Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MI.NUTES DATE: Wednesday, April 23, 1980 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners King, Laden, Schaefer, Siegfried and Williams Absent: Commissioners Marshall and Zambetti Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Schaefer, to waive the reading of the minutes of April 9, 1980 and approve as dis- tributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Commissioner Siegfried, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to approve the item listed below. The motion was carried unanimously. 1. SDR-1456 - Lewis Armistead, Rodoni Court, 1 Lot, Final Building Site Approval ~.;'-. /'~. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. V2523 Nancy Barker (Feemster), 14151 Marion Road, Request for. a SDR-1457 Variance to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence on a non-conforming lot which would provide a 10' exterior side yard where 15' is required and would provide a 20' rear yard where 35' is required; Continued from April 9, 1980 It was reported that the applicant has submitted a revised plan, showing a 6 ft. exterior side yard on this non-conforming lot. Staff indicated that the plan shows a single-story residence of approximately 1440 sq. ft. in size, with a single car garage. It was noted that the applicant had indicated a willingness to delete the last bedroom in order to meet the criteria of 1200 sq.--ft. that the Commission esta. blished. at the last meeting, if they so desire. Staff explained that before this particular application can be approved it will be necessary to readvertise it, since the exterior side yard setback is greater than that originally advertised, and the single car garage variance was not advertised. The public hearing was reopened at 7:35 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unani'- mously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the drawings now show a significant improvement from the original plans. He added that he would prefer to see the house reduced to approximately 1200 sq. ft. but would not be in favor of a one-bedroom house. Commissioner Schaefer agreed that a two-bedroom plan would be preferable, and suggested a reduction in the size of the second bedroom. Commissioner King stated that he felt the applicants have responded to the concerns of the Commission and have been very flexible. P~nning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 4/23/80 ·~ V-523 (cont.) Commissioner Williams stated that the present plan seems to be adequate if the applicant finds it livable. He·.noted that h~.~e~t_the City would be benefitting from the widening and ~_~'r&'e~."imp'r~vem~pts~'with."the;"'improved ability to make a right turn off of Marion onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. It was moved by Commissioner Siegfried to approve V-523 in concept. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff explained that the variance will be readvertised and the public hearing will be reopened at the May 14th meeting; final action on the variance will be taken at that time. 3. UP-452 - Abel Carreia (Saratoga Foothills Corp.), 12299 Saratoga- SDR-1439 Sunnyvale Road, Request for a Use Permit and Tentative Build- A-710 - ing Site Approval to allow the construction of 29 condominium units Staff reported that a letter had been received from the applicant request- ing a continuance of these items. Staff discussed the project, including the setbacks and the exterior colors. The noise impact was discussed, along with the relationship of the project to the Hubbard and Johnson building. The public hearing was reopened at 7:50 p.m. Don Sifferman, 12400 Greenmeadow Lane, stated that he would like the Com- mission to consider the visual impact of the project as seen by the neighbors on the other side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Sifferman noted that the Staff Report mentions the removal o~ windows facing the railroad tracks in order to abate the noise. He stated that if the treatment for the outside of the removed window-s is to be a billboard type of treatment, he feels it would be negative~ He suggested the use of tall trees to block the visual impact. Mr. Sifferman ·commented that, since there is only one trip made per day, there is no problem with the noise from the train. He ~ ~"~at~ed~"'fh~."'h~ '~lt--~H~"p~op'o.S'~d".d~lomne~t ~0~ld'.be':~r'~'f~'~bl~' t'0"'t'h~ of a commercial development. Mr. Sifferman commented that he was concerned with the quality of the units, since the number had been reduced. It was noted by the Commission that double paned windows had been suggested, and it was t·he consensus that these should be used, rather than closing the windows off. It was directed that this matter be continued to May 14, 1980. 4. UP-451 - Ronald and Linda Tate, Request for a Use Permit to allow the V-525 - construction of a 500 sq. ft. cabana over 6' in height within ~he required rear yard and a Request for a Variance to allow two arbors to provide minimum 10' and 11' side yards where 20' is required and to allow one arbor to provide a minimum ' 27' front yard where '30' is re~uired~ at ·15·250 Sobey Road It was reported by Staff that there was an on-site inspection made, and at that time there were suggestions as to where this cabana could be reduced in size by removing the pool equipment pad and locating it behind the structure, and therefore eliminating the excessive encroachment and meeting the 25 ft. setback for an accessory structure. The height of the cabana and arbors were discussed. Staff commented that they felt the architectural transition and privacy could be accomplished with fencing and landscaping, rather than structures. Correspondence received on the project was noted into the record. CommissiOner Schaefer indicated that she felt the visual problem could be mitigated by lowering the cabana to 12 ft. and using appropriate land- scaping. Commissioner Siegfried questioned the necessity for the use permit and variance for these structures, since the site ~s approximately 1.5 acres - 2 - P-t=anning Commission Page 3 M~eting Minutes' '4/2.3/80 UP-451 and V-525 (cont.) and it is a fairly new residence. Commissioner Laden indicated she felt the cabana could be redesigned and the pool equipment moved to meet the setbacks. The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. Jack Buktenica, the landscape architect, explained that the site is very long and narrow and extremely narrow at one end. He described the proposal and stated that the pool equipment could be removed from the cabana if the Commission so desired. Dr. Colangelo, 15270 Sobey Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is the neighbor immediately to the east, and they have been beseiged by considerable building going on in the neighborhood. He explained that he felt that on 1+ acre sites there should be a little mo're feeling of open space, and therefore was opposed to the variance. for the arbors. He commented that there.are large and handsome trees where the sites come together, and the natural screening provided is more than adequat'e. Elizabeth Colangelo stated that they would like to have the country atmosphere preserved. She added that she felt the arbors would be an encroachment and will add to the hemmed in feeling. Tom Coe, 15217 Sobey Road, stated that he felt the proposal is a classical design and well planned, and it will be an asset to the neighborhood. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to see a redesign of the cabana so it meets the rear yard setbacks. It was also determined that they would like to have' an on-site inspection, with the corners of the proposed structure staked. It was directed that this item be continued to a Committee-of-the-Whole at 4:30 p.m. on ~lay 20, 1980 and the regular meeting of May 28, 1980. 5. UP-453 - 'Saratoga Union School District, Request for a Use Permit to .allow the construction'and operation of a post office on surplus land associated with Redwood Junior High School, at 13925 Fruitvale Avenue The proposal for the relocation of the Post Office was discussed. Staff reported that there had been some concerns by Public Works regarding vehicles entering and exiting on Fruitvale, and the Post Office has indicated they will relocate the entrance to be consistent with the recommendation from Public Works. Staff noted that this is a Federal project,_which is exempt from our rules and regulations; however, they have agreed to comply with the requirements and conditions imposed by the Commission during the use permit, design review, and building site approval process. Staff also reported that there are mit'igation measures included in the Staff Report which address the noise, design and traffic. Staff explained that this site had been selected by the ~Sij'~e°'~i~iz"~t'i~o'n committee as a desirous location for the Post Office. The parking for the project was discussed. Staff commented that Mitigation Measure No. 1 indicates that pedestrian bicycle facilities will be constructed along the Post Office frontage and the school frontage extending to Fruitvale Avenue. The traffic flow on the site and the size of the parking stalls were discussed. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Marlene Duffin, 21241 Canyon View Drive, stated that she was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Saratoga Elementary School District. She urged the Commission to accept the use permit. Ms. Duffin stated that she realized that there are some legitimate concerns about safety and traffic, and they have reviewed the hours of the Post Office in comparison - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Ms.eting Minutes 4/23/8.0. UP-453 (cont.) to those of the school, and feel that the traffic and safety problems would be mitigated by the fact that the school opens and closes at different hours than those of the Post Office. She added that they would like to see the major part of the building constructed during the summer to avoid impacting the educational process of the students.' Guenther Macho'l, Ronnie Way, stated that it was his understanding that