HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: October 26, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Kolstad, Tappan;
Commissioner Siegfried present at 8:22 P.M.
Absent: Commissioner Tucker
Approval of Minutes: Meeting of October 10, 1988
Commissioner Harris asked that Approval of Minutes, September 28, 1988, read, "She was
pleased with the Ordinance as it was." DR-88-073, Motion to read, "Passed 6-1, Commissioner
Harris dissenting." In Item 10, Motion to" recommended approval of GP-88-002 per the Model
Resolution. On Page 9, Chairperson Guch's comment, add "relocate the driveway on Lot C."
Chairperson Guch stated that Commissioner Tucker requested an addition Los Maisons Provencal,
to read, Commissioner Tucker dissented on the EIR stating that she was concerned regarding air
quality." On SD-88-006, sentences amended to state that the slopes would be shaved.
Commissioner Kolstad' comment on DR-88-002, V-88-00'1, amended to read, "...could arise."
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 1.988, AS
AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried absent.
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 October 21, 1988.
Technical Corrections to Packet Material:
Planner Caldwcll noted the letter rcceived from Mr. Melvin Hill regarding Item 7 of the agcnda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. SD-88-005 DiManto, Madrone Hill & Peach Hill Roads, request for tentative approval
of proposed 5-1ot subdivision of 23 acres of partially developed property in
the R-I-40,000 and HC-RD zoning districts per Chapter 145 of the City
Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project.
Continued from October '12, :1988.
2. V-88-033 Berquist, 15240 Madrone Hill Road, request for variance approval to allow
a 10 ft. high retaining wall where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed in the R-i-
40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from
October 12, '1988.
3. DR-88-060 Welge/Sevilla, 14142 Dorene Ct., request for design review approval for a
new 4,516 sq. ft. two-story home on a '1.002 acre site in the NHR zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
4. DR-88-059 Abou-Khater, 19400 Pinnacle Ct., request for design review approval for a
978 sq. ft. main floor addition and 553 sq. ft. lower floor addition to an
existing 4,120 sq. ft. one-story home per Chaptcr 15 of the City Code.
After the addition, the total floor area will be 65 1 sq. ft. on a .855 acre site
in the R-I-40,000 zoning district.
5. DR-88-079 Leckrone, 19521 Douglass Lane, request li3r design review approval to
construct a 988 sq. ft. second story addition in the R-I-40,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Total floor area proposed to be
5,400 sq. ft ......
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
6. V-88-034 Goss, 19180 Austin Way, request for variance approval to reduce the
minimum rear and side yard setbacks to 6 ~. to allow construction of a
three-car detached garage and remodeling of an existing home in the R-1-
40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
7. DR-88-002 Hall, 22637 Mt. Eden Road, request for design review approval for a two-
V-88-001 story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The total square
footage proposed is 5,824 sq. ft. The home is located in the NHR zoning
district. Variance approval is also being considered for impervious
coverage of 18,911 sq. ft. where 15,000 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
Continued to November 9, 1988.
Chairperson Guch noted that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 7 was being Continued.
Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 2.
Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1, 3, 5, 6 AND.
7. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried absent. (NOTE: Item 5 ~vas later reconsidered)
2. V-88-033 Berquist, 15240 Madtone Hill Road, request for variance approval tO allow
a 10 ft. high retaining wall where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed in the R-1-
40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from
October 12, 1988.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit; she removed this Item since there was
additional information from the engineer who would address the Commission.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Hurley concurred with reports and added that the existing retaining was was 40 years old; this
wall failed in 1986. He reviewed efforts to restore the wall and reduce the steepness of the slope.
Commissioner Burger cited a conversation wherein Mr. Hurley stated that a 10 ft. retaining wall
would not be sufficient; an additional 5 ft. wall was required. He confirmed that such was the
case; the 10 ft. retaining wall being designed had an adequate safety factor; however, Applicants
were concerned that the footings could fail at some time in the future and proposed an additional 30
ft. long, 4-5 ft. wood wall with steel columns to be constructed approximately 10 ft. away from
the retaining wall. He confirmed that the second wall would be screened with landscaping.
Chairperson Guch suggested Condition 3. be amended to insure that adequate screening existed for
the second wail; consideration given to cascading vegetation.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51 P.M. Passed 5-0-
1, Commissioner Siegfried absent.
