HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-1988 Planning Commission Minutes · '~'~TY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
· ~,,- ~..
DATE: Dccembcr 14, '198..9<'- 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 1.3777- Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioncrs Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tappan
present at 7:30; Commissioner Kolstad present at 7:45 P.M. ,.
Commissioner Tucker absent.
Approval of Minutes: Meeting of Novembcr 9, '1.988
Commissioner Harris asked that on Page "~ speaker's name read. Ms. Addy Dursell.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 1988, AS
AMENDED. Passed 4-0-2, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining, Commissioner Kolstad absent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
Beport on Posting of Agenda:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agcnda for this Meeting was properly posted on
December 9, 1988.
Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Caldwell noted the following changes:
DR-88-078, Condition 23, second sentence to read, "...the lined stream paralleling the driveway
shall flow by pipc to a properly constructed outfall into the creek." She confirmed that a request
for a tennis court was not part of the Application under consideration.
- DR-88-097, Condition 8, to read, "Exterior colors shall be Kelly-Moore #230 Greystone for the
exterior and Mesa Brown" ,183 for trim and railing .... "
- DR-88-097, delete Conditions 7 and 8; shc noted that there was an existing access road to the
rear property; there was neither room nor necessity l~r a turn-around.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR:
'1. V-88-025 Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for variance approval to
A-1088.1 allow the floor area standard to be exceeded on a level 29,680 sq. ft. lot in
thc R-1-12,500 zoning district. The proposed additions to the existing resi-
dence modifying the previous plans will result in a total floor area on thc lot
of 10,374 sq. ft. where 5,220 sq. ft. is currently the maximum allowcd.
The previous approval allowed 7,419 sq. ft. total on the lot. In addition,
variance approval is requestcd to allow the additions to the residence to be a
minimum of 13 ft. from the exterior side property line where 25 ft. is
required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to January 11, '1989.
2. SUP-88-001.2 Rose 14725 Sobcy Road, request to modify a condition of approval for a
second unit use permit. Applicant requests to be excused from a require-
mcnt to install strcct improvements along 260 ft. of frontage on a 1.88 acrc
site in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of thc City Code.
Continued to January 11, 1989 for completion of plans.
3. DR-88-077 Schradcr-Yee Development, 14288 Elva Avenue, request for design rcview
approval for a 742 sq. ft. addition to the first floor and a 1,106 sq. ft.
second story addition to an existing 1,017 sq. ft. one-story home. on a
7,424 sq. ft. parcel in the R-1-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 o1' the
City Code. Continued to January 11, 1989, for further study.
4. AZO-88-007 City of Saratoga, consideration of ana amendment to the zoning ordinance
concerning the minimum site area requircmcnt for the MU-PD district and
issuance of the MU-PD (multiple use planned development), Scction 15-
21..030 and '15-21.150. A Negativc Declaration has been prepared.
Continued to January 25, 1.989.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
5. GP-88-002.1 Passantino, '1.3100 Saratoga Ave., consideration of an amendment to the
ZC-88-003 General Plan and Land Use Map to change the designation from M (limited
industrial), to M-10 (medium density residential) and rezoning of property
from L-I (light industrial)l to R-l-10,000. (single family residential).
Properties are currently developed with one single family home on an
18,200 sq. ft. parccl and a ~vater well belonging to the San Jose Water
Works on a 5,280 sq. ft. parcel. A Negative Declaration has been prepared
for the project. Continued to January 25, '1989, for further study.
6. ZC-88-002 J. Lohr, (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Ave., consideration of rezon-
SD-88-001 ing and subdivision approval for a four-unit condominium, project on
14,1.00 sq. ft. of property currently developed with a single family home.
The request is to rezone the property to RM-3~000 in order to construct four
units similar to the current surrounding development known as Saratoga
Parkside. Continued to January 11, '1989, for revision to plans.
7. DR-88-104 J. Lohr, (Saratoga Parkside), 12764 Saratoga Avenue, request for design
review approval for a four unit condominium structure on a 14,100 sq. ft.
lot in the Residential zone district, General Plan designation PDR (planned
development residential)per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continucd to
January 11, 1989, tbr revision of plans.