the Government Code requires that any city take into account the open space plan, and any use permits or use of open space land shall be consistent with that code. He added that the General Plan states that school sites shall be open space, and he asked if this hearing was a courtesy hearing with the Federal Government, in the sense that they can proceed regardless of the outcome'of the hearing. Chairman Laden stated that the use permit process does allow the City to have jurisdiction over the design review, etc., and the Post Office and the SChool Board. have agreed to follow this process in order to allow the City continuing jurisdiction over this project. The City Attorney stated that the Federal Government has adopted some Administrative Code regulations which state that they will cooperate with the local jurisdiction in their venture.s, and the City has taken the position that the way to cooperate with Saratoga is to follow the use permit procedure, since this is the vehicle that has been set up by the City. .William Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, stated that he felt that there are more people that would be concerned about this project if they were notified. He added that he felt the traffic would be increased by this project, and there could be a better location for a Post Office. Commissioner Siegfried stated that, because of the fact that it is surrounded by West Valley College, Redwood Jr. High, and City Hall, he questioned that there would be that many people concerned, since there is so much traffic generated already in this location. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Siegfried moved to close ~he public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff stated that the General Plan, in its Open Space Element, does indicate that the existing school sites will be considered in the open space plan= They commented that the Commission, if they wished, could include a statement in the findings that it is open space; it is a 14-acre parcel, and there are a great deal of structures already existing there · 'and there will still be a sizable amount of open space remaining if this structure is built. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she realized the money constraints that the school districts are under and the fact that revenues are needed. She added that she also feels very strongly that this is not a suitable site for a Post Office because of the complaints she has received from concerned Citiz-ens·.~ Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was very con- cerned about maintaining the quaintness of the Village and feels that the Post Office should be part of it. She added that she was also very con- cerned about the traffic; therefore, she could not vote for approval of this project. Chairman Laden noted that there has been discussion throughout·~the process of the possibility of maintaining a substation in the Village area. She stated that she felt this was something that should be recommended. She added that she felt the Post Office, since it is not located in the middle of the commercial part o·f downtown, does not bring business to the Village; however, the substation should be pursued. Commissioner Williams stated that he ·was quite concerned about the - 4 - P'~anning Co.mmission Page 5 M. eeting Minutes 4/23/80 UP-453 (cont.) traffic condition and the safety for children in the area. He indicated that he wanted to ensure that there were adequate bike paths and side- walk areas in front of the Post Office. Commissioner Williams stated that he would also like to ensure that the setbacks on Allendale are met and that the pr.oject is conditioned to mitigate the traffic. He added that he did not feel this is an ideal site, but it apparently does help the School District financially. Commissioner Siegfried agreed that this is not perhaps the most appropriate site in the City However, he added he would ~0~'..'Iike '~0~s'e'~-~te~hat are appropriate for commercial be used for a. Post Office. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not feel the Post Office is a traffic generator and this site seems to be the best of all the alternat'ires. He stated that he did not believe this use would be. in any way incompatible with the Open Space Element of the General Plan, since a.large part of the property is still open. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP-453, making the findings of the Staff Report and the fact that the pro'po~ed structure is not inconsistent with the Open Space Element, since'there a're".'addi~iona~'~'r~S"'f.~'~'."' usable open space to the rear of the property. Commission Williams ~econded the motion, with the recommendation that there be spaces available in the parking area for bicycle and moped type of transportation, both for employees and the public. Staff was directed to convey that recommendation to the Post Office. The motion carried., with Commissioner Schaefer dissent- ing. Break - 9:20 - 9:40 p.m. 6. V.-524 - Immanuel Lutheran Church, Request for a Variance to allow the church to increase the height of its cross attached to the newly constructed church from 55' to 63' whi'ch would be 8' hi~her than permitted by ordinance, at 14103 Saratoga Avenue Staff explained that the church had to rotate the building in order to preserve the existing large Stone Pine and Douglas Fir on site. They added that the appearance of the cross was destroyed from the view from Saratoga Avenue; therefore, the applicant is requesting that the height be raised 8 ft. more to allow it to look like a cross. It was noted that a letter in opposition had been received. The public hearing was opened at 9:43 p.m. Doug Gerhart, 14011 June Way, stated that he lives right behind the church' and was attending the meeting with a group of residents in the neighborhood that represent six families on three different streets, with different views of the church property. He indicated that they were not in favor of elevating the cross. Mr. Gerhart explained that the neighborhood around it is much lower than the church property itself. He added that the cross is an imposing structure from their~backyar~ and suggested that, if the elevation was needed for a better view from"Saratoga Avenue, it could be moved around to the front side of the church and displayed there since it' is a free-standing cross. Mr. Gerhart commented that the church is also lighted at night, along with the security lights and the two crosses. Commissioner King commented that the issue being considered is not the lighting or the imposing size, but simply the height of the cross. Steve Fountain, 14010 June Way, stated that he endorsed everything Mr. Gerhart had said. He added that his concern is that the issue may be to make it even more conspicuous. A1 Hoover, the architect, stated that it is not the church's intent to impose any additional problems on the neighborhood.- He explained that - 5 - ~lanning Commission Page 6 ~Meeting Minutes 4/23/80 V-524 (cont.) the members of the church had been working every night to finish the painting on the inte'rior and that is the reason for the lights being on. He added that the' basic concept is that every segment of the building focus toward a center element which was to be the cross. Mr. Hoover stated that, in rotating the building to save the trees, the highest portion of the building is now in front of the cross and leaves the appearance of it not being a cross from Saratoga Avenue. Commissioner King suggested that perhaps some meeting between the church and the neighbors would be appropriate, and the lighting and other problems could be dealt with also. He added that he would like to have the architect suggest other alternatives. John Campbell, 13759 Saratoga Vista, explained that the cross, when it is raised the 8 ft., will be almost the same height as the Stone Pine that is right next to it, and it will not be towering over everything on the property. He added that the structure itself is massive at that point; therefore, the cross, with. its additional 8 ft., will not be sticking that far up above the building itself. Robin Martin, 14167 Squirrel Hollow Lane, stated that it seemed super- fluous to have the cross in that location. Kathy Sozzi, 14948 Gerneil Court, stated she would like the Commission to visit the neighboring houses at the time they made the on-site inspection. She stated she would take photographs to show the relation- ship of their homes to the church. Judy Gerhart stated that two very mature walnut trees on the site had been chopped down, which would have been a buffer to their particular view of the cross. She added that now they have no protection at all from seeing the cross in full view and it is very imposing. She commented that the plants being used are very small, and probably would make a difference in the visual impact in ten years. It was directed that.this item be continued to an on-site visit on May 20, 1980 and the regular meeting on May 28, 1980. DESIGN REVIEW 7. A-704 - Ronald Haas, Camino Barco, Single-Family Residence, Final Design Review Approval; Continued from March 26, 1980 Staff reported that'the applicant has submitted a revised plan which has reduced the size of the structure by approximately 994 sq. ft. total. They explained that the elevation has been revised to show how the bridge breezeway does clear the drainage swa!e running through. the pro- perty. Commissioner Laden stated that she still has difficulty with the house design and does not think it is appropriate for the lot. She commented that it is a large imposing home which she feels is detrimental to the growth of the trees at the back of the lot along the' trail. Mr. Itaas, the applicant, showed a colored drawing of how the house might look. The design and roofline of the house were discussed. It was noted that the drawing' did not represent the site in question. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not have any problem with the size of the house, since it was very attractive, but he did not feel it is the appropriate house for this particular lot. He added that he would like to see a design that would make it more single-story looking and would fit into the natural topography of the lot. 6 P~'anning. Commission Page 7 ~eting Minutes 4/23/80 A-704 (cont.) Commissioner Schaefer commented that the square footage and design of the house seemed' to be appropriate, but she was not familiar with the site. Commissioner Laden stated that there have been objections from the neighbors, 'and there have been some drainage problems in this area. Commissione~ Williams stated that he felt a 2-story design does less damage to the environment than a ranch style on that particular lot. He added that the oak treeS' along the creek seem to drawf.the 2-story home site that is there, and the main drainage swales seem to be quite strong and solid. He added that he personally did not have any object.ions to seeing a 2-story on that particular lot. The drainage swale, the location of the house, and the setting were discussed. · s'i 4 p.r. j'fco i s s i one r King seconded the moti0nj'which wg~"~'arried, with'C'0mmissioner Will'iams voting no, since he felt the massive oak trees along the creek adequately preserve the site, and the homesite does fit within the parmeters of the lot. Commissioner Schaefer voted to abstain since she had not seen the site. The applicant was requested to work with Staff on possible revisions. 8. A-620(a) Richard and Joan Cohen, 15012 Sperry Lane, Modification of roof design for a carport, Final Design Review Approval Staff explained that the Commission had approved A-620 on June 14, 1979, and at that time the carport was approved with a gable roof. They added that during construction there was a modification to this roof and now it has a mansard roof. It was noted that there had been a letter of opposition received. Mr. Cohen, the applicant, passed out pictures showing the now existing roof. Gerald Reese, the general contractor, stated that it had been physically impossible to build the roof the way it was designed. He described the existing roof, stating that it was lower in appearance but had the same dimensions as the gable~ro~f. Staff stated that there was a delay in notifying the applicant that the roof was inconsistent'with the design review. The applicant commented that the gable roof would have looked like a teepee. He added that they have a list with. 22 names in favor of the existing roof. Commissioner King stated that he did not feel the existing roof should be approved since it was not attracti~i~':f~..h'e"~t should be considered. It was pointed out that there is a bond for a landscape plan to be provided. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-620(a) as modified, to provide for.-the mansard roof rather than the gable, with the condition that adequate landscaping be provided. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner King dissenting. 9. 'A-675 - Osterlund Enterprises, Chester Court, Tract 5924, 5 lots, Final Desig.n Review Approval Chairman Laden commented that there was some difficulty in reading the designs in the packet and recommended a study session to review them and discuss any details or confusion with the architect. Richard Foust, the "architect, stated that they would be happy to have a study session and answer any questions the Commission may have. o 7 - F~."anning Commission '¥ "" Page 8 ~eting Minutes '4/23/80 A-'675 (cont.) It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on May 6, 1980, with the request that the layout of the entir.e tract be shown and the lots in relationship to each other. This item will be on the agenda for the regular meeting on May 14, 1980. MISCELLANEOUS 10. A-629 - Discussion of changes to roof material (James Rosenfeld, Big Basin Way) Warren Heid, the architect, stated that he had discussed the change in the roof material with Chief Kraule of the Fire Department. He des- cribed the proposed material, which is a thick butt shingle, stating that it would give the depth desired and is fire retardant. Mr. Heid stated that they would like to use' thi's material for safety's sake, and there would also be a saving over the=Class B.shake roof. Mr. Heid stated that Chief Kraule was pleased that they were considering this. material, since 'it does meet the requirement of the code. He added that there are 'several buildings in the Village that have a regular composition shingle roof. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item, until such time as the roof could be inspected and a letter could be obtained by Mr. Heid from Chief Kraule, stating his approval of the roof material. It was directed that this item be continued to the May 14, 1980 meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written - None Oral 1. City Council A brief report was given on the City Council meeting held on April 16, 1980. A copy of the minutes of this meeting 'i~_~~"~H-e.'~C~t~· ~dministration Office. 2. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending 'the meeting and serving coffee'. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned -at 11:2]. p.m. R S. obins~' Secretary' RSR:cd