HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-1995 Planning Commission minutes~- -~E •AN1~TL\G COMMISSIONT MINL-T~
it~IAY 24, 1995
City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Regular Meeting
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Murakami
Roll Call
Present: Abshire, Caldwell, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried, Murakami
Late: None
Absent: Asfour
City Attorney Riback was present this evening.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAI~TCE
MINUTES
Mav 10. 1995
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 10, 1995
MINUTES AMENDING PAGE 13, LAST PARAGRAPH TO READ" "COMMISSIONER
.........................
!"' A T ilTx1~T T p~;~N STATED THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT OBJECT TO THE
DESIGN OF THE BUILDING...." THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH CHAIRMAN
MURAKAMI ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT.
ORAL COA~LVIU\TICATIO\S
No comments were offered.
REPORT OF POSTING AGE\'DA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May
19, 1995.
Technical Corrections to Packet
Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the applicant for agenda item 2 has requested
a continuance of the Suciu design review application to the June 28 meeting. The continuance
is being requested to allow the applicant additional time to continue to work with the abutting
neighbors to shift the house and to make modifications to satisfy the concerns raised in
neighborhood meetings. Staff recommended that agenda item 2 be placed on the consent
calendar and then continued to June 28.
CONSENT CALENDAR
.. ~ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 2 -
PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR
2. DR-95-014 - Suciu; 20420 Montalvo Heights Dr. , request for Design Review approval
to construct a 5,704 sq. ft. two-story residence on a currently vacant
39,988 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The
property is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. from
5/10/95 at the request of the applicants in order to make "last-minute"
changes to the plans; application expires 10/18/95).
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE CONSENT ITEM NO.
2 TO JUNE 28. 1995. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR
ABSENT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DR-94-036 - Niu; 20894 Verde Vista Ln., request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 4,281 sq. ft. t~vo-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15
of the City Code. An existing 3,040 sq. ft. two-story residence would be
demolished. The parcel is 1.02 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000
zoning district (cont. from 5/10/95; application expires 10/19/95).
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He noted that at the last meeting, there
was discussion as to whether the material board submitted was too light of a color scheme for
a hillside parcel.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Sergio Ramirez, project architect, responded to Commissioner Kaplan's question as to whether
the applicant would agree to darken the color of the body of the building by indicating that the
applicant would agree to darken the colors.
Commissioners Caldwell, Kaplan, Patrick, and Siegfried stated their appreciation for the use of
height poles.
Commissioner Abshire noted that the house was visible from the street below and recommended
the use of subdued colors. He noted that the current house had a light banister and that having
a light banister against a dark house makes it visible from the street below.
Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the banister be darkened.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 7:43 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSI, MINUTES i
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 3 -
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-
94-036 AMENDING THE COLOR CONDITION TO PROVIDE FOR A DARKER TONE
COLOR SCHEME TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
Chairman Murakami indicated that he was not present at the last meeting but that he has read
the records and has visited the site. Therefore, he was satisfied to vote.
THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT).
3. DR-93-019 - Liu/Chen; 21409 Tollgate Road, request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 5,218 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the
City code. The property is a 1.7 acre vacant hillside parcel located within
a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. from 4/26/95; application
expires 9/8/90.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a
letter was received from Sandy Reed and Bob Ingle who reside directly above the property
indicating that they were generally supportive of the proposal but expressed that they were
concerned with the impact of the height of the home and requested that the home be lowered by
approximately three feet. He (Walgren) indicated that he did not believe that the house could
physically be designed to be lower than 21 feet and that the only way that it could be achieved
would be to take three feet off the pad which would result in a significant amount of earth
movement. As proposed, the project was under the maximum amount of 1,000 cubic yard of
earth movement permitted.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Chen, applicant, stated his concurrence with the conditions as listed in the resolution.
Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Chen has read the letter submitted by Ms. Reed and Mr.
Ingle? Mr. Chen indicated that he had not received a copy of the letter. After being provided
with a copy of the letter, Mr. Chen responded that the design of the house at 21 feet was in
conformance with city ordinances and the Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He
did not believe that the three foot pad level would create an intrusion or invade the neighbor's
privacy. He stated that he would agree to accommodate the neighbors' concerns by providing
additional landscaping .
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 7:54 P.M.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt that the house was a well designed home and
understood that this was a difficult site to work with.
Chairman Murakami agreed that the house vas well designed and commended the applicant on
its design.
< <~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 4 -
Commissioner Patrick commented that she did not believe that the height of the home would
impact the adjacent neighbors.
Commissioner Abshire indicated that he found the home to be attractive and felt that the design
was fitting for the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-019 AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ASFOUR
ABSENT) .
4. LL-93-008 - Heath; 14300 Saratoga Avenue, request for Lot Line Adjustment approval
V-93-020 - to merge a 20 foot wide property strip to the main parcel. Variance
DR-93-032 - approval is requested to allow the proposed cumulative building square
footage (including accessory structures) to exceed the allowable for this
property, to allo«~ a 25 ft. tall t~vo-story garage (one-story, 15 ft. in height
maximum permitted) and to allow the second story addition to exceed the
26 ft. main structure height limit by 4 inches. Design Review approval
is also necessary to add 2,204 sq.ft. of first and second floor area to an
existing two-story residence listed on Saratoga's Heritage Inventory. The
subject property is 29,770 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R-1-10,000
zoning district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that staff was supportive
of the lot line adjustment. He further indicated that staff was unable to support the variance
request for the floor area and informed the Commission that the staff report indicates ways to
redevelop the site and still bring the property under the allowable square footage (i.e.,
elimination of some of the less historically significant accessory buildings located on the
property). Staff did not feel that the variance for the t~vo story garage could be supported
because there were no special circumstances nor physical hardships relative to the parcel that
would support it. Regarding the design review application, staff indicated that it could support
the design review with the changes listed in the staff report. He noted a correction in the staff
report located on page 4. The applicant has pointed out that the square footage number of 4,773
square feet was not a number that was given to him originally by the staff planner and noted that
the correct allowable square footage should be 4,400. This correction does not change staff's
analysis because the same recommendation would still apply, having the home brought down to
the 4,400 square foot limit. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from
Patricia Hardt, the neighbor located to the right of the parcel, who has expressed concern with
the gravel driveway, the old trailer building and other items that have been stored on the
property. The use of the driveway and the question as to whether there were rental units on the
property were also of concern. He informed the Commission that the issue of the rental units
is being investigated by staff and that whether these applications go forward or not, staff would
continue to investigate the rental issue. He further informed the Commission that Ms. Hardt was
requesting that a six foot solid fence be built along the property line for privacy reasons and
indicated that staff felt that this would be a reasonable condition.
~~ ,~ PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 5 -
Commissioner Caldwell asked if the tree that was shown on the plan(s) was a pine or a Douglas
Fir tree. Planner Walgren responded that the tree was a Douglas Fir.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter from Ms. Hardt asks if there were permits or
limitations that regulate the use of the site. Planner Walgren responded that as far as he knew,
there were no permits to have a second dwelling unit on the property. He indicated that a
property owner is permitted to have a second unit if it meets minimum Uniform Housing Code,
parking and lot size requirements. Commissioner Kaplan stated that in looking at page one of
the engineering drawings, it indicates that there is an existing shed (pump station) located on the
site and asked if it was a historical building. Planner Walgren responded that the pump station
and the carriage house have been identified as historical buildings and that there is some
historical significance to the office building located directly behind the oak tree. He
recommended that Mr. Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, further
address the historical significance of the buildings.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the care of the trees located on the
site. She asked if the bonding recommended vas sufficient to protect the trees; whether the
Planning Commission had the authority to increase the bond; and whether in the future the City
could inspect the trees to ensure that no damage is done to the trees as the project is completed
or that they be reviewed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit? Planner Walgren
responded that staff would schedule regular inspections by the City Arborist during construction,
if necessary, and that a final inspection is always required prior to the release of a security
deposit. Regarding increasing the amount of the bond, Planner Walgren stated that it was his
belief that the bond amount could be increased. He informed the Commission that the City
arborist recommended the bond amount and that the bond amount was a percentage of the trees'
total value.
Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the City arborist usually requires a 10%
bond and that it was the arborist's opinion that the bond amount was sufficient. He further
indicated that the bond amount was a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Patrick requested clarification as to which structures were to remain. Planner
Walgren responded that the applicant was requesting that all structures remain. It was staff's
recommendation that only the carriage house, the existing shed, and the existing office be
retained and that the remaining structures be removed to bring the property's floor area down
to the allowable square footage.
In response to Commissioner Patrick's question regarding the need for two garages,
Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the site visit, the applicant indicated that the garage was
going to be eliminated. Doing so would address the neighbor's concern. Planner Walgren
stated that staff was recommending the removal of the garage, therefore, eliminating the need
for the gravel driveway.
Commissioner Patrick stated that any concern for the safety of children would be mitigated with
the elimination of the opening of the gravel driveway.
PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES S
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 6 -
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 8:07 p.m.
Mark Heath, applicant, informed the Commission that he has lived in this house for six years,
that the house was built in 1870 and that he and his wife have an appreciation for its historic
significance. He indicated that he was concerned with the way the site is treated and how it is
developed. He stated that the lot is zoned R-1-10,000 and that the lot is almost 30,000 square
feet and that with the changes and the addition, the lot coverage would be increasing 18%, about
a third of what is allowed under code. He suggested that the carriage house, rock shed, the
office building and the small storage garage be retained. Doing so would provide for a lot
coverage of 14%. He noted that he vas only 794 square feet away from the allowable square
footage. He informed the Commission that the Historic Preservation Commission recommended
that he retain three historic buildings. He felt that granting of the variances could be justified
because he was being requested to retain historic structures. He indicated that he wanted the
front of the house to remain as is and that proposed changes would occur to the rear of the
house. He stated that the reason the second story was proposed on top of the garage as because
it was the most efficient area to place it. If the house was moved back on the lot, it would give
it a "row housing" effect. He stated that he would prefer to have a stepped back appearance,
having the garage up front. He indicated that he wanted to save all of the significant trees with
direction from the City arborist because they add value to the site. He noted that he has planted
21 new trees since he has moved into the home. Regarding the second story, he did not believe
that it was an issue because every house contiguous to his with the exception of the house
located directly to the right have two story structures. He indicated that he was not willing to
give any more in this area and that there was an impasse between himself and staff. He
requested that the Commission approve the plans.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the plans depict an existing green house located to the north
of the new garage. She inquired if the green house was proposed for removal? Mr. Heath
responded that the green house and the potting shed are proposed to be removed. Regarding the
existing 180 square foot garage, he stated that he would like to retain the existing garage and
use it as storage or as a workshop. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Mr. Heath
indicated that the existing office building may have been used as a hay barn before being
converted into an office. He clarified that the main house was being used as living quarters.
He identified the structures that he is allowing some friends to reside in (i.e., the structure
located to the back of the main house and the cottage house). Mr. Heath stated that he would
like to retain the historic office structure if at all possible.
Commissioner Caldwell asked about the second garage located along the western property line
and asked if the square footage was included in the table depicted by Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath
responded that the garage vas included in the ne~v square footage and that the greenhouse,
cottage shed and the storage building were not included in the square footage.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if Mr. Heath would agree to install a six foot fence along the
western property line as requested by the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Heath responded that he would
like to install a screen between his property and that of the adjacent neighbor. He indicated that
he was considering mounding the area and planting redwoods instead of installing a typical
- • PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 7 -
redwood fence to address Ms. Hardt's concern. He further clarified that the gravel area would
be converted into a landscape planting area.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Heath was planning to close off access to Saratoga Avenue.
Mr. Heath responded that he would consider planting a hedge along Saratoga Avenue or agree
to install a three foot high fence. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that something be done
to close access to Saratoga Avenue so that children do not run out onto the street. Mr. Heath
stated that it was a concern of his and that he would agree to install hedges to close off access
to Saratoga Avenue.
Chairman Murakami asked if Mr. Heath has considered which accessory structures he would
agree to remove. Mr. Heath responded that he may be able to eliminate the storage garage
because it has no historical significance or value once the new garage is built.
Commissioner Kaplan asked if the second story on the garage was being built to allow for more
living space. Mr. Heath responded that the second story on the garage was being proposed to
maintain the roof of the house and also to add more living space without adding more ground
floor covering. Placing the additional living quarters on the ground would give the house a
ranch-like appearance.
Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), commented that the
HPC reviewed the original plans in November. The HPC made its recommendation based on
those plans. He informed the Commission that the HPC has not reviewed the plans before the
Commission and that the original review of the HPC made an issue of the large fir tree located
in the front. At that time, the fir tree vas meant to be removed, but since then, the garage has
been moved over and the fir tree is to be retained. As far as the HPC is concerned, there are
no issues regarding the fir tree. Architecturally, when the HPC reviewed the additions, they
appeared to be compatible with the original design.
Commissioner Siegfried asked if Mr. Peepari could give him some sense of the relative historic
value of the carriage house, the pump shed and the office structure. Mr. Peepari commented
that three of the structures located to the rear of the site were of significant value and were part
of the original stone house and that the HPC felt that those three structures were of historical
significance and should be maintained.
Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Peepari ho~v would the HPC feel about the architectural
integrity of the garage should the Commission restrict the garage to one story. She indicated
that she was not inclined at this time to approve a second story garage. Mr. Peepari responded
that the HPC recommended or stated that a two story garage would be preferable. However,
it was his opinion that adding a two story garage that close to the existing house would appear
to be massive. He recommend that a one story garage be approved.
Commissioner Patrick asked if it would be preferable, architectural and historical, to relocate
the two story garage to the other side of the house, more to the rear where the existing storage
garage is located? Mr. Peepari responded that he could not answer that question because he has
not reviewed the plans before the Commission.
~= • PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 8 -
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 8:31 P. M.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE LL-93-008. THE
MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she agreed with Mr. Peepari that a two story garage would
appear massive stretched out as proposed and that she would have difficulty supporting that
design. She further stated that she would not be able to make the findings to approve the
variances.
