Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-1990 Planning Commission MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Continued regard to the geology of the site and the appropriateness of building a home there". She also requested that comments be included regarding the discussion between staff and other members of the Commission indicating a decision on the appropriateness of building on a site where such uncertainty exists can be made at the design review stage. On page 13 she requested the motion for SD- 89-011 be amended in the fourth line, after the oak tree provision, to read: "that any improvements be limited to the access road to the end of the turnaround so that~future .... " On page 14, in the third paragraph, fourth line, she requested the word "aerial" be inserted before the word "photograph". Commissioner Caldwell also requested that staff be directed to appropriately change the resolution regarding the Tager property so that it reflects what is stated in the minutes. Chairperson K01stad requested that the first paragraph on page 15 be amended to read: "CommissiOner Kolstad said he felt that cutting back the extension would' have the same minimal impacts either Way and could make the findings for the variance." SIEGFRIED/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 13, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 22, 1990. Technical Corrections to packet.Material: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-90-015 Deiwert, 12272 Via Roncole, request for design 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 7/11/90 at the request of applicant). 2. DR-90-029 Calebotta, 14240 Paul Ave., request for design review approval to construct a new 787 square-foot second story addition to an existing 2,194 square- foot one-story single-family residence in the R-i- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 7/25/90 at the request of the applicant). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 3. SM-90-004 Morrison, 14170 Teerlink Way, request for site modification approval to construct a swimming pool and retaining walls on a site with an average slope exceeding 10% in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code (cont. to 7/11/90 at the request of the applicant). 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 with an average slope greater than 10%. 5. UP-90-005 Mishimoto, 12172 Saratoga-Sunnyva!e Rd., request for use permit approval to allow a 1,400 square- foot existing restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages within .the Park Saratoga commercial center in the C-V zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie noted .that prior to the meeting he received correspondence from Mr. Thomas Eo Ackroyd, 20608 Ritana Court, stating his objection to the alcohol provisions under the use permit. Mr. Ackroyd was specifically concerned about late- night activity and operating with a liquor license beyond the normal hours Of the shopping center. Commissioner Moran request'ed that item 5 be removed. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4. Passed 5-0. 5. UP-90-005 Mishimoto, 12172 'Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for use permit approval to allow a 1,400 square- foot existing restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages within' the Park Saratoga commercial center in the C-V. zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1990. Mr. Emslie indicated staff is recommending approval and that the hours be established from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. seven days a week and that the application will require a public hearing before the Planning Commission could change the hours. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:43 pom. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued There was no one present who Wished to address the Planning Commission regarding this item. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43 P.M. Passed 5-0. Mr. Ackroyd was present and statedhe was originally concerned with the hours of operation but did not have any objection to the proposed hours. MORAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE UP-90-005 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether there was outside seating at this restaurant; staff responded there was not. The motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. V-90-016 De Simone, 12517 Woodside Dr., request for variance approval to extend a nonconforming building setback in order to allow for the construction of a 467 square-foot garage addition that results in, a 12 ft. exterior side yard setback when 25 feet is required. The project is located in the .R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1990. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Applicant Ellen De Simone addressed the Planning Commission. She said she spoke with the neighbors who would be mainly affected by the proposal, showed them the plans and they had no objections as long conditions are met to maintain the 10-foot setback and no more than that, that there be a reasonable-sized window on the side of garage facing their property, that the fence existing between the properties not be extended any further, and landscaping be included on the side of the garage not a concrete slab that can be used for parking. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger indicated she had no problem with the variance as requested. She noted the back yard is relatively small and expressed concern about the applicant being deprived of the use of a significantly important portion of the back yard. She agreed with the conditions of the neighbors and said she would like to see landscaping along the side of garage. Commissioner Caldwell stated that while on the land use visit other properties in the neighborhood that had accomplished something similar to this proposal were looked at and she expressed a concern that by encroaching on the setback the homes create a more closed- in feeling in the neighborhood than what'is typically enjoyed in Saratoga. Commissioner Moran said she was hoping some room could be found to pull the garage back or to shorten it, but she stated she also understands the point about the back yard which makes it difficult to do so. Commissioner Caldwell indicated she was open to trying to move the garage back and would like to see landscaping extend all along the property boundary and removing the concrete. Commissioner Burger stated she is in favor the application as proposed in terms of the size and location of the garage but would like to see the landscaping extend all the way out to the street to eliminate the extra pavement. Chairperson Kolstad said he felt the garage is fine the way it is and did not think the overall length gives a long flat look at all. Regarding moving the garage back, he said he felt the floor plan of the home would be destroyed. Withthe inclusion of the suggestions by the neighbor, he would .be in favor of the application as proposed. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE V-90-016 PER THE STAFF REPORT ADDING CONDITIONS THAT THE LANDSCAPING AS PROPOSED ON THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE BE CONTINUED OUT TO THEPROPERTY LINE, THAT THE FENCE BE RETAINED IN ITS PRESENT POSITION AND THAT LANDSCAPING ON THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE BE APPROVED BY STAFF. Passed 4-1 (Caldwell opposed). 7. DR-90-020 Jue, 21903 Villa.Oaks, request for design review V-90-006 approval to construct a new 5,716 square-foot two- story single-family home and a request for variance to exceed the 26 foot height limit in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Cal~well reported on the land use visit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Jimmy Jue, applicant, was present and indicated his architect Mr. Alan Coon would discuss the design of the house. Mr. Alan Coon, 535 Sylvan Avenue, San Bruno, addressed the Planning Commission. .He described the property and the design in detail. ~He read a statement by Mr. Don Olsen, Mechanical Engineer, regarding the Title 24 requirements for solar design as related to the design of the home. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M.. Passed 5-0.. Commissioner Siegfried stated that when the height limitations were changed from 30 to 26 feet he. argued in favor of something different than a variance finding between 26 and 30 feet. The Commission chose to go with variance finding and he will abide by that and sees no basis for granting a variance in this case. He said he felt a home designed differently could do all the things necessary in terms of solar savings. Commissioner Moran said she is also unable to make the variance findings in this case and agreed with the variance 'discussion in the staff report. Commissioner Burger agreed with the other Commissioners. Commissioner Caldweli said she agrees with the staff report. Chairperson Kolstad complimented Mr. Coon on the design and said there are lot of other homes in the area on the same size lots with less shade that have been able to accomplish the 26-foot limitation so he cannot make the findings for the variance. Mr. Coon asked if it would be possible to continue the item in order to elaborate on the design 'at a study session. City Attorney Toppel said if the Commission were to deny the variance the applicant could appeal. However, the staff recommendation is clear that there is no recommendation 'for approval of the variance but the applicant should revise the plans in order to proceed on the design review. He was concerned that if 'the variance is not denied the applicant might think it was still PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued a possibility in terms of coming back to a study session. He noted the purpose of a study session is not for further argument but to look at some revision to what has. already been rejected. Commissioner Moran said she felt both the design review and the variance should be continued since the Commission is trying to keep items together in packages. A discussion ensued regarding whether the variance should be denied or continued with the design review in order to keep both items together. ChairperSon Kolstad stated he had no problems with the design itself only the height and did not feel it was necessary to go to a study session. Planning Director Emslie said staff is suggesting that this not go to a study session but in deference to Commissioner Moran's concern and in order to resolve the procedural issue both items should be continued. MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO 'CONTINUE DR-90-020 AND V-90-006 TO JULY 25, 1990. Passed 5-0. 8. V-90-017 Knight, 21305 Canyon View Drive, request for variance approval to alter and expand a nonconforming structure in the R-1-40,O00 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:32 p.m. Mr~ Gordon Knight, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he felt the design accomplishes the minimum impact on the community with no exterior elevation change. He indicated the addition of the bedroom and bathroom will actually physically strengthen the e~isting three-story wall against earthquakes. SIEGFRIED/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 5-0. In response to a question from Commissioner Siegfried, Commissioner Caldwell responded that the house' looks like a three-story house PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from the northern viewpoint because it is exposed and the only aspect that would have an impact would be the balcony which will project out and the homeowners to the east would have a view of the balcony. Commissioner Burger said the only place the homecould be seen by the Commissioners was at next land use visit on Dr. Head's estate. In response tO a question from Commissioner Moran regarding the deck, City Attorney Toppel responded that the variance is because of the height which is created by:taking the interior of the house and converting it into living space. If the applicants were simply adding the deck there might be design review aspect but it would not be grounds for a need for a variance. SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF V-90-017 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 5-0. 9. V-90-018 Head, 14684 Pike Rd., request for variance approval to complete and l~galize construction of 8-foot high fencing around the entire perimeter of the parcel within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the. City code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1990. In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell, City Attorney Toppel clarified the legal status of the fence by stating that as staff has reported the entire site is enclosed and was enclosed before the ordinance was adopted that restricted the area of enclosure so that would be an existing, nonconforming situation. The 6-foot fence in terms of height alone would be permitted under the City's ordinances, however, '8 feet would not be permitted. Therefore, any fencing that has 'been installed above 6 feet in height is illegal and the purpose of the application is to legalize some work that has already been done. For purposes of itsdecision the Commission can ignore any 'fencing that has already been installed as that has no bearing. on the decision other than the design, but there were no'rights that had been acquired by reason of the fact that the fencing was installed. He also noted that an ordinance was adopted expressly prohibiting any barbed wire fencing except under certain circumstances. There is no claim that this site fits within those circumstances. He also noted there is a restriction on wire fencing in general, and types of wire fencing are allowed as long as they are painted dark. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS ContinUed Commissioner Caldwell also questioned if staff is aware if there is an established trail or migratory route for wildlife crossing the property. Planning Director Emslie responded that staff is not aware of evidence that indicates there is an established migratory route through the property. The.Department of Fish and Game has been contacted for general information about deer patterns and behavior but in this case staff did not ask the biologists or representatives from Fish and Game to inspect to see if there was any evidence of a migratory route. Commissioner Caldwell asked what kind of inquiry Would normally be undertaken to determine whether or not such a pathway exists. Mr. Emslie responded that in this' case the inquiry was not strong because the fence has been establ.ished for such a long time. The applicant was not taking a pristine site that had not been fenced and converting it. In a situation like that, staff would have contacted State representatives and biologists who would have visited the site and inspected evidence for migratory routes looking for evidence of deer 'travel through there and the representatives would have given staff a verbal report. Mr~ Walgren indicated the applicant has stated, and the biologists from Fish and Game also agree, that the deer are specifically coming onto the property for the orchard. Commissioner Caldwell stated there is also water on the property and she wondered whether animals are seeking the water source on the property. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Planning Director Emslie noted staff received a letter from a representative of the Saratoga Hills Road Association expressing concern about the fence on Saratoga Hills Road. Dr. Donald Head, applicant, said he is a member of the Saratoga Hills Road Association but was not aware of the letter. He pointed out the reasons for the fence are. listed in the staff report. He indicated the fence will be aesthetically pleasing as it will be open-wire fencing, the barbed wire will be removed and 99% of the fence would be heavily wooded or 'landscaped. Commissioner Caldwell asked if he had ever considered a living fence as a natural way to mitigatethe problem. Dr. Head responded that he has dealt with several agencies over the years and have tried various ways of deterring th'e deer and has found nothing that will deter them. He said the fence will probably not totally deter PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued the deer but will hopefully mitigate the ravage done by them. He indicated that 30 to 40 trees are lost every year because of the deer. The resident of 22071 Dorsey Way addressed the Planning Commission. He said from his perspective the fence reminds him of a prison, is very much in view and is an eyesore to his property. He objected to the fence coming down into .the creek on his property and indicated the deer trails are evident on his property. Mr. Bob Gager, 20972 Saratoga Hills Road, president of the Saratoga Hills Road Association, addressed the Commission on behalf of the Association. He said members of the.Association have a concern for the location of the fence for the. 50 to 60 feet that stick out on Saratoga Hills Road. The members are concerned that a portion of the fence and wall sticks out far!enough into the road so that the width of the road is about 7 or 8 feet narrower at that point than it is at either end of the fence and wall. The neighbors he is representing are concerned about giving some sort of legality to the fence by approving the variance. In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell, City Attorney Toppel said Saratoga Hills is a private road and the City would not have any maintenance responsibility for the road and the Condition of the road would be the responsibility of those people who have the right to use it. The approval. of the variance should not imply any approval of location or if there is a claim of encroachment onto a private easement the City is not sanctioning that. If the owners and users of Saratoga Hills feel there is an encroachment on their easement or there is a safety issue they have their own private remedies against persons they think are affecting their easement. Dr. Head. commented that'the fence was put in 17 years ago and did not see the relevance of the AssoCiation's complaint. He said the neighbor on Dorsey does have a legitimate complaint regarding the fence as it is now. When the neighbor made his complaint, Dr. Head stopped work on the fence as it exists behind his house. He reiterated that the fence is not as it will be when it is finished. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:21 P.M. Passed 5-0. City Attorney Toppel commented that it appears Mr. Gager was speaking about a different section of fence and the section of fence which is the subject of this application is located off the road. He Said on that basis it is not an issue before the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commission and does not pertain to the fence itself because the fence is on Dr. Head's property and away from the road. He said his earlier statement would apply to the existing fence. Commissioner Burger said her sense is that the fence does not have an impact. She stated she could.not see the fence as she walked the land and expressed concern about a suggestion made to enclose just the acreage that is planted as an orchard as it will immediately be more visible because it is in an open area as opposed to around the perimeter. She said that as she walked the property she did not feel any violence was being done to the land or to the neighbors. Commissioner Caldwell pointed out that they did not go onto the property on Dorsey Court. She said that Visibly she was concerned about the concentration camp appearance of such a tall fence with or without barbed wire. Commissioner Burger said she was also concerned about the fence along the rear yard on Dorsey Way but the applicant has indicated there will be an improvement to the fencing there. She pointed out that landscaping could be used to soften the effect. Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether a more developed inquiry should be made of the wildlife pathways as there is a provision in the ordinance that addresses the issue. Commissioner Siegfried suggested the item be continued for two weeks in order to obtain a response regarding Commissioner Caldwell's concerns and for a more detailed report from staff regarding Dorsey Court. He indicated the fence should be reexamined to see if there are other areas where the fence should be a little different or whether landscaping should be required. Commissioner Burger said she would like the Land Use Committee to include Dorsey Court on its next trip. Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff examine other alternatives such as natural fences or electrical shock-type fences that do not create an aesthetic problem. Commissioner Siegfried said he would be inclined to vote tonight in favor of the variance but would like the questions answered. Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Siegfried. She indicated that in no way was she contemplating removal of any existing fence. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE V-90-018 TO JULY !1, 1990. Passed 5-0. Break 9:35 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. 10. DR-90-027 Anderson, 20574 Komina Ave., request for design V-90-013 review approval to construct a 1,453 square-foot one and two-story addition to an existing one- story residence. Variange approval is also requested to allow the structure to encroach into a required front'yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:58 p.m. Mr. Anderson, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He explained the reasons for the proposal and cited a neighbor who was granted a variance in 1987 where=the driveway that sloped up was excavated straight in. He said if they could have that type of variance they could have two stories and raise the roofline only 2 feet above the existing roofline. He indicated' the plan was satisfactory to all of the neighbors. He circulated photographs of the home where the variance was permitted and read from the report to the Commission regarding that variance. He also circulated photographs of the surrounding streets. Mr. Anderson said other alternatives were looked at for the addition but did not meet their needs. He stated the fence is needed because Komina is a busy street and there is quite a bit of noise and traffic from parents discharging their children and pickin~ them up and from the tennis club across the street. The fence would shield them from the sound and the exposure to the public. Commissioner Siegfried questioned' whether it would be possible to move the garage and shop so that rather than needing a 14-foot variance a 10-foot variance would be needed. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the applicants had considered a living fence in the front yard. Mr. AnderSon said that would not be of assistance regarding the sound but they would be willing to consider whatever is necessary in the way of landscaping. MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger stated she had no problem with the design review on the application and said it is sensitively designed. She stated she is particularly sensiti~e to the landscaping in the rear and felt it should not be disturbed as it provides a tremendous amount of green space and shields the Andersons from their neighbors and vice versa. She indicated she did have a problem with the variance for the fence because of the effect of the height of the fence in the front yard. She said she would prefer to see landscaping eliminate the visual problem and pointed out there are some plants that would grow into~ a dense hedge that would break some of the noise. Commissioner Moran agreed with Commissioner Burger regarding the fence. She said she was not ableto support the variance request for the 14-foot encroachment for the reasons cited in the staff report. Commissioner Caldwell agreed with Commissioner Moran's comments and stated the examples cited on Komina Avenue as providing precedence for this application are examples that the Commission would want to avoid as they hurt the street more than help it. She was agreeable to the bedroom extension but had a problem with the garage storage combination and would like to see more work on finding other alternatives for that. Commissioner Siegfried reiterated his question regarding moving the garage and shop by 4 feet so that a 10-foot variance would be needed rather than a 14-foot variance. He felt the Commission ought to be able to take into account the fact that the 10-foot right of way will probably never'be developed so in terms of the ihtent of the ordinance if they could get 25 feet there might be basis to make a finding for the building. He said he had difficulty with an 8-foot fence. ~ Chairperson Kolstad said he did would be willing to vote in favor of the garage as proposed but would defer to the rest of the Commission. He said the .neighborhood is a mixed neighborhood and any improvement will help and felt the same problem would arise on any house in that tract because of the narrow lots. Regarding the fence, he said he would be in favor of a 6-foot fence if it was set back so that full landscaping could be planted so there would not 'be much fence showing but it looked like a living fence. A majority of the Commissioners said they could not make a finding for the fence and would favor a continuance in order to allow the applicant to revise the plans to reduce the front yard setback. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-027 AND V-90-013 TO JULY 25, 1990. Passed 5-0. The applicant was also given the option to attend the study session on July 17 if any problems or questions arise with revising the plans. 11. DR-89-122 Amaral, 12483 Greenmeadow Lane, request for design review approval to provide a 1,195 square-foot second story addition to an existing 2,603 square- foot one-story single family residence in the R-1- 12,500 zone district per Chapter 15 of the 'City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 27, 1.990. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:37 p.m. Mr. Walt Amaral, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he has met with his neighbors twice within the last few weeks to review the plans and redo them so they are acceptable to most of the neighbors. He indicated he showed the plans to five neighbors who originally objected to the second story who now have no problem with the plans. He stated the house was lowered by 3 feet. He said he could not reduce the square footage of the house because the house would not meet his requirements. He indicated that if 200 square feet were cut from the plans he would be creating a block on top of the first story. He also indicated that to accomplish the reduction he would have to destroy his vaulted ceilings. Mr. Charles Vorst, 12468 Greenmeadow Lane, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of himself and the Cakebreads. He said he is still opposed to the second story addition as it would destroy his view. Ms. Betty Crawford, 12471 Greenmeadow Lane, expressed her opposition to the second story as the second story would invade her privacy. The. resident at 12400 Greenmeadow Lane addressed the Planning Commission and spoke in favor of thei addition. He said he was impressed with the job done by the applicant and the architect and was particularly impressed with the changes made in response to the homeowners. He stated that architecturally it is a very attractive building which will have minimal impact on the view of the hills. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Fred Tatar, 20477 Manor Drive, indicated his opposition to the proposal as it would detract from the view and would set a precedent in the neighborhood so that similar requests would be difficult to deny. Mr. Amaral read several letters from neighbors who were originally opposed to the proposal who are now in favor of it. MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:53 P.M. Passed 5-0. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's request for a review of the study Session, Commissioner Burger said it was her recollection that the Commission did not turn down the idea of a two-story house. She said the applicant was requested to lower the roof height. She also recalled that a reduction in the square footage of the second story was requested. Commissioner Kolstad indicated the applicant was also given the possible alternative of converting the garage to a game room and building a garage to the front. Commissioner Burger said she is pleased with the reduction in the height. of the home. She stated she is still concerned about the square footage of the second story. Commissioner Caldwell indicated she is familiar with the record and attended the land use visit for this proposal, the study session and the hearing and is very much interested in pursuing a single story alternative as this is a sensitive site in the neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried said he felt there was too much of a second story and some combination of a second story addition with other work done on the first story would allow for a less obtrusive second story. Commissioner Moran indicated she had nothing further to add to the discussion. Chairperson Kolstad said he was pleased to see the reduction and still maintained his position of the first meeting that the amount of increase of the height is insignificant to the amount of view. He stated he did not feel there .was much bulk at 22 feet and if there was not so much neighborhood opposition the proposal would have gone through without any problem at 22 feet. With the new revision, he said he was in favor of the proposal although he felt it would be better to put the game room on the first floor thereby reducing the second story. He stated the proposal was acceptable to him and would create hardly any adverse conditions because of view or bulk. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY DR-89-122 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 4-1 (Kolstad opposed). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming planning applications and projects. 2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report:- 6/19/90. 3. Heritage Commission Minutes - 5/16/90. COMMISSION ITEMS , COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Cuffman CITY OF SARATOGA PL~[NING COMMISSION NINU~ES DATE: June 13, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA : TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Burger, Caldwell, Kolstad, Moran, and Siegfried. Commissioner Tappan arrived as noted below. Pledge of Allegiance ApprOval of Minutes of April 25° 1990: BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1; Commissioner Caldwell abstained. Commissioner Tappan arrived. ApprOval of Minutes of May 23, 1990: Commissioner Kolstad requested that the second sentence of the fourth paragraph on page 6 be amended to read: "He said secondarily he would be in favor of accepting the garage as is because if there was ever a new owner~ that area might be used for storage of junk..." BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0-1; Chairperson Tucker abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Gerald Rosenberg, 14134 Dorene Court, addressed the Commission regarding his letter dated May 22,'1990 to Planning Director Emslie and Mr. Emslie's response dated May 29. He said he purchased a view lot but his neighbor is planting 21 trees which, within a three-to-four-year period will block his yiew. Mr. Emslie stated staff has visited the site and is familiar with the site conditions. He said it 'has been the policy of the Planning Commission to review landscape plans in terms of new construction to protect views. However, there is no ordinance or procedure which prevents someone from installing landscaping anywhere they choose on a piece Of property. The Rosenbergs have attempted to communicate with the' neighbor but are at an impasse. They are now looking to the City for assistance in resolving their view blockage concern and are looking for direction from the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Continued Planning Commission as to how this type of situation may be avoided in the future. Staff recommended' the Planning Commission discuss this issue at a study session in the near future. City Attorney T0ppel indicated that landscape plans are usually reviewed for the purpose of ensuring mitigation against bulk or interference with privacy and it. is always a minimum of what is required to be planted. There is nothing that prevents the installation of additional landscaping. He stated the only way to fully protect the view is to create a view easement, but easements of that kind are not typically Created in new subdivisions. He indicated that creation of a view easement is usually beyond the purview of the city and would be between two adjacent property owners. He said the City Could require the dedication of view easements as part of the subdivision process but was not aware of any subdivision in the City where that has been done. Mr. Emslie said there are options available to deal with the Rosenbergs' concern and there may be some remedy the City could offer if not for this case for future cases. There was Commission consensus tO schedule the matter for a study session on June 19. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 8, 1990. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Walgren noted that Item'9 (Shortino, DR-90-025) on the Agenda indicates the square footage as 2,928; the actual size is 4,624 square feet. = City Attorney Toppel advised that the item should be renoticed in lieu of the sizable difference in the square-footage figures. He indicated testimony could be taken at this meeting but the item should be continued. Mr. Walgren also noted a correction in the Staff Analysis for Item 9 under Project Discussion. The square footage figure should be 4,624 not 4,670. Mr. Walgren noted that condition 11 of the Resolution for Item 10 (Tager, SD-89-011) requires two fire hydrants but the Fire Chief has changed that condition to one fire hydrant. He also noted in condition 22 the APN No. should be 503-30-053. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CAI.RNDAR: 1. 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 7/11/90 at the request of applicant). 2. DR-90-015 Deiwert, 12272 Via Roncole, request for design 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 6/27/90 at the request of applicant). 3. 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 modificatioh approval is required for all sites within the 'Beauchamps subdivision (cont. to 6/27/90 at the request of applicant). 4. SM-90-001 DiPiero, 14527 'Sobey Rd., 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. 5. 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~i-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. SP-496/A Saratoga Federat'ed Church, 20390 Park Place, request for sign permit approval to allow two freestand'ing site' identification signs located on two separate parcels owned and operated by the Saratoga Federated Church within the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE, OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4, 5, AND 6. Passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. DR-90-010 Yin, 19610 Three Oaks Way, request for design review approval to construct a 2,086 square'foot addition to an existing 2,225 square-foot one- story home in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the. City Code (cont. from 5/23/90). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Chairperson Tucker noted that staff distributed revisions to the plans. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 13, 1990. Regarding recent communication with the applicants and the architect, staff has received revised plans addressing the concerns raised by staff. The materials have been changed from stucco to a vertical wood siding, and the window treatment has been made consistent between the addition and the existing house. The applicants are proposing no change to the end elevation as it faces Three Oaks Way as the applicants feel there is sufficient screening to mitigate the mass and bulk concerns which staff had indicated. Mr.'Emslie noted the revised plans significantly resolve staff's concerns regarding the material and the integration issue between the existing and the main house. The Public Hearing was opened at ~:58 p.m. Mr. Paul Yin, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He said during the design process he extensively consulted with his neighbors. He indicated that eight of the ten neighbors consider the design to be favorable; one neighbor had no opinion; and one neighbor expressed reservations and offered suggestions. Mr. Yin expressed disappointment in the conditions in the staff report and felt they were subjective, judgmental and unwarranted considering the opinion of the neighbors. In response to a question from Commissioner Tappan, Mr. Yin stated he had a problem. with the condition requiring that the western roofline be redesigned citing integration as an issue. He said he had repeatedly suggested landscaping to block any possible view. He also had a problem with the condition that the first and second floors be ~taggered. Mr. Steve Benzing~ architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He discussed the various possibilities which were studied to try to integrate the design with the applicants' needs. The design has come about due to the number of constraints existing in terms of the character of the existing house. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger suggested there be a condition of approval that the house be finished with siding all the way around so that it integrates with itself. She said she felt the changes made by the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued applicant address the concerns of staff, particularly on the north elevation. Because of the distance from Three Oaks and because of the existing'landscaping, Commissioner Burger did not feel there would be a problem with the fact that the second story is not stepped in. She said she was in favor of leaving it as proposed. She indicated she would like to see a condition that would either preserve or enhance the landscaping on the corner and would like to see more landscaping further down Three Oaks. Commissioner Kolstad agreed with Commissioner Burger's comments and agreed with staff's recommendations for the change made regarding the use of materials and the windows. Commissioner Siegfried commented that if the applicant has plans to do something to the house in the future, imposing the condition regarding the siding on four sides may not be necessary as long as the house is integrated in the areas seen from the two streets. Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Siegfried's suggestion. commissioner Caldwell stated she would have preferred some kind of staggering'on the north elevation because this is a prominent site on Three Oaks Way especially as one travels from Fruitvale towards Highway 9. She said it is important that any landscaping plan approved emphasizes landscaping where Commissioner Burger indicated along Three Oaks Way on the southern boundary of the property. Commissioner Moran said she believed the second story of the house should be further set back and there are other design options that perhaps have not been explored. She stated she would be in favor of retaining the condition in the staff report regarding staggering and feels uncomfortable with approving plans on the grounds that not everybody can see them. Commissioner Siegfried pointed out that the square footage of the house is way below that which could be built on the lot. Chairperson Tucker stated she understood some of the Commissioners' concerns but her concerns are alleviated in the fact that the setbacks are greater than normal.. She said she would be in favor of the proposal. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-010 ADDING A CONDITION FOR LANDSCAPING ALONG THREE OAKS AND THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE STAFF; THAT THERE BE CONSISTENT COLOR TREATMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued THE NEW SIDING WITH THE REMAINDER.OF THE HOUSE; THAT THE CONDITION OF THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SETBACK ON THE SECOND STORY BE REMOVED. Passed 6-1; Commissioner Moran opposed. Mr. Emslie clarified that because' the Commission is approving the revised elevation the necessity for conditions 7 and 8 is negated. 8. UP-547.1 Brookside Club, 19127 Cox Ave., review of use of clubhouse and discussion of operating hours in relation to the consideration of relaxing conditions prohibiting alcohol (cont. from 5/23/90). Planning Director Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated June 13, 1990. Mr. Steve Randesi, 20340 ArgonaUt Drive, addressed the Planning Commission as a representative of Brookside regarding compliance with the Commission's conditions which were discussed at the May 23 meeting. He said it was his understanding that Brookside was in Compliance with the condition regarding the basketball standard since the understanding was it was their option as to whether they wanted to relocate the basket.ball'standard or not and if they chose not to relocate it they would not be allowed to use it. He indicated they are still looking at places where it might be relocated without causing.problems with the neighbors. Regarding the fence repairs, hesaid Mr. Emslie looked at the fence repairs and his comments indicated it appeared the necessary repairs were made and the Club was in compliance. There was one section of internal fence down because that is where the trucks came in to remove the debris. H~ said the fence was put up within two days of Mr. Emslie's visit. Mr. Randesi also indicated that Mr. Emslie did suggest the Club plant in the areas where there were gaps in the shrubbery but he said he did not take that to be a requirement and the Club cannot do that without approval of the Santa Clara Valley Water. District. Mr. Randesi stated the debris from the creek has been removed. Mr. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Drive, addressed the Planning Commission .regarding 'the fence and the issue of landscaping to help reduce the noise level. He also expressed concern regarding the use of alcohol at the Club. Ms. Dee Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Drive, addressed the Planning Commission regarding the material submitted to the Planning Commission by the homeowners. She said a majority of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued homeowners are opposed 'to the use' of alcohol~ She also addressed the issue of the airtight fence, the use of the basketball standard and landscaping. Mr. Rick Polhemus, 12999 Paramount Drive, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Polhemus is a member of Brookside. He said he took exception to the use of the word alcohol in the context of an abuse in that it has not been directly proven to be a cause of excessive noise. He encouraged the Commission to make sure the rules and regulations in its jurisdiction are applicable to all such facilities. Ms. Jane Bernard, 12601 Brookglen Drive, addressed the Planning Commission and stated she and her family recently joined Br0okside. She said they live directly across from the back entrance of the Club and noise has never been a problem. She also indicated there has never been any documented proof of any kind of alcohol problem at the Club. Mr. Gary Chevetta, 19548 Chardonnay Court, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he believed.neither a fence nor landscaping will decrease any noise. He stated the Club is being run in the 1990s with a 1960s charter and suggested consideration should be given to bringing the charter up to date. Ms. Dora Grens, 16451 Old Oak Way, addressed the Planning Commission. She said at one time she lived near Brookside Club and indicated the neighbors of the Club probably do not experience the level of noise she presently experiences in her home near the Paul Masson Winery during its concerts.. Mr. Jeff Grundy~ 19242 Gunther Court, addressed the Planning Commission. He agreed the Club has been an asset to the cgmmunity over the years but stated his opposition to the use o~ alcohol at the Club. Ms. Madeline Chevetta, 19548 Chardonnay Court, addressed the Planning Commission regarding complaints that were made to the police while she was at the Club. A resident of 12634 Saratoga Creek Drive addressed the Planning Commission. He said the neighbors all agree they have nothing against activities for the children but stated his opposition to the use of alcohol at the Club. TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00 P.M~ Passed 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried stated there should be landscaping on the other side of the creek. He said the question of the alcohol prohibition should be dealt with and he is now of the view that is something that cannot be effectively monitored by the City. The matter should be handled from the standpoint of the prohibitions and restrictions on noise. He.indicated that as long as the basketball backboard is taken down and the fence repair is done he would vote to remove the prohibition on alcohol. He said he would also be in favor of directing staff to work with the Club to get the landscaping finished. Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. She said she would suggest that~the Commission remove the word "airtight" from the fencing requirements. Commissioner Kolstad agreed with the comments of the previous Commissioners. ~ Commissioner Tappan stated he is sensitive to the landscaping issue and hoped there is a resolution to that issue. He said the backboard should be removed from the basketball standard. Following comments by Commissioners regarding review of the use permit if the alcohol prohibition is removed, Commissioner Burger expressed her opposition to doing so because she felt the Commission would end up being a policing agency. She said she agrees with staff that more reliance should be placed on the noise ordinance to control the problem.. Commissioner Tappan reiterated his comments from previous meetings that he believes there is no resolution to this problem as it is a good neighbor policy issue. Commissioner Moran agreed with Commissioner Siegfried's comments concerning the Commission's role regarding the alcohol issue and said she agrees with the staff report on that issue. She indicated she too would like to see the backboard and net taken down from the basketball standard. She said she would be reluctant to see the Club install landscaping that might die from lack of water and suggested that staff work with the Club on the landscaping. Commissioner Caldwell expressed' concern about the discrepancy between Brookside's understanding of the landscaping requirements and the Planning Department's uhderstanding of the landscaping requirements. She said she too would be reluctant to see landscaping installed if it will die. She indicated she would prefer to see resolution of the remaining conditions handled PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued administratively at the staff level. She also indicated she would be agreeable to Brookside proceeding with early start times if the staff's concerns regarding the remaining conditions can be met. · She felt that the staff recommendation with respect to alcohol is appropriate. Commissioner Caldwell stated she is concerned with the parity issue where there are other clubs in the area that do permit alcohol consumption on their sites and cited a policy used by Saratoga Woods Club where the Board reviews and approves specific functions where alcohol is served. She suggested that policy be considered by Brookside if the alcohol prohibition is lifted. Chairperson Tucker said she stated she understood the problems with landscaping because of the drought but thought an airtight fence could have been installed. She stated that since the alcohol prohibition was in the use permit'initially she felt that removing it will create problems and could not vote in favor of removing the prohibition. BURGER MOVED TO AMEND UP-574.1 TO ALLOW ALCOHOL TO BE SERVED AT THE BROOKSIDE CLUB WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE BACKBOARD BE REMOVED FROM THE BASKETBALL STANDARD; THAT THE REPAIR OF THE FENCE BE COMPLETED; THAT THE CLUB WORK WITH STAFF REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLETION OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FENCE AND COMPLETE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WATER DISTRICT REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF LANDSCAPING ON THE DISTRICT'S SIDE IF IT WILL BE MAINTAINED. City Attorney Toppel indicated it was his understanding that the condition regarding landscaping should be explored by staff but is not a condition for the early start time and that the Commission would be agreeable to the early start time even though the landscaping issue is still under discussion by the time of the first scheduled meeting. Commissioner Siegfried suggested~ the following amendment to the motion: ~iMEND UP-574.1 TO REMOVE THE ALCOHOL PROHIBITION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT 'THE BACKBOARD OF THE BASKETBALL STANDARD BE REMOVED BEFORE THE NEXT SWIM MEET THAT REQUIRES AN EARLY START TIME; (2) THAT THE FENCE REPAIRS, IF NOT COMPLETED, BE CLEARLY SCHEDULED AND STAFF BE ADVISED; AND (3) THAT THE ISSUE OF LANDSCAPING BE LEFT TO STAFF; AND (4) THAT THE WORD "AIRTIGHT" BE REMOVED FROM THE FENCING CONDITION. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger was agreeable to the amendment to the motion; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Moran. Passed 6-1; Chairperson Tucker was opposed. Break 9:15 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. 9. DR-90-025 Shortino, 15252 Monta!vo Rd., request for design review to construct a new 2,928 square-foot two~ story single family dwelling in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. This item was discussed earlier'in the meeting as there was a mistake in the notice of the Public Hearing. City Attorney Toppel advised the Commission he spoke with the contractor who is aware of the situation. Mr. Toppel instructed the contractor to contact the Planning Department to obtain the date this matter will be heard. The item was renoticed to a public hearing on July 25, 1990. Chairperson Tucker moved the agenda to item 11. 11. V-90-016 De Simone, 12517' Woodside Dr., request for variance to reduce a street side yard setback from 25 feet to 12 feet in order to allow for the construction of a 467 square-foot garage addition in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Chairperson Tucker reported a 'letter was received from the applicant requesting continuance of this matter. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE V-90-O16 TO JUNE 27, 1990. Passed 7-0. 10. SD-89-011 Tager, 14105 & 14113 Pike Rd., .request for building site approval for two existing lots each measuring 43,560' square feet in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 13, 1990. Staff is recommending a condition that the access road improvements be limited to the end of the turnaround so that future driveway and residence locations can be reviewed and determined by staff, the City GeOlogist and the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell regarding whether it is known if the lots were legally created, Mr. Emslie stated the application requirements require the applicant to submit an up-to-date title report. The title report shows that the lots were created prior to the time the City would have required a map to create the subdivision. There is some uncertainty because the only way to be absolutely sure is to research each and every deed at the time the property has changed hands back to the last one that existed and knowing that date it could be determined what regulations were in place at that time and it could be determined whether or not the lot was created in accordance with those regulations. City Attorney Toppel responded that it seems clear the lots were in existence prior to Measure A. The exemption from Measure A discusses lots legally created as of April 25, 1978. He did not believe the City has the data from the applicant to trace back the chain of title to the point where the deeds are available that created each particular parcel. The burden is on the applicant if there is an issue as to the origin of the lots and the Commission can request that documentation be'provided showing the conveyances that created the lots, when they occurred and how. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Steve Arnold, Civil Engineer,'appeared for the applicants. He responded to the question regarding the legality of the two sites. He said prior to 1968 sites could'be created by a deed. These two sites were created by a record of.survey in the middle of 1960. He stated he is in possession of a copy of the record of survey and would make that a~ailable to the City. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE ~HE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:43 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger stated she haa noproblem With the question of whether or not these are two legal lots of record. She expressed concern regarding the location of the pads because there is a definite ridgeline impact. She indicated the Commission should be careful about the pad location, house size and height and suggested those conditions be placed on approval. In response to questions from Commissioner Moran regarding the cut, Mr. Arnold stated the site essentially limits the location of the building pad. From a geologic and soils standpoint, the two sites are limited to being somewhat close to the common line between the two sites. On the other hand, the lower portion of the site is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS· Continued Very steep so the slope precludes putting a ·house on the steep area. He estimated approximately 2,000 yards of cut and roughly 1,000 yards of fill. Commissioner Caldwell expressed .concern regarding the geologic report. She indicated her reading of the report is that there is serious question whether development on Lot B is feasible from a geologic standpoint. She reiterated her concern regarding the legality of the lot. Commissioner Siegfried responded that a condition could be added to the motion requiring that evidence regarding the legality of the lot be submitted to the City. Mr. Arnold said he would personally guarantee that the lot was in existence legally prior to 1968. The geologist hired by the Tagers has met with the City Geologist's· office and there is a tentative agreement between the two geologists that there is no geologic concern that cannot be mitigated with the two sites. Commissioner Siegfried said he did not have any concerns with the proposal other than adding the condition that evidence be submitted showing when the lots were created. He indicated he originally had some concern regarding access and increasing the number of lots on Pike Road but if these are in fact legally existing lots that would not be an issue. Commissioner Burger questioned' the Commission's ability to condition the height and house