed 5-0-2, Commissioner Tucker, Clay abstaining.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
- Mr. Vasilios A. Bilionis, 18789 Devon Ave., Saratoga, read into the record his letter
protesting the permit issued to the site at 18830 Cox Dr. (Quito Village Shopping Center)
for a restaurant/bar use.
- Mr. Jack Key, 18774 Devon Ave., Saratoga,:read into the record the petition signed by 38
individuals objecting to the above situation and felt that illegalities existed.
- Mr. Jim Ross, 18775 Devon Ave., Saratoga, reviewed the situation at this Center and
noted objections and safety hazards of the above.
The City Attorney advised speakers of the C-N Zoning of the site, requirements of such and
referred them to appropriate agencies with regard '.to the number of similar establishments in the
area, trash a,.nd noise. Planning Department to prepare Report for February 24, 1988, Meeting.
Mr. Key reiterated safety concerns resulting from construction on the site; the City Attorney
asked that such complaints be referred to the Building Department.
REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA~
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on
February 5, 1988.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. GPA-87-018 Maynard, P.G. & E. Easement, request for General Plan amendment to
ZC-87-004 designate the 19 acres of P.G. & E. easement along the railroad between
Calabazas Creek at the West and Quito Road at the east as Open Space
Managed Resource Production in lieu of the residential (M-10, M-12,5)
and PUC designation and fezone the area from R-l-10,000 and
R-1-12,500 zoning district tO Agriculture. The amendments will allow
the growing and sale of Christmas trees. Continued to March 23, 1988,
per request of the Applicant. '
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
2. DR-87-159 Saffarian, 21657 Vintage :Ln., request for design review approval of
plans to construct a new 6,192 sq. ft. two-story home on a 3.01 acre lot
in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued
to February 24, 1988 at the request of the Applicant.
3. DR-87-155 Stepner, 12553 Parker Ranch Road, request for design review and
V-87-027 variance approval of plans to construct a new 5,170 sq. ft. two-story
residence on a 2.61 acre lot'which has a 45% average natural slope at the
building site where 30% is the maximum allowed in the NHR zoning dis-
trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to February 24, 1988.
4. DR-87-154 Araki, 14045 Quito Road, request for design review approval of plans to
construct a new 4,183 sq. ft. two-story home on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot in
the R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to February 24, 1988.
5. DR-87-151 McBain & Gibbs, 21441 Tollgate Road, request for design review
approval of plans to construct a new 6,177 sq. ft. two-story home on a
1.43 acre lot in the NHR zoning district per chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to March 23, 1988, for amendment to plans.
6. DR-87-021.1 Murco Development Co., 13276 Glasgow Ct., request for modification to
an existing design review approval to construct a 4,605 sq. ft. one-story
single family residence where 4,000 sq. ft. is the standard in the
R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued
from January 13, 1988.
7. DR-87-147 Kao, 12279 Crayside Lane, request for design review approval of plans
to construct a new 5,232 Sq. ft. two-story single family home in the
R- 1-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
..................................................... - .....................................................
8. DR-87-157 Chang, 12412 Crayside Lane, request for design review approval of
plans to construct a new 5,294 sq. ft. two-story residence in the NHR
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
9. SD-87-018 Hayes, 21130 Ambric KnOlls, request for tentative building site and
DR-87-139 design review approvals to construct a new 6,187 sq. ft. two-story
residence on a one-acre lot in the R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapters
14 and 15 of the City Code..
Chairwoman Harris noted that Public Hearings Consent Calender Items 1-5 were Continued.
Commissioner Clay requested removal of Public .Hearings Consent Calendar Item 7.
Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 6 AND 9.
Passed 7-0.
7. DR-87-147 Kao, 12279 Crayside Lane, request for design review approval of plans
to construct a new 5,232 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the
R- 1-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988.
Commissioner Clay cited concerns regarding proposed height of 29 ft. 4 in. and the setting
down of the structure on the lot. He noted concern regarding the perception of bulk from both
the front and rear elevations and suggested architectural changes to address these issues.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Shih, Representing the Applicant, reviewed the Application and presented a drawing
labeled Visual Study for Mr. and Mrs. Kao's Residence. He stated that the proposal under
consideration was set back 60 ft. as opposed to approximately 40 ft. setback of Lots 9, 11 and
13; he Compared building height, view angles and visual impacts of the proposed structure to
other homes in the area. He answered questions regarding the split pad and grading.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Mr. Jack Christian questioned a statement made by the above speaker when he cited variances
granted to adjacent property owners and asked for consideration in this Application; Mr.
Christian stated that he wished to insure that precedence would not be set for variances granted.
Commissioner Siegfried responded that this was a new development, thus, development on
adjacent sites had some relevance.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE .PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Siegfried noted concern regarding the proposed height of the structure and
suggested consideration of split pad design to better set the house on the lot.
Commissioner Kolstad noted the appearance of bulk of homes already built in this neighbor-
hood and cited the resulting density of the area; similarity of the proposed house with adjacent
homes may not be a valid argument. While taking the 60 ft. setback into consideration, he
noted the following concerns:
Length of the roof line, gabled roof style; he would be more favorable to a hip roof design
Height of 29 ft. 4 in. height with use of red roof tiles
Overall size of homes in this development; he favored the 4800 sq. ft. subdivision limit
Commissioner Burger concurred that height and bulk would have to be reduced.
Chairwoman Harris compared square footage of adjacent lots and reviewed the Commission's
considerations of these applications; Lot 12 was insufficient to allow a 5,307 sq. ft. house.
Commissioner Guch favored split pad design on the lot and concurred that height and square
footage was excessive. She would not approve the Application as presented.
Commissioner Tucker concurred with the above; however, she noted that the increased setback
did mitigate the bulk of the house.
Commissioner Clay felt that some of the architectural features increased the perception of bulk;
he suggested that the roof could be redesigned to soften the appearance and reduce the bulk.
Commissioner Kolstad questioned the purpose of a Study Session; however, he was not
opposed to allowing the Applicant to submit a project redesign.
Mr. Jen Kao, Applicant, being acknowledged by the Chair, reviewed the history of this Item,
proposed design submitted and compared this Application with adjacent homes; he noted that
he had not requested a variance. He concurred that the Staff Report reported facts correctly.
Commissioner Guch stated that she had not heard the Applicant express a willingness to attend
a Study Session and therefore, made the following Motion.
GUCH/KOLSTAD MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-87-147.
Commissioner Siegfried felt that the Motion was inappropriate since the house could be :'
redesigned to be acceptable; he reviewed the areas of concern expressed by the Commission. .:
Commissioner Kolstad noted efforts of Mr. Shih, Architect, in working with the Commission.
Mr. Kao agreed to attend a Study Session.
Chairwoman Harris summarized concerns of the Commission as height, square footage, front
and rear elevations contributing to a perception of bulk, the fact that the design did not take
into account the stepped pad resulting in a bulky appearance and proposed colors.
GUCH/KOLSTAD MOVED TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION. Passed 7-0.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-87-147 TO MARCH 23, 1988, WITH A
STUDY SESSION ON FEBRUARY 16, 1988. Passed 7-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
8. DR-87-157 Chang, 12412 Crayside Lane, request for design review approval' of
plans to construct a new 5,294 sq. ft. two-story residence in the NHR
zoning diswict per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988.
Commissioner Burger noted concern regarding" the subdivision development in general and
cited specifics with regard to this Application aS follows: proposed height, square footage in
excess of zoning district standards, length of the house, bulky appearance of front and rear
elevations resulting in visual impacts to an adjacent home.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:37 P.M.
Mr. Shih, Architect, reviewed the dimensions of the proposed structure and cited the mitigating
circumstances surrounding the design of this house; Applicants would submit new color
samples in a darker shade than originally proposed.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:44 P.M. Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Guch noted the visibility and height of the loft area. Commissioner Siegfried
noted the pleasing appearance of the design but felt that the loft contributed to a heightened rear
elevation; Commissioners Burger agreed. Commissioner Clay cited resulting visual impacts of
the rear elevation; however, the front of the house was acceptable with exception of the length.
He suggested consideration of rotating the garage a few degrees.
Commissioner Kolstad noted the privacy impact. s to houses lower on the hillside; limited side
yard setbacks resulted in an imbalanced appearance. He favored adherence to the 4800 sq. ft.
standard and added that houses on this street had the same look.
Chairwoman Harris noted the square footage of existing homes on Crayside Ln. The house
under consideration was 5,294 sq. ft. without the porches; height of 28 ft. These hohses
would appear as mini mansions. Commissioner Tucker concun'ed.
Commissioner Siegfried added that the rear elevation could only be reduced in part due to slope
of the lot.
Mr. Shih confirmed that Applicants wished a Continuance with an intervening Study Session.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-87-157 TO MARCH 23, 1988, WITH
A STUDY SESSION ON FEBRUARY 16, 1988. Passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS;
10. DR-87-128 Raney, 14760 Farwell Ave.., request for design review approval' of plans
to construct a 1,158 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one-story
single family home in the R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. Continued from January 13, 1988.
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988.
Planner Caldwell provided information on the Plot Plan; in Exhibit "A" add, "All applicable
requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met."
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:57 P.M.
Mr. Carl Morris, Building Contractor, reviewed the Application and cited his letter of February
9, 1988. He presented a series of drawings showing the proposed second story addition.
Commissioner Siegfried citing architectural drawings 4., stated that the perception of the roof
was overwhelming; he suggested consideration of a reduction in height of the rear elevation.
Mr. Morris responded that Applicants needed additional space; furthermore the design
proposed was a Tudor style.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Guch noted the 1000 sq. ft. addition of attic space appeared bulky; Mr. Morris
responded that the new bedroom would be 14 ft. high. Alternative plans had been submitted.
Planner Caldwell confn'med that Staff worked with the Applicants on various plans; Applicants
asked that the plans under consideration be brought to a Public Hearing. Chairwoman Harris
noted that they felt that 6200 sq. ft. was allowed. Ms. Caldwell responded that prior to
November 7th, (date of Application submittal) allowable floor area for R- 1-40,000 zone district
was 6200 sq. ft; however, the new Ordinance stated that size of a house was dependent upon
lot size and slope. Under both the new Ordinance and former policies, smaller lot size required
a reduction in square footage; the 4206 sq. ft. recommended was based on such.
Chairwoman Harris concurred that lot size had always been considered when determining
square footage of a house; the lot in question was substandard in the zoning district.
Mr. George Raney, Applicant, reviewed alternative plans submitted and presented a petition
signed by 38 of 40 residents (1 unavailable, 1 opposed). He stated that Staff Report Project
Impacts 5. was incorrect; out of seven lots, three were approximately one-half acre in size.
Mrs. Raney provided information on additions to neighbors homes; she felt that the proposed
addition to the center portion of their home would not overlook neighbor's yards.
SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 P.M. Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Siegfried, was not opposed to the Applicants request for an addition to the
house; however, he reiterated concern that the .roof appeared overwhelming and felt that a
Study Session was in order to reduce impacts of front and rear elevations.
Commissioner Guch noted the excessive height of the proposed addition and stated that she
would not approve this Application as proposed..
Commissioner Tucker questioned whether revised plans would address her concern that the lot
was being overbuilt; Applicants already had 3900 sq. ft. out of a possible 4200 sq. ft.
Commissioner Clay felt that privacy impacts had' been adequately addressed; he concurred that
the roof line was very imposing; Commissioner Siegfried added that bulk had never been
adequately defined; however, the addition of over 1000 sq. ft., increasing the house to almost
6800 sq. ft. was bulky.
Applicants were willing to Continue the Application with attendance at aStudy Session.
GUCH/CLAY MOVED TO CONTINUE DR287-128 TO MARCH 23, 1988, WITH A
STUDY SESSION ON MARCH 1, 1988. Passed 7-0.
Break: 9:23 - 9:40 P.M.
11. DR-87-150 King, 14271 Paul Ave., request for design review approval for a new
539 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one-story single family
home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened to 9:45 P.M.
Mr. Sam Maliniak, Jr., stated that Applicants asked that a second story addition be designed;
such was to be set back from existing walls to address neighbor's concerns of a "wall effect."
Windows on both the front and rear elevations had to meet applicable Code requirements for
ingress/egress through the bedroom and to meet the proximity of the adjacent roof intersection.
Planner Caldwell stated that while the Building Department had not been consulted regarding
Code requirements, Staff typically suggested that such windows be raised above the view shed
to address privacy impacts; such would allow light/air although emergency ingress/egress from
the bedrooms would not have been addressed. Alternatives were discussed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairwoman Harris noted the difficult situation the Commission was placed in that both
applicable Code requirements and privacy impacts had to be address; she felt that she was
unable to vote favorably on this Item at this time.
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the privacy impacts from this small second story addition;
Commissioner Burger questioned the Applicant's assertion that nothing could be done to
reduce privacy impacts.
Mr. Maliniak clarified that the windows could be smaller; however, the positioning of these
windows could not be changed.
Mr. Bob King, Applicant, noted that the rear window did not look directly on the adjacent site.
TUCKER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:01 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Tucker noted that homes in the immediate neighborhood were single story.
Commissioner Kolstad was not opposed to a second story addition; however, the rear window
looked into the neighbor's back yard. He noted the value placed on privacy of rear yard areas
and suggested the use of opaque glass for the rear window.
Commissioner Siegfried cited the floor plan and noted that the house could not be expanded on
the first floor level due to layout of the room and the narrowness of the lot; a second story
addition was the only alternative. To deny such would send a message to residents of Paul
Ave. regarding the improbability of gaining approval of second story additions.
Commissioner Kolstad favored the design proposed and preferred a second story addition
rather than expansion of the first floor. He asked that the rear window only be opaque glass.
Commissioner Clay citing the neighbors comments, was favorable to the second story addition
as proposed, although he recognized that some privacy impacts could occur.
Planner Caldwell asked that the following be added to Exhibit "A", "All applicable
requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met."
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-150 PER THE MODEL RESOLU-
TION, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS STATED WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
7. THAT OBSCURE GLASS OR CLERESTORY WINDOWS SHALL BE USED ON THE
REAR YARD WINDOW TO MITIGATE PRIVACY CONCERNS, SUBJECT TO
STAFF APPROVAL.
8. ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE COUNTY, CITY AND OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES MUST BE MET.
Passed 5-2, Commissioners Guch, Tucker opposed.
12. SD-87-020 Olsen, 15231 Quito Road,' request for tentative approval for a 3-1ot
subdivision of partially developed land into lots of unequal area in the
R-I-40,000 zoning district, 'General Plan designation - Residential, Very
Low Density (RVLD)
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988.
The Public Heating was opened at 10:15 P.M.
Mr. Gene Zambetti, Representing the Applicant, presented a series of site photographs and
noted that the house qualified for National Historical Monument registration. He reviewed the
Application and cited the historical value of preserving the existing house which qualified for
the State Historical Landmark Designation.
Mr. Vincent Philbrick, adjacent property owner, addressed the following comments:
- Net effect of the greenbelt proposed would be to push new houses closer to adjacent sites
- Creation of three equal lots would eliminate the expected variances to be requested for the
houses to be built on these expensive properties
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Mike Romanchak felt that development as proposed was an expensive aesthetic and
environmental penalty for what he believed, was a failed business venture. The proposal
would result in bulky, impacted structures on the new parcels created. While he favored
preservation of the historical site, neighbors preferred a clearer sight line of the house than
possible under the current proposal; he suggested consideration of alternatives stated in Mrs.
Winifred Romanchak's letter of February 5, 1988.
Dr. Gilbert Elian, 13519 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, reviewed his letter of February 5, 1988.
Mr. Marcus Peck, Saratoga, noted concerns for the preservation of this site and added that
landscaping could be effectively used to screen the new parcels from adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Frank Eber, Representing investors, responding to comments made earlier, stated that if,
in ten years, investors earned a 90% return, they. would be very fortunate; investors had taken
the position that the site had significant historical impact and should be preserved.
Mr. Art Iversen, 15300 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, noted concern for impacts on adjacent neighbors
and favored structuring the development to insure the privacy of these property owners.
Mr. Zambetti answered questions addressed and summarized his comments as follows:
Parcel B setback would be increased to 40 ft.
Livable area in the existing structure was only 7,800 sq. ft. due to adobe walls of 26-48
inches thick; thus this house was less bulky than others previously approved at the Hearing
Landscape screening would be installed along the flag lot
Ingress/egress from Parcel C would be further reviewed to determine the best option
- Noted the interest and funds to be placed at the disposal of this project by the Applicant
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE'THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M.
Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Kolstad favored a Study Session and felt that required Findings could be made.
Commissioner Burger noted her interest in preserving this historic site; however, she had re-
servations about creating two new parcels and suggested consideration of one pared in addition
to the existing site. She favored setbacks rather'than scenic easements on the existing parcel;
Commissioner Siegfried disagreed, stating that 'the use of a scenic easements was a creative
solution to the situation. While concurring that nothing could be built in an easement,
Commissioner Burger was unfavorable to a property line 5 ft. from two corners of a structure;
concerns such as those raised could be addressed by the creation of one, not two, new parcels.
Commissioner Tucker concurred regarding the preservation of this historic site and favored one
additional parcel rather than two.
Commissioner Clay noted the economic realities of site preservation and felt that allowances
could be made; Findings for size and shape of the lot and for the easement could be made.
Chairwoman Harris concurred that creation of one new parcel was desirable.
Commissioner Siegfried recommended Continuance pending further review of alternatives.
Mr. Zambetti favored Continuance of this Application with a Study Session to be held.
SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-87-020 TO MARCH 23, 1988, WITH
A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD FEBRUARY 16, 1988. Passed 7-0.
13. DR-87-048.1 Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave., request for modifications to approved
plans to relocate the house and garage, modify the roof pitch, revise the
rear elevation and install landscaping for a new two-story home in the
R-1-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988.
Chairwoman Harris noted the letter of Mr. Barfie Coate addressing Exhibit "A" Condition 10;
a phone call had been received from Mrs. Sherrill regarding the Saratoga News article.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:07 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
FEBRUARY 10, 1988 '-
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Ms. Fran Barnett, Paul Ave., stated that issues discussed at the Study Session had been
addressed as follows:
Privacy impacts; she noted for the record that Applicants did not believe that such existed;
however, the following modifications were made as requested:
N Opaque glass in the master bedroom; sample was submitted
N Reduction of balcony off the master bedroom; such would be reduced to a 3 ft. width
~ Planting a tree in the rear yard; to be done as recommended by the horticulturist
View impacts; she presented pictures for the record showing the similar roof line of this
house and adjacent homes
Ms. Barnett presented copies of statements from .residents of Paul Ave.
Mr. Jerry Bevans, 14231 Springer Ave., Saratoga, presented a scale model showing differ-
ences between the house originally approved and the modified structure; he noted the bulkiness
and view impacts created by the modifications. Issues involved were reviewed and compliants
surrounding this incident were summarized; he asked that the Commission bring this project
into substantial compliance.
Ms. Eileen Fitzgerald, 14231 Springer Ave.,. Saratoga, noted that the Commission had
determined on January 13, 1988, that this project was not in substantial compliance with the
approval given. Appellants were dismayed to learn that the tree for which the house had been
moved, was now browning at the top; such added insult to injury.
Mr. David Cunningham, Applicant, noted concern at the Saratoga News article and presented
pictures disputing what he believed to be a magnified photo taken by the Appellant.
Modifications to the house were reviewed; nonetheless, the house was an average height of 23
ft.--such did not exceed the height limitation at any point.
In response to Commissioner Clay's question, he stated that when he received the building
permit and gone out to mark the lot, the tree was in the way of the driveway, so the house was
moved back. He confirmed that when the house was moved back, there was no permit issued
nor permission to move the house back. He stated that he talked to the City and was told that
as long as no encroachments, setback, side yards or easements existed, the house could be
adjusted to accommodate the tree and the driveway.
