HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: March 23, 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,
Kolstad. Commissioner Clay absent.
Approval of Minutes:
Chairwoman Harris asked that Minutes of February 10, 1988, Page 4, middle paragraph read,
"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 houses
would appear as mini mansions. Commissioner Tucker concurred."
GUCH/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 1988, AS
AMENDED. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Guch asked that February 24, 1988, Minutes, Page 6, third paragraph to read,
"Commissioner Guch did not feel that amended wording seemed less restrictive ..."
Chairwoman Harris asked that on Page 6, forth paragraph, read, "On-site visits to continuing
care homes in other communities..."
On Page 7, second paragraph to end to read, "The house would not be fully visible..."
BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 1988, AS
AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining.
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
March 18, 1988.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR;
1. 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-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. Continued to April 13, 1988.
2. 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 wes~ 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 rezone 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 April 27, 1988, at
the request of the applicant.
3. A-801.1 Century 21 Realty, 14375. Saratoga Ave., request for design review
approval of plans to install a 6 sq. ft. identification sign attached to the
building in the P-A zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to April 13, 1988.
4. DR-87-157 Chang, 12412 Crayside Lane, request for design review approval of
plans to construct a new 5,040 sq. ft. two-story residence in the NHR
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR'. Continued
5. DR-87-160 Reirnan, 12480 Crayside Ln., request for design review approval of plans
to construct a new 4,799 sq. ft. one-story single family residence in the
NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from
February 24, 1988.
6. DR-87-156 Chen, 12805 Picea Ct., request for design review and variance approvals
V-87-030 of plans to construct a new '.4,988 sq. ft. two-story home on a lot with an
average natural sIope at the building site of 35% where 30% is the
maximum allowed in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of The City
Code. Continued from Febhaary 14, 1988.
7. DR-87-147 Kao, 12279 Crayside Lane; request for design review approval of plans
to construct a new 5,040 'sq. ft. two-story single family home in the
R- 1-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
8. DR-87-141 Manor Estates, 12589 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,820 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede.
9. DR-87-142' Manor Estates, 12577 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,333 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede.
10. DR-87-143 Manor Estates, 12554 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,193 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
11. DR-87-151 McBain & Gibbs, 21441 Tollgate Rd., 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.
12. SDR-1549.3 Horvath, 22122 Mt. Eden Rd., request for a one-year extension of time
to complete conditions of tentative map for subdivision of 8 acres into two
lots in the NHR zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code.
13. UP-88-002 Saratoga Country Club, 21990 Prospect Rd., request for use permit
approval of plans to expand the existing golf course by constructing two
new golf holes and a driving range in the NHR zone district per Chapter
15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project.
.................................................. - ......................................................
14. DR-87-162 Stout, 14152 Dorene Ct., request for design review approval of plans to
construct a new 5,665 sq. '.ft. two-story single family residence in the
NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
.................................................. r ......................................................
15. V-87-020 Chevron U.S.A., 20472 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for variance
approval from Section 15-30.100 (c) to allow the construction of a
free-standing identification sign combined with fuel price information into
one sign where a free-standing identification sign is not allowed. An
additional variance is requested to allow a second price sign on a single.
site where only one is allowed.
Planner Catdwell noted the follow changes Public Hearings Consent Calendar:
Item 4: Technical Information showed a 26 ft. height; plans showed 27 1/2 ft. height; the
Building Depaxtrnent indicated that City Codes required .that the crawl space could
not be excluded from height measurements; thus the 27 1/2 ft. height was correct.
Item 5: Add Conditions as follows; Applicant had been informed of these Conditions.
9. "Landscaping for screening purposes along the entire rear elevation shall be
installed prior to final occupancy."
10. "Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall submit the land-
scaping plan for the rear screening for approval by the Planning Director."
Item 7: Technical Information: size of the house was 4960 sq. ft., not 4660 sq. ft. as stated
Item 17: Applicant requested a Continuance to April 27, 1988.
Planner Catkins had not be able to notify every individual of the Applicant's request.
'i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued
Chairwoman Harris noted that Items 1, 2 and 3 were being continued.
Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Items 8, 9, 10.
Commissioner Siegfried requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 11.
Mr. R. Becker, Architect, requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 13.
Commissioner Kolstad requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 14.
Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 15.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 12. Passed 6-0.
