Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAraTOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 8, 1982 7:30 p.m. 'PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ]tOUT INE ORGANIZAT ION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, Monia, Nellis and Schaefer (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Minutes Tie following addition was made to the minutes of August 25, 1982: Under Oral Communications on Page '7, "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." Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Nellis, to waive the reading of the minutes of August 25, 1982 and approve as 'amended. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Monia and Hlava abstaining since they were not present at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Resolution No. GF-343, Amending the Zoning Ordinance by Adding Travel Agencies to the list of Conditional Uses in the' P-A (Professional'Adminis- trative) District (Negative Declaration) 2. SDR-1486 - T'or Larsen, Pierce Road, 2 Lots, Request for One-Year Extension Commissioner Monia moved, se'conded by commissioner Bolger, to approve the i'tems on the Consent Calendar listed above. The motion was carried unanimously PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 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 and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; continued from August 25, 198'2 ' Staff explained the proposal, stating" that at the study session a particular concern had been the amount of landscaping to be provided at this corner. They indicated that the applicant has. modified the layout to provide a substantial addition to the landscapi.ng. They noted the options available to the Commission at this time. The public hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m. Warren Heid, representing the applicant, discussed the sales tax and gas tax generated from the proposed servi'ce station. He gave a presentation on the project, stating that they would like to have the application show that the structure proposed in the rear be located as shown in the amended drawing. Nr. Heid also' asked that the hours of operation be extended to 12:00 midnight. A letter from Union Oil was submitted pertaining to the design and operation of the gas station. Commissioner Crowther pointed out that the General Plan clearly states that the existing service station should be replaced with appropriate land.~.~apiDg, and he feels that a General Plan change would be needed before m i t. .The Deputy City Attorney discussed the existing language in the General Plan, stating that it 'is not entirely clear. He indicated that he feels a reasonable interpretation could be made ei'ther' way; he reads it as Pia~ning Commission O Page 2 Meeting Minutes 9/8/82 · UP-522 (cont.) anticipating replacement of the service station, as stated by Commissioner. Crowther. He added that the Commiss'ion could make the interpretation of the main thrust of that language being landscaping, as opposed to open space, because the area has not been' zoned as a proposed park on the map and is shown on the zoning map as commercial. He confirmed that the zoning has to be consistent by law with the General Plan. He commented that the existing language in the General Plan seems to be a general policy state- ment and not one specifically designated toward a future intended use of this site. Discussion followed on the General Plan map-.and text. Mr. Heid clarified that the owners of this particular parcel and the Blue Hills Shopping Center are the same; however, they are two separate parcels. He asked for clarification of Condition No. 4 regarding landscaping. He explaine'dthat it was his interpretat.ion that the landscaping plan be pre- sented for the adjacent shopping cen.ter and that it be approved, but he felt it could not be a demand that i.t be landscaped at this time. It was clarified by Staff that the intent oZf the condition wa's that the applicant submit a design review plan for land'scaping on the frontage of the shopping center adjacent to the proposed service station. It was determined that Conditi'on No. 4 should read "Design Review Approval for landscaping for thi's site and the adjacent shopping center shall be required and approved by the Planning Commission prior to Final Building Site Approval." Commissioner Bolger stated that he feels that a plan should be submitted for the entire site. Commissioner Crowther agreed; however, he reiterated his feeling t.hat the General Plan must be addressed first. Mr. Heid commented that the General Plan refers to just the corner. Re- garding the landscaping, he indicated that they cannot accept the condition that the adjacent site be landscaped2 at this time. He commented that at a future time they will have a compl'.ete plan for the entire site which will be compatible with the landscaping and circulation. The signage, hours of.operation, and parking spaces wer'e addressed. Sandra Brems, 20175 Guava Court, stated' that she would like it to be a conditi'on of approval that the landscaping in front of the proposed center be done at thi's time. Commissioner Bolger' moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, wh'ich was carri.ed unanimously. The Deputy City Attorney indicated that there would be no legal problem with requiring landscaping on another site, since it is common ownership. He explained that it is reasonable in connection with a use permit to j~.~.p6se' conditions relating 'to the 'surrounding area, particularly when the gas station is inten'ded to be integrated in some fashion with the shopping center'. Commissioner Schaefer expres'sed concern regarding the hours, stating that she would rather have it closed at 9.:00 p.m. She added that she feels that the platform that is scheduled over the tank is rather large and feels it could be 'a bit more low key. She agreed with the contingency of the landscaping along the whole portion and feels the en'tire parcel could be developed at 'one time. She added, however, that sh'e recognizes the economic constraints. Commissioner Monia moved to approve UP-522, per the Staff Report dated August 30, 1982 and Exhibits B, C, D' and E, subject to the change in Conditi'on No. 4 re the 'landscaping a~s noted previously; i.e., addition of "and approved". Commissioner' Nellis seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther stated that he: would vote against the application be'.cause he believes that the zoning :at this corner is inconsistent with the General Plan, and that 'this use "is not permitted in this parti'cular zoning. Commissioner Bolger commented that h'e 'wOuld n__QTt '~_.