Commissioner Burger was favorable to granting the Variance requested; the slope had failed,
potentially endangering the substructure of the home. She ~vas favorable to amending Condition 3.
and suggested consideration of cascading plants over the wall as well as vegetation growing up.
Commissioner Kolstad agreed; Commissioner Tappan asked that the entire wall be screened.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-033 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
AMENDING CONDITION 3 TO REQUIRE CASCADING VEGETATION IN ADDITION TO
PLANTINGS. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried absent.
4. DR-88-059 Abou-Khater, 19400 Pinnacle Ct., request for design review approval for a
978 sq. ft. main floor addition and 553 sq. ft: lower floor addition to an
existing 4,120 sq. ft. one-story home per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
After the addition, the total floor area will be 651 sq. ft. on a .855 acre site
in the R-i-40,000 zoning district.
Commissioner Harris noted the visibility of the carport and stated that she was concerned regarding
the use of the area as a storage site which would be unattractive; a three car garage already existed.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M. There were no speakerS.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Consent Calendar
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Passed 5-0-1
Commissioner Siegfried absent.
Commissioner Harris reiterated her concern and added that covered parking existed.
Chairperson Guch also questioned the visual impact of the proposed carport; Staff was unaware of
existing vegetation along Pinnacle Ct.
Planner Caldweli suggested a Condition be added to prohibit outside storage in this area.
The City Attorney confirmed that the Commission had jurisdiction over the carport in this Appli-
cation. Consensus reached to Continue this Item pending an appearance by the Applicant.
HARRIS/BURGER'MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-059 TO NOVEMBER 9, 1988. Passed 5-0-
1 Commissioner Siegfried absent.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO RECONSIDER DR-88-079. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner
Siegfried absent.
5. DR-88-079 Leckrone, 19521 Douglass Lane, request for design review approval to
construct a 988 sq. ft. second story addition in the R-i-40,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Total floor area proposed to be
5,400 sq. ft.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M.
Ms. Maryanne Welch, 19520 Kenosha Ct., presented a written statement and commented:
- Revie~ved communications she received regarding this Application
- Expressed sympathy for the Applicant's loss during the fire; however, she was the only home-
owner affected by this addition of a second story addition
Existing shrubbery and landscaping was insufficient as viewed from her kitchen window
Was in a planned community ~vith a green belt and was unfavorable to the design proposed
Questioned the impact on the value of her home and asked that a real estate person assess such
Mr. Dan Leckrone, Applicant, submitted photos taken from the roof of his home toward Mrs.
Welch's showing existing rrees and the distance between the structures and commented as follows:
From the existing roof, he could see the neighbor's roof line; there was no privacy intrusion
Felt that the proposed second story structure could probably not be viewed from his neighbor's
yard due to the screening provided by a series of trees
Concluded that there would not be view intrusion for the neighbor
Confirmed that vegetation ~vould screen the proposed addition
BURGERFFAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Burger noted that 90 ft. existed between the addition and the neighbor's home; in
addition, there was heavy landscaping; if impacts occurred it would be to the property to the west.
Commissioner .Tappan suggested consideration of liquid ambers or similar trees to soften any
impact of the facade; he questioned whether the rear neighbor had a view of the Applicant's site.
Commission Harris was favorable to a Condition requiring planrings near the house; she concurred
that there was substantial distance between the homes and existing landscaping was substantial.
Planner Caldwell confirmed the Commission's intent was to soften, rather than screen, the addition
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-079 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
ADDING A CONDITION THAT STAFF EVALUATE LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE
REAR YARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ADEQUATE FOLIAGE TO
SOFTEN THE FACADE OF THE ADDITION. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining
PUBLIC BEARINGS:
8. · Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request for approval of a conceptual
development plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site pursuant to Article 15-21 of the
City Code.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Contlinued
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M.
Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development Corporation, commented as follows on the Conditions:
6: Clarified for the record that portions of the tile mosaic would be incorporated into the project.
10. Clarified that sidewalks would extend out to the curb adjacent to the driveways; sidewalks
shall meander in toward the landscaped areas, away from the curb
11: Applicants did not feel that spreading out underground parking was appropriate for the elderly
residents given the need for security; he asked that the wording be changed
Noted that the intent of the trellised roof coverings was to provide additional access; objected
the wording in the Condition "trellised roof coveririgs 'rather than' enclosed hallways..."