Chairman Murakami stated that he would have difficulties making findings and special
circumstances to allow a variance for that type of garage, especially with all the existing
structures on the property, noting that three of them ~;sere of historical significance. He felt that
there has to be some limitations because there is too much square footage proposed.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has no problem with the height of the house. He agreed
that a one story garage would be appropriate to make it blend better. He stated that he would
not support a second story on the garage. In order to bring the square footage down, he would
agree to eliminate every structure, keeping the carriage house and the shed, deferring to the
Commission which other structures are to be retained. ~ He indicated that he would not have a
problem granting a variance to preserve the trees.
Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's comments. She felt that it
was important to move the garage at least ten feet to protect the Douglas Fir tree.
Commissioner Patrick felt that the garage, at two stories, would give it an appearance of two
houses (row house approach) and could not support the two story garage. She stated that she
could find historical significance for the retention of the carriage house, the existing shed/pump
house and the office structure.
Commissioner Abshire stated that although he would like to comply with the owners wishes, he
agreed with the Commission that the garage was not appropriate. He did not feel that allowing
the additional square footage would be fair to the households in the City and that he concurred
with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that the existing carriage house could accommodate the on site
storage. She recommended that the carriage and the pump house be retained. She would
support the HPC recommendation for the retention of the office structure but that the existing
green house, the potting shed, the existing building on the south and the existing garage should
be eliminated. She recommended that a condition be added which would require the
continuation of the hedge along Saratoga Avenue which would completely visually screen and
block the entrance from Saratoga Avenue. She also recommended further discussion regarding
the value of the trees because she wanted to make sure that there was some leverage for the
preservation of the trees during construction. She recommended that the bond amount be
increased if at all possible.
• PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 9 -
Commissioner Caldwell commented that during the discussions with the Tree Committee, the
City arborist did feel that it would be appropriate for the City to require a higher percentage
amount to bond for the value of the tree. However, the City arborist was not willing to do so
until there was a policy shift on the City's part. She recommended that the bond amount be
increased where there is to be activity around oak and the fir trees.
Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the applications be continued as the applicant has
heard clearly the Commission's concerns. He agreed to increase the bond amount from 20~
to 30% at a minimum.
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:40 PM.
Mr. Heath stated that he does not want a lot line adjustment because both lots were created prior
to the creation of the city and that he believes that he has t~vo legal lots. He indicated that he
has heard the Commission discuss what he can and cannot do with the house and the trees. He
stated that he values the property much more than any other person. He also values the integrity
of the City. He stated that he does not see the point to continue these applications because he
did not feel that anyone present vas being reasonable or listening to what he was saying. He
indicated that he would want to continue on with the process and see if someone else would
listen to him because no one here vas listening to him. He stated that the house has historic
value and he sees people all around him tearing these same houses down. He did not believe
that the Commission vas allowing him do something beautiful with this house and indicated that
he resents that.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
8:41 P.M.
Planner Walgren clarified that the Commission was going to give credit for the three historic
accessory buildings. He indicated that a variance would still be required to allow the property
to exceed the allowable square footage by 608 square feet.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission approved the lot line adjustment this evening.
She asked if the lot was a buildable lot because it appears that the lots would be 20 feet wide.
City Attorney Riback commented that in all likelihood, it would not be a buildable lot.
Community Development Director Curtis noted that once a lot line approval is granted, the
applicant would need to record the lot line adjustment. If the applicant does not record the lot
line adjustment, it would remain as t~vo lots.
Planner Walgren clarified that it vas staff's recommendation that if the lot line adjustment was
to go forward, that it be continued to the June 14 meeting to allow staff to prepare resolutions
for the lot line adjustment, variances and design review applications. Since there are no
resolutions before the Commission this evening, nothing has formally been approved. He
recommended that if the Commission still plans to approve the lot line adjustment, that it be kept
with the other two applications.
PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 10 -
COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE ACTION
TAKEN ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH
COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT.
Commissioner Siegfried prefaced his motion by stating that it was the sense of the Commission
this evening to approve the lot line adjustment, grant the variance on the four inches additional
height to the existing house, deny the variance on the second story addition on the garage
because the Commission does not believe it should be a two-story garage, and that the
Commission would consider giving credit for the existing two or three historically significant
accessory structures to be preserved in terms of granting variances for the square footage for the
house and garage.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO DENY LL-93-008, V-93-020 & DR-
93-032 BECAUSE THE COMMISSION COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS TO GRANT
THE VARIANCES AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER
ASFOUR ABSENT.
THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:47 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT
8:59 P.M.
City Attorney Riback excused himself from the remainder of the meeting.
5. DR-95-024 - Nishimoto; 14330 Paul Ave. , request for Design Review approval to
demolish an existing 1,424 sq. ft. single story residence and build a new
2,740 sq. ft. two-story home in its place. The subject property is 7,500
sq. ft. in area and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 9:00 p.m.
David Britt, Los Gatos, project designer, informed the Commission that he concurred with
staff's recommendation and that he would answer any questions which it may have regarding the
design.
Michael Sparacino, 14325 Springer Avenue, stated his support of the design of the project with
the exception of the rear window. He informed the Commission that the rear window looks
directly into his rear yard and his family room. He recommended that the bottom half of the
rear window be opaqued and that the bottom half of the window be mount at least five and half
feet so that there is not as much access to his rear yard in terms of view. He informed the
Commission that he has discussed this concern with the applicant and that it was his belief that
the applicant is in agreement with the request.
Mr. Britt responded that the owner vas willing to opaque the window and mount the window
at the requested height.
PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 11 -
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
9:04 P.M.
Chairman Murakami commented that the house vas well designed.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-
95-024 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE REAR FACING
WINDOW BE OPAQUED AND THAT THE WINDOW BE MOUNT AT FIVE AND A HALF
FEET. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT).
6. UP-95-003 - Prince of Peace; 12770 Saratoga Ave. , request for Use Permit approval
to allow the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church to provide shelter, meals
and employment assistance to a maximum of 15 transitionally homeless
adults annually during the month of December in the Fellowship Hall
located on the church grounds. Temporary Use Permits have previously
been granted on a year-to-year basis. The parcel is located within an
Agricultural (A) zoning district and is approximately 2.8 acres.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if a representative from the Prince of Peace Church would
remain on the premises all ni~~ht. Planner Walgren responded that there would be a host who
would remain on site overnight.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 9:07 p.m.
Margaret Shultz, member of the Prince of Peace Church, informed the Commission that she
would answer questions which it may have.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDVVELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 9:10 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-
95-003. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT).
7. UP-95-001 - Mailhot; 13281 McCulloch Way, request for Use Permit approval to
DR-95-028 - locate a detached two-car garage within the parcel's required rear yard
setback. The request also involves Design Review approval to construct
additions to the existing residence which will increase the structure's floor
area by over 50 percent. The property is approximately 10,125 sq. ft.
and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He recommended the addition of a
condition which would require that a tree protection fencing be installed to the perimeter as close
to the driveway as possible of the ordinance protected tree located to the right of the proposed
new driveway as possible. The fence is to remain in place throughout construction to make sure
PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 12 -
that there is no damage done to the tree.
Commissioner Kaplan asked how close the driveway would be to the tree trunk and what
controlling material would be used for the driveway (i.e, pervious coverage). Planner Walgren
recommended that the tree be plotted prior to issuance of permits and have the City arborist
review the plotted map for his recommendations and that if pervious pavers are helpful, they
would be incorporated.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 9:11 p.m.
Louis Dorcich, project architect, stated that he concurred with the condition to protect the tree
and that he would agree to take the steps necessary to protect the tree and maintain its health.
Chairman Murakami complimented Mr. Dorsage on the architectural drawings.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 9:12 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS.
UP-95-001 AND DR.95-028 WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE TREE PROTECTION
CONDITION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0
(COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT).
8. DR-95-015 - Abdullah; 14755 Aloha Ave., request for Design Review approval to
construct an 874 sq. ft. second story addition and 1,187 sq. ft. of first
level floor area to an existing 1.259 sq. ft. one-story residence. The
parcel is approximately 13,650 sq. ft. (net) and is located within an R-1-
15,000 zoning district.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He summarized letters received which
addressed similar concerns (i.e., pursue single story homes in this neighborhood, opposition to
second story additions occurring). The letters received were from the following individuals:
Dr. and Mrs. Nose, 14718 Aloha Avenue; Brian and Ann Bachman, 14735 Aloha Avenue; and
Jerry and Karen Kleinberg. Also received was a packet of correspondence from the applicant's
architect, Warren Heid, responding to the concerns of the neighbors, outlining the design process
and how the project meets the City's design review findings and a locational map showing the
location of other two story homes and or single story homes with higher roof lines similar to this
23 foot proposal.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Warren Heid, project architect, stated his concurrence with the conditions as listed in the staff
report. He indicated that a feasibility study was prepared to make sure that the design of the
home would meet the City's design guidelines. He noted that the area bound by Aloha Avenue,
Oak Street, Komina Avenue and Lomita Avenue were developed in 1929. He informed the
Commission that the applicant has a need to maintain the existing residence and to add a new
• PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 13 -
kitchen, family room and aaraQe with the master bedroom and the nursery being located on top
of the garage, keeping in mind the needs of the immediate neighbors so that their privacy was
maintained and that the bulk would lessen any impact. He addressed the design of the second
story addition and noted that the addition would be screened by the existing landscaping and
trees and that the landscaping and trees would be maintained in that manner. He noted that there
would be no cutting into the hillside nor destruction of natural landscape. As far as some of the
changes were concerned, he was aware that a two story home was one that was hard to
understand. He felt that Aloha Avenue divides two ares of the town, the older area from the
newer area. He felt that the design was compatible with the site and with that of the older
neighborhood. He tried to be sensitive to the neighborhood, keeping the existing house tucked
into the trees, maintaining what the neighbors were used to seeing. He has reviewed the letters
submitted by the neighbors and expressed that he was sorry that the neighbors do not feel that
this was a compatible home for their neighborhood. He felt that the house located at the corner
Lomita and Aloha has a higher roof line than this particular building would have. The letters
state a concern with the setting of a precedent. He felt that each site should be reviewed
individually and that there were comments regardin¢ implicit and explicit restrictions limiting
heights. y
Commissioner Patrick asked if any consideration was given to locate the second story portion
somewhere other than proposed. Mr. Heid responded that the addition could not be relocated
because the structural engineering report indicates that doing so would create tremendous damage
to the existing structure. y
Linda Dana, 14725 Aloha, informed the Commission that when she first purchased her home
she had given consideration to adding a second story addition so that she would not have to take
away from her yard but elected not to do so because of her concerns for the neighbors. She
stated that she does not want her neighbors to build t~vo story homes and invade her privacy.
Ann Bachman, 14735 Aloha, read a letter that she and her husband submitted to the Commission
indicating that they have requested that Mr. Abdullah consider the construction of a single story
addition rather than a two story structure. A one story structure would have a less visible mass
and be consistent with other remodels that have occurred in the neighborhood. The letter further
requested that the Commission request that Mr. Abdullah reconsider this plans for a two story
structure.
Mike Grimm, 20540 Komina Avenue, informed the Commission that the home immediately to
the south of Mr. Abdullah vas recently remodeled as a single story addition. That home was
almost identical and at the same grade as that of Mr. Abdullah. He noted that all the homes in
the immediate neighborhood were one story homes. He indicated that he has plans and permits
for a two story addition but that after living in this neighborhood for a year and a half, he would
not proceed with those plans. He felt that if the Commission approved the plans as submitted
that it would change the character of the neighborhood.
Karen Nose, 14718 Aloha Avenue, stated that the single story predominance of the neighborhood
still exists. She indicated that she moved to this neighborhood because of the charm of the
single story homes. She felt that the lot size should be sufficient to accommodate a single story
• PLANNING COMMISSIi MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 14 -
home.
Sally Ann Dougherty, 14732 Aloha Avenue, indicated that her roof line was approximately 13
to 14 feet and noted that most of the homes in the area slope down. She felt that the proposed
second story addition was too massive for that sized lot.
Gay J. Crawford, 14711 Aloha, informed the Commission that she has resided at this address
for over 27 years. She informed the Commission that in 1983, when the Westbrook home was
being built, the Commission denied and the City Council upheld the denial for a two story
addition. She requested that the City continue to support the single family predominance of the
neighborhood and requested that Mr. Abdullah redesign his home to that of a single story
addition. She expressed concern that a precedent would be set if a second story addition is
approved.
Mr. Heid state his appreciation to the comments expressed by the neighbors. He stated that he
tried to design something that vas compatible to that of the neighborhood. He noted that there
is not enough space on site to accommodate the addition. He stated that one of the things that
has to be considered is whether the site is to be butchered up or the landscaping changed. He
noted that the neighbors were interested in a compatible neighborhood and indicated that so was
he.
Mr. Abdullah, applicant, thanked the adjacent neighbors for their views on this issue. He stated
that he has made an earnest attempt to ensure that the right design was being proposed. He
stated that before he purchased the home, he consulted the City to make sure that the type of
design that he was proposing was appropriate. He was careful not to impact anyone's view or
privacy. He stated that he would be agreeable to amend the design if there were design concerns
but that all he has heard was the concern that a precedent would be set if a two story addition
was approved. He indicated that he would agree to consider any specific issues even though he
was within his right to build what is being proposed.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
9:41 P.M.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that the Commission toured the neighborhood and noticed that
there were sufficiently tall buildings in the neighborhood. She indicated that she did not have
a problem with a small portion of the home being a second story. She stated that she now
understands the structural requirement to not build over the older part of the house and the cost
involved with the reinforcement of the existing foundation. She felt that there could be a design
change to make the addition compatible with the older section of the house.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood the desire to maintain a one story
neighborhood to the extent that is possible. He felt that the home was well designed but that
cosmetic changes may help. Given the existing ordinances and given the efforts that has been
made to keep the roof line as low as a one story house might be, he indicated that he would
support the proposal.
• PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 15 -
Commissioner Patrick stated that the issue was not that of the second story addition because she
felt that this area was sufficiently mixed. The issue of design compatibility and height were of
concern to her. Therefore, she would not be able to support the request.
Commissioner Abshire expressed sympathy with the comments as expressed by the neighbors
in maintaining the neighborhood as single story homes. He does not like to see this type of
conflict developing inya neighborhood and in Saratoga. However, he felt that the home as
designed was attractive. Even though it was a two story design, he felt that it was a low profile
type home well hidden by the existing foliage. He also noted that there was considerable space
on the side so that there would be at least 40 feet between this house and the adjacent home.
