Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: July 12, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Vice Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Moran present Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Kolstad, Tappan absent Pledge of Allegiance: Approval of Minutes: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Bert Martell, 14420 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, presented a written statement, stating he was disa~;sociating himself from any concerns regarding the property at 19431 San Marcos Rd. REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on July 7, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planning Director Emslie stated a request from the Applicant had been received to Continue Item 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-88-062 Luthera, 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 26, 1.989. 2. DR-89-034 Chang, 14453 Leland Circle, request for design review approval to con- struct a two-story 4,648 sq. ~. single family dwelling in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 3. DR-89-044 Duncan, 20531 Brookwood Lane, request for design review approval to convert an existing, 2,315 +/- sq. ft., single story residence in the R-I- 15,000 zone district, into a 3,375+/- sq. ~. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 4. SM-89-008 Mascovich, 14672 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for modification of an approvcd driveway to a circular driveway in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 5. Tr. 7761 Harbor Builders, Mr. Eden Estates, Planning Commission review of a revised landscape plan for streets and graded areas within the approved sub- division. Continued to July 26, 1989, per request of the Applicant. 6. DR-88-070 Thakur, 21537 Saratoga Heights Rd., request for design review approval for a new 6,655 sq. ft. (and a basement of 451 sq. ft.) two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 6. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2, 3, AND 4. Passed 4-0. 6. DR-88-070 Thakur, 21537 Saratoga Heights Rd., request for design review approval for a new 6,655 sq. ft. (and a basement of 451 sq. ft.) two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Harris stated she had concerns regarding the size of the proposed structure and re- quested additional information on the Scenic Easement and its influence on the proposed house. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission of July 12, 1.989, and provided the information requested on the Open Space Easement. He confirmed a large portion of the Open Space Easement was visible from Pierce Rd.; such formed the backdrop for the lot. Mr. Kurt Anderson,.Architect, stated that the Planning Director had correctly explained .the project; the site contours would be used to minimize the impact of the structure. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Harris stated she wished to clarify that there was open space surrounding the rather massive structure proposed; she would approve the request since her concern had been satisfied. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-88-070 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. · Passed 4-0. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 7. AZO-88-008 City of Saratoga, Community Service Overlay, consideration of an ordi- nance adding Article 15-22 to Chapter 15 of the City Code to establish a "CS: Community Service" overlay district. The purpose of the Community Service overlay district is to establish regulations and standards for certain- conditional uses that may not otherwise be adequately controlled by the regulations of the underlying zoning district. Planning Director Emslie noted a letter received from the Odd Fellows' Attorney, requesting a two- month Continuance of this Item. Consensus reached to take public testimony on this Application. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 JULY '12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M. Ms. Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, stated the primary reason for their request to Continue this Item was that the Odd Fellows' plans were undecided; the access had not been determined. They had some objections to the proposed Ordinance, which would be presented for consideration. Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Application and noted the Odd Fellows Master Plan was not the topic of consideration in this Hearing; he advised the Commission to proceed on this Item. City Attorney added that the Master Plan would be required to follow the Ordinance; the proper procedure was to determine the land use regulations and appropriate development standards. The Planning Director presented the Memorandum Re: Consideration of a Community Service Overlay, dated July 12, 1989. Ms. Cocker commented on the proposed Community Service Overlay as follows: Development Standards: Since they did not have a specific Site Plan, they requested less restrictive Development Standards Furthermore, they wished to see language added which gave the Planning Commission authority to modify the Standards, either at the Master Plan stage or at issuance of the Use Permit Site Coverage: Ordinance currently limited site coverage to 50%; it was her understanding the Paul Masson' site had been allowed 60% site coverage Odd Fellows asked that consideration be given by the Commission to allow them the same Building Height: The Preliminary Master Plan showed the retirement center to be three stories high and 33 ft. tall The proposed Community Service Overlay allowed a maximum 35 ft. height, depending upon the distance from the property line, and a limitation of a two-stories height They asked that so long as the 35 ft. height limitation were not exceeded, three stories be allowed Allowable Floor Area: Such was currently 20% of the net site area; Odd Fellows requested something less restrictive Their concern was that the allowable floor area shown in the Preliminary Master Plan may have already exceeded that being proposed in the Community Service Overlay Language: They were concerned that language in Section 15-22.080 may create difficulties for lenders They asked that language be amended to read, "In the event the CS overlay district is terminate~ ...~h ...... ° ~ ...... I~,'" "In the absence of the CS overlay district, the site shall thereafter be classified solely according to its underlying zoning designation." Mr. Bob Barton, Odd Fellows Project Consultant, commented as follows: - If they were a new project coming into the City, the proposed Community Services Overlay may be the ideal way to design the project; however, they had been a neighbor since 1911 - Noted the serious responsibility of caring for many elderly residents - Cifed the existing non-conforming building on-site which must be replaced with a building in conformence with the strict standards of the State of California - Cited their efforts to work out an acceptable solution for the proposed building - Requested a Continuance of the Community Services Overlay in order to further consider such PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, noted the discrepancy between previous testi- mony of the Odd Fellows' Representative regarding the Master Plan and site access and statements made at this Hearing; he asked that these topics be discussed jointly. Furthermore, a comparison of the Paul Masson site with the Odd Fellows property was a poor analogy: Finally, representation had been made that the Odd Fellows' project would not result in a net increase in square footage; now there seemed to be some question of the actual numbers. Mr. Don Richiuso, 19303 Ct., Saratoga, was concerned regarding the possible community use of the existing building; he did not know what the use of the building would mean in relationship to the overall square footage. Residents remained concerned regarding traffic and noise impacts. He asked that the on-site picnic activities be restricted to the residents of the Odd Fellows property. Mr. Burton responded there had been no specific proposal made for use of the existing building. The Public Hearing remained open. In response to Commissioner Burger's question, the City Attorney responded that in the usual Use Permit process, the Planning Commission had the authority to modify development standards without the necessity of a variance; the question before the Commission was whether the same rule would apply to these development standards. Commissioner Harris stated she did not object to three stories per se, if such was within the 35 ft. height limitation, and if the square footage and the number of rooms was not increased. The City Attorney commented that the existing rules allowed three story structures on an institu- tional site, on a downhill slope; the provision was added to accommodate the latest version of their design. Initially a two-story design was presented and the provision allowing a three-story struc- ture was removed; now the Odd Fellows were considering a three-story structure, which would not be on a downhill slope. However, the proposed zoning regulations would not allow three stories in the R-1 district. Commissioner Harris questioned how the intensity of use would be controlled; square footage would be inadequate to address this concern. The City Attorney suggested that a limitation could be placed on the number of residents; the use permit allowed control Of the operating details. Commissioner Harris added that this seemed to be the source of the neighbor's concerns, i.e., if the City allowed new structures to be built, the use would be intensified, despite the claims of the Odd Fellows that they did not wish to increase the number of residents. The City Attorney responding to further question, stated that with respect to language in Section 15-22.080, he had written a response to the Odd Fellows' Attorney; he noted that once the City granted a Use Permit, vested rights were conferred, and could not be revoked arbitrarily. How- ever, he did not wish language suggesting the City relinquish its legislative authority; he suggested language be developed that would be mutually agreeable to both parties. Commissioner Burger agreed to allow three stories if such did not exceed the height limitation; she echoed concerns about an intensification of use on-site and suggested consideration of restrictions. As Staff stated, the question was how should this Ordinance be designed? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Vice Chairperson Tucker had reservations establishing a policy if modifications were to be allowed; Commissioner Burger clarified that the Vice Chair favored the Use Permit process, rather than the Variance process; Commissioner Burger stated she had no objection to this position. The City Attorney noted that the CS - Community Service Overlay proposed was intended for general application in any residential, multi-family or professional office district; he advised that the development standards have some flexibility. Commissioner Burger added she did not wish to see any increase in the site coverage (50% of net site area) or in the allowable floor area (20% of net site area); the standards proposed by Staff were acceptable. Commissioner Harris agreed. Commissioner Moran requested information on the differences between modifying a Use Permit and a Variance request; it was her understanding the Use Permit process was more desirable. The City Attorney reviewed the differences and discussed the making of Variance Findings; he added that the decision of the Commission on this matter should be clearly spelled out in the Ordinance. Commissioner Burger favored the Use Permit process as being more workable in practice. Commissioner.Harris requested an inventory of institutions which could be affected by similar development standards. The City Attorney suggested Staff be directed to return with amended language per this discussion. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-88-008 TO JULY 26, 1989. Passed 4-0. 8. 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 from June 28, 1989. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1989; Staff recom- mended approval per a revised Model Resolution which added the following Conditions: 5. The Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the Planning Director for approval prior to zoning clearance. Landscaping shall be installed by the final building inspection. The Appli- cant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City. 6. A qualified engineer shall certify with the City Engineer, that surface and subsurface run-off will not increase due to this addition. All down spouts shall be directed to the existing street storm system. ' The Public Hearing was opened at 9:08 P.M. Mr. Richard Nolle, Applicant, reviewed the Application and cited previous testimony on this Item; issues raised were addressed by modifications to the roof line and the introduction of landscaping. Plans were submitted showing the site without modification, the Applicant's proposal (requiring a Variance) and the addition without a Variance; the Applicant contended that the latter proposal was a much less desirable project. The use of a Variance both improved the current situation and granted the improvement the Applicant desired. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. William Brooks, Attorney for the Artusies, commented as follows: - Cited the Variance Findings that would have to be made to grant the Applicant's request - Noted that the base of the existing garage was only 9.7 ~. from the street (the curb line was not the property line); he noted that the limited driveway would not accommodate a parked car - This was a non-conforming structure and perhaps, a non-conforming use - Approving the Applicant's proposal for the garage and curb cut would grant a special privilege and place private parking within the public right-of-way - In addition, this was a difficult driveway to access since it was a blind turn - Furthermore, a Finding was required that a Variance was necessary for the full enjoyment of the property; was the addition as proposed by the Applicant necessary? Was there an alternative7 - Questioned whether the landscaping proposed along the north side of the house would mitigate or intensive the existing problem - Contended that the Applicant's proposal would be an intensification of use on the site Mr. Max Artusie, 19945 Herriman Ave., Saratoga, noted that the expansion increased the mass of the Applicant's home; its elevated position magnified the impacts and appeared to loom over them, reducing the openness between the homes and impacting privacy which could not be mitigated by the use of vegetation. In addition, they had a severe drainage problem which would be increased by wateringShe proposed landscaping; he had reservations regarding the proposed solutions. Mr. Stephen Clark, Architect, noted their attempts to reach a compromise with the above speaker. The option available was to obtain a Variance and build an addition in keeping with the surround- ing area, with improvements to the view by varying the roof line and installing landscaping; how- ever, if a Variance were not granted, the Applicant would modify and add to their home without a Variance, despite the fact that such would result in a worse condition. He urged the granting of a Variance in the best interest of his client as ~vell as the adjoining neighbors. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:32 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger suggested an alternative location for the driveway, currently proposed for the north side of the garage (facing the Artusies); Mr. Clark responded that they had no objection. Commissioner Harris could not make the Variance Findings; however, she had not been influenced by the arguments of the Artusies or their Attorney. She had long been concerned about this lot and the proximity of the garage to Herriman Ave.; the Applicant's proposal would make matters worse. Commissioner Burger agreed the house was bulky but questioned whether the addition proposed would make matters worse; the Applicant's proposal may increase the neighbor's privacy due to the elimination of two windows; the view of a third window would be blocked by the addition. Landscaping against the solid wall would further mitigate the concerns raised; however, the issue of drainage had yet to be resolved. Commissioner Moran had no objection to the addition proposed for the front of the home; how- ever, the two-car garage could be more attractively designed. Vice Chairperson Tucker agreed with Commissioner Harris' comments. The Applicant wished the Commission to vote on this Item, after options were explained to them. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger wished to make clear that a denial of the Variance and Design Review requests may result in a totally conforming alternative that resulted in even greater privacy impacts. HARRIS/MORAN MOVED TO DENY V-89-006. Passed 3-1, Commissioner Burger dissenting. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-89-017. Passed 2-1-1, Commissioner Burger dissenting, Commissioner Moran abstaining. Break: 9:45 - 10:00 P.M. 9. DR-89-040 Van Den Berg, 14291 Paul Ave., request for design review and variance ap- V-89-012 proval to construct a 1,582 sq. ft. first and'second floor addition to an existing one-story home for a total of 2,874 sq. ft.; the variance is to reduce the required front setback from 25 ft. to 22 ft. and the required side yard setback from 6 ft. to 5 ft. 6 in. in th R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Graft presented Report to the Planning Commission; in Recommendation an incomplete sentence should read, "The front elevation has three dormer windows projecting from the roof..." The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M. Ms. Katie Kennedy, Applicant, commented on the Application as follows: The existing parking configuration was tandem parking They preferred not to have tandem parking, but due to the small size of the lot, the type of structure they wished to build and, in order to decrease the perception of bulk from the street, no other configuration was possible Precedence had been set for tandem parking on Paul Ave. due to the narrow lots in the area With respect to the Variance requested, the front wall of the house was not sufficiently strong to hold a second story, and would have to be replaced in any case They decided to increase the front of the house, since the rear area had already been remodelled Mr. Marc Van den Berg, Applicant, added that a second precedent had been set on Paul Ave. in that single car garages were allowed. He. noted that the second. story had been set back from the first story element to reduce its impact; they were amenable to suggestions regarding the second story windows of the master bedroom in an effort to prevent privacy impacts to the neighbors. Mr. Joseph Kovacs, Neighbor, was favorable to this Application which was compatible with the area; shifting the house 3 ft. to the rear would destroy the remodelled portion of the house. Ms. Maria Kovacs, Neighbor, was favorable to this Application and asked that it be approved. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:22 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger commented as follows on the issues surrounding this Application: Variance for encroaching into the front setback area: - Had no difficulty making a Finding to allow encroachment into the front setback This was a non-conforming lot with a limited rear yard, which had Ordinance sized Oak trees In addition, the rear of the home was the improved portion PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger continued her comments as follows: Perception of bulk: Noted that a fine distinction existed between encouraging neighborhood improvement and hav- ing homes that were a bit larger on these small sites Privacy: Suggested consideration of opaque or translucent windows in the bathroom area Suggested further consideration of the windows in the master bedroom which may have more impact than other second story windows Parking Consideration had been given to requiring a detached two-car garage; however, such would result in the loss of the rear yard as usable space Parking created a difficult situation, especially when considering these small lots Suggested that one covered parking space was better than having a carport; a two-car garage may make the situation worse Commissioner Harris had reservations regarding the Variance requested for the parking and en- croachment into the front yard setback; she did not see how the Applicant would be deprived of the full use of their property. She felt the house could be improved without Variances; Planner Graft confirmed that the front wall would have to be removed whether the house was extended out or whether the foundation was reconstructed to support the second story element. Commissioner Harris felt this was an attractive home; she noted the large size of the adjacent home and was very concerned the City would end up with a row of similar sized structures on Paul Ave. Commissioner Burger suggested consideration of a Study Session on this Application. Commissioner Moran agreed with Staff Recommendation to Continue the Item. Vice Chairperson Tucker had concerns regarding parking; this was a family neighl;orhood with children playing in the area. Adequate on-site parking would prevent street parking. In addition, she had difficulty making a Finding for the encroachment into the front yard, but had no objection to the encroachment into the side yard areas. The house was a lovely design; how this proposed addition would work with the lot ~vould have to be determined; a Study Session was in order. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-040 AND V-89-012 TO JULY 26, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD JULY 18, 1989. Passed 4-0. 10. Sd-89-008 Romanchak, 15201 Quito Rd., request for tentative map approval to create a two-lot subdivision; each parcel to equal 40,000 sq. ft. net site area in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Vice Chairperson Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:38 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, stated that due to time constraints, he would not present slides; their only concern was the 22 ft. height limitation on Parcel A. He asked that such be removed, allowing design review to determine the height; Parcel A ~vas lower in elevation than Parcel B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Vincent Philbrick, 15200 Oriole Way, Saratoga, asked that all existing structures be removed when the lot split was finalized; in addition, he asked that the rear property line for Parcel B be designated as the side abutting his property and be required to have a '50 ft.rear setback. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:45 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger agreed Parcel A was lower in elevation than Parcel B; however such was not a reason to increase the height allowed for a structure on Parcel A. This was an older neigh- borhood with low, ranch style homes. Commissioner Harris concurred the 22 ft. height limitation for Parcel A should be retained. Vice Chairperson Tucker agreed and favored the removal of all structures as requested above. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE SD-89-008 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, DESIGNATING THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF PARCEL B AS THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. Passed 4-0. 11. DR-88-039 Ohren, 13841 River Ranch Circle, request for design review and variance V-89-018 approvals for a two-story addition to an existing one-story single family home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total floor area proposed is 4, 222 sq. ft. which exceeds the allowable floor area for the lot. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:53 P.M. Mr. Doug Stone, Project Designer, commented as follows: - Confirmed that a two-story addition was proposed for a one-story neighborhood - Due to the lot size and building envelope, a second story was required in order to make any sig- nificant improvement to the home; every effort was made to retain a one-story appearance - A Variance was required for encroachment into the side yard setback on the Hemman side of the lot; however, the new garage would not be any closer to Herriman Ave. than the existing one - The open space area under a license agreement with the School District should be calculated in the allowable floor area; such would allow the Applicant to have a 4,050 sq. ft. home - Applicants requested conditional approval with the understanding that the second story area over the garage would be eliminated; this area was basically included as storage space - Did not see from the Elevation Plan how the garage could be construed as two-story structure - Noted the changes and upgrading being done in this neighborhood; examples were cited - Asked that the 26 ft. height limit be maintained for this second story addition Mr..Richard Ohren, Applicant, noted efforts to enhance their property; he added that they had no neighbors to the rear of their site. In addition, they had located windows of the new addition to the rear to prevent privacy impacts and had attempted to have a low profile for the front of their home. Photographs of the site and adjacent property were presented. The agreement with the Saratoga- Los Gatos Union School District was reviewed; this agreement allowed a 4,050 sq. ft. structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Robert Torchina, 13795 Saratoga Vista Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: His two-story home, referred to by the Architect, was approximately 2,700 sq. ft. on a 13,000 sq. ft. lot; this was significantly different that the Applicant's proposal The proposed design and location of the addition would create a perception of bulk out of keep- ing with the existing neighborhood In addition, significant view impacts would be experienced from Saratoga Vista Ave.; these residents often used their front (west) yards Cited Design Review Guidelines and contended this addition would unreasonably interfere with views and privacy, did not minimize the perception of bulk and, was incompatible in bulk and height with surrounding structures Furthermore, he was very concerned with the setting of precedence Questioned how the City could even consider the agreement with the School 'District in consider- ing the allowable floor area; the 30 day termination clause of the agreement was cited Cited and reviewed the Findings that must be made to grant a Variance Mr. Dan Lopez, 13581 Saratoga Vista Ave., .Saratoga, stated he represented four Homeowners Associations; they contended this proposal would overbuild the lot. In addition, they had concerns regarding the license agreement with the School District, which could be revoked with a 30 day notice. Finally, they protested the architectural design which not in keeping with the area and would stand out. Mr. Ohren responded that the 3,200 sq. ft. area of the licence agreement with the School District was behind a sound wall and would never be used for anything; area was to grant access to the Water District. He was unable to purchase this property due to this easement of the Water District. Mr. Lopez refuted the above statement. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:14 EM. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Harris did not see that the open space area under the licence agreement benefited the.subject property in any way; in addition, the proposed design was incompatible with the area. Due to the French Provincial design chosen, there was no way the structure could be scaled down. Commissioner Burger agreed. While the design was lovely, this elevated corner lot was not the appropriate place; a two-story home would be imposing on a corner lot. Vice Chairperson Tucker concurred with other Commissioners' comments and had reservations regarding the reliability of a license agreement which could be terminated with a 30 day notice. Consensus reached that a Study Session would not be profitable since a redesign was required. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-88-039, V-89-018, TO BE PRESENTED JULY 26TH. Passed 4-0. 12. DR-89-075 BP America, 14395 Big Basin Way, request for modification to an ap- proved design review application to replace existing signs and repaint a gas station in the C-C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 12, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:20 P.M. Mr. Larry Isso, Architect/Consultants for BP America, commented aS follows: - Reviewed the color scheme which they felt was a significant improvement over previous colors; the green would be limited to the wooden fascia area, just below the roof tiles - Clarified that they did not intend to paint the roof tiles - Noted that the proposed colors already being were used in the Village area and called attention to a color board presented for review - People had to be able to identify this station; advertising was of the utmost importance - Added that their signage was significantly reduced from that of the previous occupant - Applicants were willing to enhance the appearance of the building with landscaping HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:30 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger felt the use ox~ the identifying green color on six pumps and in the signage would be sufficient; the building did not require green trim. Commissioner Harris was unfavorable to the green color which would clash with the red roof tiles. Vice Chairperson Tucker agreed and noted the prominence of this site as one entered the Village; she asked that the Village Task Force Design Guidelines be adhered to in this matter. Commissioner Moran agreed that the Company had an interest in identifiable colors; however, the fascia referred to was about 12 inches wide, 9 inches as stated. She suggested consideration of a compromise and advised the Applicant this was an important location in the City of Saratoga. Planning Director Emslie noted this was a request for a modification of an approved design review application; if the Commission wished to deny this request, Staff should be directed to issue the necessary permits to allow the Applicant to replace the existing signage with their own signs. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY DR-89-075 AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO ISSUE THE PERMITS ALLOWING THE EXISTING SIGNAGE TO BE REPLACED. Passed 4-0. 13. DR-89-077 Neale, 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for design review approval UP-89-019 to remodel an existing duplex apartment building, and use permit approval V-89-009 to construct a three-car garage within a required rear yard in the R-M-3,000 zoning district. Variance approval is necessary to allow this structure to exceed 8 ft. in height at the location. Variance approval is also requested to allow an additional three-car carport enclosure instead of a garage enclosure required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission; he noted a letter received from five adjacent residents Re: Proposed Alteration to .Property at 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. The residents did not wish to have a carport in the middle of the property. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:43 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 JULY 12, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. C.W. Neale, Applicant, reviewed the Application; he noted that tenants were elderly residents' who rarely used their automobiles any more. He was amenable to having carports or not; he simply wished this project to go forward. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:48 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger noted that her only concern was that the carports proposed for the existing duplex would be constructed under the Oak trees; she suggested consideration of an alternative location for these carports. Fewer impacts to the site would result from eliminating the requirement for these three carports. Vice Chairperson Tucker suggested consideration of tandem parking with covered spaces. Commissioner Harris noted that the rear of the site would be an appropriate location for such; she was concerned about the use of carports for uncovered storage which was unsightly. Commissioner Burger suggested UP-89-019 and V-89-009 be Continued to allow Staff and the Applicant to review the alternatives for parking. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-077 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 3-0-1, Commissioner Moran abstaining. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE UP-89-019, V-89-009 TO AUGUST 9, 1989. Passed 4-0. (NOTE: UP-89-019 and V-89-009 were scheduled li3r the July 26, 1989, Planning Commission Hearing; Applicants and interested parties were notified of this change.) 14. V-89-015 Thompson, 20470 Williams Ave., request for a variance to allow an 865 +/- sq. ft. single story residence to an existing 1,430 sq. ft. single story resi- dence which has a one-car garage in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The variance request also involves a reduction of the western side yard setback. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 12, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:59 P.M. Mr. Lawrence Thompson, Applicant, reviewed the Application and noted that neighbors approved this request. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:01 A.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger commented that a hardship would result if the garage ~vere to be located in the rear yard since a portion of the existing home would have to be removed, nor could a garage be placed in the front yard without encroachment into the setback. Granting a Variance was in order. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-015 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 JULY 12, 1989 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. · COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report Planning Director Emslie reported on the recent City Council Meeting of July 5, 1989. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: None. Oral by Commission: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:04' A.M. Carol A. Probst-Caughey/ ~