HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, ~'~il '~2",""1'9.81' ="..7:~'5.0 p;.'m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers,.13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present:Commissioners Bolger, Crow~h~r (arrived at 8:35 p.m.), King
Laden, Monia, Schaefer (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), and Zambetti
Absent: None
Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Monia to waive the reading of the minutes of
April 8, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was seconded by Commis-
sioner Zambetti and was carried unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. SDR-1377 - William Clark,. Walnut Avenue - 1 Lot, Final Buildin'g Site
Approval
.Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconaed by Commissioner King, to approve
the above it-em on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unani-
mously. :
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. A-759 Dan Ray, 13687 Quito Road; Request for Design Review Approval
for a two-story, single-family dwelling that would be over 22'
in height (ma. ximum 26') on a lot with an average slope less than
10% in the R-l-10,000 zoning district; continued from March 11,
1981
Staff explained that this item had.been continued and reviewed at the
Committee-of-the-Whole on April 14, 1981. Staff described the proposal.
The correspondence previously received from the neighbors was noted.
Staff reported that the applicant has met with the Brighams regarding
landscaping to m~tigate the impact of the house. It was noted that a
petition in favor of the dwelling had been received from some of ~he
adjacent neighbors.
The public hearing was reopened at.7:40. p.m.
Gordon Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, reiterated his objections. He pointed
out that this is still an extremely large house for the neighborhood,
and particularly for this lot. He Stated concern that the house-is
being pushed to one side with the idea 'of a future.division. Mr. Jensen
stated that his particular concern'is that his house is lower. .He added
that. it is important that the Commission ha~ not seen any perspectus as
to how this house will look on the:lot. Chairman Laden noted that the
lots there had been developed as they are because the Water District had
put some easements across a great portion of that land, so future sub-
division is not possible.
Mr. Ray, the applicant, described the sizes of the homes in the neighbor-
hood. He indicated that he has re~ched an agreement with the Cittas,
and the side cyard will be increased by 6 feet to a 16 foot setback.
He added that the trees'that are too close to the proposed house will
be moved at their expense.
Pl~.anning Commission Page 2
Minutes Meeting 4/22/81
A-759 (cont.)
Mrs. Ray discussed the trees in ques.tion. She stated that they will leave
the trees in the rear of the lot and: three of the trees that would inter-
fere with'the structure would be transplanted. Mrs. Ray commented that
they had researched this and it appears feasible. She stated that the
Cittas are in agreement with this.
Mr. Ray discussed the following changes to their plans: (1) elimination
of the library and the.windows overlooking the Jensen's home; (2) reduc-
tion of the house to allow for a 16 ft. side .yard setback; (3) transplant
of the redwoods as necessary; (4) reduction. of the home by a total of
767 sq. ft.; (5) planting of some additional vegetation, per agreement
wi. th the Brighams; and (6) a wall wi:ll be placed at the end of the
recreational room that will not be used. Mr. Ray 'explained that the roof
line.will stay as it is except for the dormer windows.
Dr. Allen.Riggle, 18640 Aspesi Court', stated that he had never had an
opportunity to say anything about the Jean's two-story home which is
directly behind him. He commented that he can see the Ray's structure
clearly from his back yard, and he considers this a multiple invasion of
his privacy. Dr. Riggle indicated that another second story is going to
add to the light and noise at night..'
Mrs. Ray stated that '~i~'~" d.~d-.'~'t~61. jDr.~ Rig'gl'~ ~hid see their home from
his yard,.since the view is obstructed by two other buildings.
Mr. Ray described the reduction of the house. He stated that the size of
the house on the exterior will remain the same, except for a reduction of
6 ft. in total length. The outside impression will not be changed ~xcept
for the elimination of two dormer wi.ndows.
Marsha Citta, 13695 Quito, stated that they have discussed the revised
proposal with the Rays, and they have come to a compromise that they can
live with. She pointed out that the'address assigned to this house is
the wrong one and should be corrected.
