Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES "DATE: Wednesday, September 23, 1981 -· 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Monia and Sch·aefer (Commissioner Crowther arrived at '9:00 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Laden and Zambetti Minutes The following change was made to the minutes of the September 9, 1981 regular meeting: On page 3, the last sentence in the third paragraph should read: "She added that the 37% bonus that the applicant had been given was for giving the senior citizens an opportunity." With that change, Commissioner King moved to waive the reading·and approve the minutes of September 9, 1981 as distributed. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Bolger abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. The following change was made to the minutes of the September 15, 1981 regular adjourned meeting: The last sentence on page 2 under SDR--1015 should read: "Commissioner Monia pointed out to the applicant that he could run into a problem if someone does appeal the decision of the-Commission, which would delay the project." With that change, CommissiOner King moved to waive the reading of the minutes of September 15,· 1981 and approve as' distributed. Commissioner'Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining since she was not present at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1396 G. Bottom (Mauldin), Bohlman Road - 1 lot, Request for One-Year Extension 2. 'SDR-14·92· Ed Holbrook, Canyon View i lot, Final Buildin·g· Si·te Approval Commissioner King moved, seconded'by Commi·ssioner Bolger, to approve the above items on the Consent Calendar.· The motion was carried unanimously. BUILDING SITES ~ 3a. Negative Declaration - SDR-l~53 M. Conn/Wellbeloved 3b. SDR-1453 M. Conn/We.llbeloved, Vaquero Court '- 1 lot, Tentative Building Si'te Approval It was reported that Commissioner Bolger would. abstain from this matter, since he lives on the same street. Staff pointed out that his abstension would result in there not being a quorum of the COmmission to make a decision on this matter, and the matter could be continued to the next meeting, at which time there would be a greater number of Commissioners present. The applicant commented that, while Commissioner Bolger lived immediately adjacent to the site, ·he would request that he ;participate in the discussion to allow a decision to be made at this time. The Deputy City Attorney stated that Commissioner Bolger's abstension, aside from something that he felt was appropriate on this own initiative, h.ad been recommended by the Attorney to a. void any possible conflict of interest. However, if the applicant has no objection and is aware of the fact that Commissioner Bolger lives next door, ~he Deputy City Attorney stated that that situation could be waived. The applicant stated tha·t he had'no objection and asked that the Commission pro- ceed with the matter. Plann.ing Commission Meetin~O P~ge 2 MinUtes 9/23/81 SDR-1453 (cont.) Staff gave a report on the project. They indicated that the developments in this area have all been condi'tioned for the 1,000 g.p.m. fire flow, and that has been a consistent recommenda'tion and is in the City code. They explained that, to bring the flow up ~to 1,000 g.p.m., it would require a supplemental capacity being brought from the tanks at the top of Pike Road to this area~ Discussion followed on' this subject. Mr. Corm, the applicant, submitted a letter, asking for a waiver of the 1,000 g.p'.m. condition. He stated that there is a provision in the ordi- nance for' an exception, and he felt that it applied in this case, since it was causing him undue hardship and is denying him fair and proper use of the subject site. He explained the history of this lot, stating that he ]~ad cancelled final building site approval plans when he had run into financial difficulty, not realizing the implications of that cancellation.. He stated that he later found that a new ordinance specifying the 1,000 g.p.m. had been passed. The formation of the pr.oposed water district was discussed, and ~r. Conn stated that if this district were formed it had been.determined that the 1,000 g.p.m. would be met width no changes whatever in the ph. ysical piping of Vaquero-Court. Mr. Conn in~dicated that there is a flow of approxi- mately 750 g.p.m. in that area, and it is inevitable that, from the stand- point of the safety of the residents,. either a petition is going to be generated or new development will occur after the moratorium. He stated that if he is allowed to proceed with. the 'other conditions, by the time he could start construction the 1,D00 g.p.m. flow would be in that area. Mr. Conn added that he is completely surrounded by res'i~.enc~s and his is the only lot in that development with no house. Staff clarified t~at there is currently no positive activity moving'forward -..relative to that water district. The~ stated that the Specific