Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PL~NNING.COb~ISSION MINUTES'- DATE: Wednesday, June'24, ].981 - 7:30'p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fr~jitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll.Call Present:Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer, Zambetti and Crowther (wHo arrived at 8:40 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes The following cha. nges were made to the minutes of June 10, 1981: On page 6, under GPA-81--2, the Interim Housing Element, a motion was made for adjournment by Commissioner Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner King, after the public h. earing was c].osed. This motion was withdrawn after further discussion. A spelling error was correc'ted on page 6... (.i'~"~h~a~'?b=ee~ C~'arif'~ed"~By't'he t'~pes that the minutes are correct as stated co.ncerning the length of'the cui-de- sac on page 3 under SD-1489 (Wilson). Wi;th those changes, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner .Monia, to waive the reading of the minutes of 'June 10, 1981 and approve as-distributed. The motion was carried., 'with CommiSsioner Laden abstaining since ~she was not present. It was moved by Commissioner Monia, secon%ded by COmmissioner King, to waive ~he read. ing of the minutes of the Regular Adj.ou-rned Meeting on June 16, 1981 and'- approve as distributed. The motion was c'arried, with Commissioners Zambett'i and Schaefer abstaining since they were not present. CONSENT CALENDAR Staff requested that SDR-.1493 be removed ~for discussion. It was clarified that the approval for SDR-1488 (Spaich BrOthers) would be for Conditional Final Building Site Approval. With that clarification, the following items on the Consent Calendar were approved, wi'th 'the' motion made by Commissioner Zambetti and seconded by Commissioner Monia. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. SDR-1488 Spaich Brothers, La Paloma'and Douglass, Conditional Final Buildin.g Si't'e Approval, 2 L'ots 3. SDR-1413 Perry We's't, Vi'a' Regi'na', Final Building Site Approval., 1 Lot 4. SDR-1498 Norm Epstein, 20279 'Pierce'Road, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 Lot (over' 50% 'expansion) Discussion followed on SDR'-1493. Staff reported that there is a structure in the rear'yard which had not been indicated in the tentative map. They stated that the code requirement is that all structures on site conform to the setback'requirements.. Mr. Fuqua ~ddressed the Commission, explaining that there is a small tool shed where'chickens had been kept. Staff noted t|~at sheep are 'now bei'ng kept there. ~Mr. Fuqua stated he had agreed at the City Council meeting to do whatevSr was necessary. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Schaefer, to approve SDR-1493 for Final B~ilding Sit'e ApproVal., with the added condition that all struc- tures meet the c~ requirements at the 'time of issuance of building permits. The motion was carried. unanimously. P:Y'anning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 6/24/81 PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. V--550 -. Ronald .and Patricia Knapp, 20885 Wardell Rd., Request for Variance to. allow an existing corral and barn to remain in their present· location wh·i·ch does not meet current ordinance setback requirements (.50' 'from any property line and 100' from any dwelling not on the .... si'te;"Co'n.ti'nued'.'from May .2'7, .19'8'1 Staff reported that the applicant hasirequested a continuance to July 22, 1981. It was ·clarified to Mr. Marshall Hall that a continuance'could be · requested by him if he was unable to attend that meeting. It was directed that this item be reagendized for July 22, 1981. 6.. GF-.328 -. Consideration of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordi'nance as it r'e'l'a't'e's"tO"D'e'si'g'n' Review';' Conti'nued from June 16, 1981 This item'was discussed ~a'..fte.r'~the 0't'~r" ~t'ems '~h'e'~ep~.~j~"-c~'~'j.Att'~'Va~.~V~'e'aF.th.a'n'e~est changes to the ordinance which have 5·een made as a result of the 'last meeting held by the Planning Commission. Additional changes were made, and it was determined that the heading of Section 4·, on page 3, should read: "General Guidelines for Design Review". Setbacks were 'discussed. It was the consensus that the setbacks of the district in which ·the· lot is found will be maintained. The public hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m. Warren Heid, architect, expressed some of his concerns, specifically the non-conforming structures created by this ordinance and the 13% standard used in the 40,000 Sq. ft. district. He questioned the replacement of a home that has burned down. He pointed'out that 20% is the standard used for a 20,000 sq. ft. lot, but only 13% is used for a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. The variance procedure was discussed,!and it was determined that there should be an exception in the ordinance to cover replacement of homes that need to be·replaced be'cause of fire, natural hazards, etc. Mr. Heid stated that he felt the standard for the 40,000 sq. ft. ~·nd above lots should be reconsidered. Commissioner Schaefer stated she feltSstrongly that the 13% for 40,000 sq. ft. lots is really discriminatory and ·the number is not reasonable. Don Elam, 14721 Live Oak Lane, expressed his concern about the appeal procedure, stating that he felt there Fshould be more criteria for the appellant to follow. He ·eXplained tha, t he felt there was a serious inequity in the 'fact that, for $30.00, an appeal can be made that washes away weeks of work by the applicant and Staff and also a lot of money spent by the applicant. Mr. Elam stated that he feels this ordinance is needed, since there are a lot of people interested in converting their homes. He commented that he is not sure that the percentages listed can be applied; perhaps they should be moved into the area of guidelines, rather than standards. Nin0 Gallo, developer,·stated that he will be spending more time with Staff because of this ordinance, and he feels it will be making more paper work for everyone. He added that the percentage of the coverage should be used as a guideline, on what is being built', the individual lot, the design of the home, etc. : Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak wa .. y, stated that she felt that Mr. George Day, who has built a lot of fine homes in this area, should be asked regarding his criteria used in building,~:: ........ : '~ David Call stated that he feels some cgnsideration should be given to the appeal system'. He discdssed the standards, and it was explained to him that other cities have been contacted for their standards and guidelines. - 2 - Planning Cornmiss ion --- Page 13~ Meeting Minutes 6/24/81 GF-328 (cont.) Woody Whatley, realtor, stated.that she feels entirely ~oo much emphasis is put on a neighbor's 'objections. She 'stated that the Commission spends a lot of time 'on the"situation, and should be a better judge than one or two neighbors; more empha. sis should be placed' on the Commission's decisions. CommisSioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia Seconded the motion, whi. ch was.carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowthe'r' moved to' change the 26 ft. figure on page 4, Section 4-d, to 22 feet, rather than 26 feet.. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion. Chairman Laden. noted that the con'sensus at previous meetings had been 26 feet. Staff expres'sed concern that there would be the possibility of increased mistakes in interpreting the ordinance .if another set of numbers was used. The vote was taken on the motion and it was carried, with Commissioners King, Laden and Zambetti dissenting. Comm:issioner Monia moved to adopt Resolution GF-328 and forward it to the City Council, rec'ommending t. he ordinance, using the percentages as presented in the draft by Staff, wi'th the appropriate amendments agreed upon at this meeting. Commissioner' Bolger seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther moved to amend the motion, to call out NHD in Section 5 separately, with the same statement.as HCRD, except replacing 12% with 8% and 43,560 sq. ft. with 87,120 sq.'ft. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would be voting no on the Ordinance. He explained that his major reason is'the change from 26 ft. to 22 ft. He stated that, even'thOugh it is a guideline, the creativity is being taken away, and he feels that too much emphasis has been put.on height. He added that he feels the Commission will be spending a tremendous amount..Of time on design review. '-'H~ ~tat'~'tH..~ ']~e 'h~'~ 'tH'o~gH~ t~9~.~.~'."m~g'h.t"~e' '~ plac'~- in the ordinance for a Design Review Committee made up within the community of people that were specialists in the field or just concerned citizens. Commissioner King stated 'that he was going to vote in favor of ~he motion, not because he feels it is-a=per'~c'~ ~r'~ft:'~:~'~n~'e;_'h'e a'~rees w'~h'C~m~is- 'sioner Zambetti and also with Staff r~garding"the 'Confusion about the 26 ft. and 22 ft. Howe'ver, he added, he feels, in the sense of moving something on to the Council, that he 'is willing'to compromise, Commissioner King commented that one issue that has not:been discussed tonight is the bulk of houses over the last two years. H~ stated that he does not think thj. s is a perfect formula; however, it is a formula by which we can at least quantify something and determine 'what'we are making a variance from. He added that he 'feels this is far superior to the guidelines and requirements that this Commission has had to deal with in the past. Commissioner Schaefer stated she agreed with everything except the figures in Section 5. She asked if possibly there could be a separate vote on the wording and one on the figures. eommissioner Bolger commented that these figures were generated over many months Of wo'rk. He added' that they may not be perfect, but they are some- thing that is a benchmark that we shoqld be going from. Commissioner Schaefer explained. that s'he felt the 40,000 number is so restrictive that she cannot vote for'i't. She moved to amend that number in the standards to 16%. The motion faile'd for lack of a second. Commissioner Crowther commented that the ordinance has come a long way. However, he added, the major undeveloped land in the City today is in the NHD district, and we are starting out 'the'NHD district on flatland at close"to 12,000 sq. ft. Fie stated that the standards do not mean much without that clarified, and he thinks it is a major error in the ordinance. Pl~'nning Commission -.- Page 4 Meeting Minutes -~ 6/24/81 GF-328 (cont.) Commissioner Laden commend. ed everyone'who worked on the ordinance and stated that she feels it has come a long way. She commented that the criteria may still be a little hazy, but at least it gives us some better feel for.where we are headed. She 'addedtthat she h'as great difficulty with the' numbers and feels they don't.have a lot of substance to them; they don't have any sort. of normal differential from one zoning group to the other; they are based highly on what we have in town that may be an average of 12 yea'rs old. She expresse'd concerns about the infills and the additions., and stated that she feels we are'~really tampering with people's-rights to use their proper'ty;Z therefore, she will be voting no. The vote .was taken on the motion for approval and transmittal to the City '~"~7~ '~h~-'!~="~'The~.~otio~ ~a~'~carried, with: Commissioners Schaefer, Zambetti and 7. UP-499 -- Jerome Smith, 20290 Orchard :Place, Request for a Use Permit to allow the constr~ction of a detached garage over 6' in height '(13.5' maximum) in the r'equi'~re'd rear yard Staff described the proposal.-"~' ~'~ ......... ~"" ............. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Jerry Smith, applicant, stated that hei would like to have a 3 ft. setback in the side yard. He passed out 'a drawing showing a 6 ft. setback and the requested 3 ft. setback for the side yard. He'discussed the bay tree which would have to be removed if a 6 ft. side setback were maintained. He explained that there is an existing garage adjacent to his property line which. has no windows,' and the proposed'structure would not be offensive to the n'~.,ighb.ors. He explained that if the garage.were moved forward a little towards the house it would be Very ~lose to the e~isting house, since the lots are very small. Commissioner King moved to close the pBblic hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which 'was carried~unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve~UP-.499, per Exhibits C, D and E (Fig. 2 o~ the applicant's drawing), with. a'.~ ft. rear yard setback and a 3 ft. side yard setback, per' the Staff Report dated June 16, 1981, and making the findings. Commissioner' Bolger seconded the 'motion, which was carried unani- mously. UP-.500 -. Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for a Use Permit to allow the 'construction of four (4) condominium multi-family dwell- ings in the""C-V~' (Visitor-Commercial) district and Negative D.eclara.ti~on The proposed project was described by Staff. They stated their major con- cern with the proposal is that the bulk and height of the structur~ may be incompatible with the existing structures in the vicinity. The density of the project was discussed. Staff noted that there were several options listed in the Staff Report. Staff recommended continuance of this item to allow for a study session with the applicant to resolve some of the con- cerns. Chairman Laden explained that with approval of this use permit the Commis- sion would be saying that this is an appropriate use of the site. The Commission has control of the height, the intensity of use, parking, etc. during design review and.building site approval. She added that, if the Commission feels this is not an appropriate use ~f the site, then that. con- cern should be expressed. If it is felt that multiple dwellings are appropri- ate, then a study session is needed to go through that nrocess and work with the applicant. It was noted that a letter had been received in opposition to the project. -- 4 · P~l'_aniiing Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes -- 6/24/81 -UP:S00 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 8':05 p.m. Lee Gray, a resident 'of Saratoga Oaks Homeowners Association, commended the owners for cleaning up Big Basinwi'th their design, which looks very appropriate. He express'ed concern over the recreational deck since t!~ey have 'a very severe noise problem at the present time from existing residences in the area. He asked the Commission to consider the location of this deck as to the 'noise impact on the residents. It was clarified' to Mr. Gray that the ordinance had previously been .changed to allow cOndominiums in "C-C" and "C-V" districts with a con- ditional use permit. Warren Heid, the architect, described the proposal. He stated that this is a very difficult site and is only about 63 feet wide. He noted. that there has been tremendous interest .to improve quality housing in the Village. Mr. Heid described the surrounding structures'and the proposed structures, commenting that he had tried to capture a one-story look. He stated that he feels this project harmonizes with