Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION "MINU~ES DATE: Wednesday, August 12, 1981 -- 7:30 p~m. PLACE: City Council Chamber's, 13777 Fru{tvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regu'lar Meeting ROUT I NE '0 RGAN I Z AT I ON Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King,.Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti (Commissioner Zambetti~arri.ved at 7:40 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes The' following changes were made to the minutes of July 22, 1981: In the' Minutes section, fifth line., "on his part" should mbe deleted. In the seventh line UP-553 should be V--SS3. With those changes, Commissioner Schaefer' moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to waive the reading tof the minutes of July 22, 1981 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioners King and Monia abstaining since they were not pres'e.nt at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR : SDR-1366 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner King', to approve the remaining item listed below. The motion was carried unanimously. 2. A-778 Paul Heath, Quite Road, Garage~ and Guest Addition, Final Design Review Approval .... Discussion fol. lowed on SDR-.1.366, Bert Reidl, Conditional Final Building Site Approval. Staff noted that the items discussed at the last meeting, the parcel map and the letter from the Fire Department, are still outstanding. Mr. Reid, the applicant, stated that he had been on vacation, but he had discussed this project with the Fire Chief and Staff before he left. Ite explained that he was planning to put the water in at the same time as the foundation. Mr. Reid stated that the Fire Chief has received all of the appropriate information from the Saratoga Heights Water Company. He added that, while the' plans are going through plancheck, if it is determined. that he will not be able to put in the water, he will have a letter from the Saratoga Heights Water Company, which the Fire Chief will approve, a~d ~'~t.=will be in ~he file before the building permit is issued to frame the house. Mr. Reid stated that he could go ahead with his con- struction loan if the Commission would give him approval, and the outstanding items could be handled while the paperwOrk was being done. He clarified that the house will be at the upper level and the septic field will be on the lower pad.* Commissioner Crowther expressed concern regarding the geology. It was noted that Conditions III-D and III-F addressed his concerns regarding the stripping of slopes and the fact that the pad looks like it was filled. Mr.. Reid clarified that.the house is not on fill. Commissioner Crowther also commented that the report from the City Geologist had not been signed by him, and that a change had been pencilled in on that report. Staff explai.ned that the change had been made to read "before.issuance of building permit", as opposed to final map approval, to make it consistent with conditions of the report. They also explained that it was the practice of the City Geologist and the City to have the report typed by the secretary for the Department of Inspection Services and the Director sign for him. ** Commissioner Schaefer moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve 8DR-1366, subject to the submission.of a parcel map and the letter from the Fire Chief. Commissioner Bolger expressed his concern about all of the Congress Springs area and asked about the letter that the applicant had signed regarding the geological problems in that particular area, which' r61ieves the 'City of any liability..He asked if this had been tested in courtj and..the Deputy City Attorney stated that he was unaware of any specifi~ cases involVfng the'type of letter the City custo- marily receives. * Addition on page la attached. - ...... ** Addition on page la attached. Planning Commission Page la Meeting Minutes - 8/1 SDR-1366 - Bert Reid - Conditional Final Building Site Approval Concern was expressed as to whether the Fire Chief, in his letter, could revise the conditions required'for water supply. It was indicated that the conditions must be met and they cannot be revised by the Fire Department. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he could not accept a formal geology recommendation to the Planning Commission that was not signed by the City Geologist. P~ani~i'~g Commission .... Page 2 Meeting Minutes· 8/12/8··1 SDR-.1366 (cont.) A time-frame was 'discussed, and Commissioner Schaefer amended her motion to include the 'condition that the o~tstanding conditions be met by September 30, 1981. Commissioner· King accepted the amendment. The vote was taken on the ·motion to approve SDR-.1366 subject to that.~c'~n_'_~'~'~H'~.~· The motion-wa·s carried, wi·th Commissioners Bolger, Crowthe-r and Monia dissenting. PUBLIC HEARI'NGS 3a. Negat'iv'e 'De'cla'ra'ti'on'.-'UP--'5'0'0 -.'O'u'dewaal 3b. UP-·500 -·- Martin Oudewa·al, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for a Use Permit to allow ·the ·construction 2of four (4) condominium multi-family dwellings ·in·the "C--V" (Vi.sitor-·Commercial) district; Continued · ' 'fro~. 'J'u'ly. 22, ··19'81 .... · ' ' ' staff ."? The 'public Hearing was 'opened at 7:50 p.m. Warren Held, the architect, gave a p:resentation on the project. The ease- ment and requirements of the Water D.istrict were discussed. Mr. Held also addressed' the parking and the concrete deck. He submitted a letter regarding the height 'of the structure, the garages and towers. 'The patter'n of deVelopment'on Big Ba:sin Way was discussed. Mr. Held stated that he had contacted the-immediate neighborhood regarding the present proposal. and had received tremendous. support. Commissioner Zambet'ti asked if Mr. H~id had any input from the Chamber of Commerce or Merchants AssociatiOn regarding the proposed use, and Mr. Held stated that he had not. Commissi'one.r Zambetti commented that an office use could be'of great support to a Ci-V or C-C district. He added that he felt that this site is a significantZ'piece of C-V property in the City, and he feels -i.t is important to cons:ider where the growth is going to go if this site becomes a residential piece of property. Staff commented that, in terms of any plans for the Village and an action program for it with'regard to the Geheral Plan update, this has not yet been generated by the 'Committee. ThEey noted that the information from each of the planning areas has been put together in consensus reports and they are now having final revisions. Commissioner Schaefer'moved to close: the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff clarified that the zoning and General Plan for this site are con- sistent. Commissioner King stated that, as a Commissioner and neighbor, he feels that a high quality condominium is appropriate for this end of Big Basin' Way. He added that he is Concerned about the traffic flow should further commercial development alOng. Big Basin be allowed. Commissioner King indicated that he felt that, unless there is an alternate plan for · traffic flow, further commercial development should not be encouraged. CommisSioner Bolger agreed, stating that he felt this would be a very appropriate use above Fifth Street. It was the consensus that the use should be addres'Sed at this time, and the density aspect can be discussed at a later time, since site development and design review will still be required. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP-'S00. Commissioner King seconded the motion. It was determined that the number of units should be deleted from the project description on the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Schaefer amended her motion to include that deletion. Commissioner King accepted the amendment. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Zambetti dissenting. Commissioner' Schaefer moved to approve UP-S00 for construction of condo'- minium multi-family units at 14629 Big Basin, per the Staff Report dated - 2 - ."Planni~ng Commission Page 3 ==Meeting Minutes 8/12/81 UP-SO0 (cent.) gune 18, 1981, amended to read that the number of units will be deter- mined during the 'site development and design review process. Commissioner King seconded th'e motion, which 'was carried, with Commissioner Zambetti dissenting. 4. V-SS0 -. Ronald and Patricia Knapp,.20885 Wardell 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 reqUirements.'(S0'.from any.property line and 100' from any dwell- " 'ingno't"onthe':Site';"COnt'inued'from '3uly 2'2, 1981 The 'Deputy City Attorney' gave 'the history of the proposal. He noted that this matter had been' continued from 'the last meeting because of a split vote. Commissioner Crowther stated that there were more members of the public who were 'in. favor of the corral and barn than opposed, and the Public Health officer from the.County did not indicate a problem in many of the areas that were being criticized. He noted that Staff had recommended that the 'Commission grant a variance.. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the City, at this point, sh6uld try to stay out of the matter and should accept the applicant's reques~t for withdrawal. The Deputy City Attorney stated that' if the Planning Commission issues a directive for the 'horse permit to be revoked, then they are in effect concluding'that a variance was required. He explained that the condition regarding the 'zoning aspect is on the City records, and it would seem that the' permit was issued' in recognition' of the fact that the adjacent area was not then developed, and when development did occur the relocation of the corral and barn would be required. He added that the ordinance per- taining to the 'issuance 'of horse per'mits specifically states that if a permit is issued under a situation which does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, the permit is to be deemed null and. void. The Deputy City Attorney further explained that when the site area is computed it is cus- tomary to exclude streets and easements; therefore, when those areas are excluded, it reduces the area down to 32,000 sq. ft. He noted that this exclusion does not pertain to easements for utilities. He indicated that this. proposal does not comply with s'etbacks with respect to the 30 foot requirement from a street, the 50 foot requirement from a p.~op.e~ty .~i~e, or the 100 foot requirement from an adjacent dwelling Commissioner Zambetti stated that he. cannot accept the applicant's with- drawal for a variance that is immedi'ate business before the Commission. Commissioner Monia moved to direct Staff not to take any action concerning V-550 for the horse permit. Commiss'ioner Bo!ger seconded the motion. Commissioner Schaefer commented that. she would have voted for the variance, hopefully with some time limit and perhaps some other conditions. She expressed her' concern that, by not taking any action, the Commission would be setting a precedent by saying that, although an issue is not in con- formity on many different levels, and not requiring a variance, t'he..City would be allowing many other kinds of situations to be referenced to this case. ;' Commissioner Bolger stated that he could share that concern; however, the major problem with this case is the fly issue, and that has been taken care of with all of the' spraying. He commented that he would like to see the neighbors work together to resolve this issue, and he does not believe the City should be"involved in it any further than it has been at this time. Commissioner Schaefer commented that: there are ordinances&t~.'ConS'id~y~_~'and :.j~"~'a'~'~y"~'the neT~hb~.?~'~7'~ ~ot ';t'al'king' 're 'eaCh 'other', .... She '=.s'~fi'~ed"t~a~:-.'.7"'~. ~gb Si'tuation has 'gone 'beyond 'the ne~ghg~rho0~ ~nd she feels it is up toI'' the 'City '.to: ma.ke 'a '~.decis ion. Commissioner' Crowther stated that he believes the Horse Permit Ordinance has provisions in it that the' City can revoke the permit if the holder is creating a public nuisance or is creating problems; however, this was not the conclusion. He explained that there was a lot of input that the applicant wa's-:-not."conducting himself in such a way that the City would have _'L-_ _-_ _'_ ~ _'~ _ ' .... '.' ~' ~..'. -. ~ ~a' '6 :'. '~'~ ~ac~a.7.~. .......~ ......~.,~-. ., . ...... .......:,- ......... ....... . . _: .;.' ........... ,:-:: - _ - ~:~-,.: - : . .-~: : ...........:...... =:~.. =__ ..... ~-~,-~,~-:~.~; ...... _ ~ .... ._~ry..~__..~ ..~.= ~ ,'.- ~ .....~ ... . ~_ , ~.~-~ ......... ~ -. Planning Commission Page 3a Meet.Lng Mi.~utes 8./1.2/.8.1 V-550 - Ronald Knapp * The question was raised as to whether the City had been consistent in subtracting easements when computing site area, with particular reference to lots in the Parker. Ranch development and a recently approved development on Big Basin Way. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that street easements are excluded when the site area is computed; however, other types of public or private easements are not. ~l:anni~'g Commission Page 4 ~Meeting Minutes 8/!2/81. V-550 (cont.) a basis for revoking the permit. The vote was taken on the motion to direct Staff not to take any action for the horse permit wi·th··regard'to V=-550. The motion failed, with Commissioners Laden, King, Schaefer and Zambetti dissenting. COmmissioner King commented that he felt the central issue is whether a horse is appropriate on this ·site. He stated that this is a rather small site and is probably inappropriate for a horse. Commissioner King stated that this is no longera rural neighborhood, although there may be one near it. Commissioner· King moved to request Staff to initiate proceedings to revoke the· horse ·permit from this site, as suggested· by the City Attorney, unless a variance comes back before the Commission. The Deputy City Attorney stated that if·the ·applicant wished to appeal revocation proceedings, that appeal would go directly to the City Council. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the ·motion, which ·wa's carried, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. Commiss·i·oner Schaefer stated· that she had voted for the motion, even thQug~ she feels a horse cer·tain.ly could belong on the site, because she feels t·h·~t "t~e.;'matfer" ~h~ui'd .'.'go .~e'~on~j'.~Jie' C'Gmm~"'4:~" level '.~ this Doi.nt. S. SDR--1S00 - .Norma.Behel, Herriman Avenue, 2 Lots, Tentative Building Site · . ""A'pp'r'o'v'a"l';"C'on't'i'nue'd"fro'm' July 22, 1981 The proposal was described by Staff.' It was noted that a variance had prev'iously been approved O'n thi'~"~pro. j. ect. The public hearing was opened at 9:05 p'.m. Doug Adams, the attorney, stated that the applicant has no intention of building at this point, and the purpose of the' proposal was to split the lots so they conform to the other lots in the area. He expressed his concern about the' conditions' in the Staff Report, which include payment of fees, since' the 'applicant does not intend to build at this time. Mr. Adams explained that he had discussed' the condition from Sanitation District No. 4 with them, and there is a possibility that some of the storm drainage fees will be reduced and waived until such time as a building permit is applied for. The 'conditions of the Staff Report were discussed,.and it was explain&d by Staff that Conditions II-.C, D and E would not come into play until there 'is some use of the lot, and Ill-B, C, D and E would not be required prior to Final Map Approval, Regarding Condition II-A, Staff indicated that this condition has always been applied with'site development rather than the' issuance 'of'a building permit. Chairman Laden commented that perhaps Condition V-.A, regarding the hook up to sewers, is directed towards 'both lots. She' explained' that it has been customary for the City to bring all lots that are involved in a lot split up to the City require- ments, which would apply 'to both parcels in this case. Mr. Adams stated' that he was hopeful that additional comments from the Sanitation District No. 4 would be received soon, and it was determined that Condition' IV-.A be amended to read "Sanitary sewers to be provided and fees paid in accordance With requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated' June 22, 1981 or any additional letters submitted by the Sanitation District." Commissioner' Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the' motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved t6 approve SDR-1S00, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated July 8, 1981 as amended. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the mot'ion, wh'ich was carried. unanimously. 6. A-775 Dividend Development Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval for a two-story single~'fami~y dwelling that would be over 22' in h.eiglit (30' max.) on a lot with an average slope of less than 10% in the R-.1-.-20,000 zoning district on Carnelian Glen (Lot 4, Tract 6'72'2') ............... Staff described the proposal. -~i~u~sio~..~0110wed on the lo~ l~.pe~'.~d~'~'-'' 4 / ~f~nni~g Commission Page S ~eeting Minutes 8/12/81 A-?7S (cont.) the ·building envelopes in the area ahd specifically regarding th'i's project. Th.e public hearing was opened at 9:3S p.m. Jim Omsberg, from Dividend Development Corporation, stated that the lot lines and the building envelopes as .to where these houses were sited were dictated to them at the time ·they received tentative map approval. Lorraine Pace, Carnelian Glen Court, expressed her concern with the ease- ment along the side. She explained ·that there is a pathway there that has been used, and she is concerned 'that, now that it is going to be blocked off, the easement will not b[e clear so they can walk through. She indicated that there was a lot of brlush in that area and the easement is along the creek. Mrs. Pace requested the Commission·t6 ask 'the applicant, while they had heavy equipment there, to run a tractor through to clear some of the brush away. It was noted that this proposal fall!s under the Urgency Ordinance; the new Design Review Ordinance will be effe.ctive August 1S, 1981. A letter was noted into the record from Mr. Frank. Grengo, a neighbor on Horseshoe Drive, indicating his concern that the acce:ss of the drive or road should be fenced .for protection of the children and the homes be placed in such a way as to not have an effect on the icreek and plant life. Commissioner Monia moved to close th]e public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commiss~·oner King suggested that the Commission consider this application under the guidelines developed under the new ordinance, to satisfy them- selves that this structure meets those guidelines. Commissioner Monia suggested pulling: the house a little forward, in order to save some of the.trees. It was pointed out that if the home were moved forward on the scenic easement line .the side yard setback would be lost. The easement line was discussed. Commissioner Zambetti expressed his concern with the height of this structure. He commented that he felt the house was too big for this lot. He noted that there are two other vacant lots on this property, and those two homes are going to have to be consistent with the' new ordinance. He also indicated that he felt the side yard setback is.inadequate for a 30 ft. structure. Commissioner King commented that his. concerns were regarding the design review process. FIe stated that, even though this Staff Report was written based upon the Urgency Ordinance which is presently in effect, he feeis that the City has had no guidelines for design review to deal with a lot of severe problems in this community.. He added that it was the consensus of the Commission that the general guidelines for design review in the new ordinance were most suitable for the:City. Chairman. Laden stated that she has a problem with a. pplying the specific measurements in the new ordinance onia proposal that has been submitted when the new ordinance is not yet in:effect. The Deputy City Attorney pointed out that the new ordinance can certainly be considered with reference to its general guidelines,%but there is a clear distinction between the general guidelines and specific quantified requirements. He added that, if this item is continued, then the Commission would be considering it under the new ordinance; as of this meeting the Urgency Ordinance is still in effect. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the Commission cannot deny the design revi'ew for violation"of the new ordi- nance; they may conclude that this proposal doesn't meet the criteria, but since the Urgency Ordinance already has some of the same criteria, to that extent the Commission can make the same decision under the Urgency Ordinance. Commissioner Crowther commented that, if the house were turned 45° on the site,."tHen-D~ssiblly..the-s'e'tb.acks .cotfl.d .be~met.~' C~mmis's.i.~ne'r Monila stated that he has a problem with the side setback and the height of the structure. '~Pi.an~ihg Commission Page 6 =Meeting Minutes 8/12/81 A-775 (cont.) Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-775, with the stipulation that the grading be done to allow for the pathway and easement with a minimum amount. of disturbance to the creek itself, if possible. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Monia moved to deny A-775 because of the height and the fact that the setbacks are not consistent with the neighborhood, and it would. create an impact on some of the neighbors. Commissioner Kin~"~s.~onde'~ the motion. : Mr. Omsberg stated that he was confused, since they were given instructions and designed this home in terms of ~he old ordinance. Chairman Laden stated that the Commission is operating under the UrgenCy Ordinance tonight; how-.'- ever, the Commission has the discretion to indicate that those setbacks are not sufficient. She added that the.Commission feels the structure is too high and the setbacks are not sufficient for the size of the structure. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt the applicant was being put in a very difficult position, since~he assumed that the'prOposal'would be considered under the Urgency Ordinance. Commissioner King stated that all of the applicants have been in that same difficult position for the last two years while the City had an ambiguous Design Review Ordinance. Chairman Laden stated that she would like to continue the matter and allow the applicant to make an effort to redesion .the house to meet the 'setbacks that the Commission is looking~for.~ Commissioner Bolger stated that he would like the applicant to bring back a modified design, possibly showing.the house tipped'45° to comply with the setbacks, and how that would affect the site development plan. He indicated that he was primarily addressing the rear setback, but also would like to see the side yard setback increased, although 'it does meet ordinance requirements. Commissioner Monia stated that, for that size of structure, he would like the side y~rd setback increased to at least 20 ft. The vote was taken on the motion to~deny A--775. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Laden and Schaefer dissenting. Chairman Laden stated that the applicant has come to the Commission under the criteria that has been used for the last several months. She added that she would like the Commission to direct the applicant as to what the problems are and what the Commission would like to see in a modified plan. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would like to see a side 'yard setback of at least 20-25 ft. He suggested~putting an L shape to the design to use more of the rear yard. He added that he felt it was imposing upon the neighbor to the south;.therefore, the two-story structure portion could be moved over toward the north and it ~ould be mom applicable. Commissioner King stated that he had no problems with the setbacks, since they meet the Urgency Ordinance. However, he added, he does have problems with the height and its bulk compared to the adjacent proper'ties and compatibility with the neighborhood. The applicant was informed of the 10-.day appeal period. It was 'clarified that any revised plan w.ill be considered under the new Design Review' Ordinance. 7. SDR-1501 Jean Rohrig, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2 lots on Douglass Lane Staff described the proposal. They indicated that it is practical for'this proposal to take access off of Douglass Lane. The public hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m. Jean Rohrig, the applicant, stated that she has no problem with the S~aff Report. - 6 ~l°anni~g Commission Page 7 ~eeting Minutes 8/12'/81 SDR-1501 (cent..) Carolyn Cory, Durham Court, stated that she would like to ensure that Parcel B stay Under 40,000 sq. ft., to prevent a horse on the site in the future. It was' noted that there is a condition in the Staff Report which ensures that the kitchen facilities will be removed, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close.the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve SDR--1501, per the Staff Report and Exhibit "B". Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 8. UP=506 -. Hitchman/Muzinich, Request for a Use Permit to allow the operation of an infant/family care center in a single-.family dwelling at 13641 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Ro~d Staff described the proposal. They noted that there are community concerns about traffic and the appropriateness of this use. The public hea~ing was opened at 10:16 p.m. Clifford'.G~rdn~ 13641 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that they live in the back house at this address. He commented that they have four children and are concerned over traffic. Mr, G~d~6~r'noted that the traffi~ study which had been done was conducted in July when the schools are not holding classes and people are on vacation. He described the e. xisting driveway which is shared, and the. impact on the children which this proposal would have. Mr. ~dn'e'~'expressed concern regarding parking, the removal of trees, the noise impact, the fact that the house is on a septic tank, licensing 'require- ments regarding space, and the impact on property values. He submitted a petition with. signatures of the four'adjoining property owners and visiting friends, in opposition to the proposal. Connie Muzinich, the applicant, desc'~ibed the current proposal. She 'explain- ed that Mr.=~j~he."~ could use their e~it at the southern end of the property. She commented that the parents can double park cars as needed, and that this will be a drop-in hourly operation. .She stated that it was her intent to provide a homelike atmosphere for the children and she felt there was a great need in the community for this,.~type of project. Mrs. Muzinich stated that she will have the most space fo~. infants, and they do not make that much noise'. She explained that she would have a live-in lady; her bedroom will be used as part of the play area during the daytime and is included as part of the square footage. Mrs. Muzinich stated that she would look further into the septic tank situation, since she had been unaware of it. Commissioner Schaefer stated that the' demand for this type of operation is great; however, .'a'fte~"V'~'it~n'~'~t'~.'~ 'si~t'~, ~h'e"'~e~i'~ th~t".'t'~f'~"~fd~i-~.r loca-~ :'~i'6'ff'~li'~S"'~.s ome ' r'~'a~. ~% l~ms ~'~' 'she · He ~=~'~' ~}~' th~""~:a~'frc .i~ "~_~' .'~aj or and ".~ H~:'Y~ i~ '."'~' ~li:e ~'~6~' e'c't b e 17~s' ~!~'-~ d~'ffe Fe'nt ~.1 o~'F~'6'H:~' -~7~.h --~n .~'~t~anc'e ',~"~ a~'fH~.~'~.~Z~.~'-'~.~li'~':-'~J~.~ 'f~f~ga:-Z sUnnyv'~l'~'' Road. ' .... ' Henry Caplan, 20745 Sevilla Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that he feels this will depriv:e the current owners the use and enjoyment and value of their property; it puts upon them the responsibility for e.~traordinary care coming down their common driveway. Mr. Caplan stated that he feels it will be a detriment :to the neighborhood, since it involves licensing which includes care of teenagers. He indicated that he felt the traffic study is inadequate, and that the Staff Report is inadequate because it did not mention the spetic tank and did not deal with the inadequacies of the driveway access and the suitability of parking in the area. He added that they 'wish to keep the neighborhood in a non-.commercial pleasant manner and consider this to be an intrusion. David Morton, 20'500 E1 Dorado Court,'addressed the serious health problem of his daughter, who needs quiet and rest. He expressed hi's concern regard- ing the noise.,and also the shared driveway. Mr. Morton indicated that it is now extremely dangerous to turn into the driveway and this will add to it. He stated t'hat the' lot is extremely narrow and traffic will back out onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He added that he felt the purpose of zoning was to protect the citizens from such projects in a nice residential commun- ity. 7 Plan~ih.g Commission Page 8 -~Meeting Minutes 8/12/81 UP-S06 (cont.) Bill 'Gi:ll~n;- 20535 E1 Dorado Court,. stated that it was not practical for the Ga~'d~ers to use the southern exit.. He added that the driveway will be blocked if people double park in it. Mr.'G'~ll'~n' stated that he did not feel the project could be properly staffed 'if a drop-in business was con- ducted. He added that he did not fe'el that the facility has the kind of flexibility in square footage needed to accommodate all of the children. Mr.'Gill6n"stated that he felt there is a need for this type of project; however, it would be more appropriate in a business-.type area. Joan P~'arelio, i365'~.-'Saratoga-sUnn~vale Rdad, ~xp~esse~ concern"~e'gard~ng the'.'S~fe'ty of get~iBg into the driveways. She explained that the. overflow now comes into their vacant lot, andi this project will add more cars. Commissioner King moved to close the. public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Ki'ng moved to deny UP-S06. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. Commissioner Zambetti commented that:he felt this use is needed in the City, but not at this. location; possibly sbme place else in the Village. Commissioner Laden stated that the Commission is concerned about the traffic impacts, especially in that particular location. She commented. that this proposal seems to be more of a business than a normal daycare home that might: take in six young people; however, she does feel there is a need in the City. Th.e vote was taken on the motion to deny UP-506. The motion was carried unanimously. The applicant was informed of the 10-.day appeal period. 9. V-555 Carl and Janet Groat, Request for a Variance to allow the expansion of an existing single-family~dwelling to maintain a 4' side yard where 6' is required' at 20221 La Paloma Avenue The proposal was described by Staff.' Discussion followed on.fire concerns. Staff reported that this proposal is=not adjacent to any structures, and they had contacted the Building Department regarding fire code. The set- backs of the other homes in the 'area' were discussed. The public hearing was opened'at ll:Q8 p.m. Park Miller, the architec.t,.addressed the concern regarding fire safety. He explained that there is at least a 6 ft. offset between any structures on the adjacent.property and the pr0~osed new structure. He added that the roofing materials will match the exis~ting roofing. Mr. Mill'er also commented that the variance should have included the approval to have an 18 ft. wide garage at the opening where 20 feet fs required. Commissioner ~ing moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was determined that the 18 feet at the entrance to the garage is an acceptable width, and this notation should be added to the Staff Report. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve V-555, per the Staff Report dated July 21, 1981 as amended, and Exhibits "B" and "C", making the findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. DESIGN REVIEW 10. A-777 = Quito-Saratoga Center, Inc.,. Cox Avenue, Free-Standing Sign,.Final Design.Review Approval It was directed that this item be continued to the' meeting on August 26, 1981. - 8 - ~Pl~nn'ing Commission Page 9 ~eeting Minutes 8/1.2/81 MISCELLANEOUS 11. SDR-.l164 Alan Joe, 14296 Taos Drive, Request to Modify Condition to AllOw More Th'an 15% 'of S:ite to be Enclosed by Fence Staff explained that this is a Plann'ed Community zoned development, and there were a number of specific conditions attached to the subdivision in order to preserve the open s'pace. Among these wast. the requirement that no interior fencing s.hould exceed 15%. Staff added that the Staff Report indicates that ther'e is precedence for denying such a request. Dr. Alan Joe, the applicant, explain'ed that there are a number of dogs in the neighborhood running around. He stated that his family members are allergic to the 'dogs and their excrement. Dr. Joe stated that his · back yard is fully 'landscaped, and they'would like to keep the dogs and also children's bicycles and wild animals from damaging their landscaping. He also noted that there had been incidents of vandalism in his backyard. He described the type of fence he was requesting, which he did not feel would be obstructing. Dr. Joe added that he felt that a fence to enclose the backyard would solve most of their problems. He noted that he had obtai'ned signatures from 78% of the lot owners in the' subdivision, in favor. of deleting the 15% fencing restriction from the CC&Rs. He submitted a drawing showing his plan and also photographs. Chairman Laden stated that the CC&Rs~ would have to be changed by the home- owners if the requirements of that Planned Community district were to be changed. Dr. Joe indicated that it :was his understanding that, if 75% of the lot owners signed, agreeing to have it changed, and the Planning Commis- sion also agrees, it can be changed.: He pointed out that he had received signafures of 75% of the 4 lots in ~is subdivision. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would not be in favor of ch. anging this requirement for one lot. He suggested that the applicant t~ke a petition to the people within that "%'o'h'in~ ~istri'c~"~nd'the 'adjoin'ihgj .' one in that Planned Community distr~ct and get the appropriate percentage of signatures, and then the Commission would be willing to consider it. He noted that there have been other requests before the Commission that have been denied. .It was the consensus of the Commission that they.~ould be in favor of considering changing the restriction for the-',~t-i-g~'~u~""pl'~g~'~:~o~'mU~'~'~.~? "~.6'm~.~.~,~/-~j~F~o~'~'~{~t-one indi.vidual ~ot~ " ' .... The Deputy City Attorney stated that the CC&Rs are a matter of ~ublic .... ?.--'record. He explained that if they ~ere amended by the agreement of the people whose lots are restricted by:the CC&Rs to remove this requirement, then this could be considered by. the Planning Commission. He added that to amend the CC&Rs there will have ~o be a formal document that is signed, notarized and recorded that puts everyone on record of the amendment. Dr. Joe was instructed to contact the Planning Department to get the names of the homeowners associations in the area and an explanation of the proper procedure. 12. V-541 - R. A. Maddalena, Big Basin Way, 90-day Review of Variance Doug Adams, the attorney for the'applicant, gave a status report on this project. He stated that he has spent a substantial amount of time famil- iarizing himself with the methods of creating parking assessment districts. He commented that he had contacted Mr. Phil Assaf to determine under what particular statutes the districts were created in Saratoga. Mr. Adams also noted that he Dlanned to contact the people who are either opposed or not in favor of the new parking assessment district. He requested .the City to allow him tO spend a substantia. 1 amount of time. with Phil Assaf, the City's Bonding Counsel to discuss this subject. He a'dded that he will then put in writing the possibilities for the next 90-day review. Chairman Laden stated that she felt ii."SinC.e' '~ti~ City h~S-expended' a .... great deal of time and effort in putting this third parking district together, that '?-.lr. Adams'-'fJs~"'of"Nri:A~a'f'~"k~6~v]'~'doe," if it'i3r0mot~s · --tl~'e.jp~rk{~"g di.~t~i. Ct;' w. ouiH-"~e bT~n'e~fd'ia!:t0:.~he ~'~'~7~ sh.e."~'fat,e.d thd'~ ...... -.- .-= .... . , · ....... ..._ · . ~.- . .. . -.~.~--~ j~h.e ~H'!.d sUgge~:~='{'H'~.'~j..~h~':'a~P'r0~'riate'pe0',le at the city., P~lanning Commission -.~. Page 10 Meeting Minutes 8/12/81 V-541 (cont.) It was suggested to Mr. Adams titat some.striping of the pa'rking spaces in. ti~e rear next to the barn and. behind tt~e Maddalena site be done. Mr. Adams statea that he would be able to be more specific at the next 90--day review period, and hopefully will have some recommendations and 'possibilities. -. COMMUN I CATI ONS Oral 1. Commissioner Bolger moved' to h~ve the Planning Commission begin tl~e process to amend the HCRD densfties to.conform with the NHD dens~i- ties. Commissioner' Crowther se'conded t. he motion. DiscusSion followed on' the process, and it was determined tl~at there should be a study session on this s'ubject. Commi:ssioner Bolger altered his motion to have this'subject agen'dized fo~ a study session no later than Septem- ber 15, 1981, and agendized fo~ a public hearing at a later date, as deemed appropriate. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. · 2. Chairman Laden thanked the Goo~ Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee, and. also thanked Councilmember Clevenger for attending'- ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Zambetti 'moved to adjourn th'e meeting in honor of Sherman Miller, Editor o~ the Saratoga News, who recently' died. Commissj. oner K;ing seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, R.: S. Robinson, Jr. 'Secretary RSR: cd :