Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, August 25, 1982 ~:30 p.m. PLACE: .City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowthier, King, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioners Crowther and King arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Monia Minutes It was noted that the third setence in. the first paragraph under Area L on page 2 of the minutes of August 11,:1982 should read ~'however, he feels the exact type of'planting or landscaping should not be· specified." Com- missioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. Resolution Chairman Schaefer presented Resolution PC-144, commending Alan King for his outstanding service to the City of Saratoga. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. A-835 Saratoga Presbyterian Church, Herriman Ave., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a sign over 8 sq. ft. in area 2. SDR-1447 - Marcus Bitter, Cox Ave..and Saratoga Creek, Request for One- Year Extension Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to approve the above items on the· Consen't Calendar. The motion was carried unani- mously 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. A-818 A. Berman, Request' for Design Review Approval to construct a one-story dwelling over 22' in height on Via Tes·oro Court (Lot ·2) in the R-I-40,.000 zoning district; continued from May 26, 1982 The Commission accepted the formal wi·thdrawal· of this application. 4. V-541 J. Brozda, 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; continued from July ·14, 198'2 Staff gave the history of this project. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Doug Adams, attorney for the· applicant, referenced his discussions with the Bank of America relative to using some of their parking spaces. He indicated that written· authorization had not been obtained, but they had stated that their parking lot could be used after their regular hours. Discussions followed on the parking requirements and the efforts that have been made to find spaces. Mr.·Adams stated that he felt there were still possi·bilities to be ·explored· for the needed parking. R. E. Kaufman, from the· Gatehouse Condominiums, discussed the counts he has made regarding parking in the Village. Commissioner Bolger· moved to close ·the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded· the motion, which was chrried unanimously. ~I)~i.~i~i!on followed on the general parking situation in the Village. 1 Planning Commiss ion Page 2 Meeting Minutes 8/25/82 V-541 (cont.) Precedent setting and the requirements that have been imposed on previous applicants were discussed. Commissioner Bolger commented that when the Village Overlay District is accomplished perhaps this particular problem could be addressed on a use permit basis. Commis- sioner Nellis pointed out that during the General Plan review it has been noted that parking is an issue 'in the Village. A timeframe was discussed for a possible extension, at the end o.f such time the variance would be denied if the parking requirements have not been met. Commissioner Bolger stated that he did not feel that 3-6 months would be enough time for the applicant to explore the parking possibilities ...and it could bes't be ha'ndled by. the Village overlay. Commissioner' 'Schaefer suggested a ~.l-year period of time. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would have a problem extending the variance for 1 year and moved to grant V-541 for a period of 6 months, commenting that only on that basis can he make the necessary findings. He added that, at the end of the 6-month period if the necessary parking require- ments have not be'en met, the variance will expire. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. The V'O~..6~i'!"esulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Bolger, Nellis an.d Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Bolg'er stated that he~ could support the motion if the timeframe was extended to 1 year. Commissioner Nellis commented that he could support the 6-m0nth period if he clearly understood what 'could be accomplished. It was clarified that at the end of the extended period of time the applicant must find the necessary parking, i.e., 9 pa~king spaces based on no outdo'or dining and 5 additional spaces if outdoor dining continues. Commiss~i~ner Nellis stated that he could support the motion on that basis. The vote was taken on the motion again. The motion was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Bolger and Schaefer dissenting. 5a. A-832 - Sloboden Caleb, Request for Variance and Design Review Approval 5b. V-590 - to construct a single family dwelling which exceeds the maxi- mum allowe'd' floor area at 19143 Via Tesoro; continued from August 11, 1982 It-was ~reported that these items had been to a study session, at which time the Commission had expressed their concerns. Staff noted that the applicant has not submitted any modificati'on to 'the proposal. They indicated that they cannot make the 'findings and wojuld recommend that ~he.