Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MI'NUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 22~ 1981 -- 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Ci·ty Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call : Present: Commissioners Bolger', Crowther.,. Laden and Schaefer Absent: Commissioners King, Monia and Zambetti Minutes The following additions were made to the .minutes of July 8, 1981: On page 1, concerning the ·minutes· of June 24, 1981, Commissioner Crowther also expressed concern that the ·draft of the' Design ReView Ordinance given to the Planning Commission, which they· voted on, did not Zinclude line of'sight setbacks; that there was no recollection of it"'having be'en discussed'.~% t.]Y'e'.~eg'u.lar-mee~.-.' ing, and that there was no record of it having been discussed in the minutes of the meeting. On page 4, under UP-S04, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve UP-S04 per'the Staff Report, making the necessary findings. The motion was carried unanimously. On page ?, under-.V-SS3, Commis- sioner Crowther commented that the General Plan Shows this .area as a park down to Calabazas Creek On the southeast corner of Saratoga~Sunnyvale Road; therefore, according to that, even the building should not have been constructed, let·alone the sign. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was dissenting on the motion to deny V~SS3 because 'she felt that the s. ign was an attractive addition, and she does not feel· there··can be a successful business on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road without a sign facing the ·main street. With those additions, Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Commissioner·Crowther, to waive the reading of the minutes of July 8, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried unanimously.· CONSENT CALENDAR Items. A-774, EP-i? and SDR-.1366 were removed for discussion. Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded· by Commissioner· Bolger, to approve the remaining item on the Consent Calendar listed below. The motion was carried unanimously. 4. SDR--1447 - Marcus Bitter·, 19000 Cox Avenue - 1 Lot, Request for One-Year Extensi'on Discussion followed 'on th'e removed items., 1. A-774 - Slobodan Galeb,· Wilson Lane,' Lot #3, Single-Family Residence, Final D'e'sig'n'R'eV'i'ew"App'r'ova'I It was noted that the coverage and height numbers were transposed on the Staff Report. Commissioner Schaefer.moved, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to approve A-774, per the ·Staff Report as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. EP-i? - Sunland Park Homeowners Association, Baylor/Clemson and Quito Road, S'ign Encroachme'nt Staff reported that the Homeowners Association was requesting that one of the signs be ·relocated· to an adjacent corner. Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to approve EP-17 per the Staff Report and the new Exhibit "B-I". The motion was carried una. nimously. - 1 - .Planning Commission Page 2 ~eting'Minutes 7/22/81 3. SDR-1366 - Bert Reid, Bohlman Road -.'1 Lot, Conditional Final Building Site ~ppro'v'al Staff explained that the issue here is the final map; the tentative map was approved by the 'Land Development Committee in 1978. It was explained to Commissioner Bolger that the building site cannot have a slope in excess of 40%; however, the lot itsel·f can have'a slope greater than that. The grading on the site was discussed. Staff indicated that the site had been investi- gated by the City Geologist and by the ·City's grading process. Commissioners Bolger and Crowther commented that they would like to see the site before any approval is granted. Staff explained that the Staff Report indi·cates· that the 'Site Development Plan is not approved at this. time; the Commission will review that plan at the time of Design Review Approval. They added that at that time the Commission can indicate where the structure should be placed on the site; the present approval would only be for approval of the pa'rcel as a buildable site. Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to continue this matter in order.to allow a review of the building site. Bert Reid, the applicant, explained that this is not a new project, and all of the technical details have been discussed at the Land Development Committee and with 'Staff.. He stated that a geological survey had been made, and no fault lines had been found. He also added that he has spent $10,000 on engineering for the project and all of the concerns have been addressed. Chairman Laden commented that some of!the Commission h~e sat on the Land Development Committee' and were 'involved in the di. scussions on this project, which have been very thorough. She explained that some of.the Commissioners have not been in that position and they feel they need to see the site and perhaps the written documentation tha~ supports the City Geologist's and the Fire Chief's position. Staff pointed out that the issue here'.is a ministerial act; the site has already received' Tentative 'Building~Site Approval in 1978 and met the con- ditions. Commissioner' Crowther stated that it appears that some of the condi.tions have not been met. .Mr. Rei·d explained' that the Fire Chief has been out of town; therefore, the let·ter has not been received from him-on the water situation, but he has given his verbal·authOrization. He commented that the parcel map is being prepared at