Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 27, 1982 ~:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitv~le ·Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROIJT I NE ORGANI ZAT I ON , Roll Call Present:'Commissioners 'Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the·minutes· of ,January 13, 1982: Under Annual Reorganization, an added sentence stating that Commissioner Monia was also nominated for Chairman and Commissioner Bolger was also nominated for· Vice--Chairman. On page 4, the ·seventh ·paragraph, T'some of the things" should be replaced by "the proposal". :On page 7, the last sentence in the tenth paragraph, "it" should be ·reD·laced by "the' General Plan" With those changes,' Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to waive the rea'ding of the minutes of January 13, 1982 and approve as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR SDR-1386, SDR-1485 and SDR-1514 were ·pulled from the' Consen.t Calendar for discussion. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the remaining item listed below. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, whi'ch was carried unani- mously. 4. V-546 -. Douglas Nor'th,' ·19091 Portos 'Dri've, Reques't' for One-Year Extension Discussion followed on SDR-1386. Commissioner Crowther stated that he belives that the' site is too steep and .risky to build a home upon, and there are 'septic tank problems: Commissioner· Bolger agreed, adding that this is an illegally graded pad and the're are geologic problems. Commissioner Zambet'ti moved to approve· 'SDR-.1386,' Mi'c'hae'l Valley, Kittridge Road, I Lot'~ R'equ'est 'fOr' O'n'e-Ye'a"r 'E'x't'enSion. Commissioner Laden seconded ~ motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Bolger rowther and ~ C . Monia dissenting. Commissioner King moved to approve 'SDR-14'85,' Naval and ~ermani, Big Basin Way, 1 LOt, Request for One-Year Exte'ns. ion. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion. Commissioner Zambetti stated that he would be voting no on this item. He explained that he had voted· for thi's Project in a previous public hearing; however, he has changed his mind and now feels that this property should be developed completely as commercial. He indicated that he feels that commercial zoning should be deVel0Ded along Big Basin Way, to allow the Village an area in which to grow. Commissioner Bolger noted the topographical restraints of this property and the fact that it was originally designed with the ingress and egress through the ·parking District. Commissioner Crowther indicated· that the General Plan sh'Ows 'this site as apartments. Commissioner King stated that he felt this 'site should be considered as a buffer p'roperty and believes the current proposal is quite appropriate. Commissioner Crowther commen'ted that he is opposed t'o the project because it is incon- sistent with the General Plan. It was noted by' Commissioner Laden that commercial was considered for this proj.ect in the previous process, and there were two points made at that time:' (1) there was almost no frontage e~Dosure for commercial and (2) by Providing parking at a commercial rate, the use of the property would be di~ini'she'd to a large extent. The vote was taken to approve· SDR-1485. The motion failed, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Monia and Zambetti dfssenting. - 1 - · P!~ning Commission Page 2 ~ ~eeting Minutes - 1/ 2 'C'ONSENT CAL'ENDAR (cont:) Discussi·on· followed on SDR~-1514. Comm'issi·oner Zambetti indicated that there should be a condition added, stating that the applicant will enter into an agreement with the City to r~rovide 'a pro rata share for a traffic light at Seagull and Saratoga-·Sunnyvale Road. Commissioner Zambetti moved to approve "S'D'R'--l'51'4', 'S. K. BroWn', Sa'rat'og'a'.-'Sun'ny'val'e Road, '1' L'ot, per the Staff Report amended to include that conditi·on. Commissioner King seconded the motion, whi·ch was ca·rried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti also noted that there was an illegal sign on the ·property which should be removed, and Staff ~as ·requested to notify the applicant of thi. s. PUBLIC HEARtN'GS 5. Consideration of Amendments to the~ ·1974 General Plan of the City of Sara'tOga' ' ' : ' ' The Di~o'~·t0r of Community Planning and Policy Analysis summarized what constitutes·a General Plan. It wa·s noted that public testimony will be taken and the· matter will be continued to a study session on February 2, 1982. The public hearing was opened' at 8:00 p.m. James Byrne, President of the Emerald Hills-Tesora Homeowners Associa- tion, addressed the subject of eques·trian trails. Ite stated that he feels that horse trails sh·ould be ·in designated areas, preferably away from populated areas, and remote from· pedestrian or motorcycle traffic. Shelley !.Villiams ·addressed the issu·e of the ~Vest Valley Corridor #85. He asked the Commission to recommend that the Corridor be ~reserved at the pres'ent size. Kathy ~cGoldrick, a member of the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, spoke ·regarding the West Valley Freeway. She indicated that under their Area Circulation Policies·~ they had recommended that the right-of- way be pres·er·ved, in order to keep. the ·options open so that more input could be taken from the public regarding the· freeway. She stated that she feels the·re should be ·a noticed public hearing on this matter. Mrs. Fryer' spoke in favor of preserving the Corridor. She addressed the issue of traffic and urged that thO ·freeway be ~ut through. Joyce Hlava, a member of the Specific Plan Committee and General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, stated that the people in her area had indicated that they would be 'in favor of a research 'and development office on some of the sites, and she felt that a zoning to cover such a proposal should ·be considered. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, also stated that the people in her area indicated that .the'y would not object to 'a research and development facility. She suggested that the vacant school sites be considered for such a zoning, preferably one ·with access to ·a main thoroughfare. Ross· ·Conklin, Superintendent of Odd Fellows, stated that the ~resent ~lan has an easement for ~n"eques'frian"""~d pedestrian trail through their proper'ty. He commented' that. the Board of Trustees has asked the City Council to give back that easement,· to protect ·their aged people. He explained· that it is not compatible ·to the use of the property. He added that th·ey we·re ·also· asking for an abandonment of a pedestri. an easement, because they· fee·l· it exposes· the people to a good deal of harrassment. FIe discussed the fence ·that they· installed. Staff commented that they have been working with Mr. Byrne and the Parks and Recrea·tion Commission re~ardin~ this issue, since the Via Tes·oro people h~ve also requested abandonment. They added that this will be going to the City Council for thei'r information. It was directed· that the General· Plan Revie~i will be continued to a study session on February 2, 1982 and the ·regular meeting. of February 10, 1982. It was suggested that Mr. llVilliams attend the study session for furtker ~-iscussion on the 'Corridor. · · '~- ....'~"~ .......~ -- -~ ' ......='- ' ..... - ..... · ..... "'." ' ..~-.-.7 " .............."?t-..' .......... . ...._ 2 ........ ~"'; -j-' ......."' ' - Pi~nning Commission Page 3 =~~,~eeting Minutes - 1 82 6. Consideration of Amendments to the ·Zoning Ordinance, the· Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading Ordinanc·e· ·for· the ·Spec·ifi·c· ·Plan ·A'rea Staff introduced John Blayney, the consultant preparing the ordinances for the Specific Plan. It was noted that public testimony will be taken on thi·s matter and it will be ·continued to a study session on February 2, 1982 and the regular meeti·ng on February 10, 1982. The public hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Blayne·y gave a presentation· on the ·draft ordinance and discussion followe·d on four highl·ights of the· o~rdinance: (1) transfer of develop- ment credits, (2) concept of clus.tered-'~· housing, (3) large scale recon- touring and (·4) concept of visible bulk of buildings. George Tobin, representing Cocciardi and Chadwick, discussed the density standards as related to development credits. Joyce Hlava, a member of the SpeCific Plan Committee, expressed concern regarding the transferable development credits. She also addressed the issue of mass grading, stating that it had not been their intent td have mass grading of an entire hillside.· Heber Tee'rlink, Mt.' Eden Road, .inH~c'ate~' 'th'at the Plan~in~ com~i'S'sion- .'m'em~ W~'r6"'?[~d~i~-~lu~]'l'V--leg~l. fv '.lijSble if th.ev enf'orted' ~e.~.sU~e..,A.,. and lVilhelm Kohler, President of the' Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association discussed' the ordinance 'as it tel'ares to the '!n:i. tia~iVe.- The City .Attorney explained that the purpose o~ the Speci~i.c Plan is to give more 'detai~ed guidance as to the implementation of Measure A. He ~dded there has to be continuity and consistency b'6tween the Draft Ordinance, the Measure A and the 'SpeCific Plan. He d~scussed the area that t-h.e'- HCRD Ordinance 'will contro. 1,' tll.ose." a~_aajj .not,. 5B'?ered:"bZ '~"He 'specif.j.~L 'P17an. '~[ L"'~L~l~Zl.'~.'r...'~:~a~.~a~Ft"h:a'L?,'~'h ~:..~. ~ope ...E'd~m'd'l ~""~'fi~'~i 'a.'- 5'e .-'.~'a-.sres sea" '~nd. ~ha t 'the :. ~ ..t.0'd~c:on~us:i. ng._ ."..' . :.'. :...'.-T Further' discussion o owed on the consistency,. gnd the City Attorne~ commented that .if there is inco~sistency between the three documents, it could' be corrected at the time of the General Plan Review. He noted that the Draft Ordinance 'sh'o'uld. reflect the S~eci~ic Plan, which should be consistent with the initiative. Dora Grens,' 13451 Old Oak IVay, stated that their area plan does re~!ect ways in which they' feel the Specific Plan is inconsistent with Measure A. She "a'ig0'hb'~,eZdthat the County of Santa Cruz is going to be in debt ~or millions of dollars ~or public roads 'that have' recently been damaged, and any public roads that are damaged in landslides are the City's responsibility. ~t was noted that the City Geologist, Mr. Burkeand erom the County, and Hr. Brabb from USGS will be invited to the 'next study session on this issue. Staff was 'also' asked to invite a repres'entative from the Water District. Commissioner' Zambett'i stated that he ~eels there are basic things in this ordinance 'that do not agree 'x~iXth Measure A, and he ~eels these should' be reVieWed and correct'ed.: Commissioner Crowther agreed, but stated that h.e '~ee'l's the 'City needs to get facts ~rom the geologists to determine where the inconsistencies 'are. ~t was 'directed that this item be: continued to the study session on February 2, 1982 and the 'regular meeting on February 10, 1982. It was noted that the public is invited to the study session. 7. 6F--sss -. Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the 'HC-RD District to 'a 2-.10 Acre Straight Line Formula; ...... co'n'tin~a'e'd from Jan'uary ]_'S ,. '~'9'8'2 ......... Staff explained' that there are three' parts to this matter; the first two having to do with the density!formula, and the third part having to do with th'.e slope under eX,isting structures. They noted that the current HC-.RD Ordinance has a statement 'relative to that which does P~lanning Cornmiss ion Page '4 :1 ~.l~e~ting ~4inutes. - 1 ~82 GF- 333- (cont.) not allow for any variation to the requirement that the're be no' slope under the structure exceeding 40%. They added that the matter before the Commissi'on tonight is to determine Whether there should be put 'in place a process' to allow 'a variance 'from that provision. The public hea'ring was opened' at' 10:25 p.m. Bob: Saxe, the attorney repres'enting Mr. Mauldin, discussed the pro- cedure. He noted that there is l~nguage in both the Subdivision Ordi- nance and in the 'Specific Plan that 'provides for a variance from this prohibition, and they were ask'ing~ that the ordinances be clarified by a.!lowing this variance 'proc'edure.. He urged the Commission to send a 'faV'0r'able.'reCommendation to the Council; hopefully the City Council will allow the variance process, and Mr. Mauldin can then come in with specialized information from the geologist, engineer and architect and submit his application. Mr. Saxe gave the history of the Mauldin site. Commissioner Laden moved to close 'the public hearing on Section 3.24(c) of GF-333. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous ly. The City Attorney gave the proper wording for the modification of Section 3.24(c). Discussion followed on this wording, and it was determined that it 'should be:' '~No home or other structure shall be built upon a slope wh'ich 'ex'cee'ds ~0% natural slope at any location between two 5 ft. contour lines,' ~xcept that (1) a Variance per Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance 'may be.'granted where the findings under Section 17.6 can be made, and (2)'~ an exception under Section 15.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance may be granted." Commissioner Laden moved to recommend approval to the City: Council of S~ct~on .3.24(c) of GF-333, as modified above. Commissioner King seconded the motion. Commi'ssioner Bolger stated' that he would not vote in favor of this recommendation, since he feels that all parts of this ordinance should be considered at the same time; he 'objects to a piecemeal basis. Commissioner Crowther agreed, stating that he had intended to vote for the recommen'dation, but did not feel' that the ordinance should be considered on a piecemeal basis. ~,~r. Saxe stated that they had addressed the Council, and the Council had suggested that they' go back tO the Commission on this particular point. He added that he did not feel' this section has any bearing on th'e other issue 'that will be considered under this ordinance. There was a call for the question'. on the motion. The vote was taken, and the moti'on was carried, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and )]onia dissenting. Commissioner Monia st'~ted that he was voting no be'cause' the 'call for the 'quest'ion arose before there had been a motion to close the debate among the Commission, and he had not had an oppor- tunity to Speak on the' issue. 8a. A-803 - A. ~.~outafian~ Request for Design Review Approval to allow the 8b. V-569 - construction of a two-story single family residence over 26' in height and a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from '60' 'to' '50' on 'Blue Gum Court'; 'cont'inued from 'Ja'nuary 13, 1982 St~ff reported that this matter had been before the Land Use Committee and the'y had requested additional: information, which has now been received. Commissioner' King gave'. a Land Use' Committee Report, statin~ th'at they had clarified their concerns about the site. The public hea'ring was reopened at 10:55 p.m. Mark Brogee, civil engineer, discussed the height and design of the ho'me. F~ommiss.ioner Crowther expressed concern regarding the drainage system under the pool. It wa's noted' tha't a condition in the Staff Report would cover th.is concern. Mr. Brogee 'discussed the drainage system being used and the .elevation of the pool. Tom Coe,' 15217 Sobey expres'se'd concern regarding the slope and the inconsistency of the data received regarding the "slope. He recommended that the footprint of the house be laid out and actual measurements of - 4 - P~anning Commission' Page 5 Meeting ~,~inute.s - 1 82 A-803 and V-569 (cont.) the slope' taken.to ensure 'that it is 'a legaljlsite. He added that he feels it would be very feasible to move 'the structure to the south on the' lot by about 60-.100 ft.. ;~e added that there 'would be less grading and retaining walls in tH'~t area. He indicated that he did not feel it was 'appropriate for the City to have a hold harmless clause relieving them from the responsibility for this type .of.action~ since that would not be fair to the homeowners in the area. A letter from Terratech was noted' as having be'en received, which state.d' that the applicant has re~ained them. Mr. Moutafian, the applicant, stated that they have enlisted professional and qualified people to work with them on thi's 'site, and.he' urged the Commission to approve the proj ec't. The' City Attorney clarified that, in this instance, the use of a hold harmless agreement would not be of any real benefit. He stated that the only.time he would rec'ommend it is when an a~plicant has started construction; it cannot be examined and cannot go throuoh the process, and the Commission has the' choice 'of having them remove everything or allowi'ng it to continue 'to exist .with the knowledge that it has not been approved'. He indicated' tha~ a hold harmless provision could then be s igne~ by the applicant and .r~corded. He 'added that in this instance that is not the' 'situatiOn. Commissioner King move~ to 'cloSe th~ public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion', whi'ch 'was carried unanimously. ~ommissioner' King moved to approve V-569 and A-803, per the Staff Report, and makinB ~he findings for the variance. .Commissioner Laden seconded' the motion. Commission'er' Monia stated that he' could not make the findings for the variance. He added that he thinks the home is lovely, and if the home could be moved so' that the S~a~dard setback 'could be maintained, he wo'uld vote for the Design Review. Commissioner' Crowther expres'sed his concern wi'th the site, stating that it was very.marginal with 'regards to the slope. He added that he thi'nks some of the suggestions made about possibly moving the home to a flatter' area should be considered. The 'vote was 'taken on the motion. The moti'on was carried, with Com- m'~.ssioners Bo!ger, Crowther and Monia dissenting. 