~.~ri~n~e'be denied, and the design review be approved subject to deletion of the nonconforming square. footage. It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to see the revised plans before approving the design. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Galeb, the applicant, spoke on'behalf of the proposal. It was pointed out to him that the Commission had suggested to the applicant 's representative that the proposal be altered to resolve 'the concerns, i.e. tree removal and excessive 'grading. Commissioner Siegfried added that he feels that this house may be inappropriate for the down-slope lot, and he also cannot make the findings for the variance. Marty Oakley, the architect, stated that he h~d attended the study session and indicated that the grading was based on the front and rear driveway. to lessen the slope. He discussed the tree removal and the ~'r~.~'~n~revious plans for the .lot. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thought the Commission had given their concerns to the applicant; however, there is no evidence that' any 'of these concerns have been resolved. He added that he assumes then that the applicant wishes the Commission to vote on his present proposal. He moved to deny A-832 ~nd V-590. Commissioner King seconded the' motion. Commissioner King pointed out that instructions at the Committee-~f-the-Whole were given t'he applicant's representative that if he wished the Commission to vote. on the application they would, o_~' ~t ~'d-:~' ~c~ont~inUed~'if h-e~'~ish~'d ~o ~.k'~wi"th.""t'he Commission on the concerns - 2 - '~lanning Commission °'~ O Page 3 ·Meeting Minutes 8/25/ A-832 and V-590 (cont.) Mr. Galeb indicated that he would like the Commission to continue this matter. Commissioner Siegfried wi'thdrew his motion to deny A-832 and V-590. It was directed that 'this matter be continued to a study session on September' 14, 1982 and'the regular meeting of September 22, 1982. It was pointed out to the applicant that there will be a request for Continuance Fee of $100.00. 6. UP-521 - Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, Request for Use Permit Approval to locate a nursery in the R-l-10,000 zoning district at the eastern terminus Qf Sarat'oga Ave. and Dagmar Drive Staff explained the proposal. The 'public hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Harry Kohl, Executive Director of'the Foundation, gave a presentation on the project. Walter Doucett, 19131 Dagmar Drive, spoke in favor of the proposal. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner King moved to approve 'UP-521, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 7. UP-522 - Cashin/Dean Turner, RequeSt for Use Permit Approval to allow the 'construction of a gas. station in the C-N zoning district at the corner of Prospect.' ~d Sarato'ga-SUnnyvale Road It 'was directed that this item be ~ontinued to the meeting on September 8, 1982, in order to allow Staff time 'to evaluate 'resubmitted plans. 8. V-591 - Lewis and Nancy Franklin, Request for Variance Approval to construct an accessory structure over 12 ft. in height in the NHR' zoning district at 13'209 Pa'der'o' Ct. near Pierce Road The proposal wa's described by Staff. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Franklin, the applicant, addressed the project and stated that he agreed with the Staff Report. Commissioner King moved to close t]~e public hea'ring. Commissioner Bolger' seconded the motion, which 'Was 'carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger' moved to approve V-591, per' the 'Staff Report dated August 17, 1982 and Exhibits B and C, making the findings. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the 'motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 9. V-594 - James Craig, Request for Variance Approval to allow the con- struction of an addition which 'maintains a 21 ft. rear yard setback where '25 ft. is required in the R-1-12,500 zoning distri'ct at 20.524' Manor DriVe Staff gave the history of the project, adding that they cannot make the findings and are rec'ommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 8::50 p.m. Mr. Craig, the applicant, e~plained that he was not aware that a permit was required' to extend a room. He'indicated that a stop work order was placed on the project while he obtained a permi. t; another stop work order was.place~ when it was det'er~ined that a Va'ria~ ~o~'ld'b~ne.~de.