Mr. Cunningham stated that he did not wish to ~emove the tree in the front yard; every effort
had been made to preserve this tree.
Mr. Robert Weinmann, 1437 1 Springer Ave., Saratoga, felt that the house should be moved
back to the original design specifications; he was concerned that the Saratoga News article was
overlooked by the Commission. His primary concern was the obstruction of privacy and he
concluded that citizens trusted the Commission to protect privacy and views.
Mr. Bob King, 14271 Paul Ave., Saratoga, felt that privacy was not seriously impacted nor
that return to the original plans would significantly increase line of sight or the view.
Mr. Nick Young, 14252 Springer Ave., Saratoga, felt that most residents of Paul Ave. were
unhappy with the boxy type of houses being built on the street.
Mr. Gary Plateau, 14301 Paul Ave., Saratoga, noted the reasons he moved to Paul Ave. and
stated that the house was an improvement to the vacant lot previously at this location.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:27 P.M. Passed 7-0
Commissioner Siegfried stated that issues raised had been addressed as well as could be done;
his concern was that the house under consideration was not the house approved--namely, a two
story cottage type of house.
Commissioner Kolstad felt that opaque windows satisfied his concerns regarding privacy
impacts. He felt that the original house was as poorly designed as the one being considered,
thus the changes shown in the modifications were unsatisfactory.
Commissioner Burger had hoped that the Applicant and Appellant could reach an agreement;
however, such was not the case. Thus the Commission would have to reach a decision.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger concurred that substantial changes had been made to the design; had
such been presented originally, she would not have voted favorably on this design.
Commissioner Guch did not feel that privacy 'was more impacted with one design nor the
other. She noted that there was no mention of the tree in the front yard at the original hearing.
The basic issue was that the design before the COmmission was not what was approved.
Commissioner Tucker noted that she had opposed this application initially and stated that she
continued to oppose approval of such.
Commissioner Clay noted the sequence of events resulting in a modification of the original
design; he felt that he would not have approved such modifications at the time they occurred
nor was he favorable to them now. He concurred that the design under consideration was not
the house approved by the Commission.
Chairwoman Harris concurred with comments already made, namely, that privacy was not an
issue and that the design before the Commission was not what was previously approved.
The City Attorney noted that a consensus seemed to have been reached by the Commission in
that privacy impacts had been mitigated; howev, er, changes to the roof line were not resolved.
Commissioner Burger added that a majority consensus also had been reached that the house
under consideration was not the house approved by the Commission.
Planning Director Hsia noted that according to the Building Inspector, the original structure
could not have been built as proposed due to technical problems.
Mr. Cunningham interjected that the grade differential and height limitation created the problem;
when plans were laid out, it was assumed that the lot was flat. H~ noted site improvements
and stated that every request of the Commission at the Study Session had been addressed.
Chairwoman Harris noted that the Commission had hoped that Applicant and Appellant would
reach a compromise; however, since such had not occurred, the Commission was now obliged
to make a decision on the modifications done to the original plans.
Mr. Cunningham responded that Appellant's complaints of privacy impacts were addressed.
The Chair recognized both the Applicant and the. Appellant for final statements.
Ms. Barnett stated that all the issues brought to the Study Session had been addressed; now,
there were different issues. She felt that the Applicants were caught between the Planning
Commission and the Staff and felt that such was unfair.
Mr. Cunningham reviewed Minutes of the Study Session showing that issues had been
addressed. He concurred that the house was not what was originally approved; however, the
modified house was attractive, would be landscaped and the site was significantly improved.
Mr. Bevans summarized repeated efforts to address this situation at an earlier stage of
construction. He noted that there were privacy and cost impacts to him; suggestions of stained
glass windows were remedies which would not bring the structure into substantial compliance
as stated in the decision of the Commission, August 12, 1987.
Commissioner Clay commented that it seemed that the foundation was started before obtaining
permission; once construction had been initiated there was pressure to continue, making
allowances as necessary. :
Chairwoman Harris noted that the Planning Department and Commission accepted at face value
that the design approved could be built. Actions available to the Commissioner were reviewed.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was unable to find a solution; the modified design was
in fact, not the house approved by the Commission.
The City Attorney stated that at Meetings of the Commission the primary concern was privacy
impacts; if the Application was denied, a modification of the existing structure would still be
required since it could not be built as originally designed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page I 0
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger summarized that the issue was that the existing house was not the house
approved by the Commission--such may not be possible. However, the existing structure was
the one before the Commission and it was their task to come to some conclusion.
Commissioner Kolstad commented that in the Findings, compatible bulk and height was
required, not conformity; the neighborhood demonstrated that this design was compatible.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR-87-048.1. Failed 2-5, Chairwoman
Harris, Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Tucker, Clay opposed.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he made the following Motion with great misgivings.
SIEGFRIED/CLAY MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-87-048.1. Passed 6-1,
Commissioner Kolstad opposed.
14. UP-87-018 Alviso, 18596 Manha Ave., request for use permit approval of plans to
construct a new 825 sq..ft. 17.5 ft. high accessory building in the
R-1-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 10, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 12:05 A.M.
Mr. Kenneth Alviso, Applicant, noted that the Planning Department's main objection was the
height; such would not be taller than his house for very long since he intended to build a
second story addition. A number of homes with second story additions were substantially
taller than the height requested; furthermore, there were a number of detached garages similar
in height to this proposal. The exact height of accessory structures could not be discerned by
viewing them from a 10 ft. vantage point.
Mr. Alviso contended that rear yards were not free of accessory structures as stated by St',fff;
many of these accessory structures, room additions, garage conversions and remodels were
constructed without approval nor permits. He had complied with requirements and paid
necessary fees and asked that his Application be approved as submitted; such would be
compatible with the neighborhood. Pictures were presented to demonstrate his claims.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE'THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:15 A.M.
Passed 7-0.
Planner Caldwell stated that without further investigation, it could not be confirmed that any
17.5 ft. high accessory structures had been approved by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Burger noted that the proposed location of the garage was logical and she could
made the required Findings; moving the structure forward would result in a loss of half of the
back yard. However, a height reduction was necessary. Commissioner Kolstad concurred.
Commissioner Guch favored the location requested; however, she objected to the height.
Commissioner Clay noted that a number of area garages were almost the height requested; he
felt that a reduction in height of approximately a foot would not make much visual difference.
He stated that he could approve the Application as presented.
Mr. Alviso interjected that a difference in height could not be determined by sight alone.
Commissioner Siegfried noted the square footage requested and questioned whether a foot or
so in height would make a noticeable difference. Commissioner Clay concurred and noted that
reducing the height would not change the sidewalls; roof pitch would be changed.
Chairwoman Harris noted concern for precedence being set if four similar structures were built
in the corners of the four adjoining lots in question and in similar situations it would greatly
impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Burger reiterated that the height proposed was
excessive.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 10, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Siegfried felt that the Commission would not approve other applications of
similar height and made the following Motion.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE UP-87-018.
Passed 7-0.
15. AZO-87-004 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance amending various
provisions in Chapter 15 of the City Code concerning structure height,
site coverage, fences, parking requirements, home occupations, tree
removal permits and variance findings. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared for the project. Continued from January 13, 1988.
Due to time, Item 15 was Continued to the Meeting of February 24, 1988.
GUCHEUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-87-004 TO FEBRUARY 24, 1988.
Passed 7-0.
MISCELLANEOUS:
16. Letter from Fay Mongraw dated January 26, 1988.
Planning Director Hsia reviewed Ms. Mongraw's letter and noted the draft letter presented.
Commissioner Burger objected to the proposed response to a citizen's complaint and asked that
this situation be addressed in another manner; Chairperson Harris concurred.
St,'fff directed to prepare a letter containing information on actions already pursued; in addition,
correspondent will be assured that concerns will be addressed in the Noise Element review.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written:
1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of January 20,1988, - Noted and filed.
2. Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes - January 19, 1988, - Noted and filed.
Oral by Commission:
Commissioner Burger reported on the City Council Meeting of February 2, 1988.
AD.IOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:40 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Probst-Caughey