-vote 'for 'tl~.e' in the 1974 General Plan or as discussed in concept with the 1982 General P1 an. The vote was taken on the motion, which resulted in a split vote 3-3, with - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 ~_eeting Minutes' 9/8./82 ..... UP-522 (cont.) Commissioners Schaefer, Crowther and Bolger dissenting. It was explained to Mr. Heid that he has the opportunity to have the item reconsidered at the next meeting of the Commission when the full Commission is present, or he may appeal to the City Council within 10 calendar days, since a split vote is considered a denial subject to reconsideration. 4. A-835 Dr. and Mrs. Hoover, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second-story addition to a.single-story structure at 14473 Sobey Road near 'Omega Lane in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal, recommending approval. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Michael Lane, representing the applicant, appeared to answer. questiOns. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger moved'to approve A-835 per the Staff Report dated August 27, 1982 and Exhibits B and C~ Commissioner CrOwther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 5'. SDR-1523 Gerald Jacobsen, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for 2'lots on a prigate acces's road off of Sobey Road near Sperry Lane in the' R-1-40~000 zoning district (Negative Declara- . tion' Staff reported that a previous tentative map approval, which was approved on appeal, has expired.' They indicated that the= main issue is that there is a minimum access road which already has fourssites on it, and allowing a lot split would create a fifth site on the access road. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern regarding the current provision for rounding up to permit lot splits and the discrepancies in parcel areas and methods of determining number of units. fie indicated that he feels that the key issue is that this site ~is not big enough fo split.. He submitted a letter regarding this app~lication and asked Staff to review his numbers contained in the letter. ~It was noted by Staff that the applicant owns the access road and it is included as ~art of the site. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p~m. Dick Kier, civil engineer representin'g the applicant, gave a presentation on th'e project and explained the background. He submitted letters from the neighbors 'in support of the project. Commissioner Monia moved to close th~public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which 'was carried un'animously. Further discussion followed on the road. ~taff clarified that in the ordinance the pole portion of a flag lot is not to be considered in the net area. Commissioner Monia stated that he felt this application was in conflict with the Subdivision Ordinance. He moved to deny the Negative Declaration .for SDR-1523. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny SDR-1523, per the Staff Report and based on the inability to make the findings. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously 6-0. The 10-day (calendar) appeal period was noted. 6. UP-525 - Jack and Ted Farone, Requestsfor a Use Permit to construct a structure '(Carport) over 6 feet in height in the required rear yard at '14041 Saratoga' ~ve. Staff described the' p.roposal and indicated that the Staff Report recommends that the use permit be granted subject to relocation of the structure to be 6 feet away from the property lines. They indicated that on the on- site visit there .appea'red to be 'some alternatives that were suggested to - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 .Meeting Minutes 9/8/82 ... -.- UP-525 (cont.) the applicant. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Tedd Farone, the applicant, discussed the project and confirmed that he was requesting a 2 ft. setback. He explained that a 6 ft. setback is not possible for the ].eft stall. He noted that there are other houses in the neighborhood which have garages and carports less than 6 ft. away from the property line. The alternative of moving the entire structure 90 degrees and putting it 6 feet' away from the property lines was dis- cussed, and Mr. Farone indicated that it would then be 1 ft. away from a large tree. Staff suggested another alternative, designing the carport to have 12 ft. wide parking areas and a 3 ft. wide area between the two, creating a 27 ft. carport. They explained that this would result in a 6 ft. side yard set- back and a 2 ft. setback in'the rear; however, the property falls off sharply from the rear property line and the structure would not be as imposing as it would be on the side yard. Further discussion followed on this alter'native. Commissioner Monia stated that if.the carport is going to be redesigned the applicant should present a new 'exhibit, and he 'felt that this plan should be dealt with at this time. He moved to approve UP-525 per the Staff Report dated September 2, 1982. Commissioner Nellis seconded' the' motion. There was a consensus that the alternative as suggested by Staff is a good compromise. Commissioner Hlava:amended the motion for approval of UP-525, with. the condition that the applicant submit a plan showing a 6 ft. side setback and a 2 ft. rear setback, subject to approval.by Staff. Commissioner Monia accepted that amendment to his motion, and Commissioner Nellis seconded the amended moti'on. The vote was taken, and the motion wa's carried unanimously 6-0. 7. V-593 - Gary Hansen, Request for a Variance to allow a 21 ft., 6 inch rear yard setback where '45 feet is required at 14549 Carnelian Glen Ct. Staff explained the proposal, rec'ommending approval. They reported that during reviewZit was noted that if the COmmission were to redefine the rear and side 'yards 'from those' that we're defined previously, the applica- tion could be approved wi'thOut the Ig~anting of a variance. Staff explained that the lot is 'a corridor lot; therefore, the applicant would be allowed to c]~ange the 'rear yard from where it was.proposed on the originally approved map to that as he is now proposing. The' public hearing wa's opened at 9:55 p.m. The applicant gave 'a presenta'tion on the proposed project, discussing the energy savings. He described the sit'e,' discussing the easements and trees on the property. Further discussion followed on the 'equest'rian easement. It was noted that it had bee'n the intent of t~e Parks and ReCreation Commission to have the trail be"for both eques'trian and pedestrian use. Mr. Hansen stated that 'the easement in its present location is not effective, and he felt that it should be 'referred back to the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine if the' pathway ought not to be"oriented' more to the western side. The Deputy City Attorney commented that the City cannot create an easement on private land unless it is in effect condemned' for public use or it is before the' Commission with' an application for development; therefore, the City has no jurisdiction ove.r the adjacent property at this time. Mr. Hansen stated that he would .