Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: June 28, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan Commissioner Burger absent Pledge of Allegiance: . Approval of Minutes: Meeting of June 14, 1989 Chairperson Siegfried noted that the Motion to approve DR-89-038 had two dissenting votes. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 1989, AS AMEND- ED. Passed 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Col. E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, presented photos of potential violations to the Sign Ordinance. REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on June 23, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: None. PUBLIC BEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-89-036.1 Klein, 20461 Williams Ave., request for modification to an approved de- sign review application in order to retain a mature tree along the eastern property line. (withdrawn) 2. DR-88-062 Luthra, 14151 Teedink Way, request for design review approval for a new 5,149 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to July 12, 1989. 3. DR-88-095 Hur, 20052 Sunset Ave., request for design review and building site ap- proval to construct a two-story, 6,182 sq. ft. single family home in the HC- RD zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to July 26, 1989. 4. SD-89-005 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Dr., adoption of a resolution to approve applica- tion for building site and lot line adjustment approval on parcels of record in the R-l-10,000 zone district. The lot line adjustment involves the transfer of approximately 16,081. sq. ft. from Parcel "A" to parcel "B"; building site approval is requested for Parcel "A". Public Hearing closed June 14, 1989. 5. DR-89-017 Nolle, 19935 Herriman Ave., request for design review and variance ap- V-89-006 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. Continued to July 12, '1989, at the request of the applicant. 6. DR-88-081 Jayakumar, 18846 Ten Acres Rd., consider modification to subdivision SDR-1507.1 SDR-1507 to narrow the width of an access easement which exists on the lot from 35 ft. to 20 ft. Design review approval is also requested for a new 5,410 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from June 14,1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 7. DR-89-001 Henderson, 19880 Lark Way, request for design review approval to con- struct a 2,636 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one-story home for a total of 5,652 sq. ft. in the R-i-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. LL-89-001 Dividend Development Corp., 13150 Saratoga Ave., a resolution of ap- proval of a lot line adjustment consolidating five parcels into three for a 25+/- acre parcel located in the MU-PD zone district. Public Hearing closed June 14, 1989. 9. DR-89-030 Lohr, 14825 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for design review approval to con- struct a two-story, 5, 172 sq. ft. single-family dwelling in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 10. DR-89-020 Heath, 18681 Kosich Dr., request for design review approval to construct a 1,212 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one-story home for a total floor area of 3,370 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. DR-89-019 Woolworth Construction, 14836 Three Oaks Ct., request for design review V-89-010 approval to construct a single story, 6,730 sq. ft. single family residence in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to exceed the allowable square footage for this site by approximately 700 sq. ft. Continued to June 28,1989. Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 11. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10. Passed 5-0. 11. DR-89-019 Woolworth Construction, 14836 Three Oaks Ct., request for design review V-89-010 approval to construct a single story, 6,730 sq. ft. single family residence in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to exceed the allowable square footage for this site by approximately 700 sq. it. Continued to June 28,1989. Commissioner Tucker stated she had concerns about the Variance, having not been present at the Study Session on this Item; Chairperson Siegfried reviewed discussions held at the Study Session. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Gilbert Garcia, Designer, presented a rendering; the Landscape Architect was also available. Commissioner Tucker stated she would not be voting in favor of this Item, since she was not able to make the Finding that granting a variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43 P.M. Passed 5-0. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-019 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 12. SD-88-008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., request for approval of a 35-1ot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the Odd Fellows property southerly to the senior care facility, be- tween Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated June 28, 1989, and reviewed Staff Report Staff Analysis; he introduced Exhibits sho~ving the Applicant's proposal and noted that additional correspondence had been received. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 7:58 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants, Rogers and Brooks, commented as follows: Reviewed the project background to explain their proposal (through access from Crisp Ave. to Gypsy Hill Rd.); consideration was given to geological, arbor, and archaeological concerns This proposal was submitted based on their study and on planning concepts, not political issues Their proposal was modified since public testimony had made it clear that a through access from Crisp Ave. to Gypsy Hill Rd. was unacceptable to the Planning Commission and to neighbors - Modification of the perceived impacts was to install gates at both ends of the through roads; they understood this modification was also unacceptable, although they viewed it as a viable option - Alternatives showing two and three cul-de-sac options, requested by the Planning Commission had been prepared for review; alternatives were discussed - Applicants agreed with Staffs Recommendation for a two cul-de-sac alternative - A second issue they wished to be considered by the Commission was Staff Recommendation for a reduction in the number of lots, eliminating Lots 1 and 35; the developer presented a 35 lot subdivision which was less than the allowed density - The 35 lot subdivision was presented after careful study and with the assurance that every lot had a buildable home site without the need for setback variances The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showed no necessity for such a reduction on the basis of environmental concerns Finally, the open space issue was of concern; the Tentative Map showed more than 20% of the acreage in private open space easements; such would protect the riparian creek area and the natural habitat and wildlife Consideration of public open space was inappropriate for the following reasons: ~ This area had never been public land nor had the contiguous areas surrounding Crisp Ave. and/or Gypsy Hill Rd. had public open space ~ Many areas where trails and/or open space easements were allowed along property lines in remote areas, residents experienced vandalism and danger to themselves and their property; petitions were received that the City abandon these easements ~ Crisp Ave. residents had more than their share of problems from public use of open lands, i.e., Community Gardens and picnics at the Odd Fellows property; use of the subject property as public lands would only continue the existing problems - Applicants requested direction on the additional studies recommended by Staff Chairperson Siegfried questioned the elimination of the Chester Ave. Alternative;.Planning Director Emslie responded that Chester Ave. was eliminated from consideration due to the Creek which intersected the area and, secondly, there was no distinct access in terms of trip calculations, since Chester accessed Sobey Rd. and would have a residual effect on it. Mr. Norm Matteoni, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, reviewed his letter of June 21, 1989, Re: San Marcos Heights Subdivision; Planning Commission Agenda of June 2& 1989. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Rd., Saratoga, cited the following concerns: Integrity between the City and residents regarding agreements made; if commitments to Crisp Ave. residents were not kept, the integrity of the City would be in question - Representation: the Planning Commission represented the residents among all the professionals and consultants hired by the Applicant and the Odd Fellows o Hypocrisy and cynicism of the Odd Fellows: ~ Cited the recent hearing on the Odd Fellows request for a conditional use permit to allow use of their picnic grounds, wherein it was suggested it would be unpatriotic to prohibit the scheduled events; now the City was being told that having access through the Odd Fellows property would endanger the lives and tranquility of their own residents ~ Land deeded to Fellowship Plaza contained 70+ resident cars which accessed the property ~ Reviewed the history of Applications made by the Odd Fellows property and contended that assertions were made that further development on-site was not envisioned; now a major expansion was requested, which the Odd Fellows described as "no expansion of facilities" ~ Contended the Odd Fellows had adopted a strategy of providing the Commission and the community with completely contradictory information; he objected to such practices Equity: ~ Institutions did not have different rights than other property owners ~ ff the Odd Fellows wished to develop their property, they should share in the burden created by such development; to suggest that the surrounding area accept the whole burden while they could not handle parking and traffic, was not equitable PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Schwartz continued his comments as follows: - Requested consideration of the following three requests: ~ Not to approve any subdivision plan until a Master Plan had been submitted and approved and not allow the lack of a Master Plan as the reason for prohibiting access to the property ~ Stop consideration of any Alternative which exceeded seven homes off Crisp Ave. ~ Stop consideration on any option which did not include participation of the Odd Fellows in providing access and sharing the traffic impacts Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Stated he wc~!: ~!isappointed by the lack of what he considered fair representation on the part of Staff towa;d ~ic neighbors, relative to the many concerns brought up over the past few months - Public Notice now listed the Rogers & Brooks Application as "Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave." instead of the former "San Marcos Rd." project; furthermore, he did not agree with Staff Conclusions - Residential neighborhoods were every bit as representative of the community as any institution; residents continued to come to the hearings to argue against solutions which were not acceptable Objected to the sale of land for development without the seller bearing the burdens created--even if the seller was an institution involved in senior care Project as presented was unacceptable to the surrounding residents; property owners on Crisp Ave. based the purghase of homes and, their lives, on the City's commitment Contended the Planning Commission and Staff should be guided by the General Plan and City policy; he questioned how the best use of land could be inconsistent with the General Plan Urged the Planning Commission to require the Applicant and Property Owner present a plan' consistent with the General Plan Guidelines and one that would be fair to adjacent residents Ms. Pauline Seales, 14141 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Suggested the only alternative was to significantly reduce the number of lots proposed - Presented a map showing access from Sobey Rd. and Crisp Ave. with 14 lots having access through the Odd Fellows property (Lots i and 35 eliminated as recommended by Staff) - Suggested that Lots 18 through 25 not include the riparian corridor; an open space easement would protect the corridor as well as the wildlife in the area Mr. Howard Elman, Attorney for the Crisp Ave. residents, commented as follows: - Emphasized that Crisp Ave. residents were not litigious; however, they felt they had to make a statement, putting every argument forward so as to exhaust every administrative remedy, as required by law - Understood the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had not yet been certified; noted that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required the Certified EIR to be placed before the public and the decision makers during the decision making process - Noted that Staff cited transportation statistics from the uncertified ELR as a justification for the preliminary recommendation before the Planning Commission; information previously presented showed the transportation data to be fatally flawed; in fact, it was acknowledged on the record that the transportation issue had to be re-studied If the EIR had been re-circulated, there would have been a number of additional comments; failure to re-circulate the EIR was also an issue Contended that the exercise of considering this Item would be completely futile if it turned out the Commission had acted inappropriately; their efforts would be in vain Added that the CommisSion would have to make Findings that the proposed subdivision was in compliance with the General Plan; Crisp Ave. residents contended that it was not · - Reiterated that the Crisp Ave. residents were telling the City how they felt and that their position was to protect their rights, if this Application were to go forward as presented Recommended that the appropriate manner to deal with this subdivision was to attempt to amend the General Plan since there was no way the Application could be approved without such - If the Application were approved with seven lots off Crisp Ave., and with an adequate EIR con- taining the appropriate Findings, there might not be a legal remedy - Offered to provide the above information in writing Ms. Joanne Bassett, 19401 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, stated her late husband and she researched this issue in 1974 and had been reassured that Crisp Ave. would never be a through street. Written statements made by the then City Manager and former Mayor were cited; she was horrified that the City would even consider a through street on Crisp Ave. Ms. Wanda Allinger, Fellowship Plaza, read into the record a Petition signed by 124 residents. Mr. Daniel Tsuda commented that the major issue was the traffic hazard; a through street on Crisp Ave. would only increase the existing hazards. In addition, this area was not well patrolled. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Rebecca Jennings, Odd Fellows Home, presented a Petition signed by 131 residents opposing the turning of this private driveway into a public street. Ms. Devorak Lackner, 14851 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Agreed with the Alternative proposed by Ms. Seales Noted discrepancies in the traffic estimates for Sobey Rd. between the Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for the project under consideration and the Gypsy Hill Rd. project Cited the EIR which stated that when traffic volumes on residential streets reached 2,000 vehicles per day, a loss in residential character was noticed, pedestrian freedom was lost, roads became impassible and traffic levels and dirt became objectionable Urged consideration of the above issues Ms. Marydee Urbano, Fellowship Plaza, noted that the Odd Fellows were a wonderful organiza- tion; she did not wish to see the property sold. Mr. George Kordestani, 10300 Crisp Ave. objected to any additional traffic on Crisp Ave. Ms. Carolyn Armstrong, Sobey Rd., felt strongly the Odd Fellows should bear as much of the traffic burden as possible; she cited the traffic impacts and the resulting hazards for the children. Mr. Ron Marcusio, 14330 Chester Ave., Saratoga, questioned the effectiveness of gating roads; the developer should be required to provide access for the proposed 35 home development. Mr. Art