Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TO: Wednesday, April 27, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. FROM: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga SUBJECT: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Siegfried arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of April 27,'1983: Under GPA- 83-1, on page 2, second paragraph, a sentence was added to read: "Ms. Connors indicated that the division of existing single family homes' into duplexes should be included in the consideration of second units." On page 3, the following should be' added: "Commissioner Crowther commended the Deputy City Attorney on the comprehensive legal review of the new Housing Element and Mobilehome laws. He requested that a similar review be completed on the Open Space laws which were legislated in the early 1970's. He expressed the concern that the City was still.in violation of these laws and was focusing on recent- ly adopted legislation while ignoring earlier Open Space legislation." Under UP-532, on page 7, the first sentence in the eighth paragraph should read: "Comissioner Nellis commented that he appreciates Mr. Franklin's concerns; however, the Subdivision Staff Report states that there must be a use permit for a tennis court; it does not prohibit .them." Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading of the minutes of April 27, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Bolger abstaining since he was not present. CONSENT CALENDAR The General Plan Exaction Policy was removed for discussion. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve the. remaining item on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 1. SDR-1503 Martin Oudewaal, et al, Big Basin Way, 1 Lot Commercial, Request for One-Year Extension Discussion followed on the Exaction Policy. Chairman Schaefer explained the policy and commented that this had beeH discussed at the study session. It was noted that Commissioner Crowther had not been present at that meeting and Commissioner Bolger questioned how this would really impact the City. It was pointed out that the wording of the po!icy is in the Staff Report, under LU.7.2. The.Deputy City Attorney explained that the General Plan will contain a general statement and there will have to be an implementing ordinance which will speci- fy the type of exactions, the amounts and the circumstances. He added that it would be appropriate that it be first presented to the Planning Commission for review and comment before it is considered by the City Council. It was clari- fied that the Commission at this time is voting on a policy to adopt an ordi- nance, which will then contain the specific form of exactions. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve LU.7.2. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. GPA-83-1-A Consideration of Draf~ Housing Element of the City of Sara- toga and Environmental Impact Report Chairman Schaefer noted the previous hearings-and'study sessions on this matter, and indicated that this he~ring.Had b~n sM~duled to 'be the i~i'°"~'C~n{mfssion~ .Cro~her exp~'ess'ed conce~ '~out closing' th'~ publ-ic hearing b~fo~ 'a. ~e'draft has been 'issued reflecting the Changes 'that have been made, so that the public can' comment on that final draft. He added that the Commission has eliminated Planning Commiss ion ' Page 2 Meeting Minutes 4/27/ ~ GPA-83-1-A (cont.) many policies and action programs but have not talked about the broader word- ing of the element, and he feels there,is a lot of wording that should be completely eliminated. Chairman Schaefer summarized the changes that have been made in th'e elements.,.~ After further discussion it was the consensus that the public hearing will be continued and a draft will be available at a study session on May 17, 1983, on which the Commission will vote at their regular meeting on May 25, 1983. The~ public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Mildren Gordon, Blauer Drive, discussed updated statistics from the 1980 census regarding senior citizens. She suggested alternative housing, i.e. remodeling of larger homes into smaller apartments or second units. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte, reminded the Commission of the importa. nce of not destroying flexibility for the future in finding housing needs. He noted that aging is characteristic of Saratoga. Carol Ma'chol addressed Objective No. 2 .and asked that the Deputy City Attorney review it and comment on it at the next study session, as to whether it puts a greater requirement for senior housing on the City than that established by the State. Commissioner Crowther questioned the wording of H.1.2, stating that he was concerned about eliminating the words "in areas where there is neighborhood acceptance adjacent to the site." It was determined that this point will be further discussed at the study session, along with any other items on which the're has not been a consensus. It was directed that the public hearing be continued to May 25, 1983, with a study session scheduled on May 17, 1983. 4. UP-533 - Mr. and Mrs. Hurwitz, Request for Use Permit Approval to con- struct a sport court in the R-i-40,000 Planned Community zoning district at 14132 Taos D'rive 'Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 8:12 p..m. No one appeared, and Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Com- missioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP-533, per the Staff Report dated April 20, 1983 and Exhibit "B". Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 5. A-866 Mendelsohn Lane Development, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story structure in the R-i-20,000 zoning dis- trict at 20121 Rancho Bella Vista Driv'e Staff explained the proposal, discussing the eucalyptus tree which is to be removed. Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report, stating that they felt there might be some other opt. ions with this particular site in order to save the tree. The public hearing was opened at 8:16 p.m. Nino Gallo, the developer, explained that the~ucalyptus tree is a very dangerous tree and loses-its limbs easily. He indicated that in order to save the tree the house would have to be moved back quite a bit and that would necessitate the removal of 20-25 redwood trees. He added that many consider the eucalyptus a weed. Jim O'Rourke stated t'hat he will be the! owner of the proposed home. He com- mented that the tree hinders the building of the home, and he would like it removed in order to preserve the redwood trees. He added that the backyard would also be limited if the house were' moved back. Staff clarified that a structure could be built up to 10 ft. away from the tree as long as at least 50% of the roots are left with the surface area around the tree 'exposed; therefore the house would have to be moved back ~i.e., eliminating anything suggesting that the City ~ould waive .Fees; eliminating sugges- tions regarding increasing density in order-. .to allow more a. ffordable housing. She added that they realize there is a demand for senio~~' citizen housing m~d the Co~nission would welcome input on this. She indicated that there was a gene~.lo~.~n.s~u~at~ea~p~Fve 'some Planning Commiss Page 2a Meeting Minutes 4/2.7/8.3 GPA-83-1-A (cont.) kind of second units on some kind of lots, to be determined. She mentioned that there would have to be many guidelines, i.e., one unit owner occupied and parking would have to'be on premise and the line of homes may not change from the front so. that it would not impact a neighborhood. P~=anning Commission Page 3 Meeting ~4inutes 4/27/ A- 866 (cont.) approximately 10 feet. Commissioner Bolger stated that he did not 'feel that 'moving the home back approximately 10 feet from the tree would impact the redwood grove a great deal. Commissi'oner Hlava commented that this is a difficult site and there does not appear to be a good way to put a house on it without removing the' tree. Mr. O'Rourke also clarified that the tree blocks his view from the bay windows. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried'unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-866, per the Staff Report dated April. 20, 1983 and Exhibi'ts "B" and "C". Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1, wi'th Commissioner Bolger dissenting. It was noted that Exhibit "B" should be amended to show 'the' tree to be 7' in dia- meter rather than 7". 6. A-867 .RObert and Sonja Reed, Request for Design Review Approval to add a second story addition to Z a single story dwelling in the R-i- 10,000 zoning district at 185'81 McFarland The project was described by Staff. They indicated that they could not make all of the findings and recommended denial. The petition received in support of the proposal was noted. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report, stating that the back yard 'was 'beautifully landscaped. She added that she could understand why the applicant did not want to add a single-story addition because of all of the time and effort put into the back. Commissioner Hlava s.tated that, regarding the issue of compatibility, she feels that this neighborhood in Quito Park is one that does have a need to expand quite small houses. She added that there is one other two-story on the block and .another one in view, and this may be the beginning 0f a trend. The public h~aring was opened at 8:32 p.m. Bob.Reed, the applicant, described the project and all of the effort that they had put into their back yard. Terry GriswOld~ President of E1 Quito Homeowners Association, indicated that 'they had discussed the possibility of two-stories and could see a need for more second story additions. She stated that they ask that the applicants check with the neighbors to ensure that it does not impact. She added that this project will not increase the traffi. c, which has been their main concern. Don Bi'tencourt, McFarland Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposal. He added that he would like to see a trend in the neighborhood toward two-stories. Commissioner Crowther moved to close~ the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried. unanimously. Commiss'ioner Crowther Crowther moved to approve A-867, per Exhibits "B" and "C", making the findings that it is not excessive bulk and is not incompati- bl~ with the neighborhood, as expressed by the neighbors. He added that he does not feel' that it has any major privacy impacts, as borne out by the evidence presented. Commissioner Nellis stated that he would not be voting for this design review, since he cannot make the findings. He explained that there was a similar proposal at the last m'~et~g·, '~he'r~.~"~t.]~'nei'~hb'o'~]~'oo'd"was 'p~i'nc~p'allY story in nature and had 'similar circumstances. He added that he cannot make the finding.% of .compatibility. Commissioner Nellis suggested that the issue of compatibility as i-t relates to two-stories be reviewe'd and perhaps modified. Commissioner Schaefer 'noted that that the previous application was intensely built out on the lot, and the purpose of this proposal is.. to try to conserve the natural land' 'and use of the property. Com~iss.ioner' Siegfried agreed, stating that he d~d not feel the Commissi~o~ could sa~ that a two-st'or~ is not compatible because to consider if it impacts the neigh~.Orhood and has the l'~0k""'0~ bulk, and it can "Still~'~'be compatible, even though the rest of t~e block ma'y be single story homes. Commissioner Crowther added that compatibility is a judgment call; the input - 3 - P1---anning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 4/27/ A-867 (cont.) from the neighbors must be weighed. Commissioner McGoldrick~sta~ed that she also feels that if there is hardship in terms of what is already there on the lot it influences her decision. She added that .she feels bound to preserve trees' and nature as much as possible. Commissioner Hlava commented that on the previous application it was a 10,000 sq. ft. lot in a 12,500 zoning district; this is a 10,000 sq. ft. lot in a 10,000 zoning district. She added that in this case there is a 40 ft. rear yard and the other application had a minimum rear yard. She agreed that there is no inconsistency in finding this desi'gn compatible and the previous one not. The motion to approve A-867 was carried 6-1~ with Commissioner Nellis dissent- ing. Staff commented that they would like to discuss the issue of compatibility findings for two-stories with the Commission, so that Staff and the Commission can be in concert. It was determined that this issue will be reviewed at the next study session. 7. A-868 Mr. and Mrs. Westbrook, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a single story single family dwelling in the R-l-15,000 zoning district at 14689 Aloh~ Avenue' Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Tony~ Po~6s' stated that he lives across the street and spoke in favor of the project. Commissioner Bolger moved. to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis s'econded th~ motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger moved to approve A'-868, per the Staff Report dated April 15, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Break 8:50 9:05 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW 8. A-870 - McBain & Gibbs, Request for Design Review and Site ~~4odification Approval to construct a single story dwelling in the NHR zoning district on Lot #4 of Tract #6628 Staff reported that this item was inadvertently advertised as a public hearing.. The' letter from Ms. Jeannette Barney regarding this project was noted. Bob McBain, the applicant, described the project and site, discussing the dirt that is to be moved back to the original position. He noted that there is no restriction on pools for this particular lot, since the lots were renum- bered during the transition from tentative map to final map. Staff described the proposal, stating that they were recommending approval of the design review and denial of the site modification. They commented that Chief Kraule has indicated to Staff that he will be requiring at the time of bUild. i.ng permit ~.a ..s._mpke.' and heat alarm system throughout hOUses 'in ~ the western .hil.ls~i_d.es'~.'='I't-~_~S dete'rmined that such a condition should be added to ~he. ~'aff Re'p'o~.~ Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the 'pad is perfectly flat and the house is contoured to the land. The grading on this project was discussed. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the design review for A-870 and deny the site modification, per the Staff Report dated April 20, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C", with deletion of the condition stat·in~ that there shall be no pool, and the addition of the requirement for smoke and heat detector system, · n accordance with the Fire Chief's wishes. It was noted that the applicant will have to apply for site modification for the pool. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried.unanimously 7-0. Planning CommiSsion Page S Meeting Minutes 4/27/8 9. A-871 McBain & Gibbs, Request for Design Review Approval. to construct a two-story dwelling in the NHR zoning dist'rict on Lot #3, Tract 6628 Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that they had concern regarding the moving of about 3,000 cubic yards of dirt. Staff des- cribed the proposal, pointing out the extensive grading and the fact that the Staff feels that this design is not sensi'tive 'to the site. They commented that they were not able to make the 'findings and we'r'e recommending denial. Bob McBain, the applicant, addressed the project, explaining that this house was originally designed with a full ret'aining wall built into it along the northern part of the house. He indicated that when the grading plan was done it was discovered that in order' to get' enough dirt to mske' the required turn- around it generated more fill. He discussed the grading for the driveway and turnaround, stating that .he feels the engineering solution to putting in fill is better and safer than a retaining wall. After considerable discussion on the design of the home, it was the consensus that the Commission had concerns about the design of the structure and the amount of cut needed. They suggested that an alternate more creative design that tailors the house more to thi's particular site be.studied at a Committee- of-the-~ole. However, the"applicant stated that he would rather have the Commission deny the proposal to allow him to appeal to the City' Council. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny A-871, per the Staff Report dated April 20, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously 7-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. MISCELLANEOUS 10. SDR-1527 William Johnson, 2-lot subdivision at 18935 Monte Vista, Request for Clarification and/or'Reconsideration of Condition No. 11-4 of Staff Report' Staff gave the history of the project and stated that they were recommending that the condition for the minimum access road improvements from the Johnson property to E1 Camino Grande be maintained. Dr. Johnson, the applicant, stated that he had checked with the neighbors and it is the unanimous opinion that the 'rural atmosphere should remain and that the road not be widened. He submitted a letter in support of his position. Dr. Johnson indicated that, even though there is a barrier at the end of the road, a number of cars come in and turn.around in that area. He stated that if it is widened it will invite more cars to do this. He added that if the road were widened there would be a couple of trees and poles that would have to be removed. Commissioner McGoldrick asked if there was any safety factor with the road being left the way it is. Staff stated that the purpose for the requirement on private roads for the width is to provide room for emergency vehicles to access and room for cars to pass as that occurs. They added that it is now substantially less than 18 ft. and they feel that there would not be the possi- bility of both. emergency vehicles and cars to remain on the pavement. They commented that ther'e appear to be no obstructions on one side of the road for its entire length. Commissioner Crowther commen'ted that he feels the logical thing to do in this case is to.grant the neighbors' request.of waiver. H~ asked if '~here was a past.YDr~t~dent,. and the DiManto property, on the entrance to the rock area, was cited. It was noted that th.e Commission wanted to allow that because of the unique nature of the road. Staff commented that there are private roads exist- ing in the City that are not S.tandard.