Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 27~ 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, Marshall, Will·iams and Zambe·tt·i · A~sent:· Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfried Minutes THe following changes were m~de 'to'the minutes of August 13, 1980: Under .UP-452 on page 3, the. second sentence in the ninth.paragr.aph shou.~d-: read: · ."CommisS·ioner King thanked the appli.cant .for·.·being so .patient with the Commis- sion 'ddring the re'view of this pro'ject, and it was noted that there was a reduction ·in the size of the condominiums that was accomplished through the negotiation process, and also ·the number' of units" had been reduced from 36 to 29.:' Under A-7·20 on page:7, a'.Sen·ten~e Should be added to read: "It was the consensus ·of t·he Commissi. on that in the future the developer·would be required to conform with ·the Site Dev. elopmen·t Plan., 'With those corrections, COmmis-· siOner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner·.'K~'ng, to waive. the reading of the minutes of August 13', 1980'and approve as distributed. ·The motion was carried unanimous ly. It Was moved by Commissioner Zambetti,-seconded .by CommiSsioner Williams, to waive the reading of the·minutes Of· the Regul'ar Adjourned Meeting. on August 19, 1980 and approve as 'distributed.' The motion was 'carried, with Commissioners Marshall .and Laden-abstaining since they were not present at ·the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1'. SDRj'1464 - William Minkel, Paseo' Pueblo, 1 lot, Final Building Site'Approval 2. V-508 - .Jerry and Sarah Ditto, '15050 Oriole Road, Variance for Carport '-EncroaChment in'to side yard., Request for One-Year Extension Commissioner- Zambetti .moved to· approve the items listed above on the Consent- · Calendar. COmmissioner Williams Seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous ly.. · PUBLIC HEARINGS '. '3-. City of Saratoga, Request for General Plan Amendment in conjunction wi.th' prOpoSed annexation t-o the City 'of Saratoga of the area bordered by Baylot Avenue on the north, McCoy Avenue on the south,· Quito Road on.the west. "'and VillanoVa Drive' on the 'eas't "' 4. Cit~ of Saratoga, ReqUest for Pre-Zon.ing of the area bordered by Baylot · Avenue on the nortl~, McC'oy Avenue on the south, .Quito Road on·the west and Vil. lanova Drive on the east to R-l:10;000. .Said project in conjunction with proposed annexation .to the .City of Saratoga; Continued 'from July 23, 1980 :. The above 'two items were ·discussed simultaneously. staff gave t'he history j: of the applications, stating that' the City Council had previously' made findings for the annexat4on to Saratoga; They commented that the Planning CommiSsion had conducted a public hearing on the pre'-zoning in July, 'and LAFCO has conducted a hearing and approved the boundary adjustment. It .. was noted that 'there' had been an on-site inspection by the Commission. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. - I - Planni~.~g Commi. ss ion =. Page 2 M~i~.~Fes 8/27/80 ~City of Saratoga, General Plan Amendment. and'Pre-Zoning (cont.) GearX Coats, the consultant representing the homeowners association, was present to answer questions. Ed Olsen, 18349 Purdue Drive,. stated that he was concerned as to what. codes will be enforced for the residents of Sunland Park, specifically, the parking of recreation vehicles.. Staff indicated that, once this area becomes part of Saratoga, it will have to comply.to the City's codes re'garding the parking of off-road vehicles. They stated. that there.are pr'ovisions in the code which allow the' granting of a permit up to a maximum of 120 hours, and beyond that the code states that a use permit is required. They added that it has been the policy of Saratoga not to respond to violations unless neighbors complain. Staff also explained that'the lots in this area will be considered legal noncon- forming~ in terms-of setbacks. Mr.. 01sen explained that he has a 21 ft. motor home that is.very ~uc'h a part of their lives, and he has it parked legally under the county codes at this time. He stated tha~ it will not physically .go into the back yard; however, there are motor homes in the area that are parked in back yards. Staff'stated 'that Shere will have to be some adjustment with which the .City will have to deal because of the legal nonconforming situations. They commented that the City Council will have to determi.ne how they are going~to pursue code enforcement in this area.' The.City At'torney stated that, once this territory becomes a part of Saratoga, it will be treated pr.ecisely like any other'part of the 'City.as far as enforcement' o~ o=~dinances a.re concerned; the 'difference here being that this area will be coming in as'a pre.