Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 26, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Guch, Tucker, Kolstad; Commissioner Tappan absent. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of April 12, 1989 HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 1989, AS PRE- SENTED. Passed 6-0. presented Technical Corrections to the Agenda: Planning Director Emslie noted in Item 2, DR-89-008, a change to Condition 6 of the Resolution, which addressed improvements to the existing structure. Item 9, DR-89-001, SD-89~003, the correct address was 14491 Springer Ave. not 14346. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Brian Kelly, noted the considerations of the City Council and the Planning Commission on the proposed moratorium on Flag Lots in R-1 Zoning Districts and requested information on such; the City Attorney and Chairperson Siegfried provided the information available. REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on April ' 21, 1989. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-88-109 Hamilton, 20211 LaPaloma, request for design review approval to construct at two-story, 2,982 sq. ft. single family home on a non-conforming lot in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Application withdrawn. 2. DR-89-008 Hayes, 21130 Ambric Knolls Rd., request for design review approval to construct a 2,714 sq. ~. one and two-story addition to an existing home .for a total floor area of 4,078 sq. ~. in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed April 12, 1989. 3. SD-88-008 Rogers & Brook, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., public hearing to consider certifi- cation of an Environmental Impact Report and proposed 35-lot subdivision 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-l- 40,000 zoning district, which is proposed for single family residential sub- division. Continued to May 10, 1989. 4. DR-89-011 J. Lohr, 14564 Chester Ave., request for design review approval to con- struct a two-story, 5,992 sq. ft. single-family dwelling in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 5. DR-89-009 Shahabi, 14307 Old Wood Rd., request for design review approval to con- struct a new 5,191 sq. ft. two-story single family residence in the R-l- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. SM-89-004 Phillips, 14152 Dorene Ct., request for site modification approval to con- struct a pool and deck at Lot 4 of the Teerlink 'subdivision in the NHR zoning district per the subdivision conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Consent Calendar 7. SM-89-002 Achkar, 21425 Tollgate Rd., request for site modification approval for a swimming pool in the NHR zoning district per subdivision conditions. 8. DR-89-029 De Bella, 12826 Jepson Ct., request for design review approval to convert an existing attic space to a second story with exterior dormer windows in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. DR-89-001 Brian Kelly, 14491 Springer Ave., request for building site approval for SD-89-003 one lot and design review approval for a new 4,127 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R~I-10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Chairperson Siegfried noted that Item '1 had been withdrawn and Item 3 was being Continued. Commissioner Burger requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8. A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 9. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2, 4, 6 AND 7. Passed 6-0. 5. DR-89-009 Shahabi, 14307 Old Wood Rd., request for design review approval to con- struct a new 5,191 sq. ft. two-story single family residence in the R-l- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger stated she removed the Item due to her concern about a three story appear- ance of the house to the rear; this concern was enhanced by the fact that there did not seem to be any room for landscaping the area adjacent to the immediate rear of the neighbor's home. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:47 P.M. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated April 26 1989. Mr. Shahabi, Applicant, stated that the design had been changed to include 'a stone grey cglor and they had added 20 trees; he called attention to the mature landscaping already on the site. Planner Walgren added that the building's location on-site was one of the reasons he felt the Find- ings could be made; he noted the slope and configuration of the site on the Sobey Ave. side; the structure in question was very well screened. Commissioner Burger responded that this report satisfied her concerns. GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 P.M. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-009 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 8. DR-89-029 De Bella, 12826 Jepson Ct., request for design review approval to convert an existing attic space to a second story with exterior dormer windows in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commissioner dated April 26, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:51 P.M. Mr. De Bella, Applicant, noted the French Country design of the home; this was an attic renovation with no exterior changes. The dormer windows on three sides of the house would meet Building Code requirements as well as providing an emergency exit. With respect to the dormer window on the north side, with the exception of one small area, shrubbery the height of the roof, grew along both sides of the property line; photographs were presented. To the rear, an adjacent home approximately 200 ft. away, was totally obscured by trees in excess of a 40 ft. height; a photograph from the roof of his home was presented to demonstrate this. He confirmed that their privacy had not been invaded by neighbors to the rear. Mrs. Sylvia Smith, 20552 Ashley Way, Saratoga, reviewed her letter of April 26, 1989, and strongly objecting to this conversion of an attic area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. Mark Kocir, 12795 Yolo Dr., Saratoga, cited his letter objecting to the donner windows on the grounds that privacy impacts may result; however, he now felt the Applicant was making tea- sonable use of his property. His only remaining concern was the deciduous trees between the two homes; toward the north east comer of the Applicant's rear yard, he wished to install a pool in his yard without privacy impacts. He asked that trees be added to screen the adjoining sites. GUCH/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Guch felt the Application was sensitive to the surrounding area would not have sig- nificant privacy impacts. The use of obscure glass on the north donner window and the addition of shrubbery would address concerns on this side of the property; there would be no privacy intrusion from the front dormer window and impacts resulting from the rear window could be mitigated by adding wording to Condition 6 requiring that non-deciduous plantings be installed. Commissioner Burger questioned the portions of Mrs. Smith's home that might be impacted. Mrs. Smith responded that her dining room, living room and bed room could possibly be viewed. Commissioner Burger felt the proposed conversion was sensitive to the surrounding homes if the additional landscaping were installed. Commissioners Tucker and Kolstad concurred. Commissioner Harris was concerned that privacy impacts would result from opening the windows and asked that any opening be from the top portion of the window. Chairperson Siegfried concurred with other Commissioners that the conversion of the attic was sensitive to the area; with the addition of landscaping, any concerns would be addressed. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-029 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, ADDING A CONDITION REQUIRING LANDSCAPING ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL AND REQUIRING THAT THE DORMER WINDOW ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME BE CONFIGURED TO OPEN-FROM THE TOP, PREVENTING VIEW IMPACTS, AND SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Passed 6-0. 9. DR-89-001 Brian Kelly, 14491 Springer Ave., request for building site approval for SD-89-003 one lot and design review approval for a new 4,127 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated April 26, 1989. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Heating was opened at 8:08 P.M. Ms. Diane Siefer, Representing the Applicant, stating that they had concerns about the require- ment to underground utilities for approximately 170 ft., when only 27 ft. was on their property; four properties were involved including the subject property. She asked that a deferred improve- ment agreement be allowed; if the frontage on their property were improved, it would not match the unimproved area. Secondly, there was a suggestion that the window in the bonus room be made of obscure glass; this room would not be used on a daily basis. Mr. Richard Rolmer, 14481 Springer Ave., Saratoga, noted that the Applicant had presented plans for his review; their only concern was the possible privacy impacts from the bonus room window. He requested more specific information on the location and type of window; in response to Chair- person Siegfried's comment that the Commission would be reviewing the placement any type of window in this room, he responded that such would be satisfactory. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris commented that a bonus room increased the concerns, since the room could be used for a variety of activities, possibly increasing the impacts to the adjoining residents. She suggested the windows on the north and south be used for ventilation, limiting the bonus room to a fixed window. Commissioner Burger agreed that concerns existed and suggested relocating the windows to another side; she was unsure whether installing an opaque window would solve the problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. Kelly, Applicant, commented that the intent of the window was to add architectural detail; a window seat would act as a buffer, preventing anyone from standing directly in front of Relocating the windows as suggested, would not accomplish the goal of providing air and light. This room was not a focal point of activity, since there was a family room, as shown on the plans. He suggested that after framing the house, Staff assess whether opaque glass would be required in the bonus room; he asked that the window be allowed as shown on the plans, to provide both light and air for the room. An alternative location for the required emergency exit was discussed. Commissioner Burger noted that there was no room for landscaping to mitigate privacy intrusions; if the Application were approved with the bonus room window as shown on the plans, there was no question that the glass would have to be opaque. Commissioner Guch did not wish to see either the type of glass or the placement of the window open ended; she wished to see an opaque, fixed window to prevent impacts to adjacent residents. Consensus reached by the Commission that the window be required to be opaque glass and fixed; if the Applicant wished a modification of this Condition, application could be made at a later date. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AMENDING CONDITION 7 TO REQUIRE THAT THE BONUS ROOM WINDOW BE NON- FUNCTIONAL, BE OF OPAQUE GLASS AND ADDING A CONDITION ALLOWING A DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. Passed 6-0. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE SD-89-003 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. Mt. Eden Rd. A public hearing to consider certification of an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed four (4) lot residential subdivision directly north of Tract 7761 of the Mt. Eden Estates Subdivision. The project consists of 52.5 acres located in the NHR zone district and is proposed for the development of four single family homes in a remainder parcel comprising 31 acres to remain in a Williamson Act contract. The purpose of the hearing is to con- sider the adequacy of an environmental document prepared to identify potential impacts which may result from the proposed subdivision. Planning Director Emslie noted the following amendments the Final Environmental Impact Report as an Addend~m to the Dntft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Mount Eden Road Residential Subdivision, dated April, 1989. Draft Minutes of March 8, 1989, Meeting of the Planning Commission would be revised In D, Pierc~ Canyon Homeowners' Association: N D.12, Response amended to read, "According to the City of Saratoga (Shook, 1989), C~ty ~.,~; ........ h;~.;. ..... -...~. ......... '-~-'~ '~ .... 'Mitigation measures restrict construc- tion to weekdays only'." - D.22, Response amended to read, "Although the comment states "off-site" storm drains, it is believed the commentators meant "on-site" storm drains or the proposed drainage system. Since Nina Court is expected to be a private roadway and not be dedicated to the City, maintenance and cleaning of the drainage system will be the responsibility of the Nina Court residents. v. :. ~.~,; .... .4 ,u .... :.4 ....... :,, +., ..... : ..... ,~...u ............ ..:o; .... .h ...... ;. ~ .,~:. ,~ .... 'The City has many examples of private drainage ways that are maintained by private property owners. However, if drainage becomes problematic, then the City could accept.the dedication in maintenance'." ~ D 26, Response amended to read, "This portion of Mt. Eden Road is outside of the City of Saratoga City limits and ::~ net ,, ............... v-vv .... v-vj .................. ., .... northerly of the project which will not experience significant amounts of vehicular usage'. - D 27, Response amended to read, According to the Green Valley Disposal Company, which provides solid waste services to the City of Saratoga, if closure of the Guadalupe Landfill occurs, then Green Valley may choose to transport solid waste from the City, including the proposed development to alternate landfills including Kerby Canyon in San Jose. Four single family residences are not considered to generate a significant amount of solid waste. 'Recent indications from San Jose are that Guadaiupe landfill will not be closed.'." - D 29 Response amended to read, "Nina Court 'from the project to the the existing 60 ft. right-of-way,' will not be dedicated to the City of Saratoga (see also Response to Comment C 7). This Final EIR had been revised to reflect the comment." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris questioned the mitigation measures for the Quarry Creek Repair Project. The City Attorney provided a progress report on the Repair Project; in anticipation of additional questions on the interrelationship of this Project to the four lot subdivision under consideration, he added that at least one of the subdivision lots (Lot 4) extended into the Repair area. Future owners of Lot 4 would be required to participate in the landscaping used as a mitigation measure. How- ever the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not be the time to address the issue. The Public Heating was opened at 8:35 P.M. Mr. Paul Hoffey, Earth Mettics, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report as an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Mount Eden ROad Residential Sub- division, dated April, 1989, and ou~ined the process in completing an EIR. Commissioner Harris asked that Mr. George Sicular be listed in the Final EIR as a Hydrologist; in addition, she asked that the contacts with the Army Corps of Engineers, namely, Ms. Joyce Munjims and Ms. Karen Masson, be referenced by name in the Report. She noted the comment in the EIR, that the Army Corps of Engineers considered the Quarry Creek Repair Project and the Mt. Eden Rd. Subdivision related projects. The City Attomey responded that there would be a plan for the replanting the Creek area. He could not perceive a connection between the Repair Project and the four-lot subdivision under considera- tion, with the exception that some of the fill came from the Quarry Creek Repair Project; the area encompassed by the Mt. Eden Rd. Subdivision was outside the Creek area. Furthermore, there had been serious questions raised whether the Army Corps of Engineers had any jurisdiction in the Quarry Creek/Quarry Rd. Repair Project. Nonetheless, both the Corps and the City agreed that the subdivision under consideration was outside the Creek area; there was relationship between the two projects to the extent that the subdivision drained into the Creek area. The environmental issue was whether the infrastructure facilities that had been installed in the Creek, were adequate. He cited the work of the hydrologist and geological consultants relied upon by the City in this mauer. The other impact alluded to was the fact that there was a haul road built on one of the subdivision lots; a mitigation measure as well as a Condition of the Subdivision Approval, had been devised. These were the areas where the City saw an interrelationship between the two projects; any mitigation measures would be before the Commission when the subdivision was approved. Commissioner Harris stated that her main concern was that the City not loose the ability to require necessary measures to restore the Creek to the lovely area it once was; the City Attorney responded that the City's position was that the Creek Repair Project was a separate issue and not part of the dialogue of this EIR for the Mt. Eden Rd. Subdivision; however, one lot extended into the Creek area; to the extent that discussions on the Repair Project resulted in a revegetation plan, this lot may be included in both the discussions and participation in such a plan. Commissioner Harris asked that a Condition be imposed, requiring mitigations for