HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: July 26, 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Roll Call: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan, Moran
Pledge of Allegiance:
Approval of Minutes: Minutes of June 28, 1989, and July 12, 1989
Commissioner Harris asked that in the Minutes of June 28, 1989, Page 5, Ms. Lackner's comment
be amended to refer to traffic volumes of 2,000 per day.
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 1989, AS AMEND-
ED. Passed 5-0-2, Commissioners Burger and Moran abstaining.
Commissioner Harris asked that the Minutes of July 12th, DR-88-070, Planning Director Emslie's
comment be amended to refer to the "Open Space Easement". Her comment amended to read,
"...she would approve the request since her concern had been satisfied. In AZO-88-008, her
comment amended to read, "...requested an inventory of institutions..."
Commissioner Burger asked that DR-89-017, V-89-006, her comment refer to the driveway. In
addition, she wished a sentence added to read, "Commissioner Burger wished to make it clear that
denial of the Variance and Design Review requests may result in a totally conforming alternative
that resulted in even greater privacy impacts." She asked that in DR-88-039, V-89-018, her
comment be amended to read "...a two-story home would be imposing on a corner lot."
Commissioner Harris asked in DR-89-077, UP-89-019, V-89-009, Planner Graff's comment in-
clude wording, "The residents did not wish to have the carport built in the middle of the property."
The City Attorney asked that his comment in AZO-88-008 be amended to read, "The proposed
zoning regulations would not allow three stories in the R-1 district.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 12, 1989, AS AMEND-
ED. Passed 4-0-3, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Kolstad and Tappan abstaining.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Col. E.T. Barco, Camino Barco, presented a copy of the San Jose Mercury News article entitled
"San Jose officials tell Pink Panther to scat" and noted Saratoga did not wish similar displays.
REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA:
Pursuant to Government Cod~ 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on July
21, 1989.
"-.-,: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
' JULY 26, 1989
Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Graft presented Revised Resolutions for DR-89-
028, adding a Condition 8, and a Revised Resolution for DR-89-050, adding a Condition.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. DR-89-040 Van Den Berg - 14291 Paul Ave., request for design review and variance
V-89-012 approval to construct a 1,582 sq. ft. first and second floor addition to an
existing one-story home for a total of 2,872 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 the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter
15 of the City Code. Contihued to August 9, 1989
2. DR-89-024 Chen, 12601 Star Ridge Ct., request for design review approval for a two-
story addition to an existing two-story home, with a total floor area of 5,707
sq. ft. in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to August 9, 1989
3. DR-88-042 Ohren, 13841 River Ranch Circle, Planning Commission resolutions deny
V-89-018 ing without prejudice a request for design review and variance approvals for
a two-story addition to an existing one-story single family home in the R-I-
10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total floor area
proposed is 4,222 sq. ft. ~vhich exceeds the allowable floor area for the lot.
Public Hearing closed July 12, 1989.
4. DR-89-017 Nolle, 19935 Herriman Ave., Planning Commission resolution denying
V-89-062 without prejudice a request for design review and variance approvals 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. Public
Hearing closed July 12, 1989.
5. DR-88-062 Luthra, 14151 Teerlink Way, request for design review approval to con-
struct a new 5,372 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
6. SD-89-010 Miner, 14030 Alta Vista Ave., request for building site approval for two-
lots of record in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City
Code. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project.
7. DR-89-054 Bean, 14870 Three Oaks Ct., request for design review approval to
construct a one-story, 6,1114 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-i-
40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
8. SDR-1591.2 Gantayat, 18642 Montewood Dr., request for approval of an extension of
time to record a final map. The tentative parcel map granted building site ap-
proval in the R-i-40,000 zone district perm Chapter 14 of the City Code.
9. DR-89-028 Hardie, 13393 Souza Lane, request for design review approval to convert a
2,582 +/- sq. ft. single story residence into a 3,014 +/- sq. ft. two-story
residence in the R-l-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3
JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
10. DR-89-050 Melehan, 20370 Wolcot Way, request for design review approval to convert
a 2,806 sq. ft. single story residence into a 3,442 sq. ft. two-story resi-
dence in the R-1-12,500 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
11. 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 from July 12, 1989.
Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4.
A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
AND 11. Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Tappan abstaining.
4. DR-89-017 Nolle, 19935 Herriman Ave., Planning Commission resolution denying
V-89-062 without prejudice a request for design review and variance approvals 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. Public
Hearing closed July 1.2, 1989.
Commissioner Harris stated she had a concern regarding one of the Findings for denial; she felt the
home would appear bulky from Herriman Ave. Consensus reached that the Finding would read,
"The project will not minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neigh-
borhood in that the home will appear t~ teem c:'er tke a~jace:'.t Fr~Fert.i,' tc t.".e ncrt.h. too bulky from
Herriman Ave. Reducing the required setback further adds to the bulk of the project."
Commissioner Moran suggested the third Finding be reconsidered; Commissioner Harris agreed,
noting that this was not discussed and suggested the item be deleted. Consensus reached to delete
the third Finding listed in the Model Resolution.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:47 P.M. There were no speakers2
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:47 P.M. Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Burger cited her dissenting vote; she would be voting against this Motion as well.
HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO APOPT RESOLUTION NO. DR-89-017, DENYING THE
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION WITH AMENDED FINDINGS. Passed 5-1-1, Commis-
sioner Burger dissenting, Commissioner Tappan abstaining.
8. SDR-1591.2 Gantayat, 18642 Montewood Dr., request for approval of an extension of
time to record a final map. The tentative parcel map granted building site ap-
proval in the R-i-40,000 zone district perm Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The individual requesting removal of this Item was not present; Item was held for later hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
12. 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 reg-
ulations of the underlying zoning district. Continued from July 12, 1989.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum Re: C-S Overlay Follow-Up.
The City Attorney stated that a conversation with Commissioner Moran raised the following issues:
Section 15-22.040, Conditional Uses~ (g): Staff intended this item to specifically exclude the
rental of recreational facilities to outside groups; they had the Odd Fello~vs in mind. Staff's in-
terpretation of out of town visitors, connected with the organization, would be that they consti-
tuted owners and came under the auspices of the owner. If the Commission felt a clarification
were needed, such could be added to the text.
Section 15-22.080 Additional findings: the question was raised whether all the finding were
required and the answer was yes. Introduction was amended to read in part, "...the Planning
Commission shall also make all of the findings..."
With respect to the expansion of existing uses, the assumption was made that Staff would take
the opportunity to place a C-S Overlay designation on the property within provisions of the
article; however, existing properties would not automatically be rezoned.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M.
Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, commented that the Odd Fellows were pleased
to see revisions to the Draft Ordinance, in particular, that three stories would be allowed within the
35 ft. height limitation, that the word "Termination" had been eliminated and that the Planning
Commission had the authority to modify the development standards at the permit stage.
However, the Odd Fellows had concerns with respect to Section 3: Paragraph (c) of Section 15-
12.100 which was amended to read as follows, "No structure shall exceed two stories".
The City Attorney responded that 'with respect to the individual district regulations, the Article
dealing with each district stated that "no structure shall exceed two stories"; The C-S Article had a
sentence that preceded the listing of development standards which stated that "these standards shall
superseded the district regulations". The intent was that in the absence of the C-S zoning overlay,
the district regulations prevailed, namely, "no structure more than two stories"; the C-S Overlay
allowed three stories, if the 35 ft. height limitation were not exceeded.
Ms. Cocker cited Section 15-22.080 Additional Findings and requested information on the intent
of (d) which had been added; the new text appeared to be very similar to subsections (a) and (c).
The City Attorney responded that there was a request from the Commission to add language on the
intensification of use; subsection (d) was the result of this request He did not entirely disagree
with the observation that there was some duplication between sub~'ections (a) and (d); however,
one addressed compatibility and the other addressed the intensification of use.
Ms. Cocker cited Section 15-22.040 Conditional Uses (g) and felt that the added text limited the
use of the picnic grounds; she suggested a reference to "guest of the owners" be added to the text.
The City Attorney stated this reference was interpreted to mean that when an owner (Odd Fellows)
conducted the event, this was a use by the owner.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Tappan noted in another Section of the Ordinance the expression "affiliated with the
owner in some way" had been used; he suggested consideration of this phrase in the text cited.
Chairperson Siegfried agreed that some language may need to be added to clarify this Section.
Commissioner Moran raised a question that when the C-S Overlay was applied on a broader basis,
for example, to religious institutions throughout the City, would there be confusion?
Ms. Cocker cited the C-S Overlay, Development Standards, Total Parking Required which showed
that of 340 minimum spaces required, the Odd Fellows provided only 126 on-site parking spaces;
this requirement was too stringent for the type of use (elderly care) considered in this instance.
Chairperson Siegfried agreed the standard could be addressed and modified at the Use Permit stage.
Col. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, presented a prepared statement in which he commended Staff for
the proposed Ordinance Amendment; however, he asked that a three story height be prohibited and
requested a temporary status for the Ordinance in order to determine any possible ramifications.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M. Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Burger was not in favor of a temporary. Ordinance; she noted the time and effort
required to develop the current proposal.
Commissioner Tappan added that the community would provide feedback on the Amendment.
Commissioner Tucker favored a two-story limitation; upon review of the inventory of institutions,
she had concerns about allowing three stories, which would be very impactful in residential areas.
Commissioner Kolstad stated that while he had concerns about allowing three stories in' the C-S
Overlay districts, he had no objection to allowing such on the Odd Fellows' property.
Chairperson Siegfried commented that the Odd Fellows' original proposal had the unique citeurn:
stance of locating a three-story building on the down slope, which would appear as two-stories.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the current proposal did not specify a down slope was required.
In response to Commissioner Burger's question, the City Attorney responded this version of the
Amendment replaced language for Conceptual Plan originally presented, which allowed three
stories on institutional sites with a 10% slope, with the structure being on the downhill slope.
Commissioner i3urger reiterated her desire for a restriction to two story height for the benefit of the
community at large; the Commission had the power to modify the Ordinance with Findings.
Commissioner Harris noted additional language ~vas required in Section 15-22.040 Conditional
Uses (g) with a reference to "guest of the owners"; Item to be presented on Consent Calendar.
· Ms. Cocker noted that the issue of three stories had been addressed earlier; such was crucial to this
health care facility for the elderly. While she understood this item could be modified at a later date,
the Ordinance Amendment as presently drafted, was sufficiently limited by the requirement that "no
three story structure shall be located with 100 ft. of the site property line".
.1, '~: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6
': JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairperson Siegfried responded that the Commission was more comfortable saying that because
of the uniqueness of the Odd Fellows' site, the two-story limitation could be modified, rather than
allowing three stories in the C-S Overlay which extended throughout the City.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-88-008 TO AUGUST 9, 1989. Passed 7-0.
The Commissioner returned to Item 8.
8. SDR-1591.2 Gantayat, 18642 Montewood Dr., request for approval of an extension of
time to record a final map. The tentative parcel map granted building site ap-
proval in the R-1-40,000 zone district perm Chapter 14 of the City Code.
The individual requesting removal of this Item was not present.
Chairperson Siegfried noted for the record that requests for extensions were usually granted as a
ministerial act..
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. There were no speakers.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Passed 7-0.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE SDR-1591.2 PER THE 'MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 7-0.
13. UP-89-009 Neale, 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for use permit approval to
V-89-019 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 its proposed 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. Continued from
July 12, 1989.
Planner Graft presented the Memorandum of July 26, 1989; he discussed Staff Report Alternatives
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:28 P.M.
Mr. C. W. Nea!e, Applicant, stated that the reason for carports was to facilitate movement by indi-
- viduals in wheelchairs; the 12 ft. distance between the carport and the apartments allowed light into
the units.
TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:32 P.M. Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Burger noted that the Commission's concern about the carports centered around the
resident's needs, as well as preservation of the sizable Oak trees on-site.
Commissioner Harris stated that her concern regarding the outdoor storage of items had been
addressed by the additional storage space that would be provided; elimination of the carport
structure exposed both residents and their cars to inclement weather.
Chairperson Siegfried thought the carports would not be impactful. ·
Commissioner Burger added that the site was not particularly visible to off-site neighbors.
~ '-- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
· :' JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE UP-89-009 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION
WITH AN ADDED CONDITION ALLOWING INCREASED STORAGE SPACE. Passed 6-0-1,
Commissioner Tappan abstaining.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-019 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Tappan abstaining.
14. DR-89-041 Dividend Development, 13150 Saratoga Ave., request for consideration of a
SD-89-006 final development plan, vesting tentative subdivision map to create a mixed-
use housing project consisting of 75 townhomes and a senior housing facil-
ity. The senior housing facility would consist of 23 patio homes, 185
condominium units, a 32 bed personal care facility and a 45 bed skilled
nursing facility. This site is zoned multiple use planned development dis-
trict. An Environmental Impact Report has been certified for this project.
Continued from June 14, 1989.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum and discussed Staff Report Issues.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:43 P.M.
Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development, cited his letter of July 18, 1989, and added that he felt it
was possible for the Planning Commission to grant approval of the Final Development Plan. He
reviewed their negotiations with Seagram's, the property owner, and reiterated that no extension of
their deadline to sell the site would be granted to Dividend Development.
In response to Commissioners' question, he reviewed efforts to negotiate an extension, which had
been unsuccessful, and clarified their proposal to place funds in an escrow account.
Mr. Ronald Cook, Brockton Ln., Saratoga, supported the Applicant's request; he noted efforts to
identify an operator for the Senior Care Facility and felt that one could be found, but not in the next
twenty-four hours. He confirmed the Applicant's testimony regarding negotiation with Seagram's.
He urged that the City approve the project under consideration.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:58 P.M. Passed 7-0.
Chairperson Siegfried stated he had met with Mr. Oliver at the Applicant's request, to discuss his
own concern that once the townhouse portion of the development were built, completion of the
Senior Care Facility could be in jeopardy. These were individual parcels which could be sold
separately; in addition, the financial incentives to develop the Senior Care Facility could diminish
or disappear. This was the reason Dividend Development proposed to establish an escrow account.
However, he continued to have grave concerns and added that the City required assurances that
this parcel designated for senior care would be developed with a compatible use.
Commissioner Burger raised the question that if the market study concluded that a Senior Life Care
Facility on-site was infeasible, for whatever reason, the City could be in a situation that Dividend
Development was no longer a participant; this was of great concern since this developer had been
up-front with the City and had established a credible and knowledgeable relationship.
: , PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8
· " JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairperson Siegfried agreed the City was in a very difficult position.
Commissioner Tappan asked if the market study concluded that a Senior Life Care Facility were in-
feasible, was there a way to reserve this parcel for some form of senior services.
Commissioner Tucker agreed the developer had been up-front with the City; however, she had
concerns whether this proposal was feasible for the site and if not, what would be workable7
Chairperson Siegfried asked Staff to work with Mr. Oliver to reach a agreement that provided
some assurance that a compatible use would be developed on this site.
Commissioner Burger stated she shared the concerns raised; however, she felt the required assur-
ances could be obtained in order to have the site developed to the City's satisfaction, without risk-
ing the entire development itself.
Commissioner Tappan responded that he felt the Applicant had acted in good faith and noted the
time constraints the project was under; he did not share the concerns raised.
Commissioner Kolstad stated he had concerns. Approving the project ensured that the City would
have a developer who was easy to work with; however, making sure the property was properly
developed was worth some additional difficulty. The townhouses had been considered in order to
obtain the senior care facility.
Commissioner Harris concurred and noted Mr. Oliver's statement that the senior portion of the
project as presently designed, could be modified per the Ordinance; it was her understanding that
the reason the City allowed the townhouse project was in order to obtain the senior care facility.
Commissioner Tappan stated he was satisfied with the Staff Report Recommendation and favored
granting approval of the Final Development Plan as requested by the Applicant.
Mr. Oliver, being recognized by the Chair, cited the Minutes of the City Council, August 6, 1986,
wherein a discussion occurred whether to make the senior citizen complex a mandated use; two
Councilmembers were reluctant to do so. He noted the variety of senior-related uses that could be
built (Exhibit "A") and was confident that one of these uses could be built on-site.
Commissioner Harris commented that very early in the project, considerations for a full-~edged
project such as the Senior Life-Care Concept were brought forth.
In response to Commissioner Harris' question on Exhibit "A" 4., the City Attorney confirmed an
age restriction could be imposed; he reviewed the Ordinance restrictions imposed on this project.
Chairperson Siegfried stated that a majority of the Commission was favorable to directing Staff to
work with the Applicant to develop the necessary assurances; Item to be Continued.
TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-04 AND SD-89-006 TO AUGUST 9,
1989. Passed 7-0.
Break: 9:21 - 9:27 P.M.
-- ": PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9
' JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
15. DR-88-095 Hur, 20052 Sunset Ave., request for design review and building approval
SD-88-019 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 from
June 28, 1989.
Commissioner Tucker reported. on the land use visit.
Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 26, 1989;
he called attention to the letter/report of Alan and Margaret Giberson dated July 24, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:42 P.M.
A Representative of Nowack & Assoc., Civil Engineers, reviewed the site topography; the.plan
submitted would provide the best siting for the house, placing it on a 20% slope and the best views
for the occupants; in addition, locating the house as proposed incorporated a fairly large setback.
Other portions of the site were constrained by two swales. He reviewed the proposed road and the
construction of such. He understood there were concerns surrounding the grading for the road;
however, the proposed siting of the house was the only possible location.
Mr. Henry Hur, Applicant, Designer, reviewed the designs previously submitted; they were will-
ing to redesign the house if required.
Ms. Margaret Giberson reviewed her letter/report cited above; a petition was presented.
Mr. Tom Carson, .15542 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated he was concerned regarding the potential
impact of the proposed house; such would be very visible and would dominate the canyon.
Mr. John Herman, Gen Una Dr., Saratoga, did not wish to deny the property owner the right to
build a house on the subject site; however, the area adjacent to Sunset Drive. was the appropriate
location for the house. The current proposal would place the house in the middle of a gorge, on a
hillside, with a road traversing the site; such would be disruptive and in opposition to City policy.
Ms. Lou Kirby, Sunset Dr., Saratoga, noted the steep drop to Sunset Dr.; in addition, a bridge
would probably be required, which would be expensive. She was concerned that if access were
from Sunset Dr., traffic and disorderly conduct would result from non-residents using the road;
access for the proposed home should be taken from Peach Hill Rd.
Ms. Roebelle Halava, 20701 Sevilla Ln., Saratoga, stated that homes designed by Mr. Hur con-
formed beautifully with the existing neighborhood; after conversing with residents of the immedi-
ate area, she felt that some had signed the petition without fully understanding it.
Ms. Joan Bowls, 15571 Peachhill Rd., Saratoga, agreed with requests to preserve the beauty of
the canyon and respecting the land; she favored additional work on the design presented.
Ms. Kirby added that she had never before raised concerns on an application.
Mr. Alan Giberson stated that signers of the petition were given copies of his letter/report.
BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:07 P.M. Passed 7-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10
JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger noted the concerns raised by the Giberson letter/report which had not been
reviewed by the Commission. She was especially concerned regarding the grading proposed, the
length and terrain covered by the road and siting of the house; while she recognized there were not
many alternatives, the building site chosen was a prominent one.
Commissioner Harris concurred and noted the Commission's sensitivity 'to canyon and creek areas;
in addition, development was usually placed near established roads. Placement of the structure in
the middle of the canyon did not make sense.
Chairperson Siegfried agreed with the concerns raised; in addition, the echo effect that occurred in
the hillside areas was a sensitive issue. A Study Session was in order.
Commissioner Harris noted that the lot was already planned for access off of Sunset Dr.
TUCKERFFAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-095 AND SD-88-019 TO AUGUST 23,
1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 15, 1989. Passed 7-0.
16. V-89-016 Noller, 15243 .Montalvo Heights Ct., request for variance approval to ex-
ceed the allowable floor area to construct an 897 sq. ft. pool side cabana in
the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. the existing
home currently exceeds the maximum allowed floor area by 980 sq. ft.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use report.
Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated July 26, '1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:17 RM.
Mr. Noller, Applicant, read into the record a written statement titled "Noller's Variance Proposal";
renderings of the pool side cabana were presented.
Property Owner to the south had seen the plans and did not think his privacy would be impacted.
Ms. Patricia Mozelene, 15223 Montalvo Heights, Saratoga, concurred with the above comment.
Ms. Judy Butler, Adjacent Property Owner, agreed with the other speakers; she noted the stringent
rules that governed development in the area and urged the Commission's support of this Item..
Mr. Brawner, 14850 Montalvo Rd., Saratoga, agreed the property was' unique; in addition, the
design of the pool he was proposing would be outstanding and would not impact other's privacy.
HARRISFFAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:30 P.M. Passed 7-0.
In response to Commissioner Harris' questions, Planning Director Emslie stated that the pool side
cabana could not be classified as a basement; in addition, the open space to the rear of the subject
property was private open space and could be developed at some time in the future.
Commissioner Burger thought the design presented was sensitive and did not violate the character
of the neighborhood, which had a number of large homes with accessory structures. The pool side
cabana would be buried into the hillside and would not be visible from adjacent properties.
, ."-..-- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11
· : JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger continued, stating that this project would not set a precedent in the neighbor-
hood, although precedent would be set in other areas of the City. There was validity to the argu-
ment that bathroom, changing and refreshment facilities were not convenient to the pool side area.
Commissioner Tappan noted the sensitivity of the design in relationship to the site. However,
Findings could not be based on the project's attractiveness, the problem of attempting to hide a
retaining wall or the fact that the project would not be visible from adjoining sites.
Commissioner Tucker had difficulty with a Finding that granting a Variance would not be a grant
of special privilege. Chairperson Siegfried commented that this was an area that pre-dated the
existing Ordinance; the uniqueness of the site was that this pool side cabana could be installed
without being visible. There would be no impact to adjacent residents.
Commissioner Burger agreed the cabana was a pretty good size; however, reducing its size would
not make a difference since the structure was not visible as proposed.
Commissioner Moran stated she shared Commissioner Tappan's concerns and agreed with Staff
Report regarding the physical characteristics of the property.
Chairperson Siegfried noted the uniqueness of the situation; because of the topography, the Appli-
cant had the ability to build a cabana which was essentially invisible since it could be set into the
hillside. Such was a unique and unusual situation; he could not recall a similar instance in the City.
Commissioner Tappan cited Special Circumstance and stated that perhaps an argument could be
made that other property owners had cabanas. Chairperson Siegfried responded that Findings
could be made relative to an area, and would not necessarily apply to the City as a whole.
BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-016 MAKING THE FINDINGS:
THAT EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED
IN THAT THE REAR YARD WAS GREATER IN WIDTH THAN DEPTH. IN ORDER TO
INSTALL A USABLE RECREATION AREA, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS
WOULD BE REQUIRED. BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
SITE AND DUE TO THE SENSITIVE DESIGN PROPOSED, THE RECREATION AREA
COULD BE BURIED INTO THE HILLSIDE.
THAT A STRICT OR LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
WOULD RESULT IN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY' OR UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL
HARDSHIP IN THAT IT WAS A RECOGNIZED HARDSHIP IN THE WESTERN WORLD
NOT TO HAVE ACCESS TO A BATHROOM WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ANOTHER'S
PRIVATE ROOM; IN ADDITION, CHANGING ACCOMMODATIONS AND REFRESH-
MENT FACILITIES WERE REQUIRED.
- THAT GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF
SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN THAT GIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SIZE AND QUALITY
OF THE HOMES AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF PROPERTY OWNERS, A POOL SIDE
CABANA WAS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, BUT RATHER A COMMON PRIVILEGE.
Failed 3-4, Commissioners Harris, Tucker, Tappan and Moran dissenting.
HARRISFFAPPAN MOVED TO DENY V-89-016 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-3,
Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger and Kolstad dissenting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12
JULY 26, 1989
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
17. DR-89-046 Naghavi, 20233 Seagull Way, request for design review approval to de-
molish an existing single story residence and construct a 3, 197 sq. ft. two-
story residence in the R-l-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 26, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:50 P.M.
Mr. Naghavi, Applicant, reviewed the project and noted his desire to build his new home; the
proposal conformed with Ordinance and Zoning requirements. 'Neighbors had no objection to his
Application; there were a number of two-story homes on Seagull Way.
TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:58. Passed 7-0.
Commissioner Burger noted that this was a transitional neighborhood; any project would be an
improvement on this corner lot. She suggested the design be more sensitive to the existing homes
in that the second story could be less imposing.
Commissioner Tucker suggested elimination of the turret feature on the home.
Chairperson Siegfried asked that the design of the second story be softened.
Commissioner Tappan stated he was not necessarily opposed to the two-story design; he felt the
turret feature was inconsistent with other residences on Seagull Way. He favored Staff Recom-
mendation to Continue the Item to August 9, 1989, with a Study Session.
Mr. Naghavi responded he had provided information on the turret design; he had been working
with the City Planning Office for many months and such had never been the topic of discussion.
Commissioner Harris felt the square footage requested was a problem; she noted that the second
story element was more than half the amount of the first story element. Such appeared massive.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-046 TO AUGUST 9, 1989, WITH A
STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 2, 1989. Passed 7-0.
18. AZO-89-002 City of Saratoga, an ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Section 15-
06.090 of the City Code defining the term "Basement" and amending
Section 15-45.060 concerning design review.
................................................................ :- ..........................................
The City Attorney presented the Memorandum dated June 6, 1989.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:05. There were no speakers.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:05 P.M. Passed 7-0.
HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO-89-002 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 7-0.
· ~' :~., PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13
"' JULY 26, 1989
BIRECTOR'S 'ITEMS
1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. City Council Report - None.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Written:
1. Memo from M. Nottoli re: Complaint regarding multi-use occupancy zoning violation
Noted and filed.
2. Heritage Preservation Commission, Minutes of June 7,1989, - Noted and filed.
2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - June 6, June 20 and July 18,1989, - Noted and filed.
Oral by Commission: None.
AI)JOURNMENT:
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:10 RM.
Carol A. ~robst-CaughZy~~f