8. SD-88-015 Picrce, '14584 Horseshoe Drive, request tbr tentative map approval for a
two-lot subdivision; lots to be 24,216 and 20,130 sq. ft. in the R-1-20,000
zonc district per Section 14 of the City Code.
9. DR-88-082 Barmore, 14965 Jerries Drive, request for design review approval to
construct a 506 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one story home
in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
10. DR-88-002 Hall, 22637 Mt. Eden Rd., request for design review approval for a two-
story addition to an existing single family dwelling per Chapter 15 of the
City Code. The home is located in the NHR zoning district. Continued
from October 26, 1988, Planning Commission meeting.
11. DR-88-072 Hwang, 13966 Albar Court, request for design review approval of a new
6,234 sq. ~. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
12. DR-88-069 Lohr, 14617 Chester Avenue, request for design review approval to
construct a new 5,101 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-i-
40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from
November 9, 1988, Planning Commission meeting.
13. DR-88-054 Duncan, Saratoga-Los G-atos Rd. & Glen Una, request for design review
approval for a new 6,011 sq. ft. one-story home on a 40,000 sq. ft. parcel
in the R-1.-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
14. AZO-88-006 City of Saratoga, Ordinance amending Section 15-45.050 and adding
Section 15-45.055 to the City Code concerning the Residential Design
Handbook. A Negative Declaration has bcen prepared for this item.
15. SD-88-021 Chau, 14478 Sobey Road, request for approval of tentative building site
DR-88-078 approval in the R-i-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Design review approval is also requested for a new 6,466 sq. ft. two-story
single family home per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
16. DR-88-075 Krueger, 20881 Canyon View Drive, request for design revie~v approval
for a new 3,511 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000
zoning district per Section 15 of the City Code.
17. SD-88-020 Waller, 20578 Third Street, request for building site and design review
V-88-046 approval to construct a two-story 1,946 sq. ft. homc in the RM-3,000 zone
district per Chaptcrs 14 and 15 of the City Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
'18. DR-88-091 Huang, 1.4590 Deer Springs Court, request for design review approval to
construct a 7,442 sq. ft., one and one-half story home and a variance to
exceed the 8 ft. maximum height limit above a major ridge by 10 ft. in the
NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
19. DR-88-059 Abou-Khater, 19400 Pinnacle Ct., request for design review approval for a
978 sq. t't. main floor addition and a 553 sq. ft. lower floor addition to an
existing 4,'1.20 sq. ft. one-story home in the R-I-40,000 zone per Chapter
15 of the City Code. After the addition, the total floor area will be 5,651
sq. ft. Continued from October 26, 1988, Planning Commission meeting.
Chairperson Guch noted that Items I through 7 were being Continued.
Staff requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8.
Commissioner Tappan requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 17.
Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 18.
HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 9, 10, 11, 12,
'13, 14, 15, 16, AND 1.9. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Kolstad absent.
8. SD-88-O15 Pierce, 14584 Horseshoe Drive, request for tentative map approval for a
two-lot subdivision; lots to the 24,216 and 20,130 sq. ft. in the R-I-20,000
zone district per Section 14 of the. City Code.
Planning Director Eroslie stated that Staff removed this Item pending the receipt of new information
received from neighbors; Staff recommended the Public Hearing be opened and the Item continued
to January 25, 1989, to allow an evaluation of the information received.
Planner Caldwell introduced the Application and noted the following letters received:
William G. Clark, adjacent property owner, Re: SD-88-O15, dated December 6, '1988.
Robert and Dorothy Billner, 14578 Horseshoe Ct., dated December '13, 1988.
Planner Jacobson reviewed the Application and summarized the issues raised by the neighbors:
Question of access to the second lot which was to be graded off of Horseshoe Dr.
Drainage swale crossing the property suggested the site was not suited for residential use
Question of the drainage swalc and its relationship to the proposed siting of the house
Commissioner Kolstad reported on thc land use visit.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M.
Mr. George Pierce, Applicant, felt the drainage swale referred to would not be a major problem;
thc drainage area would go around the house site.
Ms. Jakita Cymbal, Westfall Enginccrs, confirmed that the drainage would be reroutcd around the
house; there would be no problem maintaining the required setbacks.