-eXist'ing condition, and the.re will be that advantage when making an application for a use permit. He ~added that this would not give any.·special' priority, but surely the Com- missi'on or Coun~il",'.in'r~eviewing ahy kin~ of a=use permit application, will look to the fact that this particular use has been made of the'pro- .perty for somejc,ont~nuous period of time. .Mr. Olsen stated' that·he would like s~me 'clarification of this prio'r to .the annexation. He.commented th'at the cities under for~ed·annexation have allowed the present codes in those areas to remain. Mr. Geary Coats,·the ~onsultant repr·esenting the HomeOwners· Association, stated..~that this concern had been addressed with the homeowners. ·He· · added .that they had explained ~h~ nonconforming uses and·how.they are processed. Mr. Coats added'that the association as a whole totally concurs,=and they definitely do not consider this a forced annexat·ion; it is' their desire. He explained that Mr. Olsen is the'only member of the group that is not in favor of the 'annexation·, and that all others are willing.to conform. to the codes as the City requires. Mr. Coats stated that' the individuals who do need a use permit will be applying to the City, and he will be happy to provide guidance-for these applications. Commissi·oner Marshall· s'tated that the City of Saratoga does not, as a practice, go out looking for code violations.. He explained that it has been the position of the City to not bother people unless and until a violation is r·eported by a neighbor. When that is done,-he added, it is assessed and in many cases a use permit or some corrective action is required. Mr. Olsen explained that he had no feelings for or against the annexation and, therefore, did not join the Homeowners Association. He stated that it was later that he Checked into the"codes and found that they were very restricted,. and he also verified with the County that he was parked within County codes. Mr. Olsen commented that he had lived there for 23 years, and he feels that Saratoga ought to go along, as the other - 2 - ~"-.PlanU~Hg.'Commission .... " Page 3 "'M~nqt'es 8/27/80 ' City .'o.f ' Saratoga, General Plan Amendment and Pre- Zoning' (cOnt..) .... ~" cities-' have, in'accepting the codes'.that the resident. s of Sunland Park presently folloW'. · Chairman Laden.-Commente.d' that, unless one of .the' neighbors put in an " objection, the'City .will take no aCtion'to change Mr. Olsen~s situation .... .She.."explained th.at, if one of the' neighbors complain., then .he wil. 1 have to apply. for .a use permit. .' .. · '..'.Chai.rm.an Laden commented that.. sh6 has'no objection in' any manner to the ": annexation of".thi. s .property to' the "Cit~.of.. Saratoga,. and she"is .sure it .... will" &nhance.~he',:Ci. ty. HoweVer, 'she added, she is concertfed that the · .. criteria of the findings are riot'very Specific, .:in view' of the other '-. application that was pre'sented on the.same e~ening to the City-Council for. """" ~nnexation ahd in 'view o~ ~hat she ~0res'ees may be some 'fUture' .r~qhests for. ~nnexation.. She explained tl~at she feels there will b'e a number of ..... "... are:as' Coming in for annexation under .similar .circumstances", and she has · an ..0.bjection t~ the'.'proc'e'ss used and ;the criteria a's established. in -. "denying'the .other annexation. She added that' She felt that some of'. the .. same.findings were "alsO. 'presen~ for the 'other' annexation .in question: :. .. Chairman Laden 'stated..that she woul'd. like to see the City Council take the ne~e~sar'y stFps to make the' necessary findings more specifiC. · -."' .'.'.Since.nO one. else-appeared, Commissioner'Marshall moved to 'close' the pubi'ic. ...-. hearing. L Commissioner 'Zambetti. 