Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June'10, 1981 - 7i30 p.m.' PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, King~ Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Crowther and'Laden Minutes ZAMBETTI/KING MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WITH THE ADDITION OF COMMISSIONER CROWTHER'S NAME AS MAKER OF MOTION ON ITEM 6, p. 6. Passed 5-0. BUILDING?SITES"."' 1. SDR 1495 - Garner & Sorenson, Oak Street', 1 lot (8 units), T~ntative Building Site Approval = CommiSsioner Monia expressed his concern about the encroachment, which would be about half the required=25' front yard setback. Planning Director noted that approval would not increase the discrepancy of the lot, which was already non-conforming, and that it was consistent with Section 15.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. The only reason the matter was before the Commission at all~ he said,'was that the tentative building site approval had expired. Commissioner Bolger brought up the subject of the report by City Geologist Cotton. Tim Lundell, attorney for the developer, stated that the conditions established for the first tentative map approval included satisfactory resolution. of any geological problems. He stated that the existing house w~s non-conforming; moving the project back to increase the setback would mean destroying the house. Commissioner Schaefer asked whether the developer could buil.~' the new structures to meet the Zoning O~dinance setback requirements. Mr. Lun- dell replied that there was not enough room to do so. Commissioner Schaefer then askedz about the size. of the units .and parking requirements. Planning Director~gave details of the project and stated that the 'code requirement for two parking spaces per unit had been met. Commissioner Monia inquired as tO whether seven units could be put in instead of 8. 'Edwin Garner, of Garner and Sorenson, 'replied that if the concern were meeting the setback requirements, that was possible if the front porch were removed., Assistant Planner Flores noted that if'the porch were removed the struc- ture would still be non-conforming, and the addition would still not comply with the current interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance section on non-conforming structures, although it complied with the 1979 interpretation. In response to Commissioner M~nia, Mr. Garner stated that removing the porch would ruin the appearance 9f the structure; moreover, the porch supports the roof. Commissioner Schaefer agreed that the porch was a visual asset to · .'. the structure. She also noted that the area was zoned for multiple "'.' dwellings, so that .any precedent~ set by approval might result in many more such applications. Planning Oa~,~ssion Page 2 Meeting Minutes 6/10/81 SDR 1495 (cont.) Commissioner Bolger asked how the spring and ground water would impact the pro- ject. Assistant Director of Public Works Trinidad stated that the problem would have to be dealt with in the future, since it had not been identified earlier. He ·believed it might not impact the project. Dennis Eccles, soils engineer for Terratech, explained that his main concern was lowering the water level for excavation of the foundations. The soil was suitable for construction, he felt, but Terratech did not have sufficient data on the water level. He believed the problem might be solved by extending the subdrain· system, if monitoring proved!? it necessary to do so. I~i response to Cu~dssioner Schaefer,he stated that all drainage problems would be resolved. Commissioner King noted that the newer "2members of the Commision were not familiar with the case. Commissioner Zambetti then reviewed the history of the project. He ..pointed out· that if the Cc~mission did not ask for widening of the street, no non-conforming problem would exist. Other houses in similar situations have not been required to make street improvements, underground utilities, or meet setback requ. irements ,he Said, and the ~tructure is a good one which ~ould meet a need in the Village. He expressed concern that the project would not be built because of the cost of improvements. Con~nissioner Monia expressed his opinion that the existing non-conforming building was being used to take advantage of the circumstances by permitting a non-conforming use to continue. ?J,~.·~....·~ ?·=··~.~. Planning Director noted that the non-conforming section of the ordinance shouldr!be· revised. In any case, however, the Gleneral Plan indicated the necessity for increased density in the area in question. Further, the fact that the Village Merchants want rincreased foot traffic inthe area should be considered, he believed. ZAMBE~iTI/KING MOVED TO GRANT BUILDING SITE APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBITS ON FILE AND STAFF REPORT DATED 6/2, INCLUDING THE MITIGATION MEASURES OUTLINED IN THE COTIDN REPORt DATED 5/7/81, AND THE TERRATECH REPORT AND ~IAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED IN ACEORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ~-~ FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLIN. Passed 4-1 (Monia opposed). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SD 1489 - Wilson Development, Tricia Way, ·10 Lots·, ·Tentative Su/:~i~ision Approval; Continued from May 13, 1981· (and Negative-Declaration) .............. The public hearing was opened·at 8:10 p:.m. Planning Director reviewed history of project. The· main issues', he said, were a~cess and location of two-stories. Deputy City 'Attorney Toppel added that the Con~ssion must decide whether the developer may exceed the·15-1ot advisor~ limit placed by the General Plan on cul-de-sacs, since secondary access can'be provided. In response to Oonmissioner Bolger's question, Assistant Public Works Director explained that an emergency access is closed to regular traffic; secondary access can be open to the public. He stated that the Public Works Depar~nent felt that Tricia should be used as primary access; that direct access onto Highway 85 would be undesirable because of the traffic volume there; and that the traffic ~Duld not adversely impact existing homes. Albert J. Ruffo, 101 Park Center Plaza,. San Jose, spoke as the attorney repre- senting the homeowners on Tricia and the adjacent street. He stated that the developer was considering using Highway 9· as access. He asked to see any studies on the issue. Dick Kier, representing 'the developer, stated that he concurred with the staff report' s recGnmendation that houses which beck up to the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road be restricted to one story.. He favored. access onto Tricia. ·Going farther south to construct a road would require· more grading, he said, and he emphasized that termination of Tricia was t.<~.Wporary. Planning Cc~ission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 6/10/81 SD 1489 (cont.) Mr. R~ffo stated that if Tricia were extended, the distance of the cul-de-sac. ~Duld be at least doubled, to 800' or 850'. He asserted that the General Plan's intent was to provide traffic safety, as well as emergency access. He also stated that if the sole exit were on Highway 9 some problems might be created, but that there were no significant problems in a similar situation at the'A~gonaut Shopping Center. He noted' that the neighbors object to t~D-stories on the east side of the extension of Tricia; single-stories on Highway 9 could he placed behind a wall to buffer the noise. The neighbors ~ould accept the project if it ~re limited to 15 lots, he felt, and sutInitted a petition signed by 72 persons to that effect. He stated' that cul-de-sacs in the area have nine lots at the most. Con~nissioner Schaefer questioned Mr. Ruffo's statement that there were no traffic problems at Blauer and Brandywine, and Asst. Public Works Director countered that there were significant accident problems in that area,..primarily from left turns being made onto the street. Dave Wilson, president of Wilson Developers, stated his belief that the project complied with the General Plan and all 'ordinances if served from Tricia Way. ~--?" Caltrans would need to approve if Highway 9 were selected'; then an exception from the subdivision ordinance ~ould have to'be 'granted because at least one lot with streets on three sides would thereby be created. Pat Carroll, 20418 Tricia Way, said that District Engineer Ken Berner frc~ Caltrans had claimed no jurisdiction when asked =.about the situation and had. said that Caltrans would probably grant access through Highway. 9 if a 'reaSonable plan were submitted. Bob BraE, Tricia Way, asserted that ~the s~aff .reoort says no option for access '-'~h~OUgh ~Highway~ 9 'on,-a Tight~hrn~only 2baSis -' ~i~'ts.~':~= .'~! .He~.'baid-. tha~. "simi~ar.'~ .examples'!. do ekis~~. in., the'.~ City~!~.' He...asked .Wh~ther'~there had'= 'be~n 'a"~'~i~ding ".~ha't" no'~ ~lternati~ means of developing the property existed. Commissioner Schaefer explained .~__that- the Comnission has explored all options in ~spite of the statement in the staff re.port and had made every effort to obtain public 2input. Planning Director pointed out that the Planning Commission was to make a decision on that matter tonight; if they cannot make the finding, they must adhere to the 400"' length requirement. Mr. Branham stated he would like to see the subdivision ordinance upheld. ~Dnald J. Piziali, 13123 R~gan Lane, stated that there was already a development having homes with streets on three sides; the proposed development ~Duld result in a cul-de-sac of odd shapes and excessive number of lots. Bill Gloege,13109 Regan, asserted that =the main issue ~es the impact on the City and residents of the development. Commissioner Schaefer noted that one may hear different issues covered in different p~ublic hearings. Mirabeau Towns, 13035 Regan, spoke against multi-story h~mes because of the resulting loss of view. Gil TroUtman, 13070 Regan, spoke in fair of access onto ,Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, saying that any problems would be mitigated by installing a traffic light. Pbod.