Mr. Christian Kraft, 2021. Bella Vista Ave., Saratoga, owner of two adjacent parcels commented:
- Concern was that two R-I-20,000 lots would be immediately adjacent to R-I-40,000 zoning
- Questioned the zoning boundary in the area
- Subdivision of this parcel, as proposed, may not bc in thc best intlercst of the neighborhood
- Secondly, the easement was on his propc?rty; he understood that the easement was granted with
the clear understanding that a one acre site with a single family residence would remain
- Finally, traffic on the easement would be increased by a considerable magnitude
The City Attorney asked that if a specific document relating to the easement agreement and/or an
easement restriction, such be presented to the City 'for review.
The Public Hearing remained open.
SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-015 TO JANUARY 25, 1.989. Passed 6-0
17. SD-88-020 Waller, 20578 Third Street, request for building site and design review
V-88-046 approval to construct a two-story '1,946 sq. ft. home in the RM-3,000 zone
district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Commissioner Tappan cited Project Description and Analysis which stated that the design of the
home should be complimentary to the Village Design guidelines; he did not feel the project was
sensitive to the peculiar character ot' the Village area.
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit.
Commissioner Harris suggested consideration of referring this Item to the Village Task Force.
Planners Caldwell and Jacobson reviewed the Staff Report.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Joseph Waller, Applicant, referred questions to his designer.
Mr. William Plimpton, Project Dcsigncr, stated that the design may not be in accordance with the
Village Plan; however, Applicants followed Staft's direction to try to conform with design of the
three adjacent parcels. Thus the same format was used, i.e., an upper floor with the garage on the
lower level, same design elements of wood siding and windows and a shingled, hip roof.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Tappan .felt the expanse of the garage door was incongruent with the area; further-
more, he had difficulty seeing the Victorian elcmcnts which were incorporated into the design.
Commissioner Siegfried understood the concern; however, the lot was limited by a 50 ft. width. He
questioned available dcsign options and was favorable to the limited front elevation height proposed.
Commissioner Burger felt the garage door would not be that visible; the landscaping proposed would
screen the area and access to the garage would be 'from the side property. While she understood the
concern raised, the lot was very constrained.
Commissioner Harris asked that a Condition be added to require that landscaping be installed; in
addition, she asked that applications like this one be referred to the Village Task Force for review.
Commissioner Kolstad did not feel the garage would be that visible; hc asked that landscaping be
installed in the southwest corner of the site to enhance this rather stark area.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88-020 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6-0.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-097 PER THE MODEL RESOLU-
TION, ADDING A CONDITION REQUIRING LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED IN THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LOT, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY STAFE Passed 5-I,
Commissioner Tappan dissenting.
1.8. DR-88-091 Huang, 1.4590 Deer Springs Court, request for design review approval to
construct a 7,442 sq. ft., one and one-half story home and a variance to exceed the 8 ft.
maximum height limit above a major ridge by 1.0 ft. in the NHR zonc district per Chapter
15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Burger expressed conccrn that the home was to be sited on a major ridge line.
Commissioner Kolstad reported on thc land use visit.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Application and presented a revised Condition 3 to read, "Land-
scaping for screening along property lines and along the northern 80 feet of the boundary with the
open space casement shall be installed prior to final occupancy."
Planner Jacobson reviewed the Staff Report and responded to questions regarding the square foot-
age allowed due to the open spacc easement on-site.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 P.M.
Mr. Huang, Applicant, requested approval of the Application and noted efforts to design a beauti-
ful house; he noted the percentage of the site dedicated to an open space easement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Mr. Michael Helm, Architect, presented a model of the site and commented as follows:
Stated that the open space easement had slopes exceeding 45%; such created a hardship
With the slope adjustment analysis a net of 20% slope was derived
Of the 80,000 sq. ft. site area, 33,000 sq. ft. was 45% slope
From the intersection of Toll Gate Rd. and Deer Springs Ct. the house would be 65 ft. away
There was question whether to place the house closer to the road; ho~vever, with higher parcels
adjacent to the site, siting the house closer to the road would minimize the owner's privacy
Front to rear elevation were modified to incorporate features which reduced the bulk and mass
Despite the Ordinance height restriction above a major ridge line, Applicants had done very well
to keep the profile as low as possible and to site the house to the west of the lot, toward the
road; in addition, garage doors to the rear of the property would not be visible from the front
Noted site dimensions and proposed square footage in relationship to the existing landscaping
Excessive square footage was insignificant, considering the percentage of site with a 45% slope
Denial of the Variance would require the house to be located closer to the street, sited on a
steeper slope and require more grading than currently proposed; at present, only a minimal
amount of grading was needed to set the garage into the hillside and create a road
Project was compatible with the neighborhood and would not impact' privacy or interfere with
light,air or views of adjacent property o,`vners
Mr. Charles Rollo, 21280 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, asked that dense trees be planted in the
open space between his property and this lot; such would assure his and the Applicant's privacy.
Ms. Sandy Polliti cited the impact to the rear of her home if there were no trees screening the site.
KOLSTAD/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Siegfried felt the home was ,,veil designed; while he could make Variance Findings
to allow the house to exceed the 8 ft. maximum height limit above a major ridge line, he was
opposed to a Variance for square footage in excess of that allowed.
Commissioners Harris and Burger concurred and added their concern regarding the proposed height
of the house on a major ridge line and asked that the height be reduced.
Commissioner Kolstad was favorable to the design. However, he had reservations about the per-
ceived length of the house and the under floor area facing the front; he did not feel the design
proposed matched the contours of the land and suggested moving the house forward on the lot
which would prevent intrusion into the ridge area.
Chairperson Guch concurred that the house was beautifully designed. She agreed with Staff
Report, Issues and Analysis with regard to application of the ridge ordinance in this instance; how-
ever, the 26 ft. height was excessive and should be reduced nor should square footage in excess of
that allowed be permitted. She suggested design alternatives to the Applicant.
The Applicant was agreeable to a Continuance of this Item with a Study Session to be held.
HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-091 TO FEBRUARY 8, 1989, WITH A
STUDY SESSION ON JANUARY 17, 1989. Passed 6-0..
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
20. DR-87-052.1 K~vci (former applicant Navai), 14599 Big Basin Way, request for modifi-
cation to condition of approval to allow removal of a 63 inch redwood tree
in the interest of public security. Project includes eight townhouse units and
a 1,251. sq. ft. commercial building in the CV zone district.
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, December 8, 1988; the
letter of Virgil R. and Evelyn Herring, 7977 Wonderland Blvd, Redding CA, 96003, was noted.
Mr. Barrie Coate, Horticultural Consultant, reviewed the Report of December 2, 1988; in his opin-
ion, the tree could be preserved, however, the question remained whether the tree might fall.
In response to Commissioner Burger's request, he noted suitable replacement trees, sizes and cost.
In response to Commissioner Kolstad's question, he estimated the amount of root mass cut away
from the north side alone was 20% of the root structure; 10% on the west and 10-15% on the south;
he discussed the depth of the roots and notcd that there was virtually no tap root on this tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M.
Mr. Kwei, Applicant, commented as follows:
- Cited Report of Mr. Donald E Blair, Consulting Arborist, who estimated the tree had only a 50-
50 chance of survival
- Noted the Report of Harris Tree Surgeon Co. in which Mr. Harris stated that the soil was only 4-
6 ft. deep with rock beneath this top soil; if conditions were right, the tree would die
- Both consultants recommended removal and replacement of the tree
- Noted a minor discrepancy in the Staff Report Findings and Alternatives, final paragraph, and
stated that they all loved the tree, however, the public safety ~vas in question
- Suggested that the recommendation of thc Consultants to remove the tree be followed '-"
In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question, Mr. Coate confirmed that the risk of the tree
falling would be greater if the area had significant rain; however, if the tree were thinned, removing
approximately 30% of the branches, the rains would not make a significant difference. If the tree
were to be saved, immediate procedures would havc to be initiated.
Ms. Anne Fitzsimmons, adjacent property owner ~vas very concerned regarding the possibility of
the tree falling and asked that it be taken down.
Ms. Diana Parham, Saratoga Residents Association, commented as follows:
Thought Californians had learned to preserve their heritage--the Redwoods and the Oaks
Was present when it was determined that the tree was to be saved
Either contractors were incapable of doing their job or did not understand their actions
Apparent that precautions were not taken to save the tree; similar incidents continued to occur
Wished to see the tree be saved; however, if such was not possible, the City had to start making
the parties responsible realize that they had an obligation to follow instructions set down
Mr. Alan King, former Planning Commissioner, noted the history of this project and cited the letter
df Mr. Bartie Coate to the Saratoga Fire District, dated August 23, 1988, which discussed fire
damage to the tree. He felt the time had arrived to impose fines for negligence of trees.
Ms. Virginia Finelli, Representative for the original Applicant (Navai), commented as follows:
Reviewed the project history, noting that the Navais had spent a great deal of time and effort to
work around the heritage trce in designing the foundations for this project.
Was confident the former Applicants had passed on information when the land was sold
Assured the Commission that the Navais worked in good faith to assure the trec's preservation
Urged the tree be preserved; however, if such was not possible, the Applicant should be requir-
ed to plant a replacement tree and additional landscaping
Furthermore, she urged that the Applicant or any subsequent applicant not be allowed to re-
design the project based on the removal of the tree
Mr. Roy Rustin, President, Gate House Homeowners Association, noted a similar situation ~vith
large trees on their property; he felt the tree in question was dangerous and should be removed.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 P.M. Passed 6-0
Commissioner Burger noted that despite testimony to the contrary, some did not value the tree.
Despite her interest in preserving this heritage tree, she was concerned the tree would not survive;
furthermore, a safety issue existed. Thus, she favored rcmoval of the tree per recommendation of
the consultants; the Commission for its part should note the disservice done to the City by loss of
the this heritage tree and carefully consider the replacement tree and/or landscaping to be required.
Commissioner Siegfried suggested that in addition to replacement to a value equal the tree lost,
some additional contribution be considered. The City Attorney responded that a liquidated damage
clause was not placed on this Application; however, the Commission had the ability to require
replacement landscaping.
Chairperson Guch was appalled at the situation on-site; she felt care was not taken when grading
was done to insure the preservation of this tree. She concurred regarding the concerns expressed
on safety if significant rains or winds came. She felt a suitable replacement tree should be installed
plus the full replacement value in landscaping.
Mr. Coate concurred that it was a crime this healthy trce was damaged; he would present at a later
datc the value of a replacement tree and suitable coastal species for considcration.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Siegfried felt that the cost of replacing and installing a tree should be integrated into
an overall landscape plan for the site. He noted that only a 50-50 chance of survival existed for the
tree and favored going forward with a replacement tree and landscaping plan.
Commissioner Kolstad cited other examples in the City where trees were not being protected.
Commissioner Harris felt the Applicant had detcrmined to remove the tree; such represented an
unwillingness to participate in the spirit of the Village to work together for the beautification of the
area. She agreed with comments already expressed by other Commissioners.
Commissioner Tappan concurred that a public safety issue existed and agreed with Commissioner
Kolstad's observation that the treatment of trees in the City ~vas cavalier; this action of the
Commission would put developers, contractors and property owners on notice.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-87-052. '1 GRANTING A MODIFICATION
TO A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF A 63 INCH REDWOOD TREE
IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND REQUIRING A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO
BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION JANUARY 4, :1989, SHOWING THE RE-
PLACEMENT OF THE HERITAGE TREE AND AN OVERALL LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR
THE SITE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE TREE LOST. Passed 6'0.
Break: 9:30 - 9:45 P.M.
21. V-88-030 Ratner, 19103 Via Tesoro Court, request for variance approval to allow 6
ft. maximum height for t~vo (2) front entrance gates which exceed the maxi-
mum height allowed of 3 ft. on a 1.21.6 acre site in the R-I-40,000 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. (Continued from November 14,
1988, for vote of all Commissioners.
Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, December 14, 1.988.
The City Attorney stated that the Ordinance now contained a provision to allow slightly higher gate
heights; such would be presented for the Commission's review when the agenda allowed.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:50 P.M.
Mr. Ratner, Applicant, noted his interest in completing this Application quickly; he presented
additional photographs and requested approval of this request.
Mr. Maurice Camargo, Applicant, asked if the Variance Findings could not be made, there was
anything the Applicants could do to facilitate this matter.
SIEGFRIEDBURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:53 P.M. Passed 6-0
Commissioner Kolstad stated that in light of the fact that an Ordinance amendment allowing sightly
higher gates ~vould be considered by the Commission, he would move for approval of this request.
KOLSTAD/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-030 MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT:
- GRANTING A VARIANCE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE SINCE
OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY HAD GATES SIMILAR TO THAT REQUESTED
BY THE APPLICANT.
GRANTING A VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY OR WELFARE OR MATERIALLY INJURIOUS TO PROPERTIES OR
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY. Passed 5-1, Chairperson Guch dissenting.
22. SD-88-007 Zimmerman, 14190 Palomino Way, request for building site approval of
DR-88-036 one lot with an average slope of 26% and design review approval to con-
struct a new 6,003 sq. ft. two-story home. Parcel is 2.125 acres in size,
zoned NHR (northwcstern hillsides residential), General Plan designation
RHC, (residential, hillside conservation). (Continued from September 14,
1988, Regular Meeting and October 18, 1988, Committee-of-the-Whole
Meeting.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated December 14, 1.988; the
following amendments to Conditions for SD-88-007 were noted:
23. to read, "Any existing septic or gasoline storage tank(s)..."
27. Condition to be deleted
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:00 P.M.
Mr. Scott Cunningham, Designer, commented as follows:
- Noted a lack of continuity between Staff Report and recent Study Session discussions
- Requested clarification of Staff Report, Issues, "Technique 1: Minimize changes to natural
topography. Avoid excessive soil removal and fill" and "Technique 2: Follow hillside contours.
Terrace building." Reviewed site access/vehicular turn-around as discussed in Study Session
- Issues, "Technique 4: Minimize building height. Minimize areas of maximum height. Vary
height of roof elements." Staff Report acknowledged that the central portion of the house was
reduced in height; however, it failed to pick up the change in roof pitch which reduced the height
and the fact that the second story element was pulled back 9 ft. from the front of the house
~ Unfortunately, calculations of square footage counted the entry into the garage area; actual
first story area was 2749 sq. ft; second story 2374 sq. ft. (13% smaller than the first floor)
~ 79% of the front elevation receded from the first floor; in addition, arbors had been added
~ Maximum height of the house was 6 inches below that allowed; only 6 ft. of the ridgeline
was at the maximum height; thus the house did not feel excessively bulky
Issues, "Technique 5: Design structure to fit with the existing neighborhood. Be compatible in
terms of proportions, size, mass and height. Architectural style is not restricted to existing
patterns, but. should be compatible. Avoid overwhelming existing residences."
~ Reviewed the character of the existing neighborhood and variety of existing styles
~ Objected to Staff Comment that this house would be incompatible with the area; Applicants
felt the style proposed was appropriate for the neighborhood
With respect to Condition 27, there were four encroachments on this parcel which would be
removed, including an above ground storage tank
Mr. Bill Hciss, Civil Engineer, commented as follows:
Felt a significant amount of grading ~vould occur but afterwards, such would not be apparent
Grading would occur under the home and behind the structure for the retaining wall, both of
which would be screened by the house itself and would the allow the house to be set into the hill
Excavated soil would be placed to the front of the house at a 3-1 slope; the natural terrain was
25%; site would not appear that much different from its present appearance
Fill placed in the front of the lot was necessary to generate a level area for the access/turn-around
Requested a deferred improvement agreement for Pierce Rd.
Mr. Rex Up, Project Geotechnical Consultant, made himself available to discuss the geotechnical
site constraints and the development of the project in relationship to such.
Commissioner Harris commented that it was very unusual to have the amount of grading proposed
for this site; if as Mr. Heiss suggested, the numbers not be looked at, why were they presented?
Mr. Heiss responded that the reason for minimizing the cut and fill was to avoid impacts; from an
engineering standpoint, cut and fill was not objectionable; it was the product created from this
action that was of importance. Such should also be the consideration of the Commission.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 1.0:20 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Tappan noted the improvement in plans submitted at this Hearing; he concurred
with Mr. Cunningham that the definition of a neighborhood could include a wider area.
Commissioner Burger concurred that improvements had been made in the revised plans presented;.
She had reservations requiring applicants to build homes similar to an immediate area, especially
when such was 30 years old; she preferred an expanded definition of neighborhood. With respect
to the amount of cut and fill requested, she recognized the Fire District required a turn-around area.
Mr. Heiss reiterated that it was also a case of creating a level pad; the site either had to be cut, with
installation of a retaining wall to set the home in or the site had to be filled out. Soil already existed
on-site to create the level pad and compliment the natural slope of the site; however, during grading
and immediately after, there would be a very large slope which would be visible until the land-
scaping of natural grasses were planted.
Commissioner Burger responded that she would approve the Application.
Commissioner Kolstad noted that neighborhoods were created by residents who lived in the area,
not by imposing a standard. However, he felt the Applicant was attempting to create a level pad
rather than using the existing site contours; in addition, the lot was very visible which required
greater sensitivity. He suggested design alternatives to the Applicant for consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
DECEMBER 14, '1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Harris concurred with Commissioner Kolstad's comments and added that the house
proposed for the site was not appropriate; setting a house into the hillside would be a better design.
Commissioner Siegfried agreed with Commissioners Harris and Kolstad that the pad was being
carved out of the site; the proposed house was not appropriate for this lot.
Chairperson Guch noted the significant improvement in the revised plans; however, she concurred
with concerns expressed by the other Commissioners.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88-007 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6-0.
SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-88-036. Passed 4-2,
Commissioners Burger, Tappan dissenting.
23. SD-88-017 Eagleston, 20600 Lomita Avenue, request for tentative map and variance
V-88-004 approvals liar a two-lot subdivision; each lot to be no less than 20,000 sq.
.ft. in the R-I-20,000 zone district per City Code Sections 14 and '15.
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit.
Planners Caldwell and Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:35 P.M.
Mr. Donald Eagleston, Applicant, commented as follows:
- Stated that he was representing the property owner in this Application
- The intent was to prevent the historical McCarty house from being removed and to show a
practical and natural lot split .for a two-lot subdivision of this parcel
- This parcel could be split either horizontally or vertically
- The proposed subdivision lots wcrc sized to be compatible with the neighborhood
- The location of the McCarty house prevented a vertical lot split; removal of this historic structure
~vas not the best solution
- Alternative proposal, splitting the lot horizontally, was shown; the lot containing the McCarty
home (Parcel A/front parcel) exceeded the 110 ft. site width required if considered a corner lot
- If however, Parcel A were not considered a corner lot, then a 5 ft. site width was lacking
- Both lots would exceed a 110 ft. site width required if they had not agreed to a street dedication
- Utilities were conveniently located: sewer, water and gas already served the lot; underground
utilities servicing the flag lot were located in an easement; fire hydrant was already in place
- Proposal was in best interest of the neighborhood and City; site improvements were reviewed
- .Of nine ordinance size trees, seven were on the McCarly parcel and ~vould not be disturbed; the
two ordinance size trees on the flag lot (Parcel B/rear parcel) were on the perimeter of the lot
- Neighbors had been consulted and concerns discussed ~vith them
- Historical Preservation Commission and Historical Society endorsed this proposal
Mr. Clay Darlington, Adjacent property owner, stated he was neutral on the variance request; if
granted his only concern was that height and setbacks bc in accord with City requirements.
Mr. Dennis Hunter, 20606 Lomita Ave., Saratoga, stated that he and his wife felt strongly regard-
ing the preservation of the McCarty house and the trees on-site.
Mr. Ray Adams, 20522 Loreira Ave., Saratoga, supported the request being made.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 1.0:47 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Tappan noted that he was sensitive to the request of the Heritage Preservation Com-
mission that any structure constructed on a second parcel bc in keeping with the historical character
of the McCarty home.
Commissioner Burger stated she could make Findings for the lot split based on the need to pre-
serve this historic home; she noted that restrictions ~vould be placed on any house built on Parcel B
so as not to damage the integrity of the existing structure. Commissioner Siegfried agreed.
Commissioner Harris questioned ~vhether she could make a Finding of special circumstance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10
DECEMBER 14, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
The City Attorney responded to Commissioner Kolstad's question, stating that the Commission
could condition a lot split on a requirement that the McCarty home bc officially designated a
historic structure; if approved, Staff could be directed to prepare a Resolution with conditions
restricting the house on Parcel B to be in keeping with the historic structure and adding a stipu-
lation that prior to final approval, the McCarty home would be designated a historical structure.
Commissioner Kolstad stated that with the above recommendation of the City Attorney, he could
make a Finding of Special Circumstance.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-017 AND V-88-044, DIRECTING
STAFF TO PREPARE A' RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1989. Passed 6-0.
24. UP-88-015 Kolotouros, 20210 Prospect Road, request for use permit approval to
continue a nonconforming trucking business in the R-I -10,000 zone district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit.
Planners Caldwell and Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission; a letter of
George H. and Sharon Eggleston, 12047 Marilia Dr., Saratoga, December 11, 1989, was noted.
Commissioners Burger and Siegfried provided additional information on the history of this Item.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:05 P.M.
Mr. George Kolotouros, Applicant, commented as follows:
Reviewed the history of Application and noted that Route 85 was to be built adjacent to the site
Stated that three years ago there had been no objection to operation of his business on this site;
in addition, he helped anyone who came along and asked for aid
It would be impossible to make a living from the business if he had to move the operation
Confirmed that none of his vehicles were parked in front of other homes in the area
Stated that he needed to continue his business to put his sons through school
Ms. Kolotouros, Applicant, thanked her neighbors for their support and read into the record the
letter of the Egglestons cited above; she ~vas a~vare of only one individual who had complained.
She confirmed that no major vehicle repairs were done on-site; h~r husband was a truck driver.
A neighbor confirmed there was no trouble with this operation and there had been no accidents;
there were more problems in the neighborhood with tccnagcrs speeding and causing accidents.
Mr. Tom Peters, 201.01 Seagull Way, Saratoga, confirmed there were no problems with this use.
Mr. Peter Kolotouros, son of Applicants, noted that the individual who c~omplained never made
their concerns known to the family; any complaint received had been resolved. He confirmed that
no major vehicle repairs were being made on-site; applicants did not have the equipment to do so.
Nothing more than an oil change on the trucks was occurring.
Mr. Jim Kolotouros, son of the Applicants, asked that the Use Permit be extended as requested.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11:22 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Siegfried suggested the Use Permit be extended until egress from the property onto
Prospect Ave. were precluded by the Route 85 corridor. Commissioner Burger concurred.
Chairperson Guch noted that this use predated other properties in the area; she stated that she had
never observed major repairs on-site.
Commissioner Siegfried asked that Staff be directed to prepare specific language on the termination
of this use and addressing the number of vehicles allowed on-site.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE UP-88-015 TO JANUARY 11, 1989,
DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON THE TERMINATION OF
USE AND ADDRESSING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES ALLOWED ON-SITE.. Passed 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11
DECEMBER 14, 1989
MISCELLANEOUS:
Written:
1. Letter from Bert Martel re: 19431 San Marcos Rd.
The Chair recognized the following speakers.
Mr. Bert Martel related incidents of concern at the San Marcos Rd. property; he cited the runoff,
standing water and amount of fill brought onto the site. Neighbors observations were also noted.
Ms. Jeanne Olsen confirmed the above concerns.
Planning Director Emslie provided information on permits issued to property owners of this site.
The City Attorney advised the Commission that Staff could be directed to prepare a report to be
presented; speakers to be notified of the issuance of the report.
2. Petition from MOT Park Civic Improvements Association and Montauk Park Civic Improve-
ment Association, - Noted and filed.
3. Letter from Roma Rieker re: Variance at 14945 Three Oaks Way, - Noted and filed.
4. Memo from Parks and Recreation Commission dated November 14, 1988, Noted and filed.
5. Memo from Valerie Young re: Brandcnberg House designation, - Noted and filed
6. Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes of November 1.5, 1988, - Noted and filed.
7. Heritage Preservation Minutes of November 2 and November 16, 1988 - Noted and filed.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Oral by Commission:
Commissioner Kolsfad reported on the December 7, 1.988, Meeting of the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:45 P.M.
Res ectfully s milled, /
Carol A. Probst-Caugh~