13: Applicants requested a minimum 20 ft.deep parking/driveways to allow greater design flexi-
bility rather than the 22 ft. specified
16: Clarified that the meandering wall shown on conceptual plans would be a minimum 20 ft.
from the public street with an average of 30 ft. width; asked that Condition be amended
Add wording to Condition stating that one-story elements would be setback 50 ft; second
story elements setback 70 ft. along Saratoga Ave.
Commissioner Harris noted in Condition 10, the Applicant was saying that landscaping between
the roadway and sidewalk would not be possible; Mr. Oliver responded that an understanding of
this point was important since a change in the Condition affected alignment of the buildings.
Mr. Oliver stated that his understanding from the recent meeting was that Applicants would attempt
to reduce building mass and the overall project density, vary the height of roof lines and eliminate
horizontal roof planes above a 26 ft. height; in addition, Applicants agreed to a good number of
buildings with a significant portion of one story elements. Condition 7 amended to read "...town
homes shall be a mixture of one and two story elements?
Commissioner Siegfried questioned the proportion of one to two-story elements; he was concerned
that relatively significant project changes could occur. Mr. Oliver responded that lot configura-
tions, street designs and overall architecture would remain with some reduction in the height of the
roof line; architectural style and distance between buildings and apartments would be the same.
Mr. Robert Tucker provided information on the 10 ft. between buildings and the proposed wall.
Mr. Oliver provided a demonstration of the 26 ft. height and the horizontal plane referenced.
A member of the public questioned building heights and impacts of Route 85 on the project; she
cited pollution, noise and traffic. Speaker was referred to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9:02 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows:
~ Noted the Applicant asked that some elements, such as sidewalks, be approved at a later date
- Felt that more detailed conceptual design should be presented; some elements like the meander-
ing sidewalks and walls were difficult to visualize
Questioned whether the minimal 20 ft. driveway depth requested, the 10 ft. distance between
buildings and the number of stories proposed would achieve the desired look
Noted the massing of the project and questioned whether such was compatible with the City
Asked for greater relief from the density requested; such was not necessarily a question of the
number of units but rather, the perception of the project as a whole
Wished further consideration of the sidewalks which extended out .to the curb; a landscaped
boulevard strip may not be the best alternative for seniors getting in and out of cars
Mixture of one and two-story elements did not provide a finished appearance
At the time of final approval, he did not wish to see a row of two story structures
Commissioner Burger agreed that wording on Condition 11 be amended to allow both the enclosed
hallways and trellised roof coverings; the intent was to provide residents an option. The major
problem was the density of the town house project; she cited the limited distance between
buildings, minimal driveway widths and discussions regarding one or two-story structures.
Reduction of density needed to be addressed; design alternatives were suggested.
Chairperson Guch asked that the Commission summarize their feelings on various design elements
Commissioners Burger and Tappan favored the variable setbacks for one and two story elements.
Commissioner Siegfried did not object to the 50 ft./70 ft. setbacks; however, the proportion of one
and two-story buildings and/or elements was unknown; the Commission had no sense of the actual
project design as viewed from Saratoga Ave. He objected to a "walled" appearance and added that
it was his understanding that a mix meant full one and two story units.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairperson Guch did not agree and felt that the Study Session provided the information required;
however, she questioned the definition of a mixture of one and two story units.
The City Attorney advised the Commission on the conceptual design guidelines for this project.
Chairperson Guch summarized that the Commission seemed unfavorable to the density proposed
for the town house project and that a mixture of one and two story elements may be inappropriate.
Commissioner Tappan stated that while density was of concern, he was favorable to the project;
He did not object to use of one and two story elements; restrictions may hamstring the Applicant
from use of alternatives which would reduce the appearance of bulk. Use of proper design,
landscaping and features such as a meandering wall and walkways would reduce the dense feeling.
Commissioner Harris wished to leave the percentage of one/two story elements open at present.
She objected to the townhouse designs presented which appeared as two story structures and the
limited 10-15 ft. distance between the units which appeared crowded. She suggested a 20-30%
reduction in the second story element.
Commissioner Burger stated that she would approve the conceptual development plan with a
proviso that density be reduced.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would vote favorably on the motion to approve the
conceptual development plan; however, he made clear that the townhouse project was too high and
extremely dense with minimal lot sizes. He expected substantial changes prior to final approval.
Commissioner Burger made the following Motion with amended Conditions and comments:
6. Commissioner Siegfried asked that "significant portions" of the tile mosaic be incorporated
7. Chairperson Guch asked that "...or one and two story elements..." be added to allow design
flexibility; Commissioner Burger concurred.
11: Commissioner Burger stated that the Commission had not considered security requirements
of underground parking; Chairperson Guch suggested the amended wording.
Commissioner Burger noted the consensus of the Commission to leave the enclosed hallways
with an option for residents to utilize outdoor walkways with trellised roof coverings.
13: Commissioner Burger did not wish to amend the Condition at the time; driveway length was
an important consideration
15. The City Attorney suggested amended wording, "...including but not limited to considera-
tions for a reduction of townhome size, number of townhomes and increased setbacks."
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PC-88-003, A CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15-21 OF THE CITY CODE AMENDING
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
6. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, PHOTO
DOCUMENTATION OF THE TILE MOSAIC SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. IN ADDITION,
SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE TILE MOSAIC SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO
THE PROJECT WHERE FEASIBLE.
7. TOWNHOMES LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE MAIN HORSESHOE
ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY AND THE LOOP ROAD SHALL BE SINGLE STORY.
IN ADDITION, THE TOWNHOMES SHALL BE A MIXTURE OF ONE AND TWO
STORIES OR ONE AND TWO STORY ELEMENTS.
9: MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE TOWNHOMES SHALL BE 28 FEET WITH THE
HORIZONTAL PLANE NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEE.. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE
COTTAGES IN THE SENIOR FACILITY SHALL BE 26 FEET.
11. THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL INCLUDE GARDEN AREAS FOR THE
SENIORS AND A CHAPEL. UNDERGROUND PARKING SHALL PROVIDE A CON-
VENIENT ACCESS TO THE RESIDENTS.AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION...ACCESS BETWEEN THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND THE
COMMUNITY FACILITY SHALL INCLUDE ENCLOSED HALLWAYS AND INCLUDE
TRELLISED ROOF COVERINGS WHERE FEASIBLE AND APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION.
15. THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL MAXIMIZE OPEN SPACE AND REDUCE
DENSITY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
CONSIDERATIONS FOR A REDUCTION OF TOWNHOME SIZE, NUMBER OF
TOWNHOMES AND INCREASED SETBACKS. Passed 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairperson Guch noted grave concerns regarding project density; flexibility allowed in the Con-
ceptual Design Approval permitted Applicants to creatively address concerns about project density.
Break: 9:35-9:55 P.M.
9 SD-88-006 Bowie, 13602 Pierce Road, request for approval of subdivision of
approximately 11 acres of undeveloped property into 3 lots. Each lot is
proposed to be approximately 3.6 acres in size. The property is located on
the southeast side of Pierce Road, immediately southwest of the intersection
with Surrey Lane. NHR zone (northwestern hillside residential), General
Plan designation RHC (residential hillside conservation.) A Negative
Declaration has been prepared. Continued from October 12, 1988.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1.988..
The City Attorney suggested Condition 20 be amended to add "g. Perform work to stabilize
landslide areas on-site as recommended or approved by the City Geologist."
City Engineer cited the letter .of Wm. Cotton Associates August 26, 1988. and suggested that if
Conditions were amended, the City Geologist's wor~ling "landslide c~ntrol measures"[ be
incorporated.
The City Attorney noted the implications of the slide area which extended over property lines; he
suggested that language be added that the Applicant shall exert a good faith effort to negotiate an
agreement with neighboring property owners for repair of the slide.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M.
Mr. Ralph Saviano, Applicant, reiterated testimony given October 12, 1988 and added that the
landslide involved three property owners; he did not object to paying his fair share of repair costs.
He added that widening the road would result in pedestrians/cyclists stopping in the area adjacent
to his property since it would be the only resting place for several miles.
The City Attorney responded that a Condition could be imposed requiring the Applicant to grant an
access easement to adjoining property owners, if necessary, to facilitate repair the slide. The
Applicant had no objection to such a Condition.
Mr. Willem Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, stated that the slide on-site had not
been subtracted from the topographic area prior to site calculations; there was an active landslide on
this property. Commissioner Harris asked Mr. Kohler if he had done the calculations subtracting
the slide area; he had not, but Acting City Manager, Mr. Shook responded that such a calculation
would deduct the slope area of the lot, allowing greater density and would allow for perhaps as
many as four lots. This property was not designated MD or MRT. In response to Chairperson
Guch, he stated that the Homeowners Association would accept a widening of the bridge and
would be favorable to separate pedestrian/cyclist path.
Mr. Steve de Keczer, 13415 Pierce Rd., reviewed his letter of October 23, 1988; he objected to
allowing the maximum density on this site.
Mr. Robert Binkley, Civil Engineer, cited his recent letter of October 25, 1988; he felt it would be'
appropriate for the stabilization and/or repair of the slide to begin on the Applicant's property.
Mr. Kohler reiterated concerns raised above.
Mr. de Keczer reiterated comments stated above.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Burger asked to see some widening of the bridge and noted the loss of an Oak tree;
the City Engineer responded that the Oak was heavily erodcd and undermined by the Creek. He
presented engineered drawings for widening the bridge and road improvements.
Chairperson Guch and Commission Harris had concerns regarding the widening of Pierce Rd.
Commissioner Siegfried noted that the opportunity presented itself to improve/widen the bridge.
Chairperson Guch favored a separate pedestrian pathway; she cited the safety of such.
Planner Caldwell reviewed standard street ~vidths from the Subdivision Ordinance; a 26 ft. wide
bridge with a 4 ft. separate pedestrian pathway would meet minimum standards of the Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Siegfried suggested approval of the Application with the following amendments:
Half street widened to 13 ft. width with no tree removal without approval of the Commission
Bridge widened to 26 ft. with a separate pedestrian pathway
Landslide area be stabilized allowing adjacent property owners access to the Applicant's pro-
perty to facilitate such work
Planner Caldwell confirmed that Lot C had a 423 pad elevation.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88-006 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
AMENDING CONDITIONS TO REQUIRE THAT THE HALF STREET BE WIDENED TO 13
FT. WIDTH WITH NO TREE REMOVAL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION,
BRIDGE TO BE WIDENED TO 26 FT. WITH A SEPARATE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY,
LANDSLIDE AREA TO BE STABILIZED ALLOWING ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
ACCESS TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY TO FACILITATE SUCH WORK Passed 6-0.
10. V-88-025 Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for variance approval to
A-1088.1 allow the floor area standard to bc exceeded on a level 29,680 sq. ft. lot in
the R-1-12,500 zoning district. The proposed additions to the existing
residence modifying the previous plans will result in a total floor area on the
lot of 10,374 sq. ft. where 5,220 sq. ~. is currently the maximum allowed.
The previous approval allowed 7,419 sq. ft. total on the lot. In addition,
variance approval is requested to allow the additions to the residence to be a
minimum of 13 ft. from the exterior side property line where 25 ft. is re-
quired per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from August 24, 1988.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:00 P.M.
Mr. Jerry Kocir, Applicant, reviewed the history of the Application. He cited an agreement from
Mr. Shelley Williams as well as a Title Report and Tract Map of 2577; he presented an Exhibit A
for review and asked that the City grant relief for the imposition created by an property line adjust-
ment on Brandywine Dr. (Tract Map 2577).
The City Attorney asked the Applicant to present documents for consideration; he invited Mr.
Kocir to set up an appointment with Staff.
The Public Hearing remained open.
HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE V-88-025 AND A-1088.1 TO DECEMBER 14,
1988. Passed 6-0.
11. SUP-87-001.2 Rose, 14725 Sobey Road, request to modify a condition of approval for a
second unit use permit. Applicant requests to be excused from a require-
ment to install street improvements along 260 ft. of frontage on a 1.88 acre
site in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:15 P.M.
Mr. Douglas Rose, Applicant, reviewed the history of this property and objected to comments
made in the Staff Report, Project Discussion. He noted the extensive development in the area.
Mr. Robert Aviles, Architect, reviewed his letter of June 20, 1988
The City Engineer reviewed the improvements required; he asked that if the Applicant could show
that the cross section was adequate and secondly, to show if the road structure could be modified.
to accommodate the standards. Mr. Aviles suggested alternative road construction,
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:29 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Siegfried suggested the Applicant provide intbrmation to the City for review.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Rose reiterated his claim that other developments had not had the same requirements imposed;
he was agreeable to a Continuance in order to present information from his engineers.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP-87-00'1.2 TO DECEMBER 14, 1988. Passed
6-0.
12. DR-88-005 Arhkar, 21425 Tollgate Road, request for design review approval of a new
V-88-017 two-story single family home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code. Variance approval is requested to allow 7,661 sq. ft. floor
area where 5,220 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed per Chapter 15 of the City
Code.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.'
The Public Hearing was opencd at 11:38 P.M.
Ms. Fene!li, .Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: Reviewed the Application and presented slides of the pad elevations
Pad elevations were approved in the General Grading Plan at the time of Subdivision Approval
The pad elevation under consideration was established with the agreement that only a single
story house would be permitted
Noted site constraints, concluding that there was virtually no place to move the house on the lot
Lowering the pad 8 It. would require removal of 16,000 cu. yds. of soil
Adjacent homes, square footages and slope percentages were compared with this proposal
Perception of bulk: Applicant would be making no change to the contours of the site; the only
grading required would be under the present pad in order to construct the garage, wine cellar
and mechanical equipment room; perception of this house would be a one story house
- Confirmed that proposed house was compatible with adjacent homes; noted the view of the
house as one approached from Tollgate Rd.
- Preservation of Natural Landscaping: landscape plan of Applicant was reviewed
- Residential Privacy: every effort had been made to maintain a low profile
- View Impacts: only one home would be impacted by this house
- Believed that Design Review Criteria had been followed with the exception of floor area ratio
- Reviewed Variance Findings presented by the Applicant and submitted a petition and letter
Ms. Lynn Spraguc cited the following concerns:
- Perception of bulk: cited view of the house as one approached such
- Square footage allowed: if variances were granted, a precedent could be set
Mr. Sheldon Glen, Lot 10, stated that the homeowner should be able to maximize the use of site;
there were no traffic problems and the proposed structure would not impact other homes.
Ms. Emil Acquilus, Lot 13, cited traffic hazards from the narrow road.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:55 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Harris stated the Commission did not view square footage as the only measure of
evaluating a home; however, this was the only tool available in addition to the Design Revicw
Guidelines. She reviewed the considerations regarding Lot 9 and stated that she could not make
the Variance Findings required.
Commissioner Siegfried concurred; homes previously approved would not be approved today.
Commissioner Burger also could not make the required Findings; she suggested that the design be
reduced and brought back to the Commission for consideration.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DENY V-88-017. Passed 6-0.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-88-055. Passed 6-0.
After the Hearing, Ms. Fenelli askcd for some guidelines; the Commissioners generally felt that the
size of the home should be reduced.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
OCTOBER 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
13. DR-88-072 Hwang, 13966 Albar Court, request for design review approval of a new
6,122 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 26, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 12:05 A.M.
Mr. Carl Hsu, Architect, reviewed the history of the Application and presented a model of the
house and site. He noted the 65 ft. setback and the orientation of the house; the color scheme pro-
posed was compatible with homes in the neighborhood.
Mr. Brian Heath, 20551 Shady Oak Ln., Saratoga, stated that he would be moving into this area.
His main concern was that his view corridor not be interrupted; it did not appear that it would be.
Mr. Matthew Herrick, Lot 8, felt his view corridor would be lost; while the proposed house was
attractive, it was also bulky.
Ms. Nancy Bulzemar, neighbor, was concerned regarding the bulkiness of the house; in addition,
this proposal was very similar to her home. Finally, she objected to the light peach color.
Mr. Steve Merrick, Lot 2, objected to the bulk of the house as vie~ved from Mt. Eden Rd.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:20 A.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Kolstad concurred regarding bulk which was predominantly in the house's length.
Commissioner Tappan agreed that the house was bulky and objected to the color scheme.
Commissioner Harris added that the garages considerably added to the bulk.
Chairperson Guch noted that the maximum view impact would be from the Valley floor; such
would be compounded by the light color.
Commissioner Burger objected to a lack of variation in the roof line and the expanse of the house;
she noted that a particular style and color of home existed in this area and did not object to the color
scheme proposed.
Commissioner Siegfried asked that the color be darkened and variation added to the roof.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-88-072. Passed 6-0.
MISCELLANEOUS:
1. Cancellation of December 28, 1988 Meeting due to the holiday.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CANCEL THE DECEMBER 28, 1988, MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION. Passed 6-0.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written: None.
Oral by Commission:
Chairperson Guch reported on the City Council Meeting of October 19, 1988.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:25 A.M.
Carol A. P;obst-Caughey