~' ~r'~Heb..eH'c~b~Ch~t%into the setback. The timeframe of the construc- tion was discussed. Richard Drake, Gordon Court, referenced the letter he had submitted in opposition to this project. He urged denial of the variance, stating that he felt that the construction had continued deliberately and illegally, and he was against any compromise. Mr. Craig commented that he took exception to the fact that Mr. Drake 3 Planning Commission Page 4 Meeti'ng Minutes 8/2.5./~. V- 594 (cont.) had indicated that the construction had been done deliberately and illegally. He commented that there h~d not been any work done during the stop work orders, and he would be happy to put up trees or shrubbery. He added that 'the structure 'is now 90% completed. Commissioner King moved to .close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the moti'on, which was carried unanimously. There was a ~consensus that there was an attempt in a short period of time to get the structure 'completed before a formal work stoppage was placed on .the project. There was also a consensus that the 'find- ings could not be made for granting of thi's variance. CommiSsioner Crowther moved to deny V-594, per the Staff Report'dated August 18, 1982. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. Staff noted that the applicant will hay6 to remove 'that portion which' encroaches into the setback if the variance is denied. The vote was taken., which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. It was pointed out to the applicant that there is a 10-day (calendar) appeal period to the City Council. Break - 9:20 9:35 p.m. 10. A-834 - Carl Franklin, Request for Design Review Approval to construct two' single family dwellings on Lots 1 and 4 of Tract No. 5924, Ij~..'. '°j.'.. 'Vi'aj 'T'e's o ~o "'Ct .? · .n_'~ "'Ch'~s=t ~r Avenue Staff described the project. The .public hearing was opened at 9:40 p jm. Mr. Franklin, the applicant, gave .a presentation on the two lots. He addressed tree removal and grading' and the options listed in the Staff Report. Ron Mancusso, Chester Avenue, expressed concerns regarding Lot #1 and suggest'ed considering the warped plane technique. He indicated that it would be appropriate to consider this at 'a study session. It was the consensus that both lots should be cons'idered at a study session. It was directed that 'they be continued to a study session on September 14, 1982 and th~ regular meeting on September 22, 1982. 11. GF-34i - Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Article 25 Village Overlay District to Ordinance NS-3 which 'would establish the boundaries of the district '.(generally that area contained within Sa.ratoga Creek,' S~ratoga-Sunnyvale and Saratoga-Los Gatos Roads, Oak Street and St. Charles and Sixth Streets),' allow mixed uses on properly designated lots with a use permit, modifying the list 'of conditional uses to be allowed in the district, and by allowing variations in development standards through the use permit .p'rOce~ss per 'Article 18 'of 'Ord. NS-3 Commissioner Crowther commented that .it seems inappropriate to be considering the overlay district before the General Plan is completed. Commissioner King pointed out that a commitment had been given to an applicant that this matter would be dealt with separately and on a timely basis. Staff explained the ordinance amendment. The establishment of setbacks and parking was discussed. CommisSioner Crowther commented that in an earlier application the importance :of maintaining strict standards on par. king had been discussed, and here it 'is being proposed to make it negotiable on each specific case according to criteria that are not defined. He indicated' that if parking and setbacks are ~oing t'o be permitted to be varied, spe~'ific criteria need,. to be set out in this ordinance. The public hearing wa's opened at 10:10 p.m. R. E. Kaufman, a resident of the Gatehouse Condominiums, commented that he cannot understand why Oak Street, which is fundamentally resi- dential, should suddenly be commercial. FIe agreed with Commissioner Crowther that the' General Plan should be completed before this zoning 4 -' P'lanning Commission Page Meeting Minutes 8/2. GF- 34 1 (cont.) : change is made. He 'pointed out that parking is a problem on Big Basin. Robert Aviles, representing inte'r'e~'ted parties in the Village area, stated' that Oak Street is now 'zoned RM--3,000 and none of the lots are conforming. He explained' that the' 'over'lay will provide flexible guide- lines for developing thes'e lots, and there is no intention to create a commercial strip on Oak Street'. He added' that the project of an overlay plan for the Village h~s be~.en underway since 1974, a'nd that specific problems for a project can~ be dealt wi'th at the use permit level. Diana Parham, representing the' Twi'n Oaks' Homeowners 'Association, stated that she had attended a meeting on April 6th 'and had been satisfied that something wa's going to be done~ in an orderly way that was quite appropriate. She commented that sh~ did not understand. why an overlay plan is now being discussed before the General Plan is complete. She asked that 'it be put in writing that there will be no commercial zoning on Oak Street. Staff Ct~r'ified that the area being discussed in the amendment would be -~t~7~'~h"~si'de o~ Oak. Street Wi'thin'th'e oye'rlay diS- tfi~I and' 50 'feet a~vay' from that boundary. They explained that the use permit process would be used but only if the zoning of the property permits. The Deputy City Attorney stated that the basic thrust of the ordinance is that the underlying zoning is used; if the underlying zoning is residential, you cannot have a commercial develQpment. Ms.