Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-1980 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 26, 1980 - 7:3(') p.m. PI,ACF,: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regula. r Meeti. ng ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call. Present: Commissioners King, Laden, Ma:rsha.]l, Schaefer, Williams and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Minutes The foilowing corrections were made to :the minutes of November 12, 1980: On page 4, the 1. ast sentence of the 'fi~th baragra. ph shoul. d read: "Mr. Ta'kamoto commented that one p:ler is 16 ft. in b.e~igh. t between the parking area and ground below." On page S, the last paragraph under A-741, t.he date for the study sess i. on sh. oul. d read December 16, 1980, rather than. November 1.6, 1980. With those changes, Commissioner Marsha't1. moved, seconded..by Commissioner Zambetti, to waive the reading of th.e minutes of November 12, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried. unanimous'ly. CONSENT CALENDAR : 1.. S1)R-1438 - Angelina Arata., Mau. de Avenue, 3 Lots, Fina1 Building S:~.te Approva. l. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve the above item on th.e Consent Calenda. r. The motion was carried unanimously. TENTATIVE BUILDING SITE APPROVALS 2a. Negafive Declaration - SDR-1472 Northwest Projects. 2b. SDR-1472 - Quito-Saratoga Center, 2Inc. (Northwest 'Projects) , Tentative A-725 - Building Site Approval a'nd. Design Review Approval for the construction of a 5,800' sq. ft. financial building and a 22,681 sq. ft. two-stor~ office and retail building at the northwest corner of Cox. Avenue and Paseo Presada; Continued from November 12, 1980 Staff described. th. ese app]_ications 'and explained th.e mitigation measures which bare been added to the Negative l)eclaration and th.e Sta'flj Report for the Tentative Building Site Approval. It was noted tba. t a.t the last meeting the Commission gave the:i.r concept'ual a. pproval for this project. It was noted tl'~at Condition G should be added to read: "Two (2) specimen trees shall be planted to replace the two maple trees being removed." Arthur Sheldon, representing the applicant, stated that th. ey accept the conditions of the reports. He th. an;ked th.e Commission and Staff for their study and constructive criticisms during this procedure. Commissioner Marshall moved to apprbve the Negative Declaration fo'r SDR-1.472, on the basis of the mitigation measures outlined. Commissioner Wil. liams seconded the motion, which. carried, with Commissioner Zambetti · 'd iT~]~.h't=~h g. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve SDR-1472, per the Sta. ff Report dated September 18, 1980, as amended. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve A-725, per the Sta~=f Report dated September 24, 1980. Commissioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried, w'itb Commissioners Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. Commis- sioner Zambetti stated that. the minutes of November ]2, 1980 reflect his reasons for voting no on these items. Commiss-ioner Schaefer stated she Planning Commission Pa e g 2 Minutes - ll/26/80 SDR-1472 a. nd A-725 (cont.) was ~oting no because of the intensity of the dev'elopment. Commissioner Will. jams commented that the applicant has worked c. losely with the meighborhood a. ssociation, as well. as Staff, in developing a project which ~ddS to this area of our City.~ He noted the're are other two-story structures in the area. Commissioner Will~ams stated t. ha~ this pr.oject Chairman Laden thanked the Quito Homeowners Association for all of their help and input :into this project. '[2t was noted that the homeowners associ- ation h. ad contacted over 600 individual. s in the neighborhood. PUBLIC I'tF~ARINGS .. 3a. Negative l)eclaration - Request to a~d moped and scooter sales in the "C C" Dj. stric. t 3b. Request to add moped and scooter sa.l'es to the list of conditional uses in the "C-C" (Community-Commercial) District (GF-321(a) 4. UP-d74 Kongsli. & Halcomb (Roger Haag), Request For a. Use Perre:it to allow moped and scooter sa"les within a. completely enclosed st. ructure in the "C-C" (Community-Commercial) Distr4. ct a.t 14410 Big Basin Way The above three items were discussed' together. Staff described the p-roi~osajl for Ut~-474. They commented. th. at the addition of moped and scooter sal_es 'will have to be added to the list of' condit-ional uses in the "C-C" District before a use permit could be granted. Staff indicated that findings must be made for the addition of this use, which are' ].~sted j.n th.e Exhibit "B" of the Resol. ution. The conditions of the Staff Rei~ort for UP-474 were discussed and also the co.nditions of' the Staff Report on the addition to the list of conditional uses i'n 'th.e ."C-C" District. .Ift was the consensus of the Commissi~on that the add:i. tion to the list of' conditional uses' should read' "Moped' and Scoote'r Sales and Serv-ice", ..... ~'~ and in the d.e:finition of "Moped", after the wo'rd "pedals", should be added the wo'rds (a.s on a- bicycle). Also, in the definition oF "Motor Scooter"' 200 cc's should .be replaced wi. th 125 cc's, a'nd (larger engines up to 200 cc's in displacement may be permitted i'f the other c'ritei?ia t~or motor scooters are complied 'wj. th and: compliance is certified by the Planning Department) should be add. ed'. The description of the uses to be a. dded to the list of conditional. uses in the "C-C" District sh. ould be: "Moped and Motor Scooter Sales and Ser%~:i:ce-~ithin a. completely enclosed structure. Any sale o'r service of motorcycles, automobi].es, off-road, or other vehi. cles that d.o not fit wi.~hin the moped or motor scooter The public h. ea'ring was opened a.t 8:oh p.m. Paul Sherry, .Z~j"~a'ft~e'~.Ti~ '..t.l~ 'S'~o~'&"'d'~Z':rectly opposite th.e si re, stated that th. ey look forward to th. is dormant corner being used. He commented that with this proposal he feels it will. be uti. lized tastefully and in a. very nice,' colorful but not Flashy': manner. I.le added that he felt the project will be a big addition to the Villaoe since it brings a Cont:i. nental flavor. Mr. She'rry stated that he wotlld like to see th.e Commission al'l. ow Mr. I'laag to display some things outside if h.e needs to, since he would like to see the business succeed, and everything the a. pl~lica. nt has done has l'~een in good taste. Pat Stewart, Mr. Sher'ry's partner, stated that he felt 200 cc's should be allowed, since that amou'nt would he needed by someone his size. Cha.~rman .Laden pointed out that a maximum of 200 cc's'could be allowed, hut with S'ta.f:f review. Pat U~'~Z~y~: owner of the Chevron star'ion. on Oak and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, stated that he f'elt th.e applicant was one oF the best prGprietors of the hardware store since it opened, and he felt that Mr. Flaa. g would not 2 -. Pl arming Commissi. on Page 3 Minutes 1]./26/80 UP-474 (cont.) -! d.o anyth:ing detrimental to the Village He added that enhanci. no' of that property would be very benefi. c:ial tO tile Vi.:llage. Roger Haag, th.e appli. cant, stated that ].25 cc's, with review of anything over that, would be sati. s.fa. ctory. [-le explained that tile model in quest:ion with 200 cc's i.s l~robabl. y sold on a.' 'rat:i.o of 10 to 1 over a.'121. tile other models combi. ned. lie indi. cated that'. i.t woul. d be' very difficult to ma'ke a. good sales ef:for't based on just tile. smaller scooters, and it would be almost virtuall. y i_ml~ossib].e to put a s:i. gn at th.e entrance, stating that anyone riding a vehicle over 125 cc~s can't come in for service. He cb.,nime.6'~ca. th. at the scooters are identical. in appearance, wi. th the cxce'p- tion o'f about four parts in the eng:i. ne. Chairman Laden explained that having the Staff review allything over 125 cc's would negate some of the concerns of the cit:i. zens. Commissioner Marshall pointed. out that the concern is n. ot what Mr. Haag might do, but the fact that, over a period of time someone else may take over the opera- lion, and the City would suddenly be :faced with a different situat:i. on th. an we had wanted. Comm:i_ssioner Zambett:i moved to close the pttbli. c hear:i_ng. Comm:iss:i. oner Marshall seconded the motion, wh. ich was carried unanimousl. y. Commi. ssioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for the add.iti. on to the list o-f condit:i. onal u. ses in the "C-C" D_i. str:i. ct. Comm:is- sioner W:i. ll.i. ams seconded the mot :i. on , whi. ch. was carried una. ninlously. Colnmisszi. oner Zambctti moved to approve the resolution adding Moped and Scooter Sales a. nd Serv:i. ce 'to the lis't of condit:i. ona]. uses in the "C-C" Distri. ct, making the findings. Commissioner Marshall seconded. the motion, which was cart:led unani..mous'l.):. Commissioner Za. mbetti moved to approve [JP-474, per the Staff Report dated November 20, 1980. Commissioner Marshall seconded. the motion, wi. th the sti. pulation that the Sta L"f l~eport be amend. ed to rcfl. ect .the c'ri. teri. a previ. ously di_scussed. The motion was carried unanimously. 5. UP-473 - .Ecl ,Johnson (~on. struction Co'., Request for a Use Permit to allow the constructi. on of a 290 sq. ft. cabaria. over 6' i.n hei. ght (10'-6" at peak) to encroach into the required rear yard (21' From rear property line where 25' i.s normal..ly reqtii_red) and side ya',.'d (12' setback where lS' is 'normally required), at 201.27 Mendelsoh. n l, ane Staff described tile .proposal. They :indicated that the applicant has revised the pl.a.n since the I.,and Use 'Commi. ttee v:i. sit , reducing the size of t.l'~e structure. '['hey commented that the structure now ma.intai. ns the recluired 25 :ft. rear yard, and the applicant still wishes to have a 12 E't. sridc yard where 15 ft. is reqt~i. red. The publ. ic hearing was opened a.t 8:2:0 p.m. Mr. ,J'ohnson., the appl i. can. t, a. ddressed the Comm:i ssj. on , stating that he had reduced the size of the building. and moved :i.t back to maintain a. 25 .f-t. setbac.k, as requested by the Land. Use Committee. He expla'i. ned th. at the extra 5 ft. on. the side would cut down the area for the pool which is already existing. Comm:Essioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commi. ss:[oner Wi. lLl-i. ams seconded the motri on., which. Was carri. ed unani. n~ously. Commissi. on~r Marsh. all gave a report On the Land 'Use Committee visit. FIe e×plained. that the portion of the p'rOI:~erty next door adjacent to the ca. bana comes to a. poi. nt at Saratooa-I,os Gates Road, and thi. s j.s one of the reasons why th.e Gemini. tree conclu..ded that the structure would have abso].utely n9 effect upon the neighbor..s, since "tha't' 'Lar._e_a'."cO't-~'ld_no_(_h~ve ". -a~'~ ~ctcfre ..~_vh"i'ch 'c o:u !'d .._b &" i.mpact~d' :bi_~__"fhe proposed 'dab~nd. :' I't .was .-rioted that if more coordination. ha'd been done between the departments wh. en the plan for the' poe'l_ came i.n, the use pernm:it cou].d have been. avoided. mi. ssioner commented that the structure i.s screened. from Saratoga-l,os (;atos Pl:anning Commission. Page 4 Minutes 11/26/8g UP-473 (cont.) : Road. Commissioner Marshall indicat=ed that it was the consensus of the Conimittee that the 12 ft. setback on. the side woul, d be more than adequate and would not injure any adjacent pa,rty nor cause any parti_cular p'roblems. FIe noted thajt th.e pool. equipment i.s behind the structure and movin. g th.e structure back would be difficult. The 70 ft. setback policy along a scenic highway was discussed, and. it was noted that this setback has been. maintained for resi. dences rather than accessory structures. It was reaffirmed that the 70 ft. setback policy will be followed in the future for m~.j_n residen. tial structures. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve UP-473, per Exhibits "]~-1" and "C-].", mak:ing the findings. It was noted t!~a.t this approval is for the 12 ft. side yard and. the 25 ft. rear yard setbacks, and titere:fore Condition ]a. of the Staff Report w'ill be deleted. -:::'.:C=oinmi.~j.'OHer. Marsti't~l '-4'e'[~5'nd~'d' '~'h'~ motion, :.:h:ich was carr:i. ed unanimously. " ' .......... 'DESIGN REVIEW 6. A-736 Blackwell Homes, Unit ~'!2 Landscaping, Fi. na. 1. Design. Review Approval; Continued from October 22, 1[)80 Staff reported that this project :is in the Measure 'A' area, and the'y quoted Resolution 963, adopted by the City Counci.]., which states that the applicant may continue to process the tentative map up to but not including the Final. Map Approval.. Staff described th. is application, and. stated that the Commission |tad previousl. y determined tl'~at the culvert crossing of Prospect Creek would be acceptable. The hydroseedi'ng mixtures to be used were discussed. The City Attorney stated that any moti. on should carry within it the con- dit:ion that the applicant is not authorized to perform any work; that any- thing a. pproved at this time is subject to whatever may be adopted a.s the Speci. fic Plan for the Measure 'A' territory, and to the extent there may be any inconsistency between this plan and. what the applicant may be enti. tled. to do under the Specific Plan, then this plan is no longe'r of any validity; he still must comply with Measure 'A! requirements. He clarified titat th. ese comments are directed towards Construction of new items and :items that would re]ate to the number of lots contemplated on this present plan whic'h wou].d not be authorized under th.e Measure 'A' fo'rmula, and they a:re not directed towards maintenance, which would be allowed. Commiss.ioner Za. mbet'ti moved to approve Design Review A-736, per the Staff Report dated October 15, 1980 and Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E", stating that. this approval in no way entities the appli. cant to start any constt'uc- tion or grading on. the site, and hydroseeding shal. 1 be considered an act:i. on that can be taken without Final Map Approval on Unit ~t2. 'It Was noted that Exhibit "E" is tile plan of the new configuration of the culvert. Commissioner Marsh. all seconded the moti. on., with tile stipulation th. at the work done by Mr. He.iss and Mr. Sicular on the cu].vert design sh. ould be made a part of the 'rendering of the culvert. The moti. o'n was carried unanimously. The City Attorney stated. that he would ].ike the record. to reflect that Mr. Heiss, the civil engineer :for the applicant, is present, and he is aware of the fact that what is being approv'ed here is premised upon the sub- di. vision as submitted., and if there is a change as a result of Measure 'A', then he will have to resubmit if the :change forces a change in th.e la. nd- sca. ping plan. Mr. Heiss stated that he is aware of this fact. 7. A-743 - Gil Sanchez, 20131 Rancho Bella Vista, Single-Family Residence, .Final Design Review Approval A description of the proposal was given by Staff. It was noted that the applica. nt has submitted a drawing o-f the entire development plan, showing the existing approved buildings and th.e adjusted build:ing envelopes. Staff commented that the lot lines on this map are not in precise conformante with the Tentative Map Approval_, bec~iuse at Final Map stage the lot li. nes were adjusted in compliance with the ordi. nance. Chairman Laden. stated that the Commis'sion. had also asked that the developer ~" .P ;1 a n n i n g C'o m m j. s s i o n' P a g e 5 M [ nut es .i ]./26/80 A- 743 (co'nt.) submit a site dev'elopment plan that shows wha. t he intends to do and what the effects are on adjacen't pro'pert.i. es. She added that at the last meeting the Commission had specifically indicated to the developer that th. ey d'i.d not wish to pursue a. ny ~urther ch. anges in building envelopes until this entire ]~.lan had been pres'ented, with any future anticipated changes included in t. hat l?lan. Staff commented that the~ applicant is still preparing addi- tional information re~arding this site, in terms o'f tree location.. Cornmiss'loner Ma. rshall commented tba. t he felt that, when a house is approved and its confi.~uration known', it should be put into the site development plan, and when the next h. ouse i.s up for design review, it should be sh. own to be compliant with the site development plan, and i.t should be shown in relation to its neighbors. He stated. that the applicant should be aware of the fact that the Commission wil.]. not tolerate the continued disregard of a l_ogical progression in developin. g that site. Robert Avil_es, representing the app'l. icant, stated that it was the:ir under- standing at the last meet:ing that the e.xhj. l~j.t showing the entire subdi. vis'i. on with the api~'roved homes i. ndicated was to be used at a Committee-of-the-Whole to open d. isct~ssion and to develop so~e metl'~odology. He explained that all. of the lines have been adjusted on. tl~e tentative map to show the rel. ati. on- shi. p between the setbacks and the building en-v'el. opes, and the actual size of the build:ing envelopes which were Zapproved now fluctuate because of th.e location of the trees. He stated ~hat they would like to have a study session to consider th.e concerns of the Commission regard. ing the driveways, house sizes, and designs. : It was the co'nsens~.~s of the Commissi. on th. at there should be a study session ....... ..'~:~;~.'up' t~' ~6~'ew ~t.l~'.~-~_b:~i~'!d. ing ~&l'~es 'a~S t'hey-now.~.are;-L'i~hTd"~d'~L~'O~'~:"~t'o 'show any future adjustments of those envelopes that are antici'pated.' .l't was d:irected th. at this i. tem be coHtinued to a Comm'ittee-of-the2Who'l.e on J'ant~ary 20, 1.981 and the. regul. ar meeting of February 7121, 198]. 8. A--744 - Ronald Haas, Sperry Lane, Si'ngle-Fam:Ely Residence, Final Design Review Approval. : Staff stated tha.~. th. is :is a revision..to an existing DeSign.'Review Approval, which. wa.s recently app'roved by the Co.mmiss:i. on. I?or a two*story structure, A-729. Th.e rcvis:i. ons to that plan we're discussed. Staff commented that prevj. ously the Commission had been concerned about the bleakhess of both th.e rear and. the side e].eva. tions, and: they had suggested modif:i. cations to those elevation. s 'Fhev stated that one sugo'estion was to eir, her add balconies or porches to the rear and ~.a].so addjti. onal landscaping with Staff approva. 1. Sta.Ef indicated that the a..pplicant has submitted a proposed landscaping plan. : (H~a:i. rman Laden commented that she fel't there are some po~it'.ives about this change, in the amount of impervious surface and the setbacks. She noted that the appl:i. cant has also added ba'l. conies an.d deck:ing which the (Zornmission had asked for to break up the rea'r el~v'ation. She i.n. dicated that she t:e].t the desi. gn shou].d be studied furth. er.. Commissioner Marshal]_ commented th. at, :~'~ he were to appro.ve th_[s d. csjgn, he would require landscaping to b].ock the ].ower portion o.'E the decking and woul. d be very concerned th. at th.e home~ glib .b~. 1. and'Sca.'ped".:ij"li"~6~'HT'~'l~'~'~that unpleasant views from adjacent properties are sc~e&'ned.':' Ronald Haas, the applicant, stareel that he has made adjustments to the deck and balconies, per the Commissj. on's sfiggestions. He added that he has also submitted a 1,andscaping plan. Mi'. Haas explained that the change ha.d been made in the des_i_gn becau. se,of an'adjacent h. ome being built that had a driveway on the same side as the 1.:iving room-family room on the previous plan. Commiss:i. oner Marshall pointed out tha~, looking at the landscaping plan, there did not appea. r to be any locat:ion to add a pool_, and. he felt that more pl. anning should be done on the site t0 :i. nclude a future pool., :i.f des'i red by the buyer. ; It was the consensus that this item sI~ou].d be studied further. It was 5 · ! '="P.,tanni'ng Commission Page 6 .Minutes· 11/26/80 '~'~' A' 744 (cont.) .direCted tha.t it be continued to a Comm'ittee-of-the-Who]Ze on December 16, .~980. The a. ppl'icant was requested to submit a full. site development plan with additional ].andscaping around the deck and sbowi'ng a. location for a .pool. It was noted· th. at the orig.inal' approval in total should be availa- ble for review at' that time, and the individual (~ommissioners should vi_sit the site before the stlldy .session. Th:i.s 'item will be agendized for the regul. ar .meeting .of janu'ary 14, ]_981. M I SC E L'LANEOU S .' 9. EPL14 Larry' .Tyler, Request for an Encroachment Permit to allow encroach- merit of landscap'i. ng and walkway into a public rightzof-way on -.- Third Street Staff described this request. They stated that the encroachments are necessary for access to Parking Di. strict ~1. from the end of Third Street, whi'ch Was a condition of the Building Site Approval.' Staff-commented that,. since these items were. required and then ~?e~rieWed under design review, they would recommend al.yproval of the encroachment permit as a tech. nicality. "' Discussion foil. owed on the encroachments. C0mmiSsi. oner Marshal]. moved to approve EP-14, pe'r the Staff Report dated November 17, 1980. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unan:hnous ly .. COMMUN I CAT IONS Wr'i-tte-n - . None· .Oral 1'. City Council - Commissioner Marshall. gave a brief report on the · City Council meeting hel. d On. November 19, 1980. A copy of the min. u'tes of tb:ls m'eeting is on file in. the City Administration Office. 2. Commissioner Williams gave a. br:ie.f report on the .meeting heId b'y the Sch. ool Site Comm:i. ttee. 3. Commissioner King gave a' presentatio.n on the Univ'ersit'y of California cou.rs.e he had artended,' "How to be an Effective Planning Commissioner".. · 4. Chairman 'La'den thanked Councilperson Jensen and Gla. dys Armstrong from the Good Government Group for attending the meeting. ADJOURNMENT It' was moved b'y Commissioner Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner King, to ."adj.oUrn th.e meeting. The mo'tion was carried unan'imously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9~ 58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,. Secretary RSR:cd.