size. Commissioner Siegfried stated he is sensitive to Commissioner Burger's concerns but is not sure what the appropriate height, size or pad would be and it may be too early to impose conditions on those issues. City Attorney Toppel pointed out the Commission would have the opportunity to limit height and square footage during the design review and the Commission also has the authority to imposea height limit at this stage in order to give guidance to the applicant in terms of any proposal submitted later. Commissioner Moran said one of her concerns is that the oak tree in the turnaround be protected. She stated she is also concerned about the amount of yardage of cut and fill and would like to see a condition stating that future houses to be developed not exceed 500 yards on each lot. She indicated she would also like to see PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued the pad on Lot B more along the side of the hill rather than up and down the hill in order to reduce the impacts a future house might have. Planning Director Emslie requested the Commission provide guidance regarding the ridgeline and the location of the pads. He said if the Planning Commission chooses to pursue this course an elevation should be established and the roof ridge should be required to be below that so that the ridgeline is protected. Planner Walgren reported staff reviewed the site plan and developed figures for both lots. For Lot B the ridge height could not exceed the !90-f0ot contour line,. which is roughly the contour line at the southeast corner of the lot. For Lot A the ridge height could not exceed 200 feet maximum contour elevation. In response to a question from commissioner Burger regarding setting the elevation limits and not creating conditions regarding the other Concerns, Mr. Emslie stated that in terms of the site and the pads a condition can be imposed Stating what the Planning Commission's objective is. The objective is to produce foundation plans that conform to existing.topography by stepping and by reducing grading to some limit .such as 500 yards. Since the Commission will have design review authority, those items can be designed into the proposal. ~ Commissioner Caldwell stated she shares Commissioner Moran's concerns regarding the oak tree and the yardage. She said the only reservation she has about accepting the contour lines is that it is difficult to visualize where they are on the site. Regarding her previous comments regarding limiting height and size, Commissioner Burger agreed with Mr. Emslie's comments that at this point the Commission ought not ~o constrain itself by limiting height and size. If height and size are limited, a creative approach to stepping the home into the hillside and keeping it below the ridgeline may be limited. She stated it ought to be understood that the Commission as a whole is very sensitive on these two lots to height and size and those are two items that will be carefully reviewed at the design review stage. Commissioner Moran stated she is also sensitive to the needs of the next owners of the lots and they should know what the commission,s concerns are. SIEGFRIED/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE SD-89-011 ADDING CONDITIONS THAT THE SITE ELEVATION FOR LOT B WILL BE 190 FEET AND FOR LOT A 200 FEET AND THE RIDGE OF THE ROOF SHOULD NOT EXCEED THOSE ELEVATIONS; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued THAT THE OAK TREE SHOULD BE PROTECTED DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION; THAT ANY IMPROVEMENTS BE LIMITED TO THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE END OF THE TURNAROUND SO THAT FUTURE DRIVEWAY AND RESIDENCE LOCATIONS CAN BE REVIEWED AND zDETERMINED BY STAFF, THE CITY GEOLOGIST AND THE CITY ENGI.NEER; THAT APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF SHOWING THAT .THE LOTS WERE CREATED PRIOR TO APRIL 25, 1978. Passed 7-0. 12. V-90-010 Chin, 21427 Saratoga Hills Rd., request for DR-90-016 variance to reduce required side yard setbacks and design review for a two-story addition in the NHR zone district per' Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated June 13, 1990. Planning Director Emslie posted an exhibit provided by the applicant and distributed a copy Of correspondence provided by the applicant. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:18 p.m. The applicant, Mr. Robert Chin, addressed the Planning Commission. He noted a correction on the drawing and indicated he is requesting an ll-foot setback. The correct figure is indicated in the application. He circulated an aerial photograph of the house and reviewed the proposal in detail'. He noted that the proposed extension to the house will be away from any proposed driveway or proposed building site of the neighbor. Mr. Chin also discussed other possibilities that were considered for the extension. He indicated that the neighbor who would be most affected by the extension has written a letter in favor of the project and he has verbal approval from the new owner of the property. TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:28 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Burger stated that when she first looked at the staff report she was concerned about. the home, the design and the proposed addition. She indicated'that after visiting the site she felt the home is not as impactful.as She thought it would be as it now stands. She stated she felt the proposed additions are logical and as sensitive as they can be and did not think the additions do any violence to the concept of the dome house itself~ She PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued indicated, however, that she would like to see the extension of the master bedroom a little smaller. Commissioner Burger also said she is not having as much trouble wi2th the application as staff has been because of the configuration' of the lot, the fact that there is an existing home that is designed in the configuration, and the design restricts the applicant. .She did not have a problem with the variance on the small addition toward the flag lot driveway and made reference to the uniqueness of the lot and the way the home sits on the lot. In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell regarding the changes staff would like to work on with the applicant, Mr. Walgren responded that the staff recommendation on the variance would be to pull the extensions out of the setback which would be eliminating the small wing and pulling the other one back to 10 feet. The design review recommendation would be to mimic the existing dormer- style radial extensions on the dome. Commissioner Kolstad said he felt that cutting back the extension would have the same minimal impacts either way and could make the findings for the variance. Commissioner Tappan concurred with Commissioner Kolstad's comments. Commissioner Caldwell stated she would like to see the applicant work with staff on the design aspect. Chairperson Tucker said she is usually not in favor of making variance findings but in this case she did not see any other option as the applicant is constrained because of the existing structure. She said she would prefer cutting back the extension by 10 feet~ Commissioner Moran agreed with the staff recommendation regarding the design review. Commissioner Siegfried stated he is more concerned with the design than the variance and could make the findings on the basis there is no other place for the extensions.. MORAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE V-90-010 AND DR-90-016 TO JULY 11, 1990. Passed 7-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming planning applications and projects. 2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - 6/5/90. 3. Memo re: Class Schedule for Christa McAuliffe School. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13, 1990 Page 16 COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Cuffman