Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CiTY OF ·SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISS'~ON MINUTES. DATE:· Wednesday,.AUgust-13, 1980 2:30 p.m." "~ ·.PEACE: City Council Chambers, 137.77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA "" .... "TYPE: Regular Meeting '..''ROUTINE ORGANIZATION -" "Present: Commissioners King,.'Laden, Marshall; Siegfried', Williams and .. ... "Zambetti "'Absent:. 'Commi'ssioner Sahaefer .. !.t"was noted'that on.page S .of the minutes of July 23, 1980, 'under V-53:5 .-:. and SDR-1466, .the first sentence in'the last-paragraph should ·read that '.:-'!Mrs..-Garj-Campbell, .207'31 Marion, stated that. she lives:adjacent. to the. .. :.,-'.~roperty" With that CorreCtiOn, COmmissioner Zambetti moved, seconded'.by ..:·.CommiSsioner Siegfried, to. approve the. minutes of 'July 23, 1980 as distributed and·waive the reading. 'The'motion was carried, with Commissioners Wi'lliams and.King-abStaining.since.tHey were not' at the·meeting' of. July 23, 1980.. PfBL'Ic iilEARINGS la.' ~fegative'Dec!aration -.UP-'448 -.'Mike Kerma~i-and.K.-Navai " lb:'. UP-4'48'-. Mike Kermani and K. Na~ai.; RequeSt for Use.'Permit to-all. ow ' A-721 the 60nstruction of .ten (10) condominium units and one .(1) · ..". retail store.On a.42,000.sq..ft.-site in the "C-V"'(Visito.r-... .... .Commercial) distri. ct at".i4599 Big Basin .way; Continued from " -.Staff;.described the present pr0posal, which.'is'now for 'eight condominizUms · --".and'One retial store fronting on Big Basin Way. .They stated that the .. resid. en~ial units will. consist of three levelS.'. Thp.ypar'king for the · '-.-' prOjeCt was disccussed. Staff commented-that the applicant has recently submitted revised plan~ creating' access t.o the Parking District and ;~ locating parking stalls per Council requirements. They added that the '.." grading plans', !qhich h'ad been. a COncern bf the COmmission, have been · v.:. reyiewed by the Depaftme. nt of Inspection ServiceS, and found to.be" -. :acceptable.' Commissioner*Marshall ~ndicated that he Would like to see cross-sections .. from'~est t'o east showing' the entire project, md would also like to see elevations of all'the 'Structures, to get a general idea of the lot ..'.-'. ¢o.ver~.ge be'cause the.lot is so long and-narrow. "' Staff".'commented that the retaining walls Were very heavy and ~ere between 5 ft..'t.o'9 .ft. high'.' They added there would'be a 6-7 ft. wall seen frdm"~he parking district. .They explained that the driveway was depressed · because .Of 'the slope... -. -.'. Commissioner King expres'sed concerns regarding the alley effect of high ,'.walls on'one side'and houses on the other.-' -' 'Th~"pUblic hearing was. opened at 7:5.5 p.m'.- .. -... Herb. LCUevas.,,".the arcM.tect', s.~ated that they did hot .realize that a --:".. cross-section. was required. He commented that they ~ad submitted per- spe~ti.ves..of the :front and-back. The elevations of the. buildi.ngs'were discussed. ,.: Commissioner Marshall s.tated that there still is not a drawing;~ ..... - 1 - Planning CommiSs ion Page 2 Minutes --·8/1·3/80 UP-448 and A-721 (cont.) · which shows· the full site from south to north, to get· the bulk Of the site from its most imposing sides. Commissioner Williams stated that he was concerned about the s·afety' wall on.the property to the west. Mr. Cuevas stated that he felt a 3 ft. high fence would be sufficient; he could put a 6 ft. fence if the Commission desired. He added that there is·no retaining wall on the side where the trellis is. Mr. Cuevas indicated that the condo- miniums have no visual entrance from Big Basin Way. It was determined that a·condition should be added to the Staff Report that the trellis.. is not to· exceed the length of the commercial structure. Mr. Cuevas commented that the details of the sale of the commercial condominium had not·been resolved. He explained that it will be recorded as a separate condominium, and there is a possibility that it will share in the cost of the maintenance of the common areas. Mr. CUevas commented that it would·be a Viable alternative to have the commercial maintain the front portion of the site. The·City Attorney commented that there is a recommendation in the Staff Report that the commercial be sold as a separate unit and not b.e main- tained by the association, a recommendation with which he agrees. With respect to the remaining open space, he stated a review of the CC&Rs would·be appropriate because there are·possible conflicts of interest between the commercial use and residential use·. It was indicated by .the Commission that ~..condition s. hould be 'added to-the Building Site Approval requiring 'that the 'CC&Rs specify thiS"'ahd be subject to City Attorney and Staff review. · It was also determined that.