Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, NoVember 12, 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, Scha'efe~,·Siegfried, Williams and Zambetti · Absent: ·None ""' Minutes It was moved by.Commissioner Marshall, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to waive· the reading of the m·~nutes of October 22, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioner King abstaining s~nce he was not present at the meeting. .CONSENT CALENDAR 1.- Request to add moped and scooter sales to the list of. conditional uses · ' in the "C-C" (Community Commercial) District The above item was removed from the COnsent·Calendar for discussion. A letter from Mrs. Wade, in opposition to this use, was noted into the :· record.' ·It w~s the consensus of the Commission that they would like public ·input on this matter and it should be advertised for a public · ,hearing for the· next meeting, to be discussed along with the use permit application for this use. ·Commissioner Marshall stated that he would like the ·Staff and the ~applicant.to review the necessary findings that must be made, since he knows of·a number·of motorcycle shops that could not pass those findings. ·It was directed that this i·tem be discussed at a study session on November 18, 1980·and continued to the regular meeting of November 26, 1980. TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVALS 2. SDR-1472 - Quito-·Saratoga Center, Inc. (Northwest Projects), Tentative A-725. Building Site Approval and Design Review Approval for the construction of a 5,800 sq. ft. financial building and a .- 22,681 sq. ft. ·two-story office and retail building at the northwest corner of Cox Avenue and Paseo Presada; Continued from 'September ·24, 198·0 Staff explained that at a previous m~eting there·had been a great deal of public input regarding the traffic circulation within the community, and there w~s some cpncer·n that there would be some impact with this project, alon'g with the project across the street. At that time the Commission directed· Staff and the ·traffic engineer to prepare a traffic study and prepare some mitigation measures which they felt would solve some of the problems. in the Quito area. Staff·reported that ·there had been a meeting, and the first four measures listed in the October 30, 1980 report from the traffic engineer seem to be adequate. They stated that if the Commission approves of these ·mitigation measures, they could give a consensus that the project as proposed is approved in concept, and the Negative Declaration·and·Staff Report will be modified to reflect these measures'and conditions and the items will be agendized for the · next meeting. The mitigation measures were discussed. Staff explained that it had been determined that the last three measures listed in the traffic report could have potential adverse impacts as well and, there- fore, they were using the first four. Dave Moyles, President of the E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association, indicated his support and concurrence with the recommendation regarding traffic. He stated that traffic had been their p~imary concern and he had attended·the meeting with Staff and the 'traffic engineer, Mr. Martinez. P~anni~.ng Commission Page 2 :.-M-inures' 11/12/80· SDR-1472 and A-725 (cont.)' 'Mr. Moyles commented that he feels the first four mitigation measures =· best address the concerns. He added that the additional data they obta·ined also defined the problem much more 'clearly in his mind. Mr. Moyles stated that the developer has indicated that he will continue t·o support the homeowners as far as the enforcement goes, and he appears to be very eager to cooperate with the neighborhood. FIe indicated that he is content at this point to rely on his assurances, and if problems occur, perhaps the code enforcement officer and developer~d~'~'~t~yto deal with any problem. Mr. Moyles 'added that, aside from traffic;'~'he is very pleased with the number of areas of agreement they have reached with the developer, i.e., increased setback, additional landscaping, facilities for bikes and mopeds, benches for senior citizens, etc. He also commented that he had recent discussions with the developer regarding two·other areas of concern, and hi~ cooperation on t·hese two points is also encouraging; (1) the · _ lighting at the rear of the building will help mitigate the problems with E1 Quito Park, inasmuch as the building comes right along. the park,. and the developer has provided for lighting to deter vandalism on the site; and (2) a number of possibilities were di.scussed re the Golden MushroOm, which will be pursued together. On the whole, Mr. Moyles stated:, they have found satisfactory ~esponses to each and every question that has been raised, and at this point the proposal is not only acceptable, but a plus for the ·neighborho'od and the homeowners association is quite pleased. It was the consensus of the Commission that throughout this project they have been ver'y impressed'by the attitude taken by the homeowners associa- t.iOn in trying to make this a meaningful project, and obviously by the attitude taken by the developer. It was note·d that a condition should be added to the report to include t~e requirement that ·tWo specimen. trees be included in the development to offset 'the:'~'~'ss'-.of two' maple trees. It·was the consensus of the Commission that the project is approved in concept. Commissioner Schaefer stated she still had concern about the second story building.. Commissioner Zambetti expressed concern with the application in total with the rest of that planning area. Staff commented that t'he City Council ba·s directed them to start preparing a revision to the General Plan and there will be·a Citizens Advisory Committee established. They stated that the Homeowners Associations will be notified, and hopefully.the E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association will participate very actively in any General Plan Review Committee. CommisSioner Schaefer inquired about bike path. s, .and =c~'a.'~7~'~'~en"F's.~t'~F that she feels it might be appropriate tO suggest to the City Council, ~ince they determine bike paths, that with this added development and the development at the corner possibly coming in, the Council might want give some consideration to future.bike.paths in this area. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the Commission ought to indicate rather stronoly that'we are in favor of this particular development' we have a dev~i·oper who obviously is doing an excellent job in developing that property; we have a development that the neighbors a're satisfied with; both developments have brought some improvement to the Cox Avenue area, and while the Commission is always concerned by two-story developments, it seems'there are a lot of pluses we are getting in this case. COmmi·ssioner Williams pointed out that the bank down':the street is the equivalent of a two-story building;'the're is also a two-story dhildren's pre-School in that'area, and the t·wo new p~0jects behind that will be two- story condominiums. He commented that this development is certainly exceptionally well engineered and designed. It was directed that these items be'continued.to the meeting on November 26,' 1980, at which time they will be agendized, along with the rev~·sed' Negative Declaration, for final approval. ..... ~i~ ~.~: ~ ~- -.- ...__-.._ - P~?'~.nn~'ng Commission Page 3 Minutes 11/12/80 · PUBL.IC HEARINGS- 3." V'-540 - Hans Stellrecht, 13200'~ierce Roa'd,. Request .for a Variance to allow the construction of a 288 sq. ft. garage addition to provide · ·' a minimum 20' ·frOnt yard where :30' is normally required Staff·described the' proposed additi·on. They indicated that the site is non-conforming, and the're are some constraints with the site in terms of its 'size and wi·dth. They commented that they-have found there are two options which would not violate the ordinance standards further; therefore, they feel the necessary findings cannot Be made to grant the va'riance and are recommending denial. -The public h'eari~g was opened at '8:05 p.m. The applicant stated that the two options mentioned by Staff represent a considerable hardship. He commented that moving the structure back would block the view 'from one of the windows, and his. neighbor is very much interested in maintaining a 20· ft. setba~·k from his property line'on that siae. Mr. Stellrecht explained. that his'neighbor owns the property on.the OtHer side.where the private driveway is,· and he would have no problem with. a 6 ft. variance on this side, and it would not in fact encroach on his house. Mr. Stellrecht' noted that the other option which suggests moving the.garage to the back of the liouse has even more physical hardship associ- ated, since there is a slope on that side which drops off fairly steeply, and in addition the're is a patio there. 'To. use this option, he explained, the pa·tio ·wo'uld have to be removed and a 'driveway would have to be graded there and filling put in for a garage. "' Commissioner King'asked if the applicant'had discussed with his architect the possibility of some other change in the roof. Mr. Stellrecht stated t'hat it was his intent to refo0f the entire house at the time of the "const'ructi'on of the addition, .j~t~' he had not consider'ed this alternative. COmmissiOner King moved to close the public hearing. commissioner Zambetti seconde~ the motion,. which was carried unanimously .... Commissioner Marshall commented that this application is similar to one that occurred in a Planned Community area, where the variance essentially caused an encroachment into an area that was public, as opposed to being · occupied by dwellings. He stated that th'is site is surrounded on three sides with 'flag lots', ahd essentially the.re are no structures 'anywhere · except one near .neighbor that can' pos·sibly be affecte'd by it. Commissioner Marsh.all indicated that he strongly believes in consistency, and in this .'case he believes the findings can be made:. Commissioner·Siegfried stated that there appear tO be some exceptional circumstances 'because of.the fact that you essentially have·a flag lot and twO·unbuildable pie'ces of'property adjoining.what is a request for a minor variance. He 'commented that this important point distinguishes this site from ~any others that we might see, and on that basis-the Commission probably -has grounds on which the findings can be made. Commissioner Laden commented that she feels it will be an i'mprovement to the site to 'have an enclosed garage as Opposed to the carport as it now stands, and she would agree that it doesn.'t seem to have any impact on any of the surrounding neighbors and the cirChmstances'are rather unusual. Commissioner King commented that he has difficulty making the findings and feels the site can be dealt with in another way; therefore, he will be voting against the variance. COmmissioner Marshall moved to .approve V-'540, making the necessary findings. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was c·~rried with. Commissioner King.'dissenting.. DESIGN REVIEW '4a. Negative De'claration - A-739 - Michael ValleK :·4b. A-739 Michael Valley, Kittridge Road, Single-family residence, Final · · Design R·evi·ew Approval ~hese two items were discussed'together. Staff described the proposal. 3 P&~nn.i~ng Commission ... Page 4 'Minutes 11/12/'80 '- A-739. (cont.) "-They indicated that a turnaround, supported by piers, has been added. to the. site since the tentative building site approval. They stated that the site has no.t yet.received. final building site approval, since there are ~ s'everal. conditions that have to be met: (1) a septic tank system must be appro.Ved.by ~he Depar.tment of Inspection Services and the Health Department, and.(2). the 'driVeway .has to have a slope.no greater than 17½%'over a 50 ft. length..' Staff indicated that no confirmation has y.et been received from .Fir.e .Chief Kraule regarding the driveway. The slope and grading were dis- cussed. Jim~ Harper~ civil engineer.for the applicant, preseh'~ed copies of the septic tank permit which. had been issued by the County Health Department. He stated that they had also designed the driV~wa.y'such that it'does not exceed 17~% maXimUm. grade 'for a lengt'h exceeding.50 ft.; and they have revi-ewed this with Chief Kraule. Mr. Harper stated.~Ly~'~had submitted plans to Chief Kr'aule and have requested that he advi'se Staff accoraihgly. He stated that he is. confiden't that they have met all of"the conditions ':for the improve- -' ment plans. Commissioner MarShall stated that he has a problem with piie"structures and will.'be voting against this application. Commissioner Siegfried' stated he felt the house was an attractive struct'ure and would like to have some more information on the parking area' on piers, as to its size, the Visual impact, and what'alternatives there are. David Takam0to, the' architect; submitted renderings 'on the deck and lattice 'work. .He stated that the pad was graded i.n 1.968 and that area had been in a stabl'e condition since then.. He added that they were trying to stay~ away .frOm diStur'b.ing the natural slope.. Mr. Takamoto commented that :'-' Commiss'ion&r Siegfried commented. that he felt all of.the CommissiOn have ' considerable concerns about this site, and the majority of the Commission has not. seen the site. He indicated that he is not in favor, except for exceptional sites, of houses being built on piers. He stated. that he felt it'would be' appropriate to review this at a study session and review the past his.tory, and the site could be visite'd. Chairman [,aden explained that the Commissio'n's concern was that the footprint that was originally.appr.oved with the tentative building site approval has been expanded, plus thb parking deck has been. added. She. added'that .the concept of building on.piers of that extent is also a concern. It was directed that a 'study s'ession~'~2~e'~d_F_~:~.".'~-'~'~Site visit be made on 9ecember 16, 1980 at'4:00, and the item continued to the regular meeting of.January 14, 1980. The engineer was requested to submit an exhibit of the driveway. apprOach or a letter from Fire'Chief Kraule. '5. A-74.0 Gary.Madden, '14363 Chester Avenue, Single-family residence, Final Design Review Approval '. 'S~aff desc'ribed. the proposal and stated they Were recommending.approval. · ' Warren. Gilbert, the archi'tect,'dis'cussed the heigtit and design of the house, 'btating that it .woUld be considered a One and one-half'stOry. He indicated "that'this design has been. approved by the local neighborhood architectural review Committee. . CommissiOner Marshall comment'ed that he has a problem with the north eleva- ' tion'and rear deck elevation. He stated that, in light of the current "'- disduSs'io~s by the CommisSion on mass, h.e could not vote for this design. Mr. Gilbert stated that they are.situated between a single-story ranch style' 'home and a"large massive tWO-story mansion. He explained that it was their pr.ofess'ional opinion that, to put i'n' another low. one-story house right next 'door to the huge' massive two-story that is existing, would be a detriment. Mr;.Gilbert stated that he felt this was a goGd compromise and appropriate for this'site. He added that the lot dictates to a great degree where any house Can be placed on this site, due to the very narrow frontage. 