Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE Wednesday, January 9, '1980 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: 'City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ~IOUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners. King, 'Laden, Marshall, Schaefer., Siegfried and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Williams Chairman Laden welcomed new Commissioners King and Schaefer to the meeting. Minutes Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to waive the reading of the minutes of December 12, 1979 and approve as distributed. The · motion was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he was not present at the.meeting. Annual Reorganization The following. nominations were made for Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 1980: Commissioner Zambetti nominated Commissioner Laden for Chairman. CommissiOner Marshall seconded and moved to close the nominations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Zambetti. Commissioner Laden was elected Chairman unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to nominat~ Commis'sioner Siegfried 'for'Vice-Chair- man, stating' that he would be stepping down from that position to seek a seat on the City Council. Commissioner Marshall stated tha. t,. in the. interest of the strength of the Commission and in deference to the fact that Commissioner is seeking a seat on th'e City Council, he would heartily second the nomina- tion. · .' Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to close the nominations. Commissioner Siegfried was elected Vice-Chairman unanimously. .... CommissiOner Marshall .nominated R. S. Robinson, Jr. for Secretary, and Commissioner ZamBetti .secon'ded the nomination. Commissioner Siegfri-ed moved to close the nominations. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, and Mr. Robinson was elected Secretary unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SD-1356 '- Anthony Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Road - 25 Lots, Tentative Map Approval; Continued .from December 12, 1979 . Staff reported that the engineering' for the geology needs to be approved ""by the City Geoloqist, and a'circulation plan is being studied~ij~r~TgZi~dji'n:g' The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. George Tobin, the attorney for the developer, stated that all of the requested information from Terratech has been submitted to the City GeolOgj. st'. He..added that he woul'd like some assurance from :~'B:e'.~:;commis- sion that, if this matter is continued, some direction will be given so that the necessary information may be submitted in order for the Commis- sion. to approve the tentative map at their next meeting. Commissioner Laden commented tilat it i.s the Commission's intention to move forward on this item as expeditiously as possible; however, they wished - 1 - Planning Commission Meet~=ng. Page 2 M~nutes - 1/9/80 SD-1356-(cont.) this project to be in a form that would be most appropriate for the City. She indicat'ed that the circulation study will be on the agenda for the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on January 15, 1980. DiScussion followed on the placement of pools. Comment was made that on the Parker Ranch development there had been an overall. grading plan which included the grading on each site and included those lots which were specified'as being able to have pools. The desirability of having site development plans was discussed. The Inspection Services Staff commented .that the tentative map Will show scenic easements and proposed grading, and there will be site development plans. It was determined that Con- dition VIII-4 should read: "Pools on lots to be placed on slopes of thirty (30) percent or less and are subject to Staff Design Review to insure reasonable placement in relation to the site's phy'sical characteristics and City planning criteria. Decisions of Staff may be appealed to the Planning Comm~ssion..through the Design Review process.'' THe alternate circulation plan 'to Pierc~ Road was discussed. Staff stated that there is a requirement to participate in a pro rata share'of any cost for these road improvements contained in the Sta'ff Report, and tb. is condition has been common among all of the subdivisions in this area. It was 'explained that the condition will be met, if the City Council so ChOoses, by signature on an assessment district petition which will be for this road connection. Public Works Staff noted that their Condition I-D'is speaking to the. secondary access road. They added that the intent of this condition is that this developer is required to build a minimum access road now at the time he builds his subdivision and agrees to participate in its completion to City Standards. They commented that hopefully this will be accomplished through the establishment of a Water Assessment District. Maurius Nelsen, the engineer, di. scussed the trees that will be affected by the measures used to stabilize slopes and landslides. He added that they .have submitted plans to Staff which show the grading required for a typical lot. Mr. Nelsen noted that they are modifying the site development plans to show 'the grading required for driveways, turnaround areas and garages. He stated that they will submit the configuration of the scenic easements to Staff., which will preclude any further subdivision. Mr. Nelsen stated that Terratech has made an analysis of each site with regards to soil and geotechnical problems, and the problems of geology, siting of houses and the driveways can be studied at the Committee-of-the-Whole session on JanUary 15th. It was also noted that the'.p~.~!~lots will be discussed at that time. It was determined that. the Commission will study the following items at the Committee-of-the-Whole, and the applicant was asked to have the per- tinent information available: Configuration on Lots 14 and 19 .. Drawing Package Circulation Study Site Development Plans Grading Plans S~enic Easements This item was continued to the regular meeting on January 23, 1980. - 2 - Plan~ing Commission Mee Page 3 M~inutes - 1/9/8.0. 2. SD-1368 - Allen Chadwick and Anthony Cocciardi, Old Oak & Chiquita Way, 11 Lots, Tentative Map Approval; Continued from December 12, 1979 The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. George Tobin, attorney for the developer, discussed the circulation of the project, and also the policy interpretation of the Commission regard- ing the number of lots accessing from a cul-de-sac. The secondary access for this project and the scenic easements were dis- cussed, and also the driveway on Lot. s 3 and 9. It was determined that these matters would be discussed further at the Committee-of-the-Whole on January 15, 1980. This item was continued to the regular meeting of January 23, 1980. 3. SDR-1326 Fernando Hernandez, Ravenwood Drive 2 Lots, Final Building Site Approval The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously.. 'Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to approve SDR-1326. The motion was carried unanimously. 4. UP-433 Tom Kirker, 19271 San Marcos Road, Request for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a solar collector rack over 6' high (maximum height 11.8') which would maintain a 6' setback from the rear property line in the required rear yard Commissioner Zambetti gave a report on the on-site visit made, stating that this is the best and only loca'tion for the solar'panels. He stated that they would not have any effect on the adjoining neighbo.rhood. Two letters received in favor of this application were made part of the record. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mike Clifton, of Solar Enterprises, discussed the practicality and effec- tiveness of solar heating at the Commission's request. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve UP-433, per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1980, and making the necessary findings. The motion was carried unanimously. 5. UP-434 -. Richard Lindberg, Pierce Road Staff Reported that there are several options that would not require any variations in terms of setbacks. Commissioner Marshall gave a report on the on-site visit. He described the lot and structures on it in relationship to the adjacen~__p_Foperty. .~erFi~d'ica~ed t~at t~ere woul~ De an argument ~n ±avor of a'~'l'Iow~ an'l'l'~ ~t. setback for the garage, since the .principal structure is already non- conforming and']~s"t'hF~t%ack].- HF~l'~'i~I that the ordinance states that, as long as the situation is not worsened, one may extend the line and buf'ld' ag~YHst that 'linbj"C'6mmfs~ioner M~rsh~i'i" ~'0~ented that t~re is an objection from the applicant in that this encroaches into a concrete fountain with some paving around it. He noted that the argument against moving the garage forward is that the existing garage would no longer - 3 - Plan~ing Commission Me Page 4 Minutes 1/9/80 UP-434 (cont.) have automobile access. Commissioner Marshall stated that, since it is going to be a workshop as opposed to a garage, that'would seem to have little bearing. He indicated that he felt he could make the findings to move it forward 11½ ft. and it is a better treatment of the site than would occur if it were moved elsewhere on the property. He added that for a house which had not had such recent treatment, i.e., new roof and exten- sive amount of investment, he would be more inclined to think the garage should be built elsewhere; however, in this case he felt a proper compro- mise is to move it forward 11~ ft. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she thought it should. be moved for- ward so it would be an equal distance'from the fence as the neighbors, which would be 7'1". She explained .that this would not take any undue light from the neighbors and would a'llow for proper landscaping. The height of the structure was discussed and the possibility of moving the ridge line forward. It was indicated that the applicant would be willing to do that. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Kathy Lanford, 13044 Houston Court, addressed the Commission, indicating that she was the neighbor to the east. She explained that her house is only 7 ft. from.the property line, and she does not feel it is a good idea to put this structure 4 ft. from the property line. She added that she would hate to have the applicants te'a~'down the fountain. She stated that 7 ft. from the fence would be better but would still be very close. She commented that, even with mature landscaping which would conceal the fact .that the gar. age was there, she would still have to look at a building when she looked at her back yard and patio. Commissioner Schaefer stated that if the garage is moved any closer to the applicant's home it does cut off the only window that they have for the kitchen and it would not be desirable architecturally. Richard Lindberg, the applicant, stated 'that his upmost concern is to preserve the quaintness and originality of the property. He stated that he has a concern with the fountain and would like to save it. He added that if 7 ft. is acceptable to the Commission, then it would be acceptable to him. Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the applicant has done a great deal of work and considerable improvement on the.site, and he felt that attaching the garage to th~-house'.woutd affect ~hat quaintness of it. He stated that he could understand the concerns of the neighbors, but, given the fact that landscaping could be planted, he would vote for a compromise that would move the garage to a 7 ft. setback and also reduce the height of the appearance of this structure if possible. Commissioner Laden indicated that she had problems with the use permit, since not only .are the rear yard.and the height of the structure involved, but the size of the structure. She added that she does have some empathy for the neighbor, but £eels that this is a large building and she cannot vote on this as it stands, nor with the options as presented unless it comes back redesigned in some specific state where the impact can be con- sidered. She commented that she would like to see some other design and some other options. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she did not feel it is only a point of quaintness but one of functionability. She indicated that putting a 3-car garage anywhere in the front of the house would not be a suitable solution. - 4 - Plan~ing Commission o Page 5 Minutes - 1/9/80 UP-434 (cont.) Commissioner Marshall pointed out that there has been a tremendous amount of care, time and money and good aesthetic design put into the reconstruc- tion of an.elderly property. He agreed that the applicant should submit a plan which shows in concept what the Commission is considering. He added that he would like to also see the adjacent property with a silhouetted house placed at.least in scale, so the relationship can be perceived. Commissioner Marshall stated that it should be ensured that there will be auto access into the three stalls with or without the p~ving around the fountain. Tom Dusel, 13090 Pierce Road., stated that he is the neighbor on the right and concurred with the fact that the applicants have done a tremendous amount of work on the house and are really trying to keep it and preserve it. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant should come back with some plans which. would indicate some of the points being con- sidered: a plan showing the garage 7'1" from the fence the proposed landscaping the pitch of the roof moved forward if structurally possible the location of the property to the rear, with a silhouette of the adjoining house The Commission indicated that'the applicant should also consider the total overall size of the structure with regard to the location and visual impact. It was directed that this item be continued to January 23, 1980. Break:'9:20 p.m.-9:40 p.m. 6. V-518 Karlheinz Sehrbrock, 13880 Espada Court, Request for a Variance to allow the construction of a 96 sq. ft. room addition which would provide an 18'6" e×terior side yard where a 25' exterior side yard is required Staff reported that this lot is nonconforming, and there is a option which would consist of adding to the southwestern most portion of the structure which would not require a variance. Commissioner Marshall gave a repor~ on the on-site visit. He stated that the proposed bathroom ~s designed to complement an existing bathroom which' is at the far end of the house. He described the house and the property, and explained that the property is developed rather intensively already. He explained that the area referred to by Staff is a greenhouse, and the'primary objections to adding the bathroom in that direction were (1) It would require taking out the existing!~'~.~.shower and its cost and (2) the objection of the person they have engaged to tentatively build this. addition. Commissioner Marshall stated that it was his personal view- Zpoint that there should be no further development of this property. He explained that he was sympathetic to the applicants, but could not make the findings. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she felt this bathroom is needed for a living situation where there is an elderly ~erson She explained that~ ...... ~"'~ .the bathtub'in the present bathroom is a very narrow ~ne, anld if a bath- room were attached near the patio it would be taking away the usabilit~y of the patio. She added that she did not think it would be particularly ob- trusive to build on the side and felt the room would be an asset to the house and would add more functionability for any family, particularly for 5 Planning Commission· Mee Page 6 M~nutes - 1/9/80 V-518 (cont.) one who has an older person living there. The public hearing·was opened at 9:45 p.m. MrS. Sehrbrock, the applicant, explained that their dining room is so dark and if they built another room in the back there would not be any light whatsoever. She added that the existing shower is equipped. for people who are not stable, such as her 84-year old aunt. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall commented that the family room is already shaded by a lot of greenery in it; therefore,· if the added bathroom were to cause a light problem some of the material could be taken out which is currently blocking .the sun. Commissioner Laden stated that she could vote in favor of this variance · and·'make the findings under the conditions that this is an undersized lot; th·ere is sufficient distance from the new development of the property to the street so there is little impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he could sympathize with the human factors; however, he.would be more willing to vote for it if it were strictly a. matter of adding some additional square footage to add the bathtub, rather than a change room for the pool. Commissioner Marshall indicated that ti~e applicant, without a variance, can put in a bathtub with a jacuzzi capability, without detracting from Her proper~y one bit. Commissioner Marshall moved to deny'V-518 per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1980. Commissioner King second the motion. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. 7. V-52·0 Peter Tuana, 12239 Titus Avenue, Request for a Variance to allow the construction of a detached 2-car garage which would provide a 5' side yard setback where a 10·' side yard setback is required Commissioner Zambetti gave a report on the on-site visit. He stated t.hat the .proposed location seems to be the only place for this structure and · he could make the findings for this variance. He explained that there is no garage on the site at the present time. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. It was moved by Commissioner Zambetti to approve V-520 per the Staff Report dated January 4, 1980, making the necessary findings. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, on the basis that there is no reasona- ble alternative. The motion was carried unanimously. DESIGN REVIEW 8. A-694 - David Wilson, 14099 Elvira Street, Lot #3, Single-Family Residence, Final Design·Review Approval Staff reported that there were 4 lots approved previously by the Commission, and this application is for an expansion of the house on Lot 3, consisting of..approximately 1270 sq. ft. Planning Commission g Page 7 ~inutes 1/9/80 A-694 (cont.) Commissioner Marshall commented that this plan shows the house 33% larger than it was, and this house is the one that the' Commission previously determined should have been small to compensate for the large one they had on Lot 4. He pointed out that this house is now .too large for the lot, with a roof that looms. Staff commented that its length and mass have 'changed; however, it does conform to the ordinance requirements as to setbacks. Commissioner Marshall stated that-the height and mass were previous con- cerns. He explained that there was a balance of the lots with the previ- ous approval, per the Staff Report dated October 4, 1980. Dave Wilson, the developer, gave a history of t'he project. He explained that they had previously reduced the height on Lot 4 because of the objec- tion of a neighbor. Mr. Wilson indicated that this proposed house is to be his residence. The setbacks of the house were discussed. Commissioner Laden explained to the applicant that ~he Commission in October had worked out what they thought, with the applicant"s input, was a reasonably well designed 4-lot subdivision, which was in keeping with the neighborhood. She stated that the applicant has now come in with the last home to be built and that balance i's going to be gone. The applicant stated that he did not believe that-the appearance in the front 'is any greater than it was previously.- He commented that most of the house is in the back yard. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the structure has been lengthened, and ~'~:~'~f~'~'~ '~:'~o'f 'f "~]i' 'i'F ]Y~,'~?'~.~. 'f'~"=~.'~ C7=~-~=-,~-~:~:~'~'~ - .%?~-~= .---~,_.-=.:~ -'r7~z' 7'? ........ . . It was th~ consens~'~'~S~'~'~'~'-"~i'~'i'~'{'6'~"'~'~'f"'~'~"~"D'~'~'~sed plans for the additional square footage would have more impact than the Commission desired. Commissioner Marshall noted that the applicant has elected to go to an architectural style that calls for an extremely high pitched roof, and were he willing to make. some' trade in roof height and slope versus square footage, he could very readily accomplish what the Commis- sion has indicated would be acceptat?.le. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny A-694 per Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner B'larshall seconded the .motion, which was carried unanimously. A-695 - San Jose Water Works/Valley Title, Water Tank, Parker Ranch, Final Design Review Approval It was reported by Staff that with the landscaping proposed there would be no adverse visual impact from this tank. Huber Miller, of the San Jose Water Works, di'scussed lowering the tank 3 ft. He explained that their final plan involves lowering the entire pad to an elevation of 817 in'stead of 820. He stated that the main criteria for this i5 an engineering one; they are trying to lessen the slope on the access .road in order to get large vehicles up to it. The color of the tank and the landscaping were discussed. Staff commented that the fence should also b'e landscaped. It was determined. ~HF~?fd'~'g~C2~entence added, to read: '[L'an~C'~'fh'~"~{~'ri"~'~'' iH~¥~l~ea"~prior F~"'ffH~T'i~%4Dection, as per landscaping plans approved by the Planning Department." Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, to approve A-695.per the amended Staff Report dated January 2, 1980. The motion was carried unanimously. 10.A-696 - A. DeMartini, Mt. Eden ]load, Landscaping Plan, Retaining Wall and Trails, Final Design Review Approval Staff ~eported that they. have had some discussion regarding erosion control. 7 Planning Commission Me g Page 8 Minu~es - 1/9/80 A-696 (cont.) material with the Soils Conservation Di'strict and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and they may have some comments on appropriate ground covers to use in this area. Russ Dickson, the landscape architect,.discussed the plant materials and tree plants, along with the irrigation system. needed. It was deter- mined that the last paragraph in Section B of the Staff Report should read: "An irrigation system will be utilized for no less than five years to help establish the landscaping materials. Also for no less than three years the plants shall be regularly watered and attended to, to ensure that they develop, after which the plants will have to be self-sustaining.. The applicant will have to enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the City to ensure the survival of all landscaping within the public right-of-way." Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve A-696, per the amended Staff Report dated January 4, 1980. The motion was carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS 11.SD-1344 Gerald Kendall, Chester Extension/Sobey Road 8 Lots, Request for One-Year Extension Bill Heiss, the engineer for this project, addressed the Commission, explaining that they were requesting a one-year extension. He stated that the Final Map and improvements have been completed and a.re in the process of review. Mr.. Heiss also commented that, during that review they deter- mined that the're was a problem, in that on their tentative map they had shown a street section applicable to a portion of the tentative where they .were not dedicating an entire 50 ft. street, but were dedicating a 40 ft. street. He indicated that they had illustrated on the map a section that provided for 18 ft. of pavement, and the additional pavement would be done at the time the property next door was developed, because of the topography of the site. Mr. Heiss explained that the Public Works Depart- ment has indicated the desire for the full 26 ft. to be constructed throughout the entire reach of Chester Avenue, and this is not possible without obtaining an easement from the Brookman property, which they feel would be.impossible to obtain. at this time. The Public Works Staff commented that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that bordering streets be improved to their full standard and street reimbursement be provided, so when the adjacent property is developed the applicant would be reimbursed. Staff explained that while checking the improvements plans it appeared that the pavement should be 26 ft. all along while it is adjacent to their subdivision. They noted that the Planning Commission does have the right to grant an exception to the ordinance and have it 18 ft. They explained that 18 ft. used to be the accepted City standard. The possibility of a retaining wall was discussed. Commissioner Marshall moved to grant the request for a one-year extension for SD-1344. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall moved to endorse the Public Works Department clarifi- cation and reaffirm the condition of 26 ft. street improvements, as noted in .Condition II-A of the Staff Report. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. The.motion failed, with Commissioners Laden, Siegfriedc~.'~.."~.'~.' ~'~{~a"~a~l~'f~F~ys s e n t i n g Inspection Services St&,ff commented that the compliance with the Public Works condition makeS.the street grading more difficult and achieves a less desirable end result as far as"the grading is concerned. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to grant 8 Planning Commission Mee Page 9 Minu~es - 1/9/80 SD-1344 (cont.) an exception and allow the portion of Chester Avenue within this sub- division, which is shown on the original tentative map as a 40 ft. right- of-way, to have 18 ft. of improvements, instead of the 26 ft. as stated in the Staff Report; 'the portion of Chester shown to have a 50 ft. right- of' way is to retain the 26 ft. improvements. The motion was carried unanimously, with the .nOtation that this will enhance the design of the · road at the time of the Brookman property development. CONLMUNICATIONS Written 1. Notice of meeting in Salinas on January 25th and 26th regarding training program from the Governor's Office, Office of Planning and ReSearch, County of Monterey. Oral 1. City CoUncil Report - Commissioner Siegfried gave a brief report · on the City Council meeting held on January 2, 1980. A copy of the minutes of.this meeting is on file in t. he City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Laden thanked Counci.lwoman Corr and Mayor Kraus for attend- ing and Eunice Stark from the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried,' to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. Secretary RSR: cd