'seconded t.he motion, which was carried · .... Unanimous ly. -.. .... '... CommisSioner Marshal1 "stated that; Since Mr. Oi'sen addr'e'ssed' the' point, .he would express his Concern that he feels this .area is on 'the low end of c.omp]..iance with. Saratoga standards. "He commented 'that he would fully expect the 'spirit o'f.co0.peratiOn 'that he 'has see'n. so far from all the residents continuing.,.. and that is the basis on which he-would VOte. favorably for' th.e .-. 'annexa~i0n. CommissiOner Marsh'all added 'tha~ if' he. suspected that the . ~'aj'o-rity of the people were-running 'to Sarafoga' .to ge't' away' from San Jose .'. .'and were not. doing'. So. in .good 'faith, he would .vote'against 'it L Commi's- .... sioner Marshall' again noted that the City t'ends to look the other Way and · ..' '.takes the' position'.that,' as long. as 'nobody is: complaining in the ne~ghbor- hood,-and it doe'sn.'t affect the health, safety and 'welfare',' no code enforce- · -.':.. ment is pursued.. .. ..' C0mmissiGner King C. omme. nted that he had t'he"impression,' from 'the on-si~e · - visit.that had.been made~. that the nGnCOnforming...uses are minimal and the~e'. .. ~... is .a si'n'Cere attempt _by't'he homeowners...~o fo'llow' the code. "".- '. Commissioner Marshal'l mo'ved to adopt GF-327, .recommending the General .' 'P'lan. Amendment to the.City. Council, inCiud.ing Exliibits "A" and "B" ... Commis~.iO'ner .Zambet'ti SecOnded'.~h'e motion, which was carried .unanimously. '.'.: C'ommissioner Marshall moved-to.'adG'pt GF-327-1, recommending the'pre:zonink ... for this' area to the' City council..~. including .the attadhed Exhibit "A"' and · -."B-,, .'and'making th'e' findings.' Commissioner Zambetti..seconded the motion.,. ~ whi-Ch Was carried unanimo'usly-. "..' 5a'. ~Negativ'e'Declaration -.UP-448'-. MiRe Kermani and K. Navai ...,:. .. . .. · ..'_ 5b.' 'UP'L:'44"8 Mike Kermani and K.. Navai, ReqUest for Use Permit to allow the .... · -' .....A-.7'2~..: . cons'trUcti on 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'Bi.g Basin Way; .Continued from .AUgust 13, 1980 '-= .:...Staff..re.po'rted that .at .the" last meeting th~ C.ommis~ion had indic~te'd .... that. they .approved of the. proj eC.t in concept'; however, they' did. 'request .. · more specific information'. They no. ted that .the applicant has p~ovided aH '.... entire north-south elevation Of the project and.east-west cross-sections of the' grading project. .'. - 3 - ~.7.Plann'i~g .Commission Page 4 Mi~ute~ 8/27/80 UP-448 and A-721 (cont.) It. was noted that these exhibits do addr.ess the previous concerns. How- ever~, COmmissioner Marshall commented that he was concerned as to whether 0r not there would be enough light and air'be. tween the .commercial and · residential buildings. Staff Clarified tha~ there is sufficient distance between-the buildingst per the.Uniform BUilaing Code. · .. The pub~%c hearing'was opened' at 8:2.0 p.m. "Herb 'Cueva.s', tile a~chitect,'addressed th'e tr. ash enclosures for the resi- o' 'dential and the commercial building, stating that they would 'be submerged. I.t was determined that a conditi'on should.be put in the Staff Report', to " read:""All trash'Storage, both for reSident'ial and commercial, is to'be .approved by'.the Staff. TraSh containers on the site shall .be enclosed or .submerged'." Mr. Cuevas st. ated~tha~ .the Flood'~ontrol area.is planned to ~.~ be'landscape~.into some' sort 'of a~p'icnic or barbecu.e area, and this are. a w. ill.be i~cluded in the. CC&Rs as an area for maintenance by the h0meowners .association.. ~ ,. The lighti. ng Of the' ar'ea"in'the ~athro0ms was discussed.-'The.'applicant ~'s~ated that they we're trying.~t'o ensure that the rooms are reasonably'. light'.by using proper colors, etc. CommiSSioner. Marshall indicated that he would like to see the use o.f .sky lights on the' second floor. It was determined that'a ~ondition would be placed in the Staff Report for A-721 to rea. d: "Sky..lights on second floor shall be used to enhance the natural lighting. where practical or feasible.J' · THe possible use.of the"'comme~c~al building as 'a..restaurant was discussed, 'an~ it was-determined that a condition be put in the use permit Staff '-Report to read: "No' restaurant facility app~oved~.unless it complies with parki.ng requi.remen.tS." .. Si'nce no 'one else a.