'P~nni'ng'Commi~si'on ~- ; Page S .Min.dtes 11/12/80 · Av740 (cont.) -Commissi'oner Marshal.1 stated· that this design 1.0oms almost to the setback lines on both sides·,. and the style has a roof pitch that is quite extreme; therefore, it make 'the' house subs'tantially larger than it would otherwise be. He added that the house appears extremely massive from the rear and side· because· the lot slopes' steeply. .' .. The.architeCt submi'tted.a.p]an ·showing the.location of the two neighboring 'COmmissioner Zambetti commented that the City is a-t a point where they will be looking at impervious cover and site .coverage, but until t.ha't is deter- mined.the· application must b.e considered. FIe stated that h'e'is concerned about..the height of'the house, but feels tha. t the neighborhood's architectural review committee ]ias already addressed this' problem and has approved the design.· He moved to approve A-740 per the Staff Report.dated November 6, 1980. .Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, on the.grounds that, .. while it'is a..m.assive home, it is in an area of very massive homes and he feels it'is compa'tible with the neighborhood. He stat'ed he felt the rear · elevation wi'll to some exten't be 'mitigated by the substantial decking. Commissioner'Laden stated that under ordinary circumstances she would not 'vote for this house because of·its .height at the rear, even though it is well designed. However, since the CC&Rs have required site development· and architectural approval by the surrounding 'neighbors, she would presume that it :has.' met their.specifications. The vote was taken on-the motion to' approve A-740. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Marsh'all dissenting. Break - 9:10 9:20 p.m. 6a. Negative Declaration A-741 John MarkUlin 6b. A-7'41.~ ,John Markulin, 1SZ00 Montalvo Road, Single-family residence, Final' Design Review' Approval Staff"desc'ribed.the current proposal. They explained that the applicant is also'.requesting modificatio'n to the site development plan approved for thi"s ·site, in that a portion of the structure would be located on a slope that exceeds 40%. They stated t'hat they were recommending denial because of'the hei'ght' of the structure and the fact th. at building site modification must be ·granted by the Commission prior to the design reviewapproval. Commissioner Marshall po.int'ed out that there are many questions centering on this 'site, including the re-introduction of.the circular driveway whfch .was'disapproved previously.on another application., the matt,er of.part of the'.~tructure being located on"a Slope-that exceeds 40%., the'size of the house, and the questions relative to the access of the front. Cliff Beck, the proposed future. owner=of the property and civii"engineer on the' project, described. the site.' He s'tated that the circular driveway -. is' to provide some parking ~Yj~'~? that property, since it is impossible to provide parking on 'the street. He added that the attic could be eliminated, which would reduce it by 600 sq. ft. It was .~he consensus' of the' Commission. that this-item should be continued to a study sessi'on 'o~7]j2e~B'~j~p' 16, 1980' ~t approximately .S':00 p.m., to address the:previously mentioned con. cern's. Mr. Beck was requested to have his .archite&t .in attendance at.this. meeti'ng...'.Thi~ item. will be reagendized I .. for the re 1 meet gu ar i'ng of.January .14., 1.980... MISCELLANEOUS ~ .. .. .. ?."A'-648 '- MA~ Industries, Inc., Eastern corner o( Big Basin Way and Fourth Street, Mo'dificati'on to approved landscaping plan Staff described the modification to the-landscaping plan. Discussion followed' onethis modification, which. includes deleting a fountain. Com- mission'er' King moved to approve this modification, per the memo dated November 4, 1980. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was ~P~l.a, nn'ing Cornmiss ion Page 6 '.Mi'~utes 11/12/.80 A-648 (cont.) .carried unanimously. .COMMUNICATIONS "Written 1.. 'Letter from Mrs.'Ellen Dwyer, Chairman. of the Board of Trustees, Saratoga Union School District, asking for a group discussion regarding the Aloha site 'and some of the other school sites. 'Commissioner Williams was appointed to represent the Commission in this discussion. O.ral !. City .COuncil Report. Commissioner Zambetti gave. a brief report on the City Council 'meeting .held on November'S, 1980. A copy of minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Laden .thanked Counci~pers'.on'.Jensen ~'~'H'a"'Mi'l~i~_'k~nki~'f'rom ADJOURNMENT It'was moved by Commissioner Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, -to adjourn' the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting · was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. " ReSpectfully submitted, Secretary RSR:.cd