Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1982 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINU~ES DATE: Wednesday, November 10,~1982 = 7:30.p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale .Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, ~'Ionia, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Abs.ent: Commissioner Hlava , Minutes Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissioner Bolger, to waive the read- ing of the mi'nutes of October 27, 1982 and approve as distributed. (Staff has clarified that the new petition regarding SDR-1526, Longmeadow Development, had not been in the Commission's packet'.) The' motion was carried, with Com- missioner Crowther abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1, Donald Head, was removed for discussion. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve the remaining item on the Consent Calendar, listed below. The m6.~-io'n- was carried unanimously 6-0. 2. SDR-1419 J.E. Quarnstrom, Carniel Drive, Request for 1-Year Extension of Contract for Improvement Agreement Discussion followed on the Site Modification Approval for Mr. Head. It was noted that a major portion of this large project was completed without build- ing permits and there were two contractors involved. Staff commented that there will be a double fee.imposed.~o'r.the work already done. Commissioner Crowther commented that there should be a proviso in the business license that all work will be done with appropriate permits. It was determined that Staff will review 'this issue wi'th the' ~ity Attorney. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve the Site Modification for Donald Head, 'at 14684 Pike Road, subject to the condition that double fees are charged, and a letter goes to the contractors '~egarding the nec'es'sity of obtaining building permits with the City of Saratoga in advance. Commissioner' Crow~her seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. BUILDING SITES 3a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1517 - E. Zambetti 3b. SDR-'1517 - E. Zambetti, Big Basin and Oak St., Tentative Building Site Appr'oval - i Lot; continued from September 22, 1982 The Deputy City Attorney reviewed the available options: (1) lot split, (2) split zoning, (3) creation of overlay, and (4) denial of the application. The option of an overlay was discussed, Staff pointed out that this option would give great flexibility and control. Commissioner Crowther indicated that with the overlay the Commission would be proposing to legitimize vari- ances and lot splits throughout the Village. He commented that he feels that a variance is something granted because of an unique situation and doesn't create a precedent. He added that he personally believes that this particular lot is unique, i.e., it is a split level situation and part of it is in a commercial parking district, and he feels that it should be dealt with using the concept of split zoning. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he could find for the variances based on the condition of this specific site, but would not want to have that sort of situation throughout the Village by establishing an overlay. Commissioner Siegfried agreed, stating that he does not feel any dangerous precedent would be set with this application. He commented that he does not feel that this application should be delayed while the area plan is being - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 ~Meet~ng Minutes 11/10/82 SDR~1517 (cont.) determined. Commissioner Nellis stated that he is concerned about the precedent that would be set by approving variances for parking, side yards and landscaping. He added that he cannot support the creation of a Village overlay district, since he feels that would be a piecemeal approach to the larger problem. He com- mented that he would be willing to look .at thi's projec~ again at a later date and others like it wi'thin the Village, and this should be done within a specific plan for the' Village. The Deputy City Attorney discussed split zoning, stating that the split zone would not create two' lots; it would be a single lot, simply having two zoning classifications on it and multiple uses ~ermitted by the two districts. He added that each set of zoning regulations would prevail as to that half of the lot t'o which 'it applies. Rober. t Aviles, representing the applican. t, stated that the applicant has the intent' of just having two uses on the same lot and would not be in favor of a lot split. He commented that the applicant would prefer to see the Village overlay developed and the 'use permit process initiated and, second to that, the split zoning would be 'something that 'could be wo'rked out in terms of getting the site developed. He added that 'at th.i's time the most important thing is to get some sort of commitment on the pr'oject and get the zoning situation clarified or the Village 'overlay proceeding. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he wo'~ld like to find some interim way of allow'ing the applicant to proceed with this site. He commen~d-that 'the vari- ance for parking has to do with the residential part of the site, not the commercial part because the applicant is already in the parking distr~..ct. He suggested that the Commission proceed on an interim basis of going forward with the split zoning while the area plan is being developed. He added that h~ does not see that this is inconsisten~ with anything that is being con- sidered in terms of an area plan. Commissioner Bolger agreed, adding that he feels it .is important that the area plan 0r specific plan for the Village area.'be.deVeloped. It was determined that this matter be 'continued to December 8, 1982. Commis- sioner Siegfried moved to deny SDR-1517,'. subject to a letter of continuance from the applicant. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was noted that the applicant has an application filed for a rezoning, and there was a consensus to proceed to fezone the lower' half of the property under that application. Staff indicated~ that the applicant will also have to apply. for variances for parking, side 'yards and landscaping. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. UP-456 - St. Nicholas Church, Request for Use Permit Modification .Approval to construct an addition to an existing church facility in the R-l-10,000 zoning district at' 14220 Elva Avenue Staff=jde~'ribed=Z~'~'p'ropoSal~. The ~Ub'li~.h.~a..~.~=~"~s~o~ened'at-8:.05 ~.'~'." No one appeared., and Commissioner Monia moved, seconded by Commissi'0n~r ~oloer to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve UP-456, per the Staff Report dated October 27, 1982 and Exhibits "B-i" and "C-I". Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 5. SDR-1528 - Blackwell Homes, Request for Tentative ~.~ap Approval in order to resubdivide 4 lots 'on Parker Ranch 'Court in the NH~ zoning district 6. SDR-1529 - Blackwell Homes, Request for Tentative Map Approval in order to resubdivide 2 lots on Continental Circle in the NHR zoning district Staff reported that the applicant has requested withdrawal of the two above applications. The Commission accepted the withdrawal of SDR-1528 and SDR-1529. .PYa~ning Commission Page 3 ~ Heeting Minutes 11/1.0/82 7. ·A-841 - Wilson Development (E. Zambetti), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a twO-story single ·family dwelling in the R-1-12,500 zoning district .at 20625 Marion Drive Staff described the proposal and history of the project, noting that there was an existing approval for a two-story home ·on this parcel. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Ben Warren, 20650 Marion Road, spoke in' opposition to the proposal. He noted that there were no other two story homes within 500 feet. He also stated that there would be a serious parking problem because the driveway will be blocked' and there would be no fire access.' Bob 'Grant, 20646 Marion Road, also spoke in opposition to the project, comment- ing on the narrow driveway and the fact-· that no thought had been given to the proximity of his and Mr. ~.~Varren's homes. The possibility of moving the home back from ·Marion Road and alternative a~ccesses were discussed. · David }Vi·lson, the applicant, gave a pre'sentation on the project, discussing the setbacks, easement, driveway and access. The design for this home was discussed, along with ·the previously approved design now in effect. It was no. ted that the· Tentative ·Building Site Approval had conditioned the site to hlave a design compatible With the nei·ghbOrhOod, but did not specify a two- story design. Commissioner Crowther commen'ted that he would question whether this size of ho·me and the two-story design is compatible with the neighborhood. He added that he would have no trouble ~ith the s~ze if it were a single story. Commissioner Monia moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, wh·ic~ wa·s carried Unanimously. Commissioner Bolger agreed with CommiSsioner Crowther, stating that, as far as sensitivity to a neighborhood is concerned, he would like to see this as a single story home. He commented thatZ he is concerned about the height and moving it back from the access road. COmmissioner Nellis stated that he is-h6t""~lea'~ea. wi=th' 'the pr~:~ent das'ign~""~5~'~"-' \ ..... .,-,. -. . ............. '_.~_ .~ -,:.:< , .. · '~i~ll~"fOr"'t}~e~'ri'e~'SoHs 't'H~"~'COmmi's'~i'~H~ 'B'ol~ ~-6int'ed' out. 'He added' that, '~-~ 62 S":' ~h at'" a'f;~:v6" ~ ~'6~ d~'~e'l"l.".~Hi~--'i n, '~'ha~':' ~'t'~'i~'.'-' i s .' 'h'0 [" 'a'ofno'a~ ib 1 e"-i~'i ~ h"-~h ~"' ii'~"~'gli- borhood. ' ........ '- ~ ....... ' ' Commissioner Siegfried commented that he does not have any nroblem with the concept of having a one--story house; however, he does. not know if that takes care. of the concer'ns of the neighborhood. He explained that he feels that a one-story .house' 'of this 'square foOtage is.going to be just as objectionable in terms of any view. He 'added that it: iS going to block out more view in terms of the back side; therefore, he WOuld be inclined to vote :for this particular design. Commissioner Monia stated that 'he 'feels .this is 'a well desi'gned home; however, he has trouble with the compatibility. 'He added that he feels that Commissioner. Siegfried's point should be well taken and the neighb'ors may find that a 4,000 sq'. ft. single story home might be more objec'tionabl'e; however, that plan is not in front of the Commission at this time and t.he impact is not known. He indicated that he would prefer to see' a zsingle 's~d'r.~).home in this area and feels that this application has to be judged on its own merits. Commissioner Bolger moved to deny A-841. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. Chairman Schaefer pointed out that there is a second story design already approved for this site. She ·stated that she feels that this is an attractive home, but she ·personally would like to see it moved back a little. The vote was taken on ·the motion to deny A-841. The motion was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfri6d dissenting. The applicant was notified of the 10-day appeal period. 8. GF-328/ City of Saratoga, Amend various ·sections of the Design Review NS-3.47 Ordinance for single family structures including increasing the allow'abl'e floor area by 10% in the R-I-40,000 district, allow- ing for a 20% variation in allowable floor area through the public hearing process and the inclusion of accessory structures in cal'cul'ati'ng allow'ab'l'fe 'fl'o'or' ·area It was noted that all of the revisions discussed at the Committee-of-the-Whole - 3 - -.P'f'~nni. ng Commission 'Page 4 ~'. Meeting Minutes 11/10/82 .- GF-328 (cont.) have been incorporated in the ordinance and are listed in the Staff Report dated. November 1, 1982. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. No one appeared, and Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After discussion the following changes were determined: Section 3 (g) the words "solar p'a'nels" will be deleted. Section 7 (i).,- it should read: "~en- ever, in the opinion of the City's plan. ning staff...". Where 10-day appeal periods are mentioned, it should state :"calendar" days. Chairman Schaefer commented that, even though she would vote for the compro- mise, she would like to have it on record that she is not in favor of adding the accessory structures unless they are at least over 600 sq. ft.. She added that she is also not in favor of having the limits in the R-I-20,000 zoning district and above as part of the ordinance; however, the figures should be used as guidelines to trigger public hearings. Commissioner Bolger made findings 1 and 2 in the Staff Report and moved to 'recommend the revisions to the Design Review Ordinance made at this meeting and adopt ResOlution GF-328-1, recommending the Design Review Ordinance to the City Council as amended. CommissiOner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS 9. 'Revision' t'o General Plan - Action Programs and Goals and Policies The Modifications to Action Programs an':d Goals and Policies listed in the Staff Report of November' 4, 1982 were r. eViewed, with the following action: Area Plan Action Programs Item #2 (items where there is consensus on modi- fication),- Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve Item #2, which covers Area A through J, on pages 1-4. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion. After discuss'ion, it was determined that, regarding Area D-10, on.page 3, the word "problems" should be changed to "adver.se impacts". Commissioner Siegfried modified his motion, and Commiss:ioner Bolger seconded the modification. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. Item #1 - Area A -' 1',5','8',].2 There was consensus to leave as 'written. Com- missioner Siegfried noted that he would like the record to reflect that he has no problem wi'th this action, since .these items wer'e voted on by the Planning Commission as previously constituted. FIe 'added that, having been the Chairman of the NorthWe'st Hillsides Specific Plan and noting that these item's would conflict wi'th 'that plan and' reopen it, he will appear before the City Council as 'an individual to expres.s' that opinion. Goals and Policies (Consensus Modificat;.ion) Commissioner Nellis moved to approve these items listed' on page 6 through H.4.3 on page 7. Commissioner Bolger seconded the moti'on, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Land Use - LU.6.0 (page 7) It was determined that this should read: "Relate new development and its land uses to existi'ng street capacities so as to avoid excessive noise, traffic and public safet'y hazards" Commissioner Crowther moved to approve LU.6.0 as modified. COmmissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. CI.5.0 (page 8) Consensus to leave as written. Area Plan Action Programs Item #3 (pages 4 and 5) - Commissioner Nellis stated that he feels .Area D-2, E-5 and L-6 should remain as they have been written, and forwarded with 'a note to the City Council that these are unre- solved areas, and ask them to modify them as they see fit for the Corridor. Commissioner Crowther stated that he thought the' Commission had agreed to resolve this issue 'for the City Council. He 'moved that the're should be a general statement in each section, to which the Commission had agreed, that the IVest Valley Corridor will be prese'rved. He added that, in addition, there will be a footnote indicating the 'action program that the area residents wanted. Commissioner Siegfried se'conded the motion, whi'ch 'wa's carried unanimously 6-0. - 4 - PIIanning Commission ~ Page ~eeting Minutes 11/10/82 General Plan (cont.) Area J 2,3 and 8 Consensus to delet'e these items as Action Programs and use them as input with the Specific Plan.. Item #4 - Area A-16 - Discussion followed on the formation of assessment districts and the City's involvement. There was a consensus to leave this as written. Area B - 4,5,6 and 8 - Consensus that these should be policy statements and should be reworded appropriately. Area C-13 - Commissioner Siegfried move~ to modify this to state: "Develop- ment density for any new construction in. the western "Specific Planning Area" shall be governed by the density standards in the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan." Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which resulted in a split vote, with Commissioners Crowther, Bolger and Monia dissenting. It was determined that this matter' will be continued to the next meeting. Area F-7 - Commissioner Siegfried moved', seconded by Commissioner Monia, that the first sentence of this item should read: "The property at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and McFarland, currently occupied by the Paul Masson Winery, shall remain zoned industrial." The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. Area F-13 - Commissioner Crowther moved to approve as written. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Area L-2 - There was consensus to change this to read: "Any development in this area shall be single-family detached residential at current allowed den- sities, as shown on the General Plan Map'." COMMUNICATIONS Written . 1. Letter from Mrs. J. Klein regarding P-C District. After discussion it was determined that this matter will be reviewed further at a study session. Oral 1. City Cou'nc'il Commissi'oner ~rowther' gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on November 3, 1982. A copy of the minutes is on file in the City Administration office. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked Councilmember Clevenger and the Good Government Group for attending the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bo!ger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Monia seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. The 'meeting was adjourned at 10:01.p.m. : R pectfully submitted, Secret'ary RSS:cd