Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: February 22, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan present at 7:30 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried absent. Approval of MinUtes: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Report of Clerk on Posting of Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on February 17, 1989. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-88-098 Sinsley, 15314 Sobey Road, request for building site and design review SD-89-001 approval to construct a one-story 8,428 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning diswict per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Con- tinued to March 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 2. DR-88~094 Lohr, 14594 Sobey Oaks Ct., request for design review approval to con- struct a two-story, 5,412 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to March 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant to revise plans. 3. DR-88-066 Nelson, 13621 Pierce Rd., request for tentative building site, design review SD-88-022 and variance approval to construct a new 4,963 sq. ft. two-story single V-88-046 family home in the NHR zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 1,153 sq. ft. Continued to March 8, 1989. 4. DR-88~091 Huang, 14590 Deer Springs Ct., request for a single family residence to ex- V-88-046 the 8 foot height limit above a major ridge line by 11 feet. Continued to March 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant to submit revised plans. 5. SUP-88-001.2 Rose, 14725 Sobey Rd., 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. Continued to March 22, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 6. DR-87-161.1 Hulberg, 12820-12860 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for approval of a modification to the site plan to allow parking lot lights not previously approved by the Planning Commission per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to March 8, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 7. DR-88-089 Schaller, 18840 Ten Acres Rd., request for design review approval for a new 6,098 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Heating closed February 8, 1989. 8. DR-88-071 McMullin, 15050 Encina Ct., request for design review and building site SD-89-002 approval to construct a two-story, 4,966 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. -~- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 9. DR-88-106 Dunlap, 14472 Sobey Road, request for design review approval to con- struct a new tow-story 4,479 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-l- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 10. DR-89-007 Hillman, 14387 Paul Ave., request for design review approval to construct a 113 sq. ft. balcony to the rear of an existing two-story single family dwelling in the R-l-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. DR-88-103 Sze, 14780 Masson Ct., review of landscape plans required per condition of previously approved design review. Public Heating closed January 25, 1989. Chairperson Guch noted that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Items 1- 6 were being continued. Mr. McMullin requested removal pf Public Hearings Consent Calendar 8. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 7, 9, 10 AND 11. Passed 6-0. 8. DR-88-071 McMullin, 15050 Encina Ct., request for design review and building site SD-89-002 approval to construct a two-story, 4,966 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie and Planner Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. The Public Heating was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Brian McMullin, Applicant, stated that he had recently been informed that the entire length of the road would have to be improved; however, on June 10, 1988, he was assured by Staff that only the cul-de-sac and the portion of the road in front of the house would have to be improved. Furthermore, neighbors did not wish the road to be improved. Mr. Jim Character, 15061 Encina Ct., Saratoga, presented a written statement asking that the rural character of the area be maintained; he cited the letter of Mr. Thomas Tisch, 15040 Encina Ct. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, he thought the street was 18 - 20 ft. wide. In response to Commissioner Tappan's inquiry, they did not object to resurfacing the street. Mr. Fred Wade, 15080 Encina Ct., Saratoga, concurred and reiterated that they did not wish curbs and gutters to be required; however, he did not object to the installation of storm drains. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris stated that from a site visit she had made, she understood the neighbor's wish to preserve the rural atmosphere of the area; she asked the City Attorney to address the issue. City Attorney responded that Resolution SD-89-002, 5. referred to the improvement of Encina Ct.; he added that this discussion had occurred many times. It was not without precedent for the Com- mission to eliminate a requirement for curbs and gutters; they had the authority to approve excep- tions to the Standard Improvement Requirement. In addition, the mad width had been nan'owed on occasion. Commissioner Harris wished to see such action taken in this case. Planner Jacobson noted that the City Engineer decided that this was the appropriate time to require improvements; this was a public street and the site in question was last parcel to be developed on Encina Ct.;, improvements recommended included a paved, minimum access road of 18 ft., 1 ft. shoulder, curbing and improvements on the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Tappan questioned the responsibility to insure safety and emergency vehicle access; the City Attorney responded that a public street carried with it a greater responsibility; if the design was defective, there was a potential for liability. On the other hand, in certain hillside areas, the street width had been narrowed; he suggested the City Engineer and Central Fire Chief address the length, topography and other features of the street, indicating the minimum width recommended. Commissioner Burger favored the elimination of the requirement for curb and gutters; she requested information from the City Engineer and Central Fire Chief on the amount of paving necessary to insure the safety of the residents. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Tappan stated he could understand the concerns of the residents; however, he felt it important to repair the road where ever there was disrepair and maintain a minimum 18 ft. width and the cul-de-sac turn around be brought into conformance with the Fire Chiefs recommendation. Gutters and curbing were not necessary. Staff was directed to prepare the requested information. Commissioner Harris asked that Staff indicate where exceptions had been made and the Report of Mr. Barrie Coates on the trees on-site. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-071 AND SD-89-002 TO MARCH 22, 1989. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12. V-88-025 Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., 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 the R-l-12,500 zoning district. The proposed additions to the existing resi- dence modifying the previous plans will result in a total floor area on the lot of 9,100 sq. ft. where 5,220 sq. ft. is currently the maximum allowed. In addition, variance approval is requested to allow the additions to the resi- dence to be a minimum of 17 ft. from the exterior side property line where 25 ft. is required. Continued to February 22, 1989, at the request of the applicant. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission of February 22, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Jerry Kocir, Applicant, conf'trmed that the only change in the plans was the height of the pool cover, per Commissioner Harris' question. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:01 P.M. Passed 6-0. HARRISfrUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-025 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF A-1088.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 13. SD-88-008 Rogers and Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., public hearing to consider cer- tification of an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed 35-1ot subdivi- sion at the Odd Fellows property behind the care facility per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property involves 55.66 acres within the R-1- 40,000 zoning district, which is proposed for single family residential sub- division. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the adequacy of an environmental document prepared to identify potential impacts which may result from the proposed subdivision. The Environmental Impact Report will be considered prior to the Commission's action on the proposed subdivision. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 22, 1989, and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Mr. Michael Hogan, Earth Mettics, Inc., noted that no Draft Environmental Impact Report was sufficient; the legislative intent included the comments and responses made by the public; comments already made by the public were an excellent addition to the data base for a final EIR. He reviewed the Slimmary_ of Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures. Chairperson Guch questioned in CirCulation Elements, that it was her understanding that the Report equated the cul-de-sac and the gate option in terms of level of impact. Mr. Hogan responded that with regard to noise, the impacts were very similar; the Project Traffic Engineer would address the traffic impacts. Mr. John Wilson, Project Traffic Engineer, stated that the relative impacts of the two alternatives were similar as one approached the perimeters of the project; the intersections considered were all operating at adequate Level of Service Ratings (LOS). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Guch reiterated her question about the difference in impacts between the alternatives. Mr. Wilson responded that the impacts between the cul-de-sac and the gated road would be essentially the same; any difference would be dependent upon where the alternative was located and how many lots would access Crisp or Gypsy Hill Rd. for access. Impacts would be restricted to traffic generated by the projects themselves. Chairperson Guch questioned whether a through street was more impactful than a cul-de-sac or gated road. Mr. Wilson stated that the traffic volumes were estimated to be considerably higher on Crisp Ave. if the mad became a through street. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Mr. Wilson stated that the Report had not .pro- vided the number of increased trips per day through the Odd Fellows property; the estimate was an increase of 220 trips per day; if all the homes gained access by this route, the estimate would be upwards of 400 trips per day. He confirmed that the traffic counts taken on August 11, 1989, had not been included in the Report. Commissioner Harris noted that West Valley College was not in session when the traffic count was made; she asked that an analysis of traffic circulation patterns used by College students be provid- ed; neighbors were concerned about the use of their neighborhood as a short cut to the College. Mr. Wilson noted that it was very difficult to quantify such a situation and determine a specific number of trips that might be created; they estimated that there would not be very many given the length of time required to follow a route through the project site and over to the College. Commissioner Harris asked that potential traffic circulation patterns by West Valley students if Crisp Ave. were a through street be considered and a review of attendance records to determine the origin and direction of the current traffic. Mr. Wilson stated he would report back on this issue. Commissioner Harris noted that individuals, including herself, took a circuitous traffic route if one could avoid gridlock traffic on the arterial streets. She requested any information available. Mr. Hogan stated that the traffic and noise were the most serious impacts; per request of the Commission, he completed his review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Chairperson Guch noted that specific mitigation for reduction of noise impacts from traffic coming through the Odd Fellows property had not been suggested. Mr. Hogan responded that under this alternative, the sound level would not reach 60 dBAs and as such, the impact would not be considered significant under the City's General Plan. However, if such a mitigation were desired, an appropriate grade design to minimize the noise upgrade (toward the new project) could be considered; the other potential mitigation measure which was not being recommended since it was not needed, would be to retrofit the major residential structure as the Odd Fellows; older buildings such as this had a great deal of acoustical leakage. Chairperson Guch asked that the various mitigations to the traffic circulation pattern alternatives be addressed in the Report. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:45 P.M. Mr. Victor Hue S. Yang, 19461 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, cited the existing traffic hazards in the area and objected to the extension of Crisp Ave.; examples of recent accidents were noted. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, cited his letter Re: the Draft EIR and presented a letter of a former City Manager and an agreement signed by Councilmember Peterson as Mayor. Mr. Don Jones, 19369 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, cited the above letters which stated that Crisp Ave. would not become a through street; he asked that this commitment be observed. Mr. Ralph Burwell, 19309 Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: Reviewed the EIR and stated he did not understand allowing development without a Master Plan Recognized that the City contracted for the EIR but questioned who was paying for the Report The Planning Director and City Attorney reviewed the standard practice of the City in this matter. Mr. Dick Merwin, 14466 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, noted the excessive traffic speed on Sobey Rd; he felt the EIR failed to address the existing traffic impacts on this street. ~-~. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Pauline Seales, 14141 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited the potential traffic impacts for Sobey Rd. from the proposal under consideration - In addition, there was another development under way which would access by Sobey Rd. - Was horrified by the suggestion in the Draft Environmental Impact Report that the wildlife was taken care of by the so called scenic easement - Some of the lots shown were three-fourths covered by the scenic easement and one lot was bisected by it; where were the houses to be sited on these lots Predicted the easement would be destroyed within five years, the wildlife would disappear and the Oak trees disturbed Ms. Margarite Fisher, 14520 Fruitvale Rd., B. 11, Saratoga, read her letter into the record. Mr. Devorak Lackher, 14851 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, reviewed her letter of February 21, 1989. Mr. Charles K. Heker, 19339 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Favored retaining the existing cul-de-sac on Crisp Ave. - Traffic impacts would have to be measured when school was in session - Noted that the noise from the proposed development would bother the neighborhood Ms. Katherine S. Shonlas, 14928 Haun Ct., Saratoga, supported her neighbors on Crisp Ave. Mr. R. Kemp Carter, 19306 Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Configuration of the intersection at Crisp Avenue and Granite was unsafe; cited traffic hazards - Proposed developments in the area appeared piecemeal; a Master Plan for the area was required - Was concerned with the erosion and drainage due to the topography of the site - Noted that a cemetery on-site was not addressed and questioned the access of such Mr. Joe Sernke, 19332 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, felt the Draft EIR was incomplete as follows: - Traffic circulation patterns proposed for Crisp Ave. was absurd - Crisp Ave. was incapable of handling any more traffic; in addition, hazards existed on this street Asked that a balance between the request of the Odd Fellows and the neighbors be achieved Mr. Michael Farrow, 14451 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited the accidents on Sobey Rd; any increase in traffic would be detrimental. The impact of Route 85 was not addressed in the Report. Mr. Rex Hoover, 14475 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited concern over current traffic hazards; while not opposed to development of this site, he was concerned about making Crisp Ave. a through street. Mr. Pat Moran, 14133 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited damage to his property from traffic accidents; he echoed concerns of Commissioner Harris. In addition, he was concerned about erosion on-site. Ms. Penny Macuga, 14894 Granite Way, Saratoga, noted Crisp Ave and Granite Way was a blind intersection; asked that the rural ambiance of Saratoga be maintained by not creating a thorough- fare. Finally, she cited the proximity of the homes on Crisp Ave. to the street; such would create acoustical leakage. Ms. Dee Heines, 14803 Granite Way, Saratoga, presented a letter on traffic impacts and hazards. Mr. Peggy Cocker, Attorney on behalf of the Odd Fellows, - Odd Fellows had already submitted their formal response to the Draft EIR - Noted that the major issue was traffic - Odd Fellows wished to reconfm'n that access through their site was unacceptable; they were as concerned as the neighbors regarding traffic impacts and respected the concerns raised - Noted that the Odd Fellows was not a standard, single-family residential subdivision - There were approximately 300 senior citizens with an average age of 80 on-site and there was serious concern regarding the safety and well being of these residents - The Odd Fellows were in the process of preparing a Master Plan to refurbish and modernize the existing facility - Commented that the Draft EIR noted the existence of 16 55-gallon drums of unknown material; Odd Fellows had retained the services of a hazardous waste consultant and environmental geo- technical consultant and they had commence an analysis of the materials - This material would be disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations - Concluded that the Odd Fellows had to sell the property for the the continued operation of their senior care facility; furthermore, the issue of financial benefit was not a proper land use issue · ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Robert Barton, Odd Fellows Development Consultant, commented as follows: Reviewed the history of the site and current status of the property and adjacent area Reviewed the proposed Master Plan for the site including access to the property Applicants had attempted to find access through the site; questioned whether they would be required to install a through street which would divide the functions of the campus The western boundary of the site had very difficult terrain Access from the west would destroy the riparian corridor; in addition, Earth Metrics had indicated that such would create additional noise impacts from cars accelerating up the hill Use of Chester Ave. did not seem acceptable Applicants agreed with the conclusions of the Draft EIR Mr. Jerry Lohr, J. Lohr Properties, commented as follows: Future residents of Sobey Rd. and Gypsy Hill Rd. were not present since they had not taken title to the property; he expected they would be equally opposed to a through street on Crisp Ave Submitted the Odd Fellows previous plans showing the access to the site Stated that the seven properties on Crisp Ave. was not properly addressed in the Draft EIR Felt it made no sense to access the Odd Fellows property via of Gypsy Hill Rd. as children would be attending Saratoga Schools There were access options not discussed Chairperson Guch asked Earth Metrics to consider a three cul-de-sac option when assessing traffic impacts in the Draft EIR; namely, from the Odd Fellows, Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd. Commissioner Burger stated her greatest concern was traffic as noted in the testimony heard; she wished to see the various options for traffic circulation fully studied by the Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Tucker was concerned about traffic impacts and erosion of the Creek; she asked that the traffic be measured during peak hours for West Valley College. Commissioner Tappan concurred and favored consideration of a three cul-de-sac option. Commission Kolstad did not have any comment to make to Earth Metrics at this time; he explained to the residents of the area that the neighborhood streets may be able to handle the traffic load. Commissioner Harris reiterated her request for the raw data on the traffic counts Mr. Hogan reiterated statements in the Draft EIR'as follows: - Noted that the impacts on the Odd Fellows and the adjacent area were very similar in nature - Earth Metrics concluded that a gate must be provided to mitigate traffic and noise impacts - Felt that the three cul-de-sac option was imaginative and deserved consideration Concluded that Earth Metrics would respond in detail to the comments made Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing Rogers and Brooks, Property Owners, thanked residents for their comments; one alternative they were considering was a gate at both ends of the proposed road, one at Crisp Ave. and one where Gypsy Hill Rd. was intersected. This proposal would allow access only for the residents and eliminate through traffic. The Public Hearing remained open. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-003 TO MARCH 22, 1989. Passed 6-0. Break 10:00 - 10:17 P.M. 14. UP-89-002 Christiano, 21120 Wardell Rd., request for design review and variance V-89-004 approval to add an additional 1,595 sq. ft. to an existing two-story 3,512 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A proposed pool is also part of the application. The home is on the Heritage Resource Preview List. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowable building height by 3 ft. 6 in. for an ultimate height of 29 ft. 6 in. with will not be higher than the existing two-story structure. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 22, 1989; a Condition 13 was added to the Model Resolution requiring that the property be surveyed. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:25 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. Passed 6-0. KOLSTAD~rIARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF V-89-004 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH AN ADDED CONDITION 13. Passed 6-0. 15. UP-89-002 Shannon/Wieser, 12820 Sarat0ga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for a conditional use permit approval to operate a dog and cat veterinary hospital at the Saratoga Oaks Center in the C-N zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 22, 1989; a letter had been received from Laurie and Bob Taker, objecting to the location of the project. Commissioner Harris commented it was her understanding that the center would have retail uses; at present there was no retail use. She questioned whether the City had jurisdiction over such uses. The City Attorney responded that retail was permitted use but not required. Commissioner Harris stated for the record that she wished Staff to point out such an issue in the Staff Report; the intention of this development was to gain revenue from retail uses. Commissioner Burger requested clarification on differences between veterinary hospitals with sick animals and a boarding facility; the City Attorney reviewed the definition in the City Code of an "animal establishment;" distinctions between boarding and veterinary hospital care was reviewed. Commissioner Tappan questioned whether the review period could be shortened; Staff confirmed that it could. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:38 P.M. Dr. Ed Weiser, Veterinarian, confirmed the building would be soundproofed; noise was an issue often raised when a permit was requested. Facilities in other locations did not receive complaints. He answered questions of the Commission on the number of animals on an out patient basis, the number of animals that could be accommodated over night, procedures followed with sick animals and the design of this facility. Mr. Jerry Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Was appalled this type of activity would be permitted; such added to the destruction of the area Cited the parking that would be required for this type of operation Noted compulsory waste disposal system and filters for chemicals was needed Noted that a security problem would result from the drugs and chemicals stored on-site Sound barrier was a necessity; noted current problems with dogs in the neighborhood This was not a compatible business for the area; cited similar facilities nearby Mr. Rick Artis, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Property owner would not allow tenants who disrupted the residential portion of the development - Confumed that sound would be controlled for adjacent residents as well as the other retail uses; furthermore, residents across the street would not hear any noise due to the distance - Noted the retail uses that were being considered for this site - Initially only one veterinarian would be on-site so parking would not be a problem - Noted that restaurants and other uses disposed of hazardous and other materials; there were no complaints on operations similar to that proposed Mr. Mark Kocir reiterated that the animals would be making noise during the middle of the night; in addition, two of his neighbors had not been noticed on this Application. Ms. Kathleen Price cited concern regarding noise and questioned the number of animals cared for; she noted potential traffic congestion on-site as well as exiting the site. Dr. Weiser asked that the Commission consider the other operations that existed in the valley. He noted that very few went out of business and attributed such to the lack of complaints by neighbors. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:59 P.M. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan stated he was sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors but he felt that such operations were not especially noisy. He was satisfied with the Model Resolution with a provision requiring an initial review in six months. Commissioner Kolstad questioned the impact of the lighting of this Center with the potential noise from such an operation; the City Attorney replied that lighting could not be addressed at this time. The Commissioner stated if such were the case, he agreed with Commissioner Tappan's idea. Commissioner Tucker was willing to postpone the decision to allow neighbors to comment; how- ever, if the Commission wished to vote, she was favorable to a review in six months. Commissioner Burger noted that this was an extremely sensitive issue; upon serious consideration she felt that the proposed use was inappropriate for the area in question and had the potential for a number of problems. She would not vote in favor of this Application at this location. Commissioner Harris concurred and reiterated her concerns stated above. Chairperson Guch did not have particular concerns; issues raised were addressed by the Applicant. There would not be impacts to the residential portion of this development nor was there any need for an outdoor run for the animals since they were ill and stayed only during the recovery time. In her opinion, this was not an inappropriate or incompatible use for the center. Commissioner Burger responded to Commissioner Kolstad's question, that she felt the City would receive complaints about noise, traffic impacts accessing the building with sick animals, cumulative impacts; her major concern would be noise. Commissioner Tappan concurred this was a sensitive issue, thus he suggested a six month review. Commissioner Burger urged if the Commission was going to act, that this suggestion be adopted. Commissioner Kolstad wished to further consider this Item, in fairness to the Applicant. TAPPAN/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-89-002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION WITH AN ADDED CONDITION REQUIRING REVIEW OF THE USE PERMIT IN SIX MONTHS. Failed 3-3, Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting. 16. DR-88-057 Lin, 12532 Parker Ranch Rd., request for design review approval for a new V-88-037 single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the construction of the home on 36% slope where 30% is the maximum allowed. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 22, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:15 P.M. Mr. Mike Rockhold, Architect, reviewed the design approach used for this house on a very steep slope; he noted his efforts to minimize its impact by creating a long, nan'ow structure. Applicants were not opposed to the Continuance recommended by Staff for further design review; photo- graphs of the site were presented. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:29 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Kolstad did not object to allowing some latitude on the square footage. However, the house was excessively bulky and due to the use of the brick appeared to have an artificial pad. While not especially visible from the street, the house may be visible from other parts of the City. He asked that the perception of height be reduced by lowering the retaining wall and eliminate some of the brick treatment on the house. Commissioner Harris felt the proposed house appeared more imposing than other homes on similar lots; this house seemed bulky and high toward the rear elevation. Commissioner Burger stated she was not overly concerned regarding the square footage; the lot bordered an open space area. However, the appearance of bulk was a problem in this design and suggested that the materials of brick and stucco contributed to such. The use of wood on adjacent homes blended with the natural surroundings. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 FEBRUARY 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioners Tucker and Tappan concurred. Chairperson Guch felt that the amount of square footage was excessive; such contributed to the bulk of the house. In addition, there was a request for a variance for a 36% slope; she wished to see a house which did not exceed 4752 sq. ft. and reconsideration of the materials used. KOLSTAD/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-057 AND V-88-037 TO MARCH 22, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD MARCH 14, 1989. Passed 6-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. COMMUNICATIONS; Written: 1. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - January 31,1989, - Noted and filed. 2. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of February 1,1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Commissioner Tucker reported on the City Council Meeting of February 15, 1989. AD.IOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:50 P.M. Res tfully~tted, Carol A. ~robst-Caugh CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: Tuesday, February 14 1989, 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole Present: Commissioners Guch, Burger, Harris, Siegfried, Tappan and Tucker Absent: Commissioner Kolstad Staff: Stephen Emslie, Tsvia Adar DR-88-029r ARCHERr 12057 PARKERRANCH ROAD The applicant requested a modification of a deck previously approved by the Planning Commission on 6/22/88. The proposed deck will be small in size, set back further than the one approved and is only 4 ft. above ground level. Landscaping for screening was previously approved and will be maintained. The Commissioners did not have any concerns regarding the application . The application will be advertised for 3/8/89 Public Hearing per the Planning Commission direction. SITE MODIFICATIONr MT. EDEN ESTATESr QUARRY ROAD - TRACT 7761 LOT #1 The applicant requests relocation of the entrance to the access driveway previously approved. The proposed location will have less impact and about 25% less grading. The applicant also requests relocation of the emergency gate to include the driveway within the subdivision. The Planning Director stated that there is no record to specific reasons for the location of the entrance. The Commissioners agreed that the proposal is a better solution and of less impact thant the approved location. The Planning Commission directed staff to readvertise the application for 3/8/89 Public Hearing. RETAIL CENTERr HULBERGt SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD The Planning Director reviewed the issue of lighting at the center. Many complaints were received by the Planning Department regarding cumulative impact of the illuminated large sign and the lighting of the parking area of the center. The lighting of the center was installed without a permit which is in a violation of the permits approved by the Planning Commission. The owners performed a test where the sources of light were shielded, but the results are not acceptable. The lights turned off for a while but were allowed to 1 Committee-of-the-Whole Report - 2/14/89 be turned on again for safety and liability problems. The Commissioners expressed major concerns regarding the amount of lighting, the impact on the neighbors, the aesthetics of the sign and the incompatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods and other centers in the City. The Commission did not recognize high activity at the center at night which may justify such a large amount of lighting. The Commission indicated that the white color of the buildings increases the reflection and glare. The project engineer explained that the amount of lighting follows the standard as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society. The applicant suggested replacing the clear 250 volt lamps with opaque lamps of 150 volts to reduce the glare. Commissioner Harris asked if reduction in height of the lighting poles is possible. The applicant said that the reduction in height will limit the amount of light to below standards and will raise liability issues. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to study the amount of lighting at other shopping centers in Saratoga, to take into account the reflection from the white buildings, and to adjust the lighting accordingly. The application was continued to 3/8/89 Public Hearing and will also be discussed at the Committee-of-the-Whole study session on 2/28/88. Temporarily, until the 3/8/89 Planning Commission meeting the applicant will maintain lighting necessary for the parking area and will turn off the lights which have direct and major impact on the neighbors. The applicant would contact neighbors directly to determine which lights produced negative effects on neighbor's properties. The sign will be turned off since the amount of light from the sign is highly visible and is not necessary to provide only safety lighting. Commissioner Burger requested the Planning Director to check with the City Attorney the liability issue, and find out if the amount of light from the stores is sufficient and whether any safety or liability issues will be raised if the parking light will be turned off. LES MAISONS PROVENCAL The applicant presented the proposed design of the senior facility and the residential portions of the project. Similar design, materials, architectural features and colors will be used, per the applicant, throughout the entire project. The Commissioners suggested reduction in height of the tower-like features over the staircases. The Planning Commission felt that the proposed break between the facility units reduce the mass. The applicant suggested the use of the same color as that used on 2 committee-of-the Whole Report - 2/14/89 the new campus dormatories in Stanford University. The Commissioners concurred with the suggested color but would like to avoid red tiles. The applicant will be working on the details of the sidewalk, landscaping and walls at the highway side and will present the design to the Planning Commission at the following study session on 2/28/88. The floor plans and the overall design will be further discussed at the study session. ADJOURNED