9. A-806 --Parnas Corporati'on, Request for Design Review Approval for the construction of a twO-story family dwelling on Lot 24, C'on'gre's's' Ha'll' =L'ane It was 'r~ported that this item will be continued to the meeting of February 10, 1982, at the 'request' of the applicant. 10..A-807 -~ M. Calderone and H. Amato~ Request for Design Review Approval to construct three (3) one-story single family dwellings at ...... .1'2'6'5'1'. 'S'a'r'a't'o'ga' A~Ven'Ue Staff described the ~roposal. The publi.c hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Don Glidden', representing the ap~l'icant, addressed the trees on the site. Dora Grens, 13~51 Old Oak Way, congratulated the applicant on his Sensitivity to the 'neighborhood in preparing their plans. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner' Monia moved to approve A-807-.A-B-C, per the Staff Report dated January 18, 1982 and E~hibits "B", ~'C" and "D". Commissioner King seconded th'.e 'motion, wh'i'ch was carried unanimously. Break 8: 55 - 9: 10 p .m. - 5 - .~ P-_l~nning Commission Page .~.~~4e'eting ~inutes I 82 11. GF-330 - Consideration of an ordinance of the City of Saratoga repeal- ing Section 3.3(g) of Article 3 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance ·of the Code of the ·City of Saratoga, and amending Section 3.2(g) of Appendix B, the· Zoning Ordinance of the Code 'of the City of Sarato'g'a for' the pur,~ose of establishing Animal' Control R'e'g=u'i'at'.i'o"ns It was directe·d that this item w~ll be ·continued to the meeting on February 24, 1982. 12. A-808 -· R. Vernal, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second--story addition to .a single story residence at 13030 Hous t"o'n. C'ou'rt' . ' It was 'directed that thi's 'item be continued to the' meeting of February 10, 1982, in order to discuss it Zwith'.a"co'~"~U~re~t .varianCe. MISCELLANEOUS 13. UP--510 -· Moreland School District, Referral from City Council and Recon- · ' ' s ide'r=a't ion Commissi·oner King clarified the intent of his previous motion for · approval of UP-510. He state~ th·at his intent was to prevent hardship of those '~eo'ple who we'r'e ·engaged' in worthwhi'le pursuits in this lease situation, and to atte'mpt to give the .One World ~ontessori and their leasees the opportunity to put ·their affairs in order in a reasonable period of time. The con'diti'ons 'of the use '~ermit were discussed, and Condition No. 4 ·was ·amended to read: "Classe·s sh~ll not be conducted any later· than 7:00 p.m. InfreqUent evening meetings will be allowed on site. Week·end use is to be ·reStricted to recreational use and the use by the Religious Science ·of Mined for Sunday morning services .~' There was a consensus tha·t the· ·effective date of the conditions would be immediately. "~·nfrequen~ evening meetings" were defined as those activities· not regularly scheduled. To clarify the p~evio~s '·motion for approval of the use' permit, Commissioner King moved to a~prove UP-510, per· the Staff Report dated October 8, 1981, as amended Novem- ber 17, 1981, with ·Condition No.. 4 further amended as previously stated above. Commissioner· Zambetti seconded the motion. Discussion foilowed on the condition relating to the parking, and it was the con- sensus that the condition w~l·l· remain as stated. The vote was taken on the ·motion. The' motion .'~a=s= carried, with ·Commissioner Laden dissenting. Commissioner Bolger, note·d~ that during the General Plan Amendment for Moreland, the h0me~wners ha·d implied that they would prefer to h~ve 'the ~res'ent uses th'er'e instead of another use, and would prefer to have this site ·r.emain open rather than closing it down. COMMUN I CAT IONS Oral 1. C. ity 'Coun'c'il 'ReD'ort '- Commissioner King gave 'a brief report on the City Council me·eting herH'~' January 20, 1982. A copy of the minutes of this mee·t·ing are on file in the· City Administration Office. 2. Chairman ScHaefer thanked Councilmembers Callon and Clevenger for attending the meeting and the Good Gov.er'nmen't Group for attending and serving co.ffee. AD'JOU RNMENT Commissi·oner Monia moved to adjourn 'th·e meeting. Commissioner Laden seconded the ·motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Re.S'pe'ct'fully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd