Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ~INUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 8, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE:· City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale' Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:36 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of May 25, 1983: On page 3, under A-877, Condition No. 1 in the motion should read: "Lighting on the wall shall be no higher than the ·wall. Lighting standards not on the wall shall not exceed 6 feet."' On page 4, under SDR-1538, the· motion should read: "Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR-1538 with the addition of a condition for a landscape and sign· maintenance agreement, the condition that the Public Works Memorandum dated 11/18/80 and Mitigation Measures for SDR-1472 be complied with, and that all conditions as set forth in SDR-1472 remain in full ·force and effect." Commis- sioner Hlava moved to waive the reading·of the minutes of May 25, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. CONSENT CALENDAR · Item No. 3, Bryant on Monte Vista Drive, 'was removed for discussion. Commis- sion6r Siegfried moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. % 1. SDR-1478 Thompkins & Associates (Charles L. Johnston, Jr.), 20616 Brook- --.' wood Lane, Request for One-Year Extension of Tentative Building Site Approval - 3 lots 2. Pertone, 14017 Sobey Meadows Court, Site Modification Approval to construct ..a pool on a site of over 10% in slope Discussion followed on Item No. 3. Staff noted' that, upon further review of the records and input by the applicant, it had been determined that Condition No. 2 in the Staff Report, relati've to the construction of the' access road, should be deleted. Staff also noted that the requiremerft for a fence around the swimming pool will be handled at the building permit stage. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the .Site Modification Approval for a pool at 19001 Monte V~sta Dr~ve (Bryant), with the deletion of Condition No. 2 ~n the Staff Report. Commissioner. McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. A-875 - Michael Layne, Lot 1, Tract 6632, Montalvo Road (near entrance to V~lla Montalv. o), Request for. Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single 'family dwel'ling ~n the R-1-4'0,000 zoning district It was reported that th~s item had been continued from the previous meeting because the applicant was no~ present. Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 7:.~]'~ ).m. Ken Will~ams, project manager for the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, noting the changes that have b~en made ~n the design. He ~ndicated that they had met w~th the neighbors to m~t~gate any concerns. I.-Ie presented a sample of the color and indicated that t.h~s ~s a speC home. Don Call, President of thc Montalvo Homeowners Association, c~ted the s~zes of the other homes in the area. He noted ~hat they would object to having large - 1 - Elann.ing Commission " Page 2 Meeting Minutes 6/8/83 A- 875 (cont.) homes on all of the 13 lots in this tract. He commented that, in order to retain the country feeling of the neighborhood, he would urge that any home in the sub- division larger than 4,000 sq. ft. be built on the 8 lots in the back of the sub- division. He added that he felt the applicant had compromised and appreciates the planning being done in this area, but feels that the Montalvo Road area should be uncongested. Mrs. Claire Marino, owner of the adjoining property, commented that this house would be on a blind curve out of Montalvo Villa and noted the present traffic lhazards. She stated that she felt that the privacy impacts have been mitigated in the plan, except for the magnitude of the structure. Mr. Williams stated that he felt the concerns being cited by the neighbors are not pertinent to this application, but are pertinent more to the General Plan. He noted that there will be a barrier to the cul-de-sac itself. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Bolger disagreed with the Staff Report regarding Finding No. 3, Minimize Perception of Excessive Bulk. He explained that he is very familiar with the area, and with the exception of the ShOrtino home, most of the other homes are between 50% and 35% smaller than this pro~os'ed'home. He added that this is a lovely '.~6~"'~t' · . fii0' Commissioner 'Crowther asked what the required land area would be according to the present ordinance with a 17% slope. .Staff reported that it would be 1.27 acres. Commissioner Crowther stated that, although this home meets the ordi- nance with regard to floor area, the lot is undersized. Staff explained that this is a lot of record and the entire 'subdivision was done with the slope that was allowed at that point. Commissioner Siegfried commented that this is a large home; however, it is within the ordinance. He stated that he feels that the 'developer has tried to make it fit in terms of stepping the house into ~he slope, and he does not feel the impact would be significantly different if the home 'were 5,000 sq. ft. He added that he did vote against the previous Butler home in this subdivision, but cannot in conscience vote against this one. Commissioner Hlava agreed, stating that as you drive 'on Montalvo Road the overall impression is an area of large houses. She 'added that, although this house is a little bit larger than some of the houses there, it is also smaller than some of them. She indicated that it is difficult to say that this home would have too much of an excessive bulk when' the front 'setback is 85 feet from the road. She commented that she can make the findings and feels that the architect has tried to make it not only compatible with the neighborhoo~ but also has con- sidered the privacy of surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Crowther noted that one of the things that adds to the bulk of this structure is a very high straight' up and down wall and a flat roof. Commissioner Nellis stated that he had also voted against the Butler home, an'd he totally concurs with Commissioners Siegfried and Hlava's comments and there- fore would support the application. CommiSsioner McGoldrick indicated that she appreciates the efforts of the devel- oper':. 'U="Hbw'eve~, "she-"canno~" ]m~'~'6'-..:.t'h.~''' Eifiding "~ZH:"'j~'Ul~, primarily not necessarily the s~ze of this 'structure but because of the elevation that it was on. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-875, per the Staff Report dated May 18, 1983 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 4-3, with Commissioners Bolger, Crowther and McGoldrick dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 5. V-609 - Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road (near Sperry Lane), Request for Vari- ance Approval to construct a. masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the required side yard Staff described the application. They noted that they are not able to make the findings relative to the fence variance and feel that screening and landscaping would be more effective. They indicated that they were able to make the find- - 2 - Planning'Commission -- Page 3 Meeting Minutes 6/8/83 V-'609 (cont.) ings for the solar variance and recommend=?~ approval of it. Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. He noted that the fence was fully Constructed at thi's time and the Staff Report speaks to the problems with it. He stated that the site' 'is somewhat unique and sits down in a swale area, and there did not appear to be 'any. real impacts wi'th the solar panels. Commissioner Nellis added that the fence. is very visible from the street. A letter received in support of the application was noted. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. The applicant was not present. Rosemary Haxim, who lives adjacent to Mr. Renna, spoke against the application. She stated that she feels that the fence looks like a 'prison wall and the pr.o- perry is now totally built up. Jean Francis, Sobey Road, indicated that she feels that the fence is too high and she would prefer landscaping instead. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing'. Commissioner Siegfried agreed with the comment that the fence looks like a prison .wall and stated that it is unfortunate that it is already built. He commented that it gives him difficulty to say that it must be undone, particularly when a 10t of money has been spent doing it. He 'added that the fence is an unsightly nuisance.and has significant impact. He' indicated'that he did not have any particular problem with the solar panels and did not feel that they are going to impact anyone. Commissioner Crowther asked if it had.been' determined whether the impervious coverage added by the solar panels would exceed the allowable coverage. Staff reported that they ?di'_d. jh~O~__".k~_Z'Zho.~ they would be placed but would look into the matter. It was determined to continue the application and notify the applicant tha~ there is consensus that the Commission has serious problems with both requests. It'was directed that. this item be continued to June 22, 1983. 6. V-610 Hiroyuki H'iraoka, 18635'Montewood Drive, Request for Variance Appro- val to construct a tennis court with 'a side yard setback of 15' where 25.' is required in the~ R-i-40,000 'zoning district Sta'ff explained that the 'plans which had' been approved for the tennis court were approved for a 20 ft. setback, which was in error in itself, since a 25 ft. setback is required. However, the tennis court was built with only a 15 ft. setback and there was no final inspection requested. They added that, notwith- standing those irregularities in construction, Staff can make the findings 'rela- tive to the variance and recommends that you approve it with the condition that the opaque screening be removed from the. fencing. They indicated that the~e will be a clarified building permit with. doube fees if the Commission approves the variance. Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. Commissioner Siegfried no'ted that there is essentially one corner of the tennis court that encroaches. Commissioner Hlava added that it does not abut another neighbor and there is no privacy impact. The public hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Robert Elaine asked what the specific objection was to the opaque screening. It was explained that it is prohibited by ordinance and the general problem is that it does have impact. ~ It was moved 'and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V'-610 per the Staff Report dated 6-1-83 and Exhibit B. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0.. 7a.-A-880 - George Magnett, 15200 Sobey Road, Request for Design Review 7b. UP-534 - Approval to construct 'a second story expansion to an existing two'-story dwelling and Use Permit Approval to construct a cabana in. the required rear yard Staff described the application. They stated that due to the excessive floor - 3 - Pl.anning Commission Page 4 Meeti'ng Minutes 6/8/83 A-880 and UP-S34 (cont.) area of the cabana, Staff feels that there will be the appearance of bulk and is unable to make the findings and recommends denial. They stated that, rela- tive to the design review .for the second story expansion, they can make the findings and recommend - approval. Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. He noted that there is a very large concern regarding the finished grade of this house as it is right now with respect to the adjoining residences. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he does not have any particular concern with the second-story addition or dormers provided that something is done regarding the windows that look out .on the next door neighbor. He added that his major concern is the cabana since it has significant impact. A letter from Mr. and ~,l~rs. Johnson, in opposition, was noted. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. George Magnett, the applicant, discussed the proposal. He submitted pictures and indicated that he would put stained glass windows in the second floor dor- mers facing the neighbors. He commented. that he had contacted the majority of the neighbors regarding the project. Claude Johnson spoke in opposition to the cabana, stating that it would obscure his view and would be adjacent to his bedroom. He cited the noise and dirt from the project and the impact of it. Mrs. Adrian Iwanaga spoke against the dormer windows. Robert Darby, interior designer, addressed the proposed windows. Possible alter- natives were discussed relative to skylights or smaller windows. Commissioner Hlava noted that there are four windows across the back of the playroom, in addition to the one window on the side which looks over the Iowanga property; therefore, it is not a totally dark room without that window. Bob Moore, landscape architect, gave a presentation on the proposed landscaping. At Commissioner Siegfried's request, he specifically explained the landscaping that is planned around the cabana and the screening bet~ee.n the two homes. Mrs. Iwanaga stated that she objected to' the planned landscaping between their' home and that of the applicant.' Mrs. Dorothy Johnson, 15160 Sobey, spoke.in opposition to the cabana~ its size, the pool, and the noise. V~eda Call, realtor, addressed the Commission and spoke in 'favor of the project. Tom Tarares suggested that the cabana be at a low height and that the windows should be narrower. Mr. Magnett indicated that he would like. to keep both dormers to mai. ntain the architectural balance. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimous ly. The application for the second story expansion was first discussed by the Com- mission. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he was not particularly troubled with the dormers and feels that the applicant's point is well taken that they provide architectural balance. He added that he feels that steps can be taken to minimize any impact on privacy; it then makes space usable that is there. He stated that he felt that the one window could be removed because there is significant window space in the back of that room. He added that he is very troubled by the size of the cabana. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-880 per the Staff Report dated June 1, 1983 and Exhibi't B, with the condition that the window in the east side of the north projecting dormer addition be eliminated and that the window in the east side of the south projecting dormer addition be stained glass opaque. Commissioner Hlava suggested that some fairly large size trees be requested along the 'side between the applicant and.the Iwanagas. She commented that she feels that the house already has some privacy impact on the Iwanagas that could Planning Commiss ion Page 5 ~eet~ng Minutes 6/8/83 A- 880 and UP- 534 (cont.) be addressed at this time. It was determined that a condition would b'e added to the motion that there be landscaping and screening along that area, to include some large size trees. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Siegfried_ and was carried unanimously 7-0. It was. noted that the approval is for the main structure only. Chairman Schaefer noted 'that there has b~en very strict adherence recently to having a total of 6200 sq. ft. b~ilt on a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. She stated that the Commission has approved many cabanas but most of them that have been approved were around 650 sq. ft. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she could not envision anything that could be done to mitigate the closeness of the cabana to the Johnsons. She compli- mented thee architect and landscape architect on their work but stated that the ~!~'~_u~!'~".O'.'~_'.the total square foQtage is not what she cares to see. She moved to 'deny UP-534, per the Staff Report dated June 1, 1983. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. Break 9: 30 - 945 p .m. '8~ '~'.V-611 Mr. and Mrs. James Mair, 19221 Saratoga-Los Gatos. Road (near E1 Camino Grande), Request for Variance Approval to construct a fence over 6 feet' in height in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. They noted that this fence is along scenic High- .way 9, and under normal circumstances Staff would probably not be able to make findings for this variance. However, the wall is located 2 or 3 feet below the elevation of the roadway and there has been recent substantial plantings along the highway. side of the wall wh'ich will quickly screen the wall. Therefore, Staf~ is able 'to make the findings and recommends approval. The public hearing was opened at 9:47 p.m. Mike Dillon, landscape architect, appeared to answer questions. It was moved' and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve=V-611, per the Staff Report dated 6-1-83 and Exhibits B and C, makin~ the findings. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was c~arried unanimously 7-0. 9. A-881 - Bud Johnson, Lot ~9, Tract 6528, Farr Ranch Road (near Farr Ranch Ct.), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district Commissioner Crowther abstained from the discussion and voting of this matter, by,reason of pending litigation involvin~ the Parker Ranch project. Staff explained the project. Commissioner Bolger gave a Land Use Committee Report. He indicated that one of the items noted was primarily the color of the home which is being proposed as a light gray exterior with a white trim, and the applicant has been advised that a requirement of the Parker Ranch sub- division was that the color be earthtone. He also noted that the structure was set at an angle, to its benefit. The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m. The 'applicant indicated that ~e had no p~oblem ~ith 'having an earthtone color. Discussion followed on the ~j~{~'li~'fij'fO'~'~.~'j~fh~on~.'c~'~:.~'-~-..?j.' T~'~'~'~vas;" ~.i:co'nj-.' sensus that earthtone d'o~s not always have td"be a brown tone 'and that a gray color would be satisfactory. Russell' Cr0wther .asked about the square footage being allowed in this home, given the tentative map restriction of 4600 sq. ft. Staff explained that when the Design Review Ordinance was developed' it was determined that the sub- division would conform to the ordinance standards and the CC&Rs were modified. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-881, subject to the Staff Report' dated June 1, '1983 and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0 ~ "-' '~: " ~Z" ' "' "' · -.- .~.~' ' . ~ ....~ -:~=-~.--~-~,~.-.~r ~" 7~ '~ -5 - Planning Commission ..~ Page 6 ~et~iHg Minutes 6/8/83 10. A-882 - Mr. and Mrs. Pickar, 19917 Me'.rribrook Drive, Request for Design Review Approval to construct an expansion to the second story of an existing two-story structure .in the R-l-10,000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal. They reported that a review of the application would indicate that all discussion in the Staff Report relative to a variance should be disregarded. They added that C. ondition No. 1, relative to the non- conforming 7 sq. ft. should also be deleted. The public hearing was opened at 9:52 p.m. Staff clarified the removal of the condit'ion to the applicant. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve ~A-882, per the Staff Report dated 6-2-83 and Exhibits B and C, deleting Condition No. 1 and the discussion relative to the variance. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. COMMUN I CAT IONS Written 1. Letter from Tedd Faraone re modification to use permit. It was deter- mined that the applicant should go through the process of applying for the modi- fication. Oral 1. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a. brief report on the City Council meet- ing held on June 1, 1983. A copy of the minutes of thi's meet'ing is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending the mee'ting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Bolger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. i~.~. 'Shook Secretary RSS:cd - 6' -