Plan for the Measure 'A' area does encourage t.he water district being put in as a' single unit rather than piecemeal by ~the development. However,. they added, until such time as the property owners who will pay for that Under the assessment proceedings petition the City Council and the Council moves forward in that area, it is still.in 'limbo, even though there is encourage- ment from the Specific Plan. The conditions of the Staff Report were dis-- cussed, and Sta. ff indicated that there are additional conditions that are bei. ng imposed on thi. s project relating to cut, fill and erosion control, since the lot is in the MeasUre 'A' a~ea, Sara'toga Fire Chief Kraule discussed 'the possible consideration of the use of a swimming pool as a reservoir. He stated that the Insurance Service Organization that grades fire departments to determine what their capa- bilities are does not recognize a swimming pool as a water source. He dis- cussed the problems associated'with the use of'a pool, and stated that the fire district has determined that a fire b. ydrant that is governed by the PUG should be used. Mr. Conn explained that the pool would b~e elevated, and there would be a retaining wall on the turnaround prov.ision, such 'that a pipe from the bottom end of the.pool could be broughf out.' He stated that, since it is on a hill- top, he felt that the 'ground wa'ter problem would not be 'experienced. Commissioner King moved to approve SDR~.1453, subject to .the condition of the Staff Report dated September 18, 1981 and the additional conditions of September 23, 1981, and suggested tha't the' applicant appeal to the City Council if he wishes to appeal the 1,.000 g.p.m. condition. Commissioner Monia stated that he wou.ld support the 'motion because he does not believe that the Commission shoul.d change ordinances that are safety oriented. He added. that the're obviou.sly has bee'n the need 'esta'blished for t]~e higher rate per minute flow in the'hillside areas, and even though this i'tem may be appealed to the City Council, he would hope that the · -Council would follow the safety ordinance to its fullest. Since the Negative Declaration for tl~is project. needed to be approved first, Commiss'i'oner' King wi'thdrew his=moti'on for approval of SDR-1453. Plann.ing Commission Meetin. Page 3 Minute's 9/23/81 SDR-1453 (cont.) Commissioner Monia moved to approve t.he Negative Declaration for SDR-1453. -.Commissioner 'Ki'n~'.!.=seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King then.restated his motion to approve SDR-1453. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was ~carried unanimously. Vice-Chairman explained to ti~e applicant that 'the Commission is very concern- ed about setting a precedence at this. level for safety conditions that can come about. She notified the applica'nt of the 15-.day appeal period. .PUBLIC HEARINGS 4a. Negative Declaration - SD-1505 ~ Wilson Development Corporation 4b. SD-1505 - Wilson Development COrp., Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval for 10 lots on Sar~atoga-.Sunnyvale Road Staff described the' current proposal,.stating that the project had been before the Commission and appealed to. the City Council for a 10-lot sub- division with access off of Tricia Way; the current proposal is for access off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. They indicated that Staff still feels that the safest access is from Tricia' Way; however, the access out to Sara- toga-Sunnyvale Road should be such that the site problems and access diffi- culties are minimized. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Dave Wilson, the applicant, pointed out that the Staff Report states that the present application meets Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance criteria. He commented that they felt the best way to develop these lots would be with access off of Tricia Way; however, they have listened to the neighbors, the Commission and the City Council, and this proposal is a compromise of their wishes. He noted that they have discussed the access with CalTrans, and have received a letter stating that this current proposal is acceptable to them. Mr. Wilson stated that this~'area is zoned R-1--12,500, and the subdivision has' an average lot size oF 15,560 sq. ft. He pointed out that if only eight lots were approved, they would increase in size to over a half-acre, and that is not compatible!with all_ the other houses in that area. Dick Kier, the engineer, dis'cussed the intersection of the proposed street and .Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, including the treatment of the existing path. He noted that Condition II--B should r~ad"'Street improvements on 45 ft. of right-of-.way to be 30 feet." Bob Saxe, the attorney for the'applicant, stated that the project meets all City requirementS. He discussed the access and the visual aspects. He comment.ed that this subdivision has been studied, designed, and redes~gned in a way to accommodate 'every concern'that was raised. Bob Granum, 20421 Tricia Way, addressed the Commission, stating that the proposal does not address good solid Consistent planning principles? He commented that he feels this is not the only alternative plan and does not eliminate the temporary easement that.exists in front of his home. Mr. Granum indicated that the ~ity street'is on 9 feet of his property,. and. it was always intended to be removed. He stated that Lot #2 backs up into his front yard, into his neighbor's front'yard, and is viewed by the people on Tricia Way. Mr. Granum stated that 'he 'did not know of.any instance where a back yard is contiguous to the front yard of another hOme'in Saratoga. He submitted an alternative plan, which (1) eliminated the temporary cul-de-sac and temporary easement; (2) adheres to the findings of the Commission and City Council; and (3) eliminates the poor principle of having rear yards face front yards. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, whi'ch was carried unanimously. Staff commented that, while it is true that it is not common practice to have - 3 ~lann~ng COmmission Meeting Page 4 Minute~ 9/23/81 SD-1505 (cont.)' rear yards adjacent to side or front yards, it would not be unique in Saratoga; there are other such situations. Commissioner King stated that, while the Commission has heard a great deal from the neighbors about their concern with traffic, he feels that the or~gi- nal proposal for 10 lots aS an extension of Tricia Way was far superior to the current one. He added that good planning says that this is a less safe alternative to the original.proposal. Commissioner King stated that he believes that if the subdivision were conditioned for single-story struc- tures it would eliminate a lot of the~concerns of the neighbors expressed in many hours of testimony, and that the traffic issue would.be better served by the original plan. Commissioner Monia stated that he feels the current proposal is the best, given the alternatives that have been studied. tie added that he feels that is the basic consensus that came out of the meetings with the developer, the residents and the City Council. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD-1505. Commissioner Bolger commented that'he'has had a great deal of concerns about this particular project. He.noted that his original comments were that he did not feel that the first proposal was' consistent with the General Plan and he was not in favor of the emergency access 'the way it was proposed. He added that he has been concerned about the routing of the traffic o~t to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; however', he feels if the traffic was routed back out ~hro~gh Tricia Way, it would go down Regan and eventually end up on Blauer. He st.ated.~hat he has concluded that this ~rop0s'~l would geHerate only around 120 vehicle trips per day on a road that is probably generating an e×cess of 20,000 vehicle trips per.day; therefore, he would second the motion to approve the Negative Declaration for SD--1505. Commissioner' King commen. ted'that he did no~ feel it is the number of trips per day that cause the hazard, because the number is quite small in either case.. !..te explained that he is troubled by the incidents of people turning and. s~opl~il~g 'For turns at another intersection, as opposed to vehicle trips per clay. , Commissioner Bolger commented that he.has taken that into account, and he. feels that primarily there will be vehicles turning to the right or coming out and turning to the right, not cross traffic. He added that he feels that since there is not going to be a'traffic light at Blauer Drive at this time, the original proposal would merely be impacting that unlighted inter- section.with more traffic that would be going across at a full intersection. The vote was taken on the motion to approve the Negative Declaration for SD--1505. There was a tie vote, since Commissioners King and Schaefer dissented. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she'had voted agai'nst the motion because she agrees with Commissioner King. She explained that, although Cal. Trans has said they feel that it is potentially safe, she feels that having two roads so close together.is critically unsafe, particularly for pedestrians and bicycliSts. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would like to see a compromise on Tricia Way with perhaps 8 homes, rather than creating littie pockets off of Saratoga.-.Sunnyvale Road. The Deputy City Attorney stated that,.since there is a. split vote, the matter could be agendized at the next. meeting, .when there will. be a full Commission. Discussion followed, and Mr. Wilson, the applicant, stated that he felt the matter would end up at the City Council in any event, and he would like to expedite the matter. Commissioner Monia moved to deny the Negative Declaration for SD-1S05, because ther& was a. deadlock and the applicant would like to move to the City .Council as soon as possible. Commissioner King' seconded the mot.