Commissioner King moved to close the. public hearing. COmmissioner Zambetti
seconded ~he motion, which was carried unanimously.
The'exact size of the structure, after the reduction, was discussed.
Mr. Ray clarifi.ed that the 767 .sq. ft. reduction includes the library,
and the library area is still going ~o be under the roof. He stated that
the total length of the house was reduced by 6 ft. and the reduction of
the outside dimensions is approximately 180-200 sq. ft. It was noted
that the square footage of the living space of the home will now be
4,032 sq. ft.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he felt the neighbors and owner have
worked hard to come to a compromise. He discussed the removal of trees
of less than 12" in diameter, and it was determined that No. 4 under the
criteria in"the Staff Report should be amended to read that the small
redwood trees on the eastern side of'the site cannot be removed without
issuance of a tree removal permit. He"'alsb. not'e.d't~'at_"j~h~'~o~.l"'~'~d '-~""'
pump equipment room will be a nonconforming structure and sh~a'.'b~":~'losed
with a gazebo. At Staff's suggestion, it was determined thai the applicant
should submit a bond in an amount suitable to cover the replacement of the
three existing redwood trees.
.Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-759, per the amended Addendum
dated A'pril. 16, 1981 and the amended Staff Report dated March 6, 1981,
making the findings. Commissioner King seconded the motion, with the
stipulation that Condition 2 of the Staff Report be amended to read:
"Approval of this Design Review request does not constitute approval of-
the proposed pump and pool equipment2enclosure. Design of the pad
enclosure shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval."
- 2 -,
Planning Commission Page 3
Minutes Meeting 4/22/81
A- 759 (cont.)
Commissioner Bolger stated tha't he would have difficulty making Finding
No. 5 regarding the. size of the other homes in the neighborho'od. He
commented that the majori. ty of the h~mes in the neighborhood are'in the
mid-2,000 sq. ft. range.
"Commissioner Monia agreed regarding Finding. No. 5. He stated that he
also has some difficulty making Finding No. 3. He explained that, because
of the fact that the property is somewhat'higher than the Jensen property,
he feels the 26 ft. high elevation would be increased by an extra 4 or
5 ft. difference between the two properties. He indicated that he felt
the matter should be continued, so that a drawing could be submitted by
thelapplicant showing exactly the right locations and the changes, to
allow the Commission to more properly understand it.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she thought the applicant had t. ried to
work with~the neighbors; however, she still has concern about the size
of the house, since basically most o~f the outside visual impact remains.
The vote was taken on the motion to !approve A-759. The motion failed, with
Commissioners Bolger, Monia and Schaefer dissenting.
Chairman Laden stated that she felt the applicant has met the conditions
requested by the Commission at the situdy sessions, and that the Commission
should give direction to t. he applica'nt at thi's point.
Commissioner King agreed, stating th'at he felt it would be unfair to the
applicant not to give him specifics ~as to what might change the vote in
a positive direction. He noted that'the"'applicant has invested quite a
bit of study and time with the Commission and has responded to the Commis-
sion's requests, particularly that they work with the neighbors.
Commissioner SChaefer indicated that~ her own concern would be the square
footage of the home; she feels the Other conditions have been met.
COmmissioner Monia commented that he= has problems with frying to make the
findings on the size of this home be'ing within character of th. is neighbo"r-
hood. He added that if the size of .the structure were to be 'reduced, then
he feels it would be in character.
Chairman Laden commented that .the li~ving space, as written and voted upon
on other applications, has not~.~.included any s'pace under the roof. She
stated that she felt to add air spacZe in as footage would be inappropriate.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would reconsider her vote because,
although she feels that attic space should definitely be included in any
of the calculations, if it has neve~ been before, then she"does not think
it would be fair to' the applicant t~ start including it now.
Commissioner Bolger commented that his interpretation to make Finding No. 5
would be that, whether living space 'or air space is being considered, when
the Commission is revi6wing-a dwelli. ng that is goi. ng to be in an existing
neighborhood, it should be compatible with the site and neighbors that
are going to be seeing it.
The Deputy City Attorney clarified ~hat a motion could be made to reconsider
the vote on the matter. Commissioner King moved to reconsider the vote
on A-759.~ Commissioner Schaefer seconded-the motion. It was carried, with
Commissioner Monia and Bolger dissenting. Commissioner' Schaefer requested
that a bond be requiring for the planting of the additional vegetation,
in addition to the redwood trees. It was determined that this would be
added to Condition No. 1-E of the Add~'ndum dated April 16, 1981.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-.759, per the' amended' Addendum
dated April 16, 1981 and the amended Staff Report dated March 6,'1981,
making the necessary findings. Commissioner' King seconded the motion,
3
Planning Commission Page 4
Minutes Meeting 4/22/81
A-759 (cont.)
with the stipulation that the applicant bring in revised plans showing the
changes. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Monia
dissenting.
3. A~764 Butler and Wilson, Request for Design Review Approval for a
two-story single-family dwelling that would be over 22' in
height (23.5' max.) on a lot with an average slope of less than
10% in the R-i-.10,000 dist'rict, at 185'00 Raven'wood' Drive
Chairman'Laden abstained from the discussion and voting on this item.
Staff described the proposal, stating that they were recommending approval.
The public he~ring was opened at 8:2.6 p.m.
Mark Lages, the architect, stated that this is compatible with the two-
story design next door. He stated that they have tried to lower the'one
side of the house near the two-story' home. T.he setbacks and materials
used were discussed..
'Commissioner King moved to close theZ. public hearing. Commissioner Bolger.
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The findings were di. scussed.' Commissioner King moved to approve A-764,
per the Staff Report, making the findings. CommissiOner Monia seconded
the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining.
4. A-765 - Galeb Properties, Request for D'esign Review '.Approval for eight
single-family dwellings, four of which would be two-.story
structures over 22' in height. (max. heights range from 25'.to
27') on lots with average slopes less than 10% in the R-.1-10,000
district, at the southern t~rminus 'o'f Ted Ave'nue'
The proposal was described by Staff. Staff clarified that the only access
to this'subdivision will be along the extension of Ted Avenu~ or Wilson
Lane.' The grading and pad elevations were discussed, along with the land-
scaping strip between the sound wall and the curb along the railroad track
side of the Wilson Lane extension~
The public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m.
Mike Lorimer, the architect, discussed the pool sizes. The size and style
of the homes were also discussed. Commissioner Crowt'her' commented that
he felt Lot #1 was too small for the. home shown on it. The size of Lot #2
and the plans for it were discussed.: The easement on Lot #2 was questioned
by Commissioner Crowther, and it was. clarified that it is a storm drain
easement for Rodeo Creek.
Mr. Lorimer commented.'that since the 'plans were submitted, the owner has
directed them to change Lot #3 from a two'-story home 'to one-story. He
discussed the three lots at the end Of the cul-de-sac~ and commented that
they have peculiar shapes,:'~Y'~'.larger, and' adjoin commercial, and he did
not believe that they will have a significant impact.
Ken Howden, 20282 Zorka, stated that Lot #3 wa:s directly behi'nd him. He
expressed his objection to a two-story structure the're. It was explained
to Mr. Howden that th'e architect had just indicated that the're will be a
single-.story home on that lot.
Martha Cosera, 20294 Zorka, stated. that she would like to make sure that
the plans will not be changed later and one of the two-Story houses moved,
because it would block their view.
Winston Chew, 12501 DeSanka, expressed his con. cer'n about the possibility
of a two-story structure being built'on I,ot ~2 at a later date. Cha:irman
4 -
Planning Commiss ion Page 5
Minut'es - Meeting 4/22/81
A-765 (cont.)
Laden commented that any future structure that is planned for that lot
would have to be reviewed and approved by the Commission at that time.
She also clarified that fhe applicant will not have access directly to
DeSanka. Staff noted that there i.s'a condition included in the tentative
map for a turnaround bulb at the end of DeSanka, which will be done prior
~o the completion of the~tract.
Mr. Chew stated that the .plans ~hoW .tl~at there is a house almost directly
over the storm drain on Lot #1. Pub~lic Works Staff indicated that the
improvement plans show that the stor2m drain is located in the back yard.
The s'treet drainage will!tie intO'~that existing storm drain. Staff stated
that the side yard setba6k will have' an area that provides for the storm
.drain, and this will be· ~erified bZy Staff before the issuance of building
permits.
· Publ. i·c Works Staff also Commented th~at theN were not aware'of any back-up
from Rodeo Creek, and that the Water. District has· verified that the pi·pe
is.·adequate to handle the existing creek, as well as water added to it
from this subdivision. :
Mr. Chew requested that a narrow ope.ning be put in the sound wall, such
as was done on Guava CouEt, for a public walkway. It was explained to
Mr. Chew that in the past there have been legal problems with the Guava
Court crossing.. It was further noted that, since. the railroad and the
PG&E property are not public, the Ci:ty has no rights to creat6 a crossing
without their approval, and this approval has to be obtained from the
Publi~ Utilities Commissi!on.
Commissioner Bolger move~ to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia
seconded the motion, whicih was carried unanimously.
It was the consensus of the Commission that, since there was no floor plan
for a single-story home on Lot #3, it will have design review at a later
date and will be excluded! from the vbting on this application.
Commissioner Laden commen:ted that she felt one of the greatest users of
concrete is con·~tructin~·the large curved driveways, and she would like
to l·eave the· decision up ito the builder as"to the necessity for them.
Mr. Lorimer discussed the! driveways in question. FIe also discussed the
designs of the three hous!es at the end of the cul-de-sac. He stat'ed that
Lots #8 and #9 are two-st~ory, but have one-.story appendages.
Commissioner Schaefer eXpjressed concern that, with three houses so close
together and with their height, they. are going to appear very crowded,
even though they do have one-.story appendages.
Mr. Lorimer explained that, because of the shape of the lots, the houses
tend to be much deeper than they ordinarily would be.· He stated that the
house on Lot #8 is very dpep. Mr. Lorimer commented that he did not feel
that the impact of that height wOuld:be serious and, in relationship to
the adjoining houses, it ~ill not be:particularly outstanding. Commissioner
Monia commented that he thought in their present position they would have
less impact on the present neighbors~ since both ·LOts #8 and #9 abut the
C-N area, so it would hav~ a buffering effect.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he!would like t.o exclude Lot #1 from
the design review approval at this time, since he feels the house is much
too ~arge for tha't lot. Commissioner Monia pointed out that the house'on
Lot #4 is essentially the~same size ~s the one on Lot #1, but Lot #4 is
slightly smaller. CommisSioner Crowther commented that there is no space
at all on Lot #1 'For the pool, and it has the creek running underneath the
back yard and. the associated easement.
Commissioner Monia moved. to approve A-765, for Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and. 9,
excluding Lot 3, per the Staff Repor~ and the exhib.i. ts noted therein,
deleting Exhibit "E" for lot 3, and making the find·ings. Commissio·ner
- S -
t~lanning Commission Page 6
Minutes - Meeting 4/22/81
A-765 (cont.)
Schaefer seconded the motion. Commissioner Schaefer requested that it be
noted in the record that when Lots #'2 and #3 come before tile Commission
for design review, they should be one-stories.
Commissioner Crowther moved to amend~ the motion to exclude Lot ~1. Com-'
missioner Bolger seconded the motions. The motion failed, with Commissioners
King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zamb~tti dissenting.
The vote on the motion for approval Of A-765., excluding Lot #3, was taken.
It was carried, with C~mmissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting.
Break 9:.15 9:30 p.m.. ~
5. UP-491.- City of Saratoga, Request for a Use Permit to bring an existing
non-conforming multi-family use into conformance with the current
:zoning regulations of "P-A." (Professional-Administrative) dis-
Jrict, at 14611 Big Ba~i~ ~
Staff described the use permit, which will' bring an existing non-conforming
multi'-family use into conformance with the current zoning regUl'at'ion~s of a
Professional Administrative districtz. Staff gave the history of the pro-
perty. :
The public hearing was opened at 9:3.0 p.m.
Since no one appeared, Commissioner Bolger moved. to close the public hear-
ing. Commissioner Monia seconded th:e motion, which was carried unani-
mous ly. :
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve UP-491, making ~he necessary find-
ings. Commissioner ~ing seconded thee motion, which was carried unanimously.
6. V-547 - Fred Mansubi, Request for a Variance to allow the construction of
an addition to a single-family dwelling to maintain a 21' rear
yard where 25' is required, at 13495 Holi'day' Drive'
It was reported that this application has been withdrawn by the applicant.
7. V-548-- Norma Behel, Request for Variances t.o allow a subdivision to
create two lots.with widths of 82' where 85' is required and to
legitimize a 2' side yard setback for an existing garage where
10' is required', at 20241 Herriman Avenue
Staff described the application. Th.ey reported that in the past the Com-
mission has denied two particular applications because they did not want
to use the variance procedure to create substandard lots. Staff stated
that they were able to make the findZings and are recommending approval
because the other lots in this area are all of the same size and dimensi. ons.
The public hearing was opened at 9:3F5 p.m.
Doug Adams, the attorney representing the applicant, submitted a petition'
with signatures from neighbors favorable to .the application. Mr. Adams
gave the history of the'lots and discussed the findings. He requested
that Condition No. 1 in the Staff Re~ort be deleted, since these would
be the only two lots of all of the l~ts in that area that would have a
setback of 10 ft., as opposed to.8~2'+ ft.
Condition No. 1 was discussed, and i~ was the consensus of the Commission
that it remain as stated in the Staf'f Report, requiring a 10 ft. side setback.
CommiSsioner Monia moved to close thee public hearing. Commissioner
Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Staff explained that this variance 'is differen~=~ from a previous variance
- 6 -.
Planning Commission .-. Page 7
Minutes'= Meeting 4/22/81
V-548 (cont.)
off of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, which had been denied by the Commission,
because the 'other lots in~this area are the same dimensions as the ones
being created.
Commissioner Bolger moved to approve~V--548, subject to Condition No. 1
in the Staff Report and per Exhibit "B". Commissioner Crowther seconded
the motion, which was carried unanimously.
8. V-549 - Brian Morrow, Request for a Variance to allow a recently constructed
balcony to maintain a 17' side yard wh'ere '20' is required, at
19015 Springbrook Lane
Staff explained the application. They 'reported that the original plans did
not show the balcony area; therefore, Staff worked with the applicant and
had them modify it so it did conform~ During actual inspection it was
noted that it in fact encroached more than was allowed, and for that
reason the applicant was required to.file for a variance. Staff commented
that they were not able to make the necessary findings and are recommending
denial.
'Rich Harison, of the Building Department, stated that when originally,
approved the balcony was not shown On the' site plan, although it was
buried i~ the architectural drawings.. iH~g-a~j~-~..~j~.~'_p'~]j~'F~/'~f-.the
project, stating that when it was constructed it was still found to be
'encroaching.
The public hearing was opened at 9':50 p.m.
Brian Morrow, the applicant, stated'.that he felt that the deck is a very
important factor as far as the aesthetics are concerned, and he built it
in good faith. He explained that when it was discovered there was an
encroachment the base structure had been put in and the pillars. bad .gone
UP- He stated that there is still a.small part of the corner that
encroaches. Mr. Morrow commented that the next-.door neighbor has agreed
basically with wha~ has been constructed at thins point. He explained that
the neighbor's house is no.t directly.side by side this house; it is forward.
He added that the new owner. 6f this home is aware 'of the variance, but is
on vacation at this time.
Staff explained that apparently the location of the side property line was
incorrect at the time the applicant did the modification, and when the
structure was actually built, it was'found that the property is actually
3 ft. closer to the building than wa~ indicated on the plans.
Commissioner Monia commented that heihad spent some time talking with
the neighbor. He explained that the whole corner really has a privacy
impact on the neighbor to the south. The neighbor had stated that, even
if.the balcony was to be moved back another 3 feet, the impact would not
change to his property and privacy. !He thought perhaps some screening
could be augmented into the plans which 'would essentially alleviate the
privacy problem.
The Deputy City Attorney commented that if the applicant removes the
balcony, he doesn't need the variance. If he get's the ~ariance, the
CommiSsion could impose a condition for screening.
It Was the consensus of the Commission that, since the neighbors apparently
are involved and were not able to be=at the evening, and the owner is on
vacation, this item should be continued, to allow them to appear and dis-
cuss the issue of privacy invasion. It was directed that this item be
continued to the May .27, 1981 meeting.
- 7 -
Planning Commiss ion Page
Minutes ~ Meeting 4/2
DESIGN REVIEW
9a. Negative DeClaration - A-739 - Michael 'Valley
9b. A-739 Michael Valley~ Kittridge Road, Single-Family Residence, Final.
9c. SDR- Design Review Approval.andlReque·st for One-Year Exte·nsion; con-
1386 - tinued from January 28, 1981
Staff reported that the above items had b·een reviewed again on· March 17,
1981 at the Committee-of-the-WhOle. At that time the Commission required
additional information, primarily c~cerning the building site approval.
Staff stated that those items and othe·r.a·dditional information have been
submitted. ~-
Commissioner Zambetti discussed~h~'~driveway and turnaround requirement
from the Fire Chief. Staff stated that it has been indicated that this
particular matter can be resolved between the tentative and final..map
approval stage., and it does not have to be addressed at this time; the
'Fire Chief is aware of the situation.
Commissioner Crowther noted that the City Geologist had been asked for
his opinion as to whether the effluent from the leach·line would cause a
slope instability, and he had not answered that in his letter.
Rich Harison, of the Building Department, stated that the City Geologist
s~bmitted the report which is in the· packet, and it includes' several cross
sections that were made by him. That report was sent to the ·applicant's
soils engineer, Terratech, and thei~ response is also in the packet. Mr.
Harison stated that ·the City Geologi. st will be sending a written report in
the ~ext few days; however, he had 'discussed the matter with him, and he
is' in general agreement with Terratech's conclusion ~hat the leach system
as designed will not cause or will not contribute significantly to the
slope instability, and that the effluent will not leach out onto the road
cut at Kittridge.·
Mr. EchoS, from Terratech, stated that ih light. of the Commission's concerns
and wha·t the City GeolOgist said in his memorandum, they have advised the
applicant to construct an additional leach line 200 ft.· long. Mr. Echos
discussed the perc tests, stating that they' were done in 1975, and explain-
ing that the slope in which the p~rc tests were done is essentially the
same. He commented that the Health ~Department inspected it and approved it.
FIe also stated that no perc test was done by the County along the 1300 ft.
contour; they did inspect the trenching that was done.
Staff ~tated that the·Health Department felt that the normal standards of
the department were suitable for ·this lot because the sites were large
in that ar~a'and the homes were far apart. Commissioner Laden commented
that she had been on site with the Health Department and they had gone
over the mattear rather thoroughly and had seemed to be v'ery satisfie~ wi. th
their data they had gathered.· It wa~s noted that Staff had requested the
results of the perc tests; however, !the Health Department would not submit
them.
Commissioner Crowther commented that~ this lot has a slope of 50%. Staff
explained that the ordinance states. that the· building site itself shall
not be over 40%. They pointed out that this pad is not over 40% and,
therefore, it is a legitimate building site. Commissioner Crowther stated
that he has a problem with that beca~use it encourages people to cut illegal
pads '.
