Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 1981 - 7:30~ p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION' Roll Call Present: Commissioners B01ger, Crowt~er, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner King Minutes Commissioner Monia"moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to waive the read- ing of the minutes of April 22, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1491 Dean and Susan Nowacki., Glenmont Drive - 1 Lot (Over 50% expan- sion), Final Building .Site Approval 2. V-531 Gerald Christensen, 14330 Cordwood Court, Request for One-Year Extension Commissioner Crowther asked that SDR-.1491 be removed for discussion. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the remaining item on the Consent Calendar, V-531. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on SDR-1491. :Chairman Laden explained that this item was before the City Council for a consideration of the condition for fire requirements, and the City Council had waived. that condition. It was noted that this approval is for Fi:nal Building Site Approval of an over 50% expansion. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR-1491. Commis- si. oner Bolger seconded'the motion,~ which was carried unanimously. BUILDING SITES 3. SDR-1485 Kamil'Navai and M. Kermani, Big Basin Way 1 Lot, Commer- cial (8-unit Townhouse Project), Tentative Building Site Approval Staff explained the project, stati.ng that the Commission has reviewed this project under the use permit'and design review approval, and it was also discussed at a Committee-.of-the-Whole regarding the General Plan designation of the site. At that ,time th~ Commission indicated that they felt this project conformed to the: intent of the General Plan for the Village area by allowing mixed use:s, having a commercial structure in the front and multi-family units i.n the rear. Staff described the circu- lation on the site. Chairman Laden commented. that the .intent of the Commission and the feel- ing at that time was that the commercial would be in line with the Village concept plan which was to keep commercial on Big Basin Way. Commissioner Crowther commented that the General Plan states that this site is designated for apartments. Staff explained that this. is zoned "C-V", which allows apartment unit.s or multi-family units under a use permit. The use permit procedure lallows the Commission to vary density as to what they feel would be appr~opriate for the property, and in this case 8 units, plus a commercial structure, was considered to be appropri- 1 Pla,nni.ng Commission Page 2 -M~eting Minutes -- 5/13/81 SDR- 1485 (cont.) ate. The requirements of the' "C-V~' district were:,,.discussed. -It"was · 'p6-i~t~d' 0~t 't'ha£='~'~L' ~o:~=e,c~' eXce~d'~ ,b,UildiH~""]~'eig']~t' 1-imit~' ~f ~l'c-V .... --ai~.t~i:d~' '~ :"f3' ~e~'-:~'h~:":~.i.~=;~8~'='d:on~':~'' ~'~ .e~a~'h~- '~.etbadk._~r~q~e-=. ~'f~'.. 'Staf~ '~x~lai~a"~"t ~'de'r :-a us~-p'er~iF the C0mm~s~'i'oh"'H'~s the' p6Wer and authority to vary both 'height and setback limitations. Chairman Laden gave the background'of the use permit. Commissi:oner Crowther stated that he'had sat in.on the General.Plan meetings on this site, and thought it wa-s'.de~ermin~d that apartments were needed in the Village to provide a base of business to many of the current businesses that are located in the Village. He stated that it may be that the mixed use is the best use for this site, but he did not believe it was consistent with the General Plan. Chairman Laden indicated that it was felt that it was in compliance with the intent of the General Plan to continue the'.Village as a commercial activity, and that the people who Operated commercial endeavors had determined that each of those added to their abi'lity to stay as active merchants because.it helped to bring bus~ness to that area. Commissioner Bolger stated that he had agreed in concept with the mixed use for this area. HoWever, he did not recall the issue of density being. discussed at the study sessi6n. He added that he also has problems with the setbacks andswith the height o~ this project. Staff pointed out that .the apprication before the Commission at this time is the Tentative Building Site Approval. They explained that the use permit and design review approval have been app~oved. Staff discussed the reorientation of the three parking spaces ~n Parking Assessment District No. 3, so that the entry way for Parking District No. 1 to the site could be accommodated. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the findings for this project have already been made, and a determination of consistency with the Genera]. Plan had been made at the time the!use permit was issued. It was clarified that SDR-1485 meets all of the conditions of the use permit. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve .SDR-1485 per the Staff Report. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger and Crowther dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. UP-487 - Imperial Savings, Request for a Use Permit to allow a financial 5. A~762 institution to locate in!the "C-.C" (Community-Commercial) district at 20473 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and Final Design Review .ApprOval; continued from April '8, '1'9'81 Staff described the proposal. It was expIained that at the last meeting there were no respresentatives from Imperial Savings present, and the Commission had several questions regarding the number of employees that would be working at the bank and the parking spaces designated. They also expressed some concerns about'the relocation from the Village to Helen's Antiques. Staff noted changes in the Staff. Report. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she has a concern that it is on a scenic highway. Staff indicated'that an extensive amount of landscaping would be added. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. GeOrge Mock, the architect, discussed the parking spaces that the present Imperial Savings has. The signage was discussed, and it was indicated that the signs must be approved as:part of the Design Review Approval. Commissioner Schaefer also indicated that she would like to request that tl~e lighting be turn:ed o.ff ~ 9f'0~yp:m..;'-ex~pt-for~s'ecuri_ty"!ighting, - 2 - F~l~nn~ng Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes -. 5/13/81 UP-487 and A-762 (cont.) because of the scenic highway. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti stated that the building where they are going to relocate is a 3,000 sq. ft. structure that brings sales tax dollars to the City. The present location is~ on Big Basin Way, in a 1900 sq. ft. structure, and does not bring any ~sales tax dollars. He explained that if this is approved, the Commissio'n would be allowing a bank to increase 'its square footage, even though it. has moved off of Big Basin Way, and has moved to a road that has a higher traffic volume and wi'll have much more exposure, and the City will lose the sales tax volume that could be generated from a 3000 sq. ft. building. Commissioner Zambetti added that he was concerned about the 1900 sq'. ft. building that is being vacated, since it would be a'poor location now for retail. Commissioner Bolger commented that~ he shared the concern'about sales tax dollars, but quite obviously these~ dollars are not really coming in because businesses keep going out Of business at that location. He added that he also shared the concerns about the fact that there may be some difficult problems in bringing a retail establishment into that vacated location on Big Basin Way.: Commissioner Schaefer commented that she feels the antique business is declining, and more people do not Want to cross the highway at that 'intersection. Therefore, she indicated that she now'feels that if the bank can go into that location and improve the site, perhaps it would be a suitable arrangement. Commissioner Laden moved to approve UP-487, per the Staff Report as amended. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny UP-.487 without prejudice. Commis- sioner Monia seconded the .motion. ~Commissi'oner Monia commented that he had several problems with this particular property being developed into a bank. He stated that within the next year perhaps some other reasonable development for the property m~ght come forward; if not, perhaps the'Commission might reconsider and give Imperial Savings the right to relocate there. Staff pointed out that if the Commission denies t~e use I'permit lwithout prejudice, the japplicant can come back immediately with a revised proposal; theref0rei ~.~'h~ '~'~j~s.~^m.~:~wish to deny the use permit at this time. Commissioner Z.ambetti amended his motion to read to deny UP-487, eliminat- ing the without prejudice. CommisSioner Monia seconded the amended mo- tion. The~motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. The applicant was notified of the 1.0-day appeal period, and the Design Review A-762 was suspended for the time being. 6. V-541 R.A. Maddalena, 3rd Street and Big Basin Way, Request for a Variance from the parking.requirements de.scribed in Section 11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for a combine~ restaurant/retail s'ales operation'in the "C-C" (Community-.Commercial) District; continued from March 25, 1981 Staff explained the history of this application. They noted that there had been a meeting with the Villag~ Merchants to get their feeling with regards to parking in the entire V~llage. A letter from Mr. Aird, the president, ~as noted, which indicates their position with regards to the Upstairs-Downstairs, as well as the entire parking situation. At the meeting the possibility was also d~scussed of having the Brozdas and Mr. Madda!ena participate in some designated fee for a period of time, with the. eventuality of a parking assessment district being formed. Staff indicated they were opposed to that position, and they indicated they had 3 Planning Commission Page 4 M~ti~g Minutes - 5/13/~ V-541 (cont.) also discussed it. with Mr. Phil Assaf, the City's bond attorney, and he indicated that~ he als. o is not in favor of that position because the parking district. which the Brozdas are 'adjacent to or near may not be formed in that designated period o.f time,. and .there may be some legal question involved. The possibility of splitting the current Parking DistriCt ~o. 3 into two parking districts was discuSSed, and Staff indicated that a shortage ~h~'oc.~rS~'r~gardingj.th~-"numbe'~'~nd=-the=-''' percentage requi'~ed to form.a ~istrict. Staff i~dicated that they had asked Mr. AsSaf if the individuals who are opposed to the parking di. strict and those properties could be excluded, and he .commented that that would not be possible because those individuals would be benefitting from the assessment district proceedings if it were. to be formed. One of the things Mr.'Assaf had indicated was' the various tax options that wo~ld be available to those individuals who have been opposed to the forma. tion of the district. He suggested that they could contribute their parking spaces to a public entity and receive a tax break, and also would get some credit if and when the assessment ~istrict was formed. However, these individuals'would be surrounded by=parking on Big Basin and potential traffic and parking in the rear. 'Staff. commented that they were recom- mending denial of'this applicati0n~. If the Brozdas are allowed this variance, they added, someone that. has been planning to.expand their operation'during the last fifteen years would not be able to expand as much as they anticipated. Staff commented that there are numerous 'problems associated with extending the assessment district further west to include the Brozdas. Commissioner Schaefer ma. de the following comments: (1) Perhaps t~ere could be a limited time for the Maddalenas to continue operating, subject ~o solving the parking issue on private.property unless some other solution is reached; (2) Perhaps~'t!