Lot 4. Commissioner Kolstad also had concerns; he asked that if it were later determined that the Quarry Creek Repair Project and Mt. Eden Rd. Subdivision were related, due to Lot 4, to the extent this project was found to require a modification of the Quarry Creek Repair Project, proponents should be required to participate their proportional share in the implementation of necessary alterations to the project. Mr. Tom Burke, Representing the Property Owners, stated that they had hired the consulting firm of Harvey and Stanley to design a revegetation plan which included a portion of Lot 4; he added that the Army Corps of Engineers had never asserted that their jurisdiction extended beyond the high water mark of the Creek and as such, came no where near Lot 4. The City Attorney added .that once lots were created, they could be sold; the City wished succes- sive owners to be subject to the mitigations contained in Conditions of the subdivision approval. Mr. Willera Kohler, Via Regina, Saratoga, commented as follows: Noted that he was encouraged at the previous Meeting, that any relationship between Quarry Creek Repair Project and the Mt. Eden Rd. Subdivision would be explored The Army Corps of Engineers had informed the Consultant from Earth Mettics that the two projects were related; he contended that they were related through drainage An Environmental Impact Report on the two projects was required on the issue of drainage The Army Corps of Engineers had not given final approval of the drainage facilities already constructed; in addition, the area had not experienced much rain this year Urged that the Commission to consider the Army Corps of Engineer's evaluation on this issue PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kohler continued his comments as follows: Plantings previously required for the area by the City Council had not been completed Location of the water pipes was unknown; pipes for other subdivisions were placed in unstable areas which resulted in a disruption of service Asked that the ELR address the location of the water pipes Chairperson Siegfried responded that the EIR specifically addressed the issue of drainage. According to the Consultant, these four lots were considered and included in the hydrology work; the drainage facilities constructed were adequate. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE MT. EDEN RD. SUBDIVISION, INCORPORATING THE COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROCEED TO THE NEXT PHASE WHICH IS CONSIDERATION OF THE TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION. Passed 6-0. 11. DR-89-014 Kim, 13355 Fontaine Drive, request for design review approval to construct a 1,303 sq. ft. first and second story to an existing 1,604 sq. ft. single story residence in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 o the City Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M. Chairperson Siegfried and Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Chairperson Siegfried cited the letter jointly signed by Mr. and Mrs. Richard Viias, 13375 Ronnie Way, and the Property Owners at 13354 Ronnie Way, Saratoga. Mr. Chong Kim, Applicant, stated that neighbors had no objection to this request; he noted the site constraints to expanding the first floor rather than constructing a first and second story addition. Mr. Ralph Sutton, 13396 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, stated that second story additions were denied in the past; if one property were allowed such an expansion, precedent would be set for the neighbor- hood. Furthermore, the mature trees used to screen the home's upper portion would eventually die and the home would be exposed. Owners knew the size of the house when they purchased it. Mr. Dwight Perkins presented a letter of his parents at 19349 Portos Ct., Saratoga, strongly opposing this second story addition which was incompatible with the neighborhood; however, they did not object to an expansion of the first floor. Chairperson Siegfried reviewed the concerns expressed by the neighbors and asked whether he had fully considered an expansion of the first floor area. Commissioner Guch commented that the second story portion of the expansion would change the character of the neighborhood; she favored Staff Recommendation to Continue the Item. Commissioner Kolstad favored changing the neighborhood character to the extent that home im- provements would be completed. He noted the mature landscaping in the area and added that the home in question was at the end of the cul-de-sac; both of which would mitigate privacy impacts. Other residents of the area had raised their roof pitch to enhance the aesthetics of their home. There was a evolution in the area wherein home improvements were being completed; nonetheless, the number of unusable vehicles parked on the street was not a favorable sign. He encouraged the creativity resulting from allowing some second story additions, as well as other improvements; however, a plan should be in place to prevent every home from adding a second story addition. Commissioner Burger agreed there was a movement to improve older neighborhoods; the Com- mission would have to be sensitive to such. Her only concern was the limited size of this lot; how- ever, a combination of one and two-story elements could be considered at a Study Session. Commissioner Tucker favored improvements to upgrade the area; she also was concerned about the limited lot size and felt a second story addition would result in privacy impacts. The Public Hearing remained open. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-014 TO JUNE 14, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD MAY 16, 1989. Passed 6-0. Break 9:20 - 9:37 P.M. 12. SD-88-011.1 Ainsley Development, 13810 Saratoga Ave., request for site modification approval to revise a condition of tentative map approval for a two-lot sub- division in the R-I-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:38 P.M. Mr. Jeff Wyatt, Ainsley Development, reviewed the Application and was available for questions. Mr. David E. O'Connor, 13818 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, reviewed his letters on this Item. Mr. Wyatt confumed that Ainsley Development was anxious to begin the project; upon approval of the site modification requested, they would clean the site within two weeks. GUCH/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Passed 6-0. GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-011.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING A CONDITION THAT MITIGATION OF THE SITE CONDITIONS WOULD OCCUR IN A TIMELY MANNER. Passed 6-0. 13. DR-89-017 Nolle, 19935 Herdman Ave., request for design review and variance ap- proval to construct a one and two-story, 959 sq. ft. addition to an existing home for a total of 3,773 sq. ft.; the variance is to encroach into an existing non-conforming front yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie noted additional correspondence received from Max and Lillian Artusie at 19945 Heman Ave., raising concerns about impacts of the second story addition. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:43 P.M. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Mr. Rick Nolle, Applicant, cited their objectives and proposed mitigations as follows: Improve the quality of the home and create more livable space; the plans accomplished this goal Wished to observe the spirit of the Ordinance; this was accomplished by using existing rooflines and structure where ever possible; the design was complimentary to other homes in the area Was concerned about their privacy as well as adjacent residents; it was unfortunate the rear area of their home was higher than the neighbors; their architect had been asked to address this issue - Plans adequately addressed privacy concerns; removal of two of the three existing windows, and moving the wall out, substantially blocked the view from the remaining (third) window - Finally, the kitchen, a high activity room, was relocated from the rear of the house to the front - Applicants had tried to the best of their ability to address the concems raised - Noted a technical error in the Staff Report, Pro_iect Description. to read, "'two windows'..." Mr. Max Artusie, 19945 Herdman Ave., Saratoga, reviewed his letter cited above, concerning privacy impacts and the existing drainage problems on his property. GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:52 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger had concerns about the proposed rear addition; such would make a bad situation worse and further add to a closed-in feeling. Any condition requiring additional land- scaping would require review by a qualified hydrologist to prevent additional drainage problems. Chairperson Siegfried added that due to the proximity of the homes, any landscaping installed would shade both of them. Commissioner Guch concurred with Commissioner Burger and objected to the encroachment into the side yard setback which would have a substantial impact. Commissioner Kolstad suggested a Continuance to allow the Applicant and the neighbor to address the potential privacy impacts; if this issue were resolved, he could make the Variance Findings. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Guch felt that privacy impacts were not the only issue--this house loomed over the adjacent site as Mr. Artusie correctly stated; she was unsure how the impacts could be eliminated. Chairperson Siegfried felt a Continuance would allow the Applicant to address the concerns raised; Planning Director Emslie recommended that if the Commission wished to consider alternative designS, direction be given to the Applicant to eliminate the addition to the rear of the home and to reconsider the front addition. GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-017 TO MAY 25, 1989. Passed 6-0. 14. V-89-007 Saffarian, 21757 Congress Hall Lane, request for variance approval to con- struct a 267 sq. ft. covered walkway which would exceed the maximum al- lowed floor area by 266 sq. ft. for the site per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie noted the revised plans submitted by the Applicant during the past week. Chairperson Siegfried reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Saffarian, Applicant, asked that the covered walkway be approved due to the strength of the wind and for security reasons; neighbors had no objection to this Application. Mr. Charles Masters, 21764 Congress Hall Ln., Saratoga, did not object to the request; he favored the appearance of a covered walkway over the exiting breezeway. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger noted that 68-70 sq. ft. was being counted due to the fact that it was enclosed on three sides; she had no objection to the request. Commissioner Kolstad stated that a detached garage for this home was inappropriate; however, such had been required due to the existence of a fault line on-site. The proposed covered walkway was an improvement in the overall design; he could make the required Variance Findings due to the physical circumstance of a fault line on this site. KOLSTAD/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-007 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PRE- SENT A REVISED RESOLUTION AT THE MAY 10, 1989, MEETING. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. Commissioner Kolstad abstained on the following Item due to a potential conflict of interest and was absent for the remainder of the Meeting. !5. UP-89-005 Fox & Carskadon, 205'14 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for use permit approval to operate a real estate office at an existing 5,312 sq. ft. building in the C-C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated April 26, 1989, and reviewed the Staff Report Project Discussion. Commissioner Harris noted the sizable increase in the number of real estate agents requested. The Planning Director responded that the Applicant assured them that every real estate agent had his/her own desk at Fox & Carskadon; the City would exercise control in a manner similar to that used at schools, namely, a register of agents would be compiled. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:22 P.M. Chairperson Siegfried reported on the land use visit. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, reviewed the Application and noted the physical constraints of the former bank building. Fox & Carskadon would have an early morning staff meeting once a week, probably on Monday; such would work well with the Village since retail merchants were not open before 10:00 A.M. Furthermore, it was in the Village's best interest to have this building occupied, to have mixed uses and more people, both agents and clients, in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 APRIL 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Heid had been commissioned to provide a study of the site, general area, and building; an analysis revealed that access from Oak Street would be beneficial to general traffic circulation panems. This reconfiguration and the restripping the lot for compact cars, increased the number of spaces to 32; furthermore, an adjacent Church was agreeable to a reciprocal parking agreement. The layout prepared showed that 38 desks, with the necessary support facilitie, fit in the building. In response to Chairperson Siegfried's question whether the Applicants could not in fact, hire part time agents (in excess of 70 agents), keeping the building/parking area full to cap. acity all the time, Mr. Heid responded that Fox & Carskadon's reputation precluded such decepuon; however, the Applicants were present and could speak to this issue. He noted that a review period existed. Mr. Guy Berry, Vice President, Fox & Carskadon, stated they wished to do whatever it took to locate in the Village; while it was common practice in the industry for agents to double up on desks, it was not their ususal practise. In addition, Applicants were aware of the acute parking problem. In response to further inquiry of Chairperson Siegfried, he thought it would not be un- reasonable to limit agents to an absolute number; conversely, if they found the parking lot was empty the majority of the time, could they request a modification of the Use Permit Conditions? Mr. Crawford, 12473 Meadow Ln., Saratoga, stated that the major problems in the Village were parking and traffic; Parking District 3 would solve some of the problems. He was favorable to seeing the vacant bank site occupied and to the Application under consideration. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, 20506 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., cited her March 11, 1989, letter. Ms. Marilyn White, Village Association Board of Directors, questioned the limitation on the number of agents; she suggested the number of parking places be equal to the number of desks. Mr. Berry asked that husband/wife teams be considered as one agent since the used one desk and the same car;, such would be a reasonable exception. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:42 P.M. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. Commissioner Harris was very interested that vacant buildings in the Village be occupied; since this building was removed from Big Basin Way, where retail stores were desired, the use pro- posed seemed appropriate; it would be difficult to find a retail use for this building. However, she had concerns about parking impacts; the spaces provided could be tied to the number of desks. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to a one year review with additional reviews as necessary; in response to her question, Planner Walgren reviewed the requirements for signage. The City Attorney noted that this was a Use Penrdt and the Commission had continuing jurisdiction; while there was an automatic review after a year, such did not preclude earlier review at the instigation of Staff, if problems occurred. The critical issue seemed to be the number of people in the building at one time, not the number of individuals listed on a roster, he suggested a Condition to read, "At no single time, shall the number of people in the building exceed the number of desks." Chairperson Siegfried responded that if the building were constantly full, the parking lot was also; he favored limiting the number to 38 agents or agent teams. The City Attorney stated that the Con- dition would be, "The number of active employees shall at no time exceed the number of desks". Planning Director Emslie added that Staff recommended the number of employees be subject to the number of parking spaces; the plan submitted by the Applicant showed 39 parking spaces. Upon Staff verification of this number, they had no objection to allowing a similar number of agents. The City Attorney added that the term "employees" was being used in the broad sense and included agents, brokers, independent contractors and secretarial staff. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE UP-89-005 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE EMPLOYEES SHALL AT NO TIME EXCEED THE NUMBER OF DESKS; THE TERM "EMPLOYEES" INCLUDED AGENTS, BROKERS, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND SECRETARIAL STAFF; A HUSBAND AND WIFE ARRIVING IN A SINGLE CAR SHALL BE TREATED AS ONE AGENT. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 APRIL 26, 1989 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report Commissioner Harris reported on the City Council Meeting of April 19, 1989. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission - April 5,1989, - Noted and filed. 2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report of February 28, March 14, and April 4,1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: AD.IOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey