Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 1982 - 7:30 p.m. "~LACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll'Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, King, Laden, Monia, and Schaefer Absent: Commissioner Zambetti : Minutes Commissioner Laden moved to waive the reading of the minutes of April 20, 1982 and approve as distributed. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining since he was not pre'sent and Commissioner Bolger abstaining since he'questioned the statement made in the fifth paragraph re the water district. (Verbatim of tapes have shown that statement was made as stated in minutes;) The following changes were made to the minutes of April 28, 1982: Under Minutes, re March 24th minutes, "current financial" should be replaced with "economic". On page 3, under A-809, it should read ~'natural tone". On page 4,~he~.~ sentence in the seventh paragraph should read "The motion to amend- ~'..'~' ..... ~'_On.l~'~age 6~ under Land Development Committee the first paragraDh should read" .with the suggestion that it consist of three'members, two Commissioners and one staff person, and that Items 1, 3, 4, 5~and 6 of the Staff Report be handled by the Land Development Committee, with the Planning Commission remaining the advisory agency for all Tentative Subdivision Maps." The public hearings were not closed, but continued, on the General Plan, GPA 82-1-B and GPA-82-1-C, and A-809. Commissioner King moved to ~aive the reading of the minutes of April 28, 1982 and approve as amended. .Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Cr6wther abstaining since he was not present. CONSENT CALENDAR .... .1. A-825.- Michael Rawister, Ambleside..Lane, Site Modification. Approval to construct a one-story addition and swimming pool on a site over 10% in slope 2. A-827 Hugh McPherson, Bouganvillea Ct., Design Review Approval to con- struct solar panels in the HC-RD Zoning District Commissioner Monia moved,. seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to approve the above .items on the Consent Calendar~ The motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. GF-334 Consideration of an Amendment to the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance authorizing Manufactured HOmes in all Residential Districts within the City 0f Saratoga, an Ordinance required under SB-1960 Chairman Schaefer reported that the Commission had.voted on this matter and then-.at a later meeting moved to reconsider. She noted that there will be a hearing on thi's matter by the City Council at their next meeting. The Deputy City Attorney gave the history of the ordinance and explained that the Planning Commission had requested legislation pertaining to the matter', and those bills were provided to the Commission for their study session. The question arose as to whether it is appropriate for the Commission to reconsider this matter at this time. Chairman Schaefer informed the Commission that she had spoken to the Mayor, who had stated that, since the Commission had initiated the request, the conse.nsus of the Council was that it was totally appFopriate. The Deputy City Attorney commented ~hat he would try to address any parti- cular issues and concerns that the Commission might have. It was noted by the Commission that the issues should be clarified. The issue of compatibility was addressed. The 'Deputy City Attorney explained that. - 1 - Planhing Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 5/12/82 GF- 334 (cont.) the statute itself does not define compatibility; the State Act the city to make its own determination as to where manufactured homes may be located. He added that the ~statute states that no municipality is prevented from establishing certain zones 'for mobile homes, and there seems to be general agreement that Z'the word "zOnes" as contained in the state law was intended to refer to zoning districts, and not particular zones within a district. He explained that he believes that cities have the options of providing for manufactured homes in any R-l-district, as the ordinance presently z. tates, or in any particular zoning district. However, he added, as to designating sites, it would be incumbent upon the City then to make some 'findings, to support a distinction of one site within a certain district being different from any other site within that same zoning classification. It was clarified that the ordinance is only referring to homes that are placed on permanent foundations, and that there is a limitation on design review of architectural features; however, there is no limitation on the extent of other zoning requirements that would be applicable to any other type of housing. Commissioner Crowther commented that he had voted against the ordinance in the first place because he did not feel it is appropriate for Saratoga, and questioned why the City is rushing to imple- ment this law when there are other 'state laws that have been passed years ago that have not been implemented by the City. He added that he feels that, with all of the legislation that is going on, the need to implement it will disappear. The public hearing was opened at 8~05 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commis- sioner King moved to close the public hearing. It was determined that the public .hearing should be continued, in order to consider the d'irection f~onl ~]~e- Cou~'cil'~'-and '~'o allow:'~i'm~'-~or the in'adS'try 'r'eDir~:..~-~fa~ive "';."'- -. to appear at a study session. Commissioner King withdrew his motion. Commissioner Monia explained that he had asked for the Commission to reconsider the matter because of the following concerns: '(1) The Commis- sion had not 'been advised that they had the option to designate sites, (2) They did not have any of the documents from the state or any founda- tion that there is a need within this community, based on the Housing Element, for such req'uirements,' and (3) to learn of any new information that indicates that the ordinance previously sent to the Council should be changed. The Deputy City Attorney confirmed that he does believe the recommended ordinance does comply, and the issues before the Commission are other op- tions th'ey might want to consider at this time, such as,' instead of designating all R-1 districts, to.designate 'one. or more districts or specific sites', .making the findings 'for any designated specific sites. It 'was directed that t'his matter be continued .t.o 'the May 26th meeting. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would review the status of pend- ing legislation, and th'e Commission was asked to direct ~ny further inquiries directly to the City Attorney for comment at the next meeting. '4. Consideration of Amendments to the. 1974 General Plan of the City of Sara- toga; continued from May 4, 1982 (approx. 8:00 p.m.) Staff reported that on.May 18th there will 'be a Regular Adjourned Meeting where Planning Areas. D, E, F, L and K will be discussed, and also the Moreland School sites are on that agenda. They noted a letter from Mr. Ross re Granny Housing. . The public hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this item 'be continued to the Regular Adjourned Meeting on May 18, 1982. : 5. A-810 - Parnas Corporation, Reques~ for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story sing-le family residence on a hillside lot on Vintage Lane; continued from April 14, 1982 A-823 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to construct .a two-story single family dwelling on Lot 24, Congress Hall Court These items were discussed simultaneously. It was noted that the geology report has been received by the City but it has not been approved in - 2 - .Plan~ing Cgmmission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 5/12/8 A-810 and A-823 (cont.)' writing by the City Geologist. It was pointed out by the Commission that they had just received the geology report from Terratech and had not had sufficient time' to review i't. A review of the proposals was made by Staff. The--public hearing was opened at 8:~25 p.m. Patrick Sullivan, representing the :applicant, introduced Michael Kern, from Terratech, who discussed the geology and the setback zones pertaining Specifically to application A-810.· There was a consensus that the Commis- sion had no concerns with the design in concept. Regarding application A-823, it was noted that the architect has made the requested changes from the Commission, and there was a consensus that they approve th=e design in concept.' Both items were continued to May 26', 1982, in order to get written approval from the City Geologist on these it:ems. 6a. NegatiVe ·Decl'aration- SDR-1519 - Ray Lea.p 6b. A-811 r Ray Leap, Request for Design Review 'Approval to construct a 6c. SDR-15i9 - one-story major addition to an existing residence at 14525 Sobey Road and Building Site Approval (over 50% expansion) The proposal was described by Staff, noting a second driveway access to the site. A letter from the City Geologist was also noted, which indicates approval with additional items to be studied prior to issuance of build- ing permit. The pu~blic hearing was opened at 8:.40 p.m. Kurt Anderson, representing the applicant, expressed 'problems with some of the~ specific conditions of the SDR. FIe pointed out that the access to the si~e is from Sobey Road (extension of Chester), and explained that the condit.ion regarding the access road is not applicable 'since the Kendall access. road has been used for some .time. He questioned the improvement conditions, since the Kendall property is already bonded as part of that project. Staff described the minimum access road and the conditioning for i~ro'v6ment's.. Bill Heiss, engineer, addressed the access road and the map for the ~Kendal~ property. The timeframe of the improvements and the Deferred .Improvement Agreement 'were discussed. It was the consensus that the ~mprov,ement conditions of the SDR should remain, and the applicant can work out an agreement with ·Mr. Thomas, who· now owns a portion of the Kendall subdivision. CommisSioner King moved to close 'the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which wa·s carried unanimously·. It was:. determined' that the City Geologist's conditions should be added under ~ondition Ill-A, to replace the"word "foundation'-'~ Commissioner Monia moved to approve the Negative Dec·larati·on for SDR-1519. Commissioner Laden Seconded the motion, which ·wa·s carried unanimously. Commissioner Monia moved to approve SDR-1519, per the Staff Report dated April 27, 1982, ~s amended, and Exhibit "B" CommissiOner Laden seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously. Commissioner Monia moved to approve A-811, per the Staff Report dated May 5,~' 1982 and Exhibits "B" and "C~'. Commissioner Laden seconded the motion!, which wa's carried unanimously. 7a. Negati..ve Declaration SDR-1507 --L. Grotegu~h 7b. SDR-15'07 L. Groteguth, Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval, 18846 Ten Acres Road, 5 .Lots, Continued from April 14, 1982 Staff ~xplained the project and modifications made to the map in accor- dance ~vith the' ·previous study session and the on-site visit. They noted that C~ndition II-P should be added, to read: "Repair of the failed areas withi·ni the 'street fronting the property." It was also noted that the City G~ologist's conditions are included in the Staff Report. - 3 - ~Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 5/1.2/82 "' SDR-1507 (cont.) The public hearing was reopened at 9:00 p.m. Bill Heiss, engineer, commented that they' had tried to deal with all of the problems and concerns of the 'Commission. Howard Silverberg, 18801 Ten Acres,. requested clarification on the drainage. Mr. Heiss described ~he' future anticipate'd' flow and the proposed drainage system. Staff reported that they feel the proposed system is adequate. They added that the' developer will be under a-one-year maintenance period after the construction of improveme.nts, and if there is a problem the City could require that the' channel. be 'reconfigurated and deepened. It was determined that this condition .should be for a two'-year period for maintenance or any corrective woZrk 'resulting from excessive water drainage. Commissioner King moved to close thee 'public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded th~ motion, which was carried unanimously. It was requested that the 15 ft. pedestrian-equestrian easement be clearly delineated on the final map. A condition was also added, to read: "The ridge of the roof on the home on LOt #1 shall be no more than 24 ft. from the natural grade." Commissioner Laden moved to approve the--N~gative Declaration for SDR-1507. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commis- sioner King, to approve SDR-1507, p. er the' Staff Report dated March 29, 1982, as amended, and Exhibit "B-5".. The motion was carried unanimously. It was noted that the density on the site is consistent with the slope density equation for this areS, whi!ch is zoned R-I-40,000. 8a. V-574 M. Gera, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval to con- 8b. A-817 struct a two-story dwelling at 19120 Springbrook Lane, which ex- ceeds the standard floor ~rea ratio by 23.3% (where 5% is the maximum allowed); continued from April 28, 1982 The history of the two-story homes in the area was discussed. The public hearing was reopened at 9:50 p.m. The Deputy City Attorney explained that if the Commission approves this structure, they are in effect permitting a modification to the tentative map, which 'has a condition that there only be one-story 'homes in this sub- division. It w~s pointed out 'that 'the applicant does have a consent by all of the property owners wi'thin t'he 'subdivision, and there is another structure there that could be viewed as a two-story. Sophia Ostoya, designer of the home, addressed the design and described the topography and the' other homes 'in the area. Mr. Gera, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the project. Mr. Les Ned~rfeld and Mr. Tom Cairne, adjacent neighbors, spoke in favor of the proposal. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner M0nia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the two-story design. Commissioner Monia moved to allow a two-story design on thi's site, stating that he feels that this applicant should be treated equall~ and he would be in favor of allowing two-story homes in the 'subdivision.~ Commissioner Crowther agreed and seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Monia moved to delete Condition VIII-B' on the tentative map for this subdivision. Commissioner Laden' seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioners King and Monia state~ that they had no problem with the design of the home, but feel that 'it is too large. Commissioner Crowther commented that he had no problem with the size and believes that it meets the criteria with 'regards to visual impact and effect on the neighbors. He added that he' feels there are unique conditions on the lot that 'would justify this particular size, particularly the slope of the l~t. He moved to approve V-574, making the necessary findings based on the criteria, citing the uniqueness of the site. Commissioner Bolger agreed that this is a unique site and pointed out that there is a letter from the neighbors saying that they h~ve no problems wi'th the siz~ or ~he fact that this is a two-story home. He 'seconded the"motion to approve V-574. Commissioner Laden stated that she .could not make the necessary findings - 4 -. '~P'lanning Commiss ion Page 5 Meeting Minutes 5/12/82 V-574 and A-817 (cont.) for the variance. Commissioner ~onia questioned the topography in this case being adequate to make the findings without redesigning the house. Commissioner Crowther commented that the applicant was not doing a lot of grading and is conforming to the specific conditions of the site. The vote was taken to approve V-574, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners King, Laden and Monia dissenting. It was noted that the vote would be deemed a denial and subject to reconsideration at the next meeting whe'n a full Commission is pres'ent. Commissioner Laden moved to accept 'the Staff Report dated April 19, 1982, which recommends denial of th~ variance and adoption of the design review modified to delete the nonconforming square footage. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger. and Schaefer dissenting. It was directed that these items w~ll be agendized for the May 26th meet- ing, at which time there will be a'full Commission. It was noted that there will be a public hearing by fh'e Commission on June 9th relative to the particular modifications to!the 'Design Review Ordinance on which the' Commissi'on h~s agreed. 9a. A-820 - David Ritter, RequeSt for'Design Review and Variance Approval to 9b. V-575 - construct a two-story single family dwelling on a hillside lot which maintains an 11' setback where 25' is required and exceeds the maximum allowed height of 30' (33')' on Belnap Drive The proposal was described by Staff, noting that the' Land Use Committee had questioned the computation of the slope at the building site, and it has now been concluded that the slope under the footprint is 31%. The · -'~.'~!r'~'~n~h~.~'fT~..'~.~p='~"~'~'l.~ wa~.'~discussed. Staff commented that they were recommending~approval of the variance and design review upon the lowering of the structure to comply with the 30 foot height limitation. The use of the slope formula and geology of the site were discussed. Commissioner Bolger gave a report on the Land Use Committee visit. Dave Ritter, the applicant, spoke fo the lowering of the structure. He discussed the power poles on the site.,- a~=~commented on the moving deep landslide around the site and the amount of movement involved as it relates to the road. It was noted that Belnap would remain a private ".. road. ~ Commissioner Monia moved to close ~he public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ~ommissioner Laden expressed concerns about the 'site plan from the stand- pointed of the City Geologist's prior report and having served on the Land Development Committee when the lot was approved. She explained that she was very concerned with the encroachment to the westerly side and the fact that it is so close to the setba'ck~line. Commissioner Bolger also expres.sed his concern regarding the setback and the moving dee~ landslide. Mr. ~itter 'explained that the line 'drawn on the map is where t~e Setback is; not where the slide is located. Commissioner King commented that his only concern is. height; he feels that the other issues are being taken care of. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt the house should either be .moved back 5 or 6 ft. so it would not be so visual or the total h~ight of the building Should be reduced. Mr. Ritter addressed moving the ho~se back, pointing out the removal of trees to accomplish this. Commiss~.oner Crowther commented that he ques- tions the SDR which has already be~n approved and has concern with some of the statements in the City GeolOgist's letter. He noted, however, that the SDR has been approved; therefore, he feels this design is probably the best one for the, site. He 'explained that he did not feel that cutting off a little bi't of the height will lessen the impact. Commissioner King moved to approve A-820 andlV-.575'.~p~r.t~e Staff Report dated May 6, 1982, making the necessary findings. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, wh'ich resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Monia, Bolger and Laden dissenting. This vote 'is deemed a denial sub- - 5 - ~P.lanning Commission Page Meeting Minutes 5/1.2/82 A-820 and V-575 (cont.) ject to reconsideration at the 'next meeti'ng where there will be a full Commission. It was directed that 'this matter' be continued to the meeting on May 2'6~,~, 198.2. The followi'ng concerns were expressed to the applicant: (1) height, (2) geological report, ~nd (3) the bulk of the housing extend- ing over the setback. 10. A-821 - Ralph Soden, Request for Design' Review 'Approval to construct a two-story single family dwe:lling on Lot 18, Tr. 6526 (Parker Ranch') in the HC-RD Z'oni'ng 'D'ist'riCt The proposal wa's reviewe'd by Staff., The 'Deputy City Attorney was asked if thi's proposal is being developed~ according to the criteria of Measure A, and hE replied that the standards for HC-RD are being applied pursuant to the settlement agreement wi'th the 'developer. The public hearing was opened at 10~:45 p.m. Tom Hathaway, architect, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He was questioned as to the need for a two-story design. Mr. Hathaway explained that they felt it warranted two' stories to accommodate the design and also tO offer a view 'from the bedrooms. Commissioner Laden moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carr.ied unanimously. Commissioner Monia indicated that he did not find this basic design very pleasino He commented that he wasi very much concerned with this style of house continuing to be built in Parker Ranch, and he feels that it might be appropriate for the Commission to reconsider some design changes for future building in that area. The designs in that area were further discussed. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny A-821, stating that houses sitting out on open hillsides should be built differently and should not create such an adverse visual impact. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion. Commissioner Laden pointed out 'that two-'stories were allowed to be con- structed in this area, and the applicant is meeting the conditions of the tentative map. Commissioner' King a~dded that he finds it a very attractive design and feels the builder has attempted to follow what has been the consist'ent directions 'of this Commi.ssion. The' vote was taken' to deny A-821, w~'ich resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners King, Laden and Schaefer dissenting. This vote is deemed a denial subject.to reconsideration at the next meeting where there will be a full Commission. It was directted that this matter be continued to meeting on May 12, 1982. 'I.t"wa's sUggeSted to the applicant that he con- sider an alternate design that fits in more to the hillside and which-~will not create such'a major visual impact. Staff was requested to provide the conditions of the tentative map for~ design review and landscaping to the Commission for their review. 11. A-822 - William Elfving, Request for Design Review Approval to construct .a second story addition to an existing one-story structure at ,.~5451 Pe~h~=Hill Road, in the R'-'l-40,0'00 Zoning District The proposal was described by' Staff. The public hearing was opened at 11: 00 p .m. Oscar Sohns, architect, gave 'a presentation on the project. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Monia moved to approve A-822, per the 'Staff Report dated May 5, 1982 and Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner Crowther. seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. 13a. Negative 'Declaration - SDR-1504 D.' Ebrahimoun 13b.SDR-1504 - D. Ebrahimoun, Request' f'or Tentative Subdivision Approval, 15170 E1 Camino Grande (:& 'corner of E1 Camino Sende), 2 lots A review of the project was given b~ Staff. The public hearing was opened Planning Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 5/1.2/8 SDR-1504 (cont.) at 11:05 p.m. Commissioner Bolger gave a report 'of the Land Use Committee visit, noting concerns from the adjacent neighb'ors regarding the impact on privacy.and the removal of several large trees. It was also noted that a geology report 'has not yet be'en rec'eived on the site. A1 Moore, E1 Camino Sende, asked for clarification regarding the recom- mended improvements to the street,"specifically the private right of way that now exists. Staff explained the conditions, involving a Deferred Improvement Agreement for future wi'dening, if necessary. Staff noted that their recommendation is only to provide 'the adequate minimum access width. The removal of trees' on the site was discussed. Since the appli- cant · was not presen't, Staff wa's asked to investigate the removal.. Donald. Jathroy addressed the possibility of the applicant putting up a bond so the road is replaced. He explained that the repaying of the road had just been finished and the applicant was not assessed. Sandra Mitchell, the adjacent property ownerS' asked why E1 Camino Sende is to be used, rather than E1 Camino Grande. She added that the property is be'.ing developed at ~a higher elevation and will infringe on her privacy. It was explained to Ms. Mitchell that much more grading and a longer drive would be needed if E1 Camino Grande were used. It was directed that this matter be continued to May 26, 1982, at which time the' geology report will be available. 14. SDR-1520 '- Longmeadow Development,~Request for Tentative Subdivision Approval for 14270 Douglass Lane (& corner of Durham Ct.), 3 lots The public hearing was opened at 11:16 p.m. Since no one appeared, it was directed that this matter be continued'to May 26, 1982, to be discussed with the variance application on this project. 15. UP-518 - Mabel Hult, Request Modification to Use Permit UP-353 to allow a shade structure 10' in height in the required side yard at 18960 Sara Park Circle Staff described the proposal, and the public hearing was opened at 11:20 p.~m Mike Trapman, a Saratoga Parkside resident, spoke in favor of the struc- ture, stating that it' is 'in accordance with 'the CC&R's. Commissioner Bolger moved to close'the public hearing. Commissioner King seconded the motion, which was car~ried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP-518, per the Staff Report dated May 3, 1982, making the findings. Commissioner Monia seconded th'e motion, which was carried unanimously. 16. V-541 J. Brozda, Request for One Year Review of a Variance granted from parking requirements for a restaurant/retail sales operation in the C-C (Community Commercial) District at 14503 Big Basin Way The~public hearing was opened at 11:23 p.m. It was directed that this item be ~continued to May 26, 1982, at the request of the attorney. MISCELLANEOUS Staff explained a request for the Eommission to make a determination relative to whether an ice cream pa~.l-o'.r is a res.taurant (wi'th that parking ratio) or wh'et~erC'it is retail sales. The parking was discussed and the correspondence received was noted. After considerable discussion, Commissioner King moved 'that it w~s 'the 'Commission"s interpret'ati'on that this is a restaurant type of use. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mrs. Schmidt, the applicant, was requested to coordinate the procedure to receive a business license with Staff. COMMUN I CAT IONS Oral 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the' Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. - 7 - ~.-j~la~hing Cornmiss ion Meeting Minutes 5/12/82 Page 8 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner King moved to adjourn to an Adjourned' Regular Meeting on May 18, 1982. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:04 p.m. Resp~'ctfully su/~I · Secretary RSS:cd