Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: March 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 Commissioner Tappan present at 7:38 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried absent. Approval of MinuteS: Meeting of March 8, 198.8 Commissioner Harris asked that on Page 4, eight paragraph be amended to read, "...geologic studies referred to in the EIR had been completed prior to removal of the hill for the Quarry Creek Repair Project..." In the final paragraph, sentence to read, "...she wished to verify with Mr. Hoffey that their report had been reviewed by the City Geologist..." BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 1989, AS AMENDED. Passed 4-0-1-1, Commissioner Tucker abstaining, Commissioner Tappan 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 March 17, 1989. TechniCal Corrections to Packet Material; Planning Director Emslie noted the following corrections: DR-88-108: the roof color shown on the Exhibits had been changed to a gray rather than teal blue; in addition, the equestrian easement had been clarified and was revised on the Exhibits. - DR-88-101: a tree map included in the City Horticulturist's letter incorrectly showed an adjacent parcel; the letter had been corrected - DR-88-095: Applicant requested a Continuance to the Meeting of April 12, 1989. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. DR-88-109 Hamilton, 20211 LaPaloma, request for design review approval to con- struct a two-story, 2,982 sq. ft. single family home on a non-conforming lot in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to April 26, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 2. DR-88-076 Yoshioka, 20570 Prospect Rd., request for design review, tentative map and SD-88-016 and use permit approval to construct six, one and two-story condominium UP-88-013 units; create a two-lot subdivision of 53,575 sq. ft. and 23,090 sq. ft.; and use permit approval to allow la residential use in the neighborhood commercial zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to April 12, 1989. 3. 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. Continued from February 22, 1989. 4. DR-88-057 Lin, 12532 Parker Ranch Rd., request for design review approval for a new V-88-037 5,599 sq. ft. two-story 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. Continued from February 22, 1989. 5. SD-89-003 McDonald, 20904 Prospect Rd., request for building site approval for a single parcel measuring 17,076 sq. ft. of gross site area per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The parcel is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Continued from March 8, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 6. DR-88-108 Sun, 12502 Parker Ranch Rd., request for design review approval for a new 4,410 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. DR-88-101 Gallo, 20077 Mendelsohn Ln., request for design review approval of a new 4,500 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-88-096 Casabonne, 14435 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval for a 816 sq. ft. addition to an existing retail store located in the central commer- cial zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. DR-89-005 Picetti, 21793 Congress Springs Ln., request for design review approval to construct a new 4,737 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 10. DR-88-095 Hut, 20052 Sunset Ave., request for design review and building site ap- SD-88-019 proval to construct a two-story, 6182 sq. ft. single family home in the HC- RD zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to April 12, 1989, per request of the Applicant. Continued to April 12, 1989, per request of the Applicant. Chairperson Guch noted that Items 1, 2, and 10 were being continued. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 - 9. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 11. SD-88-008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., public hearing to consider certification of an Environmental Impact Report and a proposed 35-1ot sub- division 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 subdivision. Continued from February 22, 1989. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated March 22, 1989. Mr. Gary Deghie, Senior Vice President, Earth Metrics, commented as follows: Introduced Mr. John Wilson, Wilson Engineering, Project Traffic Consultant Noted previous comments made by the public and the Commission Recommendations responding to these concerns raised by the public and the Commission at the February 22nd Meeting, had been suggested to Staff and were based, in part, on new data Presented their strategy for completing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as follows: Recommended increasing the number of alternatives for evaluation in the EIR to include the ad- dition of a three cul-de-sac alternative (Crisp Ave., Odd Fellows property and Gypsy Hill Rd.) Second alternative was identical to the proposed project with the addition of security gates at the entrance to the site at Crisp Ave. and at Gypsy Hill Rd. as suggested at the previous hearing - Recommended that the Traffic Analysis be applied to all five of the traffic circulation patterns in a way that insured consideration a worst case