Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 10, 1982 --7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANI ZATION- Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, CrowthOr, Laden, Monia, Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner King Minutes The' following change was made 'to the minutes of January 27, 1982: On page 3, the sixth. paragraph should read: "Heber Teerlink, Mt. Eden Road, stated that 'the Planning Commission members were ip. dividually legally liable if they en. forced Measure 'A' and he indicated that four lawsuits would be filed by different parties relative to this." Commissioner Crowther moved to wa. ive the rea'ding of the' minutes of January 27, 1982 and approve as amended. Com- missioner Bolger seconded the motion, wl'~ich was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City of Saratoga; continued from January 2.7, 198.2' Staff recommended that, inasmuch as there is a legal deadline on the Specific Plan Orainances, this matter should be continued to the next regular mee'ti'ng, after taking public testimony at this time. They added th. at, therefore, this matter will not be on the Committee-of-the- Whole study session agenda, as. previously indicated. The public hearing was opened' at 8:25 p.m. ..~.9.~ge"~'oal. e~'~i ,' 20773 Hillmoor Lane, stated that he would like to keep · Hil ~do'ran'd' Kreisler as cul-de--sacs. He addressed the traffic issue in that area. Dora Grens, 13451 O].d Oak Way, discusse'd Circulation Goal #7 of the Genera']. Plan, indicating that there had been a majority vote approving this. She also added that she 'felt it wa..§..~n:a~proDr~ate for the Mayor .to request thi. s informati'on at this time-'.W~2t.hoUL-'~m~sU~t'i~'g a.y~y of ~he' members of the committee. ShelIey Williams, 11951 Brookridge Drive, stated that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation had signed the draft report on the 85 Corridor for preservation. He indicated that the matter will now be coming back to the County. Mr. 'Williams noted various meetings being held on .this subject. Since no one else appeared to address this matter, it was directed tha. t it be continued to February 24, 1982. 2. Con. sideration of Amendment's to the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Grading Ordinance for the Specific Plan Area (Prospect to Big Basin. Way)'; continued fromJanuary 27, 19'82' 3. GF-333 Consideration of a Revision to the Slope Density Formula in the HC-RD District to a 2L10 Acre Straight Line Formula.; con- tinued from ',January 27, 1'9'82' Chairman Schaefer noted that at the study session a consensus'had been re-ached on two points: (1) the del'etion of consideration of transfer of development rights and (2) deletion of references to mass grading from the Specific Plan Implementation Ordinances. The 'public hearing was opened on both the Specific Plan Ordinance and the 'HCRD Ordinance at 8:35 p.m. " j'~'~]'a'n. ning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 2/10 Specific Plan Ord. and GF-333 (cont.) H. Hunkizer, Pierce Road,' O~.~Es..eYd2' the draft ordinance relative to ~:f*.oyZ'~s~bns:,,--reg'ard-i~g cluster~ing,. visibility, erosion control, density, .attached' ~.housino ,' .~as.'~ -g'r-adin -and.~- conFormance to existin~ tonography. He also' 'sta~ed his 6ppEsi~ be , o f low ion 'to the plantino . ,~ n e w Wilh.&l'm Kohler, Via Reginia indicated that he would like to oive his input to the draft ordinance that would be forwarded to the City Council, after changes have been made to the currently proposed ordinance. Chairman Schaefer' explained that the Commission ~s interested in new ideas and input from citizens in determining the text of the ordinance, and asked Mr. Kohler to submit any input in writing, to allow the Commission to consider this during their study sessions. (Addition: Mr. Kohier' e~plained that he believed the current ordinance. draft is inconsistent with Measure A-..adopted-by t-he".X~oters. It was di'rected that these items would be continued to the study session on February 16, 1982 and the regular meeting of February 24, 1982. 4. A-806 Parnas Corporation, RequeSt for Design Review Approval for the construction of a two-story family dwelling on Lot 24, Congress Hall Lane; Continued from: January 2'.7,' '1982 Staff described. the proposal, noting that there is also a request for modification to the Site Development Plan. The Deputy City Attorney stated that there is still some .litigation pending between the City and the Parnas Corporation relating to the hardship exemption granted to them 9ursuant to Measure A and the agree- men't executed between Parnas and the City. He indicated that discussions with the Counsel for Parnas have resulted' in an understanding that, as far as the City and the applicant'are concerned, they are still nroceed- ing under that agreement. He added' that it is further understood that by moving forward and processing these applications for design review, the City is not waiving any claims, defenses or other rights it may be entitled to assert in the pending litigation. He noted that' there will be a written confirmation of this furnished to the City by the Counsel for Parnas, but because the document has not yet been received, the record should reflect the circumstances under which the City is pro- ceeding. He indicated that, a-s far as the Commission is concerned this evening, these applications wo'uldsbe treated in the same manner as any other design review application. 'He commented that the design review processing was based upon the present Design Review Ordinance and the HCRD standards, since the Specifid Plan Zoning Ordinance has not yet been adopted. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Ed Charlesbois, Vice-PreSident of 2th. e Parhas Corporation, stated that they have tried to design the ho'us'es in a way which is best for the lots and the market', and they have complied wi'th the ordinance. It was clarified that the setb'acks comply wi'th the !.ICRD standards. Mr. Charlesbois explained that they had designed this home for this · lOf: because the lot is flat and the design meets that criteria. He added that the lot is large enough to set the house back away from the road to mitigate any visual impact~s. The geology on this site was discussed. Commissioner Crowther pointed out that the maps show a major fault line going through the site and across the road. He noted that there was no letter from the City Geologist relative to thd"geotechnical work done on the site. Staff indicated that, as a condition of the tentative map and the geo- t'~chnical report, there will be Site specific work required prior to issuance 'of building permits on each of the lots in this subdivision. . Geo ogist was ~e~' conn~lete a luation They st.a. ted that the C.'tv wor~ ~.~ 8~a~ o n eva bechuse the -si-te- sgec~:~.c ~ ~s no~ c .'. 7~7~'a.t~on' to S.}j~;k'el:d s:,.t'rud'furesj; ',.-.Mr. Hunkizer-i~d~cated .that' he oI: preserving the rura'l. characte~ ~ .~e pcrn~xt Planning Commission -- Page 3 Meeting Minutes 2/10/82 A- 806 (cont.) They ~x!fit. ained that the City Geologist will review the work after it has been submitted. The trenching done by Terratech was discussed. Staff noted that the fault has b6en located with respect to the struc- ture, and that information had be'en reviewed by the City Geologist in the tentative map stage several years ago. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern regarding possible liability involved if the City accepted dedication of the road, since the fault cuts the road at right angles. He 'added that the Commission is being asked to approve the foundation design without the detailed site specific geoIog~c information. He added that he was concerned because the foundations i~ppear to be' flat land foundations and not piers. It was noted that these plans wi];1 go through the Inspection Services Division and all of the specific design is then done. Staff added that appropriate foundations will be included at the time of review before issuance of permits, and if this 'design proves to be inoperative on this lot, it wo'uld not be appr. oved in its final analysis and would come back to the Commission. Commissioner Monia commented that if the foundations are in the packet, the Commission essentially is approving them if they approve this design review. He 'added that if there is a concern that arises by Staff in the future, even if it is a minor change, he feels it should be brought before the Commissionj Commissioner Monia agreed with Commissioner'Crowther's point regarding the geotechnical studies, and stated that he would like to' see' these studies. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that the Commission. has in the past approved structures as to concept, but if the Commission's concerns are in other areas, he felt that .they could ask for that information as part of the design revieW. COmmissioner Crowther referenced Section 4(a) of the Design Review Ordinances, which speaks to topo'graphical and geol6gical constra. ints imposed, and stated that he did not feel that the Commission has the data to make that consideration. He .a~k'ed~ '.=if~:'~ona'.~'tiB'n could be attached, stating that any structure on the site must be insured to 60% of the value against land failure. He added that h.e would also like to cover the roads against land failure. Mr.. Ch. arlesbois pointed out that .the road being 'discussed here is a private driveway and not a public street. He indicated that the public road had already been r~eviewed previously, and this hearing only con- cerned a house on a priyate 'lot. Staff noted that the fault crosses Congress Hall Lane, but it is ml~side of the lot and the design review matter before ,!-ti~e_ Commiss ion. The Deputy City Attorney commented that it is always a requirement of the map approval that the streets be offered for dedication, and it it is up to the City Council to acc,ept the offer. He stated that it 'is his understanding th'at the present policy of the Council is not to accept offers of dedication except when there is a major thoroughfare. He added that this cul-de-.sac will probably remain a private road, and he did not think even that pOrtiOn would be offered for dedication. The Deputy City Attorney indicated. that he did not feel a condition could be tied to the design review, stating that there be no acceptance of dedication. He explained tha~ the streets are defined 'during the course of the map, and. what geologic concerns th. ere may have been were explored and resolved during the course of 'laying out the location of the' streets as shown on the map. He added that, however, he did.~ feel that it would be expanding the scope of design review to ,r'e~u~re,.=.as a condition of approval of the structure, that something must be done with respect to the street which ~the lot abuts. He explained that the homeowner does not have the power to maintain the street; even if it is not accepted by the City it would remain the responsibility of the Homeowners Association to maintain it as a common area. He added that it could be recommended to the.. C.i.'oty Council as ~olicy not to accept dedicat ion, :~.~..~p~.~" j.:~"": ~'h:..e" cas'e"' o f' 'm'.,m:i~3.'.-.'i~':'~H:o~.pfi~T~i ~_:-~re s. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously. - 3 - ~.' ....~.~nning Commission Page 4 r.Y.~et'ing Minutes - 2 A- 806 (cont.) Commissioners Monia, Bolger and Crowther agreed that' they felt the home is too large and too high for tha't Darticular lot, and they feel it will .._b.?._q_uite v.i._~ib._l..e_.'The. y .~:,d"idated ~ha~'x't'H~"~v'dul'd.!'~".r.&fer ~'o:'g"~e"a ~.'i'ngle"story or ranch .st,vl~ ~om6 on f}~is lot. Commissioner Zambetti suggested that the Lan. d Use Committee meet with the applicant regarding this application and A-810, at which time the whole subdivision could be cOnside'red. It was noted that if these designs are brought to a study sessi'on, it would be appropriate to bring the conditions of the subdivision and whatever desi. gn review was conditioned under the subdivision approval. Commissioner Crowther commented that he would like to see 'the geologic data obtained and the City Geologist's comments received as part of any design review. Commissioner Laden pointed out that, if the Commission is going to ask' the applicant to go through a very ion. g, extensive and expensive activity regarding the'se lots, they' should give the applicant clear direction as to the design of the houses'.' After further discussion, it wa's determined that these applications should be considered by the entire Commission at a study session. The Deputy City Attorney was requested to look into the issue .i. nsurance of the structure. He commented that he did not see how the City could enforce 'a condition' requiring the homeowner to maintain cov.er'age on his own home. Commissioner Crowther indicated that this type 'of insL~rance had been required' in the Los Angel~s area to protect the communities that have had. tremendous expense from homes that slide. The Deputy City Attorney' indicated that he 'wOuld bring information on liability insurance to adjacent property owners or public property. Mr. Cbarlesbois commented that they have complied with the ordinances and have 'worked with Staff. He ~tated that they did want to work with 't!~e Commission, and feel these homes fit the lots. Richard Van Enna, the project architect, discussed the foundations of the homes. It was directed that this item will be continued to a study session. on February 16th, at which time the Commission would like to see how the different homes are 'integrated. At that time Staff was requested to bring the specific geologic information from the tenta- tive map for the Commission's revieW. This item will be' continued to the' regular meeting of February 24, 1982. 5. A-810 -. Parnas Corporation., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two'-.'story single family residence on a hillside '.lot on'. V'i'nt'age' La'ne .'.' The' public h.earing was opened' at 8:22 p.m. Since no one appeared, i.t was directed. that this item be continued, along with A-806, to a study session on February 16, 1982 and the regular meeting of Februa- ry 24, 1982. 6a. A-808 -. R. Vernal, Request for a Variance to reduce the rear yard 6b. V-571 -- setback from 60 feet to '32 feet and Design Review Approval. for a second story addit.ion to an existing one-story single family res'iden:c'e 'at' 1.3'0"30 Housto'n 'Cour't Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 9:50 p.m. Matt Christiano, 12970 Pierce, expressed hi's opposition to this develop- ment, objecting to the single-.sto.ry design because of the impact on his privacy. Joe Butler, the contractor for the project, described the design. He i'ndicated' that there was 'only one sm'all window that faces Mr. Christi- ano's proper'ty. He also noted that there we're many large trees on s i'te. . . '..~j · .. ~-l~i'~ing Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes - 2/ A-808 and V-.571 (cont.) Commissioner Laden moved to close~ the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the W'.~ndows' and the setbacks of the house. It was determined that if the window' 'in the bathroom area facing north was opaque glass, it would prote'c'~ the pr~.vacy of the neighbor. Com- missioner Crowther commented that. he 'would prefer' to see the other window eliminated; however, there. was 'a consensus to leave that window in to provide 'sufficient 'light. It was noted that the large setbacks would also help to mitigate 'the 'impact' On the nei'ghbor's privacy. Commissioner Laden moved to approve A--808 and V-571, per the Staff Report amended to reflect the condition relative to the opaque glass for the window facing north; making the findings. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. 7a. V-570 V. Bellomo, Request for Design Review Approval and a Variance 7b. A-809 -- to erect a sign which exceeds the maximum allowable area at 18570 Prospect Road Staff described the proposed sign stating that they were recommending denial of the variance and design review. The public hearing was opened at 9:03 p.m. Ms. Danielski, 18570 Prospect Road, stated that she was a merchant in Westgate Corners. She e~plained ~hat it was very difficult for customers to find her store, since they cannot find the existing sign for Westgate Corners. She describe'd the area. and passed out photo's showing the current signs. Commissioner Laden commente'd that' she feels this shopping center has greater visibi'lity than most centers withi'n Saratoga. She added that she feels very strongly that the Commission. must adhere to the signage requirements in the' City. She suggested that perhaps the total allowed square footage. is 'being inappropriatel'y used, and perha_ps 'on th.e buildings need not be '-a~.ZYS~'~r~e.as_ .t'H-~v-'ar'e.:~'-. that it would be 'very expensi e 'Z= t'.,6y'.. 'c an .e individu~i '~"~i~H'si "=she "' pointed out that they must comp~t'~ --with the shopping centers in the area, and perhaps the 'zOning should' be changed. Commissioner Mon.~.a commented that~'he felt this was a unique situation and he would favor a larger sign allocation there. However, he added, he would like to see a different design. He stated that he felt the City has an obligation to make the 'commercial ventures viable. .. Commissioner Crowther stated his concern re.~arding a domino effect, with 'everyone else ~:~'long~jth~"s'ame~:~'de 'o l~' t.h~ Stree.t-~ a.~.k~.ng fo.~Y-'!-:'_the'::~ s.~me""',v~.:r-i. an~e-. ;I'le.,i~ot'ecl his";fa'~,t~-~.cUl'a~".:'Co'nce~fi rega'rdin'g 'enc.r..oaChment i~to the' setback. "' ' · .... ' .... .~ " Commissioner Bolger agreed that he felt the City does have an obliga- tion to the merchants. I.-Ie suggested that the sign be primarily recog- nition for Westgate Corners, and not have a number of different names on it as proposed. Commissioner Zambetti stated that.he would vote against the variance, since the center is already over the allotted square footage for signage, and he feels it will have 'a domino effect on the adjacent area and also the other cOmmer'cial areas of Saratoga. Commissioner Laden commented that'she hates' to see the City make regu- lations and then not have th. em enforced. She stated that sh.c feels commercialism is important to the' City, and if the applicant came back wi'th 'a sign in a natural tone 'that has the name of the center and the address, she would be 'more happy to consider that type of variance than wh. at 'is being proposed tonight. After further discussion, there was a consensus that the applicant could with.draw this sign and propose a new design, which the Commission will tt~en consider. It wa's suggested to the applicant that the new sign be reduced by approximately one-.half, in natural tone, with the - 5 - o .'j~.~rl~'ffning Commission Page 6 ~ Meet'ing Minutes - 2/10 V-570 and A-809 (cont. · name and address of the center on' it. It was determined that the' current design was being withdrawn; however, the.re may be a variance needed with a new 'proposed design. Therefore, Commissioner Monia withdrew his pr. evious motion to close tbe public hearing. Commissioner"Bolger' wi'tHdrew his second, and it was directed that this matter be 'continued' to March '24, 1982.. 8. .V-572 -- P. Sanfilippo, Request fo~ 'a Variance to reduce the parking requirement(s) and increase the' height requirement for a bank to be constructed at the ~rgonaut Shopping Center on Saratoga- Sunnyva'.l'e' Road .... It wa's directed' that this item be'.'continued to a study session on February 16, 1982 and the regular'meeting on February 24, 1982. MISCEL'LANEOUS 9. GF-336 Addition of Spas ~a. Conditional Use 'in the C-N Zoning Distric~ Commissioner Laden gave a report on her visit to the Spas Petite and describe'd the operat~on~ Comm~ss.ioner Laden moved to approve GF-336, adding' health spas as a conditi'on~l use in the C-N zoning district, per the Staff Re~ort. Commissioner' Zambetti Seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. COMMUN I CAT IONS Oral 1. Jerry Kocir addressed the Commission regarding the issue of traffic relative to the proposed bank in t~e 'Argonaut Shopping Center. He stated that there 'should be some allowance from the 'shopping center for the flow of traffic, as a condition of the project. 2. Commissioner Laden gave a brief 'report on the City Council meeting held on February 3, 1982. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 3. Chairman Schaefer thanked the G~od Government Group fo~ attending the meeting and serving coffee. 4. Discussion was held on th.e Manufactured Housing Ordinance w~ich was recently recommended for approval. to the' City Council by the Commission. Speci.~.cally the wording "mobile homes" in the ordinance and legislative.bills was discussed. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would supply the Commission with the legislative provisions defining what certification means as it relates to the ord~.nance. He adde~d' that he would also review the p'resent ordinances. and come back to the Commissi:on with further' information relative to their concerns. It was determined th~at it would be suggested to the City Coumcil to hold the ordinance 'in abeyance until the Commission gets a deter- 'minati6n from the .Deputy City Attorney as to what exactly the City is dealing with. ~addi'tion' b'eI"ow' ADJOURNMENT' Commissioner Monia moved, 'seconded by Commissioner Laden, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimoUsIy, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. RespectfulIy submitted, Sekret'ary · Th.e' neces. si.tv of rapidiv resD'on'ding to'this new law was questioned on the · "-~ 'has'i.~. that the City still has not .complied ~ith.State O'pen S~ace ].aws which were enacted before ].'974. .The DeD~t.v 'City Attorney stated that he had been advised that the inte'rDretation b'~ the former City Attorney basicall'y was that the HCRD Ordinance was intended as the Open Space Element. Commissioner-- (cont. on 6a) · d'~'~.~nning Commission Page 6a Meeting Minutes - 2/1 Manufactured Housing (cont.) Crowther asked how that would take care of the open space school sites and other areas of the City that are not in the hills. The Deputy, City Attorney stated that that ordinance was apparently intended to satisfy the State requirement. He commented that he did not necessarily agree with this approach and felt that a specific Zoning Ordinance for open space would be appropriate.