He indicated that he was torn with this request but that he believed that the property owner
should enjoy his property as much as possible. In this particular instance, he would side with
the property owner.
Commissioner Caldwell concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Patrick.
She was having a problem with the design and finding it compatible with that of the existing
neighborhood and therefore would not vote in support of the request.
Chairman Murakami concurred with Commissioners Caldwell's and Patrick's comments. He
stated that although he was not crazy about the design, he vas sympathetic with the applicant,
knowing that he meets all regulatory codes. He noted that the neighbors did not speak to the
design of the structure. He indicated that he would go along with Commissioners Caldwell and
Patrick and not support the proposal.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she too vas torn with this application and that she would have
preferred to see a house that blends better with the neighborhood. Considering the constraints
of the older building, she did not believe that it would be fair to require the applicant to move
the second story element into the building without a considerable amount of retrofitting. She
stated that she did not like the look of the garage and wanted to know if the applicant would
agree to redesign the proposal.
Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the public hearing be reopened to
ask the applicant if he would be ~villina to reconsider the design and that the Commission
provide some direction to the applicant (i.e., redesign and the appropriateness of a two story
design).
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50
p.m.
Mr. Heid stated that this was the style of home that was more in line with the applicant's
background. However, he would agree to reconsider the use of material and the look of the
exterior design. y
Mr. Abdullah indicated that he would be willing to return with a design that more closely
matched some of the constructive feedback he heard this evening.
PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 16 -
Commissioner Caldwell recommended that Mr. Heid review the recently approved design
located at the end of Lomita Avenue.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR DR-95-015 TO ITS JUNE 28 MEETING WITH PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED
TO STAFF BY FRIDAY, JUNE 16. 199.
Commissioner Caldwell stepped down from discussion of agenda item 9 due to a conflict of
interest.
9. UP-574.3 - The Brookside Club of Saratoga, 19127 Cox Ave.; request to amend
existing Use Permit conditions to allow for the use of an amplified sound
system to announce and start the previously approved summer swim meets
and time trials and to modify the swim season hours of operation to allow
t~vo swim instructors to arrive at 8:00 a.m. for swim practices, where
9:00 a.m. is the current Use Permit limitation. The subject property is
approximately 3 acres in size and is located within.an R-1-10,000 zoning
district.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He clarified
that staff has prepared a new use permit resolution to make the application current, incorporating
all previous conditions of approvals and would supersede all other resolutions.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he received a call from Mrs. Askew. He addressed
page 000086, item 6, which states that "The Club membership shall be limited to 250 families.
Private tennis and swim lessons are allowed. " He noticed that a package given to the
Commission includes advertisement(s) regarding a tennis camp, swim lessons, and what appears
to be group activities. He requested staff clarification regarding restrictive gatherings.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff has been notified
that there have been advertisements for swim/tennis lessons, and summer camps or day care.
He indicated that it was not clear to staff whether the advertisement was for club members. It
was his reading of the previously approved use permit that this was a private club. Therefore,
any activities would be acceptable as long as the club members found the activities acceptable.
Regarding the interpretation issue of private swim lessons, he felt that this issue would be one
of a land use interpretation and that the Commission would need to determine what was the
intent of the original approval.
Commissioner Patrick asked if the amplified sound system was to be used for swim meets and
not to be used for the 8 or 9 a.m. Monday through Friday swim practices. Community
Development Director Curtis responded that the amplified sound system was to be used only for
the swim meets that have been approved and time trials and that the sound system cannot exceed
six above ambiance noise level.
In response to Commissioner Kaplan's question, Community Development Director Curtis
informed the Commission that the Brookside Club would not be able use the electronic beeper.
Commissioner Siegfried requested that the applicant explain in detail how and in what way the
• PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 17 -
amplification system would be used.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that the Commission conducted a land use visit to the site and
that the Commissioners present heard the device in use.
Chairman Murakami opened this item to pubic hearing at 10:10 p.m.
Richard Norton, 12131 Country Square Lane, Saratoga, representing Brookside Club, informed
the Commission that the amplified sound system would be used to announce the event, the heat
and to announce that swimmers are to take their marks and that after each stroke, the results
would be broadcasted. He felt that he vas operating within the existing use permit which states
that the Club can give tennis and swimming lessons to members and non-members alike. He
stated that the Saratoga Parks and Recreation endorses the Brookside Club for providing swim
lessons to residents of Saratoga because of their commitment to water safety for the children of
the community. He indicated that the Club vas im~olved with charitable events, neighborhood
watch events, exchange student events, and graduation events. He noted that one of the letters
received in opposition was from the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association who recently
requested the use of the Club facility for a meeting and that the Club granted the use of the
facility. He provided a petition to the Commission from the Saratoga Woods Swim Club in
support of the Club. He addressed the swim team and the meets that are to be held on Saturdays
between the middle of June to the end of July each year. The meets are to begin an 9 a.m. with
warm-ups to begin an hour before the event with no amplified systems to be used before 9 a.m.
One swim time trial would be held on a Sunday afternoon starting about 1 p.m. to be held either
on the first or second week in June. The requested 8 a.m. start time would be for Monday,
Wednesday and Friday for approximately nine children.
Commissioner Siegfried asked if Mr. Norton would be willing to accept a condition which would
stipulate that the club could conduct practices on Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8 am. ,
limiting the use to children of certain ages.
Mr. Norton responded that such a condition would be acceptable to the Club. He noted that
there was a great deal of confusion with the use of an amplified sound system. The original use
permit required the use of a starting pistol. In 1989, following complaints about the noise from
the starting pistol, there was a meeting held chaired by a Planning staff member, attended by
the residents and Brookside Club Board Members. At that meeting, it was agreed that the Club
would use an amplified sound system that would be less obtrusive than a starting pistol. He felt
that the Club has been operating in good faith under the agreement of 1989.
Commissioner Siegfried requested clarification regarding the agreement pertaining to the type
of amplified sound system to be used (i.e., use of a beeper or amplified system). Mr. Norton
stated that he could not address what was stipulated by the agreement and that it was his belief
that the Colorado sound system was to be used which includes the amplification of the
announcements and the beeps. He felt that he had the approval of the City of Saratoga over the
last six years. He informed the Commission that a pool expansion has occurred this past winter
that increased the lanes from 4 to 6. Because of the pool expansion, the beeps would be cut to
' PLANNING COMMISSI. MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 18 -
approximately 100 beeps for a typical Saturday meet. Also, the meets would be shortened from
3.5-4 hours to approximately 2.~ hours. He informed the Commission that notices were sent
to 130 of the neighbors at time of filing to amend the use permit and that 70 of the neighbors
responded to the notices, several of the responses endorsing the expansion. He addressed the
points addressed in the letters of opposition (i.e., pool expansion, dumping of pool water was
inadvertent with no lasting damage to the creek, advertisement in newspaper, communication
on a monthly basis with the neighbors in 1989 and 1990 meetings). He stated that he was
willing to place the homeowners who are located within the Brookside Club on a mailing list and
invite them to Board meetings. He did not feel that the Club was blatant with noise and that the
noise would be for a short time during the course of the swim season. He felt that the Club has
tried to communicate and work with the neighbors to work together as much as possible.
Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, President of Saratoga Woods Park Homeowners Association,
spoke in opposition to the request. He indicated that the homeowners association did not request
the use of the Club facility . He stated that Saratoga Woods has a concern with the Brookside
Club activities for two reasons: 1) noise which affects the residents close to Brookside; and 2)
the insidious movement from a swim and tennis club into a commercial enterprise. The
homeowners close to Brookside have historically been annoyed and irritated by the noise
generated activities of the Club. He reviewed the noise report by Pack Associates and that he
noticed that the noise ambiance of 57db was taken in March which was taken when Saratoga
Creek was running full. He suggested that in the summer months when the creek is low, that
the ambiance level would be much lover. However, the noise level of the start up beep and the
sound system would not decrease. This means that the change from the ambience noise level
would be greater, being an irritant factor. He felt that jarring verse of sharp noise would be
more than 60d allowed by code. He felt that if the ambience noise level was high, you really
do not hear the noise and if the ambient is low, the noise would be more irritating. He felt that
the neighbors have made an effort to go along with the ordinary noise associated with the pool
and club use. However, he felt that the impact of the amplified sound system would add too
much to the burden already borne by the neighbors. The evidence of a limited membership club
to a full blown commercial operation is that of the solicitation of the general public through
newspaper and magazine adds for tennis lessons and to enroll in a children's day camp. He did
not believe that these activities were authorized in the use permit. The history presented in the
packet reveals a troubled relationship. Nov, the Club is advertising opening the facility without
authorization. He expressed concern with the R-1 10,000_ zoning district being impacted by
commercial activities. He requested that the Brookside use permit be restricted to a membership
only facility at its current membership level, prohibited from any commercial-type activities and
that activities which generate noise and disruptions to the neighbors be controlled.
Dee Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Drive, read a letter she wrote dated May 10, 1989 which
addressed concerns regarding modifications and violation of the Brookside use permits. Since
December 28, 1959, the topics referenced excessive noise, invasion of privacy, fencing and
landscaping. Subsequent hearings included December 9, 1963, August 10, 1972, June 26, 1972,
July 26, 1978, August 23, 1978, February 13, 1985. March 4, 1985, March 22, 1989, and four
other meetings subsequent to the March 1989 meeting. She noted that Mr. Norton has indicated
that the use permit is opened to the public. She indicated that the original use permit issued
June 4, 1958 limited the Club to 225 members as a neighborhood swim and tennis club. It has
PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 19 -
remained as 250 families due to parking restrictions and being located in a medium density
residential zoning district. Being restricted to 250 families does not allow for the Club to be
open for public use, only for membership use. No where in the use permit does it stipulate that
the Club can use the facilities for public activities. She felt that the Brookside Club has violated
its use permit for the past five years. The Club vas no~v before the Commission requesting
authorization of the existing violations by means of a use permit. Brookside Club has been
given regulations to abide by and noted that Brookside has not abided by the regulations. She
indicated that UP-574.1 adopted in 1991 was an agreement that was signed by Brookside. She
did not believe that the Planning Commission and the neighbors make informal agreements and
that the reason it appears before the Commission is to/get an agreement in writing. She
addressed the Brookside Club registration and the junior tennis pamphlet which indicate that
these activities are open to the public. She felt that the advertisement for public swim/tennis
lessons and a daycare camp has changed the character of a private neighborhood club into a
commercial establishment which is not what the use permit intended. She felt that the operation
of a day camp with the lessons are materially injurious to properties and improvements in the
vicinity. She felt that Brookside would be conducting a business that would be unfair to the
neighborhood, increasing noise and traffic. During the past five years, the neighbors have
patiently endured the noise pollution created by the Brookside Club. The neighbors have tried
to work out the problems associated with the Brookside Club. She requested that the Planning
Commission deny the request before it. Further, she requested that the Commission insist that
Brookside continue the eight foot solid wood fence authorized by the City Council in 1990 to
be built in the parking lot area. Extension of the fence along the creek boundary would help
alleviate the noise created by Brookside and satisfy the needs which the neighbors have sought
for approximately 30 years.
Mary Jane Kaas, 1272 Saratoga Creek Drive, stated that the proposed amplified system would
affect her. She noted that other swim clubs in the Brookside Club's league are either located
near a busy street or located separately from a residential area, buffering the swim clubs from
residential areas. She felt that there is a different situation when you have a buffer between a
pool area where there is a distance to allow the noise to die off. She did not feel that dual meets
require the use of an amplified sound system. She did not want to see the door opened for an
amplified sound system in what is a basically a residential neighborhood district.
Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek Drive, addressed noise, the use of his yard and his property
value. He indicated that UP14 indicates that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over the
use permit to "preserve the health, safety, moral convenience or welfare on persons residing or
working in the surrounding areas or to preserve existing or perspective property values or to
prevent a public nuisance. " He noted that the original intent of the use permit was to restrict
its membership to 2~0 members. On February 13, 1985, staff and the Planning Commission
found that the expanded hours of operation of the facility created a conflict with the surrounding
residential uses. He indicated that the issue was the volume of people going through the club,
not the swim meets. He felt that the use of a power mega phone or sound system would
magnify noise. In 1990, it became clear to him that Brookside had memberships open to
individuals outside the neighborhood. When the Brookside Club allowed individuals outside the
neighborhood, that the use of the family oriented club violated the use permit. He further
indicated that in 1990, he did not object to the use of a starting horn versus the use of a starting
=PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 20 -
pistol but stated that he objected to the use of a sound system or amplification device. He
offered a video tape for the Commission's view that demonstrates the noise that he hears from
his home when swim meets are conducted. He expressed concern with additional traffic if the
use is expanded to outside individuals. Also of concern would be the impact to property values.
Richard Ridder, 12634 Saratoga Creek Drive, stated that it was his understanding that review
of the Brookside Club would establish a ne~v use permit to supersede all other use permits and
that he hoped that the ne~v use permit would not allow for non-members swim or tennis lessons.
He expressed concern that the Brookside Club would turn into a daycare center as is seen during
the summer months. He indicated that there are 130 members on the swim team and asked if
that meant that there were going to be 130 swimmers at the requested 8 a.m. practice time in
the mornings. If so, that would create a tremendous amount of noise.
Faye Steiger, 19186 Gunther Court, opposed revising the use permit to allow for the amplified
sound system and felt that there was enough noise generated from Highway 85. She stated that
she did not want to see any more commercial activities in the area. She also expressed concern
with the impacts on residential parking.
John Baily, 12680 Brooklane Court, indicated that he did not receive a notice of public hearing
and also did not receive any notices from the Brookside Club. He indicated that the noise level
vas severe. He knew that there was going to be noise associated with a swim club when he
purchased his home a year ago, but that he did not realize that there was going to be the use of
an electronic beeper which terrifies his son. He did not support the use of an electronic sound
system and also stated that he did not support the Saturday 8 a.m. use. The noise associated
with cars going over speed bumps, and noise of the kids riding their bikes and noise in general
makes it a tough atmosphere for him to sleep in.