Items 8, 9 and 10 to be heard simultaneously.
8. DR-87-141 Manor Estates, 12589 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,820 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede.
9. DR-87-142 Manor Estates, 12577 ManOr Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,333 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede.
10. DR-87-143 Manor Estates, 12554 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,193 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of March 23, 1988.
Commissioner Burger stated that she removed Items from Consent Calendar to allow review of
the subdivision (Items 8, 9, 10 Consent Calendar and 19, 20 Public Hearing) at one time.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:47 P.M. Public Hearing remained open.
Consensus reached to hear Items prior to Public Hearings Item 21; Applicant was agreeable.
11. DR-87-151: Hearing to be delayed until the Applicant was present.
13. UP-88-002 Saratoga Country Club, 21990 Prospect Rd:, request for use permit
approval of plans to expand the existing golf course by constructing two
new golf holes and a driving range in the NHR zone district per Chapter
15 of the City Code. Negative Declaration has been prepared for the
project.
Planner Caldwell noted that the Item would not be heard until a determination were made which
part of the site was within the County's sphere of influence and which was within the City's.
Planner Calkins added that the Applicant had requested a Continuance to April 13, 1988; any
applicable information would be forwarded to the County for their review.
The City Attorney advised that the Public Hearing not be opened at this time due to the above
circumstance and since the Applicant had already left the Hearing,.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE UP-88-002 TO APRIL 13, 1988. Passed 6-0.
14. DR-87-162 Stout, 14152 Dorene Ct., request for design review approval of plans to
construct a new 5,665 sq. ft. two-story single family residence in the
NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of March 23, 1988.
Commissioner Kolstad asked for clarification on the south elevation height, siting of the house
on the lot and the relationship of the lot to adjacent properties.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M.
Ms. Jan Stout, Applicant, provided information available.
Mr. Michael Stout, Son of the Applicant, answered questions of the Commission.
Commissioner Kolstad noted that the south elevation would be fairly visible to adjacent homes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued
Commissioner Guch responded that a 25 ft. distance from the property line and a 20 ft. drop in
the lot was a sizable difference; Commissioner Kolstad concurred. !.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06 P.M. Passed 6-0.
BURGERfI'UCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-162 PER THE MODEL RESOLU-
TION. Passed 6-0.
15. V-87-020 Chevron U.S.A., 20472 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for variance
approval from Section 15~-30.100' (c) to allow the construction of a
free-standing identification sign combined with fuel price information into
one sign where a free-standing identification sign is not allowed. An
additional variance is requested to allow a second price sign on a single
site where only one is allowed.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of March 23, 1988.
Commissioner Tucker questioned why price information could not be placed on one sign,
eliminating a variance; she was favorable to the design proposed.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M.
Mr. Spencer Nilsen, Permit Service Company, presented site photographs and commented:
About 50% of summer business was from tourists who required sign identification
Improved visibility at the intersection would result from the design proposed
Highest/lowest prices were required to be posted in full, self service and credit categories
Sign proposed was the smallest sign Chevron offered; such had 8 inch numerals rather than
6 inches allowed by the City
The City Attorney stated that State Law minimum height of lettering was translated into the
City's maximum height allowed. In response to a question, Mr. Nilsen stated that signs would '
include credit prices even though such was inadvertently not shown on the exhibit presented.
Commissioner Siegfried did not object to the sign proposed; however, the Applicant must
comply with height requirements for numerals even if special arrangements had to be made.
Mr. Nilsen responded that AppliCants had approached this situation from a site improvement
approach; substantial improvements would be made. Should the Application not be approved,
Chevron may not pursue the site improvements proposed.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Chairwoman Harris noted that if approved, the exhibit would be changed to "6 inch numerals;"
Condition 10 would be added to reflect such.
Commissioner Burger felt that the issue had been sufficiently discussed by the Commission;
the remaining question was the two inch difference in height of the numerals; such would
probably be undetectible from the street scape.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF V-87-020 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
ADDING A CONDITION 10 TO INDICATE THAT BOTH FREE-STANDING AND
BUILDING SIGNS WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 6 INCHES FOR
NUMERALS. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
16. GPA-88-01 City of Saratoga, General Plan Amendment to adopt the Saratoga Village
Plan. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this application.
