Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-1980 Planning Commission Minutes ~ " CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 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, Marshall, Schaefer, Siegfried, Williams and Zambetti Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of November 26, 1980: On page 2, the ·third sentence in the first paragr'aph should read: "Commissioner Williams stated that this project will prpvide lights for the park and help prevent vandalism, and h·e feels it will b'e an exceptional project when com- pleted." On page 2, the last paragraph, the owner of the Chevron station is Pat Lowey, r'ather than Pat Lolly. On page 4, it should be added that·the second tO the motion to approve UP-473 was made by Commissioner Marshall. With those changes, Commissioner Marshall' moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to waive the reading of the minutes: of November 26, 1980 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. ·SD-1356 Anthony Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Roa·d, Tentative Building Site Approval - 23 ·lots, Reques;t for a One-Year Extension 2. SD-1368 Allen Chadwick, Old Oak an:d Chiquita Way, Tentative Building Site Approval - 11 lotS, ~equest for a One-Year Extension The above two items·on the Consent Ca'lendar were removed for discussion. Chairman Laden stated that there had :been a concern voiced that it may be appropriate at this time to consider changing or adding conditions to the tentative maps. The Deputy City Attorney stated that ~there has·been a recent court case which indicates that, if there is a c'hange in the law or some other change intervening between the approval of the tentative map and when it comes up for an extension, it is not :proper to impose new conditions simply by reason of the extension. The extension, he explained, is .. primarily designed to give the developer more time to satisfy the orig- inal conditions. He stated that he felt the City would run into a potential problem if 'they now seek to impose further conditions at the time of extension; the reason being that a developer has presumed in good faith to be proceeding to satisfy the conditions as originally set forth in his tentative map; he presu~ably has expended money in connec- tion with doing that, and to now impose a whole new set of conditions simply would not be fair or proper procedure. The Deputy City Attorney commented that we have a situation-here where the developer has been prohibited to proceed wi. th his develqpment because of the Measure 'A' moratorium, and the conditions may very well change, depending upon what happens with respect·to the Specific Plan on Measure 'A' He added that he did not think it is appropriate at this time to start considering Measure 'A' criteria, because those are all matters which will be set forth in the Specific Plan, and then there is the issue as to the application of the Specific Plan·to a tentative map wh·ich has already been approved. tie stated that he felt the only proper action at this time woula. b~e'-'t'o glr~nt-tt~'e'.ek't-enS'ion,-'i~i'th ~the understanding that it is Planning Commission '- Page 2 Meeting Minutes 12/10/80 SD-1356 and SD-1368 (cont.) occasioned by reason of the fact that the developer is unable to proceed because of the City's own moratorium.. It will have to depend on future developments as to'~h~th~'r' he will be required to comply with.Measure 'A', which will be set forth in the Speci£ic Plan. None'of us are able to '-:y'determine at this time the extent to'which the tentative map may comply with the Specific. Plan, and whether it complies or not is something that can only be determined when the Specific Plan is finally adopted.. He added that all an extension would be .doing at this time is literally maintaining the status quo. The Deputy City Attorney was asked by the Commission to remind the City Council again that Measure 'A' criteria should not be applied in matters such as this,-'g~ving 'them"th~"-~abo~"~xplanation. George Tobin,-the attorney representing the two developers, stated that there had been numerous public hearings on both of th'ese tentative maps. He stated that the status of the record between the City and the developers at this time is a resolution which states that they will process the final maps but will not approve them. Mr.;Tobin commented that these two developers are in the same situation as the DeMartini project and the Krajeska project had been, and they Had been granted extensions without any conditions, solely upon the basi~ that the project was stymied by Measure 'A' and the policies which have been approved by the City Council. He indicated that he feels that, wer6 the Commission to refuse to grant the extensions which were requested,'they.would be violating the policy which has pre'viously been adopted by the Commission and that which has previously been directed by the City Council. It was clarified to Mr. Tobin by-the Deputy C~ty Attorney that he had stated that the extension should be granted without additional conditions. He commented that he had advised, because of Measure 'A', it would be unfair not to leave the developer in his present position and give him additional time. It'was also.indicated by the Deputy City Attorney that it'would be appropri- ate. to include in the motion a statement that this approval of the exten- sion should in no way be construed as an approval or denial of any changes that may accrue as a result of Measure 'A' Commiss,ioner Marshall moved to approve a one-year extension for SD-1356, with the'stipulation that this approval in no way is to be construed as an approval or denial bf any changes that may accrue as a result of MeaSure .'A' Commissioner Zambetti ~econded the motion, which was carried 'unanimously. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve a one-year extension for SD-1368, with. the stipulation that"this approval in no way is to be construed as an approval or denial of any changes that may'accrue as a result of Measure 'A'. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous.ly. : PUBLIC HEARINGS 3a. Negative Declaration - UP-472 Mrs. Sylvia (School for Dogs) 3b. UP-472 M. Sylvia, Request for a U~e Permit to allow the continuation of an existing non-conforming use (Saratoga School for Dogs), at 14451 Fruitvale Avenue : Chairman Laden explained.that this item is before the Commission in relationship to an ordinance that was passed in 1977, which' stated that nonconforming uses'would have to continue operation only under a use permit, and that the use permit in this particular case had not been applied for before this time. Planning Commission Page 3 Me;eting Minutes 12/10/80 UP-4'72 (cont.) Staff explained the current application. They stated that their primary concern.was the potential noise created by dogs barking on the site. They"indicated that the resident. s.in the area have complained about noises during the nighttime. The conditions of the Staff Report, to mitigate 'the concerns of the neighbors, were discussed. It was noted that a letter from Mr.~and Mrs. Martel and a petition signed by.29 neighbors, in favor of the proposed use continuing on the site, have been received. However, two of the neighbors have complained about the noise, and they met with. the Land Use Committee on their on-site visit. Commissioner Marshall. commented on the statement made in the report that the use should have already. been removed and the burden is on the applicant to apply. He stated that. he felt it should also be noted that the City, traditionally in this area, (a) does not notify people who are nonconforming to the ordinance, and (b) only takes action when there is a complaint. The findings in the Staff Report were discussed, and Commissioner Marshall stated that he feels very strongly that the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, but he di.d not agree it is in accord with the purposes of the district in which it is formed. It was determined that Finding No. 1 should read: "The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance but not the purposes of the district in which the site is located. However, the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance will be protected by the conditions attached to this report " The Deputy City Attorney. stated that apparently this applicant came in every year and applied for and rece'ived a license to operate the busi- ness. The City could have imposed 'conditions or required a use permit at.that time. He stated that he fe'lt this application should be treated in a sense as a fresh review of the! situation, as if the ordinance had just been'enacted or the use had just recently been rendered nonconform- ing. He added that he did not feel that the approval of this use would constitute a precedent, since obviously this use has been here for some time, and we are.dealing with an exZisting nonconforming use. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Steven'Pettigrew, the adjacent prop:erty owner,. stated that he would like to propose additional restrictions .on the use permit. He commented that the basic problem is one of excessi.ve noise, particularly in the summer. He added that the barking on.. weekends is so bad it is difficult to sleep. Mr. Pettigrew stated that he would like the restriction that the maximum number of dogs boarded be not more .than 22 large and 6 small dogs, or a total of 28 dogs. He added that he would like the permit granted personally to Mrs. Sylvia and not to'be transferable. It was explained. to Mr. Pettigrew that the use permiZt goes with the person and not with. the property. Mr. Pettigrew also requested that if the dogs are barking continuously, for more than 15 minutes, they should be required to put them in one of their kennels. He also asked that the use permit be granted for a period of one year and be sub:ject to renewal only if all of the conditions. have been satisfied. ItZ was explained to him that if there are complaints with the use permit,. the neighbors can petition the Commission because they have continuing jurisdiction .over it at any time. It was pointed out to Mr Pettiorew that there is an'advantage to have a nonconforming use under a use permit, because of the continuing juris- diction. Commissioner Williams discussed possible landscaping or barriers fo'r the noise. Mr. Pettigrew stated th!at it is a heavily landscaped area, but shrubbery does not block the noise. He stated that they are not - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 12/10/80 'UP-472 (cont.) objecting to the operation of the d6g school, but to the noise. Henry Lafler, 14448 Black Walnut, stated that their main concern was the noise, especially on weekends, holidays and during the summer. He added that they have no objection to the dog school. The possibility o£ the use of brick walls was discussed, and he indicated that they have a drainage problem in that area and the use of brick walls was not feasible. Mrs. Pettigrew stated that she used'ear plugs but they did not shut out the noise. She commented that she felt there has been no attempt to..have consideration for the neighbors. ljynn Belanger, representing Mrs. Sylvia, the applicant, stated that there had been only one complaint in 26 y~ars of operation, and that is the complaint that brings us h. ere now. ~She explained that the two closest neighbors have signed the petition in Mrs. Sylvia's behalf. Ms. Belanger noted that Mrs. Edelstein lives much closer than the Pettigrews and the Laflers, and she di.d not understand the extent of their complaints, in view of the fact that Mrs. Edelstein says she has never had a problem. She. indicated that during the summer is when the use is viable for Mrs. Sylvia in terms of economic value; her livelihood comes in the summer from long-term boarding. Ms. Belanger commented that there are facilities for 30 dogs, and it is impossible to'know the size of the dogs until they arrive at the kennel. She explained that there has been a marked decrease in the use since Mrs. Sylvia started the school. There had been. frequent classes in attack dog work,-With a lot of barking, and there were no complaints. Ms. Belanger added that she has lived in Saratoga since 1960, and the School for Dogs has always been to her a part of a rural and country-lane look that Fruitval~ AvenUe has. She also commented that the County Health Department has cohsistently approved this use. She indicated that Mrs. Sylvia has no p.roblems with any of the conditions of the Staff Report, and she added that the dogs are put up even earlier than the 10:00 p.m. required in the report. The possibility of using sound-proofing material was discussed.. Ms.' Belanger stated that at one time they used some additional sound-proofing material which had a tendency, because it was soft and porous, to become a real problem in the health situation. Commissioner Williams a'sked about the possibility of buffering the sound with shrubs. Ms. Belanger stated. that, if the Commission required Mrs. Sylvia to.install extensive and expensive landscaping for a use that has been there for 26 years, and one th:at is only marginal in its economic feasibility, then they might as wel'l tell her that she can't have the use.. Ms. Belanger added that redoing the facility engineering-wise would not be economically feasible ei'ther:. She explained that it would be the end of the use if either one of thoZse alternatives were a requirement. Commissioner Schaefer commented tha't she did not feel that planting will do much good on that site. She stated that the school was already there when the people moved in,._and.'s'he'f~e'ls ~hat the'..ne'ighb-O~'~"have.j~.~.ake -~i~Y~---of~.~-~.h'e~'-~'~0~'ib'fl~'y~=~d.'~m~vi-~:g there. Ms. Belanger added that they are no.t always sure that the dogs who are considered as a problem in the neighborhood are in fact the dogs on the site. The Noise Ordinance in the C. ity was discussed. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall gave a report on the on-site visit made by the Land Use Committee. He stated that 99.9% of the discussion at the visit is reflected in the Staff Report or the discussion at this meeting. He 4 Planning-Commi. ssion Page Mee~,ing Minutes 12/10/80 UP-472 (cont.) stated that this is a rather unique situation, in that it was obvious that there was a neighborhood feud going on. He commented that he would hate for the Commission to bend over too far in anything other than a very ~:'~='~reas~nable position to both parties. ~Commissioner Marshall added t. hat he believes that the Staff Report properly reflects a direction that would satisfy both the Pettigrews and Mrs. Sylvia. He stated that he believes that Mr. Pettigrew's suggestions for alterations to the action, wi~h the exception of the 28 versus 30 dogs, are'either covered by the Staff Report '.: .or the ordinance. He indicated that 30 dogs seemed to be a reasonable numbe'r, based on their observations. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the conditions listed give the Commis- sion the ability to control the use. tie commented that he would hope that there would not have to be formal hearings on this subject, and would like to impress on both. parties the need to try and work this matter out betw'een · t'h~ms~l¥~s'..and see what other things can be done other than t.he conditiohs ~that the Commission has imposed. The condition regarding the 10-year limitation was discussed. Commissioner -~sh.a'l i S'~'a~.~d' ft~a'~ "h~~ "~6~l.d--"~6't exp~ ~y'. noff~oh fo~m'in'g"."U~'~'.'~d' b~ ".al'lowed forever. He explained that the City Attorney'had stated with a previous use permit that the only way to be consistent is to set a date certain. "' Commissioner Marshall explained that-there ~'s a precedent of ten years in two other cases, and believes ten years to be reasonable on that'basis. Chairman Laden stated that the ordinance is written in such a way that this nonconforming use is to be phased out.: She indicated that if the use is something that the community wishes to continue, we should perhaps change the ordinance in the future. She added that she hoped the explanation of the use permit and the continuing jurisdiction of the Commission will make 'the neighbors feel more comfortable. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve the Negative. Declaration for UP-472. Commissioner Siegfried:seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Marshall moved that the Staff Report for UP-472, dated. December 3, 1980, be approved and thaf the findings noted therein be made, as amended. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. : Commissioner Marshall stated that comments had surfaced during the site visit and at this meeting regarding the drainage problem in this area. He indicated that he feels this is a neighborhood created surface drainage problem, and he requested Public Works Staff to investigate the-si'tU~tl~n. DESIGN REVIEW 4. A-745 - David Wilson, Elyira Avenue,.Single-Family Residence, Final Design Review Approval Commissioner Laden abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter- because of conflict of i.nterest~:..and removed hersel. f from the stage. '~ Staff gave the history of the application, stating that there is a previ-~ ously approved application A-636. They commented that the current plan ig about 7~ ft. lower than the originally approved structure, which indicates that its visual impact has been greatly reduced. Mark Lages, representing the applicant, stated that they are willing to rescind the prior .application A-636 if the'present application is approved. - S - P 1 ann in.g~- Commi s si on Page '6 Meeting Minutes 12/10/80 "' A-745 (cont.) The size of the house was discussed. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was concerned about the size and would like to see it. smaller. Mr. Lages stated that they have moved the house away from Marion Road and wrapped it around the cul-de-sac because people on Marion Road had objected to the size of the previous 'design. It was pointed out to Commissioner Schaefer that the existing approval for A-636 is for a house much larger than the present design. It was explained that the house has been reduced in'height and reduced considera- bly in bulk. Nancy Arias, 20S90 Canyon View Drive, spoke on behalf of the people who had appealed the two-story design ear:lier approved for this site. She indicated that 'she had seen the plans: for this home and had.spoken to the concerned people, and they feel at th.is point that they are most appreciative of the reduction in height to 20 ft. She commented that, of all the designs that have appeared before the Commiss:ion for this site, they find this one the'=:most desirable. Ms. Arias added 'that they were very p'leased to see the inclusion. of landscaping requirements~ along Marion Road in the. Staff Report. She stated that they do not have any ~serious objections at this time. Commissioner Marshall moved to approv.e A-745, per the Staff Report dated December 1, 1980, amended to include Condition 3, to read: "Prior approval of Design Review A-636 is hereby resc%inded with this approval, with the concurrence of the applicant." Commi'ssioner Williams seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining. '5. A-746 - Ronald Haas, Chester and Viai Tesoro, Single-Family Residence, Final Design Review Approval Staff described the present proposal. They stated that the structure is about 35~.feet at its maximum height.. Staff indicated that they felt this design is too massive for the si.te, primarily due to the h. eight, and also due to the overall size of the structure. They added that the grad- ing plan has been reviewed by the Department of Inspection Services, and they have indicated that the two pads' proposed are not considered to be stepped down foundations. Staff commented that the applicant has submitted tentative plans showing development for other lots in the su.bdivision, and if the Commission desires, this item can be continued, to be reviewed with the other lots at a Committee-of-the-!Whole. Commissioner Marsh.all commented that he felt the unfinished portion of this design should be included in'th.e calc:ulations, and the total size of the home should be considered 9,372-s~-~ ft. Commissioner Laden stated that she was bothered by the fact that when this subdivision was reviewed at the time .Osterlund Enterprises was involved, the Commission did wish a total g.rading plan but did not insist on one because the applicant had wanted to b'uild the first three homes and then move on. She stated that it bothers 'her tha. t the Commission is now looking at applications which will. take grading one'at a time. Commissioner Laden also indicated that she has a problem with the application in total. She explained that the applicant has been before the Commission a numbe'r of times with a number of homes, and she sees nothing in the Staff Report that doesn't indicate a total disregard for what the. Commission has tried to convey to the applicant of what they feel is acceptable.-' She stated that she felt the application should either be denied now, or continued in order to study all of the lots at a Committee-of-the-Whole, but certainly with homes different than this one. Commissioner Siegfried stat'ed that the Commission had expressed before that this was a particularly sensitive site because of the slope and the fact that a home~h. as to be sited nea~ Chester AVenue, which magnifies the problem. He commented that he had thought that the design would be one - 6 - Planni'Hg CommisSion Page Mee,~-~ng Minutes 12/10/80 A-746 (cont.) that blended into the site, and instead the present proposal is for a massive structure on a sloping lot, very near Chester Avenue, which i.s contrary to everything that was previously discussed. Commissioner Marshall commented that.the City Council has stated that they do not want bulky houses, and the developers are going to have to listen to the fact that (a) we want houses that conform to the land, and (b) a series of tract mansions in this City are not going to be built just because land is expensive. Commissioner Marshall commented that he was not implying that a hous~ of this nature.wouldn't be appropriate somewhere, but certainly it is not appropriate on a Saratoga City lot. Ron Haas, the applicant, stated that he was aware of some of the work that had been done on this subdivision when Osterlund Enterprises was developing it. He indicated that he would certainly welcome an opportunity to discuss the Commission's preferences. Bill Stearns, the buyer of the house, showed photographs of the house he now owns, which is very similar to the proposed design~ He commented that the coloring makes a big difference,=and the dark wood on'the top part of the house makes it appear lower. He stated that the house across from the proposed house is a two-story and the pad is about the same height. It was noted that a petition had been received, signed by 27 people living on Chester, opposing the proposed design. Ron'Mancuso, 14330 Chester Avenue, stated that this proposed house is two times the size of the existing two-story home across the street. He com- mented that a 35 ft. height is too high. It was the Consensus of the Commissi6n that this item be continued to a study session to discuss the Commission's concerns. It was directed that this item be continued to the Committee-of-'the-Whole on January 20, 1981 and the regular meeting of January 28, 1981. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. A letter from Mr. Ronald Haas asking for a withdrawal of the applica- tion for design review on Sperry Lane, A~744, and stating that he will be pro- ceeding with the previously approved design. Staff was requested to encourage Mr. Haas to do some pre-p~anning on the ~ite, specifically with regard to the location of a swimming pool. 2. Commissioner Marshall moved to approve Resolutions PC-136 and PC-137, commending Bob Beyer and Don Wimberly for their service to the City. Commis- sioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Oral 1. City Council Report - Commissioner Williams gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on December 3, 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 and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT CommissiOner Zambetti moved to adjourn the meeting in memory of Arnold Loe, who died on December 5, 1980. Commissioner Marshall seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was. adjourned at 9:42 p.m. RSR:cd