Frank Ealy, 12668 Brooklane Drive, indicated that he was member of Brookside and stated that
he always respected the club. He indicated that the problem was that Brookside started out as
a community club. Now it vas a ribbon organization and people drive to the Club. The back
roads are very transient all day long, and that individuals use their car horns to pick up the
children, creating a noisy situation. If the use permit vas amended, it would increase traffic and
noise. He opposed the 8 a.m. use and found the 9 a.m. time as being acceptable. He informed
the Commission that individuals block his driveway. He noted that the Brookside Club has three
parking lots and they do not open the third parking lot. He stated his opposition to amending
the use permit.
Priscilla Schneider, 13291 Pierce Road, President of the Juniper Sierra Swim League, indicated
that swim clubs in the league are located in residential areas. She noted that the Brookside Club
has more buffer than some of the other clubs have. She informed the Commission that swim
clubs all use the same sound equipment because the gun vas so obtrusive. She stated that the
purpose of her organization was to fulfill the need in this area to provide young people with a
way to participate and compete in one of the best, all around sport--swimming. She further
stated that the Juniper Sierra League supports the Brookside Club's efforts to provide the kind
of atmosphere for the youth to grow up in.
PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 21 -
Wendy Symbol, manager of the Brookside Club, addressed the issue of the day camp. She
indicated that the day camp would be opened to non members to allow members' friends to
participate in the Club. She clarified that there are six members and one non member registered
for the day camp. As far as the swimming and tennis lessons are concerned, these activities are
offered to the neighborhood and the community and to help the Club financially. She indicated
that the third parking lot is opened during swim meets and that it is not opened on a regular
basis because it was not necessary. She stated that she would agree to put signs up to direct
users of the club to park in the appropriate locations.
Commissioner Patrick commented that it was her understanding of a private club that guests are
allowed with members but that nonmembers are not allowed. She asked if it was Ms. Symbol's
understanding that when there are various activities that guests of members are in attendance.
Ms. Symbol responded that if a member vas going to im~ite guests, the member would need to
notify her because she would limit the number of guests that can be at the Club at a certain date.
Commissioner Patrick asked if the use permit limits the numbers of people that can be present
on the premises. Ms. Symbol responded that she vas not aware of an occupancy limitation.
Ms. Symbol further clarified that the use permit stipulates that 25 percent of the membership is
to come from non-Saratoga residents and that approximately 250 families are Saratoga residents.
She further stated that children are not allowed to be left at the Club unsupervised under the age
of 9, and that there is a limit of 12 children per session in a one week period.
Commissioner Abshire asked if the Club has considered sound abatement on the east side of the
premises with an 8 foot fence. Ms. Symbol responded that there is an existing six foot fence
along the perimeter of the premise and that she did not know how much difference an eight foot
fence would make to abate noise. The future financial plans indicate replacement of all the fence
on the property. She informed the Commission that a fence was replaced along Brook Glen due
to damage caused by the storm. There was not an arbitrary decision not to install/replace the
fence along Creekside.
Commissioner Murakami asked if the Club has met with the neighbors to discuss their problems
or situations that may arise? Ms. Symbol responded that the Club has not met with the
neighbors but that the neighbors were more than welcome to attend board meetings.
Jeff Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Road, Board Member of Saratoga Area G Homeowners
Association, indicated that none of the homeowners live in the vicinity of the Brookside Club
and that they are not affected by the questions being discussed this evening. He spoke in support
of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association regarding the amplified sound and noise to
individuals quality of life. He indicated that his homeowners association has been impacted by
West Valley College. He stated that the use of an amplified sound system at West Valley
College was in violation of the City Ordinance and that enforcement has been difficult or non-
existent. He further stated that the City has another history of problems with the activities at
Montalvo that have not yet been solved. His homeowners association is requesting that the City
not approve the amplified system in areas which have existing long term history of noise
problems.
• `~ =PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 22 -
Nancy Crampton, 14690 Fieldstone Drive, School Board of the Saratoga-Los Gatos High School
District and a member of Brookside Club since 1972, indicated that she has reviewed this issue
and was sympathetic with the neighbors because she knows that swim meets are noisy events.
She noted that today, kids are driven everywhere and that kids are noisy. She felt that one of
the things that have affected property values in Saratoga were the nice events available to
families. She indicated that the request before the Commission was for four days out of the year
to conduct an event to serve 130 kids for four hours. She noted that there were not a lot of
activities for kids to do with their families in Saratoga and that a swim meet was one of the
activities that families enjoy. She felt that there was a responsibility to provide local activities
to children.
Mr. Norton clarified that the day camp was not going to be a day care and that only six children
have registered to attend. In terms of the issue of members and non-members, he referred the
Commission to UP-207 in the Commission's packet which states that private swimming and
tennis lessons are available to non-members. He referred the Commission to the staff report for
UP-574 dated 2-1-85 which also references UP-207.
Commissioner Siegfried clarified that the staff report dated 2-1-85 talks about the Brookside
Club but that when you look at the actual use permit, it does not indicate that the Club is open
for private lessons. He did not believe that the language which authorizes private lessons has
been actually included in the use permit resolution but acknowledged that private lessons have
been mentioned in the staff report.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the original 1958 use permit was not included in the
Commission's packet and that she would like to review the original use permit. She stated that
she does not have enough information at this time to make a decision and could not vote on the
issue.
Commissioner Siegfried commented that use permit UP-95-004 now contains specific language
that states that the Club shall be limited to 250 members and that private tennis and swim lessons
would be allowed. This is the language that is being proposed for Commission review and
approval.
Mr. Norton informed the Commission that he would be able to provide the number of members
and non-members using the Brookside Club facilities.
Community Development Director Curtis noted that the staff report dated 2-1-85, pages 000094
and 000095, makes reference to: "The membership of the club is limited to 250 families under
the existing use permit (UP-207). However, private tennis and swimming lessons are available
to non-members." He noted that Resolution No. UP-574(A)-1, page 000092, makes reference
to an amended staff report dated February 1, 1985. Whether the staff report was correct or
accurate, the report indicates it as a reference trail that the City is dealing with. The issue
before the Commission is what this information constitutes. Also, it is a land use issue and the
items that the Commission will need to consider is whether there is sufficient parking, space,
and amenities to provide for non-members.
' ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 23 -
Commissioner Siegfried commented that he suspects that if one looks over the history of this use
and what was covered in the language it would be what most people assume would occur in
clubs similar to this one. This was a whole different question than what the packet indicates in
terms of advertisement. The point is that there is documentation in public advertisement for
events that he has not seen before. He indicated that this would be the fourth time that he has
heard this argument and that he has never seen this type of public advertisement. Therefore,
he felt that it was an important issue.
Mr. Norton stated that the junior tennis program advertisement had 10 non members in 1994 and
that the current non-membership is 5. In regards to the swim lessons, he indicted that there
were 100 non-members and approximately 130-140 members who take swim lessons.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that what the Commission could have been referring to many
years ago could include things far beyond what may or may not have been thought about.
Mr. Norton stated that he would agree not to advertise any more if it is of concern to the
Commission. Regarding the issue of the amplified sound system, he felt that it has been
demonstrated that the noise levels were reasonable given the eminent noise around the Club.
He stated that the Club has tried to work with the community in the past to keep the noise levels
to a minimum. He noted that the amplified sound system would be used only four times during
the year for a total of 10 hours for the entire year. He did not feel that the request before the
Commission would place an incredible burden to the neighbors.
Commissioner Patrick asked if the beeper would be reduced to approximately 100 beep per meet
in a 2.5 hour period which would equal to 1 beep for every minute. Mr. Norton responded that
Commissioner Patrick's numbers were current.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
11:30 P.M.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he looked at the packet of information provided and noted
that his name was listed in several areas and that it was unfortunate that the use was being
revisited. In reviewing the history of this use, he felt that it was clear that there was a time,
other than the informal agreement for the use of an amplified sound system. He felt that it may
have been a substitution for the beep tone versus the pistol. It was not known if the parties
understood that it would include the announcement as part of the system. He indicated that he
would support the time modification from 9 a.m. to 8 a.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays if the age group was restricted. However, he indicated that he was troubled with the
approval of anything other than abeep-tone replacement for the pistol and to eliminate the use
of an amplified sound system. It was his belief that it may have been possible that included in
the concept of the Club to include private lessons, but that he did not believe that the concept
of what was being seen. He did not believe that expansion to non-members should be included
and that the language has to be defined carefully or eliminated entirely.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the way that the use permit was written and
that she could not support it. She felt that there were too many compounding issues and
- ' ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI! MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 24 -
problems. She noted that the use permit indicates swim practices to be held 8 a.m. to sunset
on weekdays, not Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays. She felt that the use permit needs to be
revisited to consolidate a use permit for Brookside Club so that everyone knows what the rules
are to eliminate some of the problems. Regarding the amplification sound system, she indicated
that what the Commission heard yesterday at its site visit was not a serious sound system
problem. She stated that she was having difficulty determining what Brookside applied for at
various times. Also, she is told that the sound level various depending on what the surrounding
noise is. She had a problem with the amplified sound system issue because there are no
standards that the neighbors can rely on. However, she felt that part of the problem in Saratoga
was that people do not understand that kids and activities make noise. She felt that kids have
certain rights too, including making noise and participate in activities. The swim practices to
be held on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays without an amplified system was not objectionable
to her but suggested that the Commission limit it in some way to alleviate some of the concerns
(i.e., limit by age or number). Regarding the amplification sound system, she previously
indicated that she did not find it objectionable and that she would agree to listen to suggestions
as to how to limit that noise. She indicated that she would be willing to vote in favor of the two
items being requested but not the way they were packaged.
Commissioner Abshire stated that he felt that the neighbors have a legitimate point regarding the
use of the swimming pool before 9 a.m. and that he did not see a good reason to open the pool
to children before 9 a.m. due to the noise associated with swimmine. He felt that the kids in
Saratoga deserve the activities associated with the swim meet. He recommended that the use
of an amplified sound system be investigated further. He did not believe that the Club has
thoroughly reviewed the options in abating the noise. He felt that the Club should spend some
money to install sound barriers on the side that receives most of the complaints. He felt that the
concerns of the neighborhood needed to be reviewed.
Commissioner Kaplan commented that there is a need to provide activities for the children and
that she would want to see that these type of activities are made available. She stated that what
she heard at the site visit vas not an amplified sound system and that she could barely hear it
standing at the fence by the creek. She felt that if the use of the sound system was only to be
used for a day, she could approve the use of the announcement system along with the Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday 8 a.m. swim practice time. However, the use permit would need to
return to the Commission to clarify the advertisement as well as the issue of members and non-
members. Therefore, she could not vote on the resolution before the Commission this evening.
Chairman Murakami stated that he felt that the Brookside Club has been handling this issue
poorly. He felt that the Brookside Club could have done more to mitigate the noise concerns of
the neighbors. Regarding the use of a sound system, he would not find it objectionable if used
properly and that as far as the swim meet start times on Saturday, he would support a start up
time of 9 a.m., not the 8 a.m. being requested. He agreed with Commissioner Patrick that there
were too many things associated with the use permit that need to be reviewed and clarified.
Community Development Director Curtis commented that staff tried to consolidate the use
permit. He indicated that staff can be directed to prepare a resolution to amend the previous use
permit specifically to allow the t~vo issues which the Commission can support. Should the
"'~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES •
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 25 -
Commission have a question regarding the operation of the facility being consistent with the
original approval (i.e., private lessons versus non-member lessons), he recommended that the
use permit be advertised for public hearing to address those issues of concern.
Commissioner Siegfried did not feel that the amplified sound system should be approved unless
it was defined (Resolution No. UP-95-002, Condition 2, page 000085). He felt that the language
relating to the amplified sound system needed to be defined because two years from now,
someone may come in and state that the use permit allowed for the use of an amplified system
to announce results. He felt that the condition needs to specify exactly what the amplified
system can do.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that the resolution before the Commission references a staff report.
When this item returns to the Commission, she requested to know from the City Attorney what
legal value does the staff report has that has been adopted in a resolution. She asked if the staff
report dated 2-1-85 misstated what was said in the original use permit, what its effect would be
and whether the Commission effectively changed the use permit unintentionally.
Commissioner Siegfried felt that the problem was whether the staff report referenced in the
resolution, could be interpreted entirely differently today. He felt that the club could logically
and legally say that they can do all of these things because the use states private lessons. He
was certain that it was never the intent of the language to included private, non member lessons.
He indicated that he was having a problem with condition 2 which reads: "The amplified sound
system that was to be used to announce and start the approved summer swim meet schedule of
three swim meets.... " because it vas not absolutely clear what that system can be used for. He
recommended that staff incorporate the Commission's comments and prepare a resolution for
the consent calendar relating to the two items which the Commission supports and that the
original use permit as well as the proposed language for condition 2 be scheduled for its next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH
A RESOLUTION FOR ITS JUNE 14 CONSENT CALENDAR WHICH WOULD PROVIDE
FOR THE USE OF A PORTABLE. DIRECTIONAL. AMPLIFIED SYSTEM FOR THE
PURPOSE OF STARTING EACH EVENTS AND TO ALLOW SWIM TEAM PRACTICES
BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND 9 A.M. MONDAYS, WEDNESDAYS AND FRIDAYS WITH THE
DEFINITION OF THE ACTIVITIES, THE AGE. THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND THE
SPECIFIC TIME AND DATES FOR THE SWIM MEETS TO BE SPELLED OUT. THE
MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSTAINING AND
COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT.
Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the Commission schedule the operation of the use
permit for Brookside Club for a work session item so that the Commission can review all the
information pertinent to the definition of private tennis and swim lessons prior to scheduling the
use for public hearing.
Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that this item may not be
able to be scheduled for a work session until August.
` ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES
MAY 24, 1995
PAGE - 26 -
Commissioners Kaplan and Siegfried requested that staff provide the Commission with all the
pertinent information as soon as it becomes available for its review.
Commissioner Caldwell resumed her seat on the Commission.
DIRECTOR'S ITEi\1S
COMMISSION ITE1tIS
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she has been advised that Cox Avenue at Cumberland has
debris in the right-of-way. She requested that staff investigate this concern.
COMAZUNICATIONS
Written
Oral
City Council
ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. to
7:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 6, 1995, Senior Day Care, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, Ca.
95070
RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED,
IRMA TORREZ
MINUTES CLERK
it;PC05249~.SAR