·a' condition Should be added to the design' review approval that all trash·containers on the site shall be enclosed or submerged .... ... .: There'waS'.a consensus of the Commission that thi~ prbject in concept. meets c·ross-·~ections and continuous elevations of all· eight units, the proper grading of the driveway, and correction of the walls~on the balconies. It was directed ·that. the public hearing'be continued to August 27', 1980. 2a. Negative Declaration.- UP-452 - Abel Carrei·a (Saratoga Foothills Corp.) · "2b. UP-452 - Abel Carreia (SaratOga Foothills Corp.), 12299'Saratoga- SDR-1439 - Sunnyvale R0'ad, Request for Use Permit to allow· the con- A-710 - struct.ion of 29 Condominium units and Tentative Building Site Approval; continued· fro~. Ma·y 1'4, 1980 "' Staff rep'orted that the project is the same as that which the Commission approved in'concept several months ago, for 29 units, except for the exterior design of the structures. Staff indicated that if the'project is approved per the rendering the applicant will have to submit revised 'eleVations. It was determined-that Condition II-E in the Staff Report for. SDR-1439 should read: "Construct emergency access road ]·2 ft. wide using double seal coat oil and screenings Or better·on 6 in. aggregate base from cul-de-sa~ turnaround to Saratoga-Sunnyvale·Road.'' The public hearing waS·opened at·8:25 p.m. J. Lohr; the applicant, stated that he had reviewed the infamous 21 sites in ..Saratoga, and of those sites, other than the Campbell' Cage property and the Teresi property, 'there are onl~ two other sites that, given the present political-climate in Saratoga, are suitable for multipl~ develop- 'ment. He explained that those two sites are a portion Of the Dr. Abrams property on the south side of Cox Avenue and the subject site. Mr. - 2 - 'Pl'~nning'~Commissio~ Page 3 Minutes - 8/13/80 ? UP-452, SDR-1439 and A-710 ~(cont.) Lohr stated that there is going to have to be a major change in the politics or the thinking of the City in either looking at the school sites, the general corner of Cox and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and the corner af. FTr'u'i'~'V~.-l~F~7~d Saratoga .Avenue. He commented that there is a tremendous demand here in the City for precisely the kind of housing · 'H~ is 'pr. op.o-s-fng 'helen.~ Mr. Lohr added that more than two-thirds of the units in Park Saratoga have been purchased by Saratoga residents. He also noted that 20 of those 62 units are purchased and occupied by senior c'it-i~ens'.' Mr. Lohr explained that he felt this .~oject does a ~ number of things for the City, ~iZ~E'.~-~ provides badly '.n~ded 'Hou~ing.,."~'l'~ans up a property which provides a development that is probably the lowest density use that a development could have, triggers the formation of an Assessment District on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road which should clean up, put in curb and gutter, and widen Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road in that area. Mr. Lohr stated that he is waiting to hear from the Flood District before finalizing plans for the triangular area of the property. Andrew ..B.ever-e=tt, 19597 Via Monte Drive, on behalf of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council, again expressed the Council's endorsement of this proposed"=~use of the property. The Deferred Improvement Agreement and street lighting were discussed. Chairman Laden commented that perhaps the discussion of street lighting should be referred to the Public Wor~s Department, along with the matter of the Road Assessment District, to see if they can be incorporated as one action. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the .public hearing. Commiss'ioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was ca'rried unanimously. Staff indicated that on the Negative Declaration for UP-452, the Pro- ject Description should be modified to state that there will be improve- ments along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and the applicant will be participat- ing in a Road Assessment District. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP-452. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried. unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve UP-452, per the Staff Report dated April 15, 1980, making the necessary findings. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carri.ed unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR-1439 per the Staff Report dated April 18, 1980 as amended. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, w~ich was carried unanimously. ""' ~ Co'mmisSioner Siegf'ried stated that. he feels this is the best ~,-se. 0f~he .property, and "'i'mprovements are needed on Saratoga-Sunnyval~ Road~'.~d. it is benefi'cial tO the 'community. Commissioner King thanked the.appli- -~ ........ cant for being so pa'~ient with the.Commission' during the review of this' "- "project, and i.t was noted that there was a reduction. in the condominiums that was accomplished ~hrough the .negotiation proC'~ss.~ ,and also the number of units had been reduced from 36 to 29. Commi'ssioner Marshall moved to approve .A-710 'in conc. ept, with 'the stipulation t~at Exhibits "D" and "G", showing the elevations, be resubmitted. COmmissioner Williams seconded the motion". Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would li~e a landscaping plan that is appropri- ate'.to the rendering and fencing~. and which addresses .the triangular- area 'on the property. · The motion was carried unanimously. Break': 9:00 9:10 p.~.' - 3 - PlAnning. commission Page 4 Minutes.- 8/13/80 "3. V~536 Paul Rahmer, 19770 Three Oaks Way, Request for a Variance to allow the construction of a detached garage which would provide a 7' exterior side yard where 25' is required Staff described the present 'proposal. They indicated that the' Staff Report states several options for the location of the proposed g.arage which would not require a variance, and on that basis they were recom- mending'denial · of the variance application since t. hey could not make the .. ne.cessary .findings .. Commissioner Marshall stated that the Land use committee made an on-site inspection on AugUst' 6th,.'~nd he 1-'ooked upon this app. licati. o'n somewhat fav6r~bl)~ since he knew what .existed there before, and what was being .proposed was not any worse than the .original ga.rage. He explained-the past .hi.~t.o.ry of.. the.prg'perty,'.indicating that there had.Been a -f~re which · de~trojyed the gara'ge. .He stated t.hat a 3-stall .carport was then.' built, which ~vas dismantled. 'He added.that the' only .neighbor to this Site is the.State of California' property whfCh.abuts S.aratoga-Los G'atos Road. Commissioner ~Marshall indicated that .it is his feelings. that this is a unique s'ituation in-that the property abuts the State of California line, the prior garage aHd/or 'Carport were never' objected to by anyone, and further that it is a lar'ge structure deserving of probably more than a 2-stall .garage~ which" he. feel's. is inadequate. Commissioner Williams c'ommented th~t"he bel'i~Ved the reason Staff d. id.not recommend approval is because they felt that the.garage could be put on the sept. ic tank side. '.However, the 'Way the house is 'designed,'he. feels · thi.S is the side-for the parking ..to. be. He'agreed with Commissioner MarShall that the'.easies't t.hing to..do is simply build a carport.on the one side, going down to the 3 ft.' retaining wall that is already there. 'The public hearing was 'opened at 9:.25 p.m. Paul Ra. hmer, the applican't,. stated. that he was favorable .to accepting the suggestion of p-utting the garage' where it ori'ginally .had been and making it 3-car.- Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public .h~aring. C0mmissi'Oner Zambetti. Seconded the motio.n, which was. carried unanimously. "Commissioner Marshall moved to approve V-536, allowing the reconstruc-- tion of a carport and/or garage structure, with the. design subject to approval by'the Department of Inspection Services and Staff, that essentially is characterized by being-compatible with and similar to that-which was installed. before, making the necessary findings. Commis~ sioner' King' seconded the motion', which was c'arried unanimously. The ap'plicant was requested to submit new plans in conjunction with the 3-car .