~e m~nu coul~'be~m'ade more limited, and more retail brought in; and (3) If. the variance were granted, with the idea that it is a previously existing building and money were set aside (a bond) for future parking spaces, is this setting a precedent for other people who are about to build? ~ The Deputy City-Attorney stated that the bonding counsel has already indicated that requiring money be ~et aside now probably would cause problems, and he concurs. The proposal of requiring the applicant to contribute to a district to be formed in the future , but contri'buting now', causes some real legal difficulties. He added that the Commi. ssion can require, as.a condition of the2 variance, that the applicant join'a district. Staff commented that they do not encourage the limiting of the menu or limiting the hours as a condition, since that would be very difficult to enforce. The public hearing was opened at'8:35 p.m. 'Doug Adams, attorney for t~e applicant, stated that he felt it would be 'possible for the City to enter.into a contract that would contain some terms that would not be normally contained within a variance procedure. He co.mmented that the Brozdas have' indicated that they would be willing to join a parking assessment district. Mr. Adams stated that he had explored the possibility of leasing some property from the Saratoga SChool District for parking, which would be in excess of 300 ft..from the site. However, he had found out that it is not a possibility at this time. He also indicated that Mr. Maddalena Senior had made some bids on the Koch'er/Tyler property, but' didZnot reach an agreement. He added that he is going to explore the possibility of joining forces with Ross Maddalena Senior to create some additional area for parking. Mr. Adams pointedl. out that the Staff Report 'States th. at it does not appear that the use has created problems now with ~arking, so hemfeels 'a continuance now would not be harmful. He added that, as long as there are some possible .ways of solving the 'problem, he would like an extension of time to - 4 - Pla~nni.ng Commission Page 5 M~eting Minutes -. 5/1.3/81 V-541 (cont.) allow operation to continue within the framework'of the City's regula- tions. The time~rame was discussed. Commissioner Zambetti suggested that perhaps a parking structure could be designed in the rear, behind the gallery and between that and the barn.. Mr. Adams stated that that was one of the options that have been considered; however, they were trying to solve the problem without doing that, because he did not feel that would totally solve it. Commissioner Zambetti discussed the other parking variances that have been granted in the City on Big BaSin Way. He indicated that Mr. · VanArsdale had been granted a variance in 1958, and there were five park- ing spaces between the barn and the gallery. Chairman Laden commented.that, by adding the Brozdas and the other three properties into the parking district, i~'-actually mak~ the percentage of signatures now presently willing to join the district less than there were prior to that. She added that perhaps~ there might be a tax incentive that would encourage those additional properties to sign on. She added that Mr..Shook, Director of Public~ Works~ had also stated that by bring- ing all those properties into the ~istrict, the CitX.~'~~..away their -p~i=V~."park'i~ b~"~u~in'~ ~'roa~ '~H~6ug~ would '~Ct~al~.'be."t~king'.. up spaces in the disfrict that haV~ previously'been allotted to Other businesses and other expansions. Mr. Adams suggested that perhaps Mr. Assaf could write a letter, inform- in.g the owners of the tax breaks that would be available to them in the event of their joining the district, and also to include the benefit of circulation. Betty Allen, owner of a business in the Village, stated that she had talked to Raisa Kocher, and Mrs. Kocher and ~r. Tyler are very willing to volunteer their services to beg~in the petition procedure to form Parking Assessment District No. 3.'.Mrs. Allen stated that Mrs. Kocher had stressed that time is definite~ly a problem, since it is a long process. She added that Mrs. Koch~er and Mr. Tyler have both had experi- ence in working with the district formations~. Mrs. Allen encouraged the Commission to.again.look at thee granting of extensions, perhaps a one or two-year period of time, in order to allow the district to be formed. She commented that the Ci~ty has the support of the Village merchants. The enforcement of twos-hour parking on Big Basin Way was discussed. Commissioner Zambetti ~commented that this would give 50% more parking in the Village. Mrs.' Allen eX'61ained that the merchants had not discussed the current formula for parking~ and she feels they · ~iH~ed""'~o~=~"~'~f~'r~a~i~n' 'to sug'geSt a' ne~ ratio Since no one else appeared,'Commis'sioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner bolg=er seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti stated that, as a merchant in the Village, he would like to point out that there! have been parking Variances granted in the past up and down Big Basin !Way. These variances were discussed. He commented that he did not think there is a parking problem in the Village. He suggested that the me.rchants and employees should enter. into a shuttlebus service, which would help the parking situation. He added that parking in the Village ~is very adequate in number but poorly organized, unevenly distributed, and lacks in access and visibility. Commissioner Zambetti indicated th'at he felt it important that some sort of bond go into a fund to der. ive some of~the things needed to get Parking Assessment District No. 3 ~organized. The Deputy City Attorney commented that this would be a cont'ribution to a fund towards a district where it. is not certain the district wo~ld be formed. Staff stated that they feel that, if the Commission grants this variance, it would work against the formation of the assessment 5 Hlanning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 5/13/81 V-541 (cont.) district. They explained that if'that is a precedent, then there might be other applicants within Parking District No. 3 that may wish to e'xpand and get .a. variance from the. ordinance, and there may not be that impetus to form an assessment distlrict. Commissioner Bolger suggested puttying a c0ndftion on the variance that it be reviewed at a particular time, say, six months, since it appears that there is a good deal of inter=est from the Village merchants, and apparently there is some impetus at this time being generated to start this district. ·He stated'that he Would like to see some definite progress towards the parking assessment dis.trict being formed. Commissioner Schaefer pointed out 'that there have been some comments from seve·ra'].:of the merchants who ~re not in favor of the variance. She added that she felt that, if a variance is passed without any kind of settlement on parking, other pegple will want to do the same. Commissioner Bolger commented that'he did not mean to indicate that Maddalenas would be exempt from contributing to their portion of the assessment district; quite the contrary, he thinks they should'·d6 their fair share in this particular situation. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would like to remind the Commission that a variance can be for a limited time; it can be con- ditional; it can be revokable. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels that Maddalen~s is an asset to the Village. However, he added~ he has trouble with making the finding of special privilege. He Commented that he feels that the periodic progress rev·iews that the Commission has been having are creating a positive impact; some progress is being made toward forming the Parking Assessment District or finding some other solution. He stated that his feeling is that this matter should be continued and perhaps give..them 90 days tO come back again and show us additional progress. Commissioner Schaefer stated that She°would encourage negotiation for private property, because that wO~ld allow any.potential expansion of Maddalena's so that the upstairs portion of the building could be used, and it would allow .parking for any other part of that entire building and barn. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt that the Commission should take a firm leadership position as to what we are going to do with business activity in the Village and the formation of a very important parking district.. He commented that he would be very much in favor of granting a variance to Mr. Maddalena and feels that a one-'year period of time would be more realistic. In the meantime, he added, he thinks that the Commission should go forward to the City Council and.recommend that we really study the situation and whatever necessary course of action is required to form that district. He indicated that"if the Commission really wants to encourage ·prosperity,·development of the business activity, and the attractiveness of the Village,·he feels they must take a leader- ship role. He commented that he does not think it would be a special privilege, since other similar variances have been granted. Chai·rman Laden asked the Deputy Cit'y Attorney if, rather than acting on this as a variance and making findi~ngs, th'e'Commission could allow Maddalena's to continue in businessl for a specific length of time, with the condition that (1) they either ~find private property on which to meet the parking regulations, or (2) the~ Parking Assessment District is at such a state that the Commission th~en feels comfortable to address the variance itself. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would be inclined in that event 6 P'l~nn~ng Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes -. 5/13/81 V- 541 (cont.) to opt ·for the private agreement between the City and Mad·dalena's, as suggested by Mr. Adams. He stated~ that he felt the City could enter into an agreement, su·spending acti~on on the variance,·and indicating · that the matter would then be reCo'nsidered, in the eVent·certain things do not occur. The possibility of.granting a conditional variance, on the basi·s that the finding of special privilege c,ould not be made, was discussed. The Deputy City Attorney·stated that he has a problem with granting a variance and putting conditions ·on it be·cause the· finding necessary for the granting of that variance ·could not be made. He indicated that · he feels the Commission, based upon the fact that other parking variances have been granted in 'the Village', .could rely on that as a basis for·a finding that it is not a spe·cial privilege. He added that he thinks there has been sufficient testimony presented that there is not a present insurmountable problem, but that there· is concern about the future. He stat&d that he feels be permitted now, but the Commis·si·on w·ill take a look at it in the future, because additional development is ~expected and further·parking requirements will. have to be met. He commented~ thatYthe Co'm~isS~H ~an~'fmpo~e"-a~'ti~e--, limit and require the applicant, as a condition of that variance, to take acti_on in the establishment ~f theZ parking dist·rict or the acquisition of private land, with the objective of meeting the future parking needs. The Deputy City Attorney added that the· Commission does have the ~ower, as the ordinance now reads, to gra~nt a variance which is revokable or ~.gr a ]im~t~_period of time. He stat~ed that th~ a~th6~i~~ '~'~F~y" i'm~l~.~'~='' ~"]i~ t~"=~o~m'i~'l~!~s~"U'n~'~hing ti~e ~d'ings'~-..tha~_.are supposed to be m:ade or that another applicant ~s going ~.~6'.'.'.'.[~i~'~=~'~ny_ ~!~.f£.