Mendell, Sobey Rd., Saratoga, cited his previous testimony favoring the three cul-de-sac Alternative; he noted that the Gypsy Hill development had four-car garages which indicated a significant increase in the number of vehicles in the area. Mr. George Ratting, Chester Ave., Saratoga, felt the developer had to bear the responsibility for the problems created; he cited the existing traffic hazards on Chester Ave. Ms. Diana Parham, Saratoga Residents Association, noted that whenever there was a reward, there was risk; it was interesting the Odd Fellows believed they could get the reward without any risk. Land was one of the most valuable assets for anyone in the community. Mr. Chuck Hecker read into the record a letter of Mr. Don Jones requesting a proper distribution of the traffic impacts. He reviewed the history of Crisp Ave. Ms. Margarite Fisher, Fellowship Plaza, reiterated her objections to the loss of 55 acres of open space and the 87 year old barn. She favored the two cul-de-sac Alternative, a buffer zone between the Odd Fellows home and the project, and the proposal presented by Ms. Seales. She wished to see the rural character preserved with only 11-15 houses permitted on-site. Ms. Marydee Urbano suggested the Planning Commission not allow any access, in effect prevent- ing the Odd Fellows from developing the site. Commissioner Tucker noted for the record a phone call from Mr. P.J. Moore favoring the three cul-de-sac Alternative; in addition, he had concerns about erosion along the creek bed. Planning Director Eroslie suggested the Planning Commission provide direction for the Applicant. The Public Hearing remained open. Commissioner Harris commented as follows: Suggested consideration of a reduction in the project density from the 35 lot subdivision pro- posed; traffic problems would significantly be reduced if the density were lowered Favored the Alternative presented by Ms. Seales which would preserve the riparian corridor and agreed with Mr. Swanson that all access could be through the Odd Fellows property - Combining the above suggestions would give the project a very different look - While the Crisp Ave. residents had the foresight to obtain written statements regarding limiting the access off of Crisp Ave., the Sobey Rd. residents deserved no less consideration - It would be inequitable for Sobey Hills Rd. to bear traffic burdens contained in the Alternatives - Disagreed the proposed Odd Fellows cul-de-sac ~vould be too long; the length of the Sobey Hills Rd. cul-de-sac already exceeded the proposal - The developer's proposal, Alternative 4, showed ten lots accessing off the Odd Fellows road; a major concern with this Alternative was that no emergency access existed - Concluded that other configurations had to be considered PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: -. Did not necessarily see a need for the elimination of Lots 1 and 35; he wished to see how the houses would be located on-site and whether they would impact the riparian corridor - Wished to see a plan for the street trees - More than seven additional homes accessing Crisp Ave. would not be poor planning; however, he recognized that residents wished a limitation on the number of homes accessing the road - Noted concern that additional traffic would change the character of Sobey Rd.; however, he felt that residents were making much more of the traffic impacts than would actually occur - Asked that the City Attorney comment on the procedures for certifying an EIR - Favored Alternative 3, with Alternatives 2 and 1 being the second and third choices respectively Commissioner Tucker stated she had not decided on a preferred Alternative; however, her over- riding concern was safety. An emergency access would have to be provided. She had questions surrounding the 1977 letter to the Crisp Ave. residents and favored Ms. Scales proposal. Commissioner Tappan previously favored the three cul-de-sac Alternative; however, he now had questions regarding all of the Alternatives. He asked that the reduction in project density suggested by Commissioner Harris be further explored and stated he had a number of questions surrounding the content of Mr. Matteoni's letter. The City Attorney was asked to address this issue. The City Attorney responded that with respect to written communications from the City, a letter was sent by the City Council confirming a policy statement, that not more than seven additional lots would access off Crisp Ave.; this action was not taken at a public hearing and was not an Ordinance or General Plan Amendment. However, the Council took action and made a promise; such may not be a legally enforceable promise in the sense that it was not codified in the General Plan or incorporated in the Zoning regulations. If the Commission were to allow additional lots to access off Crisp Ave., residents would not, in his opinion, have legal recourse. As :With any other policy statement, such could be changed by the Council. With respect to the Environmental Impact Review (EIR), the critical factor was whether action on a project were taken or the project approved before the EIR were certified; the City had no intention of doing such. Once the project had been established, the first action of the Commission would be to certify the EIR; such action had not already been taken because there was considerable un- certainty as to what the project would be, namely access as well as the number of lots. With respect to the possible