Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: August 9, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tueker, Kolstad Commissioner Tappan present at 7:38 P.M. Commissioner Moran absent Pledge of Allegiance: Approval of Minutes: Minutes of July 26, 1989 Chairperson Siegfried asked that in SDR-1591.2, add to his comment, "...as a ministerial act". The City Attorney asked that in AZO-88-008 his comments be amended to delete the word, elders and add, "owners" and to change two stories to "three stories". BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 1989, AS AMEND- ED. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Tappan absent. ...-. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. " REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on August 4, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: PUBLIC BEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. 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-1-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to August 23, 1989. 2. 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 2,874 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 the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 26, 1989. .-' "' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 3. DR-89-058 Boudreau, 18595 Emanuel Ct., request for design review approval to con- struct a two-story addition to an existing one-story home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total square footage proposed is 3,367 sq. ft. 4. DR-89-057 Meredith, 13690 Calle Tacuba, request for design review approval for a second story addition in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total proposed square footage is 3,027 sq. ft. 5. DR-89-059 Cox, 19965 Herriman Ave., request for design review approval to construct a 1,061 sq. ft. first and second floor addition to an existing one-story home to total 3,001 sq. ft. in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. DR-89-053 Butterfield, 13255 Carrick St., request for design review approval to con- struct a 774 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one-story home to total 2,631 sq. ft. in the R-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. UP-89-008 O'Mara, 14870 Farwell Ct., request for use permit approval for an 800 sq. ft. garage/recreation room in the rear setback area, in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-89-056 McDonald, 20904 Prospect Road, request for design review approval for a 4,000 sq. ft., two-story dwelling in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. 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. Public Hearing closed July 26, 1989. Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 2. A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 AND 9. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Tappan absent. 2. 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 2,874 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 the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 26, 1989. Associate Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 9, 1989. :~ "' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 7:41 P.M. Ms. Margaret Sherrell, 14290 Paul Avenue, Saratoga, stated she opposed second story additions on Paul Ave.; examples were cited of prominent additions that were incompatible with the sur- rounding area. Furthermore, she was concerned about the setting of precedent, safety, increased density, privacy impacts and the loss of property values and parking deficiencies. Ms. Karen Bates agreed with concerns expressed; while she appreciated the efforts to upgrade existing homes, there was a loss of quality and historical value of the Village area. Mr. Tom McKenna, Springer Ave., Saratoga, agreed with the above speakers; he noted that vari- ances were granted on an individual basis, without consideration for the cumulative impacts. He had special concern regarding the minimal 10 ft. sideyard distance between two-story homes. Mr. Gary Platnaugh stated he was in favor of the upgrading that was occurring in the Village area; there were other residents on Paul Ave. who agreed with what was happening. Ms. Katie Kennedy, Applicant, reviewed the home's existing condition when she purchased it; she and her husband appreciated the atmosphere of the Village and wished to continue to live in the area. She noted efforts to meet the neighbor's concerns and reviewed the current proposal. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris stated she had raised concerns about the massiveness of the side elevation at the previous Public Hearing; she agreed that the area was being over-built with two story elements and minimal setbacks; the upgrading desired could be done in a less impactful manner. Commissioner Tucker agreed with some of the concerns raised by the neighbors; however, the Commission would have to review the situation as a whole. With respect to this Application, the Applicant's proposal contained a one story element on the southern side (garage) which softened the effect of the home; in addition, the character of the home was in keeping with the Village. The Application meet all applicable requirements. Commissioner Kolstad thought there were a number of areas in the City that should be considered in a review of second story addtions; in the absence of such consideration, it would be premature to deny this Application. Chairperson Siegfried agreed that the Council should be asked to appoint a commission to study the impacts of additions and second story elements in areas of the City such as the Village. Commissioner Tappan noted that the Applicants had done an outstanding job of designing this project; he would vote in favor of this Item. Oak Place was an excellent example of houses being crammed onto very small lots and was sensitive to the concerns raised about the Paul Ave. area. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-040 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-012 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5ol, Commissioner Harris dissenting. : "" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 5. DR-89-059 Cox, 19965 Herriman Ave., request for design review approval to construct a 1,061 sq. ft. first and second floor addition to an existing one-story home to total 3,001 sq. ft. in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated August 9, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, stated that the logical placement of a second story addition would have been over the bedroom, but this would have created an elevation bulky in appearance; thus a centered second story element was chosen. It was important that the addition appear as if it were originally part of the house; he felt that such had been accomplished. He presented a map showing the number of lots in the area that had second story additions. Mr. Max Artusy, 19945 Herriman Ave., Saratoga, read into the record his letter of August 6th, objecting to the Applicant's proposal and quoted the Zoning Ordinance Section 15-45.080. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:12 P.M. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-059 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. 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 con- dominium units, a 32 bed personal care facility and a 45 bed skilled nursing facility. This site is zoned multiple use planned development district. An Environmental Impact Report has been certified for this project. Continued from July 26, 1989. Plannii:g Director Emslie presented the Memorandum Re: Approval of DR-89-041 and SD-89-006, and discussed Staff Report Analysis. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 P.M. Mr. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development, made himself available for questions; in response to Commissioner Tucker's question he reviewed the status of the market survey. Mr. Andrew Beverett, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, stated that the consensus of SASCC was that although the agreement reached for a monetary set aside was not perfect, it was the best available solution to ensure that some type of senior care facility would be built. Col. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, stated he was was concerned that allowing a three story building would increase noise vibrations significantly. ~" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Col. Barco continued his comments, citing a preliminary economic feasibility study on the parcel adjacent to the subject site which had shown that the purchase price of the land would have to be reduced or the site rezoned in order for a senior citizen complex to be feasible. Finally, he had reservations regarding any abandonment of the requirement that an operator be in place and the fact that the market study had not been completed prior to a decision.. He noted there were many ramifications to the proposed monetary set aside and asked the City Attorney to outline such. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney stated that there were both economic and use permit restrictions in place; the unique aspect of the monetary set aside was that the function of such was to defer receipt of sale proceeds until such time as Phase II was initiated. The deposit was intended to motivate the Applicant to develop Phase II; however, in his opinion, the cost of acquiring the land and whatever carrying charges were incurred in financing the loan was probably even more of an incentive. A use restriction was also in place; essentially, there was no alternative use of the property for a period of time of up to three years. If the market study indicated serious concerns regarding the economic feasibility of the current proposal, the burden would be on the Applicant to present an alternative project that would be exclusively senior housing. The City could take a position that no other use of the property could be made for a period of thirty six months from the time the Planned Development (PD) Permit was issued. Neither he nor the Planning Director had concerns about the intentions of the Applicant, namely, the Applicant would present a proposal for senior housing if the market study showed that the particular project under consideration was not feasible. Commissioner Harris stated that she was greatly concerned that the approval requested would in essence, split this Master Planned site into two projects. The City Attorney responded that the ap- proval would be for the entire project including the senior life care facility as proposed; if the market study showed that such was economically unfeasible, the Applicant would have to apply for a modification of an already approved project. Chairperson Siegfried noted that even without the restrictions imposed on the project, the Applicant could have been in a position of requesting modifications of a previously approved project; if the Commission approved the Master Plan, the burden was on the Applicant to request a modification. The City Attorney added that the differences were that the monetary set aside of $750,000. would not have been in place nor would there have been a Condition of the Use Permit that any modifi- cation desired, be for another senior project. Commissioner Tucker stated she continued to have concerns; while she recognized the competence of the developer, she was not confident a senior care facility was feasible for this site. The Application had been under consideration for two years, and despite the diligent efforts of Divi- dend Development, an administrator for the facility had not been found; it did not appear the project feasibility was very high. At The Vineyards the age limit had to be lowered because there were not enough seniors to occupy the units. This was an important parcel of land and should be developed in a manner that best suited the needs of Saratoga; without a market study in hand, it would be very difficult to approve the Application. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger noted that if an independent living and/or congregate care facility were built, an administrator would not be required. One of her greatest fears was that given the inability of the Applicant to sway the property owner, Seagrams, to grant an extension on the deadline to purchase the property, the City could be faced with the possibility of not having any developer for the land; the City would be in a similar position as they were three years ago. Dividend had acted in good faith; the City would have to look long and hard to find a developer of such a project, as sensitive to the needs of Saratoga as the Dividend Corporation had been. There were safeguards incorpo- rated in the approval; she was comfortable accepting the Resolution as proposed. Commissioner Kolstad commented that the monetary set aside was a minimal amount in comparison to the selling price of the individual townhouses; such would be a token adjustment for another company to take over a portion of the project if Dividend Development wished to let it go. He had concerns that the Planned Development was only partially planned; as Commissioner Tucker stated, it was not clear at this time whether a senior care facility would be appropriate. While the City was fortunate to be working with Mr. Oliver, it would not be appropriate to approve the Appli-cation with such material facts missing. He had an obligation to the City, not the developer. Commissioner Tappan echoed Commissioner. Burger's comments; Dividend Development had been forthright and had acted in good' faith. He was satisfied with provisions contained in the agreement. While he agreed the monetary set aside was a token amount, he was pleased ~vith the requirement that two senior related iterations be submitted and rejected before the developer would be permitted to submit for consideration other uses allowed in the MU-PD zone. He was confident Dividend Development would make every effort to secure a senior care use. Commissioner Siegfried stated he previously had concerns that the townhouse portion of the site would be developed and the City left with a portion of vacant land; however, he was swayed by statements made at the previous Public Hearing. He felt that even if an operator for the senior care project was found, there ~vould not be much difference in either the Applicant's or the City's position; the Applicant would have to request a modification of the Use Permit if the current proposal were not feasible. The monetary set aside was in place; however, he agreed the amount was negligible and would favor a significant increase. The City had as much assurance as if there were an operator in place; there were safeguards in place which addressed the concerns raised. Commissioner Tappan reiterated his confidence in Dividend Development and agreed with Chair- person Siegfried's comments; it would be unfortunate not to act positively on the Application. The City Attorney noted the following technical errors in the Model Resolution for DR-89-041: I. General Conditions E., amended to read in part, "...The signatures by a r~pr-osc~q, io~ representative of both the City and the applicant... I. General Conditions E, amended to add, "...If such plan is rejected by the City, or also deter- mined by the applicant to be economically u__nfeasible a second alternative plan shall be sub- mitted which shall similarly provide some form of senior housing. It is expressly stipulated that no use other than senior housing shall be proposed for the south side of the property for a period of 36 months after the issuance of the Planning n ...."~-~-* 'PD Permit." Planning Director Eroslie noted that the Model Resolution distributed at the Meeting underscored the changes of standard Conditions of Approval and did not change the substance of the document. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BURGERfFAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-041 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Failed 3-3, Commissioner Harris, Tucker and Kolstad dissenting. BURGERFFAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-89-006 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Failed 3-3, Commissioner Harris, Tucker and Kolstad dissenting. The Chair outlined the options available to the Applicant. Break:. 8:50 - 9:12 P.M. 11. SD-88-008 Rogers & Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave., request for approval of a 34-1ot subdivision varying in area from 0.92 acres to 1.89 acres in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the Odd Fello~vs property southerly to the senior care facility, between Gypsy Hill subdivision and Crisp Ave. A Final Envi- ronmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. Continued from June 28, 1989. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated August 4, 1989; the draft Conditions of Approval were reviewed. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:18 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants Rogers and BrookS, commented as follows: Reviewed the Application and its current status Cited the two tentative maps currently under consideration and called attention to the handout en- titled Proposed Changes to Conditions for SD-88-008 ~vhich also contained maps of the Two and Three Cul-de-Sac Alternatives Discussed Lot 34 which had been redrawn to place the building site toward the street frontage; such eliminated the long driveway, removed the building site from proximity to the cemetery and preserved the Riparian Corridor in its natural state Proposed Changes to Conditions for SD-88-008 (Three Cul-de-Sac Map) 4. Lot 1 was eliminated; due to a limited building site, a two-story house would be appropriate; Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 were eliminated from the Condition since these lots did not impair the view shed of others; in addition, it would be more appropriate' to determine the height of the one story homes at the time of Design Revie~v rather than at this time 5. Rather than limiting the second story area of the home on Lot 4, Applicants felt the entire structure should be designed to reflect concern for the large Oak Tree on-site 6. Suggested changing the limitation from a street height of 12 ft. to a street height limitation of one-story; if left as presently stated, the house could be no taller than 14 ft., including its foundation, as it faced the street 9. Add the phrase, "An open space easement, as shown on the tentative map, and at the rear of lots 10 through 14, as per attached map~ shall be..." 14. "No fence, structure or grading (except what is necessary for the approved cul-de-sac)..." 17. Applicants believed that Lots 10-14 and Lots 23-27 and Lot 30 could support some type of recreational court; it was unnecessary to further restrict lots which already devoted a large portion of their land to the open space easement; a lot-by-lot decision would be preferable .., "' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli, Representing the Applicants Rogers and Brooks, continued her comments on the Proposed Changes to Conditions for SD-88-008 (Three Cul-de-Sac Map) as follows: 20. Applicants suggested the trail along the street right-of-way be improved per City standards, but asked that the trail along the Riparian Corridor not be considered an improved trail; how- ever, the area should be cleared of all brush, dead trees and other fire hazard materials 46. (A) Applicants tried to reflect the City Engineer's belief that the existing portion of the access road may not need to have any substantial improvements (E) Applicants again suggested that access through the Odd Fellows' site should be private and conform to the existing private road standards, to reduce impacts on the Odd Fellows 48. Condition eliminated due to redesign of Lot 34 58. Requested clarification of this Condition with the City Engineer prior to the next hearing Ms. Fanelli stated that the Applicants felt that the Two Cul-de-Sac Map represented the best circu- lation design; such continued the existing residential streets into an area of light traffic use. In 1982, the Odd Fellows were told they could no longer plan to use a portion of their property be- cause the majority of those living in the area felt that a residential neighborhood development was preferable to the Home; neighbors believed this land was the proper extension of the residential area. Applicants believed that this extension of the residential neighborhood should be reflected in the traffic circulation design and requested approval of the Two Cul-de-Sac design. Nowack & Associates Representative reviewed the original with the current design configuration. Mr. J. Lohr, Developer of the Gypsy Hill Subdivision, favored the three cul-de-sac alternative with an equal traffic burden on each of them; he did not see any means for taking access off the Gypsy Hill Rd.cul-de-sac, across the riparian corridor and around to the Odd Fellows property. He asked that this issue be studied and agreed to prepare a drawing of the alternative he proposed. Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, commented as follows: - Stated that the most difficult part of her job was explaining to the Odd Fellows why the City was considering putting a road through their property - A three cul-de-sac alternative did not make good planning sense and resulted in a road three- quarters mile long, through a private senior care facility (Fellowship Plaza) with 400 residents - Questioned why the existing public streets of Gypsy Hill Rd. and Crisp Ave. could not accommodate these additional nine homes; the traffic impact on these streets would be minimal compared to the numerous adverse impacts to the Odd Fellows Home - In her opinion, the Crisp Ave. Minute Resolution of the City Council, 1977, was only a general expression of intent; there were no public hearings, studies conducted, traffic analysis or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed - Reportedly, there was no input from the City's Planning or Public Works Department regarding the practicality and feasibility of such a limitation on a public street - In her opinion, this Minute Resolution should have no control over the planning decision Testimony had been given at previous hearings that the Odd Fellows were benefiting from the development without sharing the burdens; she disagreed with this assertion Only those who were able to bear the burden should be asked to carry it; this would be an excessive burden that the Odd Fellows could not bear Odd Fellows had demonstrated their willingness to accept burdens; when Fellowship Plaza was build, the Odd Fellows were involved in the dedication and improvement of Chester Ave.--in fact, they were responsible for extending Chester Ave. one-thousand feet to the northwest .~ " PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, continued her comments as follows: - It was of interest to note that while the Odd Fellows had the burden of improving Chester Ave., they did not have the benefit of access; in fact, they were precluded from taking any access from it and had to continue to use their private driveway - Stated for the record that the Odd Fellows Grand Lodge was a fraternal, unincorporated Associ- ation; this was the entity that owned the property proposed to be developed as the San Marcos Heights Subdivision - The Odd Fellows Home was a distinct, separate entity, a non-profit corporation, which owned the road on which it was proposed that access would be taken - The Odd Fellows were not simply an institution, but rather, hundreds of senior citizens who were Saratoga citizens; the Odd Fellows were neighbors too Reiterated the extreme traffic safety hazard to the elderly residents who walked the area; a public road would destroy a secure and safe environment for those who needed it most In addition, a public road had the potential of destroying the Odd Fellows' renovation plans which were crucial in providing senior care - The Odd Fellows would seek all means, including legal remedies, to preclude this public road; they asked that the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative be adopted Mr. Harry Lalor, Civil Engineer, Ruth and Going, Inc., presented a view graph showing their preferred cul-de-sac scheme which extended the terminated road shown on the Tentative Map, and brought it out to Fruitvale Ave. The connection with Fruitvale Ave was such that it was im- mediately adjacent to San Marcos Dr.; as a public street it would be a substandard location in relationship to other accesses. The development of a public street through the Odd Fellows property required existing improvements and utilities for the Home to be undergrounded and/or removed and relocated; in addition, there would be a severe reduction of the riparian corridor along their eastern boundary line. Preliminary improvement costs were estimated at 1.2 million dollars.' He reviewed the Subdivision Map Act and submitted that there should be a correlation between the extent of the improvements required for the development and the rationale that accompanied such. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified that the increased traffic in the Two Cuiode-Sac Alternative was within the levels of acceptable service. Mr. Larry Wilkensen, Executive Director of the Odd Fellows, reviewed the level of care provided by the residential care facility, the level of danger posed by a public street through the Odd Fellows property, the rationale for the location and the design of the new facility proposed and the estimated cost differential between various building designs. Ms. Sue Creigton, Director of Nursing at Fellowship Plaza, stated that the private drive was the only flat area available; she reviewed the importance of ambulation to the health of residents. Mr. Michael Farrell, 14451 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, stated he could appreciate the Odd Fellows concerns for safety; however, those who lived on Sobey Rd. also had concerns, especially for the young children as well as residents. Sobey Rd. residents were asked to share burdens without any benefits being derived; he urged that the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative be adopted. Mr. Herb Radding, 14050 Chester Ave., Saratoga, stated that Emerald Hills residents felt that seven homes should access off of Gypsy Hill Rd., seven homes access off of Crisp Ave., with the remainder of the homes taking access through the Odd Fellows property. .; "" PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Wanda Allinger stated she was interested in this issue due to the fact that her parents were members of the Odd Fellows; she wished to see their work come to fruition. A petition was presented; in the opinion of many Saratogans, Crisp Ave. was the logical access to the property and should be the only access if the terrain permitted it. She contended that the Commission's conscience would not allow them to vote against the Odd Fellows' request and the pressure of a very few neighbors would not permit them to vote for the Odd Fellows. She was very concerned regarding the residents of Chester Ave.; Crisp Ave. with its 60 ft. wide street should take the brunt of the traffic. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., Saratoga, commented as follows: Mr. Ellman, Attorney at Ellman, Burke & Cassidy, spoke at the previous Hearing on problems with the Environmental Impact Report (El;P,), especially traffic inadequacies and distribution Presented Mr. Harry Ellman's letter Re: Application No. SD-88-008 Gypsy Hill/Crisp Ave. He could argue that the conclusions reached in the EIR on traffic were erroneous because the sample data collected was not represented of the traffic flow; examples were cited With respect to safety, others had adequately addressed this issue The Commission had heard arguments why anything other than a Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative was inconsistent with the General Plan, City policy and was grossly unfair to everyone except the seller of the land; furthermore, the Odd Fellows positioned their arguments so that it ap- peared that those who disagreed with them, opposed senior citizens; this was not the case Residents were concerned about the quality of their neighborhood and had been assured by the City Council that they could depend on the Council to protect the resident's quality of life The Crisp Ave. Minute Order was made to appear as some sort of back room deal Ms. Margarite Fisher, Fellowship Plaza, thought that the sale and development of the land should not be contrary to the health and welfare of Plaza residents; she felt that much bad faith existed. The solution for residents who did not want traffic impacts from the development was to raise the money to buy the land in question. The cul-de-sacs were themselves a compromise to those who did not want through traffic; she favored the original through access alternative. Mr. Jerry Huston, 14082 Chester Ave., Saratoga, cited his application two years ago which contained a circle driveway; this was denied due to the existing traffic on Chester Ave. He favored the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative and advised the Odd Fellows that development entailed both pluses and minuses. His concerns centered around the safety of his two children. Mr. H. Victor Yang cited the comments of Odd Fellows' Attorney regarding the Crisp Ave. Minute Order and asked how citizens could have any faith in local government or expect fairness; he urged that the commitments made be honored. Residents asked that the Odd Fellows share the traffic. Ms. Jim Johnson, 14966 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, felt that additional traffic should not be placed on Sobey Rd. due to potential hazards; he could understand the Odd Fellows' reluctance to have a through access on their property. He suggested the property in question not be developed since the facilities were not there to support such; this would be best for the whole community. Mr. Ralph Borelli, Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, 19301 Pinnacle Ct., Saratoga, stated that the Two Cul- de-Sac Alternative should be adopted; if the Odd Fellows did not wish any impacts, the project density would have to be reduced. The market had improved during the past two years. Ms. Fanelli briefly responded to testimony taken; she requested a vote on the maps presented. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:38 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger reviewed the various proposals presented and agreed this was a less than perfect situation with a less than perfect solution; she noted that the Planning Commission was charged with land use decisions. Several of the proposals required a public right-of-way through a private institution; this was not the best land use decision. She favored the Two Cul-de-Sac Alter- native with the traffic distribution proposed on the grounds that this was the most appropriate decision; any other decision should be made by the City Council. It was not necessary to scale the project down. Commissioner Tappan favored the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative; he had considered this Alternative with the Odd Fellows' Attorney and Civil Engineer and had no objection to having the road cross the swale in order to obtain the third access. Commissioner Kolstad favored the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative with the distribution as presented. Crisp Ave. and Sobey Rd. could handle the increased traffic despite the residents' objections to such; the Environmental Impact Report indicated that this increase would not change the character of the neighborhood. He felt that the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative would denigrate the Odd Fellows' property and would not be viewed in the future as showing much vision. 'Commissioner Harris favored the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative as Staff proposed since the riparian corridor would not have to be crossed; the Applicant's proposal for the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative was so similar to Staffs that a compromise could be worked out. A road could be located on the Odd Fellows property on the same side as the Riparian Corridor; however, she was reluctant to see the destruction of trees with this Alternative. The road could be sufficiently segre- gated to ensure that Odd Fellows residents felt safe. She was concerned that Crisp Ave. as presently configured, was unsafe due to a rise in the road; Gypsy Hill Rd., in the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative was excessively long, narrow and circuitous. Commissioner Tucker favored the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative; she felt the Odd Fellows were providing a legitimate community need and recognized that they were concerned for the safety of residents. She cited traffic hazards at the intersection of San Marcos Rd./Odd Fellows driveway; the existing problems on Crisp Ave. could be mitigated with a stop sign. While she was sensitive to the Council's action in the Crisp Ave. Minute Order; if they so directed, she would accept the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative. Chairperson Siegfried favored the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative; he believed there was a strong commitment made to the residents of Crisp Ave. and he would honor this commitment of seven homes off of Crisp Ave. He felt the Commission was being swayed by the past HUD develop- ment which could not be separated now; in fact, a public road could be built. Also, he was swayed by the fact that it was the Odd Fellows who were selling the property; they would have to make the decision whether they would accept the burden of the traffic. Planning Director Emslie recommended that no action be taken to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in the light of the split vote; he wished to ensure that the EIR as drafted, fully addressed the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative. He reviewed the areas of consideration. Commissioner Kolstad stated he could vote in favor of the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative if such would help; while he favored the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative, the overall project was good. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli stated she ~vas surprised at the Planning Director's recommendation to Continue the Item; Staff originally recommended the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative. 'BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-008 TO AUGUST 23, 1989. Passed 6-0. Break 11:00 - 11:08 P.M. 12. DR-89-047 Peninsula RecreatiOn, 21990 Prospect Rd., request for design review and UP-89-007 use permit approval to construct a two-story 4,177 sq. ft. golf pro shop and a two-story, 2,952 sq. ft. cart barn and to remodel the existing 20,277 sq. ft. two-story Saratoga Country Clubhouse in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated August 9, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:13 P.M. Mr. Roger Griffin, Architect, made himself available for questions. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, he confirmed that the number of employees would not be increased. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:14 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Tucker had concerns a'bout parking overspill on the narrow roads leading to the parking area; such could create a hazard if an emergency. Commissioner Harris agreed the concern expressed was valid; however, her personal experience was that special events were scheduled at different times than the member events. Mr. Griffin responded that the expansion taking place was in the private membership portion of the club house; the main club house, where special events took place, was a minor element in the proposed expansion. The Club Manager stated that special events would hold 240 individuals as opposed to the current 220 individuals; parking would be increased by 65 spaces. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-047 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO ,APPROVE UP-89-007 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 13. DR-89-013 Velinsky, 15839 Hidden Hill Rd., request for design revie~v approval to construct a new 5,073 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the .R-I- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from June 28, 1989. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 9, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:26 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued' Mr. Velinsky, Applicant, presented and reviewed a packet of material containing the history of his Application and his objections to Staff Recommendation to alter the siting of the house again; renderings of the proposed house were shown to the Commission. Mr. Richard Burkhart, Friend of the Applicant, reviewed the manner in which the City of Sunny- vale would consider this Application; he favored the proposal as presented by the Applicant. Mr. Velinsky read into the record the letter of Mr. Bill Heiss, Consulting Civil Engineer, favoring the proposal as presented by the Applicant. Mr. Robson, Ravine Rd., Saratoga, reminded the Commission that this was an infill, flag lot, sur- rounded by smaller homes; in addition, this would be a very large house on a small lot. With respect to compatibility and the perception of bulk, he cited 'the dimensions of the proposed struc- ture and called attention to its length and the location at the top of the hill. He read into the record the square footages of surrounding homes, which ranged from 600 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Henry Haglin, 15835 Hidden Hill Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - This was the last of seventeen large houses planned for this subdivision; he objected to deni- grating this proposal simply because it was located near the smaller homes - With respect to the charge that this home would impact the environment of the ravine, the ravine consisted of one or two old houses with tar paper roofs, a collection of old cars and weeds - Any impact on the environment of the ravine would be an 'improvement - With respect to Staff Recommendation to shift the house 10 ft. to the north, he was very con: cerned about the removal of two trees; these trees really belonged to the subdivision and could be seen from miles around - Furthermore, the grading required should not be increased - This was an excellent floor plan, was not intrusive to the area and was compatible with the other sixteen homes in this subdivision; he asked that this Application be approved as presented Mr. Sam Chen stated that he was a friend and co-worker of the Applicant; the proposed design would enhance the neighborhood and increase the value of adjacent homes. This was Mr. Velinsky's dream house; any further delay would result in financial costs to the Applicant. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:56 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger stated that after listening to Mr. Velinsky's comments, she was concerned that if the house were shifted as Staff recommended, it would begin to intrude into the line of sight of residents to the west; secondly, any shifting of the house moved it toward the ridgeline making it more visible. Commissioner Tappan noted that the Applicant had already agreed to shift the house about 4 ft. Commissioner Tucker was concerned regarding the bulk and impact this house would have.in comparison to some of the other homes in the area. Commissioner Burger responded that there were very small and also some very large homes in the area; the house proposed was sensitively designed for the lot. Commissioner Tappan agreed. Commissioner Harris was concerned regarding the impacts to the Hwang property if the house was shifted 10 ft. as recommended by Staff; such would give the appearance of being crowded. .- ~ "' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Siegfried initially felt that the house could be shifted; now, he was not convinced that a 10 ft. shifting of the house would not impact other homes in the area. BURGERFFAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-013, DESIGNATING THAT THE HOME BE SITED ON THE NORTH SETBACK LINE Passed 5-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. 14. DR-89-024 Chen, 12601 Star Ridge Ct., request for a two-story addition to an existing V-89-026 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. A variance is also requested from Ordinance 15-14.050 (e) to allow the addition of the home to be constructed on a slope of 36% in lieu of 30% maximum allowed. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 12:05 A.M. Mr. Ray Murdock, Representing the Applicant, made himself available for questions. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:06 A.M. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-024 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-89-026 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 15. AR-89-019 Sawyer, 15430 Bohlman Road, appeal of an administrative review appli- cation that would allow the construction of an amateur radio antenna, in the HC-RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 9, 1989; he noted a correction to Staff Report Project Description and stated that the lowered height of the tower would be 34 ft., not 23 ft. as stated. The Public Hearing was opened at 12:09 A.M. Mr. Sawyer, Applicant, reviewed the Appeal and presented a packet of information on recent court cases on the rights of amateur radio operators. The record failed to show that the erection of the antenna would endanger the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or residents. Chairperson Siegfried asked Mr. Sawyer to consider what alternatives were available. Mr. Sawyer provided information on the necessary tower height, building requirements for such; he stated that he used his amateur radio four to six hours per day, on an intermittent basis. Mr. Alan B. Grebene, 15409 Belnap Dr., Saratoga, commented that the antenna proposed had the aesthetics of a oil rig; he contended there was no way to solve transmission problems by building a 65 ft. tower in front of his home. He had moved to the hillsides for the serenity and the views; the Applicant's proposal was completely unreasonable. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 15 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Krista Billawala noted that none of the visual impacts would affect Mr. Sawyer's view; such was not very neighborly conduct. Mr. Charles Ebes, Volunteer Counsel for the American Radio Relay League, noted that similar testimony was given whenever the question of amateur radio came up; the appearance of antennas were in the eye of the beholder. The FCC had already considered these issues and ruled that a limited preemption existed. Ms. Karen Grebene, 15409 Belnap Dr., Saratoga, stated they did not wish to deny Mr. Sawyer the use of his property or enjoyment of his hobby, but that a balance be achieved between the his interests and theirs. Mr. Billawala felt their must be court cases addressing their concerns;. such was not presented. Mr. Grebene added that the legal issues were completely irrelevant. Mr. Sawyer provided information on the topography of the site and the site constraints in terms of setbacks and overhead utility lines; after careful study, he did not feel there was an alternative location for the tower, while still obtaining the reception he wished. Current long range reception was achieved only under ideal atmospheric conditions. Commissioner Kolstad noted the Applicant was receiving transmissions from countries as far away as Russia; he questioned whether the government guaranteed 100% reception. Finally, he com- mented that the Applicant was in the unusual position of having a hobby of amateur radio while residing in the hillsides; did the government allow towers to be 65 ft. in addition to compensation for the hillside topography? BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:38 A.M. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney stated that Commissioner Kolstad had correctly. summarized the issue. Unlike the court cases cited by the Applicant, which were drafted before PRB 1, including Whitter. Saratoga's current Ordinance was drafted after PRB 1 and in collaboration with the American Radio Relay League and with input from local operators. He was comfortable with the Ordinance regulations drafted for the City. The issue under consideration had not been litigated and resolved around the following questions: 1) If there was a balance between competing interests, as the FCC stated there should be, did not such place a responsibility on the radio operator with respect to his selection of a home site? Was one entitled to optimum reception when the operator voluntarily chose a lot against the hillside, where the topography would unreasonably interfere with radio reception? 2) If the radio was already in operation, there was some kind of reception; what was the level of quality one was entitled to? Staff agreed there should be.a balance between competing interests? While the Applicant talked of balance, there did not seem to be an effort to achieve this balance.' A Study Session was suggested with an invitation being extended to the City's consultants on amateur radio in order to make a determination on this matter. In his opinion, Staffs position was legally defensible. : PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 16 AUGUST 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Consensus reached to hold a Study Session; the Applicant was agreeable to such. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AR-89-019 TO AUGUST 23, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD AUGUST 15, 1989. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report Planning Director Emslie reported on the City Council Meeting of August 2, 1989. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: None. Oral by Commission: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:48 A.M. Caro A. Probst-Caughey 1