~p~ared, Commissioner Mar-shall moved to ~lose the publiC'hearing. COmmiss~ioner'-~Zambe.tti seconded thee motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambett'i moved to approve.the Nega'tive Dec'larat'ion on [iP-448. Commissioner Willi~ms seconded the'-motion, which was carried Unanimously. C~..~_~.~"'~'.Zambetti mo~ed to approve UP-448,-per.the ame'-n~ed.Addendum date. d.August 7, ]_980, the Addendum da'ted' August 22, 1980, and Exhibits "B".through"'F" and to approve A-721 per the amended Staff Report' da~ed ~Au'gust 7', 1980., the Addendum dated'August. 22, 1980 and EXhibits "B" through =~F". Commissioner Marshal. 1 seconded 'the motion... 'Commissione~ King commented ~hat this' is a Very'difficult site,. and he' · would encourage Staff to give special' attenti.on to the landscaping and masonry"fenc~s '~t was determined that-widen the.landscaping and walkway ~ screening p'lans are submitted, they could be reviewed by the Commission at " 'a Commi~tee-6f.-the-'Whole briefly, or as a ~iscellaneous item at the regu- lar meeting. °The vote.-was taken on the motion'to approve UP-448 and A1721. The' mot.ion .-- -was carried.'UnanimouSly. 6a. Negatijve Declaration .SD-1468'- Slobodan Galeb' '6b. SD-1468.- Slobodan Gal'eb, T.ed. Avenue, 9 lots, ReqUest for Tentative ". Subdivision 'Approval Staff noted that th.e following'.conditions should be added to'the' Staff Report: Condition IIrE- "The applicant shall dedicate ~and improve a cu.l-de-saC.at the end of. De Sanka Avenue whi'ch will comply with City standards." Condition'VIII-F'-"'Pr'ior to issuance of building p'ermits,' individual structures shall-be'reviewed by'the P'I'anning Department to evaluate the 'potential. for solar accessibility. The 'developer shall pro- vide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or Planning ·Commiss ion -- Page 5 Minutes 8/27/80 .- SD-1468 (cont.) cooling opportunities in the subdivision." Staff described the present proposal. Commissioner Marshall indicated that Lot'9 has a geometry which will require a sensitive treatment of the Siting of the house, and he would like Staff to note this when review- . ing 'the· design for this lot. The public hearing was opened· at 8:48 p.m. ~.' Lou Bini, civil·engineer. for the project, stated that he·had read the .··· staff Report and had no questions. ChUck Wilson, ~ho works for the ·applicant, asked for clarification of Condition V-A, regardi, ng a hydrant being installed and accepted prior to issuan'ce of building·permits. He· stated that·'.he unde. rStands the reason .. ·for it, but ·there could be a problem in terms of construction. ·He explained that the water system is not installed until after the concrete curb·and gutter goes i=n,.·'and·if the'applicant:'is· not allowed to pour the foundations prior to the installation of curb and gutter, there could be quite a bit'of damage·in broken concrete. Mr.· Wilson asked for a waiver on this condition, and·~·~d"~if it could state that the hydrant must be · in and accepted.prior to framing. Discussion 'followed on thi. s condition. The Department of Inspection Services stated that they had no technical problem with this exception, but there would be an administrative one', since the building permit process is the only monitoring system·on the pr.oject. It was the consensus of the Commission that ~hey woul'd like this condition · . to remain as is, since other developers have had to comply with this: 'Condition, stating that the builder can work with Staff on this process. SinCe no one else appeared, Commissioner Zamb~tti moved to close the public hearing.. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD-14'68. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimou'.sly'. .. Commissioner·Zambetti moved to approve SD-1468, per the amended Staff Report da£ed'August 21, 1980,-with the stipulation that Condition V-A remain as ·stated. Commissioner Marsh·all seconded the mot. ion, which was· carried unan,imously·. Break 8:55 - 9:05 p.m. 7..' UP-466 - F. Milton Garfield, 15223 Hume Drive, Request for·a Use. Permit " to allow the construction of a 775 sq. ft. cabana over 6' high Staff descr-ibed the present proposal. They e'xplained.'that the cabana does not conform with one provision of the'.ordinance, in that it maintains a 15 ft.'Side yard where 20 ft. is required, and if the applicant indicates he is'willing to maintain a 20 ft. side yard setback, Staff would' recommend t'hat the Commission make/tie necessary findings and approve it per the Staff Report. They added that there is sufficient. room on the site to mee.t'the 'ordinance requirements. 'It was pointed out that'.the st'ructure would lend itself to conversion to · a second residence. It was determined that .a condition should be added to " read: "ShoUld the cabana be converted with kitchen facilities, the use · ' permit shall be considered null and void." 7 The public hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Ed Terly addressed' the Commission, stating that he'is 'the 'proposed owner .~·.'Planning Commission .... Page 6 '. Minu~es. 8/2.7/80 ' -'- " UP~466 (cont.-) o-f~'the'.. pro'perty~ He expl'ai. ned that the~ Cabana was designed at .his '-' request, but the escrow has'not closed yet. He commented that he agrees to ~he'20 ft.. si'de yard., Mr. Ter!y.stated that the caband would definitely " ~Ot'be-'Conver~ed'into a.second residerice. .- C'ommissi0ner Zambet'~i moved'to close the public hearing. .Commissioner · .. Mar~ha'll seconded the' motion; which was.'carried,unanim0U~ly. " CommisSioner 'Zambetti moVed'to a.pprove UP-446,-per the amended. Staff. · ' Report dated AUgust 20,-1980, and. with the'stipulatiOn that. the side yard. setback-Will be.'20 ft.; making th~ necessary fiBdings.' .CommiSsi2oner King' -~.. seco'nd~d'the motion,'whi.Ch was carried unanimously. '8. V-~'38 - ReCc0, .Inc. Request' for a Vfi'riance. to erect a fence over '6'.]~i'gh ..: which will .encroach into ~he required side yard at 14055 Quito Road -' ".':, St'aff-commen't~d that ~hey.felt if'.~he applicant had better pl'anned tIie locatiorf"of the."'bathroom f~cility' and 'the p.r. ivate garden, the area could have been' Oriented. so as. not to create a .privaCy impact, and .that.a fence' .8 ft. high could 'have been .placed on .the property Without requiring.a · variance. They' d.esCribed' the project, expl. a.ining that the fence had been' -2 ..."-built without a building permit .being issued. They added that the' .appli- " cant has indicated that they. require a. 8 ft. high' fence since the driveway. " providing 'access tO the corridBr lot immediately-behind this. lot is about'--. '-2' ft..higher. than the site itself; 'therefore, traffic on that driveway" would be looking. into this bathroom area. 'Staff added'that 'there are opti6ns which would not require a variance and th.ey cannot make the neces= sary' findings...' : " The' public .hearin~ .was opened a:t. 9 :"16. p ~m." : .. ~ .. .-. ·Gary 'ROb'errs, ~he project coordinator,_ ~Sked .fo'r an e~pl. anation of the option.s.. Staff explained that-the. fence· can be located in a~. area wi.thin th~'-buildi. ng. envelope withbut. a'va'riance. They indicated that it-would not provide t. he. priyacy.. t'o the 'la.rge gl'aSs area in the master bedroom~ .but that c'ould 'be. 'done With landscaping., a s.creen,' O.r"..dra'pes. .'2'-.Mr. 'ROberrs explained that the-Super. vi~or ha'd been s0 b'USy that' h~ had constructed the fence without a' building permit'being issued. 'He 'stated.. "that there are a number of tre'es on 'the site', and they designed the. drive- ... way to.'a.~oid them. He commented that they feel it is no.t appropriate to " change the house from its gresent location, and feel 'this is the 'proper .... location-for the-fence~ .."" 'tt was the consensus 'of 'the Commissi. on that ~he design of the 'house 'had' .. not·been properly ·considered, and a. 6 fr. fence closer'.to the driveway .~' would be sufficient'.. They als0 'determined that', since there :aFe other "alternatives.,' it.wouid be difficult.to make the 'necesSa'ry five findings..' ":' Ken 'Camp who is employed by the applican~ stated that he understood '-.-.. . ,- t.hat. landscaping .could be. used as. a screen. However, he commented that He. :~._ felt. the time and money 'invelved with the .purchasing of iand.scaping of. s'ufficient size 'Should 'be considered He also' stated that he was' con- . .... cerned with the' aesthetics i'nVo'lVed. .'