~'~l~'t~d. the' a~.j~'ce~t p~.op~r'~"'~ner__.~'g'~'~ng'_l"the''' possibility of their dedicating a Dor~i~n of their property 'a~ an easement. It wa's also deter'mined that a condition should be added to the Staff Report to read: "A document shall be' recorded making it clear that the easement along the northwestern property line shall be for both pedestrian and equestrian use." Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the moti'on, which was carried unanimously. - 4 - '-'_.~P~anning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 9/8./.82 UP-'F~ff3~ (cont.) The possibility of redefining the rear and side yards was discusse'd. It was the consensus that the application f9r the variance should be considered, rather than the Commissioner Bolger moved to approve V-593, per the Staff Report dated September 1, 1982 as amended, and Exhibit B-I, making the findings. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously Staff was requested to determine 'wh'er'e the pedestrian easement is for this particular area, through Carnelian Glen to Douglass. 8a. V-595 - Phillip Stokes, Request for a Variance to construct an addi- 8b.' SDR-15.24 - tion which would maintain a 20 ft. front yard setback where 25 ft. is required at 1.8729 Metler Court and Tentative Build- ing Site Approval (over 50% Expansion) Staff described the project. The public hearing was opened at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Stokes, the applicant, discussed the project. The' garage next door to his property was discussed, alon'g with the street configuration. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger se'conded the moti'on, wh'ich w'as carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther' moved to approve V-595 per the Staff Report, making the findings. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously_6-0. Commissioner Crowthe'r moved to approve SDR-1524 per' the 'Staff Report. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. DESIGN REVIEW 9. A-837 Glendale Savings, 12200 Sarat0ga-Sunnyvale Road (Park Saratoga, Building "C"), Request 'fOr Modification to vary from the Sign Pro'gr'a'm for Park Sara'toga Staff described the current proposal, recommending denial. Dick Bressler, an officer' of Glendale Savings, gave a presentation on the proposal and gave the background of the sign 'program. He submitted photos of the 'existing signage in the 'center, showing the variety. He also noted that the' new 'proposal is less signage than they previously had. T..he si'gnage 'now exist'ing in the center' was discussed'. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the proposed sign A-837, per Exhibit B, with the condition that "Prior to issuance 'of any sign permit, the applicant shall submit revised drawi'ngs indicating that the letter style wi'll be Korinna Extra Bold as the approved lettering in the sign program of the shopping center." Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels it is important to have consistency and will vote' for the motion because he 'feels it is very close to what is required, but would not want to set a precedent indicating that anyone who has 'a logo can get it approved. Commissioner Hlava indicated that. she Will vote' against the motion because, even though she realizes that this proposal is very close to that in the center, she feels that 'the shopping center looks reasonable because of the consistency of the signs. The motion was carried' 5-1, with 'Commissioner Hlava dissenting. COMMUNICATIONS Writt'en - 1. Let't.er' from Mr. Roger Haag, of Skooterhaus, stating that he would be unable 'to' att'end th'e study session on September 28, 1982 re UP-474. It was determined that the' matter will be rescheduled for a study session when Mr. Haag can be present.' ~lanning Commiss ion Page 6 Meeting Minutes 9/8/82 Oral 1. The Fruitvale Bike Path was discussed, and Chairman Schaefer thanked the schools for their work in sending letters regarding this path. 2. It was determined that appointments to the various committees will be considered at the study session on $eptember 28, 1982. 3. Discussion followed on a lot split on Camino Barco that had pre- viously occurred. Staff explained that the condition regarding the removal of the septic tank and connection to sanitary sewer has not yet been complied with, since the new owner.' was not a direct party to that condition and has indicated he will not comply. They commented' that the new owner has been required to relocate 'the driveway which.'has cost in excess of the amount of the $1500 bond placed in 1979 to cover the 'conditions. Commissioner Crowth'er moved to make a recommendation to the City Council that the previous require- ments on this particular site be met, and that the bond should not be released until the removal and backfill of the septic tank is complete. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. The Deputy City Attorney suggested an amendment to the motion that it read until the removal and backfill of the septic tank is complete or an opportunity arises for the proceeds of the bond to be used to pay for the installation of the sewer. Commissioner Monia moved to approve the amended motion. Commissioner Bolger seconded. The motion was carried 4-0, with Commissioners Nellis and Hlava abstaining. 4. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like to schedule the review of the section of the Subdivision Ordinance that allows rounding up regarding lot splits for a future study session. 5. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attend- ing and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bolger moved, seconded by Commissioner Monia, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 1]:18 p.m. Sec'~etary RSS:cd