Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Tuesday, September 15, 1981 - 4:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room,~Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call ['resent: Commissioners Bolger, CrowtheY (arrived at 4:S0 p.m.)', King, Monia and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Laden and Schaefer MISCELLANEOUS SDR-101S - Edwin Pinto, 13901 Upper Hill Drive, Request for Modificati. on to a Site Development Plan : Staff reported that the Commission had 'requested that this item be agendized for this meeting, to allow Staff to complete their review and receive the C~.ty Geologist's input on the. pool site. Rich Harison, of th~ Code Inspection an'd EnfOrcement Division, described the site and the current ~roposal. He commented that the applicant wishes to repair the slide area and construct the. ppol' at the same time, and the rainy season is near; therefore, the request !for expediency in this matter. He explained that the City Geologist has r'eviewed the plan for the slide repair and 'retaining wall and his written recolmmendation has been received on that. Mr..'Harison added t'hat the City Geologfst has reviewed the pool plans and he has now reviewed. the pool site and given a .written recommendation. Mr. Cotton has a.]'so reviewed the geotechnical consultant's wo'rk and has provided a written report; that report makes certain recommendations' prior to approval. Based on that, the.applicant's consultant has responded in writing and Mr. Cotton has g~ven his verbal approval on that response, stating that geotechnical]y he is satisfied with the project. Mr. Harison expla. ined that at this-time Staff has not completely plan-checked the pool s~ructure; however, conceptually thcre is agreement. with the City Geologist and Staff that there ~s a viable project. The design of the pool was discussed. 'Mr. Harison commented that there will be a condition placed stating that any disturbed slopes be planted. He.explain- cd that nor.mally Staff wonld ask that this be done before or on October 1, 1981; in 'this case it will probably be at least October 1S, 1981 before they are at that stage. It was noted that there w{ll be a 15-day appeal period on any. decision. ~S.eph'..Z.EeW.iFs,,the applicant's engineer,'gave a presenta. tion on the project.. He d~scribed the retaining wall and explained that the pool will be away from the slide area .and the pool site will be level. He asked that the Commission waive the appeal period, if possible. It was pointed out to Mr. Lewis that it would. not be possible to waive the appeal period. Staff pointed out that, in an effort to accommodate the applicant to.the extent possible, Staff will proceed wi. th the plan-.check on the pool and retaining structure during the appeal period, so that the permit could be issued immediately after the period has expired. Edward. Timm0ns, .the consulti. ng soils engineer, stated that he had met the City Geologist at the Pinto resident, and he had inspected the trench which had been made across the pool site. Mr. Timmons commented that there was one slide that occurred where sol|. act6ally moved down the hill, and between that and the house there had been some,cracked soil. He explained that both the existing slide area and this potential area are being taken care of in a combination pier and support structure, which will also be carried out below the pool area. He indicated that' the pool is away from that potential area of cracked soil. - 1 ,,:..-..Pl~nning Cornmiss ion : Page 2 ..~ .;Meeting Minutes 9/].5/81 SDR--10'I. 5 (.cont.) ~ Commissioner Bolger questioned if the one slide area could impact the other. Mr. Timmons commented that there are 'some 'minor movemeh'ts in the surface soils in a different area, which has no'thing to do with the back yard area; however, it is 'something to watch.. He 'added that, in looking at the house, there are no indications that there 'are any cracked pattern~ being caused by the foundation settling. It was explained that the retaining wall being proposed will stabilize the rear yard. Staff pointed out that the request befo. re the Commission is to modify the Site I)evelopment Plan for the pool itsel'f, and the reason for the interplay between the two is that the' materials from the 'pool are going to be used to backfill the slide repair. Commissioner Crowther asked. if there was a hold-.harmless clause involved. Staff indicated that there would be a standard geotechnical responsibility statement as' part of the conditions, which is a hold-.h. armless agreement. They commented that the approval. at this time sho'uld be conditional. Commissioner' Crowth. er moved to conditionally approve the request for Modifica- 'tion to the Site Development Plan for SDR--1015, based on the City Geologist's geotechnical approval, a hold-.harmless .clause, and Staff review 'of the final plans. Commissioner Bolger' seconded the 'motion, which was carried unanimously. 