this time. He 'added that there is a complete geological survey in the file. Commissioner Crowther stated that he sympathizes with the situation but ·is particularly concerned with this area. The vote was taken on the motion to continue the meeting to August 12, 1981. The motion failed, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. Commissi·oner Laden moved to approve Conditional Final Building Site Approval for SDR-1366, upon the condition that'the applicant submit the t~o~out-. standing items, .i.e., a parcel map an~ a letter from the Fire Chief, and that they be accepted·. The 'motion failed,zwith Commissioners Bolger and Cr0wther dissenting. It was direc·ted that this item be continued to the meeti~ng on August 12, 1981, and it will be consid'ered at that time. PUBLI·C HEARINGS 5. A-770 -· B. Kelly, Live Oak Lane, ReqUest for Design Review Approval for a one--s'tory, single-.family dwelling that would be over 22' in height (27' max.) on a lot wi·th an average slope of less than 10% "in"the R-.l'-'40,'0'0'0 'zoning' di'st'r'ict'; cont'inued 'from June 10, 1981 Staff described the proposal. It was=noted that two on-site visits were made, one ·on July 14, 1981 and one on July 21, 1981. At the visit on July 14th th~ applicant had indicated that the building pad would be lowered by appro×imately 3 feet' and that the height of the roof would be changed to a - 2 -' ~Pl.a~Hing Commission · Page 3 ~ting' Minutes 7/22/81 A-77.0 (cont.) 7/12 pitch in order' to reduce the height of the structure even further. The COmmission had asked that the tennis court be lowered and that vegeta- tion and natural screening be planted. Chairman Laden indicated that the neighbors were conc'erned about the helght and the impact of the structure. The public hearing was opened at 8:10ip.m. Brian Kelly, the applicant, discussedithe ridgeline point of his residence in relationship to the proposed structure. He commented that there possibly had been an error in the drawings, an~ the distance from the pad to the r~d'geline would~be 25 .f~e~,. instead o.f the 27 feet as shown. Mr. Kell~ indicated that this r f!~g'~:~._'~'ou~ ~' He also stated that he would str~ve tO'.keep as many of the walnut trees on the site as possible. Additional landscaping was also discussed. John Carey, 14751 Fruitvale, stated that there had. been a lot of very hand- some walnut trees in the center of thee lot which have been'cleared.. He also indicated tha't.~he grade of this lot has changed substantially and qu~te a lot of-dirt has.been dumped' there in 'the last few weeks. It was noted that the City had put a stop to additional=·fill being put on this site. Mr. Carey expressed concer'n over the height of the structure. John Berg, the neighbor to the east, 'stated that the most important concern was privacy. He added that he hoped the screening would be a natural screen- ing rather than board fence. Mr. Ber~g commented that what has been suggested sounds like a happy compr. omise. Eileen Shapi'ro, Farwell Avenue, state'd' that the house as originally proposed would have affected their view and'pr,ivacy. She added that she is also concerned about the finished height of the house and the floor level. Comm~ss'io~er Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mr. Kelly indicated that'a 6/12 pitch' would flatten the roof out quite a bit and he would prefer 7/12, especially if their new calculation is correct. The conditions 'of the'Staff Re~ort we,re discussed. It was determined that the following 'conditio~n~~ should be"a~ded: (C) The tennis court is to be excavated at the 'southerly portion and the northerly side of the tennis court shall not!ex'ceed natural e.l'eVation; (D) Appropriate landscaping shall be installed for screening purposes' o'n the easterly and northerly section of the site, wh'ich does.not exceed' 15~ feet, subject to staff review. Vege- tation is to be 'planted in the fall; 'and (E) Pad elevation shall be 503 feet. Maximum height of the house 'is to be !23 feet in height above finished pad. Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Crowther, to approve A-.770 per the 'Staff Report dated May 31, 1981 as amended, and the Addendum dated' July 15, 1981, subject to the condition that revised elevations be submitted reflecting that the structure will not be more than 23 feet above. finished pad. 'The motion was carried'unanimously. 6a..~Negative Declaration UP-500"- Oudewa.al 6b. UP-500 -. Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for a Use Permit to allow'the construction of four .(4) condominium multi-family · dwellings in the "C-V" (Vis=itor-Commercial) district; continued f'r'o'm.'J'u'ne '2'4,' 198'.1 It'was directed that th. is'item be continued to the meeting of August 12, 1981. ~bPlanning Commission Page 4 M~ting Minutes 7/2.2/81 7. V-550 -. Ronald and Patric'ia Knapp, 20885 Wardell Road, Request for Variance to allow a.n existing corral and barn to remain in their w !i present 'location h ch does not meet current ordinance setback f~ m requirements '(50 ' o any .property line and 100 ' from any dwe'll'i'ng'. 'n'O't' 'o'n" 'th'e 's'.ite ;' c'o'n't'inue'd from 'J'une 24, 1981 Staff gave the hi'story of the proposa'l'. The Deputy City Attorney addressed the iss.ues'that have been raised: (1) The question as to the method of calculating the square footage of the site. He explained that in the definition of site set forth in the Zoning Ordinance rights-of-way and easements used as roads are ,,x'cluded, and this has been the customary prac- tice of Staff and the Commis .ion. He' added that he is inclined to concur that this site, whi'le 'it may be 40,000 sq. ft. in terms of total size, for purposes of determin,ing the size after this exclusion is approximately 32,000 sq. ft.; (2) A review of the files would seem to indicate that at the time the permit was issued the party issuing and reviewing it was not aware of the private easement on the property. We have now been placed on notice of that easement and it is an easement of record. We have no know- ledge. of abandonment or court order r~ling that it has been abandoned or in any way impaired. The Deputy City Attorney stated that if the Commission does 'elect to grant the variance, it should be conditioned upon the corral being moved so that it does ~not encroach upon the easement area. He discussed the setback requirements.. He pointed out that the applic~ant's attorney's position is that the applicant does not need a variance because he has the ~orse permit. However, the ordinance under which the permit was _~s.sued. provides that the permit must comply with the Zoning Ordinance, and ~"'~'I~h. at-iT .the pe~'mit is issued in violation of the Zoning Ordinance it is to be cons~'dered as void. The ~Deputy City Attorney commented that, since there was no development at the time the permit was issued, and the City was not aware of the easement, there may ha've been some relaxation on'the side yard setback requirements. He 'added that' .~here now seems to be some dispute as to whether the're is a condition on th.~t permit that, upon development of the adjacent proper'ty, the barnI ~ould have to be moved. Commissioner Crowther stated that he was concerned because it appears that, based on the evidence that t~he applicant has provided, he~ does have a valid buildin~ permit and he has a~ valid horse permit. He added that he would question whether the subdivision is legal and he is concerned about the City's position on thi's ~matter, since. that construction caused some viola- tion of the ordinances'. He asked how the Commission can proceed since the a~torney has withdrawn thei'r request ifor a variance. Chairman Laden explained that the var.iance is still before the Commission in a continued public hearing. She 's=tated that the Commission should either deny or approve the variance, and if it is denied, then the applicant's request for withdrawal will ~have been~ met. The Deputy City Attorney s~ated that :there may have been recognition of the setback requirements when the horse permit was originally issued in 1970, but because 'there was no development adjacent to the property, the condition may h~ve been inserted' that upon the development of those properties, the stable and corral would have to be moved. He advised the Commission that, if there is a conflict between the horse permit and the Zoning Ordinance, the statutory provisions concerning the horse permit clearly indicate an int'ent that the zoning act s~hould prevail. He added that, in his judgment, the City is dealing here witch a variance situation. .Commissioner Crowther stated that the. Government Code reads and implies that a variance is something that you obta'in before you grant a permit and before you do construction; 'in ~this situation the permit has been granted and the construction has been completed. The Deputy City Attorney e~plained that there have been numerous situations where the City has gone back to legitimate situations that may .have occurred earlier, including existing structure'.s. 4 P.-1.~nning ·Commission [ Page 5 Me~eting' Minutes 7/22/81 V-550 (cont.) The public hearing was reopened at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Marshall.Hall asked to review ·the· letter from Mr. Knapp's attorney, and he was given a copy of the 'let'ter that had been received.!'~'~'- Mrs. Moon. again asked the CommissionZto deny the variance. She passed out letters which had been wr·itten f~om the other two owners backing on this property. She· stated· that they were ve·ry concerned about the effects of the horse, the effects on the'health of the children, the use of their back yard, and the effects on property values. Mrs. Moon added that she did not see any kind of compromise· on this situation. She commented that the size of the ·applicant's land after the easements have been subtracted is 16,272 sq. ft. Marshall Hall, after reading the letter from the applicant's attorney, commented that he would assume that there is now no application b'efore the Commission. !'He added that if there is no application, then perhaps the scene would shift from the Commission to someone who wants to make an issue of the fact that the structures are the~'e without a variance or without permit, and that would address itself to the courts; perhaps the neighbors could· seek litigation to clarify the matter. The Deputy City Attorney stated that=this is a situation which was initiated by the neighbors and the City is acting in response to a complaint. If the Commission makes·a finding that the present structure does not comply with the Zoning-Ordinance, in the absence. Of a variance the City·could require its removal, and that would prompt another application by the applicant for a variance. -Marshall Hall stated that., if the Commission'is·thinking seriously about granting this p~rmit, which is one of the most flagrant applications that he has Seen, he would like to comment further. He commented that the person who had issued the horse ·permit had created a situation that was in violation of the ordinance, but that does not bind the City. Mr. Hall pointed out · ~hat the applicant does not have a usable 40,000 sq. ft. lot and he~does not ·conform to the required setbacks. Mr. Moon, 12651 Arroyo de ·Arguello, pOinted out that the original permit seems to be questionable and the new'·permit application grossly misrepre- sented the measurements. He stated· that they have tried to work out a · solution wi·th the applicant. Mr. Mo6n added that there is no effective wa'y of enforcing any Conditions th~ ~C~mmissionjm~i. gh:t attach; ~ requested.that the permit be revoked· and that the barn and corral be removed per City ordinance. Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. The Deputy City Attorney stated that.perhaps one approach would be for the Commission, rather than voting on a variance, to see whether there is a consensus for directing City Staff tO take appropriate action with respect to the horse permit as has been suggested. That may initiate a further request for a variance, but it would seem to be the only course of action open to the City at this time. He explained that the consensus would essentially be whether this is a circumstance requiring a variance. Then the dropping of action on the variance request itself would not be con- strued as agreement by the Commission to Mr. Knapp's contention that he does not need a variance. As far as·pursuing the matter, that is again up to the ·Commission as to whether or not you want to direct Staff to bring appropriate proceedings under· the horse permit ordinance for revo~cation of the permit. Commissioner Crowthe·r stated that he' felt the pr'ior inputs from the neighbors indicated that there was no major problem. He pointed out that - 5 - ;.pla~h{=ng COmmission Page 6 He=~ting.- Minutes ?/2.2/.8.1 V-550 (cont.) the Health Inspector had indicated that the barn was very clean and there was no fly problem. Commissioner Cro~wther added. that this input included that from the.'people who we·re ·downwind from the site that would be most ~ffected. In view' of the fact 'that t'he ·Knapps built thi's back i·n 1970 and have a building and horse per'mit, he ~feels · '··b~cause they have acted responsibly in this case. He added ·~h~t·h~ felt it would be an undue. burden on them at this late date to make them move or .remove the structure~ Commissioner' Crowther moved that the 'request for withdrawal of application V-550 be accepted and the City should take no action in requiring a new horse permit or variance. Commissioner Bol. ger seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther amended· his motion to include the 'fact that the Commission con- siders this to be a nonconforming use which has taken place over a number of years. Commissioner·Bolger seconded the amendment. Commissioner Crowther further amended the motion to add the· statement that the necessary findings to grant a variance could have been made. Commissioner Bolger stated that he could not second that amendment. 'He explained that he is very troubled by this situation, since it appears t'hat there are two different issues--the problem of the stable, corral, neighb~ors, and horses, and the problem with easements. He concurs that it is not necessary to ask for a variance for this particular project, but he 'cannot second the portion of the motion stating that the findings can be.made.. Commi=ssioner Crowther withdrew that amend- ment dealing w·i·th the findings. Commissioner Schaefer suggested a time limit, so when the Knapps sell the property, the corral is removed, and also that the corral be removed from the easemen't portion. The Deputy City Attorney pointed out that the motion here is for the City to take no action. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would not vote for the motion, since she does not feel this is the appropriate action in this situation.~ Commissioner .Laden stated that she wi!ll vote against the motion. She explained that she feels there has be:en enough evidence to show that there was incorrect or insufficient information given' at the time of the applica- tion concerning the easement and the 'right-of-way of property owners. She added that she sees the Commission re. cently granting variances on almost any premise that comes along. She st!ated that'she is very con.cerned about the very lax approach to this situati:on here when. the Commission takes a very strong approach to issues such as ministerial acts. Commissioner Laden added that she feels this is not an a. ppropriate motion and will not vote for The vote was taken on the motion. The motion failed, with Commissioners Schaefer and Laden ·dissenting. It wa.s directed that this matter be con- tinued to the meeting on August 12, 1~981. The Deputy City Attorney pointed out that wh'at is now before the Commission is whether there is a finding of a violation of either the Zoning Ordinance or horse permit, and whether Staff should be directed to take acti!on to revoke the permit. 8. SDR-1S00 -. Norma Behel, Herriman Ave'nue, 2 Lots, Tentative Building Site ApproVal ....... ." !" Staff noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. It was directed that this item be continued to the meeting on August 12, 1981. 9. UP-505 -. Rajdev/Moreland School District, Request for Use Permit to allow a Day Care Center to operate in existing buildings (Quito School) at .18'7.20. Buckn'al'l 'ROad "': ' Staff described the proposal, stating' they were recommending approval. The public hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. '=Planning Commission Page 7 ~.~{ng'Minutes 7/22/81 UP-.5'05 (.cont.) Mrs. Vimal Rajdev, the applicant, addressed the hours and weekend activities. The numbe'r of children' and employees We'r'e also discussed. It was determined that Condition No. 1 of the Staff RepOrt shall read: "The maximum number of students will not exceed that permitted by the state license. Number of employees will be 'commensurate wi'th 'the 'number' of students per state require- ments." Condition No. 2...will read: "The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Infrequent staff or other meetings may be held in the 'eVening."' Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded%by Commissioner Crowther, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Schaefer moved, secondedZby Commissioner Crowther, to approve V-505 per the amended Staff Report, making the findings. The'motion was · car'ried unanimously. 10. V-554 - Charles Gill, 13935 Saratoga. Avenue, Request for a variance to allow the construction of.a.room addition which would cause the main dw'e'.ll'in'g'.t'o.'ma'i'n't'a'i'n an'.'8"'s'l'd'e"y'ar'd 'wh'ere 1'5' is required Staff described' the' proposal, recommen'ding approval. The public hearing was opened at 9:45ip.m. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter~ Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. .Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to apprqve V-554 per the Staff Report, making the necessary findings. The motion was carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS 11. EP-.16 -. Lawrence Roe, 13499 Scully Avenue, Request for Encroachment Permit "for fenc'e 'in"r'i'ght'-.'of'-.w'a.y; cont'inued from June 24, 1981 The proposal was des'cribed by Staff. They .commented that they do not feel there is any adverse safety impact wi·.th 'regards to the fence itself. They added that ·they recommended that the steel supporting posts be removed as a safety prec·aution. Staff clarified: that·they were referring to the posts which are not attached to the 'fence. They also noted that they had added the condition that the City has the r~ight to revoke the encroachment permit if they nee'd' to wi·den Scully Avenue in 'that vicinity or if it does create a health or safety impact. Mr.·W. Sheridan commented that he has: been in contact with the City during the last year regarding this matter.~ He expressgd concern over the rigid and'solid posts. Mr. Sheridan noted that he had submitted a letter regarding this matter. Mr. Roe, the applicant, stated that h.e would like to leave the fence where it is. He explained that the steel p. osts were used because wooden posts would soon rot. Mr. Roe added that 'if he were conditioned to move those posts he would not leave the fence th·ere. He noted that there is a 15 m.p.h. speed limit in that area, and no one !has ever run into the posts. Commissioner Crowther stated that he..agrees with the Staff Report, adding that from a sa'fet·y viewpoint he does .not: think it makes much difference whether the fence is 3 feet back or 7 feet back. He commented that he feels the key issue ·is related ·to the reinforced posts. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to see the entire fence and posts removed. She commented thazt she is concerned about setting a .precedent regarding encroachments. She added that. she feels the City never - 7 - ~fF~Yh.ning cornmiss ion Page 8 ~ieeting Minute's' 7/22/81 EP-16 (_cont.) realizes that it is 'a hazard until there is a major accident. The Deputy City Attorney' s'ugges'ted, if the Commission grants the encroach- men't, to 'add a condition that the applica'nt 'en'ter into an indemnity agreement with the 'City. Commissioner' Laden agreed' wi'th. Commi~sioner Schaefer that the City should not make a habi't of granting encroachment permits in circumstances where they are not absolutely a necessity. Commissioner' Schaefer moved to .deny ~P-16, consistent with the precedence of not granting encroachment into City rights-of--way. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissent- ing. COMMUNICATIONS Written ........... ... .. 1. Let'ter'from'Se'nior'Citizens'COordinating Council re the new Senior Citizen Center. : 2. Inrerpre'.tati'On 'Of A'r't'i~le 1'2 '~'f 'the' Zoning Ordinance. Staff explained that currently in Article~12..of the ordinance home occupation permits can be granted only in an Agricultural or Residential district. The code has changed significantly since Article 12 was written-, and the City now allows single- fami].y uses, i.e., condominiums, in "C--C'!', "C-.V" and "P-A" districts. The Deputy City Attorney discussed the res'trictions. He explained that the present ordi- nance permits home occupation in "A" and ~"R" districts, He commented that he feels the intent of the ordinance was home occupation in residential structures. It was noted' that any such use would have to go through the permit process. It was the consensus that home occupation should be a use in a residence, regardless of the district where the residence is f6und. Oral 1. Chairman Laden thanked the GoOd Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded· by COmmissioner Schaefer, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p..m. ReSpeCtfully submitted, Secretary RSR:cd