The 'driveway turnaround was discussed. Commissioner Crowther commented
that ~e thought it would be appropri!ate to withhold the ·design review
approval until that condition had been met. It was noted that this com-
dition must be met before the final map is granted.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Decla~ation for A-739.
Commissioner King seconded the motion, which ·was carried, wi·th Commissioners
- 8 -
Planning Commission Page 9
Minutes - Meeting 4/22/81
A-739 and SDR-1386 (cont.)
Crowther and Bolger dissenting. It was noted that if the tentative map
is not'extended by the Commission, the Negative Declaration would be
negated.
Commissioner Zambetti moved to grant~an extension for SDR-1386 for an
additional nine months. It was note~ that a three-month extension had.
been granted on January 28, 1981. COmmissioner King seconded the motion,
which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissent-
ing.
A peanlty fee for illegal grading was discussed. Staff commented that if
any grading is done before the issuance of a permit, the fee would be
double for the building permit or grading permit. They noted that in this
case they cannot determine whether the site was graded illegally or not.
They commented that the Grading Ordinance is fairly strong now, and. it is
not easy to grade illegally. The possibility of wording the ordinance to
state that'no building is allowed over 40% slope for the whole general. area,
rather than just the building pad, was discussed.
Commissioner Crowther stated that he.was concerned about the driveway and
the fact that the plans for that have not been developed yet. He added
that he feels it can affect the design, size, or location of the home. He
questioned whether it is appropriate to approve .the design review without
having that layout of the turnaround~that the Fire Chief is requiring.
Jim Harper, engineer for the applicant, stated that the specific condition.
in the S~aff Report says it is subject t'o the approval of the Fire Chief
and that details shall be shown on building plans before issuance of a
building'permit. He explained that the turnaround that is referred to is'
down at the access road and the driveway off of the access road. The
plan has not been submitted because it,is a fairly complex structural
engineering problem. Mr.~Harper stated that the applicant was concerned
· about the tentative map being extended and the Negative Declaration being
appr0ved. He noted that Mr. Valley .is most anxious to proceed, assuming
the approval is here this evening. Chairman Laden commented that anything
that would change the ~esig~ as appro~ed, i.e., m~jor grading, etc., would
'have to come back'to the Commission~
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-739, per the Staff Report dated
November 4, 1980 and the Addendum dated January 22, 1981, with any major
discrepancies noted in the design, grading, or height of the foundation
coming back to the Commission for review. Commissioner King seco'nded the
motion.
Commissioner Zambetti stated that he.would be voting for the motion, b.t
he would like to see s'omething added to th~ Staff Report that would reflect
that the Fire District, if it finds it has to move thi's house to service
it properly, could do it. It was determined that a condition would be
added to read that any major changes"~found to be appropriate by the Fire
District would come back for review ~y the Commission.
.The Deputy City Attorney stated that~the Commis'sion could approve A-739~
in concept only~ at this time, which Would allow the engineer to begin to
work with the Fire Department on thi~ particular portion of the application
an'~ bring it back for final approval'to the Commission.
Commissioner Schaefer amended her motion to state 'that it be in concept
only, approving everything except the engineering design of the fire access
and turnaround for emergency vehicleS. It was also stipulated that any
discrepancy in the height of the foundation be noted' immediately. Com-
missi. oner Zambetti seconded the amended motion. It was clarified to Mr.
Harper that the Commission would like the Fire Department to give them
their approval of what is submitted,=and they would also like Public'
Works' approval of it, and it will come back to the Commission for final
map approval.
- 9 -
Pl.anning Commission Page 10
Minutes - Meeting 4/22/81"
A-739 (cont.)
The vote was taken on the amended motion to approve A-739 in concept.
.It was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Monia dissenting.
10a. Negative Declaration A-763 Hidalgo
10b. A-763 - PatSick Hidalgo, 20877 Kittridge Road, Single-fami'ly residence,
Final Design Review ApprOval; continued fr'om Apr'il"8, 1981
Staff described the proposal. They~reported that at the Committee-of-
the-Whole the applicant submitted revised elevations.and has also redone
a survey Of the'topography of the site. They have lowered the struct~re,
have accurately located. it relativeZto the slope underneath the rear por-
tion of the structure, and it does now comply with the HCRD requirements.
They stated that they have added conditions to screen the sup.port posts
for the balcony or deck at the rear.of the structure 'to minimize their
visual impact.
Mr. Hidalgo stated that they had resurveyed the topography so there would
be no question that the slope is correct on the"drawings.
Roger Kohler, the architect, stated~that the slope directly west of the
structure is approximately 1:1. He added that there had been .a very
extensive soils report done on the whole site in 1.977. The geology of
~he area was dis. cussed. It was noted that thi. s ~as-an e~l&-~i~g.lot'..of
record before the HCRD Ordinance was adopted.
Commissioner King moved to approve the Negative Declaration for A~763.
Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commis-
sioner Crowther dissenting.
Commissioner King moved to app~rove A-763, per the Staff Report, the
"C-l".and "D-I" The motion .was seconded
Addendure, and Exhibits "B- 1", . .
by Commissioner Zambetti and was carried, with Commissioner Crowther
dissenting.
MISCELLANEOUS
11. UP-295 Saratoga Gardens Nursery, 12585 Saratoga-Sunny~ale Road, Review
Conditions of'Use Permit
Staff reported that the,applicant has submitted a letter, asking for an
extension of time ~o comply with Condition 4 of the use permit. .They
have complied with the enclosing of:the trash bins, but have trj. ed on
three. occasions to do the resurfacing of the parking lot, but the weather
has prevented that.
Mrs. Susan Vidanage stated that this is their busy season at.the nursery.
She indicated that it would take a Whole day to complete the task and
they will have to close down. Mrs..Vidanage commented that by the third
week of July they should be finished with the res'urfacing, and an exten-
sion until the end of July would be sufficient. She added that they
have put up entrance and exit signs..
Commissioner Zambetti moved to extend the period.of time for compliance
with Condition 4 of the use permit to August 1, 1981. Commissioner
Crowther seconded the motion, which'was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schaefer suggested reconsidering the necessity of having
white striping for the parking a'rea.I She'stated that she feels it would
take away from the beauty of the plants and other natural things. Com---
missioner commented that he did not'feel this was the proper. time to
discuss it.
Mrs. Vidanage stated that she perso~a!ly feels that as long as there are
- 10
P~nning Commission Page 11
Minutes -. Meeting 4/22/81
UP-295 (cont.)
arrows that mark entrance and exit, the traffic flows without striping.
She stated that there are railroad ~ies set up, and they can put yellow
marks on those~
Commissioner King moved that the necessity for striping area be removed
from Condition No. 4. It was also agreed that ingress and egress arrows
would not be needed, since there are entrance and exit signs. Commis-
sioner Crowther seconded'the motion~ which was carried, with Commissioner
Monia dissenting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written None
Oral
1....~'~.'d~'~..~'~h~."'G~.~Httee-of-th~-Whole for discussion of the Design
Review Ordinance was changed from April 28th to April 27th, at 7:30 p.m. It
was also noted that there will be a Committee-~-the-Whole on May 5th at 7:30.
p.m. with t~e Village Merchants Association, to discuss parking in the Village.
2. Parking in the bike lanes in the City was discussed. Commissioner
Schaefer commented that Saratoga is the 6nly city in the Santa Clara County
that allows parking in the bike lanes. She added that on Her~iman Avenue the
ot.her morning there were 48 cars parked i'n bike lanes, with at least 150 empty
parking spaces at Saratoga High School. .Commissioner Crowther moved that
Chairman Laden make the recommendation to the City Council that parking in
bike lanes not be allowed in the City of'Saratoga. Commissioner Zambetti
seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously.
3. Chairman Laden thanked Councilperson Jensen for attending the meeting
and the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by COmmissioner Zambetti, to 'adjourn the
meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned
at 11:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
RSR: cd