'Staff was requested to proceed with the. planrchec~ during the..1S--day appeal period. ':~CG~T~i0~er"'MSn'i.a ~oin~ed o. Ut.'.~o the .a~lic. ant that he' could' run i. nto ~' ~'~'lem"i'f 'SOmeone does '~ppeal-'the 'deCision of .the' Commission? which. would de].a~ the project,. ~ AD'JOURB~E ~T Commissioner Monia moved to adjourn the! meeting, Commissioner King'seconded the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p,m. ~~,c S'.' Shbok Secretary . RSS:cd CITY 'OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 9, 1981 -~7:30 p.m'. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROHTINE ORGANIZATION R011 Call , Present: Commissioners Crowther, King, Monia-, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioners Bolger and Laden. Minutes : .. The following changes were made to the minutes of August 26, 1981: On page 7, in the :first paragraph, "where it probably will end up and be blocked" should be deleted, and the sentence added: "Since the neighbors could enforce the CC&Rs in court, the Commission could be doing Mr. Epstein a favor by voting against the project." The last sentence in the minutes should read: "The meet- ing'was adjourned at 10:45 p.m." With those changes,· Commissioner Monia moved to waive the reading of the minutes of August 26, 1981 and approve a·s distri- buted. CommiSsioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 1. A-786 Spaich Brothers, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a one-.story. dwelling (30' max.) on Douglass Lane,. per Ord'~.nance NS-3.47 : Staf:f described the proposal and not'ed that there were concerns about the size of the home and what square foo~age of the lot is required for the proposed structure. The public hearing was opened at 7:4~0 p.m. Warren Heid, the architect, Stated that the·total area of the site is nine acres, and the applicant does not pl:an to subdivide the 'property any further. He discussed the square footage need:ed for the house and the impervious cover. Staff indicated that the option would be available to subdivide the site, if the applicant chose at a later da:te, while retaining at least three acres for this homesite. They explained that, because of the access onto LaPaloma, it may not be acceptable to accomplish a lot split at a later time; however, that option is open. The'Deputy City Attorney pointed out' that, under normal circumstances the setbacks, the size of the house, and' the impervious cover will be dictated by the size of the lot. He explained that in this situation there is a somewhat reverse situation, where there is more than enough space to use for this particular house or any other size house. However, regarding future subdivision, even though the present owners may have no intent to subdivide, a future owner may have such an intent. In that situation, where the boundary lines might be drawn will. be dictated by the house. Therefore, if an application is received to subdivi.de the remaining parcel of land, this house would then have to comply with the standards for impervious cover, setbacks, and the 'square foot ratios set forth in the Design Review Ordinance. The Deputy~ City Attorney ~om~e'nte'd that the Commission is reviewing only the' str.ucture itself at this time and further subdivision should be addressed as a. part of any future application for tentative map approval. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carri:ed unanimously. - 1 - Planning Commission O Page 2 Meeting Minutes' 9/.9../81 A-786 (cont.) I~. was the consensus of the Commission that the house was well-designed and O~ an appropriate piece of land. Commissioner Monia moved to approve A-786, per Exhibits "B" "C" and "D"'and the Staff.Report dated. September 2, 1981. Commissioner'Crowther seconded the motion. The motion was carried :unanimously. 2. UP-507 - G. Friedrich (Christopher) i Request for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a detached;solar accessory structure over 6' in height (9' max.) in the required rear yard at 19305 Zinfandel Court .Staff reported that the applicant hal requested withdrawal of this item. 3. .UP-508 - Saratoga Foothills Development Corp., Request for a Use Permit to allow Modification to Condition 4a of UP-.353, which would lower the minimum age for occupants of a mUlti-family residential pro- ject from 55 to 45, at Saratoga Parkside, Saratoga Avenue' Staff gave a summary of this projectL The letter from the applicant was referenced and the current proposal Was described. Staff noted that the applicant states that the economic s~tuation is the primary reason for this request. It was also noted that Staff is recommending that a subcommittee be formed to review this matter and '~eturn to the Commission with several alternatives that would be agreeableZto all parties involved. A letter. from Mrs. Mildred Gord. on,'of the Senior Citizens Coordinating Council, was · read into the record, which states that she would be willing to participate in such a committee. Staff also commented that correspondence had been received in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was 6pened at 7:55 p.m. Jerry Lohr, of Saratoga Foothills CorpOration, gave a presentation on his current proposal. Fie 'discussed the Various economic conditions which have led to his proposal. Mr. Lohr stated' that'he would accept the Staff's recommendation a~d-be-.glad .to participate in a committee to study the matter further. Discussion'followed:on the project and the current proposal. Fran.k Perna, 18955 Palo Oaks Court, asked for clarification on the issue of right of first refusal. He also asked what the average age of the people who have '~ight of-fS:.rst refusal was,2sinc'e'he would be concerned about d-iS-~sin~of.the-senior.'citizefi~'f~r which th'e project' was built and op'ening it up to people who shouldn't be the~e. Mr. Lohr explained that the units that are first right of refus'a]. are not offered for sale and would not be included in this pr0posal. It was clari- fied that there are 21 units that ar~ still vacated, and of those Mr. Lohr is asking that IS be designated for Sale to people 45 years of age and older. Mr. Lohr commented that the 13 units which have first right of refusal would be for sale at some future time when the interest rates are a little mor~ reasonable. He indicated that the age' of the peop.le with first right of .refusal is somewhere in the middle-upper 60's. Mr. Perna expressed his concern thatF, if the interest rates do not go down, the' applicant will be asking for a lowering of age to 45 for the 'right of first refusal units a. lso, and eventually they will be occupied by young people instead of senior citizens. : The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the age limit. ation was set in the approval of this project and is not ~y ordinance. He explained that the applicant is asking. for a modificati.on of that approval. Staff commented that there is a requirement that Mr.. Lohr submit a report once a year to Staff, listing the age of the occupants of this project. "' Jim Russell, 12776 Saratoga Glen Cou'rt, stated that he is a board member of the 'Park Woods Homeowners Associa:tion. He addressed the .r.easonS :li-s-te.d Planning Commission ... Page 3 M~eting Minutes 9~9.~.8.1. UP-508 (cont.) in the applicant's l~tter for his current proposal. Mr. Russell expressed his concern about the 'traffic'and parking in this high density area. He submitted a chart showing the parking in the a~ea. Mr. Russell commented that if a lot of young people are brought into this area, there will be a community problem. He submitted a'letter from Link Bradley in opposition to the proposal. He added that he would like to see simple, practical solutions made. ~ Mr. Perna stated that if the Commission would like, he would circulate a petition in his neighborhood. He commented that'there are 350 homes in the area, and he felt that the majority of the people in that area would sign a petiton against the lowering of the age to 45. It was the consensus of the Commission that this would not be necessary, since a great deal of work would be needed to circulate such a petition. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, spoke'as a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee. She referenced the memo from the General Plan Advisory Committee in opposition 'to the proposal. She stated that she was also one 'of the original members of the Sara'tOga Park Woods Association. She men- tioned that in the 10 years she had lived in that area she had been involved in three petition drives on another property, and it did eventually revert back to the original zoning. Mrs. G~ens commented that it would take about a week to circulate a petition. She stated that she felt the people in this area believe that this project should be kept for senior citizen housing. She added that the 37% bonus that the 'applicant had been given was' for giving the 'senior~lij'z'e~s an opportunity. The options for review.'of this' proposal were discussed. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels this issue i~ one of the simpler ones that has come before the Commission, and he would not want to delegate this matter to a ~omm~ttee, as recommended by Staff. He stated that he would like to hear from the senior citizens, in order to understa. nd their position. Commissioner Monia stated that he agreed that this matter should not be delegated to a committee, since he f~els the issue is too important to all of Saratoga'~especially the senior citizens. He commented that he would like to be in attendance at the meetings, and he feels the Commission should get as much input ~nd'a study session should be set up. Commissioner Monia stated that this is a situation where the applicant has ventured into an agreement with the City. He added that there is no doubt that in the last two years there have been some drastic changes in the economy a~d building industry, and Mr. ~ohr and his company could have severe adverse effects and losses because of the commitment'he made two years ago. He stated that he would want to have the community offered enough time to come forward so the Commission can get the total input, since whatever decision the Commis- sion makes is going to have an impact in the future. Commissioner Monia suggested that Staff do a new traffic study and submit a new formula that should be used if the age is reduced!in this project. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he.felt the Commission should realize that they deal with land use and are not financial bankers, and are not here"to"ens.ure that developers or landowners make a profit. He commented that'~he'prOjec't ]~ad started out as a 60-.unit rental project, and became a 72-unit project. He pointed out that this project did receive a 37% bonus for senior citizens. Commissi6ner Zambetti added that if this item is continued to a study session, there should be direct input from the Saratoga Senior Citizens and possibly some more input from the General Plan Advisory Committee. He added that the Commission should be aware that there is a housing need for senior citizens in this community and this project was Something to help fulfill that need. CommiSsioner Zambetti stated that he has difficulties with~this proposal, and has difficulties when the. Planning Commission becomes=a vehicle to make sure that someone makes a profit or breaks even. He pointed out that the applicant received a 37% bonus, and it is going to be difficult'to take that bonus away if the ~.ge limit is changed. - 3 .- Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 9/9'/81 UP-.508 (cont.) It was the cons'ensus of the Commiss'ion' to 'continue this matter' to a study session on October 6th and the regular meeting. on October 14, 1981. DESIGN REVIEW ' 4. A-.777 -. Quito--saratoga Center, Inc., .Cox Avenue, Free-.standing Sign, Final 'Des'ign R'e'vi'ew"Ap'pr'ova'l'; cont'i~ued from Augus't '2'6, 1'981' Jim McLey, from Cal-Neon Signs, descr!ibed the proposal. Staff stated that they feel that, in :light of recent approvals that have been given commercial signs, the' replacement of the existing sign to a free--standing monument type woul'd be, appropriate, and that is their recom- mendation. They indicated that if th.e Commission agrees with the Staff. rec'ommendation, the applicant should be requested to submit a new plan. The Deputy City Attorney stated that .the applicant's attorney has written a letter, taking the position that, while a permit may have been required for the"erection of the original signs, the scope of the design review would be limited only to.the copy, not to the size of the sign. He stated that he does not necessarily agree with thee applicant's attorney that the ordi- nance 'is clear, thajt all that we are .looking at is the copy, but he is :someWhat inclined to agree with his conclusion. That conclusion is that at .the time the"sign was first' approved and a permit was issued, it was found to be in compliance with' the Sign Ord~inance in terms of height and size. t..Ie stated' that he 'is' advised by Staff' that the sign is still in compliance, to the extent that the height of the 'sign does not violate the present ordinance, and the size of the sign and the copy is within the limits of the Sign Ordinance. He added that he., therefore, has some question' as to whether the Commission can in fact require as a condition of design review that the sign be lowered. He added that he feels that perhaps there is an inadequacy in the 'Sign Ordinance, as opposed to extending the scope of design review. The Deputy City Attorhey commented that this might.be an indication. of the 'need for revision in the ordinance,~wi~'~:FQ~si'on--as the ordinance now has for amoritization of those signs which are then found to be non~onforming. However, at the. present time, this particular sign is not a nonconforming use. George Lucas, the 'applicant, referenced the attorney's letter. He commented that the sign blends in with the center, and at this time they are just talking about the 'sign copy itself. :It was noted that a letter had been received from the Merchants AssociatiQn, in favor of the proposal. Discussion followed on the size. of th~ sign and the illumination, includin.g the hours of operation of the illumination. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would be willing to approve the sign making the free-standing sign more in conformance with the others, per the Staff recommendation, which ~s for a low-standing monument sign. The Deputy City Attorney stated that,'as he reads the ordinance, it seems to contemplate design review of an originally constructed sign, not something coming back for revision when the structure is already there. He stated that he would feel more comfortable, if th~ Commission is unhappy with the size of the sign, to have them direct Staff to proceed with an amendment to the Sign Ordinance, with such s..tandards that the Commission might r~commend. He added that, in that event, they could:provide in the ordinance, as the present ordinance does, the requir&ment for removal of signs after a certain period of time, as a nonconforming use. He ~ndicated that he does have some diffi- culty in requiring a change in the.baSic structure, as in this case, und. er circumstances where that structure pe~ se is not in violation of the ordinance in terms of size or height,:or in any Other respect. The Deputy City Attorney stated that, regarding ~llumination, the'Commission can impose restrictions on hours of operation or, perhaps intensity of illumination because it is a standard policy of the City-. Planning Commission O Page 5 Meet'ing Minutes 9/9/81 'A ~-'777 (_cont.) Commiss'ioner Zambetti moved to approve A--777, per Exhibit "B", wi'th the condition that the illumination be t!urned off by 11:00 p.m., and Staff shall review the intensity of th.e li!ghting after a 30-.day per'iod. Commis- sioner King s'eConded the"motion. Di.scussion followed, and it was deter- mined that the' illumination should be turned off by 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Zambetti amended his motion to that 'effect. The motion was Carried unani-- mously. 5. A-.784 -. Park Saratoga Associates, 12000 Saratoga-.Sunnyvale Road, Signage, Fin'a'l' Design Review Approva!l Staff described the 'proposal, statin:g that they we're recommending approval and are 'reCommending that the signin2g be allowed on those frontages of' the structure that have prev'iously been .conditioned 'for no signage. Mabel Briggs, general manager of Ran;dall's Shop addressed the Commission stating that they fee]. the sign is most acceptable and urged the Commission to approve it. Commissi'oner King stated that he felit that the applicant has done a nice job on this design; however, he has :a problem with the approach. He pointed' out that this shopping cente~r was conditioned for signage, and ~t~is pa'rticular building wa's also colnditioned~ He noted the.previous .application which had bee'n denied, and also noted"that this sign is already on the building. Commissioner King lcommented that there had been a lot of concern from the public about thi2s building, and the Commission has bee'n very concerned· : Mrs. Briggs' indicated' that they had 2had' thei. r grand opening on August 23rd, and they wanted the public to be abl'e to locate the shop. She noted that the sign is not permanently affixed to the building and can be taken .down. Commissioner' Crowther commented that' this area is designated as Park in the General Plan and he certainly wo%uld not be willing to relieve any of th.e conditions with regards to. signa%ge 'on that building.. Commissioner' Zambetti moved to approZve A-784, per Exhibit "B" and the Staff Report dated September 2, 1981~. Commissioner King seconded the motion. , Commissioner Monia stated that he woiuld vote against the motion He indicated that he felt the Commissio~n and '_app.l.iCant.should.lj. ve by the .&oven'a. nt's imposed' whe'n the bu'i].'dino '~as built in that area The vote was 'taken on the 'motion for. approval. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Moni'a dissenting· MI'SCELLANEOUS 6. Request for Addition of Amusement Ceinter to List of Allowed Uses in C-N Zoning D'is'trict Mr. Leland Damner, 14955 Sobey Road,' addressed the Commission. He stated that he was 'going to withdraw his ap. plicati'on; however, he would like some input from the. COmmission on a secondary type of business in the field of amusement. He explained that the..~;..f~js-~j'f'6~'d bUsiness'would be the primary one.. Mr.' Damne~ cbmmanted that be'would-like to know what amusements might be satisfactory'to the ~ommission. !He stated that it would be a small rental and would not affect the dens'ity or bring in a lot of people. Mr. Damner added that it would be closel2y supervised, with no smoking or drink- ing. Commissioner King commented that ther' Commission has had some concern about this shopping center in general, about traffic problems, the p'roblems of the Golden Mushroom, and the type of clientele that has been attracted to this shopping center. He stated that he~-would not vote for anything that 5 ~Pl~n~ing Commission O Page 6 Meeting Minutes 9/9./81 Amusement Center (cont.) .might' serve to enhance the problem that already exists in this shopping center. He recommended that Mr. Damher meet with the Quito HomeownerS Association if he wished to pursue the matter, to get their input. There was.a con. census that the CommiSsion would not approve this type of amusement'center, even if there was a food establishment with it, because of traffic, noise, safety and the 'number of people concerned. CON~UNICATIONS Writ.ten 1. Staff reported that they have'received a letter from Dr. Pinto, requesting that the C'ommission take action on an off~.agenda item, a Modification to a Site Development Plan for a pool. Staff explained that the matter involves a lot on Upper Hill Court, and the sprinklers had been left running, causing a slide. Through the years this lot has e~perienced several local slides relative to the winter weather, since it is a steep lot.. Staff commented that, in the process of solving the slide problem, the owner'has determined to construct a swimming pool.' It was noted that a permit for the grading necessary to accom- plish the slide repair will be issued within .the next few days, which would not require.the approval of the Commission. zHowever, the City Geologist is not satisfied and has not been able to completely review the question of the inade- quacy of the information relative to the .construction of the pool. Staff added that the applicant wishes to speak to the urgency'of the beginning of the work and the combination of doing the slide repair and pool construction together. They indicated that Staff is not in a position to recommend approval at this time. Rich Harison discusse~ the site and stated that he and the City Geologist had mAd6"~an on-.site inspection. He stated that the City Geologist had responded to the geotechnical report provided by the applicant; however, his response speaks primari'ly to the slide repair. The City GeOlogist is not satisfied that the consultan. thas adequately addressed the issue of the pool, and more work is.needed from Dr, Pinto's geotechnical Consultant. It was noted that on pro- jects Staff r~quires erosion control measlures in place on October 1st' or shortly thereafter. It was the consensus of the Commission. that they did not want to discuss this issue at this =time witho'ut the input from the City Geologist. Discussion follow- ed on the 'timeframe. It was' noted that ~here would be a 1S--day appeal period on the project. Staff pointed out 'that .~t is possible to make the slide repair without the construction of the pool, but' the applicant wishes to do the two together bec'ause it is convenient to do so, and there will be some greater difficulty in accessing the pool site after the slide repair has been made. After discussi.on~ Commissioner. Zambet'ti' ~oved to take up the matter of the modification to the site development plan for Dr. Pinto as part of the agenda, with.'a continuance 'to a Regular Adjourne~ meeting on September 1S, 1981. Com-. missloner Schaefer seconded the motion. ~It was determined'that the matter should be agendized for a Regular Adjourn:ed meeting on September 15, ]981, at which time the, testimony and discussion w,ould be held on the matter if all of the proper information was submitted. Commissioner Zambetti wit. hdrew h~s previous motion and'moved to agendize the~ item for the meeting on September 1S, 1981. Commissioner Monia seconded the mo~tion,. which was carried unanimously. Oral 1.. There was a consensus that the r'egular meeting for November 11, 1981 would be held on November 17, 1981, and there will be no meeting on November 2S, 1.981. It was also determined that there will be no meeting held on. December 23, 1981. 2. City Councii -. Commissioner' Schaefer gave 'a brief report on the City Council meeting held on September 2, 1981i. A copy of the minutes of this meet- ing is on file in the City Administration% Office. -~Planning Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 9/9/81 Oral 3. Vice--Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attend-. ing.the meeting and 'serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT ' Commissioner Eambetti moved to adjourn the meeting to a Regular.Adjourned meeting on September 15,198].. 'Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was'adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, cretary RSS:cd