¥ Watlee, a realtor, stated that Saratoga needed more houses and that owners should be able to develop their property. Mrs. Plirabeau Towns, 13035 R~gan, stated that she objected to the traffic problems on the corner and did not ~nt second-story homes. KING/BOLGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC ~R/NG AT 9:00. Passed 5-0. Con~nissioner M~nia asked the correct way of measuring the length of the cul-de-sac. Asst. ~ublic Works Director replied that it would be measured frcm the intersection with Regan, center to center. Commissioner Monia stated that it would .then be 460' to 475'. Commissioners then discussed their individual opinions. Rolger stated that the emergency access on lots 6 and 7 was nOt sufficient to protect the access. He felt that access on Saratoga-2Sunn~Vale'~ Road would not be prudent. Zambetti spoke for extending Tricia to allow more traffic .dispersal. King believed proper access was through Tricia; he felt conditioning single story h~mes should be considered. MDnia felt the 15-lot limit should be adhered to, with access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Schaefer believed Tricia should be the access, with no two-stories allowed and with reduction in the number of lots. Monia wished to allow a total of no more than Planning Cc~mission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 6/10/81 SD 1489 (cont.) fifteen homes, which would not require emergency access. King did not object to 19 lots; he felt it important to preven~ emergency access from becoming secondary 'access. Zambetti felt 19 lots were acceptable but objected to t~D-story homes and wanted emergency access from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Bolger felt 15 lots were acceptable' but also objected to two-story homes. Schaefer favored 17 lots to avoid having odd-shaped lots and excessive lots on the cul-de-sac. Planning Director explained 'that the developer would not need tO .pay more fees if the application were denied without prejudice and he wished to bring the same plan back with a reduced number of lots. The developer may also appeal a denial. BOLGER/MONIA MOVED DFNIAL OF SD 1489 FOR TEN UNITS WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Passed 3-2 (Zambetti, King opposed). Conmissioner Schaefer s~,,arized Cc~nission's consensus as calling for single-story homes only, with access from Tricia. King felt there might be a ccEnpromise in re- moving emergency access if the proposed. number of lots were reduced. Zambetti suggested a ccmpromise of 17 lots with emergency access required to prevent further development. ' 3. UP 497 - Roger Lee, 20899 Maureen Way, .Request for a Use Permit to allow a cabana over 6' high (11" 6" maximum) to be located in the required rear yard Planning Director reviewed staff .report. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. Conmissioner Bolger asked if the cabana were not feasible on the north 'end because of the sewer hookup. Asst. Planner Lester stated that the sewer 'hookup had not been a consideration; she had left the cabana where proposed because of the lack of impact on surrounding area; there is an adjacent structure on the north end. Mr. Lee, the applicant, explained that 'there was only one place for a sewer hookup. The public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. ZAMBETTI/KING MOVED TO APPROVE UP 497 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF REPORT DATED 5/29/81 AND EXHIBITS B AND C WITH CONDITIONS l= (a) and (b) . Passed 5-0. 4. UP 498 - Donald Lightbody, 13522 Debbi~ Lane, Request for a Use Permit to Allow the construction of an 8' high soundwail in the required rear yard Assistant Planner Flores reviewed the ~taff report and sut~nitted brochures picturing the fence type. Conmmissioner Schaefer noted that the a~vertising brochure had nothing to do with the Saratoga City Code, contrary to a statement in the-brochure. The public hearing was opened at 9:57. Donald Lightbody, the applicant, explained that the density of the concrete proposed for the wall qualified it for sound reduction. Mrs. Lightbody stated her desire to · liv~ in the area and asserted that trees would cover the wall. The public hearing was closed. KING/ZAMBEITI MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION, MAKI~E THE .FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED .6/3/81, WITH EXHIBITS B AND C. Passed 5-0. 5. A 770 - B. Kelly, Live Oak lane, Request. for Design Review Approval for a One-Story single-family dwelling that ~Duld be oVer 22' in height (27' max.) on a lot with an average slope of less than 10% in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Planning Director reviewed staff report, including letters from the Ionchars, Careys ~, and Shapiros opposing the appl. ication. The public hearing was opened' at 9:55. John Berg, 14855 .Baranga, spoke in opposition to the application, stating that he had not received. proper notice of the public hearing. He felt the. proposed struc- ture would not be consistent with the area of large lots and low homes and that the proposed grading would raise the structure. too high. George Ionchar, 14775 Fruitvale, spoke against the application, saying that the grade level was 3' to 4' above the existing grade, beth for the structure and for the tennis court. Planning Cu~t,~ssion Page 5 Meeting Minutes 6/10/81" A'770 (cont.) Eileen Shapiro, 19612 Farwell Avenue, spoke against the application, sukmitting phDtographs showing the elevation of the roof line of the present Kelly house above a neighboring house. She felt the proposed house would adversely affect the views, privacy, and property values of at least'twelve homes. Brian Kelly, 14772 Live Oak, spoke as the applicant. He sukmitted photographs of the site showing the view of houses in .the area. He noted that the height limit was 30'. With respect to the privacy issue, he pointed out that the windows had been kept away from the east side of the house to protect the neighbors' privacy. As to the elevation of the house, he said that it was planned with the intent of blending in the existing grade so that .the tennis court would be level and the house would not appear to be "in a hole." This might be modified,' he said, by lo~ring it about two feet. Mrs. Shapiro countered that the lot was not "in .. a hole," but at the top of a hill, and suggested that the grading be accomplished so that the house would be at the lowest part of the lot rather than the highest. Cc~missioner Monia noted a dis- crepancy in the maps; Asst. Planner Lester stated that the map in the Cc~mission packet was correct. CONSENSUS TO CONDUCT ON-SITE INSPECTION AT COMMITI~E OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON JULY 21 AT 4:30 AND CON~INUE PUItLIC HEARING AT 2REGULAR M~FrFING OF JULY 22. (Note: Item 10 was heard next but is listed in agenda order for purposes of the minutes. ) 6. GF 331 - Consideration of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as it Relates to Design Review; Continued from May 27, 1981 Planning Director reviewed staff report, stating that criteria and" guidelines were the most important points. The public hearing was opened at 10:40 p.m. Nancy Arias, 20590 Canyon View Drive, expressed concern over several. aspects of the proposed' ordinance, including bulk, height, and placement of infill multi-story homes, as well as the character of the '.neighborhood. She urged that allowance be made for the input of neighbors. Planning Director pointed out the diffi. culty of defining such terms as "neighborhood" and expressed his belief that the C~f,~ssion should look at the ordinance as a whole. In response to Bill Heiss, he explained'~ that the height would be measured by a wa~rped plane in all districts. Nodger Griffin, Junipera Way, suggested that homes be built so that the second story element would be in front, away frc~n one-story structures to the rear. Conm~ssioner Zambetti suggested that 'individuals have more than one year for their design review deadline, since many must ask for extensions. He also suggested the formation of a design review committee of five appointed by the City Council to save the Con~nission time spent on design review. Commissioner Schaefer said she favored the idea, and Cu¥,,~'.~ssioner Bolger said that such a comnittee would be useful as an. advisory body. Cc~missioner Monia stated tb~t at the last study session he had presented floor area ratio figures; he presented new figures to the Ccmmission. Planning Director explained that, in writing the design ~eview ordinance, staff had attempted.~. to encourage flexibility; the square footage of the home would be a ratio of the lot coverage. Cc~mlissioner Monia favored tying setbacks to height in a new paragraph, 6.c., of the ordinance such that every foot above 22' of height, the setback would increase an additional 10%. .' Con~t,~ssioner' King noted that 'the ordinance could include provisions for attractive reconstruction of buildings in the Village. CONSENSUS TO CONTINUE TO ADJOURNED REGUlAR'MEETING JUNE 16. ·: Planning Cc~mission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 6/10/81 7. GPA-81-2-General Plan Amendment to Consider the Interim ·Draft H~using Element (Goals, policies and programs) Deputy City Attorney explained that the draft housing element ~.lst be at the State HCD office by July !, 1981, and the element adopted by the Council by October 1, 1981. Associate Planner Rudin emplained that the Co~mcil is interested in the draft, but it will not be formally sent to them at this' _point. The draft before the C~,~ssion was simply a skeleton with suggested goals, policies, and programs. She explained the meaning of these terms and how the draft had been developed. The public hearing was Opened at 11:10 p.m. Mildred Gordon, 20299 Blauer Drive, spoke as a representative of the Saratoga Aaea Senior Coordinating Council. She stated '.that she felt rental housing was an impor- tant need and that rental programs should be available~·~'.she felt suitable low ·inceme housing should be encouraged for all age =groups. She felt the Housing Element was not flexible enough since, for instance, it emphasized the rural character of the City while residents' needs may'be changing. Further, she believed the Housing Element should be more specific. '~-.The.'Ci~y~···has relied on the private sector and should consider other options, she believed. Ms. Gordon also suggested that the possibility of a hotel or retirement inn should be left open. Sanford Getreu, 925 Regan Street, San Jose, expressed agreement with the concerns mentioned by Ms. Gordon with respect to senior citizen housing. He also stated that the existing densities in Saratoga are not satisfactory and should be studied to provide up to 7 or 8 dwellings per acre. '· Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte, spoke in favor of senior housing needs and expressed · willingness to assist in any task force for revision of the Housing Element. Margaret Sherill, 14290 Paul, spoke for providing housing o__Dportunities for all residents and at all econGmic levels and making the Housing Element as specific as possible.. Bert Toevs, Via Madronas, asserted that ~he present HOusing Element ~as a hollow document which did not meet guidelines and requirements in its scope or in its "adequate provisions." : Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, asked that sections 6456 a (non-market housing) and b (all economic segments of the con.~.~nity) be added. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, speaking~'~.'as a':member'-~f.~'-th~?Ge~er~l"Pl~h~,'~fy Cc~nittee, s.poke against the draft Housing Element,, ·saying that most .areas in Saratoga ~pposed any subsidized housing. She also felt it incorrectly cited, as the main problem faced by seniors, that they would be forced out of their houses by rising property taxes; it did not propery define wants and needs; did not address the role of the private sector in housing assistance; did not clarify the upper limits to qualify for subsidized housing; and contained outdated statistics. She also corrected page four to say that the City will rent .rehabilitated units at fair market value· Jim Stewart, Allendale Avenue, stated that the plan should be what the residents want rather than what the· State wants. He felt that needs of all segments of the popula- tion' should be identified rather tb~n those of one segment~ the City should not "provide" suitable housing alternatives; Goal #3 should be eliminated concerning sustaining the existing character of Saratoga. He felt there was no great need for additional rental units; he also believed the data was obsolete; he felt it should be clarified that the City does not "provide" SHARP loans or housing. Sanford Getreu suggested the use of "encouraged" rather than "provide" in several cases and urged retention of Goal #3. Shelley Williams, 11951 Brookridge, spoke of the need for mere housing and the fact that few people can qualify for financing. He also urged flexibility to allow for growth and changing demography. Kathy McGoldrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, spoke for flexibility to take account of varying neighborhood needs as to such issues as subsidized housing. The public hearin was closed. Comm~.ssi0~er Zambetti moved seconded by Comm]ss]0ner Kin~ to adjourn..~.oti0n was withdrm~n af.ter the followin~ discussion. Comnissioner Monia asked what the conseq~.~ences would be if the draft were not sub- mitted by July 1; Associate Planner replied that it could not then be written to 1977 Plannin~ Ocmnlission. Page 7 Meeting Minutes 6/10/81 guidelines, but to the content of AB 2853. She also pointed out that the City is not bound to retain the adopted element and is 'free to change it. Deputy City Attorney noted that the General Plan revision ~ould supersede the draft and explained the procedures further. MONIA/BOLGER MDVFD NOT TO ACCEPT THE,' HOUSINC~ RI,RMENT AND TO SEND IT TO THE CITY ODUNCIL. Passed 5-0. DESIGN. REVIEW ~ 8. A-711 - Villey Title Co. (Black~Zell Homes), Parker Ranch, Two (2) Single- Family Residences, Lots #14 and #15, Final Design Review Approval 9. A-771 - Blackwell Homes, Parker Ranch, Single-Family Residence, Lot #7, Final Design Review Approval CONSENSUS TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE TBD ITEMS AT AN ADJOURNED REGDIAR MEF~ING JUNE 16 at 6:00 P.M. 10. A-772 - Allen Don, Old Oak Way, Tract 3943, Lot #12, Single-Family Residence, Final Design Review App,.roval Commissioner Zambetti reviewed history of application. Assistant Planner Flores corrected reversed figures on squ. are footage in staff report and-Stated that applicant may implement scme solar energy measures. He stated that most of house ~Duld be screened by oak trees on the side. ZAMBEITI/KING MOVED TO APPROVE PER STAFF REPORT DATED 6/5/81 ~/qD EXHIBITS B AND C SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 5-0. CONR~UNICATIONS Written Oral None. Conmissioner Schaefer noted that a volunteer was needed for the historic conservation committee. Co~,~ssioner Zambetti volunteered 'and was appointed. ADJOU~ 1: ':~:: '.'.: .'.~'::-"':' '75 .' ~. ZA~gETTI/BOLGER MOVED ADJOL~{~MENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON LITIGATION AT 12: 20 A.M, Passed 5-0, · .Respectfully fitted, :".