. " 'J'a'Ck H0~ay, 18546"Ravenw0od, stated that he was.a neighbor', and~ this " p~operty has been a problem property 'for .years. He indicated' that he · ' did not f~el a 8 ft. fence should' be all·owed in a neighborhood bf 6 ft. ~:- fences. Mr. Howay added that he felt .the house should .have been located' differently., and :he'fee:l~S 'a 6 ft: fenC'e .~loser tO thej driveway WoUld be. sufficient. '-.' Commissioner King moved to Close the public hearing. 'Commissioner "~ ' Marshall' .secdnd'ed"'.th~ metion, which.was carried unanimously. - 6 - .' .~.pl.anning-: Co'mmission · ..- Page 7 :--.'L.. v-538 (cont.) commissioner Marshall commented that'he felt that nothiring had. been done :.-. -~o. optimize the structure's design to the lot, and granting a'8.ft. fence woul'd be setting a dangerous precedent'. Commissioner Wi.lliams'commented that he feels 'fences do pro'vide privacy and'screen noise. He stat'ed that when the City writes a new ordinance reg.arding.height limit'ation', they'sho'uld consid'er this. fact, since he WGuld like to provide residents w~'.t'h.as much pri~aCy as.possible. 'HOwever, he added, s'i-nce the' findings cannot be m'ade,~he feeis the architect can ].andsaape. £0 give'th.e,.privacy they de.si'r.e'. ~.. '-". CommiS:S.ioner Marsh. all moved to deny 'v-s38,~on the basis 'that the findings .. c~nnot be made~.. Commissioner Z'ambetti.se'conded the motion, which was carried-unanimGus'l~'. DESIGN REVIEW ..... : : :~ .. . · 9. A-719 Spencer Profit, Norton'Road and Kit't-ridge, Si.ng'le-Fami].y' Resi. dence, ""'" .. "" Final Design Review Approval " S~a~f described the proposal, stating that their maj-or concern was the -...-..'grad'ing'involved. They reported t'hat a plan has now been revieWed. by, the ...Dept.. of Inspection Services,,which they have found to be'acceptable. It.. ...':...was. Bored that the applicant is.proposing a straight driveway confi.gura-. tioh .fpr..the.'site, and'Staff Was asking f.or an exception to do this, since it'w.i'!l. minimize the grading. The grading on ~he' Site was discussed. ..-.' Commissioner Zambetti' commented that he felt'it was. too'b~d that thi~ part · ~-.. oF' the.hillsides was not included in. Measure 'A' bec.ause it seems to.have .the greatest'soil Un'stabi'l. ity. He stated that.he was concerned with the .:".: 'dr'iveway .sl.ope and the'fact that only a 2-car garage was being propos.ed. ..CommisSi.oner'Marshall'comme~ted that he.was concerned about the leach field '-' be'ing'adequate 'for a.large house such as' this with so.many fixtures. It was. a. lso noted tha~' the plan shows two kitchens, and one wi.ll have to be. removed per ordinance. '. The applica. nt stated that'they had submitted about-fOur different leach' field systems jto.th-e Health Department, and.'they' haVe-.approved the pre'sent' " one being used'. He also commented'that they. could not find a way..to put .... in a 3.-c'ar garage..on that slope, since they'Would have to pave over some Of:the leach'field to .'dO so. ... ~ . Staff 'reported'that there is an addit. i0nal requirement in.the report that sta}es.that the Health. Department must approve.the leach field system.when · .'the.applicant obtains".a permit, and at the.time of-final acceptance of the -construction of.the house. -: !. Commissio'ne½ Marshall'~ndicat. ed that he has 'a concern that there is enough · ... adequate acreage surroundin.g the individual homes in this area to ensure.. ': adequate sept'ic tank drainage. He commentOd that he.would like~fh'~']4~l'~h~ .. De'partme'nt-to again.take a look at the amGunt. of'fixtures and the'~'%~"~'>~-..' · -"--. o'f the .sanitary sewer system, and submit thei'r approv.al. It'.was .determined that-'the'applicant will'a.].sO-submit a-plan"sh0wing just' · ...one*kitchen, and a driveway app'rOach or some type of landing to park more ca'rs';-or. planS for a.3-car garage. It was .directed that this item b'e con'~'inued tO the .September 10,.1980 meeting. ,' .. '- 1.9. .A-729'- Ronald Haas, Sperry L.ane, Lot '#S, Tract 5995, Single-'Family"Resi-'. den'Ce, Final Design Review Approval .... CommisS'ioner Zambetti. made the following comments o~ this application: "(1') It is one of .the Worst designs he has'ever' seen... (2) The driveway 'approach iS probably one of the worst', with the - 7 - ~':Planni'n..~ Commi'ssion ~ Page '8 "Mi~ute's-8/27/80 ' ' .A-729 (cont.) '. side yard being.one where the construction'of impervious .. surface is too close to the side yard. -.. " (3) The applicant does"not .shOw 'any type 'of recreational-element -'Ttherefore,. that will have to be considered at some other time. ..'