recirculation of the EIR, the basic nature of the project had not been changed, although alternatives regarding the access were under consideration; such consideration was the purpose of the review process. Chairperson Siegfried stated he opposed through access and gated roads; he favored a three cul-de- sac Alternative with no more than seven houses off Crisp Ave. Access for the remaining houses to be divided in some fashion between Sobey Rd. and the Odd Fellows property. He was greatly troubled by the fact that pressure was being exerted over the Master Plan for the site which may impact what could otherwise be a viable project; he felt the traffic impacts could be appropriately dispersed among three separate accesses with the necessary emergency access in place. There was no need to reduce the projecf~ density; however, he had not yet considered Staff Recommendation to eliminate Lots 1 and 35. Ms. Fanelli requested direction from the Commission on the preferred Alternative. Chairperson Siegfried responded that there was no consensus on such; the only consensus reached was on no through access, no gated roads, with provision being made for an emergency access. has. Fanelli stated that Applicants would prepare a map showing the building pad for each lot, photographs and/or architectural renderings showing the proposed style, an updated landscape plan as well as information on the type of structures and materials to be presented at the Study Session. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-89-025 AND SD-89-004 TO AUGUST 9, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD JULY 18, 1989. Passed 5-0. Break 9:40 - 9:52 P.M. Chairperson Siegfried stated he would take testimony from one speaker on Item 16. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 16. DR-89-013 Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 4,848 sq. ~. two-story single family home in the R-I- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M. Mr. Jim Jefferson stated he appreciated the Commission's consideration in this matter; he cited the significant impacts from the proposed house and agreed with Staff Memorandum dated June 28th. He submitted a letter signed by 13 residents which discussed their concerns in detail. The Public Hearing remained open. Chairperson Siegfried then returned to Item 13. 13. DR-89-024 Bray, 21456 Saratoga Heights, request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision SD-89-004 in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Design re- view approval is also requested for a new 3,720 sq. ft. one-story single family dwelling on the new lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated June 28, 1989. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:01 P.M. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, reviewed his letter Re: Resolutions SD-89-004 and DR-89-025, Bray Residence, 21459 Saratoga Hills Rd., Saratoea: the Recommended Conditions were acceptable with the amendments stated in his letter and wii'h a clarification on the "Irrevocable Offer of Dedi- cation" required. Planning Director Emslie responded that the City Engineer had recommended that in SD-89-004, Condition 3 be deleted. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:05 P.M. Passed 5-0. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE SD-89-004 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, DELETING CONDITION 3 AND INCORPORATING AMENDMENTS STATED IN THE LETTER CITED. Passed 5-0. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-025 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS STATED IN THE LETTER CITED. Passed 5-0. 14. DR-89-014 Kim, 13355 Fontaine Drive, request for design review approval to con- struct 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 of the City Code. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 28, 1989. Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:08 P.M. Mr. Chong Kim made himself available as an interpreter for his father, the Applicant, and stated that they had considered an expansion to the one-story home. Chairperson Siegfried noted the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy impacts. Mr. Kim responded that two windows on either side of the house had been removed; he noted the limited square footage of the proposed second story addition. Furthermore, there were large trees which would protect privacy. With respect to the statement that the house was bulky, he cited another home located on Dagmar Dr. and Fontaine Dr. which was two stories in height. Mr. Bill Perkins, Portos Ct., Saratoga, commented as follows: - The two windows removed would have looked onto his property - Contended that the home on Dagmar Dr. and Fontaine was not a legitimate two-story home, had not not built as such and should not be considered a precedent - The five large pine trees cited above were on his property, not the Applicant's site In addition, there were redwood trees between the subject house and Saratoga Ave. which would offer no landscape screening for his property PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Perkins continued his comments as follows: - While he favored improvements, he opposed this plan; a two-story addition was incompatible with the neighborhood, increased the density and impacted privacy - Neighbor's concerns and their opposition to the Application as presented was cited A friend of the Applicant noted the limited square footage being proposed for the addition; all appli- cable building code requirements had been meet. He presented pictures of the site and did not feel any question of invading privacy existed; he added that improvement of the area was desirable. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:17 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Tucker noted that the City was not saying the Applicant could not improve and/or add to the existing structure; rather Staff was saying that the proposal presented was bulky and incompatible with the neighborhood. She would have to agree with this assessment. Commissioner Kolstad stated that his previous concerns regarding privacy impacts were eliminated with the removal of the windows on two sides of the proposed addition. Rehabilitation was need- ed in the neighborhood; the Commission should provide as much incentive as possible to improve the existing homes. Commissioner Harris objected to the appearance of the second story addition; there were alternative designs which would be more appropriate. She did not object to some modification of the roof line; however, the profile presented was too great a discrepancy with the surrounding area. Commissioner Tappan agreed; he encouraged the Applicant to present a modified design. Chairperson Siegfried stated that the issue raised was not unique to this house or neighborhood; the issue being the remodelling and/or expansion of homes in areas where predominantly single- story, low profile structures existed. The Commission would have to decide whether the modifi- cations proposed were appropriate for a particular neighborhood.' He was not opposed to a second-story addition in this neighborhood, but the design was out of character with the area. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-89-014. Passed 4-1, Commissioner Kolstad dissenting. 15. DR-89-031 Thorsch, 14199 Saratoga Ave., request for design review approval for a 1,308 sq. ft. two-story addition to an existing two-story single family dwelling in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant also requests an amendment to SDR-454 to narrow the width of Worden Way to 25 ft. by eliminating the subdivision condition for dedi- cation and improvements of the half-street private right-of-way per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum, dated June 28, 1989. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:27 Mr. Randy Thorsch, Applicant, stated that he as well as other residents wished to retain a portion of Saratoga Ave. and Worden Way as it presently existed; he requested information on procedures. Dr. Robert Manly, 14239 Worden Way, Saratoga, reiterated the Applicant's request. The City Attorney reviewed 'the additional fees, length of time required and procedures referenced in the Staff Report; due to the fact that this applicant was requesting the abandonment of a street currently in use, the procedures would be more complicated and lengthy. A public hearing would have to be held; in addition, the City would require a maintenance agreement to be in place. He advised the Applicant that it may not be possible to initiate the project during this building season if the Permit were dependent upon the vacating of the street. Mr. Thorsch reiterated for the record that the addition proposed would not increase traffic impacts or any other utility or service being provided. He objected to the required street improvements and asked that applications be considered on an individual basis. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:40 P.M. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie noted that the final three Conditions in the Model Resolution should be tenumbered 19, 20, and 21 respectively. In addition, a Condition should be added that the Appli- cant be given the alternative of executing a deferred improvement agreement for Worden Way which would become null and void if the proceedings for abandonment of the road occurred. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-031 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT BE GIVEN THE ALTERNATIVE OF EXECUTING A DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR WORDEN WAY WHICH WOULD BECOME NULL AND VOID IF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ABANDONMENT OF THE ROAD OCCURRED. Passed 5-0. 16. DR-89-013 Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Rd., request for design review approval to construct a new 4,848 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Memorandum, dated June 28, 1989. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was previously opened. Mr. Velinsky, Applicant, presented a scale model of the site and reviewed the plans; consideration had been given to the concerns of the neighbors; extensive landscaping would be added along the perimeter of the house to prevent privacy impacts. He urged that the design be approved. Mr. Richard Saag, 11262 Hidden View Rd., Saratoga, noted the attraction of the area was its pristine nature and the wildlife; the undeveloped hilltop, now the Applicant's site, was the crown- ing joy. He questioned whether the scale model accurately portrayed the topography of the site and objected to the blue roof tiles he thought would be used. In addition, the proposed cut and fill was of concern due to erosion and drainage problems. He presented a letter from Robert and Fran Lauredson who objected to the adverse impacts this development would create. Ms. Robinson, 16303 Ravine Rd., Saratoga, felt the proposed house was