the surrounding area and protects and enhances the real.property values in the City. Mr. Heid asked' the Commission to w6rk with them in study sessions to understand the 'process that he and. the owner have gone through to come up with something unique. The parking and access were discussed. Staff noted that it was. a specific recommendation of the Village Task Force that the ordinance be amended to allow multi-family and mixed uses in the "C-.V" d'i. Strict. Commissioner King stated that multi-family uses have previously bee'n discussed at this Commission as a buffer element in the Village as we move from Village use to home use. Staff commented that in the recent General Plan Advisory Committee meetings for this area, the consensus of the people has been that they wanted higher density sort of condominium multi-family developments to hel'p support the Village. Commissioner Zambetti commented that he had not decided what would be the best use for this si. te. He added that he felt the surrounding area has to be considered, and he does like this approach as far as the architecture is concerned. Commissioner Bolger stated he would like to see more of a multi-use. for this particular .location, wi'thZa store and the condominiums above and in back. He added that he did.not feel this architecture is com- patible with the Caldwell property next door. Mr. Heid stated that 'he could not see a multi-use on this site. He added that he shares the Commission's concern. s; ho~_ever_~ thiS' will"': help them make a decision as to what they want in .that area of town. He emphasized the fact that the applicant and he would like to work with the Commission to develop a quality Woody Whatley, stated that she is in real. estate and numerous community activities, and she thinks the proposal is a marvelous idea and encourages a development of this kind. It was the consensus to have a study session on this item, at which time the Commission will consider how far commercialism should extend up Big Basin and where the residential should start. Chairman Laden d.i. rected that the public hearing be continued to July 22, 1981 and the applicant and Mr. Heid will be notified of the earliest possible date for a study session on th. is matter.' DESIGN REVIEW 9. A-.769 Loyde Paradise, Mendelsohn Lane, Two-Story, Single Family Residence, Final Design R~view Approval; Continued from May 27, '1'9'81 .... · Staff described the proposal, stating that one of the major concerns of Planning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes -~ 6/2.4/8i A- 769 (cont.) ~ the Commission on their onesite in.spec'tion were the trees ~h~-.d=~.~-might be · j~_~j~L.¥~.dT."':7~ The' let'ter submitted by the' applicant regarding these trees was discussed. Ray Cobb, the architect~ stated th.at' pla~.s have been submitted to Public Works for' improvements to Mendelsohn. The design of the house was discussed by Mr. Cobb. Commissioner Bolger stated that he! still feels this home is very high and large for the site; yet the 'si~e is very unique.in the fact that it is down from the road and he does not feel it will impact the s'urrounding homes adversely. Commissioner King moved to approve' A-769 as proposed, per the Staff Report of May 22, 1981, with the removal of Condition 1-C. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carrie~ unanimously. ~;'S'f~ff ex~i'~i"n~d-~"~inb Gallo, developer, that this item was not a noticed public hear'~'g, and the present Urgency Ordinance was discussed. MISCELLANEOUS 10. EP-16 -- Lawren'ce Roe, 13499 Scully' Avenue, Request for Encroachment Permi't' fo'r fence 'in 'right'-.of-.way; continued from May 27, 1981 Staff reported that the. applicant had requested a continuance on ti~is matter. It was noted that a letter ha'd.'been received from William S~eridan in opposition to the permit. It was directed that this matter be continued to July 22, 1981. COMMUN I CAT IONS Oral 1. Commissioner King gave a brief report on the meeting held by the 'City Council on June '17, 1981. A copy of the minutes of. this me~ting is on file in the City' Administration Office.' ' 2. COmmissioner Bolger moved that the Commission ask the. City Council. to begin. studies on a Specific 'Plan for the southern hillside area of Saratoga. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. Discussion followed, and it was the consensus that priorities should be considered before this' request is sent to the Council. Commissioner Crowther stated that one of the key things that is in the present SpeCific Plan is the density standards, and it would be a much simpler thing to request to the Council that they impose the Measure 'A" density standards on the 'southwest hillside area. It was the consensus that this matter should be di~scussed in a study session, and Commissioner Bolger was asked to submit a description of the' area and some of the advantages and reasons for considering this~ The motion and second were withdrawn. 3. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group· for attending the meeting and serving coffee'. ~ Respectful'l'y submitted, R.'S. Robinson~ Jr. Secretary RSR:cd