Planning Caldwell reviewed 'the history of this Application and noted the Summary_ of Working
Changes to Saratoga Village Plan, dated March 23, 1988. Additional changes as follows:
- Page 13: add "As an incentive to preserve the designated historic structures, zoning
standards relating to such items as parking, height restriction and setbacks can be relaxed."
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the phrase "can be relaxed" and suggested consideration of
allowing the exploration of alternatives; other Commissioners concurred.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The City Attorney commented as follows:
Suggested "Zoning regulations can be accommodated to meet the special needs of
designated historic structures
Village boundaries: a map was distributed;' under present zoning regulations, the term
"Village" was referenced; however, the new Village Plan would clearly define boundaries.
The RM-3,000 multi-family residential district immediately south of CH-1, Ch-2 zones
and PA zoning east of Saratoga-Los Gatos/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. would not be included;
the entire area east of Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd.' which is now in the present Village would be
zoned PA under the proposed plan."
One of the technical amendments intended in the new Village Plan was to amend the
definition of "Village" to become CH-1, CH-2 zones or one combined district. Such would
reduce present boundaries and would address concerns regarding the expansion of commer-
cialization of the Village to adjacent residential areas.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:46 P.M.
Mr. Jack Christian, 19022 Brookhaven Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows:
Noted concern regarding the area between Oak St. and Aloha Ave., the "hook of land."
Such was addressed by him as early as 1976:
Asked that this portion be rezoned PA or buffered from commercialization such as the
establishment of bed and breakfasts in the Young, Rowe or Kahle Houses
Citizens had been fighting commercial encroachment into residential areas for years
Asked that the Village boundary be clearly established at Oak Street
Objected to any consideration of relaxing parking regulations
Did not object to existing businesses at this location; however, he wished to prevent leap-
frogging of additional commercial enterprises
Mr. Miles Rankin stated that the Merchants Association had not discussed the map presented.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
Discussion by the Commission regarding the following:
- Traffic improvements; namely, turn lanes from Parking District 3 and installation of left
hand turn lane and/or turn around area; location to be determined at a later date
- Area between Oak St. and Aloha Ave., "hook. of land," further consideration to be given to
a change in zoning from CC to PA
Commissioner Burger favored the commercial zoning at this time; she noted the city's care not
to allow encroachment of commercial uses into re.sidential areas. Existing commercial uses had
operated at this location for a length of time.
Chairwoman Harris concurred, questioning any attempt to artificially shrink the Village in
order to protect peripheral areas; she cited the Merchants Association's efforts to expand the
Village. Commissioner Kolstad, while agreeing that the best use of this area was as proposed,
was uncertain of the best action to be taken at this time with regard to the map presented.
Commissioner Guch was not favorable to rezoning the area between Oak St. and Aloha Ave. to
a PA zoning designation; she cited recent public testimony unfavorable to such.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF GPA-88-01, SUMMARY OF WORKING' CHANGES TO SARATOGA VILLAGE
PLAN AS AMENDED AT THIS HEARING. Passed 6-0.
Break: 9:10 to 9:30 P.M.
17. V-87-028 Lawrence, 21833 Via Regina, request for variance approval to allow the
expansion of an existing detached garage within the required front yard,
27 ft. from the front property line in lieu of 30 ft. required in the NHR
zoning district per Chapter 1'5 of the City Cede.
Application V-87-028 Continued to April 27, 1988, per request of the Applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
18. SD-87-020 Olsen, 15231 Quito Road, request for tentative approval for a 3 lot
subdivision of partially developed land into lots of unequal area in the
R-1-40,000 zoning district, General Plan Designation - Residential, Very
Low Density (RVLD)
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 23, 1988.
The City Attorney, responding to questions addressed by the Commission, stated that Parcel B
would continue to have the scenic easement along its perimeter to protect adjacent property
owners. Staff suggested that scenic easements intended to protect the historical structure be
made a part of Parcel A; the effect would be to create new boundary lines for Parcels B and C
with the following consequences:
Such would give better assurance that the area would be maintained since one person
(owner of the historic structure) would be responsible for maintenance of the easement
Such would reduce the size of structures on Parcels B and C since more restrictive setbacks
and less site area would result. Non-conforming lots, in terms of site area, were being
created to the extent that the scenic easement would be deducted from these parcels
Commissioner Siegfried, while not unfavorable to the above, noted that the easement was un-
buildable; allowable square footage for Parcels B 'and C houses had already been determined.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:38 P.M.