~= .~ar~h_a~m. .. .~_sked~., ~r~'=confi~mation tHa~ 'S-he"woUld~'not h~V~-tO' worry a~out the property .~ned .by" Mr. Zambetti being developed as commercial on the frontage of Oak Street, and the Deputy City AttOrney confirmed that fact. He added that he was not discu.s~ing specific properties, but the intent of the ordinance is that 'the fr'ont~ge of'O'a'k~.St~e~'t'='~w.~-i'l .~emai-n ~sidential~ "' It was the 'consensus that 'this matter should go to a study session for further study and consideration as to how it relates to the General Plan. Commissioner .Crowther s.uggested. that! the Commission should consider how they would have dealt with some of the existing situations in the Village under this ordinance. He added that he is very concerned about giving flexibility on parking. Commissioner Siegfried asked for an explanation from Staff of precisely what the intent is and what is being accomplished via this overlay. It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on September 14, 1982 and the regular meeting of September' 22, 1982. 12. GF-3~2 -'Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by changing the minimum site C-201 - area allowed in the A (Agriculture) District from 5 acres to 10 acres and changing the minimum site area per dwelling unit from 2.5 acres to 10 acres...The City proposes to rezone certain parcels in the Northwestern 'Hillsides to A (Agriculture) rather than NHR (Northwestern Hillsides Residential). The parcels affected were previously zoned A (Agriculture) and are under Williamson Act contracts. Amendments will be per Article 18 of Ord. NS- 3 Staff explained the amendment to the~ ordinance. The' correspondence received in opposition to this amendment was noted. Staff indicated that if this amendment is approved and any owners of 'Agricultural desig- nated property wish to develop, they. would have to be rezoned to NHR after they are taken out of the Williamson Act contract and would be developed under the NHR regulations.. The public hearing was opened at 10:,40 p.m. Vince Garrod addressed the Commission, commenting that he felt the ordinance should remain as it is. He explained that the affected people now have a contract with the City, and when they want to develop they can apply for reZOning. He commen'ted that 10 acres is quite restrictive, and he feels that the City has to be fair and not just change the sites that are in the NHR zone. He added that he feels that there will be an impact on the proposed ~Vater District and the City's circulation pattern. Mr. Carrod indicated that he felt that the City should just reaffirm that when an owner' wishes to develop ~the' land, it will go back to the - 5 - ~lanning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 8/25/82 -- GF-342 and C-201 (cont.) basic zoning that is in effect at the time the' land is withdrawn from the Williamson Act, and there is nO need for an ordinance change. John Torre, 21680 Wardell Road, voiced his agreement with Mr. Garrod. Marshall Hall, 20865 Wardell Road, also agreed with Mr. Garrod's remarks. He expres'sed his concern that he only has 9 acres but had been permitted to come under' the Williamson Act wi'th 5 acres. He explained that if their house wa's destroyed and they iwanted to rebuild it, he would be fearful that they could be told they were not entitled to be under the Williamson Act contract because they do not have 10 acres. Fred Irany, 13937 Pierce Road, agreed with the above. He commented that he cannot see how the City indirectly can submit any changes to the agreement he has, since it is with 'the City and the County. · The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the agreement would not be changed with this amendment. He also clarified that Mr. Garrod's property, and also the other property under the Williamson Act in the hillside zone, is now in the zoning classification of NHR. He explained that, to be consistent with the Williamson Act contract, the policy of the City in the past has been to specifically designate those properties as Agricultural Preserves. After that designation has been made, if ~F · -~o°~f:~l~'j.~p~roperty owners would like t'o fezone, they would rezone to NHR '*~Hd ~vould develop in accordance with the NHR Zoning Ordinance. Discussion followed ~n the change of the minimum site area in an Agri- cultural district. It was suggested that, instead of changing the minimum area, .the ordinance 'could s.tate that the parcels are being rezoned back to the Agricultural designation, but ·if they are developed they have to meet' the density requi'rements of NHR. It was determined tI~at this matter should be studied further at a study session. The Deputy City Attorney was requested ~o submit alternatives as to how tt~e ordinance could easily be changed· to accomplish the intent. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on October 5, 1982 and the regular meeting of October 13, 1982. MISCELLANEOUS : 13. Consideration of Amendments to the 1974 General Plan of the City of Saratoga; continued from August 11, 1982 Staff noted the items to be voted on at this time. It was pointed out that a new policy was to be added to have a 100 ft. setback along scenic highways. · A letter regarding Area G, addressing the density of the Odd Fellows Home property, was discussed. Dora2Grens stated .that Mr. Swanson, the area representati·ve, would like:clarification regarding the zoning. It was determined that not all of the Commission had received this letter', and Chairman Schaefer' requested that another copy be submitted. It was directed that, be'cause of th& long agenda, the balance of the items would be continued to a regular adjourned meeting on August 31, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. .. 14.' UP-474 - Scooterhaus, 14410 Big Basin Way, Review of Conditions of Use Permit . Staff reported that one of the conditions of the· zoning was that the use be housed entirely inside the structures and the use permit is issued on that basis. They' stated that the 'applicant has been notified twice that he is in violation of the use permit, and there has been no response. It was determined that the item should be agendized for a study session on August 28, 1982 at '8:00 p.m. wi·tH the applicant, and at that time the conditions of the use 'permit can be 'reVie~ed. C OMMUN I CAT I O NS Wr i t t'en 1. Re'que'st t'o 'add travel a'gency 'a's P-A use. Staff explained that the - 6 - Planning Commission Page Meeting Minutes 8/25/82 Written Communications (cont.) applicant has asked the Planning Commission to consider the addition of a travel agency as an allowed use in the P-'A zoning district. They referenced a letter from the travel. agency, along with a copy of the lease t.hey had entered int6 with the applicant. The parking ratio was discussed. Warren Heid, representing the applicant, discussed the use and the letter he had submitted regarding this req.uest. Dianne Lentini, representing Carriage Travel of Saratoga, stated that they' had signed a lease wi'th the applicant, hoping to open June 28th. She described the operation of the agency. Ken Hillhouse, real estate broker re2presenting the travel agency, dis- cussed the parking requirements and.suggested that there be a review of other cities as to how they handle 'this type of business. There was a consensus to add travel agencies as a conditional use in the P-A district. Commissioner Crowther moved to direct Staff to prepare a resolution to add this use for approval at the next meeting. Commis- sioner Nellis seconded the motion, Which was carried unanimously 6-0. Oral Communicat'ions 1. ?~n~: Taylor, of the Campbell Christian School, explained that they had been receiving requests from individuals in the community for use of their multi-purpose room on an occasional basis. He requested that the .hours of operation in their '~'~hf~'!~' '~p~.o~ed"hs~' ~mit (UP-520, E1 Quito School), be extended to read from 7:'00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for occasional use. Discussion followed on the use and the scheduling of the meetings. Mr. Taylor commented that they had met with the officers of the E1 Quito Homeowners Association, and there ha'd been no opposition to the proposed hours. There was a consensus that the uses ~ould-have to be reviewed before a change in the hours of operation could be considered, particularly in view of the complaints from the neighbors in the past. It was suggested that Mr. Taylor could get a 'letter f~om the Homeowners Association, stating that they are in agreement with the proposed hours, to be sub- mitted with the suggested uses. It was determined that if such a modifi- cation was made to the use permit, there would have to be a noticed hear- ing. .It was pointed out that the applicant could apply for a modifica- tion to the use permit, wh'ich could be noticed and agendized. 2. Commissioner Crowther gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on August 18, 1982. A copy of the minutes' of this meeting is on file in the City 'Administration Office. 3. Chai'rman Schaefer thanked. the GoOd Government Group for attending and serving coffee. 4. ~' (below) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bo!ger moved to adjourn to a regular adjourned meeting on August 31, 1982. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, ..w_h'Ach"wa~..."" .... carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:07. p.m. Secretary RSS:cd Oral Communications - 4. Commissioner Bolger requested that the Design Review Ordinance be brought back to the Planning Commission :For their review prior to the meeting with the City Council on October 12, 1982. 7