Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: June 8, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad Approval of Minutes: Meeting of May 25, 1988: Commissioner Burger asked that on Page 4, third paragraph, final sentence read, "Information on the house to the right of the subject property Was provided." Commissioner Harris asked that on Page 5, first paragraph, add, "Stated that landscaping had been installed in relationship to the previously approved placement of the home" Fourth paragraph, second sentence to read, "All 'of the houses were 4 ft. higher than expected due to the way the Code was worded at the time.'.." HARRIS/B'URGER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 25, 1988, AS AMEND- ED. Passed 4-0-2, Commissioners Siegfried, TUcker abstaining. Technical Corrections to the Agenda: Planner Caldwell called attention to the revised page in Application SDR 159.1 ORAL COMMUNICATIQNS; None. REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA; Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on June 3, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. AZO-88-002 City of Saratoga, an ordinance repealing and amending various sections of the subdivision and zoning ordinance concerning the authority to modify or grant exception from regulations and standards. A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Continued to July 13, 1988. 2. SM-88-0.20 Saffarian, 21757 Congress Hall Lane, request for site modification approval to allow the construction of a swimming pool in the NHR zoning district pursuant to City Code Article 14-25. Continued to June 22, 1988. 3. DR-88-029 Archer, 12057 Parker Ranch Road, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 6,729 sq. ft. two-story home on a 2.58 acre lot in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to June 22, 1988. 4. DR-87-126.1 Lautmp, 18247 Montpere Way, request for modification to conditions of previous design review approval of a 3,416 sq. ft. one-story single family home to allow a change in' exterior colors from medium earth tone to white with blue trim. 5. SDR-159.Z.. Jackson, 18642 Montewood Drive, request for a one-year extension of time to complete conditions of tentative building site approval for one lot in the R-l~40,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. 6. DR-88-021 Franklin, 20876 Beauchamps Ln., request for design review approval for a new 4,796 sq. ft. two-stOry single family home in the R-l-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued 7. DR-88-033 Falcon Hill Development, 14045 Quito Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,374 sq. ft. two-story home in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-88-050 Beach, 12452 Crayside Ln., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,793 sq. ft. two-story residence in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. DR-88-034 Murphy, 21511 Saratoga Heights Drive, request for design review approval of a 613 sq. ft., second story addition to an existing one-story single family home that, including the addition, will be 4,906 sq. ft. on a 1.09 acre lot in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The addition is proposed to be under the existing roof line. 10. DR-88-016 Aventi, 14161 Teerlink Way Dr., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,660 sq. ft. two-story home on a 1.07 acre lot in the NHR zoning district per Chapter per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. LL-88-003 Kermani and Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way, request for lot line adjustment to reverse the footprint on one of eight townhouse units (Unit 2) in order to protect an existing redwood tree. Chairwoman Guch noted that Public Hearing Consent Calendar Items 1, 2, 3 were continued. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF 'PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALEN- DAR ITEMS 4 THROUGH 11. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS; Public Hearings Items 12, 13 and 14 to be heard simultaneously. 12. SD-87-019 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for tentative subdivision approval to accommodate 10 townhomes and a common area lot, and a 1.29 acre retail parcel in the C-N zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Continued from May 25, 1988. 13. DR-87-123 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a 4,716 sq. ft. and a 10,275 sq. ft. retail building on a 1.29 acre parcel in the C-N zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. In addition, design review approval of the proposed sign program is also requested. Continued from May 25, 1988. 14. UP-87-147 Saratoga Partners, 12902 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., request for use permit DR-87-124 and design review approvals of plans to construct ten (10) townhouse units in a C-N (neighborhood commercial) zone district. A Negative Dec- laration has been prepared for this project. Continued from .May 25, 1988 Planning Director Hsia presented the Reports to the Planning Commission, June 8, 1988. The City Attorney provided information requested on the Application. The PubliC Hearing was then reopened. Mr. Norm Hulberg, Saratoga Partners, commented as follows: - Retail Project: main concerns were driveway and location of retail/commercial Building 2 Additional 3 ft. building setback on Cox, 2 1/2 ft. on Saratoga-Sunnyvale were provided Building height of 18 ft. was reduced by 2 ft. with landscaping added to soften the building - Parking: loss of one space; however, parking provided was in excess of that required - Driveway was 200 ft. from the Cox Ave./Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. intersection - Traffic consultant had completed sight line studies and would present such information - P.G.& E. would not approve undergrounding the utility pole as stated in SD-87-019, 10. c. - In SDo87-019, 27., Water District had already approved a 3 ft. distance from the curb - Summarized that a number of project redesigns and reconfiguarations had been completed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Michael Dillon, Landscape Architect, commented as follows: - A variety of foliage heights and shades was used to create the illusion of depth at the corner of the retail/commercial Building 2; - A 2.7 ft. height on landscape screening was maintained to insure clearance of sight lines Mr. Gary Black, Traffic Consultant, answered questions on the rise in the road addressed by Commissioner Burger; the Commissioner expressed concern that the view would be obscure& Mr. Kurt Anderson, Saratoga Partners, provided additional technical information. Mr. Hulberg commented as follows on the townhouse project: Height of the proposed units was reduced to 25 ft. 5 in; such could not be further reduced Bulk was reduced by making the structures narrower, in addition a hip roof was used Privacy impacts: changes were made to Units 7 and 8 in balconies and type of glass used On-site Parking: additional spaces were provided Density on-site: density originally proposed had been reduced; with respect to compatibility with the surrounding area, he noted that this was a transition site Noted efforts to achieve what he considered to be a minimal impact on existing homes; landscaping would further mitigate impacts Mr. Dillon noted the existing dense landscape screening between the townhouse development and existing residential; he provided information requested on types of vegetation proposed. Mr. Kanti Khokhani, 20391 Wolcot Way, Saratoga, cited the following two issues: Questioned whether a variance was being requested in this Application Following findings could not be made: - Avoids unreasonable interference with views and privacy - Minimized the perception of bulk - Height and bulk were compatible with the surrounding area Ms. Dee Fulgam, 20502 Wardell Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: Cited the setback and height limitations applied to fences in residential Noted that a 20 ft. tall building could be sited! approximately the same setback distance as a fence on residential property across the street; '.building would be 5 ft. higher than her home The Building would go straight up; the appearance of bulk was not mitigated Questioned whether the City Council realized the impact and visual appearance of 15,000 sq. ft. of development on the site in question Cited traffic impacts to vehicles approaching Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. from Cox Ave. Compared commercial and residential setbacki requirements; such was not evenhanded Ms. Dora Grens, Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Cited discussions held that the General Plan - Proposed development was a far cry from that envisioned for this site o Provided an example of another retail/commercial development and impacts from such - Asked for the least impacts possible from this 'project; such did not seem to be the case Ms. Suzanne Armbmster, 21169 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Concurred with above concerns regarding traffic/safety hazards at this intersection - Noted the small amount of acerage available and the resulting overcrowding - Asked that as much open space as possible be maintained - Cited the office/commercial vacancy rate; proposal was unfair to existing property owners - Objected to the commercialization of Saratoga' - Noted that such proposals compromised the property values in the City Dr. Stutzman 1959 Park Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Proposal was another example of the tendency to increase density - Cited traffic impacts on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and noted that the proposal increased strip commercialization; such further impacted traffic - Asked that traffic and density be decreased to. reasonable levels, maintain property values at a higher level, increase the value of the neighborhood - Development of the nature proposed was not for the good of the community Ms. Lois Cockshaw, 20995 Canyon View Dr., Saratoga, stated that the June elections sent a message that Saratogans were tired of over development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Hulberg responded as follows: - Noted that a balance between what the developer, City and neighbors needed was required - The question was, "what is the best use of this site? - Parcel was a transition site not suitable to building single family homes on - Reviewed site constraints and asked that the Commission consider what was reasonable - Han proposed was a good project that minimized impacts SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:35 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Burger commented as follows: - Commission had zealously guarded the residential character of Saratoga; commercial development had been allowed within the General Plan zoning guidelines - Applicant had reminded the Commission of the development agreement held with the City and asked that the total square footage allowed on the commercial portion and the ten town- houses on the residential portion of the site be noted; the Commissioner went on to note the next paragraph of the agreement which she quoted, "...the parties expressly acknowledge that the improvements described...represent a preliminary conceptual plan only and are subject to change during the course of processing the developer's applications..." She also indicated that she believed this indicated that the City Council had no intention that the Planning Commission should abrogate its duties in this matter. Proposal was viewed in the light of logical managed growth and responsible land use policy Concerns previously stated at the first Public Hearing and the Study Session, included: N Driveway access N Retail Building 2 and its proximity to the street and height; building had not been redesigned in accord with suggestions previously made ~ Residential Project: too dense for the property Concerns had not been met; she was unable to vote for the project as presented Commissioner Tucker concurred and added her concern regarding the 12 ft. setback where 36 ft. was required; such would adversely impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried was of the same opinion as expressed at previous hearings, namely, that Building 2 would have a negative impact on the comer and the residential project was too dense; he would not vote in favor of this project as presented. Commissioner Harris concurred with all of Commissioner Burger's and Siegffied's comments and added that at the time of the agreement, the cumulative impacts of this and the adjacent project may not have been envisioned; now that plans had been a presented and the density of the adjacent development was visible, impacts were of great concern. She was unfavorable to the appearance, especially since the project was adjacent to a neighborhood. From its first hearing, she had asked for alternative configurations of the commercial buildings for this site. Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: - Driveways proposed were acceptable; setbacks, safety and privacy minimally acceptable Density: stated that he had no comment - While the project was a transition site, he concluded that the project was barely acceptable Citizens of Saratoga did not wish such; he would not vote in favor of the project proposed Chairwoman Guch commented as follows: Reiterated concerns on retail Building 2; wished to see greater mitigations incorporated Building 2 was still too close to the comer despite adjustments made by the Applicant Was unable to envision this Building as proposed, located on the comer of the site Did not have the same concerns on Building 1; existing impacts would not be increased Would not vote for the Application as proposed Did not have concerns on privacy impacts of the townhouse project; such had a very nice presentation; noted appreciation for the redesign submitted Felt that the City Council had set maximum densities which were open to negotiation Stated that she would not vote for the project as presently proposed SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SD-87-019. Passed 6-0 SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DRo87-123. Passed 6-0 SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE UP-87-017 AND DR-87-124. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 15. DR-87-152 Foley, 18929 Monte Vista Dr., request for design review approval for a new 5,640 sq. ft. two-story single family home on a vacant lot in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from April 13, 1988. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 8, 1988. The City Attorney advised that the issue of access to the property was not within the scope of a Design Review Application; the question had been resolved. Subdivision Approval discussions and the Council's decision were noted. However,' neighbors seemed to be concerned regarding design of the barrier; approval of the Application could be conditioned upon insuring an appro- priate barrier design to prevent through access, even during the construction process. The Public Hearing was reopened. Ms. Virginia Fenelli, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Reviewed history of the Application; only remaining issue appeared to be grading proposed - Presented and reviewed "Grading Comparisons for DR-87-152" - Noted that the Parker Ranch and Teerlink developments as well as most of the hillside development in Saratoga had prior grading over the entire hillside before any development - Grading created roads and building sites and .involved large amounts of cut and fill; these figures did not appear in most applications since grading was already complete - Foley lot was in its natural state and was unfairly being compared to other, pre-graded lots - The Applicant was very sensitive to problems that could be caused by poor grading - Application was being made for a one-story home which met all the design criteria - Reduction in grading would prevent the Applicant from full use of his rear yard area Mr. Swen Simonsen, 18433 Montewood Dr., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Called attention to the petition submitted by 20 families objecting to any movement of the barricade which would result in increased throiagh traffic - Staff informed the spe',kker that the Applicant already could take access from the north east ..... - It was unreasonable that many families be inconvenienced by movement of the barrier Ms. Fenelli responded as follows: - The separation of access was the basis for allowing the subdivision in question as well as the subdivision immediately adjacent to it Grade on the lot was a great deal less than the 'average hillside lot; in fact if the steep area at the comer of this lot were removed, lot would .have an average grade of about 7% Requested approval of this Application Commissioner Harris noted that design of the house was similar to others approved; however, the amount of grading seemed excessive. Ms. Fenelli responded that applications came in with building pads already graded and the road in place; such accounted for the differences~ HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9:10 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger commented that if the cut and ~~l for the driveway were eliminated from the calculations, the figures appeared similar to other projects approved in the hillside area. Planner Caldwell stated that 4-6 feet of fill in a front entrance was not typical of hillside homes; the existing contour line at 512 would be raised to 518 ft. at the finished floor elevation. Toward the rear of the house, there would be 2-3 feet of fill outside of the construction area. Staff asked that a policy direction be given on this issue; there was hardly any of this property untouched by the grading that would be done. The Commission had heard applications where grading for the driveway access/turn around area. was considered; examples were cited. Staff viewed the amount of grading excessive in this Application; the Findings could not be made. Commissioner Kolstad noted that the area had more finished/formal landscaping for a hillside development. Proposal was compatible with the neighborhood; he was favorable to the project. Commissioner Tucker noted the difficulty of this issue; while considering the Applicant's position, she remained concerned about setting a precedent. She was inclined to vote in favor of the Application, citing design of the house and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger previously stated that she' was not greatly concerned about the grading; the site in question was not a hillside area. She cautioned Staff not to consider this decision as policy but rather view such as a decision on a particular application. One could argue that the natural landscape was being preserved; placing the house on the lot in its natural state would obstruct views. The plan proposed a one story home which was more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the site was unique; any decision was not a guildeline for other projects. Application in question was an infill lot; the grading proposed was a trade off to reduce the potential bulk of the house. He noted the elevations, the attractiveness of the single story design and stated that such was in keeping with the intent of the Commission. Chairwoman Guch concurred that this Application should not be viewed by Staff as a guideline; such was not a typical hillside application. Commissioner Siegfried asked that it be made clear to the Building Department that if approved, the action taken was on a unique site; .'the Commission would not like to see similar amounts of grading done on other sites. Chairwoman Guch summarized that this property was not an appropriate example from which to derive guidelines for other sites. With respect to the grading proposed for this site, she felt such was excessive. A Finding of preservation of the natural topography could not be made despite the attractive design and siting of the home; house proposed was suitable for a flat lot and the site was being contoured to fit the home. :She objected to the fact that substantial areas of the lot were flattened to compete the project; such was not preservation of the topography. The City Attorney reiterated his recommendation above; he understood the neighbor's petition as expressing concern about a through access during the construction period; he advised that design review could be conditioned that there be no through traffic during or after construction. Ms. Fenelli added that the barricade had to be moved in order to construct the driveway/road. Commissioner Burger noted that whether the barricade were moved at one time or another dur- ing construction was not as important as the fact that a barricade existed throughout this period. Ms. Fenelli assured the Commission that the Applicant intended to move the barricade, con- struct the access road/driveway and replace the barricade in its original location; all construction vehicles would take access off of the private section. Upon completion of construction, a permanent barrier would be relocated and installed. Mr. Hal Lipton, 15420 Monte Vista Dr., Saratoga, understood from a previous heating that the barricade would be left as it presently stood until project completion; there was no consider- ation about taking the barricade down and putting it back up. He was concerned about destruc- tion of a finished road--Montewoed Dr. and a portion of Monte Vista Dr. Construction vehicles would be using these roads; if at all possible, access should be taken off the private road. Mr. Swen E. Simonsen, 18433 Montewood Dr., Saratoga, stated that there was no way to move the barricade and avoid through traffic. The City Attomey advised that a condition could be added, stating that all construction activity shall access the property off the private portion of the road with the barricade remaining in its present location; upon completion of construction, the barricade is to be relocated." BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-152 MAKING THE FINDING THAT THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE WAS BEING PRESERVED IN THAT PLACING THE HOUSE ON THE LOT IN ITS NATURAL STATE WOULD OBSTRUCT VIEWS; THE SITE WAS UNIQUE, WAS AN INFILL LOT AND NO GRADING PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN DONE ON-SITE .AND ADDING A CONDITION 20. THAT "THERE SHALL BE NO THROUGH ACCESS. THE DESIGN OF THE BARRICADE TO BE SUCH THAT NO ACCESS FROM THE PRIVATE ROAD BE TAKEN. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL ACCESS THE PROPERTY OFF THE PRIVATE PORTION OF THE ROAD WITH THE BARRICADE REMAINING IN ITS PRESENT LOCATION" Passed 5-1, Chairwoman Guch dissenting. Planner Caldwell advised the Commission that: a Resolution and corrected plans would be placed on Consent Calendar of the June 22, 1988, Meeting for final approv.al. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Break: 9:40 - 9:57 P.M. 16. A-801.1 Sky Properties, 14375 Saratoga Ave., request for design review approval V-88-014 to a sign program for an existing 10,439 sq. ft. office building in the PA (Professional Administrative) zone district. In addition, a variance is requested to allow a 6 sq.. ft. identification sign where 2 sq. ft. is the maximum per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 8, 1988. Planner Caldwell noted in the Proposed Sign Program, deletion of the third paragraph. Commissioner Kolstad stated that he would abstain from voting on this Application. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:58 P.M. Mr. Abe Golpour, Century 21 Representative, reviewed the Application, requesting approval. Mr. Joe Long Jr., 1436 Saratoga Ave. Property Manager, felt that the sign program proposed was reasonable and in keeping with standards of the area; however, basing a sign on 14 uses in the building was unrealistic since, in his estimation, there would never be that many uses. In addition, there was insufficient parking available for that many uses. He cited concern that this building would be granted another variance when it currently had several variances which seriously impacted his property. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:07 P.M. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining.: Commissioner Tucker noted continuing objection to the sign proposed. She was concerned that special privilege would be granted by allowing one illuminated sign when others were wooden; such would set precedent. She favored a 1 ft. by .4 ft. sign illuminated from the ground up. Commissioner Burger noted that Century 21 occupied the major portion of the building; her primary concern was the square footage proposed for this sign and its location on the building. Commissioner Harris concurred; she did not object to the sign program proposed. Commissioner Siegfried had no objection to granting the Variance requested; however, he was unfavorable to the illumination suggested. The City Attorney suggested in proposed Sign Program, deletion of the second paragraph. Planner Caldwell stated that it would be appropriate to add a Condition 8 to the Resolution for A-801.1, stating that signs will not be interior illuminated. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF A-801.1 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, ADDING A CONDITION 8, "THERE WILL BE NO INTERIOR ILLUMINATION OF THE SIGNS." Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Kolstad abstaining. Commissioner Burger asked in Resolution V-88,014, 3., to read, "...Century 21 signs.." Planner Caldwell noted in the same Resolution, 1:, amended to specify correct location. Mr. Golpour provided technical information on the building and proposed location for the sign. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-014 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, AMENDING CONDITION 1. TO STATE THAT LOCATION OF THE SIGN TO BE TOWARD THE INTERIOR SOUrIll ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND CONDITION 3 TO READ, "CENTURY 21 S][GNS..." Passed 4-1-1, Commissioners Tucker dissenting, Kolstad abstaining. 17. DR-88-012 Sun, 12502 Parker Ranch Ct., request for design review and variance V-88-005 approval to allow the construction of a new 5,521 sq. ft. two-story single family home, 29.5 ft. in height with 20 ft. west side setback, where only 4,440 sq. ft. floor area and 26 ft. height are allowed and 26 ft. side setback is required. A Variance is also requested to allow the construction of the home on 35% slope at the building site in lieu of 30% allowed by the City Code. The home is located in the NHR zoning district. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 8, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Heating was opened at 10:24 P.M. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Representing' the Applicant, commented as follows: - Noted the unusual shape of the: lot and steepness of the slope - Site abutted open space; questioned whether such allowed some consideration - Cited the two lots in the subdivision which abutted the open space area Reviewed dimensions and constraints of the lot Asked that further consideration be given to this Application in a Study Session Planner Caldwell noted that if the project could be revised in accordance with applicable Ordinances, plans could be resubmitted and a public hearing scheduled; a Study Session to accommodate Code requirement:~ was unnecessary. Staff had already advised the Applicant and Representative of this recommendation. Mr. Anderson reiterated his request for a Study Session. Commissioner Siegfried advised that it would be highly unusual for him to approve a Variance for this lot and the size of house requested; Commissioner Harris concurred. Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: - Concem about bulk and vertical lines which appeared to be a three story structure - Asked that the house be set down, citing the vi'sibility of this house - Requested additional information on the 20 ft. setback Commissioner Burger was concerned about square footage and visibility of the rear elevation. Commissioner Tucker concurred and added concern about the west elevation and the bulk. Chairwoman Guch cited the visibility of the site and the lightness of the cream color requested. The Public Hearing remained open. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-012, V-88-005 TO JULY 13, 1988. Passed 6-0. 18. Dr-88-025 '~Katz, 14272 Saratoga Ave., request for design review approval of a two- story addition to an existing 'one-story single family home per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total floor area proposed is 2,649 sq. ft. (876 sq. ft. addition). The home is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 8, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:38 P.M. Mr. Aaron Katz, Applicant, commented as follows: As stated in the Staff Report, the lot was substandard Addition would not overburden the lot; in addition, exterior symmetry had been achieved Suggested that the tum around be paved with tUff block to preserve the landscaping Questioned the requirement for double or tandem garages on a substandard lot; cited the existing length of the driveway and was aware of the off-street parking requirement Adding to the garage resulted in bulk, was unattractive, destroying the semmetry of the lot If a parking facility other than the driveway ~ere required, a carport could be considered; however, such would not be as attractive nor as convenient; in addition, the turn around area would be disturbed (moved back another 15 ft. toward the street) Any addition in excess of 50% raised the question of bulk on a substandard lot; adding a second space to the garage or a carport overburdened the lot, triggered a site approval application and required street improvements on Saratoga Ave. - Noted that most surrounding properties had hedges; such screened sites from Saratoga Ave. An adjacent neighbor commented as follows: - Noted concerns regarding the substandard lots in the area, including her lot - Questioned the amount of squaxe footage prop6sed for this addition - Cited view, privacy and noise impacts to her yard Felt that the proposed addition 'was excessively. bulky BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:55 P.M. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 JUNE 8, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Chair recognized the Applicant. Mr. Katz~rovided additional information on the square footage requested; impacts would be mitigated by two existing large trees. Commissioner Burger commented as follows: Applicant provided a good argument against the tandem garage; such would be intrusive and destroy the charm of the home Addition of the tuff block for the turn around area was an excellent solution Favored retention of the hedge with trimming of about a foot at the driveway entrance Cited privacy impacts of second story windows; suggested obscure glass on the east side Commissioner Tucker questioned whether there was sufficient room for a turn around area. Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: - Did not have concems about this Application - Tandem garage would reduce design appeal of the home and create functional obsolescence - Was favorable to use of tuff block and obscure glass on some second story windows - Did not feel that were privacy impacts on the west side of the home Commissioner Harris concurred regarding the drawbacks of a tandem garage; however, she would have liked to have seen additional covered parking. She suggested trim or shutters as an architectural feature to relieve the boxy appearance of the addition. Commissioner Tucker suggested design alternatives for the front of the home. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with CommiSsioner Harris' comments. Commissioner Guch felt that removal of the hedge would increase impacts on the neighbor- hood; impacts on an adjacent neighbor which could be mitigated by landscaping and movement of the second story window. Concerns of the Commission summarized for the Applicant. TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-025 TO JULY 13, 1988, FOR PROJECT REDESIGN. Passed 6-0. 19. DR-88-010 Estate I Development, 215.18 Saratoga Heights Dr., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 6,092 sq. ft. two-story dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 8, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:15 P.M. Mr. Walter Chapman, Designer, presented photographs of the site and commented: - Noted that regulations of hillside development, were considered - House would be 4 ft. lower than curb site; size of the house, derived from architectural drawings, would not be perceived as such from the street scape - Some areas of the house were off-set/recessed along the frontage and would be landscaped - The slope density formula was applied to both the site itself and to the adjacent open space - Ridge of the house would be lower than the tree line and would be screened by such KOLSTAD/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 11:20 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Kolstad was favorable to the proposal and cited a lower placement of the house; with respect to the square footage. proposed, such was not visible nor gave the appearance of excessive bulk. Examples of adjacent homes were cited. Commissioner Burger stated that she could make the necessary Findings as follows. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-010 MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT BULK WAS NOT EXCESSIVE SINCE THE HOUSE WAS SET DOWN FROM THE SITE AND WOULD BE UNOBTRUSI:VE, THE LOWER LEVEL WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY SCREENED; A FINDING OF COMPATIBILITY COULD BE MADE GIVEN THE SLOPE DENSITY FORMULA: AND COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER HOMES. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page '10 JUNE 8, 1988 MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Program SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Passed 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of May 18, 1988, - Noted and filed. 2. Committee-of-the Whole Report of May 17, 1988, - Noted and filed. 3. Letter from William and Hannelore Thomas, Via Regina - Noted and filed. 4. Letter from G.J. D'Angelo, Via Regina - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Chairwoman Guch reported on the City Council Meeting of June 1, 1988. ADJOURNMENT; The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Resp tfully sub ' , :