Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 1980 - 7:30 pi.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners King, Laden, Marshall, Schaefer, Siegfried, Willjams and Zambetti Absent: None Minutes Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to waive the reading of the minutes of June 2B, 1980 ~nd approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Laden introduced the new City A~torney, Paul Smith, and his associate, Hal Toppel. I PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP-448 - Mike Kermani and K. Navai, ~equest for Use Permit to allow the construction of ten (10) coSdominium units and one (1) retail store on a 42,000 sq. ft. site in the "C-V" (Visitor-Commercial) B - I district, at 14B99 Big as.~n Way; Continued from June 11, 1980 Staff reported that this item was discussed at a Committee-of-the-Whole, at which time the options available to the applicant were discussed. They explained that at the last regular me~ting the Commission had concerns regarding the grading and the design.i Staff commented that they were recommending continuance, to allow sufficient time £or redesign, especially as it relates to the grading plan. It was noted that Mr. Cuevas, the architect, had submitted a letter to ~he City Council regarding access to the Parking Assessment District, and this letter will be discussed at the City Council's next meeting. Commissioner Marshall indicated that he would like the applicant to provide a cross-sectional view taken on a north-south access through the entire property. Staff was requested to write a letter to the City Council, inform- ing them that the Commission feels that access between the Parking Assessment District #1 and Big Basin-Way is mandatory. 2. V-B33 Ronald and Linda Tare, Request for a Variance to aliow one arbor to provide a 27' front yard!where ~0' is required (currently) and to a~low one arbor to provide a minimum 10' side yard where 20' is required at 1B2B0 Sobey Road. Staff explained that the Commission h~d denied without prejudice a variance .! request from the applicant, and this ~s a new application which has been renoticed. They stated that the majo~ change is that the arbor on the bathroom area on the eastern side of ~he house has been deleted. Staff indicated that the applicant was plan~ing to put a 6 ft. high fence there instead of the arbor, and the placemerit of the other two arbors to the front of the structure are the same. It was~ noted by Staff that they are still unable to make the findings and are recommending denial ~ ' The public hearing was opened at 7:4B!p.m. A letter from Mrs. Joanne Schaeffer ~B29B Sobey Road opposing this applica- ' ~ ' tion, was noted into the record. -li- Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - 7/9/80 V-533 (cont.) Mrs. Colangelo, 15270 Sobey Road, read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kanazawa, which stated their opposition to the application, and also submitted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Earl Johnson, 15160 Sobey' Road, requesting that the Commission deny the variance. M~s. Colangelo submitted pictures show- ing the Tate site and also the Beck ~ite which adjoins the Colangelos" property. She stated that they are dpposed to the variance and feel that if you live in the area you should abide by the regulations. Jack Buktenica, the landscape architect, stated that they were asking for the arbors to soften the impact of the structure· Dr. Colangelo stated that he did notiunderstand why a lot that is 1½ acres, with a lot .of money having been put into the construction, would have a need for a variance· He added that he felt the ordinances should be observed · Harry Phifer, 15161 Oriole Way, stated that the applicant's building permits were approved on the basis of a 20 f~. setback, and he felt it was the duty of the Commission to see that the lab was followed. Since no one else appeared, CommissiOner Marshall moved to close the public hearing· Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that in this case the law does allow an application for a variance and that must be considered· He explained that there are certain tests that have toibe applied to decide whether or not a variance is appropriate. Commissioner Siegfried stated that in this par- ticular case he did not feel it was appropriate to grant the variance. He explained that it had been denied without prejudice so that some alterna- tives could be considered; however, i~e could not make the findings neces- sary to approve the current proposal! Commissioner Zambetti agreed, statin~ that he could not make the five findings and felt that possibly the arbors could be moved closer together. Commissioner Marshall commented that~he felt that the placement of a pool, tennis court and other amenities is part of the planning process when the house is placed. He explained that ~e did not feel there should be requests for other amenities after the house Has been built which would expand the property beyond.a reasonable use; therefore he cannot make any of the findings. Commissioner Schaefer stated she differed with that; she feels that perhaps the landscape architect might have b~en brought in earlier but the solu- 'tion suggested here is an excellent one. She added that when the plants have overgrown the arbor it will be ~n extremely attractive project. Commissioner Williams commented that~this case is precisely the reason there is a variance procedure, to allow for this type of situation. He stated that this is a peculiar lot i~ that it is tri.angular in shape, and he feels the applicant has hired fine individuals to present the proposal for them. Commissioner Williams sta~ed he would be against the encroach- ment of the lattice work on the Colangelos." side and felt that it could be moved in so it would be completely o~ the Tate site. It wa's explained to Commissioner Williams that in this area of Sobey Road all of the easement came on one side of the road becauseiof previous building. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny V-533 per the Staff Report dated June 30, 1980. Commissioner Marshali seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Schaefer and Williams dissenting. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - 7/9/80 3. V-534 Saratoga Foothills Development Corporation, Request for a Variance to allow a utility pole to. b~ relocated rather than undergrounding the utility lines, at 12760 Saratoga Avenue It was noted that the Department of P~blic Works had indicated that there would be some d'ifficulties with borin~ in connection with the undergrounding on Saratoga Avenue because of existink water lines and rocky grounds; there- fore, they are suggesting that trenching be done instead. Staff commented that the're would'be a disruption of t~affic for a period of three weeks while this undergrounding was done. The public hearing was opened at 8:05ip.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner M~rshall moved to close the public hear- ing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. .. Commissioner Zambetti commented that traffic had been disrupted in the past for projects, and he could not make the necessary findings for approval of this variance. COmmissioner Marshall explained that the only time the Commission has allowed new poles is in a situation where the:nhmber of .poles that accrued as a _result of the activity was greater than .~"=~t~'re'~'~'~.~'~i~li~;"'~Ot~e'.E~'~'_!7~''''''= !u~d~'~b~i~" g~"'aiW'~'~?been required'. ' ' "' ' ...... Commissioner Marshall moved to deny V~534, per the Staff Report dated July 1, 1980. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. DESIGN REVIEW 4. A-716 Ronald Haas, Camino Barco, Single-family residence, Final Design Review Approval; Continued from June 25, 1980 Staff reported that Colonel Barco had]submitted a letter last month to the City Council, dealing with an appeal On a final map on this property. They explained that there had been some issues regarding the rental property on the site, and the Code Enforceme'nt'.'~'f~'~f ]Y~d"~'~'~H""~d'~'~'~orihg this. , 'i .... ' ....... The new design was discussed. It wasinoted that the removal of the dorm~:rs on the roof of the structure ""b! ~'~in'~'~ "~'~7~_f']~e.-e"'- S tb'~-'-apR6~.anFc~ ~"jan'd"'i'~ was the Architectural Review Committe~'s opinion that this reduc'~d"'the mass and height appearance of the structure. Staff stated that, at the committee's suggestion, the applicant had prepared a rendering showing the relationship of the house to tile trees On the site ~and submitted a photograph silowing the approximate height of the structure relative to tree height. Staff added that the'Architectural Review Committee had indicated that they felt the proposed structure was compatible with the site and structures in the vicini- ty. Chairman Laden asked if there was anyo,ne who wished to speak on this matter. Jim Stewart, Allendale Avenue, read a !letter from Colonel Barco, dated July 9, 1980, stating that the lot siz!e and possible size of any house on this project are still under appeal to~ the City Council. He explained that tile Council agreed to hear the appeal 1of eight local property owners on December 19, 1979 and further consider!ed it on January 8, 1980. None of the petitioners have been informed of any ~further action by the City Council on this matter and any action by the Comm:ission prior to the resolving of the appeal by the City Council would be inappropriate and premature he added M ' ' The Secretary explained that the petitioners had appealed a final map, and it was determined at that time that thbre is no appeal to a final map; however, the City Council did agree toilook into some of the issues which Colonel Barco mentioned. He stated that the tentative and final map condi- - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - 7/9/80 A-716 (cont.) tions required that the kitchen facilities would be removed from that unit. He indicated that a June 2, 1980 'letter received from Colonel Barco had been referred to the City Council and was discussed at a regular adjourned meeting; the matter has been referred to the Code Enforcement Officer. It was pointed out that the concerns of height and massiveness of the structure are part of the design review process. It was the consensus of the Commission that, even though they may not be totally satisfied with the design of the house, the opinion of the Archi- tectural Review Committee should be considered, since they have professional expertise in that area and the Commission had asked them to review the design of this house. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did not feel that acting on this design review application would in any way affect the appeal of Colonel Barco. A1 Waxman, who is building the house in question, stated that they had selected the lot because of itsj~natural aspects. He indicated that they had worked with the Architectural Review Committee and had offered several ~designs addressing the concerns of the Commission. He added that the Com- mittee had selected the present design and had felt it most appropriate. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-716, per Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E". Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. 5. A-717 - Jerome Gilmore, 19088 Austin Way, Single-family residence, Final Design Review Approval; Continued from June 25, 1980 Staff explained that this item had also been reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee, and a~ their suggestion the applicant has modified the design. The present design was discussed, and Staff indicated that the Architectural Review Committee feels that the proposed design on this setting would be appropriate. The conditions of the Staff Report were discussed, and it was determined that Condition E of the Addendum should read: "Bridge width and dy.namic load capacity shall be approved by the Central Fire Protection District and the Department of Inspection Services." Chairman Laden asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Commis- sion. Georgia Gilmore, 19088 Austin Way, stated that when Mr. Haas had first asked them to approve the map of the lot split, surveyors staked the site and the Gilmores approved the map. She explained that today Mr. Haas sent out the same surveyors, and they told the Gilmores that the first stakes were just estimates and they put in new stakes and took another 10 ft. off the entire length of the Gilmore's yard. She commented that they would not have approved the map if this had been done originally and they would like to withdraw their approval of that map and withdraw their letter of approval. She explained that if another 10 ft. were taken off the length of the pro- perty it would destroy a great deal of the value. Mrs. Gilmore stated that she was objecting now and did not want to wait until Mr. Haas had obtained final map approval and then object. The City Attorney stated that, without knowing the terms and conditions of the arrangement between the two parties, it is difficult to say what is the best thing for Mrs. Gilmore at this time. He explained that there is a possibility that the contract simply says that it is subject to getting design review approval from the City, and if so it may be self-executing. He stated that if that were the case, he could appreciate her position in wanting to withdraw the application at this time until further notice. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes 7/9/80 A-717 (cont.) He recommended that her request be honored and the matter continued until there is more information or, if she wishes, formally withdraw her applica- tion. Chairman Laden explained to Mrs. Gilmore that if the Commission continued the item she would not have to refile if she chooses to proceed with the project later. She indicated to Mrs. Gilmore that the Commission was not approving the map at this. time but was reviewing a design of the home and the structures on the land. However, she added, if the design review is part of =tH~".agreement for sale, it may not be in.'-~e'~'~ best interest for the Commission to move ahead. Dave Call, of Century Medallion Realtors, stated he was familiar with the terms of the contract and would be happy to'give Mrs. Gilmore details of it before any decision is made. He stated that the design review has no bearing whatsoever on Mr. Haas's sale and map. The City Attorney stated that the matter is really before the Commission and the applicant, and if the Commission chooses to continue it at this time Mr. Call could talk to Mrs.. Gilmore before the continuation date. It was the consensus of the CommiS~.i.o.n, with Mrs. Gilmore's agreement, that this matter be continued to the.~u!y 2'3,'1'1'98'0'~~g..~ Break - 8:50 9:10. p.m. 6. A-708 David Wilson, 14099 Elvira Street, Single-family residence, Final Design Review Approval Staff explained the previous applications on this matter. The present proposal was discussed, and Staff indicated that the volume of this structure is less than that which was originally approved by the Commission in 1978. Discussion followed on the cantilever on the second story and the roof pitch, and it was determined that the width of the second floor of the main struc- ture should be shown as 34 ft., as opposed to the 32 ft. as currently shown, but the roof height will be retained where it is and the base will be widened by 2 ft. Mr. K. DeMartini, of 20600 Canyon View Drive, stated that he lives behind this area. He explained that a year ago there was a house built in that area that has an extremely high roof and took away his view of the sunrise. He commented that if this two-story is approved it would block the view of the hills, and it would be setting a precedent for other encroachments upon the view of the people living in that area. It was pointed out to Mr. DeMartini that the design of this house has been lowered in height since the original application, at the request of the Commission, and this proposal. is lower than that originally approved in 1978. It was noted that the Renn house, to which Mr. DeMartini referred, had also been lowered in height before being approved by the Commission. It was also pointed out to Mr. DeMartini that the volume of the present proposal is less; the height is less, and the lot coverage is also less than that originally approved; these factors weigh heavily in favor of what the applicant is suggesting. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve A-708 on the premise that it is a mitigation of sorts from the previously approved design. It was stipulated that the Staff Report should ~te that Exhibit "B" is to be revised to show ~hat the wi'dth of the second floor of the main structure is 34 ft. as opposed to 32 ft. as currently shown, and this change does not denote an increase in the ultimate height of the structure. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Planning Commission -- Page 6 Minutes - 7/9/80 7. A-718 - Woodgate Homes, Inc., Jamestown Court, Tract' 6766, Lot B, Single- Family residence, Final Design Review Approval Staff explained that this is part of the Pinn Brothers Subdivision on Prospect, and the City Council required, as part of the final map approval, that one of the two-story structures be removed and replaced with a one- story design. Staff indicated that this structure is compatible with the subdivision. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-718 per the Staff Report dated June 26, 1980. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS 8. EP-12 - Michael Parsons, 15001 Montalvo Road, Request for Encroachment Permit for fence into right-of-way; Continued from June 11, 1980 Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the Commission had asked the Public Works Department to look into the possibility of the City abandoning the property needed by Mr. Parsons if there were no plans for Hill Avenue to be widened; however, the memo from them does not address the question of widening. Mr. Parsons, the applicant, stated that he felt that even if the City abandoned the portion requested, there would still be portions where the fence would be outside of his property and would still be on City property. Chairman Laden explained that they were requesting Public Works to review the'.~d~r~ne~'area on the map, and that the sentiment of the Commission was that to allow the applicant to__p~t a fence in a publAc area that was going to remain public might not be 'a~b'p~i:'~e.YFT~'~:~'~'i~" ~'i~"7~'~'~'8~"i~"'£~'jT"'~/.'~"'~ City determined that it could be abandoned, then the Commis~'ion might feel differently. It was determined that further input was needed from the Public Works Department. Mr. Parsons indicated that the fence he is proposing is really quite a temporary one in nature and can be removed very easily. He added that he is taking care of a large area of land and if the fence must be only on his property, it will make that maintenance considerably more difficult. Chairman Laden asked the City Attorney to also review any legal implications he feels might be encountered if this fence is allowed in the public right- of-way. It was di. rected that this item be continued to the July 23, 1980 meeting, to allow the Public'Works Department to submit further information. 9. UP=410 Staff reported that the Commission had previously granted an extension to this use permit, with the condition that the sanitary sewer easement be granted and recorded within sixty days. Bernard Hagan, the applicant, introduced Mr. Jack Vernon, the attorney representing the Teresi family. Mr. Vernon stated that there is agreement between the Teresi family, Mr. Lohr and Mr. Hagan, and the deed grantiDg this easement to Mr. Lohr's company has been drafted and will.j'b~j.'~e~'ed tomorrow by the Teresis and delivered to Mr. Lohr. tie submitted a copy of the deed to the City Attorney. It was determined that this extension could be approved on the condition that the dged meets...~he specifications of the City Attorney and review by Staff, .:~H~"tH~7 ~i~'a~'~'o~'i.~}~'~.~it be approved and executed within 30 days. Commissioner Marshall moved that the condition of approval for the one-year extension for UP-410 be modified so that the deadline for executing the 6 °=Planning Commiss ion Page 7 Minutes - 7/9/80 UP-410 (cont.) easement would be August 9, 1980 (30 days); the'deed of easement is to be approved by Staff and recorded on or before August 9, 1980. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from 14. residents on Canyon View Drive, requesting that Canyon View not be designated as a emergency access to the McBain and Gibbs Subdivision. It was the consensus of the .'Commission that the emergency.access was for the benefit of Canyon View because it is an excessively long street, and not for the benefit of the new subdivision. It was noted that it is an access for emergency vehicles only. It was pointed out · that the General Plan was modified some years ago, before the McBain and Gibbs application, to show an emergency access at the end of Canyon View, which is being designed as only a breakaway gate barrier. Staff added that Fire Chief Kraule had also indicated that this access is needed for the safety of people in that area. .Staff was requested to send a letter, informing the residents of the feeling of the Commission. Oral 1. City Council Report - Commissioner Schaefer gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on July 2, 1980. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office.. 2. Chairman Laden thanked Councilwoman Clevenger for attending the meeting,'and also the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. R S Robin Jr ' 7.'-- RSR:cd