~'~'~nt situation; ~the Commission would still have to make findi'·ngs for a variance with respe~ct to another applicant. and the pur- pose of the conditions is to provi~de flexibility in handling the variance. Discussion followed on a time-fram·e, and Commis'sioner ~'~onia ·then moved to grant V-541 for a one-year peri'od of time, with ninety-day revie~vs, ~t which time if the Commission ~s not satisfied with the progress of the applicant in the formation of 'Parking Assessment District No. 3 or·other solution to the problem, such as the acquisition of othe·r private land, ~hey maintain the r~·ght to revoke the variance. Commis- sioner Bolger seconded the motion,' which was carried unanimously. Break - 9:25 - 9:40 p.m. 7. V-546 - Douglas North, 'Request fo~ a Variance to allow the constructio·n of a garage expansion to maintain a 6.67' interior side yard where 10' is required and~a 17' front yard where 25' is required at 19091 Portos Drive; Cohtinued From April 8, 1981 ~The proposal was described by Staff. They pointed out that Option No. 1 in the Staff Report is not viable, since there is a p0ol on the site in that corner which is not shown on the site plan. HOwever, there are several other viable options. Staff explained that this site is adjacent to a SHARP area which allows those. particular lots to measure their front yard from back of curb rather than property line. What the applicant is proposing would not create any greater encroachment than would already· be allowed in the SHARP area. Staff indicated that they could not make the·findings required to grant fhe'·variance in terms of the side yard setback, since they 'feel there are~ other options. The options were discussed. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Mr. North, the applicant, stated that the primary reason they would like·the variance is 'for off-stree~t parking.. He commented that the options suggested in the Staff RepOrt are-not suitable to the site. 7 Pla~ni'ng Commission Page 8 Meeting Minutes - 5/13/81 V-546 (cont.) Mr. North stated that the proposed construction enhances the house as it now stands. He commented that the side yard clearance is very close to what has been granted their neighbor, and he would like that same consideration. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger gave a report On the on-site visit, describing the site. He indicated that he did not feelithe suggested options are viable. Commissioner Zambetti added that the options do not fit into the classic design of this home. He added that the applicant has some difficulty because he is a corner ~ot and is set back on the lot. There- fore, there is no other location for him to expand his garage as other people in similar neighborhoods have done. Commissioner Crowther commented that the neighbor's house to the east does have a..~'imil~' s~'tback to that being proposed on the side yard. Commissioner Bolger moved to grant V-.S46, making the findings. Commis- sioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 8a.-Negative Declaration SD-1489 - Wilson Development 8b. SD-1489 Wilson DevelOpment, Tricia Way - 10 lots, Tentative Subdivision Approval Commissioner Laden abstained from ~he discussion and voting on this ~atter. 'Staff described the proposal, stating that several concerns have been raised: (1) the noise that is generated on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. A noise study was done with the environmental documentation and it recommends a 6 ft. high barrier along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to be con- tinued to the north on lot 6; and (~2) access. The acces~ was discussed. Staff explained that this would create 19 units on a cul-de-sac with an emergency access road, and City policy has allowed only 15 lots on a cul-de-sac unless there is a secondary or emergency access way. Staff noted that six neighbors.have submitted letters requesting that no addi- tional access be allowed onto Trici.a Way. They indicated that an option does exist to have public access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road instead of extending Tricia Way, and also limiting the numbers of units on a cul-de- sac to 15. The.setbacks from Sarat'oga-Sunnyvale Road and the. noise were discussed. The public hearing was .opened at 10:00 p.m. Dick K~er, civil engineer, discusse~d the proposed subdivision, including the access. He indicated that they. have submitted additional documents on lot #6 to show the building pad .area and the setbacks. The sound wall and emergency access were di. scuss~d~. Commissioner Schaefer explained tha't on the on-site visit the intent seemed to be that it was not particularly safe to have another road come down onto Saratoga-SunnyVale Road o~ very advisable, because of the turnaround to go in the opposite direction there and because of the gas station traffic. Hal Hamawi, 20432 Tricia Way, stated that he was very concerned about! the new development because of safety as it relates to i.ncreasin~ density and the use of Tricia Way during any construction. He also indicated that he would like the Commission to comply with the City policy regarding the number of homes on a ~ul-de-sac~without an emergency access. William Gloege, 13109 Regan Lane, requested that the Commission continue this matter, in order to give them. an opportunity to prepare their comments. Staff suggested that it be continued to a study session where the neigh- bors and the engineer can discuss' the project, and it could then be - 8 - P.l~nni,ng Commission Page 9 Meeting Minutes -. 5/13/81 SD-1489 (cont.) returned to the Planning Commission's regular meeting, where a decision could be made. It was deter'mined that it should be scheduled for a study session on Tuesday, June 2, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. The Commission requested the neighbors to express their concerns now to allow the developer some time to prepare answers to the questions. Mr. Gloege commented that he would not feel comfortable about going beyond what they have submitted'in writing at this point. It was suggested that there be another onr. site visit arranged by the developer and neighbors. : Mrs. Townsend, Regan Lane, stated that she has lived there for 21 years and has' watched deterioration take place. She stated that she was concerned about two-story houses being built behind them, since it would block their view. She also expressed concern about the traffic impact on Blauer and the noise level. Staff. was requested to do a traffid study on what the volume of traffic on Blauer is now and what it might be with additional homes. The intersection of Blauer was discussed. Staff i~dic. ated that there most likely will be a signal either. at Blauer or Brandywine, but currently it is being held in abeyance to gather further data. It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on June 2, 1981 and the regular meeting of June 10, 1981. 9a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1490 - Park Saratoga As'sociat'es 9b. SDR-1490 - Park Saratoga Associates, Prospect Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road - 3 Commercial Lots (Re-division), Tentative Building Site Approval Staff described the current proposal, explaining that the three buildings on the site would be separated evidently for tax purposes. They added that all of the buildings are'either under construction or they have been completed. Staff noted' that the'main concern has been by the' Central Fire District, and they have condi~ioned the Staff Report. Staff com- mented that there are three additi6nal parking spaces on the second parcel; therefore, they could add an additional 450 sq. ft. They explained that the use permit would have to Re'.modified to al-low that. The.public hearing was opened at 9:~35 p.m. Commissioner Crowther stated that He would.be strongly opposed to any new construction on that site, and'asked if the split could be condit~.onal on there being no new construction.on any of the lots. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the condition:is already there to the extent that it is under a use permit and further Construction would require a mod. ifica- tion of the use permit. Bob Pedrick, representing the applicant, stated that they were asking for the redivision to separate the !three lots for tax purposes. He stated that he realized that if one of the three lots is sold,'a new use permit would have to be_granted to allow the existing uses to con- It was noted that a letter from DrY' Smith had been received, and it had been explained to him that there wo!uld be no new buildings. Commissioner Zambetti moved to closZe the'public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which'.was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to app'rove the Negative Declaration for SD-.1490. Commissioner Schaefe~TM seconded the motion, which was carried - 9 -, Ptan. ni~g Commission Page 10 Meeting Minutes S/13/81 SDR-1490 (cont.) unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR-.1490, wi'th the condition added that "No further construction is permitted 16~ ~ny o?f th~ n-'e~-i~"~-.~=~. TM was carried unanimously. (Commissioner Monia left the meeting ~t 10:45' p.m.) 10. UP-493 - Norman Dion, 19104 Springbrook Lane, Request for a Use Permit to allow the construction' of a cabana over 6' high (9' max. height) in the required' rear yard " staff described the proposal. The. DepUtY City Attorney stated' that there was a request by the applicant to ~nstall footings and foundations for the cabana because it was tiedi in with work going on with respect to the rest of the structure, which was not the subject of the variance. An agreement was prepared between the City and the applicant which permitted him to do that work, but with the expressed understanding that he'would apply immediately for a u~se permit, and should the use permit be denied by the Commission, then all of that work was to be removed. The Deputy City Attorney advised the Commission, while reviewing this application, to ignore the fact'that any work with respect to the cabana has been done, since the applicant: under'stood that he was performing the work at his own risk, with no guarantee or warranty of any kind that the use permit would be granted. The public hearing was opened at 19:50 p.m. Don Smith, the architect, addressed the Commission. Commissioner Zambetti questioned.the fact that the hoUse:seems to have been developed with the greatest intensity for the front, ~ith the house moved further and further back, even though a cabana!had been planned. Mr. Smith stated that the landscape plans originally submitted to the Cit. y indicated that the caband would be in the proposed location. He explained that they had not gone into any detail and the owner was not originally going to build the cabana, but then decided to go ahead with it. Mr. Smith commented that the house had been moved so far to the rear of the lot because the applicant wanted the h6use up as high as he could get it for maximum view. ' Staff explained that if the structure were reduced to less than 250 sq. ft. it would still need a'use pe~mi% since the structure is over 6 feet in height and it is within the rear yard. Mr. Smith described the location of the cabana and the pad elevation. Commissioner Bolger moved to closeZthe public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger stated that helhad a problem with the fact that the adjacent Brookman Estate has not been developed yet, and there may be problems with that particular parcel as well, with the fact that it will be encroaching. : Commissioner Zambetti moved to den~ UP-493 wi. thout prejudice, stating that he felt that the-site had been poorly planned from the beginning, and if the applicant decreased the.size of the structure and lowered the height of i% it would be within th~ required yard. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. Staff clarified that any accessorylstructure over 6 feet in he. ight in this rear yard'area would need a.u~e permit. =Staff state'd' that if the Commis- sion has a problem with this structure they should give the applicant specific direction as to the acceptable height of the structure and the 'Plannin~g Commission Page 11 Me'etin'~ Minutes - 5/13/8 UP-493 (cont.) acceptable size. : Chairman Laden commented that they'would like a redesign.of this cabana on the back property that would not impact future development on the adjacent property, since the""CommiSsion feels they need to take~..tha~-- into consideration.. The vote was taken on the motion to deny UP-.493 without prejudice. The motion was! carried unanimously. The applicant was notified of the 10-day appeal period on this decision. lla. Negative Declaration V-.522 - Allen Don lib.V-522 Allen Don, .Old Oak Way, Lot #12, Request for'a Variance to allow the construction of a single-family residence to maintain a 10' side yard where 20' is required on a site near the terminus of Ol'd Oak Way Staff gave the history of the application and described the current p.roposal. The public hearing was opened at 1i:00 p.m. Mrs. Don addressed the COmmission,.stating that they have been through the process for almost a year, and:now they'have just learned that they will also need'Design. Review Approval of the'structure. She added that Staff has indicated that the structure shown in the exhibit is too tall, and the designer will-prepare a new exhibit if the variance is granted. Mrs. Don commented that they need to get a building permit before September and she asked if it was possible to consider both the variance and design review at one meeting.' Chairm~n Laden stated that it would be more appropriat'e to take action this evening on the variance, to determine if the variance is going to be granted prior to redesigning th6 home. Staff commented that the design review consideration could be on the next agenda if the new exhibit were submitted by the beginning of'next week. Roger Griffin, the architect, cla'rified that the deck on the plan with the revised height situation on the building will no longer exist along the north property line. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve the Negative Declaration for V-522. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the~motion, which was carried unanimously. Commj_ssioner Zambetti moved to approve V-522, making the findings. Com- missioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she would' like landscaping along the north prope.rty line to act as a buffer, and it was noted that this could be covered in the Design Review application. 12. V-550 - Ronald Knapp, 20885 Wardeli Road, Request for a Variance .to allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their present location which does not meet current ordinance setback require- ments (50" from any property line and 100' from any dwelling not on the site) , Staff described the application. They stated that they feel there are physical constraints associated wi. th the property which allows them to make the findings necessary and are recommending approval. The corres- pondence received in opposition and in favor were noted into the record. Staff indicated that the applicant has submitted a copy of what they feel was the original permit, and it does not have Condition No. 3, that the corral was to be relocated when the adjacent property was developed, on it. Staff also noted' that the Knapps had received a verbal clearance from an inspector!at the time the barn was completed; therefore, the Staff Report ·has been conditioned to get requisite building permits and pay whatever fees are necessary. Staff discussed 11 Planning Commission Page 12 M&~ti['g Minutes.- 5/1.3 V-550 (cont.) the setbacks. The .public hearing was opened at 11:15 p.m. Mr. Knapp, the applicant, stated that one of the objectives in moving to Wardell was so they could have !a horse. Mr..Knapp submitted the original per'mit, which lists only ~two conditions. He commented that the corral and barn were there when Mr. and Mrs. Moon moved there. Mr. Knapp commented that the barn ~and corral are almost as close to the other neighbors' homes who are. in favor of.the application. He submitted letters from Mr. and Mrsl. Sterling and Mrs. and Mrs. Bogart, stating they were in favor of the variance. Mr. Knapp discussed the fly problem and stated that it was. there regardless of the horse. He commented that he could not think Of a better way to maintain the rural character..of Saratoga than to keepta horse in a barn if it is kept clean and neat. Shirley Diemer, 20751 Wardell Road, read the letter she had submitted, indicating that she was in favor of the variance. Mary Moon addressed the Commission, stating that the conditions are affecting their property and them adversely. She submitted pictures of the area. Mrs. Moon discussed the fly problem and the odor from the manure piles. She indicated that ~he applicant was boarding a horse; the horse is not theirs. She stated that the excess dust is caused. from the weight of the.horse. Chuck Moon added that the wind blows from the north daily and the manure'pile is maintained next to the barn currently. He stated that if it were cleaned upon a regular basis the problem could be minimized, but he does not think that will happen. Marshall Hall, 20685 Wardell Road,.discussed the driveway, which'is the only means of access to three residences. He stated that the driveway is constituted'of a 30 ft. deeded easement, and they have only used about · 14 ft. of it. He explained that the easement runs on the north side of the Knapp property and on the east:side. When the subdivision was con- structed in 1976 they were required' to relocate the roadway, which they did. Mr. Hall .ad'd~d~' tha~._~'ti~ey~ on-l~ -'to~. "14 .-f~ was put up so Mr. Knapp's horse corral would not slide down the road. He indicated that the horse corral'is built right on top of the easement. He ex'plained that he thought it wo~ld be a temporary corral, and. he has no objection.to it now, but it does cloud the property line. Mr. Hall indicated that the access they have now is not adequate, and if the Fire Department ever~F'jsays that they need more than 14 feet, they want to be ab-!e-'.fo~'~a~e.'~it·. Th.e easement.was discussed, and it was pointed out to Mr. Hall that it had not been shown on the exhibits and the Commission was not aware of its existence.* (.addition below) 'The Deputy City Attorney stated th'at more information would be needed on the easement. He a~ded that he would have a-.problem with the Commis- sion approving a variance that has an encroachment. Chairman Laden requested the applicant to submit an accurate map of the property and all the easements that are on it, in relationship to any existing buildings, including the barn and corral. Mr. Knapp cOmm~ted that'the Corra~ is over the easement, and the barn is not. He stated that he could move the corral easily. Mr. Knapp stated that he would submit the requested map to Staff. He also submitted a letter from Mrs. Bravoswho owns the horse being boarded. Mr'. Knapp commented that he boards the horse because they are friends; he is not renting the barn out as a commercial enterprise. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would like Mr. Hall to submit · Mr. Hall was asked if he was co~s-~dering developing his property suc|~ that he would need a wider roa'~'~i~rder to permit that; Mr. Hall stated he has no desire to develop it. 'P~l.~nn~r:'g Commission "-'. Page 13 Meeting Minutes -. 5/13/81 V-550 (cont.) a title report or policy· showing the easement, and also a copy of the agreement, if possible, that may have ·related to the ·construction of the corral over the easement. Mr. Hall indicated· that ther'e was no agreement. drawn up. He added that be would s'ubmit a copy of the title report to Staff. It ~q'aS' d~:.r~C'ted ~'h.at ~h'~'S. item be continued to the meeting on May 27, 1981. (Commissioner Schaefer left the meeting· at 12:01 p.m.) 13. A-768 Dividend Industries, Request for Design Review Approval for a two·-story-dwel!ing over 22" in height (27' max.) on a lot with an average sl.o·pe less than'. 10% at the end· of a private stree~ off of HorSeshoe Drive The proposal was deSCribed'· by Staff.. The changes in the Staff Report were noted. · The public hearing was opened 'at 12: 10 p .m. Ma·rty Oakley, the architect, clari',fied that the height is 26 ft. Ite. m C in the Staff RepOrt, regarding landscape screening, was discussed. Mr. Oakley Stated that he .did not feel that screening in that area is appropriate because the adjacent house that will be designed...:f?r .Lo.t .#1 will be approximately 150 feet from this structure. · Jim Ormsberg, from Dividend Industries, stated that he interprets this requirement· to mean that the event'ual owner would' have. to come in with some landscape plans and that the City believes there might be some adverse impacts from that side of 'the house. Mr. Ormsberg added that h'e feels· this type of condition would pre-empt the homeowner from deciding what he wants to do with 'his own home. Discussion followed on the conditi:on, and it was determined that Con- dition No. 3 shall read: "Landscape plans indicating how the proposed structure will be screened from ad. jacent ·property shall. be submitted for Planning Department review and approval·, as determined necessary. by Staff." Commissioner Zambetti moved to clo'se the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried una.nimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-768, per the Staff Report as amended, making the findings. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. DESIGN REVIEW 14. 'A-766 'Gerald Butler, 20634 Vickery Avenue, Single-Family Residence, Final Design Review Approval Staff described the proposal. They gave the background of this sub- division, and stated they were recommending approval. Gerald Butler, the applicant, described the eXiSting adjaCe·nt str·hC~u'~'. He stated that this subdivision includes a scenic ~asement'. 'He dis,-..·'`,· cussed this easement and also the ,circular driveway that Staff had asked to be eliminated. He explained that the' Fire Chief had been concerned · about the· amount of parking space :in the area, and a circular driveway would provide more parking. He also noted that there would be no runoff of·waters above the property. The possibility of using turf stone was discussed. It wa·s determined tha~ Condition 1-D' should read: "A circu- lar driveway utilizing turf stone .shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval." - 13- "'~j jPl~.a.n..n~ng Commission Page 14' M~e'~t'ing Minutes - 5/13/ =,,'. ~ A-766 (cont.) : Commissioner Zambetti moved'to approve A-766, per the Staff Report as amended. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 15. A-767 - Conservative Baptist Church, 18820 Prospect Road, Church Office Building, Final Desi'gn Revi'ew A'pproVal' The proposal was described by Staff. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve A-767 per the Staff Report. Commissioner Bolger..seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS 16. A-765 - Galeb Properties, Request for Clarification of Condition 1-C (Driveways) Discussion followed on clarification of Conditibn 1-C of the Staff Report regarding the driveways. It was determined that the condition sh. ould remain.as stated,' to read: "'The site plan shall be modified so that two of the eight lots will have side facing garages and. curvilinear driveways." Staff was requested tO inform the applicant of this clarifi- cation. 17. Specific Plan - Consensus Changes By Cit'y Coun'cil Copies of the consensus changes by.the City Council on the Specific Plan 'for the Northwest Hillsides were distributed to the Commission. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from James Colyar, dated April 28, 1981, regardin~ SDR-1326o Staff report~ that the owner 6f"Parce.1 "B" has requested that the Commission reconsider Condition VIIoB to allow him to convert an existing patio cover to a carport rather than build a new parking structure. It is Staff's inter- pretation that the intent of this condi. tion was to create a parking structure which con£orms to ordinance requirements, rather-than allowing a non-conform- ing part of an existing_.st~cture to be~'u~..~.d f0~ PaTking- .Discussi0~.~llP~.ed ~n this condition. "-.C6~;S's'i'b'n~'~' Z'~b~'tl~ 'm~ed '~6"t~H6'ld"'S~'a'ff 'is "~n~erp~e~a-' ~'" it l'~'ff'b'f '~hi ~-'-c-0¼ai"£'ian .j :?C'6~m'f"s:~ i ~'~' So · (.~'~.~E~-ad d'n'anim0ds ~y'. ..... ~ .... ' ............... ' .... "; ........... ;"' .... ' .......................... ~ "~' ..... ' .................. Oral : 1. Chairman Laden thanked Mrs.' Stark from the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving c'offee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zambetti.moved, seconded b~.Commissioner Bolger, to adjourn the meeting. The mot.ion was carried unanimbusly, and the meeting was adjourned a.t 12:44 p.m. Respe'..ct~F.l~ly submitted, , ~a°rby~ns°n' ' RSR:cd