~.on, which was carried unani. mously. - 4 - Planning Commission Meetin Page 5 Minutes 9/23/8.1 SD-15'05 (~ont.) Commissioner Mon'ia move'd' to deny SD-~505. Commissioner' King seconded the motion, on the ba'sis that the prior plan of th.e 10--lot subdivision taking access off of-Tricia !~ay is t-he 'des'irable solut,ion. Commissioner Monia 'commented that the'.purpose of making the 'motion to d'eny this subdivision is to allow the applicant to have.'some expeditious means of resolv~ng his problem. The motion was .carried unanimously. 5. A~782 -~ Aaron Berman, Request'for Design ~evi~w Approval to allow the const'ruction of a one-~stpry single family dwelling over 22' in h'ei'ght"(3'2~'-36' ma'x'..) on Via'Tesoro', Lot #2 Staff described the current proposal~ .... The public hearing was-opened at 8:57 p.m. Angelo L~e'~e'r,.rep'resenting the applicant,.stated that the house they have submitted' is 21 ft. high and they. are asking for a 14 ft. rise, which would total 35 ft., not 41-142 ft., as suggested in the Staff Report. Staff clarified that they have measured the height of the proposed structure from the approved. finished floor of 404 to the top of roof, which would make the structure 34 ft. from natural grade or 39 ft. from finished grad~. Mr."I~'eb"er stated that they feel. they have a problem with the interpreta-' tion of natural grade because the lot is unique-, and the ordinance does allo.w 'for the alleviation when' one has a nonvisible basement area. He commented that they' would like the interpretation of a nOnvisible basement addressed at thi's time. Mr. ~'ie..b'~'~ indicated' that .Mr. Haas had represented himself as the developer at the previous hearing; however, Mr. Berman o~ned the prop'erty at that time, and he was not aware that the property ~as under review. .Therefore, he ~did not have the opportunity to address 'the 2 ft. request to drop the 'pad down. to 404,.which it is now. Mr. Eieb'er-submitted an exhibit showi'ng this and stated that' the hoUSe that Mr...'Berman had' designed did not take this requirement into consideration at the time. He explained that Mr. Berman had been promised an outstanding view of 360 degrees; he now does not have this. ~Mr.-~.~b~'r indicated that they have submitted a new plan which has a reduced height in the structure itself; secondly, they are asking that it.be.raised so the applicant has a reasona- ble view. He clarified that Mr. Berman bought the property from Mr. Haas, and Mr. Haas was' not under contract at the time of the previous hearing in Feb.rua'ry.to develop the' property.' The Deputy City Attorney stated that=this should be considered as. a new .design review approval, and he did not feel that the situation involving Mr. Haas was pertinent at the present time. Commissioner King commented that the neighbors had previously been concerned about the height of this house, and now the applicant is proposing to raise it to a 443 elevation. Mr. Weaver stated that ~nother reason for the request to raise 'the pad is because Mrs. Berman has a problem~wi'th her legs and cannot go upstairs. Chuck Allen, aide to the' applicant, clarified that Mr. Berman's plan does not include a ce'.llar,.and the large Void that exists there now because of the cut will be backfilled. Ron Mancuso, Chester Avenue, stated ~hat he was confused, becaus~ he thought. the design had. been worked out. FIe Commented that, looking at this plan, the refill is 'going to be at a point'as high or higher than the highest point o.~ the lot that e~ists now,.and from that point it will be raised. He expressed concern for himself and!the homeowners in. that ~rea regarding the impact on privacy. He stated that he feels t~is design takes unfair advantage'of the privacy of the ~xisfing homes, and some type of modifica- ti. on sho'~ld be con. sidered. Ch~c~ Allen indicated tl~at the 1. andscaning plan has a 15 ft. landscaped Planning Gommiss'ion Meetin Page 6 Minutes 9/23/81 A-782 (cont.) buffer between the Berman and Mancuso property line, 15 ft. into the Berman property, which will. obscure the .vision between the two back yard swimming pool areas.. Discussion followed on the elevation and the measurement from the natural grade and finished grade. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that there is a 30 ft. height limitation.=_in .the. Design Review Ordinance, but it is 'subject to particular situations.. H'e discussed the interpretation of a nonvisible basement. 'He commented that the applicant could submit a house based. upon restoring the land to =its. natural grade. However, he added, the current plan is being elevated from natural g~ade, and he would not consider that area between the elevation o=f 4'08 and 422 to the new finished grade of 418 to 421 as constituting a nonv'isible basement within the contempla- tion of the Design Review Ord'inance.' Mr. Allen stated that if it wouldf satisfy the Commission, the applicant would be agreeable to restoring the lot to its natural grade and then build the house that is planned. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the finished grade referred to is' th'e finished grade of the proposed struc- ture; th-e height then would'be measu[red upon that finished grade at the ridgeline, because in effect the 'applicant would be changing the.finished' grade to make it correspond to the n~atural grade. C'ommissioner Crowther asked if thererwas a problem in building the house on 'fill. Staff commented that if properly compacted, they can return the material to its natural state with f'ill being placed there. They added that it is a question of whether the'Commission sees that as appropriate to reconstruct that lot to the original condition. Bill Linder stated that he represented the Bermans on the purchase of this property. He commented, that he had ~ontacted Mr. Haas, who had represented the house that the Commission previously approved as the house that was · merely in front.of the City for the purposes of getting a building permit'on that lot. He added that Mr. Haas had given them thTe impression that they could build and design the house the:way they wanted, as long as it fit. in the City criteria and was 'one-.story and under 6,000 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Berman, the applicant, asked if they could bring the dirt back and bring it up to grade, and then build'the house at the height the Commission desired. Commissioner' King stated that the problem is that'the neighbors previously objected to a. house of this height, and there was a 16t of time spent in negotiation of the overall height of the house as it impacts the privacy of the neighbors; that is the issue in addition to restoring the grad~. : Commissioner Bolger stated that he felt this was a very sensitive issue, and he would. like the matter to go to a ~tudy session, to allow the neigh-' bors' to be present. It was the consensus'of the Commission that the present house should be considered at this time, and the applicant could then submit another pro-' posal, with Staff guidance. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. Commissioner King-moved to deny AZ. 782 for the r'easons discussed, and suggest- ed that the applicant meet with Staff and clarify what the previous design approval was and what the new ordinance says, and resubmit a plan that woul.d satisfy Mr. Berman's needs and satisfy all the neighboFs. Commis- sioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Bolger dissenting. Commissioner Monia commented that. he%would like Staff to clarify with the' applican~ the problem with the height if"t~e ~lan~"'c']j.~r!~y"'~'~'6~--'~h'at."t~'e~".'~ height of this proposed house would be 9'-14 feet higher than t~ original house proposed in February. He added that he feels there is an interpre- tation problem on the part of either'the architect o'r the building contractor 6 Planning Commission Meetin Page 7 Minutes 9/2.3/81 A-782 (cont.) as to what the .original grade is and how they got this house so high in the air. He commented t'hat he hoped that Staff will explain to the applicant what iS considered the ori. ginal grade and what has happened by putting in the 14 ft. High basement. Commissioner Monia added that he does have a 'concern about the length of this house', and he feels it.has a tremendous visual impact, in addi[ion to the impact from the height. CommissiOner Crowther stated that when there has been a prior approval, he would like to see a more detMled analysis of any changes relative to the prior approval. Break: 9:40 ~. 9:55 p.m. 6a. A-788 - Sharon and Howard MorSe, Re!ques~t' for Variance and DeSign Review. 6b. V-560-. Approval to allow 'the const!ruction of a second-.story addition to an existing two-story structure which exceeds the floor area ratio by greater than 5% (14'% max.), at 20878 Verde Moor Court Staff reported tha~ the applicant'~h~s requested a continuance of this matter. The public hearing was opened at ~9:.S6 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commis- sioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to continue this matter to October 14, 1981. The 'motion. was carried unanimously. 7. A-787 Robert ~nyder, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a'second-story addition to an existing one-story st. ructUr'e' a't'~12841 Foothill: L'a'ne Staff described the proposal~ statinjg that they were recommending approval. The 'public hearing was opened at '10:00 p.m. Mr. Snyder, the applicant, asked 'for clarification'of the condition regard- ing'. the grading and drainage plan. 'Staff stated that the plans w.ill be reviewed and he would be advised if they are deficient. Commissioner Monia moved to close thee' public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Monia moved, secondeld b~ Commissioner King, to approve A-787 per the Staff Report dated September 14, 1981 and Exhibits "B" and "C". The motion was carried unanimously. 8a. A-785 Robert Schwartz, Request for a Variance and Design Review Approval 8b. V-557 r to allow the construction o.f a second-.story addition to an exist- ing one-.story structure Which exceeds the floor area ratio by greater th'a'n '5%"(11'~ max.) at 1'9'7'83' Colby"Court · The. proposal was described by Staff,.who stated that they were recommending -.approval of the design review subjec~ to the addition being reduced so that -the floor area ratio required by the, ordinance is not exceeded and the variance is not needed. 'The Deputy City Attorney clarified that if the variance is denied, the 'Commission has the option to either have the applicant submit a revised drawing for design review or a revis%ion that would be 'subject to approval of Staffj' He added that if the Commission feels that' 200 ft. is enough of an impact to necessitate the Commiss.ion's review, then the item could be reagendized.if the applicant wishes to proceed with the reduction. The public hearing was opened. at 10:07 p.m. Robert. Schwartz, the applicant, stated' that he had been under the impres- sion that there was no problem with ~he variance application. He explained that he was in a time bind, since it would be necessary to have his mother 7 Planni~ng Commission Meetin Page 8 Minutes '9/23-81 A-785 and V-557 (cont.) live with them. He indicated that rhi~'~'~.3-bedroom house is the smallest on the block. He added that there is nO problem with the neighbors, and.his home backs up to Prospect; therefore, there will be no visual impact. Mr. Schwartz stated that when he had submitted his application in the middle of August he had not been aware of the necessity for a variance. He commented that he is a minister, and in addition to needing room'for his mother, he had a lot of people flowing through the house from time to time. Commissioner King moved to close the~public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther commented that, since the neighbors' homes are o'f a larger size than Mr. Schwartz's home with the oroposed addition, he felt that would be an unusual circumstance for justifying the granting of the variance. He added that the key criteria here that is applicable is the special privi- lege which would set a precedent.' He stated that he believes that on that particular court..others have been privileged and that would be proper grounds for granting the variance, since thi~ is an unique situation. Commissioner Monia asked how the Commission could then address an infill lot in a R-i-40,000 district, where there are 10 lots and 1 of them is a 10,000 sq. ft. home. He explained that if there were perhaps a home or two in the neighborhood that were oversized and variance after variance was approved, the homes would be getting.larger and larger and creating an unnecessary impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Crowther pointed out'that this situation has a court with a few number of houses on it and if~other homes on that court that have s].milar size lots have larger homes than what the applicant is applying for', then he feels that it would be the kind of unique situation that justi- fies the granting of a variance. CommissiOner King commented that he did not feel the situation was unique at all. He explained that the ordinance had been created which has a limit; therefore, the variance process will be requested of the Commission and the Commission'will be required t.o make the findings consistently for every variance request received. Commissioner Bolger asked the applica~nt if he had investigated the possi- bilit~ of a somewhat smaller design and putting it in the rear yard. Mr. Schwartz stated that he had been advi=sed that this is the less expensive way of proceeding and, having been ad.vised. th~t there was no particular problem, it is the only concept that .they had dealt with. He explained that he uses the back yard for ent=ertaining purposes, and if he added on there he would ruin the uniformity of. the back yard. Commissioner King moved to deny V-557, based on the inability to make the findings to grant the variance, pe'r the Staff Report. Commissioner. Mo~i~".