Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-1974 Planning Commission minutesCITY _ SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSI, MINUTES .* TIME: Wednesday, October 16, 1974 - 3:30 p.m. PLACE: Crisp Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. 95070 TYPE: Hearing before Planning Director Relative to Ordinance NS -3, ZC -73 (Two -Story Conversion) I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION The meeting was called to order by Planning Director at 3:35 p.m. A. ROLL CALL Present: Marty VanDuyn, Planning. Director; Kathy Carman,, Recording Secretary;. Donald Burt, Assistant Planner Mr. VanDuyn reviewed the intent and purpose of the Two -Story Ordinance NS -3, ZC -73 and mentioned that Notices of Hearings were duly sent to the Saratoga News and surrounding neighbors. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP -254 - Mr. and Mrs. James F. Gill, 20300 Argonaut Drive - Request for Two -Story Use Permit to Allow the Conversion of Existing Residence Planning Director opened the hearing pointing.out that any decision made today or at any future hearings was appealable to the City'Council. If anyone wished to appeal the decision, he would have to do so within the allowed 10 -day appeal period. Three (3) items of written correspondence were entered into the records. The first item was from a Robert Froess, -20225 Ljepava Drive, Saratoga whose main concern was that the granting.of this permit for the Gill's would set a precedent for more two -story homes in the neighborhood which in turn would interfere with his view of the hills. The second item was from a Mrs. Nancy A.. Wood., 20169.Ljepava Drive, Saratoga who lives directly to the rear of the applicant. Her main objection to the applicant's request was that there would be a possible loss of privacy on their part and that the semi -rural feeling of the immediate neighborhood would be los: with the addition of this second story. She suggested that the landscaping be given much thought in order to obscure the view of the second story. The third item was from a Mr. Robert Pierce, 20.350 Argonaut Drive, Saratoga whose main objection to the applicant's request was that the present atmo- sphere of the neighborhood would be lost with'the addition of the second story and that the present appearance of the subdivision should be further maintained. Mr. and Mrs. William Rowe, 20.255 Argonaut Drive, Saratoga were present to represent their opposition to the applicant's request. Mr. Warren Heid, the applicant's architect, made .a presentation explaining the proposed plans for the two -story addition. He pointed out that their main goal was to meet the requirements of the neighborhood as well as those of the applicant's. References were made as to,the aesthetic value, personal needs of the applicant, landscaping and economic value of the addition to the existing residence: -The addition would consist of two bedrooms and a bath for the applicant's children. =l_ Mr. Heid also stated th, the addition of the second sto_ ,could maintain a low profile in order to not have the entire structure seem to appear that it stuck out like a sore thumb. Visually, the second story addition would not be visible from a block away. Polaroid shots were taken by Mr. Heid to show how house would appear from the street. After Mr. Heid's presentation, the Planning Director opened the hearing for questions from the Staff and those neighbors present. Planning Director's questions were directed to Mr. Heid in reference to the landscaping as far as the screening of the addition from the street and surrounding neighbors' views. Mrs. Gill stated that every home is double- buffered as they have trees on both sides of the home and that they are planning to plant trees that are rapid growing in the backyard to aid in the screening of the house from their rearyard neighbors and to maintain their neighbors' privacy. Also the continuity of the subdivision was a point brought up by the Planning Director. Mrs. Rowe interrupted asking why should the applicant have a two -story home when the rest of the neighborhood is composed of single -story residences. The addition would interfere with their view of the hills and that was the main reason for buying their home. She also stated that she discussed this matter with her surrounding neigh- bors and they are also opposed to the applicant's request. Mr. Burt, the Assistant Planner, suggested that other possibilities be taken into consideration because the the present plans do not meet the aesthetic characteristics of the neighborhood and the request can be denied on that alone. Planning Director suggested that the hearing be continued and that Mr. Heid and the applicant meet with the Rowes and other neighbors who are in opposition to work out something that would be agreeable to everyone concerned. He also asked for some specific answers to the suject of screening and that a composite photograph be submitted to show all interested parties what the site would look like after alterations have been made. Copies of the objection letters were given to Mr. Heid for further follow up with these particular neighbors. Planning Director continued the hearing to Wednesday, October 23, 1974 at 3:30 p.m. The hearing on UP -2S4 was closed at 4:10 p.m. B. UP -253 - Shirley Hopper, 19841 Glen Una Drive - Request for Two -Story Permit to Allow the Conversion of Existing Residence Planning Director opened public hearing for UP -253 at 4:15 p.m. It was noted that any decision made by the Planning Director at this hearing was appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the date the decision was made. For the purposes of the record it was noted that no correspondence, either verbal or written was received by this office in connection with applicant's request for a Use Permit. Planning Director pointed out that he and Assistant Planner, Don Burt, had made an on -site inspection of the premises and find that the proposed plans comply with Zoning Ordinance NS -3, ZC -73. A Staff Report has been prepared by Mr. Burt which recommends approval of said request. No additional comments were made and the Planning Director granted approval of said request on the basis of Exhibit "A ", the Staff Report and providing there is no objection from the public during the 10 -day appeal period, as required by law. Hearing was closed by the Planning Director at 4:20 p.m. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was closed at 4:20 p.m. MVD /kfc