excessively large and over powered the site; in addition, a two-story structure would be inappropriate on this very visible lot and would obstruct views and impact on the adjacent resident's privacy. Finally, the homes in this area were rustic in character, not modern in design. Mr. Robeson strongly objected to the Velinsky project and recommended denial of the Application; his major objections were as follows: - The design was bulky, inconsistent with the rural neighborhood and unattractive; the strange, bulky shapes proposed had no place in the gently rolling hillside - Questioned the accuracy of the computer map information; he noted the steepness of the slopes - The project was situated on a ridge--the highest point in Saratoga's southeast area, and would be visible from the scenic highway as well as from many other homes Design did not conform with the Design Review Handbook Guidelines adopted by the City Ms. Wanda Alexander presented a letter containing her strong objections to the project; in response to Commissioner Tappan's question, she stated the lot could accommodate a house of about 2,000 sq. ft., which would be similar in size to the existing homes which were built in the 1960's. Mr. Arthur Shimmings cited his letter previously sent to the Planning Commission. He felt it was fraudulent to use the scale model as presented; the site was extremely steep. Mr. Nelson, 1521 Hidden Hill Rd., Saratoga, reviewed the history of the area and noted existing homes which were both large and expensive. He asked that this Item be favorably considered. Mr. Velinsky stated that blue roof tiles would not be used; the average slope on site was 22% with a 23% slope being the steepest point. He reviewed the architectural mix of area homes; the design presented was an attempt to be compatible with the existing mix of styles. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:14 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Tucker agreed with neighbors that there was a very steep drop on the property; there were two existing trees. She felt the driveway should be moved forward (north) on the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 JUNE 28, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan stated he had to reserve judgement on this Application pending a site visit. Commissioner Harris agreed; it appeared that the Design Review Handbook Guidelines were not being adhered to which she had concerns about. In addition, she questioned the appropriateness of the design proposed for the site in question; the tall, stark walls were noted. Commissioner Kolstad agreed with Staff Recommendation. Commissioner Tucker agreed with the above comments. Chairperson Siegfried felt the design proposed was inappropriate for the lot in question and agreed that it violated the standards set down in the Design Review Handbook. The Applicant was agreeable to attending a Study Session. HARRISFFUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-013 TO AUGUST 9, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD JULY 18, 1989. Passed 5-0. 17. V-89-011 Nothhaft, 14563 Fruitvale Ave., request for variance approval to reduce the minimum required setback for recreational courts from 15 feet to 10 feet in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Eroslie had nothing to add to the Report to the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:20 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:20 P.M. Passed 5-0. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-011 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-0. 18. TR-89-079 Havstad, 19770 Lanark Lane, an appeal of the conditions of approval of a tree removal permit in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The condition being appealed requires the installation of one (1) replacement tree. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 28, 1989; he noted a modification to the Conditions, requiring installation of only one tree, not two trees. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:23 P.M. Ms. Havstad, Applicant, stated that the request was to reduce the amount of water required and to reduce the yard maintenance. Mr. Haystad, Applicant, stated he had submitted his comments in writing. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:24 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Harris noted the Applicant had a fully landscaped yard; in addition, the placement of trees near the front walkway would block off other trees. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF TR-89-079. Passed 5-0. 19. DR-89-032 Lohr, 14671 Sobey Oaks Ct., request for design review approval to con- struct a two-story, 6,180+/- sq. ft. residence in the R-I-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 28, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:26 P.M. There were no speakers, nor was the Applicant present. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:26 P.M. Passed 5-0. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-032 TO AUGUST 23, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 1, 1989. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 JUNE 28, 1989 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report Commissioner Tucker reported on the City Council Meeting of June 21,' 1989. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Committee-of-the-Whole Reports - May 16,1989, and May 30,1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. 'Carol A. i~robst-Ca