Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA .PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: September 27, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan, Moran Pledge of Allegiance: Approval of Minutes: Minutes of September 13, 1989 Commissioner Moran noted that she abstained on the Approval of Minutes of August 23, 1989; on Page 8, she asked that her comment be amended to read, "...the commitment made to the Crisp Ave. residents has had important consequences on planning in this area." Commissioner Harris noted that on Page 4, the property owner was Ms. Louise Shaeffer who referred to "her next door neighbor". On Page 6, Chairperson Siegfried referred to "geographical" problems of access .... On Page 15, her comment amended to read, "the subject wall". Commissioner Burger asked that on Page 4, fourth paragraph amended to read, "Other properties have larger lot sizes..." On Page 7, amend Commissioner Kolstad's comment to read, "...he could not vote for who was right but would vote for what was right." Commissioner Kolstad further amended the sentence to read, "...he could not vote for 'who was right' but would vote for 'what was right'." Chairperson Siegfried noted that the speaker on Items 16 and 17 was Mr. Michael Layne. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1989, AS AMENDED. Passed 7-0. REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on September 22, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material' Planner Graft noted the following changes: - In DR-88-074, address amended to read Cocciardi Ct., not Continental Ct.; in addition the slope was recalculated at 9.94% rather than 10% In DR-89-071, a Condition was added to read, "The drainage plan shall provide for positive drainage from all improvements to inland structures along Pierce Rd." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Barrett Anderson, 20870 Jacks Rd., Saratoga, noted that there were new P.G.& E. lines across the property at 14965 Bohlman Rd.; he asked if the utility lines were not to be under- grounded in this area of the City. Staff to investigate the issue. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. V-89-024 Cuffe, 21151 Canyon View Drive, request for variance approval from Ordinance 15.45.030 to allow the expansion to 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 October 11, 1989 at the request of the applicant. 2. DR-89-095 Hut, 20052 Sunset Avenue, request for design review and building site ap- SD-89-019 proval to construct a two-story, 6,182 sq. ~. single family home in the HC- RD zone district per Chapter 14 and -15 of the City Code. Continued to December 13, 1989, per request of the applicant. 3. DR-89-046 Naghavi, 20233 Seagull Way, request for design review approval to demolish an existing single story residence and construct a 3, 197 sq. ft. two-story residence in the R-l-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to October 11, 1989 at the request of the applicant. 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 October 11, 1989. 5. V-89-023 Stepnet, 12553 Parker Ranch Rd., a resolution approving a request for variance approval from Ordinance 15-29.010 of the City Code to allow an 8 ft. high retaining wall where 5 ft. is the maximum allowed. Public Hearing closed September 13, 1989. 6. DR-89-092 Kim, 13355 Fontaine Dr., a resolution denying a request for design review to allow a 1,171 sq. ft., first and second floor story addition to an existing one-story residence, in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed September 13, 1989. 7. DR-88-074 Robby, 13536 Cocciardi Ct., request for design review approval for a new SUP-88-004 5,437 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A conditional use permit is also requested for a second unit. 8. DR-89-051 Silberstein, 14965 Bohlman Rd., request for design review approval to allow the construction of a 7,019 sq. ft., two-story residence in the HC-RD zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 9. DR-89-061 Nasiri, 21780 Heber Way, request for design review approval for a new SM-89-013 4,497 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Site modification approval is also re- quested for a swimming pool pursuant to the subdivision condition. 10. UP-89-010 Saratoga Federal Church, 20390 Park Place, request for conditional use permit for a new parking lot on the church site per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. DR-89-066 Kundtz, 21790 Heber Way, request for design review approval to construct a two-story, 6,190 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 12. DR-89-071 Saviano, 13502 Pierce Rd., request for design review approval to construct a two-story, 5,668 sq. ft. single-family dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 13. DR-89-078.1 Chau, 14478 Sobey Rd., request for modification to a design review ap- proval by the Planning Commission including changes in roof lines, addition of basement and changes in grading. Commissioner Harris requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 7. Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 13. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 12. Passed 7-0. 7. DR-88-074 Robby, 13536 Coccardi Ct., request for design review approval for a new SUP-88-004 5,437 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A conditional use permit is also requested for a second unit. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 271h; he noted that the Applicant's Engineer had verified the slope at 9.94%, as stated earlier. Commissioner Harris stated that her concern was with the definition of a detached second unit which was not adequately discussed in the Staff Report. According to the zoning regulations, a detached second unit required that the lot be 1.6 times the standard, which in this case would be 1.6 acres; the lot in question was only 1.15 acres. While she understood Staffs recommendation that a wall be constructed between the proposed units, she was not convinced that such would sufficiently integrate the second unit so as to be considered a part of the main structure. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:53 P.M. Mr. Guy Robby, Applicant, stated that according to the Planning Staff, the use of a wall to attach two units had been approved at other locations. Construction of second wall would be excessive and would require the installation of two gates for access to the driveway and the rear yard; however, if such were required, they were willing to construct the second wall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued In response to Commissioner Kolstad's question, Mr. Robby stated that he wished the unit to be detached in order that his mother-in-law could preserve her autonomy; he felt that attaching the two units limited the privacy for occupants of both units. Chairperson Siegfried commented that using a wall to attach separate units might set a precedent; Commissioner Harris agreed that this was the concern. Mr. Robby cited the Code and noted that the unit would have a common wall, floor and ceiling. Ms. Robby added that this unit was very important to her mother, who planned to sell her home. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, Mr. Robby stated that they had considered at- taching the second unit to the garage, but such resulted in the loss of sunlight in the accessory unit. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger stated that she wished to approve this Application. The total square fooiage proposed was 1,000 sq. ft. below that allowed by Code; this lot would not be overbuilt. Her preference would be that the requirement for a common wall be expanded. Commissioner Tucker favored attaching the second unit to the garage; the issue of adequate natural lighting could bc addressed by the use of skylights and/or the addition of windows. Commissioner Kolstad commented that second units did not appear to be compatible with the neighborhood; he suggested that the unit be off-set from the main structure. The connecting wall would only add bulk,' without reducing the number of units on the site. Commissioner Harris noted that the Ordinance intent was to reduce density. The impacts of a de- tached unit were increased due to the fact that a detached unit invited a number of uses that would not normally occur if the accessory structure were attached to the main building. Chairperson Siegfried reiterated his concerns regarding the Ordinance intent; he noted the efforts to design the Ordinance and felt that the proposal under consideration did not meet the intent. HARRIS/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-074 AND SUP-88-004 TO OCTOBER 11, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD OCTOBER 3, 1989. Passed 7-0. Mr. Robby asked that the two Applications be voted on separately; he was eager to start construe- tion on the main structure and was willing to address the Conditional Use Permit for the second unit at a later dat if the Commission wished to further consider this request. Planning Director Emslie stated that the Commission could take action on the Design Review A.p- plication; the Conditional Use Permit for the second unit could be either Continued or denied; in any case, an application for a modification would be necessary. Chairperson Siegfried pointed out the the constraints and possible restrictions on the second unit if the Design Review Application was approved as presented; Mr. Robby stated he understood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Moran stated she was uncomfortable with this proposal which reduced the options for attaching the second unit to the main structure; only a limited time delay was in question. Staff noted the prohibition of grading after October 30th, which the Applicant wished to avoid. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE OF DR-88-074 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.· Passed 6-1, Commissioner Moran dissenting. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP-88-004 TO OCTOBER 11, 1989, WITH A STUDY SESSION BEING HELD OCTOBER 3, 1989. Passed 7-0. 13. DR-89-078.1 Chau, 14478 Sobey Rd., request for modification to a design review ap- proval by the Planning Commission including changes in rooflines, addition of basement and changes in grading. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 27th. The Public Hearing was opened 8:13 EM. · The Applicant deferred to the following speaker. Mr. R. Reinhardt, 14660 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, reviewed his letter regarding drainag.e concerns. Commissioner Tucker stated that she removed the Item due to concerns about excessive grading. Mr. Eugene Chau, Applicant, stated that he could construct a bridge equal size to the bridge located downstream; in addition, it would be the same elevation as the others. With respect to Commis- sioner Tucker's comment, the amount of grading required was the result of constructing a base- ment. He confirmed that he understood that a detailed drainage plan would be required. Commissioner Burger noted that the figures showing 1,774 Cu. Yds. of Cut and 1,774 Cu. Yds. of Fill did not reflect the fact that much of the cut would be used as fill to create earth berms in the front and rear yards, around the tennis court and in the driveway area. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:29 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger suggested a Condition be added for hauling the cut; she was more con- cerned about the drainage, but noted that a detailed drainage plan was being required. Commissioner Tucker asked that when the City Engineer reviewed the drainage plan submitted, that consideration be given to the neighbor's concerns about this issue. Commissioner Harris felt that the Conditions added as an Amendment on September 27, 1989, addressed the concerns raised. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-078.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS ADDED AS AN AMENDMENT ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1989.. Passed 7-0. ' · PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 .SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 14. 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 the an adjacent vacant commercial space (14501 Big Basin Way) in the C-C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Use permit approval is also requested for an existing outdoor dining patio. Continued from September 13, 1989. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Bill Carlson, Applicant, agreed with Staff Recommendation. TUCKER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Passed 7-0. TAPPAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-104 AND UP-89-013 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. 15. DR-89-076 Young, 15185 Pepper Lane, request for design review to allow the demoli- tion of an existing single story residence and the construction of a new, 4,079 sq. ft., two story residence, in the R-l-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from September 13, 1989. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:32 P.M. Mrs. Hyland, 19852 Park Dr., Saratoga, stated she appreciated the site visit made to her property. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Designer, presented correspondence from the Helmuths, 19831 Robin Wy., Saratoga. He added that they had responded to the concerns raised at 'the Public Hearing. He provided technical information on the varying roof heights per Chairperson Siegfried's request and the view from the second story windows per Commissioner Harris' question. Commissioner Burger suggested the windows in Bedroom 3 be the same as those in Bedroom 2. Mr. Cunningham responded that this was a possibility; they could work with Staff on this issue. Ms. Hyland reviewed her concerns regarding some of the second story windows and questioned if there was a limitation on the hours that construction would be allowed. MORAN/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Kolstad agreed the neighbors had a legitimate concern regarding the second story side windows; he suggested the use of a fixed window and/or obscure glass. He felt that the height proposed was acceptable and would not present the problem perceived. With respect to the design, this was a transition neighborhood with mixed architectural styles; this was one of the first homes to come in for a renovation. He was favorable to the Application with a modification to certain, second story windows. "' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris thought that the design was bulky for the neighborhood in question; she had no objection to a second story addition, per sc, but wished to scc a more sensitive treatment. Her greatest concern was the significant increase in the footprint of the home as well as the addition of a second story. In addition, the relocation of a porch area and placement of the master bedroom and family room living area closer to the Hylands would greatly impact these neighbors; for these reasons she would not bc voting in favor of this Application. Commissioner Tucker stated she was not have as many concerns with the bulk; the Applicant had followed the Design Review Guidelines in breaking up the roof line. She agreed that certain second story windows should be modified in consideration for the neighbors, Commissioner Burger commented that the addition of a second story did not concern her as much as expected; however, she was concerned that the new home would be located closer to the prop- crty line adjacent to the neighbors. She agreed that a rather active living area .was being traded for the existing, secluded patio area which increased the possibility of noise impacts; she wished to scc a modification of certain, second story windows as well as a Condition requiring the installation of significant landscaping along the property line abutting the Hyland's site. Commissioner Tappan stated he was sensitive to the ncighbor's concerns and had walked the prop- erty. While he did not have major concerns about the proposed design and did not object to the addition of a second story, his major concern was how the Hyland property would be shielded from the new house. A detailed and complete landscaping plan could bc used to address this concern. Hc agreed that a modification of certain, second story windows was desirable. Hc would vote in favor of the Application with the provision that a detailed landscaping plan bc submitted which addressed the concerns raised. Commissioner Kolstad observed that installation of landscaping sufficiently dense to prevent visual impacts between the Applicant's and the Hyland's residence also reduced the natural light on both sites; he favored shifting the house, rather than relying on landscape screening to shield the homes. Commissioner Moran stated she had reservations whether the proposed design was compatible with the existing neighborhood; in addition, she had concerns regarding the privacy impacts to residents of one story homes. Finally, she questioned whether landscaping could be relied upon to screen either the first or the second story elevations of these homes; the scheduled removal of two Oak trees and trimming the shrubbery would significantly change the appearance of the area; the impacts from a future second story addition to the Hyland's home had not been considered. Chairperson Siegfried felt [hc proposed design was incompatible with the existing neighborhood; it was too tall and only met the 26 ~. height limitation because the roof had been abruptly terminated. TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-076 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN BE SUBMITTED AND INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE FENCING DESIGNS, THAT THE WINDOW IN BEDROOM 3 BE EITHER REMOVED OR A FIXED OPAQUE WINDOW INSTALLED, AND THAT THE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION BE LIMITED TO 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY ONLY. Passed 4-3, Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Harris and Moran dissenting. Break 9:05 - 9:15 P.M. · "'~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris stepped down on the following Item. 16. LLo89-005 Dymand, 21116 Comer Dr., request for a lot line adjustment to transfer DR-89-085 3.32 acres from Flynn to Dymand, resulting in a parcel size of 8.25 acres. V-89-021 Also, a request for design review and variance to allow the construction of a 10,850 +/- sq. ft., two-story residence, in the NHR zone district, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval would allow exceptions to the "floor area", "impervious coverage" and "height above a major ridge" standards of the NHR district. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:17 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, Applicant's Representative, commented as follows: Called attention to her letter and reviewed the Application. With respect to a Variance for "a height above a major ridge", Staff was able to make a Finding. With respect to the Variance for the floor area, this house was specifically designed to maintain the required square footage; it was not until plans were submitted that the Applicants were told the enclosed patio interpretation added approximately 900 sq. ft. to the home Applicants did not feel that the Ordinance required the inclusion of the patio and balconies, but in an effort to comply, some balcony roofs were removed Only a 624 sq. ft. balcony area on the south side of the property remained This balcony was viewed as very important, protected the home from the sun and allowed the use of a patio similar to that enjoyed by other residents of the City - The site faced away from any adjacent neighbors, did not add to the bulk or size of the home and provided the solar element recommended in the Design Review Ordinance - With respect to the Variance required for impervious coverage, this house was designed in one- story and two-story elements intended to reduce the perceived bulk and impact of the design - In using this design, the house was spread over a greater part of the lot; in combination with the driveway, tennis court and pool area caused the allowable impervious coverage to be exceeded - Applicants reduced the impervious coverage by turning the tennis court into a grass court and putting the entry way in turf block; only the house, driveway, pool and walkways remained - This was an unusual lot; the average lot in the zoning district had 14-25%% lot coverage while this one had only 5% coverage; Staff acknowledged that this lot was larger than average - Applicants believed that the size of the lot created an exceptional circumstance - The major element of this mission style home was placed east and west so that the view of the house was the narrow portion, not the elongated part, reducing the impact an any neighbor - Neighbors were pleased with the orientation of the house - The cut of 3,500 Cu. Yds. did not pose the same problem 'as on a hillside; this site was flat - Applicant agreed to move the house 14-16 ft. to the south; by doing so the retaining wall could be eliminated and the living room element could be pulled away from Comer Dr.; renderings were presented to show the shifting of the house - The intent was to remain within the applicable Ordinance requirements and to design a home compatible with the hillside PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli stated that further subdivision was not intended, per Commissioner Tucker's question. The City Attorney added that such would be recorded; however, the Commission could add a Condition to read, "The site shall not be subject to any further subdivision", if they so wished. Mr. Don Norling, 21000 Comer Dr., Saratoga, was generally favorable to this proposal although he had not been contacted by either the Applicant or Ms. Fanelli. He was very much opposed to Mrs. Nieman's (adjacent neighbor) request for an access easement across a portion of the subject site. As a property owner to the east, he was very concerned about potential privacy impacts; it appeared to him that the proposed development would spill over the flat portion of the site. He urged that Staff Recommendation be followed; there were on-going problems with drainage. Mr. Robert Yager, 21020 Comer Dr., Saratoga, was impressed by the proposed design. He confirmed for the record that this site would not be further subdivided; such would preserve the hillside. He felt that the area was beginning to look like a concrete jungle; the use of palm trees on the subject site was very undesirable. Any landscaping should be compatible with the area. Ms. Janet Harris, 21083 Comer Dr., Saratoga, asked to see color samples and noted that homes in the area were much too light in color and were inadequately landscaped; she wished to see land- scaping on the west and north sides of the subject site. Finally, she asked that all debris be removed from this property. Mr. Doug Adams, Attorney representing Mrs. Nieman, reviewed the topography of the Nieman site and stated that the only access between the lower and upper property was a walking bridge; he noted his client's need for an easement for vehicular traffic. Mrs. Nieman was assured in July, 1987, that when the subject site was developed access would be a consideration of the City. Ms. Norling, 21000 Comer Dr., Saratoga, stated that she had been approached by the Nieman's wishing to obtain an easement, but she told them she was not interested; however, she also told Mrs. Nieman that when the disking was done by the immediate neighbors, she could use the same person and access could be obtained over the Norling property. Mr. Darrell Snffen, 21072 Comer Dr., Saratoga, agreed that he did not wish to see a road (access easement) across the properties; he added that drainage had been a problem in the past. Ms. Fanelli stated that the Applicants shared the concerns of the neighbors regarding an access easement since they would have no control over such' however the Applicants were willing to work with the Niemans to reach an agreement for access of mai;tenance equipment. In addition, they were willing to work with 'the neighbors regarding the type of landscaping installed. BURGER/TUCKER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger stated she did not have any problem approving the square footage requested; this was an eight acre lot. She favored shifting the house to the west and south, which should address any concerns regarding privacy impacts. She wished to see additional landscaping on site. The necessary Findings to approve this Application could be made. Commissioner Tucker stated she was having difficulty making some of the necessary Findings; however, she agreed that shifting the home was desirable. PLANNING COMMISSION' MEETING Page 10 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS' Continued Commissioner Kolstad also favored shifting the home. He did not object to the proposed grading; this was a beautiful site and should be developed properly. Commissioner Moran stated she appreciated the sensitivity of the Applicant in attempting to work within the Ordinances but there were things other than the patio that could be changed in order to conform to Ordinance requirements. She was favorable to shifting the house and asked that the structure be relocated on the building pad, even if more than the 10 ft. shift proposed was required. Commissioner Tappan had nothing to add, except that he did like the palm trees. Chairperson Siegfried commented that he had wished to see this site developed for a long time; this was a sensitive design and the drainage concerns would be addressed in completing the project. This was an eight acre site; the square footage proposed was inconsequential in comparison to the overall site area. He could make the necessary Findings to approve this Application and asked that a detailed landscaping plan be submitted. Commissioner Burger added that the difference in the allowed square footage verses that proposed was one patio area; she questioned whether the impact of the home would be reduced at all by removing the roof of the covered patio area. Such would provide some shade for the living portions of the home. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE LL-89-005 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-021 MAKING THE FINDINGS FOR THE FLOOR AREA AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE PROPOSED AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE BUILDING PAD WAS FLAT, THAT THIS LOT WAS IN EXCESS OF EIGHT ACRES AND THAT A 17,000 SQ. FT. OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE WAS REQUESTED WHERE 15,000 SQ. FT. WAS ALLOWED, ON A SITE IN EXCESS OF 350,000 SQ. FT.; SUCH DID NOT CONSTITUTE 'THE GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.. Passed 4-2, Commissioner Tucker, Moran dissenting. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-021 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AND ADDING CONDITIONS THAT THE HOUSE BE SHIFTED 10 FT.. AWAY .FROM THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING PAD AND 14 FT. SOUTH, THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN BE SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REVIEW AND THAT MUTED SHADES, NO LIGHTER THAN THE COLOR SAMPLES PRESENTED, BE USED... Passed 4-2, Commissioner Tucker, Moran dissenting. Commissioner Harris was reseated on the Commission. 17. SM-89-014 Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn Ln., request for site modification approval to remove an open space easement on an approved tentative parcel map in the R-I-20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. · Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:12 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Rick Rechenmacher, Consulting Civil Engineer, cited his letter and reviewed the Application; he noted that the reason for the open space easement was not indicated in the records of the time. Mr. Steve Pizone, Attorney stated he was concerned about the lack of a record regarding this ease- ment; the proposed subdivision lots were virtually unable to be viewed from the highway. It would be inequitable .to require such when it was not imposed on other near-by lots. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:23 P.M. Passed 7-0. The City Attorney stated that he recalled that there was concern regarding traffic access. Commissioner Burger added that the concern at ihe time was related to road hazards. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF SM-89-014 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. 18. DR-89-105 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Dr., request for design review to construct a one- story, 2,925 sq. ft. single-family dwelling in the R-1-10,000 zone .district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:29 P.M. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, reviewed the Application and called out the height of the house, the amount of grading required and the landscaping screen for the site; he felt the recommendations of the adjacent property owners, the Wilsons, to use Brazilian Pepper Trees would not be the best choice. In addition, they proposed a wire fence ~vith landscaping on it, rather than a redwood fence as recommended by Staff, which would create a feeling of confinement. Mr. Sam Espeseth, Applicant, stated he would extend the Pittosporium per the Wilson's request. Ms. Janice La Motte, 1317 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, stated she had concerns about the proposed landscaping, drainage and the hours of construction and wished assurances that these issues would be addressed. Mr. Heid provided additional information on the landscaping and drainage. HARRIS/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:42 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger stated that rotating the Pepper trees and the Pittosporium would not create a desirable landscape screen; she favored the use of the Pittosporium along the driveway, extending across the back as Mr. Espeseth offered to do. Pepper trees could be placed as appropriate. Consensus reached that 15 gallon trees would be acceptable. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO .APPROVE DR-89-105 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AND ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT A PITTOSPORIUM HEDGE BE INSTALLED ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND ACROSS THE BACK, WEST OF THE WILSON'S PROPERTY; THAT PEPPER TREES WERE TO BE PLACED PER STAFF AP- PROVAL, THAT WIRE FENCING WITH LANDSCAPING ON IT AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED AND THAT THE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. Passed 7-0. "": PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 19. DR-89-102 Nolle, 19935 Herriman, request for design review approval to construct a V-89-031 590 sq. ft. addition to an existing home in the R-I-20,000 zone district p. er Chapter 15 of the City Code. The variance is to reduce the required exterior side yard setback to 16 ft. 6 in. where 25 ft. is required. Planner Graft presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:45 P.M. Mr. Rich Nolle, Applicant, reviewed the current Application and stated that he wished to go forward with this project. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:47 P.M. Passed 7-0. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-031 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-102 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. 20. DR-89-075.1 BP America, 14395 Big Basin Way, request for modification to an ap- proved design review application to repaint a gas station in the C-C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing Spanish tiled station, located in the Saratoga Village, is proposed to be repainted in the corporate BP America color scheme. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:50 P.M. Mr. Kevin Bush, Representing BP America reviewed their current proposal to paint the building light grey with dark grey trim; a color board was presented. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:55 EM. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Tappan stated he could understand the desire to display the corporate colors, but he had problems with approving the color scheme proposed; such was not ~n keeping with the mission style of the building. He would not approve this request. Commissioner Kolstad added that the light grey color would appear to be unpainted stucco. Commissioner Moran favored Staff Recommendation to deny this Application. Commissioner Tucker commented that while she was unfavorable to the original proposal for green and yellow tones, there were other buildings in the Village that had a grey palette; she was undecided regarding this latest request. Commissioner Burger felt that everything possible to retain the Village character should be done. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO DENY DR-89-975.1 PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 7-0. ,3 '-~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Planning applications and projects. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report Commissioner Tucker reported on the City Council Meeting of September 20, 1989. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Heritage Preservation Commission, Minutes of September 6,1989, - Noted and filed. 2. Letter from Robert Weinman re: Mary Springer Tract - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. R~p~..tfully submitted ~/ ,. arol A. Probst-Caughey /