scenario in relationship to West Valley College, namely, during the A~M. Peak Hour and the Mid-day Peak Hour; the P.M. Peak Hour was the least congested period of day -Requested confirmation that the City wished this considerable amount of data on traffic impacts - Finally, they wished to respond to the concerns of the Commission that the entire Odd Fellows property be Master Planned, including development proposals for the remainder of the property - Since the February 22nd Meeting, Earth Metrics received a map indicating a development pro- posal for a 90-unit retirement facility and a 120-bed skilled care facility - The existence of the map legitimized the Odd Fellows intentions, such that inclusion of the development proposal was necessary in the EIR according to CEQA guidelines - In discussions, Staff indicated that they considered the proposal for a residential care facility to be separate and subject to its own EIR; in addition, they acknowledged the EIR on the resi- dential project provided clearance for this project only -However, the new care facilities would be considered in the cumulative analysis of a Final EIR - In addition to a Final EIR Addendum, Earth Mettics recommended that a revised Draft EIR be prepared, incorporating all requests and recommendations made - Noted the considerable amount of new information available at this time which should be incorporated in the EIR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Gary Deghie, Senior Vice President, Earth Metrics, continued as follows Summarized the Earth Mettles recommendation as follows: - Addition of two traffic circulation pattern alternatives to the EIR - Redoing the Traffic Analysis based on information from the latest traffic counts - Residential Care Project be added to the cumulative impact scenario for the EIR - All information be prepared not only in a Final EIR but also in a revised Draft EIR In response to Chairperson Guch, he estimated thirty days were needed to prepare the information. Mr. Jerry Lohr proposed a variation on one of the traffic circulation patterns. He cited the seven lots off the Crisp Ave. cul-de-sac, fourteen lots off both Gypsy Hill Rd. and the Odd Fellows Rd. and noted that there were already twelve lots on Gypsy Hill Rd. cul-de-sac. Such an arrangement would not be equitable nor would it be practical to extend Gypsy Hill Rd. since it was not in the Saratoga School District. However, he was not opposed to some extension of Gypsy Hill Rd. Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, noted that the Odd Fellows had presented additional information to the EIR Consultants; her letter of March 14, 1989, was cited. She asked that the Odd Fellows Project Consultant review the proposed renovation and access; he would show that access through the site was infeasible given the topography of the property. Mr. Robert Barton, Odd Fellows Consultant, presented a rendering of the site and commented: ~ Need being addressed was the out dated buildings; the intent was never to expand the facility; the facilities being added simply replaced the existing structures - Reviewed the history of the site, current status of the facilities and the development proposed Traffic would not be increased since they were not expanding and in addition, the average age of residents was over 80; these residents did not drive very often One of the difficulties of this project was that the existing facilities had to remain intact for the use of the residents until the new buildings were constructed Mr. Barton, Odd Fellows Consultant, continued as follows: From a health and safety standpoint, there would be difficulties running a road up to the Rogers and Brooks property without eliminating areas that could be used as building sites Presented the site topography showing the marshy riparian corridor which would be difficult to pass without a culvert or bridge Ms. Irene Hood, Spokesperson for Fellowship Plaza, commented as follows: - Noted residents of Fellowship Plaza and the beauty of the surrounding area - The worst thing that could happen would be to have a public road on the property; such would be noisy, segregate areas of the property and bring other impacts - Urged that a road not be run through to Fellowship Plaza Ms. Margarite Fisher, Fellowship Plaza, noted that she had heard a number of comments about the project; she was concerned about the preservation of wildlife on this site and wished to see the barn on-site restored and preserved as a historic structure. Mr. Don Richuiso, 19303 Chablis Ct., Saratoga, submitted a petition signed by approximately one hundred persons objecting various aspects of the proposed development. Ms. Gail Anense, Representing the Rebeccas, was upset that a request was being made that the Odd Fellows land be divided; such would disrupt the tranquil setting for the elderly. Use of Gypsy Hill Rd. and/or Crisp Ave. as traffic circulation alternatives were viable options She noted the efforts of the Odd Fellows and the Rebeccas to support and foster this facility. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, noted that the best traffic circulation alternative for the Odd Fellows was the worst solution for the neighbors; the preservation of the tranquility of the neighborhood would be undermined by through streets. He cited the commitment of the City Council, dating back to 1977, that Crisp Ave. would be a permanent cul-de-sac; this commitment was in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. George Kordestani, 19300 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, understood when he moved to Saratoga that Crisp Ave. would not be a through street; he noted the safety and traffic hazards that would result. Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Asked that public hearings be held after the Draft EIR was revised - Without reference to Route 85 and West Valley College, it was very difficult to make sense out of the Draft EIR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz continued his comments as follows: - The road on the Odd Fellows property was not even shown on the map in the document - While he was sensitive to the Odd Fellow's request, it was inequitable that they had a right to develop the property without sharing in the responsibility for traffic and noise impacts or access If access continued to be a problem, project development on Odd Fellows site should be reduced It was unreasonable for the Odd Fellows to claim that they could not bear any of the burden Ms. Frances Matise, Odd Fellows Home, noted that the Odd Fellows were a fraternal organization, not a money making group; homeowners on the contrary, made money if they sold their property. Putting a road through the property would endanger the lives of elderly people. In addition, there was a high rate of automobile vandalism in the City; if a road were installed on-site, what would protect the residents from such? Ms Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants (Rogers and Brooks) commented as follows: - Noted that they were the third party to the EIR and did not receive advance copies of the Report - Applicants had some questions about statements made - Access via Crisp Ave. was discussed at the February 22nd Meeting; however, such had been eliminated in favor of access through the Odd Fellows property to Fruitvale Ave. - Asked that the Commission make clear which traffic alternatives the EIR Consultants were to address in the revised Draft EIR - EIR Consultants indicated they felt it necessary to analyze the Master Plan for the site; Staff seemed to have a different opinion on this matter - Applicants asked that this discrepancy be clarified with the EIR Consultants - Questioned whether the revised or amended Draft EIR would be re-circulated; asked that an Addendure to the Draft EIR be prepared rather than recirculating the entire Report - Reviewed the projected time schedule and noted that Applicants felt the EIR Consultants had been given fairly clear direction by the Commission on alternatives to review; however, additional data was not presented at this hearing - A tentative time schedule was presented for consideration and a request made for a determination on this issue at this hearing Ms. Marydee Urbano, Fellowship Plaza, questioned what others had against the Odd Fellows; she reviewed the purpose of Fellowship Plaza. Mr. Dick Merwin, Sobey Rd., Saratoga, responded that residents did not have anything against the Odd Fellows; they wished to see traffic, safety hazards and environmental concerns be addressed. He concurred with Mr. Lohr that fourteen lots coming off of Sobey Rd. seemed excessive and noted the potential number of houses and substantial traffic impacts that were under consideration. Ms. Devorak Lackner, 14851 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, reviewed discussions held at the previous hearing and added that installation of a gate would be ineffective since residents would fail to close it. She suggested an alternative public access road and was unfavorable to diverting traffic from the project onto Sobey Rd. due to current traffic levels and the number of children, pedestrians, and cyclists currently using it. Furthermore, impacts from Route 85, West Valley College and the Gypsy Hill development needed to be reviewed before a decision were made. In response to Mr. Barton's question, Planning Director Emslie stated that Staff Analysis for the February 22, 1989, Meeting, indicated that one option not studied in the Draft EIR was a connec- tion by way of Chester Ave.; however, the Planning Commission had indicated that the cul-de-sac from the Odd Fellows was the desired alternative; Staff did not hear direction from the Commission to pursue the Chester Ave. alternative. Mr. Donald Moody, 1472 Floyd Ave., Sunnyvale, noted that if a road went through the Odd Fellows property, the safety, security and quiet would be taken away; he added that the Odd Fellows was not a small organization. Mr. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, requested information on the project. Mr. Rem Marecuso, 14330 Chester Ave., Saratoga, was concerned about a possible connection with Chester Ave; he noted the narrowness of the road and the current level of traffic. Mr. Lohr noted that the relocation of the proposed buildings may provide a solution, namely, accessing the site via San Marcos Rd; he favored a Master Plan to fully review the alternatives. The Public Hearing remained open. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Guch asked that the schools children in the area would be attending, be addressed in the Draft EIR, Traffic Analysis. Commissioner Harris had concerns that the Draft EIR would be redone; she noted the length of time that had passed since the last hearing without any substantial progress on this document. Mr. Deghie noted that Earth Metrics had recently received the Master Plan; in addition, they wished to ensure that the revised Draft EIR contained the information required. Revised traffic counts and most appropriate days had now been coordinated with West Valley College; finally, he cited the additional alternative. Planning Director Emslie clarified that the San Marcos Alternative would use the extreme portion of the western boundary of the Odd Fellows property to provide access to the subdivision without interference with the development plan presented. A member of the audience noted that San Marcos Rd. was a very small road; Chairperson Guch responded that it was appropriate 'that the EIR address all alternatives. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-008 TO APRIL 26, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION APRIL 18TH AND A SITE VISIT TO BE HELD APRIL 1ST. Passed 6-0. Break: 9:10 - 9:25 P.M. 12. Up-574.1 Brookside Swim Club, 19127 Cox Ave. review of an existing use permit for a private tennis and swim club and consideration of the club's request to extend, by one hour in the morning, the hours of operation for swimming in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 22, 1989. Planning Director Emslie noted the following correspondence which had been received: - Ms. Marion Cochran - Mr. Bill Breitenback, 20130 Bonnie Brae (Brookside Club Member) - Mr. Rich Harley, 18911 Cyril PI., Swim Team Director and Sara Wood Homeowners Assoc. - Mr. Earl Burke, 12176 Titus Ave, March 18, 1989 - Mr. Robert L. Bennett, Attorney, Re: Response to Staff Report. dated March 22, 1989 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Robert Bennett, Attorney for the Brookside Swim Club, reviewed his letter cited above; he asked that the interim solution proposed by the Applicant be addressed.at this hearing. Chairperson Guch questioned the complaints received. Mr. Bennett responded that a letter of complaint was received; he had met with the manager and satisfaction was given to the writer. Secondly, some complaints were erroneous. Finally, there was a complaint about an incident which he could not recall the specifics, that had been addressed and no further complaint was received. He noted the efforts of the Club to resolve any problems. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Mr. Bennett reviewed the overnight, sleep-out for the swim team which included 25-30 children ranging in age from 5-12 years old; the activity was kept within the club house. With respect to the sports court, he reviewed the construction and use of the court; a member of the Planning Department had approved this use. Ms. Susan Windus, 12681 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: In February 27, 1985, she had stated that the Club had not lived up to their Use Permit and asked that the Use Permit be reviewed in two-three years and that no modification be granted Originally this was a swim and racquet club; now it was being turned into a social athletic club Perhaps the club belonged in a industrial or commercial area, not in a quiet residential area Submitted pictures taken the previous summer showing trash in the Creek area Noted occasions she and her husband could not use their yard for outdoor entertainment They resented the intrusion from activities at the Club The sports court did not have the proper permits and she had asked that the City inspect the area Asked that the Commission accept the Staff Recommendation PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Windus continued her comments as follows: - Residents had been put in the situation of policing Club activities which created hostility and frustration for them - Presented a letter from Bon and Rosa Poon, 12591 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga Mr. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Noted the violations of the Use Permit with excessive noise and operation after permitted hours - Commented on the request for a modification of the existing Use Permit that such would be detrimental to the public health and safety - This was a business in a residential neighborhood; he supported Staff Recommendations Ms. Dee Asken, 12651 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, stated that due to the noise of the Brookside Club, she and her family were unable to use their back yard area for activities. The Club failed to consider that they were located in a quiet residential neighborhood; she felt the Club should act with the same consideration residents showed toward their neighbors. She cited the number of people attending club parties and contended they deliberately ignored the hours of operation stated in the Use Permit. The violations cited as examples occurred after the July 14th letter referred to above. She asked that the Use Permit for the sports court be disallowed. Mr. Rick Polhemus, Brookside Club Member, stated that Bookside did not have a sports court; they had a concrete slab, backboard and basketball hoop. He joined Brookside because it was a family, swimming and tennis club; he was grateful Saratoga had such a club since there were very few other activities for children. If there were problems, they could solve them as good neighbors. Ms. Nancy Crampton, Chair, Saratoga-Los Gatos High School District Board of Trustees, stated that when the Saratoga High courts were redone, students played their matches at Brookside Club; the community looked to Brookside as a place for youth. She was pleased to hear children were playing basketball and other activities; there were very few places in Saratoga that bene~ted youth. Ms. Lucille Reiter, 12743 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, noted the benefits of the club as originally started; however, the club had changed through growth. She noted the noise which carded throughout the neighborhood; extending the hours of operation would only increase the impacts. Furthermore, the children in the area were not in the Saratoga School District. Ms. M. Harmell noted that Saratoga High School had also used Brookside in the past; the Club had always allowed them to use their facilities. The City was very fortunate to have such a facility. A previous speaker added that the issue was noise control; he suggested that if Saratoga High required facilities, .they use other high schools rather than coming into a residential neighborhoed. Mr. Frank Healy, 12668 Brookglen Dr., Saratoga, and Club member, confirmed he occasionally heard noise from the club; however, he was not bothered by such. If the noise harmed a few people, the Commission should not worry about it; the Club was for the benefit of its members. Mr. Tim McNally, 12660 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, confirmed that noise disturbed him; he objected to the final comment of the previous speaker. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris questioned the difference, if any, of the opening time of the club as opposed to the starting time of swimming meets; Planning Director Emslie stated that noise or activities would not be permitted prior to the time shown in the Use Permit hours of operation. She urged that all parties work together to arrive at a solution. One of her concerns was the location of the so- called sport court which was concrete, and the noise generated by basketball and/or tennis balls. She questioned whether the sports court was part of the Club's original purpose; in addition, she was concerned about the opening activities before the swim meets. Commissioner Kolstad wished to see the club and the neighbors work out any existing problems; he had the same question as Commission Harris regarding the opening time vs the starting of the swimming meet and questioned whether the club had changed its orientation to a more social club. He would accept the Staff Recommendation to allow the expanded hours for three specific dates. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan concurred although he had some concems that the expanded hours of oper- ation would permit noise in advance of the actual events; however, he noted that Staff would be monitoring the change in hours of operation. Commissioner Tucker noted that since the Club opened every day, the activities. could be impactful to the surrounding residents. It would be difficult to reach an agreement by all concerned. Commissioner Burger confamed with a Club Representative that the hour of operation listed in the Use Permit meant that the swimming meet started at that hour. Per the response given, she con- curred with concerns raised by the other Commissioners and would accept an expansion in the hours of operation if the hour listed was the time the club doors opened. She had voted against an expansion in the hours of operation in 1985 because she felt that such would be too impactful. She cautioned that the Use Permit must be complied with; there was no room for negotiation on such. Chairperson Guch noted that letters and testimony indicated there had been an intensification of use at the club; such had an impact on the neighborhood. While the club may have failed to meet some expectations of the residential area, it was probably true that sound traveled over water. She cautioned that this was a conditional use permit; if the rules of the permit were adhered to, some of the concerns of the neighbors would be mitigated. The City Attorney commented that the application originated as a Staff review of the Use Permit upon receipt of complaints regarding the operation of the Club; the Club then made a request for the expanded hours of operation. These were two separate issues; there was testimony from neighbors that violations had occurred. With respect to the sports court, there was a permit issued; however, both the Planning Director and he agreed that such a permit was issued in error. How- ever, even if the permit had been properly issued, the Commission had continuing jurisdiction. Any plan presented by the Club must address these new features as well as on-going concerns. Commissioner Kolstad noted that since the hour of operation listed in the Use Permit did not in- clude start-up activities, it would seem that the club was in effect already utilizing extended hours of operation. TAPPAN/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR UP-574.1, ALLOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THREE (3) DAYS IN THE COMING YEAR. Split Vote 3-3, Chairperson Guch, Commissioners Burger, Kolstad dissenting. Chairperson Guch stated she was unfavorable to the above Motion due to the wording. Commissioner Tappan was favorable to allowing the limited expansion of the hours of operation. Commissioner Harris wished to see the activities at the club focused on tennis and swimming; she would accept a 9:00 A. M starting time. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to allowing the request to allow the club the opportunity to conduct swimming meets in a way that was not overly impactful on the neighborhood. Chairperson Guch would be in favor of this request with the condition that the Commission have an action plan that addressed the issues under consideration. TAPPAN/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR UP-574.1, TO GRANT PERMISSION TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THREE (3) SPECIFIC EVENTS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF AN ACTION PLAN. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Burger dissenting. The City Attorney emphasized that the Action Plan must be approved prior to the dates of the specific events noted in the Motion; this Plan should included mitigation for the noise impacts from the earlier start time as well as for the sports court. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE UP-574.1 TO MAY 10, 1989. Passed 6-0. 13. SUP-87-001.2 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 from February 22, 1989. Hanning Director Eroslie referenced the Report to the Planning Commission of March 22, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Heating was opened at 10:55 P.M. Mr. Pat Rose, Applicant, cited the City Engineer's Report and questioned the origin of the require- ment that he improve the road at a $20,000 cost; he did not see a similar requirement for Sobey Rd. He reviewed road hazards in the area and stated that he was willing to participate in an assessment district to widen the road if necessary. Mr. Bob Aviles, Designer, stated that while he could understand the City Engineer's perspective on road improvements and safety issues, he differed with the City Engineer's opinion that the road be realigned; he noted that throughout Saratoga, there were portions of road that had been widened and other portions had not been so improved. The bottom line was that the Applicants simply could not afford to pay the $25,000; the total cost of reconstructing Sobey Rd., removing the underground utility box and removing and relocating the utility pole could reach $50,000. to $60,000. These improvements were being required for the impact of three additional trips per day; if the Application were withdrawn, there would be no improvement to Sobey Rd. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:05 P.M. Passed 6-0. In response to Commissioner Kolstad's question, the Planning Director discussed why a deferred improvement agreement was not appropriate in this case. Commissioner Harris stated she could not discern where the road had been improved and she was reluctant to require such; she noted the improvement to Gypsy Hill Rd. projects had not been made. Commissioner Tucker agreed; she did not wish to see Sobey Rd. widened for an impact of three additional trips per day; however, it remained to be seen how the Gypsy Hill area would develop. Commissioner Kolstad did not feel that a safety hazard existed at this site and could not discern where the road had already been widened. He wished to delay any improvement until necessary. Commissioner Burger also could not determine the improved area of Sobey Rd. from the un- improved; she could not recall a situation where the Commission had required an original home- owner to widen a road when doing improvements on the property. Chairperson Guch suggested the decision be deferred until the Gypsy Hill area were developed. Consensus reached by the Commission to conduct a site visit on April lst; Applicant was agreeable. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP-87-001 TO APRIL 12, 1989, WITH A SITE VISIT TO BE HELD APRIL 1ST. Passed 6-0. 14. 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 from March 8, 1989. Planning Director Emslie noted that a letter had been received from Jack L Markle, Residential Brokerage Services, dated March 22, 1989. Commissioner Harris noted that approval would not change the bulk and size of the sign, which she considered inappropriate; furthermore, approval would allow a similar sign on the adjoining site. The City Attorney noted that approval had already been given on this project. Planning Director Emslie confhTned that the approval given included the lighting of the sign; how- ever, the Applicant was willing to work with the Commission on this issue. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:24 P.M. Mr. Hulberg, Applicant, cited the proposal to reduce the intensity of lighting and to change the sign design as discussed at a Study Session; the intent was to make the sign more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Mark Kocir,. Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, questioned whether the neon signs identify- ing the individual businesses would be on during the night. Mr. Hulberg responded that such was up to the individual tenant's discretion; with respect to the lights in the parking lot, they would remain on all night in the interest of safety as well as tenants would be on the premises at night. BURGEREAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:30 P.M. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan had concerns about the signage; however, the Applicant had made a credi- ble attempt to address the Commission's concerns. He would accept the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Tucker also had remaining concerns; however, the sign met Ordinance requirements with respect to its size. She suggested consideration of planrings to soften the effect of the sign. Commissioner Burger had concerns regarding lighting when all the tenant spaces were occupied. The City Attorney stated that Staff took the position that the intensity of illumination was the subject of continuing review and regulation. Commissioner Kolstad continued to have concerns regarding the overall size of the signs. Commissioner Harris asked whether planrings could be required at the base of the sign; Planning Director Emslie responded that Staff could work with the Applicant on this issue. Commissioner Harris would not vote in favor of this Application; she felt the Commission had been put in the position of accommodating the Applicant's request while he had not compromised on the signage. The existing signage was unappealing. Commissioner Kolstad concun'ed. Chairperson Guch felt the reduced lighting proposed was fine and she hoped that the level of lighting within the sign would not be intrusive; such was consistent with the City's overall plan. However, the sign itself was very unattractive; she asked that planrings be installed around the second sign, since it would be visible from some residential areas. TAPPAN/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-87-161.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. 15. DR-88-099 Lee, 21550 Saratoga Heights, request for design review approval of a new 6,202 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Heating was opened at 11:43 P.M. Mr. Carl Hsu, Architect, commented as follows: The Report to the Planning Commission dated March 22nd, was very detailed Noted that Applicants had complied with City Standards Stated he set back the proposed house in order to insure the privacy of all concemed The front of the house faced toward the passers by to prevent a view of the rear yard area The elevation was 10 ft. below the adjacent home, so their view would not be blocked Noted that the neighborhood association had been contacted regarding the proposed design and were favorable to such HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:47 P.M. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL DR-88-099 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 16. DR-89-004 Ingle, 21417 Tollgate Road, request for design review and variance ap V-89-002 provals to construct a one-story, 6,482 sq. ft. single family home; the variance is to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 638 sq. ft. in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:50 P.M. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Designer, commented as follows: - Added to the land use report, that the site configuration was the result of the road construction - Reviewed the acreage and configuration of the lot, dimensions of the proposed house - This was a shed roof house with a vaulted ceiling area; if necessary, the ceiling height could be leveled off at 14 ft. 11 in. - Such would decrease the square footage by 900 sq. ft. without changing the exterior of the house in any fashion PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3. 0 MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Cunningham, Designer, continued his comments as follows: With respect to the Staff Report, Variance: ~ Statement that "Strict application of the floor area ordinance does not result in a hardship." The primary hardship to the Applicant was that the interior volume space would be decreased; such would not benefit any of the neighbors and thus nothing would be accomplished N Statement that "Denying the variance does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties since all properties are subject to the floor area ordinance regulations." Upon review of other applications, it appeared that a project on Deer Springs Ct. had been approved for a 962 sq. ft. overage on allowable square footage. Planner Jacobson responded that the Commission had not approved this request. ~ Statement that ". ..approving this variance would constitute a grant of special privilege." The privilege granted, if any, was the ability to have a vaulted ceiling; reducing the height would not change the square footage in the rooms or alter the configuration of the structure With respect to the Staff Report, Design Review: - Statement that "The largest wall masses are interrupted by extensive glazing." If the ceilings were lowered, it would be necessary to scale the windows down, increasing the blank wall Statement that "The home would not be compatible to homes in the immediate area since the floor area exceeds the maximum allowed for the site." Examples cited of the square footage and height in the surrounding area were reviewed; it did not appear by comparison that the Applicant's proposal was particularly bulky or impactful in height Denial of this Application would appear to be contradictory with that approved in the past; Applicants were agreeable to a Study Session if necessary Mr. Bob Ingle, Applicant, stated he intended to live in the house proposed; he noted the small portion of the lot used for this house. Applicants felt strongly that the design did not conflict with other homes in the area; rather, it provided architectural variety. Mr. Ben Chen, 14632 Bougainvilla Ct., Saratoga, read into the record the letter of Donald and Josephine F. Steinbach, 14600 Bougainvilla Ct.; he concun'ed that the visual impact of the pro- posed structure would be considerably reduced if the house were rotated clockwise. Ms. Lyn Sprague, 14605 Bougainvilla Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: Favored the proposed design of the house - However, from her home, the site appeared to be a ridge line property The house appeared to be two-story; with the overhang over the building pad, it was almost a three-story elevation - Asked that the roof be lowered; due to a mezzanine, the ceiling height could later be increased - The bulk of the footprint, not the courtyard area, was visible to residents on Bougalnvilla Ct. - Noted the size of the pad and asked that the house sit squarely on the pad and not overhang which would greatly impact their home - For the sake of privacy for all parties concerned, she asked that mature landscaping be required Mr. Cunningham responded as follows: - The overhang had a vertical rise of about 4 ft.; rotating the house also moved the deck area - If the house were to remain as presently situated, the deck could be stepped down. - The house was limited by the CC&Rs and City Ordinance to 22 ft., not the number of stories - Some landscape screening existed; in addition the landscape plan provided additional screening; only concern was that this was a drought year TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:14 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Tucker was not in favor of granting a Variance; she agreed that such would set a precedent. She wished to see the deck stepped down and had reservations about rotating the house since an adjacent home was too close to Tollgate Rd; the impacts on this home were unknown. With respect the landscaping spoken of by the Applicant's designer, such would have no bearing on the proposed home; additional landscaping would be required. Commissioner Kolstad noted the visibility of the lot and the length of the proposed house; due to the roof configuration, the house would appear to have considerable bulk. He would not approve the plans as presented due to the excessive bulk; however, the east elevation appeared to be broken up by the placement of windows. He wished to see the house set back to reduce privacy impacts. He suggested a Study Session to further consider this Application. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page MARCH 22, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Guch felt that the design had variety; there was no long expanse of wall since the house turned in on itself; in addition, the windows broke up the side elevations. However, she objected to square footage in excess of that allowed; Findings could not be made to allow such. She was favorable to a Study Session. Commissioner Harris concurred. She noted that reducing the size of the house would eliminate the need for a Variance; however, lowering the ceiling height was not sufficient to address the issue. Commissioner Burger agreed that a Study Session was in order;,.she objected to the square footage proposed and asked that such be reduced; however, lowering of the ceiling height was insufficient to address the concerns raised. Mr. Cunningham stated he initially favored a Study Session; however, the Applicants could comply with City Ordinances as the house was designed. He asked that the Commission under- tand that if the ceilings were lowered, they were within the allowable square footage. Commissioner Harris responded that design review was still required. Commissioner Burger noted that no one on the Commission seemed in favor of rotating the house. The house was too large; a reduction in square footage, reflected in the exterior, was required. Mr. Cunningham stated that the Applicants were willing to attend a Study Session. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-004 AND V-89-002 TO APRIL 26, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD APRIL 18TH. Passed 6-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. 2. Memo Re: Beverly Hills problems with design review COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report: Chairperson Guch reported on the City Council Meeting of March 15th. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - February 14,1989, - Noted and filed. 2. Heritage Preservation Minutes of March 1,1989, - Noted and filed. ~D.IOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:30 A.M.