Mr. Zambetti, Applicant's Representative, commented as follows:
- Asked that Specific Conditions-Planning Department, 42., read, "No structures or fences
shall be allowed on either of the open space easements."
- Asked that scenic easements remain as presented by the Applicant
Mr. Clark Beck, Adjacent Property Owner, was concerned as follows:
- Building site specified on Exhibit C was referenced in the Model Resolution as Exhibit B
- Building site indicated on Lot B (north end of site) did not contain the building envelope as
agreed upon in a Study Session held earlier in March
Mr. Vincent Philbrick, Adjacent Property Owner~ commented as follows:
- Asked that easements contain vegetation which required little or no maintenance
- Noted that the net effect of placing the easement on Parcel A, rather than on Parcels B and C
would be to lessen setbacks between proposed structures and adjacent property owners
Mr. Art Iverson, Adjacent Property Owner, was in favor of the proposal under consideration
and felt that his privacy would be rather well protected under the compromise reached.
Mr. Zambetti summarized as follows:
Asked that the Exhibit presented by Applicants be pan of the Model Resolution
Building envelopes proposed by Applicants corresponded well to building sites; building
envelope on Parcel B would be in the northwest section of the site--not moved toward
adjacent properties of Mr. Iverson and Mr. Beck
Commissioner Siegfried suggested that Conditions of Approval contain a restriction that as
measured from the adjacent property lines, building envelopes shall be no closer than 154 ft.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Planner Caldwell responded that Staffs calculation of a 4,000 sq. ft. limitation on structures
for Parcels B and C was based on the size of the lot; even if property lines were moved, the
square footage calculated would still be appropriate.
Commissioner Guch commented that these lots were already irregularly shaped; the most
persuasive comment heard for keeping the scenic easement in its' present configuration on
Parcels B and C was that with the setbacks as proposed in the Staff Report, structures for these
two parcels would be pushed closer to adjacent property owners. The Commission did not
wish to see this happen. She would approve the Application with agreed upon amendments.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Siegfried added that the proposal was a creative way to preserve a historic
structure; he noted for the record that the 11,200 sq. ft. listed for this structure did not contain
such in living area; square footage listed included 2 - 3 ft. thick walls. He favored the proposal
as amended, specifying the Parcel B building envelope.
Commissioner Tucker dissented even though she would have liked to preserve the historic site,
there was insufficient land surrounding the historic structure; such would create problems.
Commissioner Burger and Kolstad concurred that the Application should be left as proposed.
Commissioners Guch and Burger suggested that Conditions reflect the natural vegetation
desired in the easement. Planner Caldwell responded that Condition 51 addressed this concern
and allowed for review by adjacent property owners and the Planning Commission; however,
should the Commission so desire, this review could be made a Public Hearing.
GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF V-87-028 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: CONDITION 42, "NO
STRUCTURES OR FENCES SHALL BE ALLOWED ON EITHER OF THE OPEN SPACE
EASEMENTS;" CONDITION 51, ADD WORDING TO READ, "...APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AT A PUBLIC HEARING;" ADDING A CONDITION 57 TO
READ, "THE BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE SPECIFIED ON PARCELS B AND C;
WITH RESPECT TO PARCEL B, IT SHALL NOT BE WITHIN 154 FEET OF THE
SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE AS MEASURED ALONG THE MOST EASTERLY
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LINE. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0.
Items 8, 9, 10, 19 and 20 to be heard simultaneously.
8. DR-87-141 Manor Estates, 12589 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,820 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 1:5 of the City Code.
9. DR-87-142 Manor Estates, 12577 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,333 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
10. DR-87-143 Manor Estates, 12554 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,193 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
19. DR-87-144 Manor Estates, 12542 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 4,206 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
20. DR-87-145 Manor Estates, 20511 Manor Ct., request for design review approval for
a new 3,927 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter 1'5 of the City Code.
Planner Catdwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of March 23, 1988.
Planner Calltins confirmed that heights listed in the Staff Report were correct.
Commissioner Burger stated that she wished the subdivision considered as a whole since:
- There were five homes, all of which were two-story and exceeded allowable square footage
- With respect to Manor Ct., she was concerned;regarding the minimal 10 ft. sideyard setback
Cited the resulting perception of bulk
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M.
Mr. Bruce Monteville, Developer's Representative, stated that they were prepared to address
Public Hearings Items, not realizing the Consent Calendar Items would also be included.'
Commissioner Siegfried did not have particular objections to Lots 2 and 3 (Items 9 and 10);
however, he was concerned regarding the bulk and placement of the house on Lot 4 (Item 19)
and suggested modifications to the proposed driveway.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ":
Mr. Monteville responded as follows: .:
Intent was open up Manor Ct. rather than have houses surrounding a small cul-de-sac
Intent was that Manor Ct. houses would be buffered by placement of Lot 5 (Item 20)
Lots 1-4 (Items 8, 9, 10 and 19) would create a community and open up the cul-de-sac
Such prevented impacts of five houses on a small cul-de-sac, 25 ft. from the property line
Staffs request to change the driveway configurations came at a very inappropriate time
Manor Dr. had immense trees which would shield the development
Lot 5 house was worked around an on-site tree which mitigated height of the structure
Landscape screening would be installed on Manor Dr., along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and
adjacent to the Railroad easement ·
Lot 4 placed the driveway adjacent to Manor Ct, stepping a one-story garage up to the two-
story house adjacent to the courtyard; such seemed appropriate
Lot 2 (Item 9) was not moved further to the rear, such would reduce the back yard to gain a
front yard appearance and in effect, create a flag lot
However, Applicants would not object to increasing front yard setbacks
Lot 5 was originally intended to be a two-story structure. He proposed that a 10 ft. wall
with planter be installed, shedding the house toward the inside of the lot; such would buffer
the site from street impacts of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.
Chairwoman Harris commented that designs for Lots 4 and 5 (Items 19 and 20) deviated so
much from the other lots that the subdivision did not appear to be an integrated development.
Mr. Monteville responded that there were a mix of designs per request of property buyers;
specific design features were discussed.
Mr. Fred Tatter, 20577 Manor Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows:
- Had addressed the City Council and Planning Commission 15 years ago regarding this
site; property had remained vacant all these years. He favored development of the site
- Neighbors had not had any input or review of the proposal; concerns were as follows:
- Lot 1: a two-story house of exaggerated proportions (4,820 sq. ft. i.e., 40-50% larger
than any other house in the tract) was proposed to be within 10 ft. of the property line
- Appearance of Manor Ct was achieved at apenalty of pushing houses against the fence
- Potential loss the existing 50-60 ft. pines along the rear property area
Asked for a review of the proposal with consideration of the impacts cited above
Mr. Monteville stated that homes were actually 3,200 to 3,400 sq. ft; the square footage listed
reflected the City's method of counting.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:34 P.M. Passed 6-0
Commissioner Guch was concerned about the bunching of houses around the cul-de-sac; in
addition, there were minimal sideyard setbacks which would impact homes in the subdivision
itself. She.felt that the house on Lot 2 should be pushed to the rear of the property and felt that
greater variety cotrid be created, mitigating an appearance of large circling homes.
Commissioner Siegfried reiterated concerns regarding siting of houses on Lots 1 and 4--such
did not make good use of the lots; size of the structures proposed also concerned him. He
noted the length required for the Lot 1 driveway which took access off of Manor Ct.
Commissioner Guch questioned the proximity of driveways for Lots 1 and 4. Planner Caldwell
responded that positioning opposite each other was ideal; there would be no view impediment.
Commissioner Kolstad was concerned about the "infill track" that would be created which
would be inconsistant with the neighborhood. He favored one-story houses on Lots 4 and 5;
in addition, he felt that the designs for Lots 1, 4 and 5 were unacceptable since they increased
the perception of bulk. He also felt that Lot 1 driveway configuration was unacceptable; Lots
2 and 3 were acceptable with increased front setbacks to reduce the perception of bulk."
Commissioner Guch felt that Lot 5 was a separate entity to the subdivision.
Commissioner Burger was initially concerned about the two-story house on Lot 5; however,
such was the smallest in square footage and lowest in height in the subdivision. She wished to
see single story houses on Lots 1 and 4, with a reduced square footage.
Commissioner Tucker concurred that Lots 2 and 3 were more acceptable than houses proposed
for lots closer to Manor Dr.
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairwoman Harris was not opposed to two-story houses; rather she objected to second story
elements which approached the size of the fin'st floor; a Study Session was recommended. .:
.-.