~' sec'ond~'_t~e 'motion, : ' Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would vote against the 'motion, since she agreed' with Commissioner Crowther. and felt that this can be a special circumstance wi'th'hOuses around th'e area that are larger. The vote was taken on the motion. It was carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. : Commissioner Monia moved to approve A~-785, per the Staff Report' which would require design review by Staff, subject to a reduction in the size of 200 feet. Commissioner' King seconded the:motion. Mr. Schwartz stated that he felt that this was an"fin~a'ir~'i't~atioh, and he should have been asked to submit a'reduction sooner if that was necessary. He;added that he has a real human need and is in an immediate time bind. It was pointed out to Mr. Schwartz that the Commission had not seen the plans until last Friday evening. The~Deputy City Attorney explained th~L't the Commission cannot act arbitrarilyi, and there are certain findings that 8 Plann%ng Commission Meetin ' Page 9 Minutes '9/23/81 ? A-785 and V-557 (cont?) are required by City and State law t'hat have to be made before the Commis- sion is legally empowered to make a .variance. He added that the conclusion they have reached in this situation is based on an inability to make those findings. Commissioner Crowther noted that when anyone applies for a variance they should be given those five findings,~ in order to argue as to why those should be made, and they should also be given a copy of the Design Review Ordinance. The vote was taken to approve A-7.85,. with a reduction of 200 ft. subject to Staff review and approval. The m~tion was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. The applicant was notified of the 10-day appeal period and the procedure to use for 'requesting an appeal. 9. V-558 - D. and L. Sousa,.Requestj for a Variance to allow an existing horse corral to maintain existing setbacks which do not meet ordinance requirements (.50' from any property line and 100' from any 'dwelli'ng not on the 'site) at 19615 Sar'at'oga-Los Gatos Road The proposal was described by Staff, who stated that they were' recomm~.nd- ing denial because of their inability to make the necessary findings. The public hearing was opened at .10:~30 p.m. Mrs. Sousa, the applicant, clarified. that the corral is 50 ft. from the dwelling, and actually about 75 ft. from the living quarters of the house. She .described the corral and the location, stating that there was no other location on the property for the corral. Mrs. Sousa noted that the neighbors had given their verbal approval. The impact on the scenic high- way area was discussed. Staff clarified that the City has developed an unwritten policy that no structure shall be built within 70 ft. of a scenic highway, and a structure is d~fined as anything located on the ground, whi'ch would include both a stable and corral. 'Mrs. Sousa explained that when they purchased the house they had been told that, since they have an acre, they ~ould have a horse. When her daughter turned 13 they bought a horse and proceeded to board it. They started building the corral, not realizing that there was an ordinance stating that this could not be done. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the applicant will have to obtain a horse permit, and that permit can. only be issued upon a determination that the corral and other facilities are in compliance with the zoning laws. Discussion followed on the'difference between a fence and'a corral. Mrs. Sousa c~ted other horses in the area, which 'were' in corrals with similar -setbacks or behind fences. She noted that the f~nce posts for their corral are set in gravel, and it is entirely possible that they may decide not to keep the horse; however, they do want to make an effort. Commissioner King moved to close theFpub!ic hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff noted' that there had been no complaints on this issue; the Code Enforcement had noted the construction and notified the applicant of the situation. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the site is unusual because of its triangular shape. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels that- people living in that area move there with 'the idea that they can have a horse. She added that people tend tO live independently there, and there seems to be more give and take than there is in other parts of'the City. She noted that people had expressed concern about the maintaining of the s~enic easement. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she feels horses are attractive, but she feels there should be some condition added about - 9'- Planning Commission Meetingi Page 10 Minute,S 9/2.3/81 V-558 (cont.) a review of the situation in the future, to ensure that there are no problems. Discussion followed on the possibility of moving the corral another 12 ft. from the property line. Mrs. Sousa stated that this could be done; how- ever, she pointed out that there is just an undeveloped field on. that corner. She indicated that the horse is now being boarded in' a~.smali~r a~ea than the proposed one; however, he is a show horse and they would like enough room to exercise him within the corral. Commissioner .King stated that, in vie. w of the'great deal of time spent on a previous corral, he had difficulty. in seeing how the Commission could make the five findings to approve this variance. Commissioner Crowther disagreed, stating that he felt he could make the five findings and feels that the site is exceptional because'it is triangular. He added that he thinks it is also a situation where others within the same neighborhood enjoy similar privileges, so it is not a matter of a special privilege. He moved to approve V-.558, making the five necessary findings. A time period for review was discussed. Commiss'ioner Monia stated that he would like to put a. timeframe on it, since~he felt it would be worthwhile review- ing it in a year. Commissioner Crowther amended his motion to have a review by Staff after a one-.year period. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, wi'th Commissioner King dissenting. 10. V-.559 -. E. Maas, Request for a Variance to allow. the construction of solar panels which would not meet ordinance requirements for side-yard setbacks (0' where 20' is the. minimum required) at 13948 Camino Barco Staff described the proposal and clarified that the panels are '9" from the property line. .Staff noted that~ in reviewing this request, they.had found that there are two alternate locations which do not require a vari- ance, in the rear yard on either the north or south portion of the lot, and are therefore recommending denial. The ,public hearing was opened at 10:55 '~.m. Mike Dillon, the landscape architect=, stated that there was extensive planning'on the project and there wa~ co~nstruction before the owner decided to put in solar panels. He commented that thes'e panels are located i.n'the most aesthetically pleasing location of the site, due to the circumstances of the ~ear yard. He referenced' letters from the owners on the north and south. side in favor of the project. iMr. Dillon indicated that the locations recommended by Staff would be unsightly from the house and the yard. He commented tha~ he felt this was an unique situation because the owner decided to put in the panels to save'energy. He pointed out that solar panels.will be more pressing in the future because of solar consumption. Commissioner Schaefer stated that the Commission has been very favorable towards solar panels; however, these. are only 9" from the property line. The material of the panels was discussed, and the possibility of putting them in the lower right corner of the lot within the setback area. Mr. Dillon commented that the 'panels would '.~th~n..~:j".~'~it' 6~.~"~·~.~e~ .'the "'~'~n~", so.the neighbor would be looking out their front door at these panels, because of the slope. The height of'the panels and the optimum angle was. discussed. Commissioner King moved .to close the'public hearing. CommiSsioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Precedence concerning solar panels was discussed, and Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt that 2 ft. has been the closest to a fence on any approved application. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the main reason to maintain tbe side yard setbacks if because of the fire hazard, · and if the structure does not create such a hazard, it would seem to be reasonable. Planning Commission Meetingt. Page 11 Minu~s 9/23/81 j0 V-559 (cont.) Commissioner'Monia stated that theseZpanels become storage areas, and they therefore become fire hazards. He added that he is very concerned about putting something this"'..close to a fence. Commissioner King commented that he had visited the' site and would have to question if the alternatives have been explored, including roof mounting and the alternatives suggested by staff. He added that Mr. Maas had indicated to him that they had. Commissioner Crowther stated that he finds this less obtrusive than roof mounting, and it probably should be conditioned to close'off the ends. He added that he feels that it does hot create a problem. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V-.559, making the necessary findings, and added the condition that.the triangular ends of the panels supporting the struc- ture be permanently closed off and that they be metal panels. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner King moved to deny V-.559, based on the inability to'make the findings. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which 'was carried, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. Staff was asked to g~.ve guidance to the applicaBt regarding moving the structure further back from the fence; i.e., 2-.5' ft., considering the fire concerns. Commissioner Monia suggested that the Commission consider a basic short ordinance regarding solar. He added that the Commission would like to encourage people to use solar, but the Fire Ch'ief's input concerning these large storage sheds should be ~eceived. Mr. Dillon asked the City Attorney-to read AB3250. The Deputy City Attorney state.d~ that they had reviewed the statutory provision referred by the appli- cant and have concluded that the request. for a variance ~s.'~not in conflict with this legislation. The applicant was advised of the 10-day appeal period. C OMMUN I CAT IONS Written -. None Oral 1. Vice-Chairman Schaefer thanked the 'Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. Respectfully submitted, SeCret'ary RSS:cd