Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-1980 Planning Commission Minutes ~-~./ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 11, 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, Siegfried, Marshall, Williams and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Schaefer Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of May 28, 1980: On page 8, under V-529, the first sentence in the seventh paragraph should read: "Mrs. Maynard, a widow and owner of the property, stated that she had offered to s~ell the parcels in question to the neighbors." On page 9, it should show that tbp motio.~ to..appro~e AzT~4 was seco~d.¢d by Commission.~r Siegfried. --~. C"b~is-s'~'o~e'r" Si:~T~i'e~:" m'~Ve d, :'~ e~nd'~' ~ "- Co~s'~ i-0'ne~z arab elt ti'; -fo' ~aiVe the :' ldin '0f p% ove a~"'~men~'.' The mot'iOn Was 7c~f~"~""Wi t!~l~6~mi.~..~ ~,9~..'May'S.h~'~?vaB~ta~iH.~ .s i~'ce j-~-.~a~l"~:~{- p_rese~-~.'..'."', CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1452 - Robert Cirell, Deletion of'Condition II-d of Staff Report (Turnaround bulb), Cunningham Place Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the above item on the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Siegfried and was carried, with Commissioner King dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP-448 Mike Kermani and K. Navai, Request for Use Permit to allow the construction of eight (8) condominium units and one (1) retail store on a 42,000 sq. ft. site in the "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) district, at 14599 Big. Basin Way; Continued from May 14, 1980 Staff reported that this item had been discussed at the Committee-of-the- Whole on June 3, 1980, at which time the applicant submitted a revised plan showing an 8-unit project, rather than 10 units. Staff explained that the Commission at that time had indicated that the density seemed appropriate for the site, but that further information was required in order to assess whether the units could actually fit physically on the site, i.e., in terms of grading, access problems, and Other technical and design features. Staff commented that, due to these considerationS, they were recommending that this item be continued and that it be com- bined with both a Building Site Approval application and a Design Review application. The public hearing was reopened at 7:40 p.m. Herb Cuevas, the architect, stated that he had discussed this with his clients, and they'feel they. would prefer to obtain the use permit first and then submit for the tentative map and design review approval. Chairman Laden stated that if the Commission granted the use permit for this.particular plan at this time, and there were cl~anges at the '~e's{gn! i-.~bVieW'stage, then there would have to be some alterations on the use - 1 - Plan~ing Commission ~ Page 2 Me.eting Minutes 6/11/80 UP-448 (cont.) permit. Commissioner Williams commented that he felt the basic concerns had been design problems and the effect on the adjacent properties. He added that he felt there were grading problems to be resolved, but he felt that if the applicant can meet all the other requirements, he personally could see no objection to approving the use permit as it is stated now. Mr. Cuevas stated that he did not think his 'client would have any objection to have the use permit and design review done at the same time; however, the tentative map involves an engineer and considerable expense. Chairman Laden stated that it would be acceptable to have the tentative map submitted at a later date, since the Commission were concerned with seeing the total project at this time, showing the grading, design review and setbacks. It was de~.ermined that a Land Use Committee meeting would be set up for June 18th, and at that time an on-site visit would be made. It was directed that this item be continued to a study session of-the Committee- of-the-Whole on July 1, 1980 and the regular meeting of July 9, 1980. 3. UP-449 Park Saratoga Associates, Request for Use Permit to allow the A-709 - subject site to change ownership and continue operating under UP-360 at the southeast corner of Prospect Road and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road (Park Saratoga) and Final Design Review Approval of Buildi,ng "A"; Continued from May 14, '1980"' Staff reported that the applicant has not submitted a revise~d plan, and they are recommending that this item be continued. It was noted that the Commission had suggested that the structure be moved further back from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and that landscaping be increased to reduce its visual impact. The public hearing was reopened at 7:50 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this matter be continued to the June 25, 1980 meeting. Commissioner Williams commented that it would be helpful to see the particular building staked out, and Staff was requested to suggest to the .~applicant that this be done. 4. V-529 Wells Fargo Bank (R. L. Haas), Request for a Variance to allow one lot of a two-lot subdivision to have an average width of 128 ft. where 150 ft. is required, at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; Continued from May 28, 1980 Staff reported that there had been an on-site visit made on June 3, 1980 by the Committee-of-the-Whole, to ascertain what sort of ~.~pact the proposed variance would. have. They commented that at that time 'the Commission indicated they did have some problems with the variance pro- cedure creating a nonconforming lot and the precedent it would set. Staff noted that they feel they can make 'the findings necessary for the vari- ance, but they did understand the Commission's concern about setting a precedent. ,~'St"a'ffZ~dded that a letter had been received from Westfall Engineers, iHdicating that the original lot line was in error. They inted out .~Pe'~t~i~'~. that there is now a revised lot_.line location shown on the Commissioner Marshall stated that he is against the fundamental concept of gerrymandering of lot lines in order to avoid variances, and he feels that this application is a continuation of that I~oncept. The public hearing was reopened at 7:55 p.m. 2 Plan~ing Commission ~" Page 3 M'eeting Minutes 6/11/80 V-529 (cont.) Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, again stated that he felt this was a major variance to grant and he did not feel it is warranted in this area. He commented that when he purchased his property, he felt, due to existing zoning laws, that this lot was not buildable and took that into consideration. Mr. Lucas stated that he felt it would cer- tainly lessen the value of all the property owners in that area. Dr. McLaug~lin, 19310 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, owner of the proper~y northe~'~t77'~ff'~t. he"ap~lican't, ~t~d .that he x~Ould ha-te to see a 'variance be .the thing that Starts further development of that area, and if it must be developed, he would like to see it started in a legal fashion.. R. Haas, the applicant, summarized the subdivision. He stated that each lot would still be rather sizable as compared to the minimum, although at the one end there is a narrowing down. He stated that there is a major portion of the lot, at least 1 acre, which really does meet the length and width requirements. Mr. Haas added that he felt the land- owner does have a right..~6' ~ub~v.i.g~'~ "j'Ust".a~'~.~'~.~'~f ~he~[6'~H~ ~gh~6~s Jack Plato, 19405 Bainter Avenue, stated that they have a horse corral which is close to thi~n.' property, and if a house is built they felt there would be a problem. He added that they have had horses there for many years. Frederick Dorr,'19460 Bainter, stated that he objects to the variance because he does not want the character of the neighborhood changed. He stated that he sees no reason to grant a variance which would destroy the naturalness of the area, and feels that it would be wrong to make exceptions to rules that are well established. Since no one else appeared, Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the \- public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall stated that he felt the basic problem is that many times there is a piece of land in which the total area is adequate, but the geometry is poor for subdivision. He commented that he felt it is obvious that the ordinance and this application are in conflict with one another in terms of creating a legal lot. Commissioner Marshall stated that certainly the variance procedure is the appropriate one for the applicant to use, but he would argue that....:i'fZ't~fi;S"'va'rfa~i'.r~e.re granted, there would be a large number of applications from everyone who has an odd lot. Commissioner Zambetti stated. that he has difficulty making the five findings in the variance to create the lot, and he, therefore, would vote against it. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he is not prepared to use the variance procedure as a way of upgrading this site and believes that a very dangerous precedent would be set if this variance were granted. Commissioner Williams stated that he had reviewed the code regarding Variances, and he felt a practical difficulty p-r unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, the shape Q';~.'dimensions of this site. He added that when he made an on-~ite inspection, he could see no view of the lot at all from the Lucas site because it is so well screened. Commissioner Williams added that' from the McLaughlin home the trees at the present time completely obscUred the site itself. FIe e~plained that he would expect -th~f"_~h~" b'~j ~di~g, %'i f~' 6n'.'th'i'S 'l'~']~-6f~'d~' 6"e' a'd'j ff~ f~8~.'i~i ,both · . . . . .-~.., - _ ..... . ~_ . ...... . ...... · .. .. ..... ._ . fence and landscape aga.~nst the horses on the adjacent property. He noted that he felt the site is a choice building site, and both lots are larger than the Dorr site and are quite removed from Mr. Dorr's house. - 3 - Plannin~ Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 6/11/80 V-529 (cont.) Commissioner Williams stated that he feels this situation is appropriate for the use of a va~iance-.and he would vote to approve it. Commissioner Laden stated that she would interpret the code to mean that, once a lot has been created,.the building and the use of that lot may be done through variances, depending on the fact that the lot may have some problems. She added that she felt the Commission was concerned about creating a lot that requires a variance initially. Commissioner Marshall commented that the problem with variances is that,. once you grant a variance to one person, you must be prepared to give that same thing to everyone. He added that here the applicant may have practical difficulty caused by the geometry of his site, but granting the variance would be giving him a special privilege, since the Commission has denied the building of housing upon lots of that geometry in the past. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V-529, on the ba~.that granting it would be a grant of a special privilege, and':~""Cdmmi~-~.~n.'~nn~_~.~m~k~ the findings necessary for the granting of the variance. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Williams dissenting. 5. UP-460 Winston Burks, 19437 Burgundy Way, Request for a. Use Permit to allow a cabana over 6' in height (12.5' at mid-point of roof) to encroach into the required rear yard Staff explained the proposal and stated that they were recommending approval of it. Commissioner Laden commented that the lot certainly will hold this structure, and the nearest home is at least 100-150 feet from the proposed cabana. The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve UP-460 per the Staff Report dated June 3, 1980. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. DESIGN' REVIEW 6. A-716 - Ronald Haas, Camino Barco, Single-family residence, Final Design Review Approval Staff reported that the applicant had submitted revised plans this afternoon, but they have not been reviewed at this time. They stated that the applicant had previously lowered the height and improved the massiveness of the structure. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Staff should review the new plans before being considered by the Commission. Commissioner King suggested that possibly some architectural help could be utilized in selecting house designs appropriate for this site and eliminate some of the frustration. Chairman Laden indicated that the next item on the agenda, A-717, is also being presented by Mr. Haas, which has some impact on that site also, and perhaps it would be appropriate to have both of these matters come to a study session where an outside architectural opinion should be considered. Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the City has an Architectural - 4 - Plannin~g Commission Page 5 Meetj'ing Minute's' 6/11/80 A-716 (cOnt.) Review Committee which consists of an architect, interior designer and landscape architect. Mr. Waxman, the applicant, described the present plan and explained they had reduced the height about 6~ ft. He commented that they are trying to work out an appropriate design for the lot. Commissioner King stated that there are specific problems with this site about which the Commission has had concern, i.e., the location of trees, the swale across the property, and the treatment of the house versus the appearance of the site. Staff noted that revised grading plans have been received, which the Department of Inspection Services has reviewed and tentatively approved. It was determined that the Staff should call together the Architectural Review Committee before the next meeting and review this item. It was directed that this be continued to the June 25, 1980 meeting. 7. A-717 - Jerome Gilmore, 19088 Austin Way, Single-family residence, Final Design Review Approval Chairman Laden suggested that this item be dealt with in the same way as A-716. She explained that it has been suggested by Staff that this item be denied for some of the same reasons why A-716 has not been approved, i.e., massiveness, height, etc. R. Haas, the applicant, stated that he has considered the concerns that have been indicated and feels there are ways of mitigating them. He commented that he would like to invite the owner of the lot to the Archi- tectural Review meeting to indicate to the Committee some of their ideas and desires. It was directed that this item also be continued to the June 25, 1980 meeting. MISCELLANEOUS 8. EP-12 Michael Parsons, 15001 Montalvo'Road, Request for Encroachment Permit for fence into right-of-way Staff noted that there had been a letter received from Mrs. Smith on this matter. She indicated that the neighbors have expressed opposition to the proposed encroachment permit. Public Works Staff stated that fencing had not previously been allowed in a right-of-way for this amount of footage. He added that the Commission has allowed some little areas that worked in with'landscaping. Mr. Parsons, the applicant, explained that he is maintaining a large portion of ~.ity owned property. He stated that the reason for requesting the fence.~nt~ha~cj~tion is that there is an existing row of shrubs there. Mr. Parsons exp!.ained that if he brings the fence in very close to the shrubs they~OU!.~ obscure it. He indicated that he would like to continue taking care of the land but also wants to have the fence to keep the deer out. Mr. Parsons stated that there were two ~lternatives: 1) to put the fence on the property line, or 2) in the right-of-way. He explained that if he puts it along the property line it is going to greatly compound the maintenance of that area between the'fence and the road. Commissioner Marshall suggested that if the Public Works Department has no intention of using some of that area, it could be abandoned. Mr. Parsons stated that he had requested that this be done. Staff commented that he did not believe that this possibility had been considered; however, they could evaluate what the future needs for a City street would be in that - 5 - Plannimg Commission Page 6 Minutes 6/11/80 EPol2 (cont.) · area. Staff was ~'d~u'e~f.~ to do this evaluation, and it was directed that this item would be agendized for the July 9, 1980 meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. City Council Report - Commissioner Siegfried gave a brief report on the City Council meeting,~.n June 4, 1980. A copy of the minutes of this meeting .i'~"'O~."file in ,the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Laden than'ked the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner ICing moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marshall and was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Secretary RSR:cd