~ but they predate the City's establishing this rule; they would not think it would be a good precedent to establish~ Commissioner McGol'drick asked about the City's liability if this condition Were to be waived and there is a fire and the apparatus cannot get through. The Deputy City Attorney stated that.he%wo'uld not say that the City would be liable; however, if ~e.-C'~t~ del'ibe'rat~l.y h~s'~ r'oad that is be].ow Cit~ 'stan'dards, it would give someone an argument. He concurred with Staff that, not with- standing the desires of the neighbors, he does not recall a situation where the City had an application and there has been the opportunity to widen the road, that they did not require 'the applicant to bring it up to City standards. - 5 - 'P~anning Commission" Page 6 Meeting Minutes 4/.2 SDR-1527 (cont.) Mr. Johnson stated that fire trucks do come in at least once a mon. th for checks and there has never been any problem in their turning around in the cul-de-sac. He described the width of the road, and a possible compromise was discussed. Staff commented that if the Commission is going to consider the reduction° ~f this width they may want to have input from the 'Fire Department. Commissioner Siegfried commented that his initial reaction was to waive the requirement 'because of the neighbors' wishes; however, as he thinks about it he feels that the Commission may be setting a precedent and the matter should be studied further. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the Commissioners go out on site and input Should be obtained from the Fire. Department. She also requested infor- mation from Staff as to whether in certain areas the road should be narrower in order to preserve the oak tree. Staff commented that they would need additional engineer~ing work to determine where the property lines are to make that determination. The Deputy City Attorney commented that if there is a physical constraint so that the road cannot be improved the necessary width ~'n~F~n-~rea, 'th~re".~0~.ld b~ exceptions. -He added that he would feel much more comfortable if there is a clear statement from the Fire Chief indicating the minimum width that he feels they need. Dr. Johnson pointed out that many of the City streets do not meet the mini- mum standards, and in particular the feeder street to this private road does not. James Foley, Sr. commented that 25 yea'rs ago the City wanted to make this road a public road and wanted to widen. it to 25 ft. He indicated that the neighbor. s successfully opposed it and Were able to retain never has imposed a safety factor; he had a fire and the fire equipment had no'difficulty at all getting in. Mr. Foley state'd that everyone on that road wants to keep it as it is. Commissioner Hlava stated that her first reaction was to waive the condition; however, the more she thinks about it the' more she feels that the Commission should not set this kind of.precedent.. She suggested that the Commission and Staff discuss the' guidelines for what conditions the'y' might consider altering. that kind of req~irement. Commiss'ioner Siegfried noted the point that had been made by the applicant that the feeder road to this minimum. access road is well below standards. He added that, if that is the case, that might be the way in which the Commission could.build some kind of reasonable excep- tion that would not set any kind of precedent. Commissioner Nellis stated that he is also concerned about setting a precedent and wonders if Pandora's box would-"b~'.o~'~'n'&'d' f~r excegtions to every standard condition. Dr. Johnson stated that he would provide 'a sketch showing the dimensions of the road at the obstructions and the number of obstructions. It was noted that it does not have to b'e an engineered drawing. Dr. Johnson asked for clarification regarding the bearing of the appeal on the Foley subdivision on his lot split.. Staff stated that one of the con- siderations for approval of Dr. Johnson's lot split was that the Foley access would be removed from the minimum access road; if the appeal on the Foley map is granted then Mr. Foley may very well leave his access there and the Commission will be adding to the number of units using the private road. They added that that fact may very well affect how the Commission might have con- sidered.the Johnson application. It wa's noted that if the Foley access is not changed then the Johnson map automatically is altered. It wa~ directed that this item be continued to May 25, 1983, and a letter will be requested from the Central Fire Department. 11. Plumed Horse Restaurant, Big Basin'~Way, Request for Loading Zone Chairman Schaefer described the request. There was a consensus to recom- mend that there be a passenger loading. zone, per the Staff Report dated April 21, 1983. ng Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 4/27/ _, COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Saratoga News', Councilmember'Fanelli and the Good Government Group for attenlding the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hlava moved to adjourn. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:S9 p.m. ReSpectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd