Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-1990 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: May 9, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Kolstad, Commissioners Burger, Moran, Siegfried and Tappan. Commission Tucker was absent. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes of April 25, 1990: Commissioner Tappan requested that additional comments which were made regarding item 6 (UP-547.2, Brookside Swim Club) be incorporated into the minutes. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1990 PENDING THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS. Passed 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: a) Mr. Michael Dennis addressed the Planning Commission. He said he purchased a townhome on Oak Street and since he has lived there he has experienced problems with activity generated by a bar in the area, a noisy exhaust fan in a restaurant and noise from garbage truck pickups. He stated he has met with City staff and indicated he circulated a petition which presently has 38 signatures. Mr. Dennis expressed concern about the Hobee's Restaurant which will open in.the vicinity. Chairperson Kolstad stated he discussed this matter with the Planning Director and suggested Mr. Dennis prepare a letter listing his concerns and include his petition with the letter. City Attorney Toppel commented that City staff is aware of the situation described by Mr. Dennis and there have been activities in connection with Code enforcement. He invited Mr. Dennis-to contact his office directly if he would like more details. Commissioner Siegfried suggested the matter be scheduled for a study session when more information becomes available. b) Mr. Ray Simpson, 12300 Radoyka Drive, addressed the Planning Commission. He is President of the Saratoga Parkwoods Homeowners Association and discussed a letter he sent to the Planning Commission regarding conflicts in some of the design reviews in his area. He stated the Homeowners Association has PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Continued established a committee to reevaluate its CC&Rs and also established an architectural design review committee. The neighbors will be polled regarding the CC&Rs and the results will be reported to the Planning Commission. c) Mr. Thomas Ackroyd, 20608 Ritana Court, addressed the Planning Commission. He requested that the Planning Commission consider his interests and concerns regarding the Saratoga Villa project located at 20572 Prospect Road which include removal of a large oak tree by the builder to accommodate the project and removal of a cedar tree from his property line; and complaints made to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission were not addressed. He indicated single story houses are required to be built on this location but two story houses are being built, Mr. Ackroyd circulated photographs of the area. He also indicated that trees on the property line which were to be protected have been damaged by construction equipment and expressed concern that he will lose his privacy. He also indicated. there is a crack in his pool which was not present prior to construction, and he was not consulted by the builder when work was performed on the property line. He presented a letter to the City Attorney. Planning Director Emslie stated that since Mr. Ackroyd spoke with the Planning Commission he has consulted with the chief building official to ensure that extraordinary care is taken to preserve the trees. There were some limbs damaged and the City Horticulturist must determine what repair of the tree is necessary. He indicated that there were certain trees to be removed from the site plan, and he would like to verify the information presented by Mr. Ackroyd with the approved plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Siegfried, Planning Director Emslie responded that the structures were built in accordance with the approved plans. Commissioner Siegfried indicated to Mr. Ackroyd that the houses may have the appearance of being two story houses but that does not necessarily mean they are two story houses. Chairperson Kolstad noted Mr..Ackroyd's concerns and said they would be investigated. The matter was scheduled for discussion at the study session on May 15. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 4, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 3 Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Walgren noted that item 6, listed as DR-90-005 on the agenda, should be DR-90-013. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. SP-492 Inouye, 12164 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for sign permit approval to allow an illuminated 10 square-foot sign within the retail center located at the southeast corner of Prospect and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Roads in the C-V zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (withdrawn). 2. DR-89-078 Gallo, 20087 Mendelsohn Ln., request for design review approval to construct a new two-story 4518 square-foot residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is located within the R-i-20,000 zone district and is part of Tract 6531 (cont. to 5/23/90 at the request of applicant). 3. SM-90-002 Reiman, 12480 Crayside Ln., request for site modification approval for a swimming pool within · the Beauchamps 'subdivision in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Also requesting approval for retaining walls in excess of 3 feet but not more than 5 feet. Both requests require site modification approval within this subdivision (cont. to 5/23/90). 4. SM-90-003 Fazelli, 12479 Crayside Ln., request for site modification approval for a swimming pool in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Site modification approval is required for all sites within the Beauchamps subdivision (cont. to 5/23/90). 5. DR-90-015 Deiwert, 12272 Via Roncole, request for design i review approval for 644 square-foot second story addition in the R-l-10,000 zone district per ! Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 5/23/90 at ! the request of applicant). PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. DR-90-005 Grichuhin, 20171 Cherry Ln., request for a one and two-story addition to an existing one-story single family residence'in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1990. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Michael Grichuhin, applicant, 20171 Cherry Ln., stated the neighbors were shown plans of the proposed addition and there were no objections to the plans. He said there is a lot of construction in the neighborhood as the houses.are about 35 years old, and most of the neighbors viewed the plans as an improvement to the neighborhood. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger indicated that some of the remodeling going on in the area is quite pleasant. She stated that with the applicant's endeavors to lower the roof line and the conditions staff put on approval of the application she feels comfortable with the application. Commissioner Moran expressed concerns regarding the second story look of the home as it appears massive and bulky. She said she would like to see the second story tucked into the house more, she felt there were problems with the balcony in the neighborhood and she would like to see the second story pulled away from the west lot line. Commissioner Moran stated she appreciates the applicant's efforts to lower the height of the house but would like to review this application in a study session. She said she was concerned with the portion of the house on the left-hand side that sticks out into the front yard area as she did not believe the design is compatible with the feeling of the neighborhood. Commissioner Tappan agreed with the concerns expressed by Commissioner Moran. He said he has some reservations regarding the application and would have no objection to reviewing this at a study session. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with the concerns expressed by Commissioners Moran and Tappan. He said the house was a pleasant home but the effect of the roof on the lot and the left side trouble him. Commissioner Burger said she was .agreeable to reviewing this item at a study session. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Kolstad stated he was concerned about the left side and the front. He said it was a nice design but seems to be a departure from the neighborhood because of the left side. He indicated he would also be in favor of a study session. SIEGFRIED/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-013 TO MAY 23, 1990 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON MAY 15. Passed 5-0. 7. SM-90-001 DiPiero, 14527 Sobey ~d., request for site modification to .construct a pool and extended patio area in an R-I-40,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1990~ Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. Mr. Richard West, 1020 Asbury Street, San Jose, represented the applicant and explained the design in detail. Mr. Tony DiPiero, applicant, 14526 Sobey Rd., addressed the Planning Commission. He said he did not see how he could fit any type of pool that would be worth putting in at the site previously. suggested. The swimming pool contractor addressed the Planning Commission. He said no ordinances or codes would be violated by this project. Mr. West noted the applicant has letters from the adjacent neighbors who reviewed the plans. There were no objections. MORAN/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:29 P.M. Passed Commissioner Tappan requested that the public hearing be continued in order to enable him to visit the site. Commissioner Burger said there was no question in her mind that the pool will be an improvement to the site. She expressed concern regarding the quantity of dirt that would be removed from the site as it would not preserve the natural topography. She also felt the alternate plans for the pool woul'd not do any justice to the home and the yard itself. Commissioner Burger said she felt there may be a compromise as to the placement of the pool which would reduce the amount of soil which would need to be removed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried stated he did not view the site but the plan looks like an elaborate one for a lot with the degree of slope as this lot. He indicated he understands the objection to the original plan but felt something less impactful in terms of the amount of grading could be accomplished. Chairperson Kolstad said there was a balancing act to make the property look nice and also preserving the natural contours. He felt there was no question the pool would improve the property. He stated he would be in favor of a study session on the issue which would give the other Commissioners the opportunity to view the property and would also enable someone to provide information regarding the height of the retaining walls. Commissioner Moran agreed with the comments made and suggested the applicant work with staff to answer some of the questions regarding retaining walls and cutting down the cubic yards of material to be removed. She said she did not object to a study session, but more could be accomplished if the applicant were to work with staff prior to the study session. Commissioner Siegfried indicated he lives on a lot similar to the lot in question and it was necessary for him to give up patio area and other items when locating his pool and suggested some things may have to be given up in order to avoid overgrading the site. TAPPAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE SM-90-001 TO JUNE 13, 1990 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON JUNE 5. Passed 5-0. 8. DR-89-041 Dividend Development, 13150 Saratoga Ave., Planning SD-89-006 Commission review of air quality plan as required as condition of approval. The Planning Commission will review results of analysis of carbon monoxide levels affecting senior housing. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at ~8:43 p,m. The applicant was present and did not wish to address the Planning Commission. A representative of the Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council addressed the Planning Commission. He said the Council has conducted an investigation which reached many of the same conclusions as those stated by staff. He indicated research was done with the assistance of the librarian at Good Samaritan Hospital who indicated there are no scientific studies that might PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 199=0 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued yield useful information in this case. Further research indicated that the concerns expressed by Councilmember Stutzman regarding carbon monoxide are likely to be shared by other experienced medical practitioners. He said the Council would request that the City obtain further information ~egarding each location before a final decision is made. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE .THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger questioned whether, if the Commission accepts the report, it would be indicating the study is accepted and no modifications need to be made to the plan approved on the Paul Masson-site. Planning Director Emslie responded that staff is recommending the Commission accept the study as accurate, that it is the best available information that can be provided on this issue, and that no diminution of the range of services provided in the original plan (namely the senior skilled nursing facility) be recommended by the Commission. That does not preclude the change for structural or mechanical ventilation that would be developed as the developer prepares his construction plan. Commissioner Burger asked if it would not be construed as a vote in favor of one site over another. Planning Director Emslie responded that permits were given to the developer to construct this facility at this site and this is a follow up on the conditions of the permits. Commissioner Tappan questioned the legal ramifications to the City should it be determined in the future there are harmful effects to the residents of the care facility. Planning Director Emslie responded that since the original conceptualplan approval staff has been unable to locate agencies charged with responsibility of monitoring air to take this over because they do not feel it is necessary. Unless the City is going to make a commitment to contract with consultants to analyze the information, staff has no expertise to make any judgment on this information. Since the monitoring agencies find it is not necessary, the essence of the question deals with the Commission's decision to locate the facility using the best information available to make decision. City Attorney Toppel said he did not think elimination of the station gives rise to any liability on the part of the City~ While the testing may not be totally conclusive, is does not clearly show PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued there is a level of risk that, in staff's opinion, would merit a recommendation that the senior care facility be eliminated. The monitoring station was intended as a facility to aid the regional agencies in monitoring the area. There was never an intention for Saratoga to do it on its own as the staff is not available to interpret the data. If the regional agency responsible for assembling the data does not feel it is necessary and does not want it and this was an offer to accommodate them, City Attorney Toppel he did not think any liability would be incurred.· Commissioner Siegfried questioned whether there is a way to get some medical review of this information and suggested the developer might want to consider it. Planning Director Emslie stated the gerontological study that was done by the developer took into account the effects of the location of the facility. There were pros and cons which were articulated and there was not an overriding concern. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-041. Passed 5-0. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE SD-89-006 DELETING CONDITION II(B), REQUIRING INSTALLATION OF AN AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION. Passed 5-0. 9. UP-88-010 Cupertino Union School District/Primary Plus, 12211 Titus Ave., review of Primary Plus preschool use permit by the Planning Commission to ensure compliance with all City requirements. The review is required at 4-month intervals of the school's first year of operation. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:59 p.m. Mr. John Power, 12150 Kristy Lane, distributed a summary of his remarks, which he presented in detail. He said he and his wife have been involved in activities relating to Hansen School and support controlled use of the facility and its grounds by local residents and discussed proposed modifications to the site. Mr. Power objected to the use of Melinda Circle for access to the school. City Attorney Toppel pointed out=that the Cupertino Union School District is a separate governmental agency which has exclusive jurisdiction over the operation of the public school and physical improvements that are made to theproperty. The City has PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued jurisdiction with respect to the operation of Primary Plus. He stated that in terms of direct regulation of the school programs and physical improvements on the site, the City does not have jurisdiction. The School Board is an elected body, the people who live in the neighborhood are the constituency of the School Board, and complaints can be directed to.the local representatives on the School Board who have the authority to respond to complaints. The resident at 12054 Kristy Lane addressed the Planning Commission. She presented a letter from the residents of Kristy Lane and Melinda Circle opposing the use of Melinda Circle for access to the school. City Attorney Toppel mentioned that an additional Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be done for the E1 Paseo site as part of a settlement of litigation. In connection with the EIR, augmented traffic studies will be done, and the intersection of Titus and Prospect will be one of the areas to be studied. It is hoped that information will help assess the need for signalization at that intersection. Mr. Andy Boogard, 12022 Titus Avenue, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he was the resident who suggested using Melinda Circle as an alternative for relieving congestion at Titus and Prospect. He reiterated his previous comments to the Planning Commission regarding congestion on Titus Avenue during the time parents are dropping off and picking up their children from the school. Ms. Sonya Schurr, Cupertino Union School District, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that in the 1989-90 school year the school district was prepared.to service 226 students at the McAuliffe site; the actual enrollment was 193 students. In September the school is prepared to serve a maximum of 258 students. Ms. Schurr indicated the parking lot is not finished yet. The lot will be used for staff parking and will be chained and locked in the evenings. The parking spaces have been removed from in front of the school, and the curb has been painted white for student loading and unloading. Ms. Schurr reported that the trees which were removed will be replaced. Ms. Carol Freitas, President of Primary Plus, addressed the Planning Commission. She pointed out the people in the neighborhood are upset because the school has changed from a closed state. However, Primary Plus is using two-thirds of the facility with maximum capacity of 175 students. If Primary Plus moved to another location, there would be 600 or more students at the school and the problems which are now upsetting the residents would be compounded. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried stated it would be helpful for the Commission to have a comparison of the impact of the school when both McAuliffe and Primary Plus are operating with the impact of Primary Plus only during the summer months. Ms. Sheila Goldstein, a resident of Titus Avenue, stated that students on Titus need to be walked across the street because of the difficulty in crossing. Ms. Cheryl Baldwin, Santa Clara, addressed'the Planning Commission. Her daughter is a student at Primary Plus, and she was. formerly a resident of Saratoga. She discussed an incident which occurred when she parked in front of one of the houses on Titus and she and her children were photographed crossing the street. She objected to the taking of the photographs. TAPPAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:44 P.M. Passed 5-0. In response to a question from Commissioner Siegfried regarding his previous comments on addressing the impacts of both McAuliffe School and Primary Plus, Planning Director Emslie suggested another four-month review. He said that counts could be done to ascertain the impact of traffic near the school. Commissioner Moran agreed with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. Chairperson Kolstad requested a schedule for the operation of both McAuliffe and Primary Plus and stated he would like to view the school at different times. Commissioner Tappan commented that the only reason this issue is before the Commission is because of the use permit which was applied for by Primary Plus and granted by the Planning Commission. He stated that had the Commission decided against the use permit the residents would not be addressing the Planning Commission but would be addressing the Cupertino Union School District. Commissioner Tappan said that it was obvious to him that Saratoga does have control of the school by virtue of the use permit but would have had none at all if the use permit had not been approved. Commissioner Siegfried responded to Commissioner Tappan's comments by stating that was the point of his question relative to obtaining more information about the two operations. Commissioner Burger stated she drove around Melinda Circle prior to the meeting and expressed concern regarding the barrier between Melinda Circle and the expanded parking lot. She said she noticed some potential problems which should be addressed by the use PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued permit. First, she noted there was nothing that would prevent parents from pulling up on Melinda Circle, stopping, getting out of their cars and walking their children to the school and felt that situation should be precluded from occurring. She also pointed out several problems with the extende. d parking lot and indicated there should be some sort of a physical barrier between Melinda Circle and the parking lot which would prevent cars from driving in and out and prevent people from parking there and walking back out again. She also expressed concern about the lights in the parking lot being on all night and felt some trees should be planted. Planning Director Emslie suggested the Commission schedule another review during the summer in order for testimony to be taken regarding Primary Plus alone. He also requested that Cupertino Union School District respond to the concerns raised about the parking lot. A review was scheduled, and will be noticed, for August 8, 1990. Break 9:50 p.m. - 10:05 p.m. 10. AZO-90-002 City of Saratoga', Planning Commission review of amendment to City Code to permit Council review of Planning Commission decisions. City Attorney Toppel reviewed the Memorandum dated April 16, 1990 and discussed the suggested alternatives by which the City Council could initiate a review of a Planning Commission decision. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:11 p.m. There was no one present who wished to address the Planning Commission on this item. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:11 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Siegfried commented he would favor the alternative requiring the concurrence of two Councilmembers. Commissioner Tappan stated his feeling was the Council could do what it pleases. However, he would recommend not adopting this ordinance as it would be in the best interest of the Council. Commissioner Burger said she felt the Council might be subject to pressure. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried indicated that individual Councilmembers could be put in a difficult position if only one Councilmember could bring an item up, particularly since people are charged for filing appeals. Commissioner Moran said it was a question of how much responsibility the Planning Commission feels comfortable with. She indicated she is happy to serve on a Planning Commission in which the decisions stand firm unless. they are appealed to the City Council. She felt the Council would be signalling that it wants to pay closer attention to Planning Commission decisions and wants to take more responsibility for land use and policy implementation, This is a tool that would allow the Council to take a stronger and more decisive leadership position. If that is what the Council has in mind it should go forward with this new structure. Commissioner Moran stated she would be happy either way and felt the Planning Commissioners would take their responsibility as seriously either way. She agreed with Commissioner Siegfried that two Councilmembers should concur in bringing a matter up. Commissioner Burger stated her r'ecommendation would be that the Council not adopt the change in the ordinance. SIEGFRIED/TAPPANMOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL NOT ADOPT THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Siegfried requested the Minutes reflect the Planning Commission's consensus that if the Council goes forward with the ordinance the two Councilmember concurrence alternative would be better than the one Councilmember alternative. Commissioner Tappan stated as things are now there is sufficient protection for all concerned. He said he felt the CounCil would be ill advised to recommend an amendment because it politicizes their position. Commissioner Kolstad said he felt the appeal process is adequate and seems to work. 11. DR-90-006 Davies, 14629 Big Basin Way, request for design SD-90-001 review approval to construct a one-story 1453 UP-90-O01 square-foot office building located within the CH-2 V-90-012 zone district. Building site approval is necessary to demolish an existing aged residence and construct an entirely new structure at this location. Use permit approval is requested to allow professional office space located at street level and having street frontage within the Commercial Historic zone district per Chapter 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 11. cont'd of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow an 8-foot tall fence along the west side property line and to allow a free- standing identification sign. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m. The applicant, Holly Davies, and her representative, Kate Schmidt, requested that their comments be deferred until after the neighbors have presented their comments. Ms. Anne Wagner, 14611A Big Basin Way, addressed the Planning Commission. She expressed her opposition to the 9'6" fence and indicated an 8-foot fence would be acceptable. She addressed several questions to Ms. Schmidt regarding the number of windows on the east side and whether they are of obscure glass. If the windows are not obscure glass, she questioned whether, if there was an 8-foot fence between the properties, would someone standing in the office building be able to look into her living room. Ms. Barbara Van Derveer, 14611B Big Basin Way, addressed the Planning Commission. She expressed concern at the staff recommendation that this application be approved as presented. She did not feel the applicant made any concessions except for the 9'6" fence. She felt the issue of the massiveness of the building was not addressed. She said that as a professional designer she felt it was a design mistake. She reiterated the neighbors are not opposed to the project but have concerns which need to be addressed and they were not addressed by the applicant. Ms. Mary Bosco, 14611D Big Basin Way, addressed the Planning Commission. She said she shares the same concerns mentioned by the other neighbors. She discussed the elevations of surrounding buildings and distributed a handout indicating the elevations. Ms. Schmidt responded to Ms. Wagner's questions. She circulated a sketch indicating it would not be possible to see over an 8-foot high fence at the highest elevation of the building. She indicated that with 9'6" fence, obscure glass would not be necessary. She said the applicant is open to solutions regarding the privacy issue. Planner Walgren confirmed that staff deleted the condition for window removals with the 9'6" fence. The restroom window remained obscure. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Holly Davies addressed the Planning Commission regarding her application. She explained the proposal in detail. She circulated photographs of the property. Using an overhead projector, Ms. Davies presented a slide depicting a previous proposal for the property. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:51 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger expressed concern regarding the height of the fence and with the fact that the residents are currently viewing a fence and a home covered with ivy and she views that as a better situation than what they would be faced with later. She said she was almost persuaded about the height of the building in terms of architectural integrity but was concerned about the overall impact of the 26-foot height. She also expressed concern that an additional structure would be built some time in the future. Commissioner Siegfried said he would not vote for a 9'6" fence anywhere but did not have a problem with the 8-foot fence even if it means using obscure glass. He said the structure is in keeping with the Village and the height would be acceptable to him. Commissioner Moran stated she is opposed to the 9'6" fence and it appears that an 8-foot fence and obscure glass in the bathroom would satisfy the problem at hand. Commissioner Tappan said he was not in favor of the 9'6" fence because of the billboard effect. He'stated he felt the building was pleasingly designed and reiterated the applicant's comments that there are more intense uses of the property than the present proposal. , Chairperson Kolstad concurred with the comments regarding the fence. He said he is not as concerned as he was previously about the 26-foot height but was concerned with the amount of composition shingle roofing appearing that close to the street at that height. He stated a 2-foot reduction in height would probably not make much difference in the style and questioned why the applicant has not reduced the height. For that reason, he would not be in favor of the application. MORAN/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE V-90-012 WITH AN 8-FOOT FENCE. Passed 5-0. MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE SD-90-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MORAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE UP-90-001 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-0. MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE 'DR-90-006 WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 24 FEET AND WITH CLEAR GLASS WINDOWS IN THE REAR OFFICE AND OBSCURE IN THE BATHROOM. Commissioner Burger said she was not comfortable with the motion because she did not know if 24 feet is better than 26 feet and questioned whether 2 feet would make that much difference. Commissioner Siegfried stated he. seconded the motion but is not sure that 2 feet would make that much difference. Commissioner Moran indicated she understood Commissioner Burger's concerns and commented that the buildings next door are much lower and seem to be of the same style as the proposed building. She said that 22 feet would be in keeping with that style also. Planning Director Emslie responded he has an inherent concern about conditioning the project in some'way that will not be seen. The overall proportion of the side elevation to the roof would be affected. Commissioner Siegfried withdrew his second to the motion as he seconded the previous motion for purposes of discussion. TAPPAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-006 WITH A CONDITION THAT THE BUILDING BE INSPECTED PRIOR TO FRAMING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OBSCURE GLASS SHOULD BE USED. Passed 3-2 (Commissioners Burger and Kolstad opposed). 12. UP-90-002 Saratoga Office Ltd., 12900, 30, 50, 80 Saratoga Ave., request for use permit approval to allow multiple freestanding site identification signs at a professional office complex located at the southeast corner. of Cox and Saratoga Avenues within the PA zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:10 p.m. The applicant appeared and explained additional signs are being requested because some tenants moved out because of lack of signage and prospective tenants are requesting additional signage. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:11 P.M. Passed 5-0. Various Commissioners stated they had no problem with the application. Commissioner Kolstad requested that condition 3 be amended and suggested a proposed amendment. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE UP-90-002AMENDING CONDITION 3 OF THE RESOLUTION TO READ: "THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE FACIAS AND LETTERING ON THE TWO FREESTANDING SITE IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGNS WHICH HAVE BEEN DAMAGED OVER TIME WITH MATERIALS ABLE TO ADEQUATELY WITHSTAND OUTSIDE ELEMENTS..." Passed 5-0. 13. V-90-007 McCormick, 21424 Tollgate Rd., request for variance approvaI to construct a 5-foot fence in the front yard in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15-29 of 'the City Code. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 9, 1990. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at .11:14 p.m. Ms. Janice McCormick, 21424 Tollgate Rd., stated they are requesting the variance for security and privacy reasons. She indicated there have been arrests' on the property and people have been wandering through the property because they think the house is unoccupied. Mr. Frank Soud, 14599 Deer Springs Ct., addressed the Planning Commission and confirmed that he has run people off of the property and in one instance phoned the sheriff and had trespassers arrested. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:18 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Moran stated she is not able to support the application for a variance because she is not convinced of the utility of high fences for security purposes. The fence as proposed without the variance would make the home look occupied. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE V-90-007 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-1 (Commissioner Moran opposed). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 9, 1990 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 14. DR-88-010 Hamoui, 21518 Saratoga Heights, review of proposed color change. This item was continued from the 5/1/90 Committee-of-the Whole meeting to allow the Commission to visit the site. Commissione~ Moran stated she feels the original color is more in keeping with the goals of the hillside and the original color should be kept. Commissioner Siegfried said he generally agrees with Commissioner Moran's comments but did not have trouble with this particular site. Commissioner Burger also concurred with Commissioner Moran. She said there are homes in the vicinity getting lighter and would prefer the original approved color. Commissioner Tappan stated he understands the other Commissioners' concerns but did not have a problem with the proposed color. Chairperson Kolstad said his feeling was the earthtone colors worked at one time but as more and more dense neighborhoods appear he is not sure the color works. He stated he would be in favor of the proposed color. There was Planning Commission consensus to retain the original earthtone color. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming planning applications and projects 2. Heritage Preservation Minutes - 4/18/90 3. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - 4/17/90 and 5/1/90 COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Cuffman