Consensus reached that DR-87-141, DR-87-142, DR-87-143, DR-87-144 and DR-87-145 be
Continued to a Public Hearing on May 11, 1988, with a Study Session held on April 19th.
11. DR-87-151 McBain & Gibbs, 21441 Tollgate Rd., 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.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 23, 1988.
The Public Heating was opened at 10:56 P.M.
Ms. Fanelli, Representing Applicants (the Havens), made herself available for questions.
Commissioner Siegfried removed this Item to obtain information on landscaping and protection
of existing pine trees. Ms. Fanelli responded that Mrs. Haven had every intention of
preserving the trees; such were an asset to the prOperty.
Mr. Dick Geno, 21449 Toll Gate Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows:
With respect to the lot in its' entirety, siting would be in a comer creating a crowded feeling;
he suggested that the house be build into the hillside and centrally located on the lot
Placement of a 26 1/2 ft. high house, 15 ft. from an easement/road, was unsightly
Furthermore the proposed house would face backward to the road
Mr. Clarence Travail, Adjacent Property Owner, .commented as follows:
Noted the impressiveness of the Geno home and the financial investment of the owner
Felt it unfortunate that the house was so close to an existing home, especially given lot size -
Cited the large size of the lot in question
Ms. Fanelli responded as follows:
Subdivision plan contained a grading plan which was implemented at that time
Pads were also selected at that time and houses designed to fit into the already graded site
Such was not uncommon in subdivisions; examples were cited
Road referred to by a previous speaker was in fact a common driveway
Driveway was shown on subdivision maps at the time Mr. Geno purchased his property
Both the existing house and the proposed house face the common driveway
Proposed house was treated equally on all four sides in terms of design elements
Applicant would be agreeable to replacing sliding glass doors with French doors
Questioned the Condition prohibiting the installation of a swimming pool
Mr. Calkins suggested the Condition remain as stated with further research into the question;
however, his research had indicated that this Condition was valid for the subdivision.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:20 P.M. Passed 6-0
Commissioner Siegfried confirmed information presented by the Applicant's Representative; it
was evident where the home was to be sited; subdivision/grading plans confirmed such and he
saw no reason to relocate the house. He favored French doors on the rear elevation and
landscape screening at both the rear elevation and between the two houses.
SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED TO APPROVE UP-88-002 PER MODEL RESOLUTION
CONDITION 11 AMENDED ADDING A REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPE SCREEN-
ING ON THE ELEVATION BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES AND ADDING A
CONDITION REQUIRING REPLACEMENT OF SLIDING GLASS DOORS WITH
FRENCH DOORS. Passed 6-0.
21. AZO-88-004 City of Saratoga, Amendment to Article 15-30 of the zoning ordinance to
authorize summary removal of illegal signs constitution an immediate
threat to the public safety
The City Attorney reviewed his Memorandum of March 23, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10
MARCH 23, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:25 P.M.
Mr. Miles Rankin cited a personal example of attempting to remove a sign on private property;
he questioned the term "immediate threat to public safety."
The City Attorney responded that critical language addressed sign removal from public, not
private, property and he discussed the term "immediate threat."
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:29 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO-88-004. Passed 6-0.
MISCELLANEOUSi
1. DR-87-048.2 - Cunningham, 14230 Paul Ave., consideration of modifications to roof as
directed by the City Council
Planner Catdwell updated the Commission on recent events surrounding this Application and
presented a revised exhibit showing the modifications to the roof line for review.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO ADOPT A MINUTE ORDER APPROVING DR-87-048.2.
Passed 5-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting.
2. Memo from City Attorney re: Ordinance relating to modification of approval building plans
and development conditions - Reviewed, noted and filed.
3. Memo from Planning Director re: Staff report modifications. Reviewed
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF STAFF REPORT MODIFICATIONS.
Passed 6-0.
{~QMMUNICATIONS:
Written: i
1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of February 11, 1988, - Noted and filed
2. Heritage Preservation Commission Minutes, February 17, 1988, and March 2, 1988
- Noted and filed
3. Committee-of-the Whole Report, February 16, 1988 and March 1, 1988 - Noted and filed
4. 1988 Planning Commission/Staff Retreat Minutes - Noted and fled
Oral by Commission:
Chairwoman Harris reported on the March 16, 1988 Meeting of the City Council
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was a'djoumed at 11:40 P.M.
Garol A. Pr~bst-Caughey