-' structure..' 4a'.- NegatiVe Declaration -.V-537.- Charles. L'augh!in 4b. V-537 Charles LaugHlin, 2.1075 Michaels Drive, Request for a Variance' to allow the construction of 'a swimming pool which would provide a 14' side yard where 20' is required' Staff described .the 'project. They indicated that the spot on the lot where the applicants t.end-to locate the p0ol i.s really the only. level spOt'on the site remaining and the only suitab'le location for the 'pool. The rest of the site ~s characterized by quite steep topography which would prohibit the. location of the po'ol without extensive or serious damage to 'the natural topography. Staff indicated' that they 'a~d tB.e Land · Use Committee had v.isited the site on August .5th and d.id not "wan.t'the fill 'on the eastern side '0f the.pOol as propos.ed in the plans, and the applicants h. ave agreed to not put any fill on that side of ~he p061. Staff stated that there were conditions in the Staff Report that address' the' impacts of erosion and drainage.. Commissioner Marshall stated that the cross' sections in.the~ packet don~t · - 4 - 'Pl~n~ing Commission ~' " Page 5 Minutes 8/13/80 -' V-537 (contj) reflect the'rel.ationship of the pool to the"cUrrent contours. He explained that the Land Use Committee had asked for this, with the prohibition of filling in on the easterly side. He stated that he had no problem with the location of the pool or its size, but he.does have a problem wi'th drainage and with the proposal to put fill on the easterly side. Commissioner Marshall commented that the site needs drainage and will need more drainage when the pool is installed. Staff. pointed out that ther'e is a condition-in the Staff Report which requires a speci- fically engineered topographic map of the pOol'location to be reviewed by the Department of Inspection Services and the City Geologist. COmmissioner Wiiliams ~tated that he·personally had no objections to the fill remaining on the site provided it is adequately compacted along the down;slope. He commented that the area where the equipment is located needs to be landscaped and properly drained. 'In. Spection Services. Staff indicated that they would like to reserve the right to disapprove. the .building permit application if the siting of the · ..pool from .a technical standpoint does'not meet their approval. It was. also determined that Condition No. 2 should read: "The applicant shall submit a site.development plan showing. topography (topography'in area of pool shall be f. ield verified') at a scale of 1" = 2'0' prepared by a licensed civil engineer for the review and approval of the City Geologist and the Depa'rtment of Inspection Services." .The public'hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. Charles Laughlin, th·e applicant, explained that his regular pool con- tractor'is on vacation and, therefore, Mr. Laughlin had drawn up the· plans. He added that he ·felt the engineering details would'be a part of-the final building permit. Drainage was discussed, and Mr. Laughlin ~g.reed that the fill on the easterly side could create an erosion problem · n that area.. Commissioner Marshall moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. A letter from Mr. and. Mrs. Herman, the adjacent neighbors, in favor of the pool,. was ~j~dT~.~'~'' rec"6~Td'.:".'. Commissioner Marshall moved to'adop.t_the Negative Declaration for V-537. Commissioner Wi!liams4~'~=u~"~'d ~l~e.'~O.t'i-~n,-~"~h'i'ch ~a's'~'carried finanimouSly. commissioner Marshall moved to approve V-537, per'.the 'staff Repor't dated August 6~ 1980 as amended,."~'~i~gi'~'l~'~findings, and with the stipulation that building permits will be issued per the Department of InspeCtion ~ervices' approval. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. DESIGN REVI.EW 5. A-675 Osterlund Enterpraises, Inc., Single-famil'y residences, Lots 3, 4, and 6,..located Off of Chester A'~enue', Final Design Review Approval; Continued from July'23, 1980 Since the subject plans. are .for~tWo-story r~sidences, Staff reported that there had bee~ discussion at"'t'he last City Council meeting regarding the existing two-story ordinance. Discussion followed on the current two-story ordinance.. .~.. .' The City Attorney 'c.0mmented ~hat this matter will be on the agenda at the next City Council meeting. He stated that ther6.may be some moratorium, mainly.for the' purpose of review and study to determine what should be done in respect to height limitation and the current ordinance. He stated that at the moment there is no moratorium in effect. Planning Commission Page'6 Minutes 8/13/80 ~-675 (cont.) Commissioner King stated that he felt the Commission should go ahead · with the consideration· of this project, and not defer it for that reason. Commissioner Siegfried agreed, but stated that he would be perfectly willing to defer this subject for an entirely.different reason, that of inadequate drawin. gs. He· commented that he felt multi- story .houses are appropriate for this site. COmmissioner Marshall noted that the comments accepted on-site by the 'build6r are. not reflected in the drawings, specifically the resiting of the house on LOt 6. Commis.sioner Williams agreed~ that the plan's·are unacceptable. He added that he felt the s'ite does al'low multi-story homes, and there will be a b'ig demand in the future for those. T~·m· Jo·rston,.senior Vice-President of Osterlund Enterprises, stated that " their arch-itect is out of town; however,-he feels he understands the· problem regarding the'need for better drawings.- The applicant was requested tO get together with Staff regarding the specific r~quests. of the CommiS·sion, as to showing individual si~e topography, location of tree, and more detailed. elevations° It was d'irected that this item be Continued to the meeting on September 10, 1980. 6. A-720 Mendelsohn Development Corp.., 20150 Rancho Bella, Single- family residence, Final Design Review Approval; continued from July '23, 1~80. Staff described the current proposal. Commissioner'Marshall referred to a letter from Robert Aviles,·which stated that Exhibit "A-7" did not lock the developer i. nto·a s·pecific plan, stating that he did not agree wlth that fact. ·He explained that the Commission had spent a tremendous site and th~"do~'n't~ from the neighbors. He stated"that.at t~e time of the original approval· for the subdivision, the envelopes were·the best solutions for siting the houses. Commissioner Marshal]..s-tated that " possi'bly circumstances had dhanged·since then, and·if that were true he would suggest that the developer·modify EXhibit "A-7" now and.resubmit it, rather than modifying each home s~p·arately. He Stated that is·the more proper way·tO handle it-if we are going to b"e fair to the public, who thought they·were·getting'one subdivisioh~ and now are getting an entirely different one, one lot at a time. FIe noted that, the building envelope per se was the maximum si·ze that wa·s discussed. for the house, and did not·reflect the dimension~ of the w.alls of the house.. Commissioner Marshall added that thj. s is a unique piece of land·in the City; a lot of · ·people had ap.peared befo're the Commission wi·th'ConC~rns about this piece of land, and'he felt·the applicant should resubmit EXhibit "A-7" showing' the entire subdivision. Commissioner. Zambetti.stated 'that 'he has no. problem approving this.item a·s it is, stating that it is a modification of t·he Site Development Plan. He added that he felt it fits on the lot; the applicant has tri'ed to Work around the trees as much..as possible, and it .is basi. cally a well-designed house. · · Commissioner Williams stated that he felt that nature has its effects, and'it is a good plan.·in concept and a good use of the lot. .- ·Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not ·feel that flip-flop'ping the .-.' house is a major change. Ni~o Gallo, the applicant, expl'ained that they feel they can save even · mOre.trees by shiting the house. FIe added ·that he ·felt this plan would fit oh the lot better. Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes' 8/1.3/80 A- 720 (cont.) Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the modification to the Site Development Plan for A-720, per Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner .. Siegfried seconded the motion. Commissioner Marshall stated that he would vote 'no because he did not -f~el that the 'developer had followed the building envelope shown on the approved Site Development Plan. Chairman Laden commented that she did not feel it appropriate for the applicant to come in With modifications for each lot, one at a time. .- It was the consensus of t~_e.-C~mmission. that in 'the "future th'e.,.deVeloper ... Would be required to confo,rm' w'it:h the Site Deve.lopment. Plan... "The motion was taken on the 'modification to A=720. It was carried', with Commissioner Marshall disse'nting. MISCELLANEOUS 7. EP-12 Michael Parsons, 15001 Montalvo Road, RequeSt for Encroachment " Permit for fence into right-of-way; continued from July 23, 1980 It was explained to Mr. Parsons, the applicant, that it is the recommenda-' tion of the Public Works Department that the City not abandon the property in question. Chairman Laden pointed out that the neighbors on Hill Avenue have objected to this encroachment. Mr. Parsons stated that he did not feel a fence on that area of Hill Avenue will impact as much' as the bushes, and added that he felt this situation was 'an unusual one. It was explained to him that a fence is a structure and it can't encroach into the public right-of-way. Commissioner Marshall moved to deny EP-12, per the Staff Report dated June 8, 1980. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous ly. 8.'SDR-1420 Stan Carroll, Big'Basin Way, Relocation of Building A-664. It was explained ~'to' M~", Heid, the architect, that it was the consensus of the Commission that they would like another study session on this matter, .since they had concerns about the rationale for changing the size of the building, the traffic flow in the Parking District, and ingress and egress to the site. Warren Heid stated that he thought the concerns had been resolved at the 'last study session. Commissioner King commented that he has concerns regarding the ingress and egress to the Parking District, and Staff commented that the Department of Public Works has pointed out that the alignment in the parking lot and the two-way street abutting"-into the one-way access presents a problem. It was the consensus o'f' the Commission that they would like a study session to resolve these concerns, since this parking lot will be part of an assessment district that is going to serve the public. Mr. Heid' was requested to meet with the Public Works Department to resolve their concerns, and it was directed that this item be continued to a Regular Adjourned meeting on August 19, 1980. 9. SD-1355 Medallion Development Corp., Request for One-Year Extension (Teerlink Ranch) Staff stated that they were recommending approval of this extension, sUbect to the conditions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve 'a one-year extension for SD-1355. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried' unanimously. ~: . ' ...... -' ."'~.~"7 ?4~nning Commission., Page 8 Minutes - 8/13/80 .COMMUNICATIONS Wri'tten 1. Letter from Saratoga Foothills Re Par'k' Saratoga Lighting. 'It was noted that there has been a marked change and improve- ment in the 'lighting. Staff stated that they have reviewed .the lighting and the applicant has be'en notified. 2. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Tom Seefurth dated August 1', 1980. Staff explained that they h~d"made an on-site inspection, and the Jameson lot 'is nonconforming in that it is very narrow. Staff noted that under the code the Jamesons are allowed only two horses, and Mr. Upson has been notified'of this situation. It was further explained that they do not meet the requirements of the Zoning'Ordinance, since their corral is much.closer than 50~ft. tO the property line.. S~aff commented, that they would need a variance to allow this encroachment into .the required setbacks. Chairman Laden stated that She would be very hesitant 'to ~uggest that they apply for a variance if the. Commission feels ,it is not going to be granted. Mr. Seefurth stated that they cannot sit outside a good portion of'.Lthe time because of the smell. '.He added that if the horses were taken care of, ~his smell could be eliminated. Staff .was reque's~'ed t'o notify'.the Jamesons by letter that they are in violation of the code and o~dinances, and specify the steps that can be taken. If this is not done, the Code Enforce- ment Officer should be-notified to' look into the situation further. Oral 1. ~ity C.0uncil Report - Commissioner Zambetti gave a brief report on the City'Council Meeting held on August 6, 1980. A. copy of the minutes of this meeting is on f~le in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT " Commissioner Siegfried moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to adjourn . Ea'~_7~e'g_'~.n'~nimously, and th~'meet'ihg wa~' 8djourned at 11:28 ~'Zm. RSR:cd .'.