- Commissioner Zambetti added'that He would. not vote for the approval'of :.thiS..house. '· Commis'Si'one.r Marshal'l st.ated.~tha~,.althougH he did not. totally agree with everything that Commissi.oner Zambetti had said,..he does have difficulty With peppie putting.twO-story'homes 0n.rsjloping-.lot,S'. 'CommiSsiOner Wiiliams commented that-the roof des-ign.is not visible from Sobe.y Ro~d because..of. the intervening ~lope..plong.'tha~ side. Th~ 'grad'ing was discussed. .Staff commented that a. garage door orientation · ' ttiat was'faCing the street, with a sh'or~er driveway,.would clearly eliminate .a ~ign.ificant portion of the grading. They explained that the problem is that' the.'lot"is narrow at the street. Commiss'ioner Marshall commented .. that he felt the turnaroUnd is logical, given the garage where it is. Mr..Haas,'the applican£, submitted a drawing of the front of the house. Commissioner Marshall.commented th.at he did not have a problem with. the fr0n.t' elevation'west'; his concern was east and north elevations... He' a4ded.that.his main concern is that the neighbors will have to lo0k at the back'of the house. Commissioner Marshall stated that he would like to see · ' a requirement for landscaping to subdue' the i. mpact of the back, or maybe decking across the second.floor. He indicated that it could be broken up' with some large trees. It was determined tha~ a condit. ion should be added'to read: "Some combination of architectural and landscaping treatment is needed to. mitigate the appearance of the rear and side elevations.of the. structure." · ' The applican-t stated that the treatment on the driveway was done by the- engineer for.the purpose of'trying to minimize .the slope of the driveway as it.comes in. Discussion followed on the driveway· and front parking area'. There was a 'consensus that .the cUrved'driVeway should remain, ~nd a 'condition added to read: "The parking.area adjacent to .the driveway at the front of ·the.house .Shall be eliminated." " Commissioner Laden stated that she would like the condition added that '.'No tennis .'court is allowed on this site'. Any swimming pool shal. l'nee'd approval 6f modification to the Site DevelOpment Plan." · .Commissioner Williams stated that the applicant should weatherstrip the windows along the downhill slope, or put.a deck or porch on the upper .level, to eliminate a severe problem during the rains. It·was mo~ed by Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner 'Wili. iams', to. approve A-729 subject to .the Staff Report dated AUgust 22, 1980 as "..' amended.· Commissioner Williams Seconded the motion which was .carried wi't'h Commissioner 'Zambetti dissenting. · - COMMUNI CAT IONS '. " ..' Writ't'en' ... 1. Letters .from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Morrison .and Mr. and Mrs. Lyman Johnson. Staff explained that there'was a condition in '."" --'~tt-e 1961 tentative. map. which stated that there would be no .opening-. in the existing gate to' what was called Marden Avenue at that' time. Mr. and Mrs. Morrison and Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are asking the Commiss'ion to'relax·that particular. standard, since there was a -' complaint .reCently reported'to our Code Enforcement Officer. It :P1;~an, ni~g COmmission Page 9 ' Mi'~u'tes 8/27/80 Written Communications (cont.) was noted' that .remOving the condition entirely would allow that .street to become an alley. "Public Works Staff was 'requested to research the · ' legal ramifications involved', since it is not certain at thfs point'who the 'owner of the street is. It was directed that .this item. be continued' to the September' 10,-1980 meeting. ... i. City'Council Report - Commissioner Willjams gave a brief'report On. the.City Council meeting held on. AUgUst '18; 1980, A copy of the minutes of this meeting is .on. file in the City Administration Office, 2. Chairman. Laden thanked the GOod Government Group for attending the meeting, AD'~OURNMENT 'Commissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to adjourn the meeting..'.'The motion was. carried unanimously, and the 'meeting was adjourned at RSR': cd "