Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: September 13, 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, Moran present at 7:30; Commissioner Tappan present at 7:38 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance: Approval of Minutes: Meeting of August 23, 1989 HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 1989, AS PRE- SENTED. Passed 6-0-2, Commissioner Tappan absent, Commissioner Moran abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on September 8, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material' None. PUBLIC BEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. DR-89-060 Hornung, 18651 Perego Way, Resolution for denial for request for design V-89-017 review and variance approval to construct a 1,026 sq.ft. first and second story addition to an existing on story home for a total of 3,358 sq. ft. The variance is to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 158 sq. ft. in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing was closed August 23, 1989. 2. 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 district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to September 27, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 3. DR-89-095 Hur, 20052 Sunset Avenue, request for design review and building site ap- SD-89-019 proval to construct a two-story, 6,182 s.f. single family home in the HC- RD zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to October 11, 1989, at the request of the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 4. AZO-89-003 City of Saratoga Vehicle Repair Ordinance - An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Section 9-50-010 of the City Code concerning repair of vehicles on residential property. Continued to September 27, 1989. 5. DR-89-104 Brozda/Carlson, 14503 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval UP-89-013 to remodel and expand an existing restaurant into an adjacent vacant com- mercial space in the C-C zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Use Permit approval is also requested for an existing outdoor dining patio. Continued to September 27, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 6. V-89-024 Cuffe, 21151 Canyon View Dr. request for variance approval from Ordi- nance 15-45.030 to allow the expansion of a two story home to exceed the allowable floor area. The total proposed floor area is 3,656 sq.ft. in lieu of 2,720 sq.ft. maximum allowed. Continued to September 27, 1989. 7. AR-89-019 Sawyer, 15430 Bohlman Road, Resolution of denial for an appeal of an ad- ministrative review application that would allow the construction of an amateur radio antenna in the HC-RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed August 23, 1989. 8. UP-89-011 EISI, 14395 Saratoga Avenue, request for use permit approval to allow individual tenant identification signs and a freestanding building identifi- cation sign for an existing office building in the P-A zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code 9. UP-89-012 Abrams/Pan Cal - 12984 Village Dr., request for use permit approval to alloxv freestanding tenant identification signs and two freestanding site identification signs as part of an overall sign program for an existing medical/professional office complex in the P-A zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code 10. DR-89-063 Holzer. 12111 Carol Lane, request for design review approval to construct a 1,054 sq.ft. first and second story addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 3,127 sq. ft. in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. SM-89-011 Hwang, 18966 Albar Ct., request for site modification approval to construct a swimming pool in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 12. DR-89-076 Young, 15185 Pepper Lane, request for design review to allow the demoli- tion of an existing single family residence and the construction of a new 4,079 sq.ft., two story residence, in the R-1-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 9. Chairperson Siegfried requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 12. .;, '.~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1, 7, 8, 10 AND 11. Passed 7-0. 9. UP-89-012 Abrams/Pan Cal - 12984 Village Dr., request for use permit approval to allow freestanding tenant identification signs and two freestanding. site identification signs as part of an overall sign program for an existing medicalTprofessional office complex in the P-A zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code Commissioner Tucker requested clarification on the placement of the building signs and infor- mation on the difference between building signs and freestanding identification signs. Planner Walgren provided the information requested and called attention to the Site Plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. Passed 7-0. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE UP-89-012 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. 12. DR-89-076 Young, 15185 Pepper Lane, request for design reviexv to allow the demoli- tion of an existing single family residence and the construction of a new 4,079 sq.ft., two story residence, in the R-I-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 13, 1989. Commissioner Harris noted that the Site Plan incorrectly showed the front yard setback to be 30 inches; she assumed that 30 ft. was the correct distance. Planner Graft agreed an error had been made in listing the required setback; he added that the actual setback distance was 50 ft. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:42 P.M. Mr. David Young, Applicant, commented as follows: Stated that he wished to comply with all applicable requirements The proposed structure was approximately 1000 sq. ft. less than allowed and the height of the structure was less than the 26 ft. limitation; in addition, the highest portion of the structure would be centered over the first floor portion of the house They moved to this neighborhood for the privacy afforded; when the plans for the remodel were drawn up, he had taken care to ensure that the neighbor's privacy would not be impacted Photographs were presented to show the mature landscaping on-site which he felt would prevent privacy impacts; these photos were taken from the roof of the existing home - An area map was handed out to show the sites that currently had two-story homes - Cited the significant personal impacts from any project delay; his children's school year was being disrupted and he did not wish to extend this into a second school year; in addition, there were many financial costs involved in demolishing the home, renting a second residence and rebuilding a new structure; furthermore, there were concerns regarding the coming winter rains PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. Hyland, 19852 Park Dr., Saratoga, read into the record his letter of September 11, 1989; he added that a second story addition on the Applicant's home would block the morning sun from his bedroom area. He submitted additional letters and a petition objecting to this Application. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Project Designer, commented as follows: - Stated that he had proposed two designs for a remodel of this home and found that demolishing the existing home was required, with an entirely new structure to be built - A two story house was then considered in order to preserve the site area - Noted the extremely dense foliage on-site which prevented a view of adjacent structures; no major trees would be removed, although some trees required trimming - With respect to the comment that there would be a shadow cast on the neighbor's home, this was somewhat superfluous; the existing trees obscured the sunlight far more than any second story element would With respect to privacy concerns, the photos showed that there was not visible intrusion be- tween adjacent parcels; this was a half acre, relatively flat site Neighbors also contended that the character of the neighborhood would be altered; four of the seven homes in the area were already two story, one of which was considerably larger that the remodel proposed In response to Chairperson Siegfried's question, Mr. Cunningham stated that it seemed the Plan- ning Commission preferred to eliminate traditional style roofs, which were usually accomplished by a 4:12 pitch; it was his experience that there was resistance to what might be termed a "stark elevation" and/or other traditional Tudor design features. He had nestled some of the living area into the roof, in order to address the Commission's preference; the architectural features of the house were discussed. The Design Review Handbook was cited to show that they had conformed to the City's Guidelines; the Applicant had required that the house comply with all requirements. Ms. Louise Shaeffer stated that the major issue was the preservation of privacy; she observed that her nest door neighbor would suffer major impacts from this proposal. Other properties had larger lot sizes to absorb the size of the 'homes on them; a two-story, 22 ft. high structure would be more in keeping with the site in question. .- Mr. Young clarified that the 26 ft. high element of the structure would exceed a 15 ft. distance from the property line; furthermore, the property line was not a mess. Ms. Hyland, 19852 Park Dr., Saratoga, stated that she could see the peak of the Applicant's home; if a second story element were built, she would be looking at a blank, 10 ft. high wall. She noted the extreme trimming that would have to done to the Applicant's trees; this would increase the view of both homes. An area resident added that the Applicant had tried to show her where the 26 ft. height would be located; however, it was difficult to conceptualize exactly where the highest element would be. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Passed 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Tappan found the design pleasing and did not appear to be at great variance with the neighborhood. He suggested a Continuance to allow him an opportunity to make a site visit. Commissioner Kolstad felt the design was somewhat out of the ordinary; however, if it were not for the opinions pro and con, he would vote in favor of the Application. The photographs pre- sented showed that plenty of vegetation existed; impacts to privacy may be anticipated rather than a reality. A site visit as suggested by Commissioner Tappan, would be appropriate. Commissioner Harris concurred and asked that a report on the Oak trees be provided; if necessary, additional landscaping screening could be required. The neighbor's concerns were valid. Commissioner Burger agreed a site visit should be made by members of the Commission. Chairperson Siegfried was not concerned about the addition of a second story element per se; how- ever, cutting into the roof of a Tudor style home, to meet the 26 ft. height limitation, would not be compatible with the neighborhood. He preferred a 23-24 ft.high roof with a natural slope. He had no objection to a Continuance of this Application for a two-week period of time. Commissioner Harris suggested the Application be Continued to a Study Session as usually done; the Applicant would then have an opportunity to present design alternatives. Homes by the rail- road tracks appeared to have been chopped off, similar to the proposal for this home. Commissioners Kolstad and Burger did not have concerns about the second story elevation. Chairperson Siegfried agreed the home was well designed; the question was whether this two story home, with a steep roof pitch, and a cut of up to four or five feet was compatible with the neigh- borhood. He agreed that the trees on-site required extensive trimming in order to save them. Mr. Cunningham cited the report entitled An Analysis of the Expected Affects by the Proposed Construction on the Two Significant Coast Live Oak Trees at the Young Residence, 15185 Pepper Lane, Saratoga, by Barfie D. Coate; the Applicant was agreeable to the Continuance suggested. Chairperson Siegfried commented that he did not hear that the majority of the Commission wished to see a redesign of the project; Commissioners simply wished to make a site visit. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-076 TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1989. Passed 7-0. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 13. SD-88-008 Rogers ancl Brooks, Gypsy Hill/Crisp Avenue, 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 Fellows property between Gypsy Hill sub- division and Crisp Avenue. A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project. Continued from August 23, 1989. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated September 13th. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director reviewed the technical corrections to the Model Resolution. The City Attorney confirmed that procedurally there was no requirement to reopen the Public Hear- ing unless there was new information introduced into the record; the Planning Commission had taken extensive public testimony on this matter. Commissioner Harris noted that at the previous Public Hearing the Commission voted to consider a Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative, leaving the configuration to be decided; at the Study Session, the Commission had been informed that there were no options. This could effect the vote of those who favored an Alternative where the configuration was still open for discussion. Chairperson Siegfried stated that the Public Hearing would be reopened for the issue brought up at Study Session, namely, the geographical problems of access through the Odd Fellows property. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:32 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicants, Rogers and Brooks, commented as follows: - Stated that at the last Public Hearing, the Commission voted in favor of looking at alternatives; specifically, was there a way to extend the cul-de-sac from the Odd Fellows property to include homes that were scheduled to be accessed by Gypsy Hill Rd. or was there the possibility of another road configuration than that suggested by Mr. Lohr - Their Engineer made the calculations and found that as proposed the emergency access would be 15 ft. wide, 120 ft. in length and 14 ft. at its maximum depth of fill; it would require 2600 cu. yds of fill. The grade would be approximately 8% and would satisfy the needs of the Central Fire Protection District, to allow emergency vehicles access by way of the connection to the cul- de-sac and provide for the necessary pedestrian and bicycle paths - The extension around the curve to ensure safety would be a 37 ft. wide standard road, 200 ft. in length ,with a maximum depth of fill of 24 ft.; the fill would be 3200 cu. yds. The grade would be 9%. Applicants had concerns for safety resulting from the S configuration - As far as the Y configuration suggested, the road would have to rise at approximately a 26% grade, which was not allowed under the City Code Ms. Fanelli concluded that Applicants had no objections to the amendmended Model Resolution. Ms. Peggy Cocker, Attorney for the Odd Fellows, asked whether the Commission would consider the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative; Chairperson Siegfried responded that the Commission was free to consider all the Alternatives. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Moran noted her consideration of this Application; she was familiar with the subject property, the Crisp Ave. neighborhood and had reviewed Sobey Rd. and Gypsy Hill Rd. areas. Tapes of the Public Hearings and the Commission's discussions had been listened to; she had read the Minutes and all documents prepared by Staff, documents submitted to the Planning Commis- sion by interested parties, the Environmental Impact Report, (EIR), the General Plan as it related to this site and the Charter of the Planning Commission. She had met with the Odd Fellows, their Executive Administrator, one of the Applicants, Mr. Rogers and their Representative, Ms. Fanelli. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran continued her comments, stating that this was a beautiful parcel and one of the last remaining large sites in the City; she felt a responsibility to do her best to ensure that any development was sensitive to the site as well as the long term interests of the community. There were access problems to the site and there would continue to be problems in this area even after a decision on access was reached. She was aware of the issues surrounding safety, access to the Saratoga schools, the commitment made by the City to the Crisp Ave. residents, to the Odd Fellows plans and of the beauty of the area. Commissioner Moran supported the Staff Recommendation for the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative, i.e., seven lots off of Crisp Ave., eighteen lots off of Gypsy Hill Rd., and nine lots accessing by way of the Odd Fellows property. Chairperson Siegfried noted for the record that a petition had been received; Planning DireCtor Emslie noted that 370 responses supporting a Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative were received. There was no Motion to reconsider a Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative with seventeen (17) lots accessing from Crisp Ave. and seventeen (17) lots accessing off of Gypsy Hill Rd. BIYRGER/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE A TWO CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH ELEVEN (11)LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND TWENTY-THREE (23) LOTS ACCESSING OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Commissioner Kolstad stated that sometimes it appeared to be a question of who's right rather than what was right; with respect to the former, he had heard comments that the Odd Fellows should have a part to play, that Crisp Ave. residents had been promised something, as well as questions whether this promise was procedurally proper. If the personalities involved were not so strong, a .planner looking at the area in its undeveloped state, would prohibit access through the Odd Fellows property, increase the number of lots accessing off Crisp Ave. Eleven lots accessing off Crisp Ave. was not a significant increase over the limit of seven they claimed they were promised. Furthermore, he felt he had to do what was right; there should be' no access through the Odd Fellows property, with a few more homes accessing from Crisp Ave. In good conscience he could not vote for "who was right", but would vote for "what was right". Commissioner Burger wished to reiterated what she had said all along, namely, that the Charter of the Planning Commission called for its members to make studied, land use decisions; her motion in favor of the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative was based on that. In her mind, the proper land use decision was the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative, with no access through the Odd Fellows; it was poor land use planning to install a public road through a private institution. Commissioner Moran stated that her support of a Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative was not her first choice, but the Commission had to move forward to consider the best possible solution when a perfect one was not available. Her preferred option was the Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative with an even distribution of lots accessing Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd.; however, this was not a popular option. In addition, she would like to see an Alternative where there were fewer homes off Gypsy Hill Rd. and more lots accessing off Crisp Ave. in order to protect the Riparian Corridor and provide a good access to the Saratoga schools. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran continued her comments, stating that having only seven lots accessing Crisp Ave. was a departure from what she considered a good land use decision; having eleven lots accessing off Crisp Ave. was movement in the right direction. Her view was that the commitment made to the Crisp Ave. residents had important consequences on planning in this area. Commissioner Tucker stated that she did not bring up consideration of equal distribution since the Motion had failed 2-4 at the previous Public Hearing; however, this was her preferred Alternative and the best land use decision. It was not good land use to put a road through the Odd Fellows 'property; Santa Clara University had a road through their campus which was later closed off because it was not a good land use. Commissioner Kolstad added that equal distribution of the access was his original preference. Chairperson Siegfried stated that he would accept a Motion to reconsider a Two Cul-de-Sac Alter- native with seventeen lots from Crisp Ave. and seventeen lots accessing off of Gypsy Hill Rd. Commissioner Burger withdrew her Motion for a Two Cul-de-Sac Alternative with eleven (11) lots from Crisp Ave. and twenty three (23) lots accessing off Gypsy Hill Rd. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO RECONSIDER A TWO CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH SEVENTEEN (17)LOTS ACCESSING FROM CRISP AVE. AND SEVENTEEN (17) LOTS ACCESSING OFF OF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3-4, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tappan dissenting. Commissioner Burger wished to clarify her dissenting vote; she seconded the Motion to allow the Commission to move forward on this Application. She never envisioned seventeen lots taking access from Crisp Ave. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF A TWO CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH ELEVEN (11)LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND TWENTY THREE (23) LOTS ACCESSING OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Failed 3-4, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Harris, Tappan, Moran dissenting. Chairperson Siegfried noted that when the Commission voted on the Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative, the subdivision would be approved in three parts; if access were not granted by the Odd Follows, or if there were technical reasons why access could not be taken, those homes that were scheduled to take access through the Odd Fellows property, could not be built. It was this simple and an issue that the Odd Fellows would have to decide. Commissioner Tappan agreed that the Odd Fellows was the proper decision making body as to whether they wished to allow access through their property. TAPPAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE A THREE CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH A LIMIT OF SEVEN (7) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE., NINE (9) LOTS FROM THE ·ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY, AND EIGHTEEN (18) LOTS OFF GYPSY HILL RD. Passed 4-3, Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting. Commissioner Kolstad stated he was confused on the Motion and wished to change his vote. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran asked if it was the lot distribution that Commissioner Harris objected to. Commissioner Harris responded that she felt the only alternative was to have fewer houses. She did not approve of having eighteen lots taking access from Gypsy Hill Rd., and had taken this position from the very beginning..She had asked for a reduction in density but such was not favored by other members of the Commission. The City Attorney stated that before the Vote were taken, he wished to clarify their legal position with respect to the Odd Fellows; insofar as the City was concerned the access was available. The Odd Fellows, as the property owner, could provide the access if they so desired; the decision rested with them. They could voluntarily act to reduce the size of the subdivision, eliminating those lots that would be taking access through their property. Chairperson Siegfried commented that he felt the Alternative under consideration represented a reasonable distribution of traffic; he was unfavorable to forcing traffic onto Crisp Ave., Sobey Rd. and Gypsy Hill Rd. This Alternative gave the Odd Fellows a choice; if they did not wish a through access on their property, there would only be eighteen homes accessing Gypsy Hill Rd. and seven accessing Crisp Ave. From a planning standpoint this was a reasonable distribution of traffic. Commissioner Moran asked whether the Commission had considered an equal distribution of traffic on Crisp Ave. and Gypsy Hill Rd., eliminating the nine homes with access through the Odd Fellows property. : The Chair directed that the roll be called again on the above Motion to approve a Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative with a limit of seven (7) lots from Crisp Ave., nine (9) lots from the Odd Fellows Property and eighteen (18) lots off Gypsy Hill Rd. Failed 3-4, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker and Kolstad dissenting. Commissioner Burger questioned the legal outcome if the Commission could not reach a decision. The City Attorney summarized that what the Commission would be saying 'in such a case was that the property was unsuitable for development with respect to the distribution of traffic and means of access; the Application would then be denied by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Burger suggested someone in favor of a Three Cul-de-Sac Alternative come up with a Motion amenable to a majority of Commissioners; she could not imagine the Commission deny- ing this Application for development. ' Commissioner Kolstad stated he would make such a Motion even though he did not feel that this Alternative was the best by any means; the following Alternative was merely acceptable. KOLSTAD/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECONSIDER A THREE CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVE WITH NINE (9) LOTS ACCESSING FROM THE ODD FELLOWS PROPERTY, SEVEN (7) LOTS FROM CRISP AVE. AND EIGHTEEN (18) LOTS FROM GYPSY HILL RD. Commissioner Tappan stated he could not believe that after all this time, after discussions on all the alternatives, that the decision had come to this. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger agreed it was an unfortunate situation; however, the reason was that the Commission had tried so hard to come to some conclusion that made sense for the City of Saratoga. Passed 4-3, Commissioners Burger, Harris and Tucker dissenting. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-008 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-2, Commissioners Harris, Tucker dissenting. Break: 9:15 - 9:20 P.M. 14. UP-547.1 Brookside Swim Club - 19127 Cox Avenue, Planning Commission review of a sound study that the Brookside Club was directed to prepare as a condition of approval; of an Action Plan Agreement between the City and the club. The site is located in the R-l-10,000 zone district. Continued from May 10, 1989. Planning Director Eroslie stated that a Report Re: Noise Assessment Study of the Brookside Swim and Racquet Club, Saratoga~ Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc., dated 'September 7, 1989, had been received last Friday; in addition, the neighbors had submitted a video tape. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, asked that the Commission view the tape submitted, at their convenience; he Cited the on-going noise violations. Ms. Susan Windus, 12681 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, called attention to the documentation submitted to the Planning Department listing times and occurrences of noise violations. Ms. Dee Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Dr., Saratoga, appreciated Brookside's initial attempts to lower the noise level; however, noise abatement and privacy screening were required. She con- tended that the date the noise study was conducted, the swim teams had a meet in Palo Alto. MORAN/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. Passed 7-0. Planning Director Emslie confirmed that a prohibition of use of the Sport Court had 'been imposed until the Noise Study was completed, per Commissioner Burger's question. Community Services Officers had been asked to enforce this prohibition upon complaints being received by the City. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE UP-574.1 TO OCTOBER 11, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD SEPTEMBER 19TH. Passed 7-0. 15. DR-89-055 Cashin, 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for design review ap- proval for exterior remodel of the Blue Hills Shopping Center at the corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road, in the C-N zoning district pursuant to Chapter 16 of the City Code. A sign program approval is also requested for a freestanding sign and individual signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Kolstad stepped down on this Item. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 13, 1989. Commissioner Harris noted that clocks placed in the front of buildings were sometimes not work- ing; she asked that the City have assurances that the clock would be functional. Secondly, she · asked for a more detailed Landscaping Plan; landscaping was crucial for this site. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:32 P.M. Mr. D. Vincent, Kobza Associates, responded that a Landscaping Plan was approved when the adjacent office development was considered; the Plan submitted at this time covered the additional plantings to be installed at the rear of the property and adjacent to the sidewalks. Per Commis- sioner Tappan's question, he noted that street improvements had changed the road configuration; once Cal Trans' work was finished, they would complete the landscaping on-site. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Mr. Vincent responded that "Chicken Little" sign would be removed; furthermore, the Applicants intended that the clock would be functional. Per Commissioner Tappan's inquiry, he stated that they wished to discuss signage at a Study Session. Mr. Vincent stated that despite a previous Condition of Approval, they were unable to underground all the utility lines; however, the majority of the lines would be undergrounded. He asked that this Condition be removed or amended. Mr. Tom Ackroyd, 20608 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, stated he was pleased to see the renovation on this site and asked that the lighting impacts to the adjacent residential area be considered. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:37 P.M. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-055 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, ADDING CONDITIONS TO REQUIRE THAT THE CLOCK IN THE FRONT BUILDING WALL WAS KEPT IN PROPER WORKING ORDER; THAT THE "CHICKEN LITTLE" SIGN WOULD BE REMOVED, AND SCREENING ADDED WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN ANY PICTURES, 'WORDS AND/OR OTHER COLORS. Planning Director Emslie clarified that the Motion was for the building improvements only; signage and lighting would be considered at the Study Session and were not approved at this time. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO AMEND THE ABOVE MOTION TO STATE THAT BUILD- ING IMPROVEMENTS ONLY WERE BEING APPROVED AT THIS TIME; SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING WOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE STUDY SESSION. Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE SIGN PROGRAM APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 25, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD OCTOBER 3RD. Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 16. DR-89-064 Rivoir, 14891 Vine Street, request for design review approval to construct a 4,172 sq.ft. two story single family dwelling in the the R-1-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 13, 1989. The Public Hearing at 9:45 P.M. Mr. Michael Layne, Representing the Applicant, make himself available for questions. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:45 P.M. Passed 7-0. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-064 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. 17. DR-89-065 Rivoir, 14917 Vine Street, request for design review approval to construct a 3,697 sq.ft. two story single family dwelling in the the R-1-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 13, 1989. The Public Hearing at 9:46 P.M. Mr. Michael Layne, Representing the Applicant, again make himself available for questions. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:46 P.M. Passed 7-0. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-065 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0.' 18. DR-89-080 Markely, 12911 Pierce Rd., request for design review and a variance to al V-89-020 low the construction of a 1,434 sq.ft. first floor addition to a two story resi- dence in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval would allow encroachment into the rear yard setback area. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 13, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:50 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Representing the Applicant, requested approval of the request. She confirmed that original records providing information on the rationale for siting the house could not be found, as Staff stated; the addition would not intrude further into the rear yard than currently existed. Neighbors had no objection to the request. She answered questions addressed by the Commission. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:53 P.M. Passed 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger felt that the proposed addition was sensitively designed. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF V-89-020 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-080 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. 19. DR-89-092 Kim, 13355 Fontaine Dr., request for design review approval to allow a 1,171 sq.ft. first and second story addition to an existing one story resi- dence in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 13, 1989. Commissioner Burger offered to review the original land use report for this Application. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:55 P.M. Mr. Ralph Sutton, 13396 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, stated he was concerned about the privacy im- pacts resulting from a second story addition; he urged the Commission not to grant this request. He added that the existing trees would be in jeopardy and granting the request would set precedent. Mr. Richard Viles, 13375 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, stated he ~vas very much against this request for a second story addition which would impinge on the privacy of the adjacent residents. Mr. Reed Gray, 19327 Portos Ct., Saratoga, noted the character of the neighborhood which en- sured the privacy of everyone; a second story addition would impact privacy and increase the density allowed. Precedent would be set by granting this request. Mr. W. R. Perkins, 19349 Portos Ct. Saratoga, read into the record a letter from Dr. Robert Johnson; he added his own objections to a two-story home. Mr. Kim, Applicant, with his daughter as an interpreter, stated that they had tried to meet the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy; placement of the windows had been modified to alternate with the mature landscaping on-site. In addition, the roof height had been lo~vered. She added that she did not understand the objection to the appearance of a second story home; did one story structures have to remain this way forever? TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:13 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Tucker felt the Applicant had done a good job designing this addition; however, this was a case where the neighborhood wished to retain its single story character. Denial of the Appli- cation did not prevent the Applicant from increasing the size of his home as an expansion of the first floor element; she could not vote in favor of this Application. Commissioner Tappan noted that the question of second story additions in an area of primarily single story homes had come before the Commission before; examples of areas in the City where 'similar situations occurred were cited. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan continued his comments, stating that Mr. Kim deserved credit for the design of the addition; furthermore, the height was 4 ft. less than that allowed. The Applicant had been sensitive to the neighbor's concerns; there was not a single window above the first floor elevation on one side of the home. While he understood the neighbors' comments, the Applicant applied in good faith to improve his property which in turn-would improve the.area and increase the value of adjacent properties; he felt that individuals had the right to improve their property. Commissioner Moran felt that privacy impacts and a perception of bulk would result from this second story addition; she agreed with Commissioner Tucker's comments. Commissioner Kolstad noted that similar applications had been received; while the Commission may wish to deny such applications, they could not be denied if there were already some two story homes in the neighborhood. The Commission had not addressed this issue. He also had concerns about privacy impacts which he felt were not adequately addressed; however, he had no concerns about the design. Without some controls, precedent would be set and one story neighborhoods would be vulnerable to such remodels. Until the Commission made a determination on the larger issue, this Application would have to be denied. Commissioner Burger agreed that concerns regarding second story existed and that the Commis- sion would have to address the topic; she asked whether those who were opposed to a second story addition, would allow an expansion of the first floor element. She cited the limited size of the Applicant's lot and asked how an expansion of the first floor could be accomplished. Commissioner Tucker responded that Staff Report originally stated that a first floor expansion could be done; Planner Graft confirmed that given a 60% lot coverage allowed, such was possible. Commissioner Harris stated that the design presented was a definite improvement over the previ- ous Application; however, the house still appeared bulky. The elevations were awkward with the second story addition set on top of the first floor; this was a look the City did not want if second story elements were introduced into one-story neighborhoods. Despite the fact that this house with the addition, was within Code requirements, there was too much house for the lot and for the sur- rounding properties. To allow such would grossly overbuild the area. Chairperson Siegfried agreed that the issue of second story additions in single story neighborhoods had to be resolved; otherwise, some areas were restricted to one-story homes forever. He thought this was the kind of two story element that made sense; he cited the setbacks of the second story which were greater than the first story; the addition had been moved to the center of the existing home and was tucked into the roof. The house ~vas only 22 ft. high; he favored such an addition over a home that would be 27 or 28 ft. high. Unfortunately, this request appeared to be the Appli- cation that triggered a review of the issue. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-092 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Failed 3-4, Commissioners Harris, Tucker, Kolstad and Moran dissenting. Commissioner Burger requested reconsideration of Mr~ Kim's position; part of the problem was that the Commission had not made a study of the issue~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 15 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY DR-89-092 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 4-3, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Tappan dissenting. 20. V-89-023 Stepner, 12553 Parker Ranch Road request for variance approval from Or- dinance 15-29.010 of the City Cod~' to allow an 8 ft. retaining wall where a 5 ft. height is the maximum allowed. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 13th. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:30 P.M. Mr. David Stepner, 12553 Parker Ranch Ct., Saratoga, presented a series of slides showing the wall from various angles and adjacent properties. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Harris stated she originally opposed this Application; however, during a site visit she had a difficult time finding and identifying the subject property despite the fact that she was familiar with the area in general. This request made sense. Chairperson Siegfried agreed and added that the necessary Finding could be made. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-023 MAKING A FINDING THAT THE WALL WAS A STRUCTURAL, INTEGRAL PART OF THE HOME. Passed 7-0. 21. V-88-022 Sternberg, 19894 Merribrook, request for variance approval from Ordinance 15-12.090 to allow 26 ft. setback from .a second story addition in lieu of 39 ft. required. The existing home is a two story home in the R-l-10,000 zon- ing district. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Eroslie presented the Report t° the Planning Commission, September 13, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:40 P.M. Mr. Eric Sternberg, Applicant, reviewed the Application and noted that neighbors had rectified similar design problems by adding an addition; they had no objection to this request. 'TUCKER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:41 P.M. Passed 7-0. KOLSTAD/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V-88-022 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 16 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. 2. Review of Primary Plus UP-88-018; 12211 Titus Ave. This review is requested as a condition of the use permit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Memorandum dated September 13, 1989, and discussed the Staff Report Findings and Recommendation.... Consensus reached to receive and file Report. 3. Discussion of DEIR submitted for the City's review concerning converting the El Paseo Shop- ping Center to a research and development campus and residential units. Commissioner Tucker stated she was disturbed that the City of Saratoga Planning Commission had not been informed of this project by the City of San Jose. Planning Director Emslie noted that the City Council was scheduled to consider this Item under New Business at their upcoming Meeting. Commissioner Tappan suggested delegates be appointed to represent the City at the San Jose Plan- ning Commission at the upcoming hearing; in addition, residents should be made aware of such. Chairperson Siegfried estimated that the impacts of this proposal could be much more significant on the Saratoga Ave. area then ever anticipated from the Route 85 Saratoga Ave. interchange. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Heritage Preservation Commission, Minutes of August 9, 1989, - Noted and filed. 2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - September 5,1989, and August 1, 1989 - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Commissioner Tappan stated he had reservations on outcome of the Kim Application (DRo89-092); the Applicant was lead to belief that a project redesign would be acceptable to the Commission. This was unfair; the issue was the use of second story additions in one story neighborhoods. Chairperson Siegfried suggested a letter be sent from the Planning Department assuring Mr. Kim that the issue was under consideration by the Planning Commission; the Commission would have to consider the situation of these small homes. Planning Director Eroslie noted that the Commission's agenda was not allowing time to discuss such issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 17 SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. RespeC...tfully submitted, Carol A. Pro!~~