Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF .SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE': Wednesday, September 10, 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, Mar'~hafl, Sch~'efer, Sieg{ried.~.and ~o Zamb'etti · -Absen't: Commissioner. Williams Minutes Commissioner Marshall moved to waiv~ the'reading'."of ~he minutes of August 27, 1980 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Zambetti seconde'~ the motion, which was carried, with.Commissioners Schaefer.and Siegfried' abstaining since' · .they were not presen.t at that meeting. .SUBDIVISIONS/BUILDfNG SITES 'la. Negative Declaration - SDR-1465 Klaus Pache (Plumed Horse) l'b. SDR=1465'- Klaus Pache (Plumed HorSe), 145'55 Big Basin Way, Tentative A-722 - Building Site Approval (Over 50% Expansion)'and Design Review Staff reported on the above items and deScri'bed th'e proposal, which will. involve three phases. It was noted that the:parking doe.s conform to the ordinance. Commissioner Zambetti stated that this proposal had been submitted to a Subcommittee of the Village Merchants Association, and they are in favor of it~ The traffic'signal at 4th and Big Basin was discussed, and it was deter- mined. that a'condition should be added to the Staff Report fo.r SDR-1465, to read: "Applicant is required to enter into a Deferred Improvement. Agreement for participation in the'cost of a traffic signal at 4th and Big Basin Way, to be bonded to run for a period of 5 years from the date o.f Certificate of Occupancy of .the Final Phase." Staff stated that all of the phases were being dealt with at this time, -since the Subdivision Ordinance requires that, if a developer iS propos- .ing to do something in phases, the overall proposal must be considered in order to receive.Tentative Building Site'Approval; the developer can then get Final Approval on any of those phases at the time he is ready to do so. OsCar' Sohns, the architect, discussed ~."~'~d~Yi'hg '{~Hi~i~"'i~ h'~a""S~{t'~7'7' 'Mr. P'aChe, the applicant,'discussed the loading zone on Big Basin and the handling of deliveries for the restaurant. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-146S. C6mmissioner Siegfried seconded. the motion, which was Carried .. unanimously. It'Was moved by Commissioner Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve SDR-1465 per the amended Staff Report dated September 4, 1980. The motion was carried unanimously'. - 1 - Planning Commission .... Page 2 Minutes 9/10/80 SDR-.i465 an~d A-722 (cont.) j- Commissioner Zambetti.moved to a'pprove.'A-722, per the 'Sta.ff Report dated August 29, 1980'.. Commissioner Sieg·fried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2a. Negative Declaration = UP-467 - Desert PetrOleum 2b. UP~467 Desert Petroleum, Request for a Use Permit to allow extensive remodeling'and reconstruction of an existing .legal non-conform- ing gasoline service station in ·the "C-N"(Neighborhood-Commer- '· cial) district, at '12600 Saratoga.Avenue It w'as noted that a -letter had been received from the applicant, request- ing a ContinUance to the meeting of September 24, 1980. : The public h~aring was .opened at 7:'57 p.m. John. Grover, 18700 Woodale Court, stated that he lives immediately across from 'the.statiOn. He·asked for ·an .eXplanation of the changes ~'- involved i~ th'is projedt. It ~as-explained that the use itself will -'~ not· change., but the use .permit procedures will bring the use into con--· fo·rmance with'the City'code. The basic changes in the operation were explained'tb Mr. Gr'over~ " M.rL Gr.ove~'commen~ed that he has concerns about the'present operation and the proposed one; -He stated. that, Over the two years he has lived. there, the hours of 'op6ratio.n have been extended,. and he is concerned about the effect that further-automation will have. Mr. Grover indicated " that the late hours, when other stations are not open, bring Undesirables in. to the cgmmunity and specifically' in.to his neighborhood. FIe stated that he felt the Commission should determin.e what the hours of operation are for the other stations in the·neigb·borhood and put a reasonable restric- · tion on them. Mr. Grover stated that the hours especially in the evening are Objectionable, ·and he feels the s·tation·'is out of'place. He added' that he·doe~· not feel i.~ con·t·ributes anything to the local community and ther.e is no other business enterprise between Cox and Quito on Saratoga -Avenue. Ch~i'rman Laden'2ind~a'~e'd~'that Mr. Gr0ver's.comme. nt.S will be taken into cons'ideration in working.with this application, and Staff encouraged Mr. ·Grover·to review th'e plans at the.Planning Department. It was directed that this item be continued to' the September 24,.1980 meeting.. DESIGN REVIEW 3 ....A-675 '- Osterlund .Enterprises, Inc., Chester Cour't~ Tract 5924, Lots ~ 3, 4·and 6, Final 'DeSign Review. Approval; Continued from AuguSt 13, 1980 Staff stated that this item has been On the agenda for qui~e some time, and the applicant had been requested to submit more appropriate and complete designs for the homes; however; none have been received. It'was the consensus of'.·t·he Commission that'the applicat·ion should be denied without. prejudice, in order' to allow the applicant to reapply within the' next year. CommiSsioner Marshall moved, seconded by commissioner Siegfried, to deny A~675 with'out prejudice, but with the· stipulation. that new fees shall be paid. The motion was carried unanimously. 'Planning. tommission Page 3 Minutes 9/10/80 A-719 - Spencer Profit, Norton Road. and Kittridge,.Single-Family Resi- .. dence, Final Design Re'view ApprOval'; Continued .f. rom August 27, 1980 It was reported by. Staff that revised plans have been submitted, showing. only one kitchen. It was noted that a memorandum had been received from the 'Depar. tment of 'Inspection Services, stating .that they had discussed the leach lines on the property with the County Health' Department,. and they have no.. problems with the lines; however, they have asked that the trenches 'be'deepened. :'."..- Additi.~nal parking space was.discU'ss'ed. Jim.Baldwin, the architect.~ dis- ." c.ussed'the possibility of a 3-car garage,. stating that the space is there to put..a .third door; however~ structurally it would be almost impossible to get a third car in there. He stated that. they had added' additional paving to accommodate another car. Mr. Baldwin also noted that a typical dr%veway. is' 25 ft. 10ng, and this one i's nearly 40 ft.. .:. ~--~"-.The applicant :stated t.hat the additional park.ing space will be isolated from the street, and .the:Departmen't of.Ins-pection Servi~ces has seen a plan with this shown. '. Commi.s'sioner King'moVed. to appr.oVe'A'-7i9, .per tha :'staff 'Report dated August' 19, 1980. and the Addendum dated September 4, 1980, with the stipu- lation that the additional parking space i.s.sho~n on the plans. Commis- sioner Marshall seco~dea the mo'tion, which was Carr'ied unanimously. 5. A-~24 Robert and .Gioria'Egan-, Leland and Chester,' Singl.e-Famiiy Resi- dence-, Final Design'Review Approval. Staff described the current. propOsal, commenting'that they have suggested sev'e~al 6ption's. They reported that the appl.i-cant has just submitted some additional drawings2which tr'y to mitigate'-.and.meet some'of the. Staff.'s · .intent. 'Staff explained t~at the drawings.show the 'structure' being lowered by 6 ft.'in height.and the pad has also been.lowered 3 ft. The various alternatives'were discussed. COmmissiOner Marshall indicated.'that he particularly liked the design of. · this.'.house, s. ince:i.t was one Of the few houses submitted which has an ~ ~'.' architectural style'th,at has been carried 'throughout. He commented that- · ~ he'would' be very upset with 'the notion'of d~troying the style by sig- nificantly ~l-terin. g the structure. " Mr...Egan, the applicant, stated that 'he'W'ould pr'efer to'leave the design " of the home as it.had originally been submitted'. However, he added, the · ' drawing submitted shows. the top of the r6of cut by. 6 ft...and the pad cut another 3 ft Mr Egan'stated that he did not want to move the house back' · '.: beca'use it would diminish the back yard~ .He commented'that the main beauty · .... of fhe..home is .~he high'pitch roof. .. .C'o~miss.ioner Marshall stated that he felt the combination of cappi.ng the roof and.drop. ping the...pad 3 ft. substantiall~ re. duces its bulk. He stated that'he did'not. f~el the'house 'will b'e out of place at all in the prpposed neighborho'od. .- ..... .Cpm'missioner King commented. that he felt possibly the'COmmiSsion was in · danger of redesigning the hous'e when. it'was not'really needed, and that lowering it 3 ft. would be suffici'ent. It. was the consensus of the CommissiOn that the'desig~ should only be reduced by .3 feet, and they woul.d allow the applicant the option of how to'achiev. e this. Commissioner Zamb~tti moved to approve A-724,.with. the stipulation that the roof either be cut 3 feet. or the pad lowered .3 feet. Commissioner 'Marshall 'seconded the motion, Which was carried unanimously. - 3 · Planning Commission Page 4 · Minutes 9/10/80 6a. Negative Declaration A-728 George Day Construction Co. 6b. A-728 - George ·Day Con~·truction Co·., 146.51 Big Basin Way, Addition'to Commercial 'BUilding,' Fin'al· Design ReView'··Approval Staff described the proposed. project. They stated that the-addition does not exceed a 50% expansion;· however', if the'·Co~mission'interprets the deck to b·e considered in the covered floor space, the applicant would then need building.site approval. Bill'Harrington, of the George ·Da~ Cons'truction company, explained that the deck provides access from the back of the building to three offices, and they had planned to cover it since there is rain three or four months of the year. He commented that it could be uncovered and still provide the access. .. Commissi·oner MarShall stated t]~at covering the deck'tends. to make an area that.Could be used as storage. The access to the parking was· discussed. Commissioner King i-ndicated that he would like the applicant to deal with the appearance of the front of the building, particularly the roof material. It was also noted that.the s~gn was not of the quality of the Village. Staff stated that the.application is only for the 880 sq. ft. addition, and if the applicant decides not to cover the deck, he would not require building site approval and the Commission has no control over the front Of the.structure. It was suggested.to Mr.-· Harrington that possibly the.applicant would con- sider doing the changes to the front. I~Mr. Harrington agreed that it would be appropriate to.impRove the appearance of the roof in the front. How- ever,_he ~xplained,·..they were looking at the timeframe. Mr. Harrington .~?~,'ii'~_~h~'~~j~.~d the covered deck, what would be.the timeframe fbr the proceeding. FIe' also ~sked what happens to the timeframe if they .· 'then .come in with some 'improved frontage of th'e structure. Chairman Laden explained.that the application for the design review would proceed if the applicant did not cover the deck. Mr. Harrington clarified that they were interested in improving the appearance of the frontage of the structure; however, he did not want to.make a Commitment of any binding nature at this time because it will have to be drawn.by the architect and reviewed. ~'0~'~i~'~F'~M~Hal'i.""~uggested that the applicant 'could submit the plans ~'~~··~'~l·i~ination of the covered deck and whatever corrective actions he deems reasonable for ~the front, and it could be reagendized for the next mee~i'ng. Mr. Harrington explained that construction as winter approaches is. very critical because of the rains. He stated that it was their intent to proceed after they received approval tonight with the processing of the. building permit. Mr. Harrington stated that to wait even two weeks would severely hinder their opportunity to get it completed before the rains. He requested approval for the addition., with the deletion of'the Covered structure, and they could then proceed with plans for a · proper front and roof structure. Commissiofier Siegfried.stated that he was under the impression that'if the applicant·takes the cover off the deck, there is abolutely nothing that the Commission can do'in terms of requiring him to'do anything to the front of the building. " The City Attorney commeHted t'hat the 'Commission is dealing with aft expan- -.. sion of an existing building, and the design review then would be of the entire building. He stated that the· Commission could approve the applica- tion at this time, if the applicant is willing to eliminate the cover, and '· .possibly he would agree to a condition that, within a certain period of .-time', he is required to submit plans for the rest of the building. The City AttOrney explained to Commissioner Siegfried that,·based on Section 13.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, dealing with' the general provisions of Design- Review,·if·the Commission feels that additional changes should be made to 4 Planni·ng. Commission Page 5 Minutes· 9110/80 A-728 (cont, the rest of the building as well, they can impose that as a condition, Commissioner Siegfriedc"~'~..F~f~)agrees that something should be done about the front of the·building; however, he wants to be absolutely certain that the Commission is within their legal rights in terms of "' trying' to impose conditions on this applicant regarding the buildihg. Chairman Laden pointed out that the City Attorney had stated that'this is an addition to'an existing building, and, therefore, the whole .building comes under design review. " Commissioner Marshall moved to. approve A-.~28'subject to the Staff Report dated September 4, 1980, with the condition added that "A revised plan showing the.. delet'ion"of the covering'of the deck in the rear and the prOpoSed treatment'of the roof in the'fron~'of. the building must be Submitted for Planning Department review and a~proval." Commissioner King-seconded the motion., which was carried,. ~ith Commissioner Siegfried abstaining. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve'the Negative Declaration for A=728. Commissione~ Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.. : 7. A-7.31 ROger Mai.rose, Big Basin Way and 4th Street, Final .Design Review .. Approval for Signage It was noted that a letter had been received from Mr. RamSey, indicating th.'at they agree with the Staff Report. 'Commissioner Marshall pointed out that the applicant.should'be made aware o.f the' fact that. the approval ~or the~ signage would be per the Staff Report,.which states gold letters on redwood stained with Olympic #913. "' CommiSsioner Siegfri'ed-mo~ed to.approve A-731 per-the staff Report dated August 26, 1980. Commissioner Marshall seconded.the motion, which was carried unanimously.. MISCELLANEOUS '8. Communications RE:' Rear Yard Access.to Mard~n Avenue; Continued from August 27, 1980 It was reported by the Public'Works Staff that, since,Marden Avenue is private, 'the matter of-l. egal access would.have to be resolved between the pr'ivate parties.,',even if the CommissioH 'were. inclined to r~verse .its "'. 1961 position regarding access. They stated that the original condition :.: i.n 1959 had stated that a board fence. be.b'~!~"~'~'t"'~='t~a~d"~n-0~'s'tY~'~Fd~'~? state to eliminate'access. However, 'a co~'~a~~ F~'~ ~H"'~.6-T;""~~~'~ ....... " the'Commission'stated that it had been their intent to eliminate access by the.board fence. They'indicated that the.Commission may have the right to change that interpretation, but it is not certain whether the Commis- .. s. ion can specifically gran~ the right of access. It was the consensus of 'the Commission not'to reinterpret'.this'.condition at this'time. .,. 'COMMUNICATIONS .Oral .. ".1.. City CoUncil ReportL Commissioner Marshall gave a brief report on the City. Council meeting held on September 3, 1980. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. -22. 'Commissioner Siegfried gave'a brief report 'on the progress of the. Citizens AdviSory .Committee.' 3."'Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. - 5 ~ · Planni'ng Commissi6n Page 6' · Minutes '9/.1.0/80 A D J OU RNM E N T ' = · Commissioner Za~b~tti nio·~ed, seconded by·· Commissioner King, to adjourn the meeting. .The motion was carried unanimbUsly, and the meeting was adjourned at. 9:49 p~m. ~, ReSpectful ly ·submitted, .. RSR:-cd: -.