Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, Ju~y-~13', 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Bolger and Schaefer Minutes Commissioner Nellis moved to waive the. reading of the minutes of June 22, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, · which was carried with Commissioner McGoldrick abstaining since she was not present at that meeting. Regarding the June 29th minutes, it should read that the motion on page 8 carried 6-1, with Commissioner Hlava dis'senting. Commissioner Nellis moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 29, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 5, ReSol'ution'.add~i~g Offi~/E'~edt~6nics~':w~"~em0Vea"fOr"~f'~cu~s'ion. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the'balance of the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 4-0. 1. SDR-1340 - Ray Dettling, Bohlman Road, Request for Site Modification Approval for pool 2. SDR-1499 - DeVos, 14161 Farwell, Tentative Building Site Approval, Request for One-Year Extension 3. SDR-1514 - S. K. Brown DevelopmentZ, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Tentative Building Site Approval,~ Request for One-Year Extension 4. Resolution adding walk-in medical clinics for treatment of minor trau- matic emergencies and medical illnesses as a conditional use in the C-V zoning district Discussion followed on No. 5. Staff explained that the Owen Companies have indicated that the wordage~.as written does not fit the need they see for the property. They indicated that a letter has been received from the attorneys for Owen, containing preferred wordage to be included in this resolution. The City Attorney commented that this 'definition was developed during the previous meeting in response to a request from the owner of that particular property, even though it would go into the Zoning Ordinance as a general pro- vision allowing a conditional use with' this definition. He explained that he had some difficulties with the use to'begin with, in terms of how it was to be defined, and if it is not suitable for this particular applicant and there is no one else who contemplates using it,~ the Commission can either consider the alternative language proposed in the letter or decide that the Owen Companies should simply apply for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. He discussed the process to be followed. Commissioner Nellis stated that he has: strong feelings on this issue. He noted that this conditional use was adopted in response to a letter from the Owen Companies, but is is also true that this conditional use being proposed would apply to anybody in the City. He added that he feels this spells out the City's intent of what is meant by R & D and what would be allowed. He commented that he feels strongly that the Commission should go forward with the resolution. Ken Ellis, Project Manager for Owen Companies, appeared to answer questions. Commissioner McGoldrick inquired about the monitoring of the use as worded - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 ~.Mee'ting Minutes 7/13/83 No. 5, Resolution Adding Office/Electronics (cont.) by Owen. Commissioner Hlava commented that she does not see how it is possi- ble to police that wording any more than it is to police the present wording in the resolution. Mr. Ellis explained the problem they have with the present wording is that they believe that there are a multitude of uses where some kind of development occurs either from a mental or physical standpoint. He added that the present wording is restrictive not only on what they intended having there, but also for the P-A zoning itself. Commissioner Nellis stated that the intent of the wordage is not to restrict it to any thought type of process; what it is designed to do is put the thought down on paper and not to have a type of production model or prototype at that particular location. Discussion followed on this issue, and Mr. Ellis described the operation, clarifying t~at there would be no manufacturing. Jim Russell, President of Saratoga Park Wood Homeowners Association, asked f~r clarification of the intent of allowing Office/Electronics, relative to the · limits of electronics. Commissioner Nellis commented that 'th'e'~..intent"~"t~_~o~..~."'j~.~..t~.'.p~l~ibit O~'~tr~Ct '~.m~ioye~.'~fr~m~'m~~f"~i~k'~g"~'~t ~'.~ ~rohibi~ prototypes for'~- · .p.~'4~:i'6'~:.'~.~is'. frd~ be%ng..¢O~S~uqted,. com~.~.~o~'8'F'c'~'o~'l~"~.~H' :""' "L sugges'ted that the wording be "Whereas, the Planning Commission has been requested to add as a conditional use in such district Office/Electronic~, consisting of office use only, where there is no p'.rotot.~'-m~nuf~t~.i~'~or'''', · Z~'~truction of any devices, nor use, Storage or discharge of any hazardous materials on the premises." Commissioner Nellis suggested adding "or testing". Commissioner Crowther commented that he would not expect that the testing of a device would involve any hazard6us materials or any manu- facturing. Commissioner Hlava stated that she would still be voting against this. She explained that she has a problem with the process and feels that the Owen Companies should be asked to come in for a formal amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with a public hearing. She explained that this conditional use is being. added for the whole City and she does not feel that is appropriate. She added that she feels that the problems of this particular site, i.e., neighborhood concerns, traffic, are not being.addressed. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, explained that she works in an electronic testing laboratory and there are toxic wastes involved. She indicated that she feels this use is totally inappropriate for this area. She added that if the Commission is even thinking about the use they should consider a Toxic ~:a~tes Ordinance. ~e City Attorney further explained the process and discussed options. Com- missioner Crowther stated that he feels that the resolution does not apply only to the Owen site; it applies to the whole City. He commented that it contains a very conservative definition of Electronics/Office which confines it to a pure office use, without any hazardous materials and manufacturing. He added that he feels it would be approp~t.e to have this in the Zoning Ordinance as a definition of a Electronic~/Of'~_i-=c'~ facility which could be allowed in any of the commercial zones. He moved to adopt the resolution for ~tem No. 5, as previously amended, adding Office/Electroni~ a~ a conditional use to the P-A zoning district. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which failed 3-2, with Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick and Siegfried dissent- ing. Commissioner Hlava moved to deny the Resolution under Item No. 5 for this con- ditional Use. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners CroWther and Nellis dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried explained that'he voted to deny the resolution because he would like to see an actual use proposed. He added that in concept he does not think this is an appropriate use but he feels the way to handle it is to see what the applicant wants to propose and consider the facts. The City Attorney clarified that the use has not been added, and if the appli- cant ~ishes to have the use he proposes he'will have to apply for an amend- ment to the Zoning Ordinance. - 2 - Plan~in'g Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 7/1.3/83 BUILDING SITES 6. SDR-1541 Carson Heil, 14781 Farwell, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 lot, and Site Modification Approval for addition on over 10% slope Staff explained the proposal and noted that the applicant does own the adjacent small parcel, and the elimination of the property line between the two would create a solution to the setback problem. They stated that they recommend approval, with the condition that the property be reverted to acreage, thereby eliminating the lot line problem, and th'e condition that either a.garage be provided or a variance be obtained for lack of a garage on the site. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee Report, describing the site. Commissioner Nellis added that one of the major concerns brought out by ~r. Heil was that the site is presently on a' septic tank and putting it on a sewer could create all sorts of environmental problems. A letter from Mr. Heil was noted. Mr. Heil clarified that he would not consider splitting the property at this time since it would ruin it. He discussed possibly moving the property line back to the creek and described his propZosal. The requirement for the sewer system was discussed. There was a consensus that this matter should be scheduled for a study session to consider the possible options. It was directed that this item be continued to a Committee-of-the-Whole on August 2, 1983 and the regular meeting of August 10', 1983. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. V~609 Ralph Renna, 15041 Sobey Road (near Sperry Lane), Request for Variance Approval to construct a masonry wall over 6 feet in height and to construct solar panels in the required side yard in the R-I-40,000 zoning district; continued from June 22, 1983 Staff explained the.application and noted that it had been discussed at a study session. They indicated that 'they had reviewed the matter of impervious coverage and it has been determined that there is actually 37% coverage. Dis- cussion followed on this issue. The public hearing was opened at 8:31 p.~. Mr. Renna described the solar panels and the drainage system. He clarified · tha~· it was not his plan to put a slab underneath the solar panels at this time. He added that he had not been able to obtain a sample. of the lighting but des- cribed it. Randy Hess, attorney for Mr. Renna, addressed the wall and noted the neighbors in support of it. Mr. Renna explained the attempts he had made to work with Mrs. Hexim, the adjacent neighbor. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava reported that she had measured the fence and the major problem appears to be the L-shaped area where the culvert has been constructed and which is the border of the Hexim 'property. She explained that there is no water supply there so it would not be feasible to do any landscaping along the fence. She proposed that a condition be added that the.applicant shall get permission from Mrs. Hexim to do some grading on her side to reduce the height of the fence to 6 ft. The lighting on the fence was discussed. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he would be inclined to deny any variance on the fence, since the applicant says it does not exceed 6 Commissioner Nellis agreed that he would like to see the applicant work with the neighbor to bring-the grading up to 6 ft. Howe·ver, he would also like to see him work with the neighbor to landscape the fence to soften the effect. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was having a difficult time making the - 3 - P~anning Commission Page 4 Me~ting Minutes 7/13/8 V-6'09. (cont.) findings ·but feels it is a tremendous waste to ask someone to tear down that immense structure. She added that she would like ·to see the neighbors work it out, perhaps wi'th ·a Staff member. Commiss·ioner· Siegfried commented that he ·did not 'have a particular problem with ·the ·solar panel's, as long as there ·is no slab und.~r them so it doesn't increase"the' imper'vious 'coVer'age. He ~d~'d' that' it'-.appe'a'Fs...'~H'~o'h~ a'.~a'where the· variance is nee·de~ is in the"corner where ·the swa·le was. He stated that he feels he could make the findings on the basis of the fact that it is an unusual situation in the sense that the property was filled and essentially a retaining wall was built to retain that fill, and then the fence was built 6 ft~ in height above the retaining wall. The lighting was further discussed. The City Attorney commented that the Commission |has the authority to condition a variance regarding the lighting. FIe added that, relative to Commissioner Crowther's comment, the applicant' may feel the fence does not exceed 6 ft., but as the ordinance has been interpreted by Staff we believe it does, which is why the applicant is here. As far as the neighbor is concerned, if the Commission imposes the condition that the applicant must grade the outside of the fence or landscape it, he is being required to perform work on someone else's property who may not con- sent. Commissi'oner McGoldrick moved to approve V-609 for the solar panels and wall as presently constructed, per Exhibit "B", with the conditions that there be nothing on top of the wall and the applicant shall write a letter offering, at his expense, to do the grading on the Hexim property to reduce the measure- ments of the fence to 6 feet. She 'made the 'findings based on Commissioner Siegfried's thoughts that it is a retaining Wall with a 6 ft. fence on top and it is an unusual situation because of grading and the filling of the swale, which is what causes the fence to be over 6 ft. in that particular area. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Mr. Renna discussed the condition to work with the neighbor, citing his pre- vious attempts and explaining the location of the culvert. Commissioner Nellis asked to amend the motion to state that the offer be extended to landscaping as well, and commented that he would like the same offer extended to the neighbor on the other side as well. There was a consensus that there would be a major problem with landscaping because of the irrigation. Discuss'~'~n followed on the condition relative to the lighting. It was deter- mined that the condition would read that the applicant shall submit a light- ing plan for Planning Commission review, with the intent that it would be permitted in 4 or 5 ft. sections of the fence and would not be allowed on any portion of the fence 6 ft. or higher as measured from either side. Staff asked for clarification regarding the offer to the Hexims for the grad- ing. They commented that they assumed it would require the extension of the pipe·. It was clarified that the Commission would like a culvert that would allow some fairly level grading in that one small section of the L of the fence. Mr. Renna discussed the cost of the culvert, stating that it would be prohibitive to put the culvert on the-Hexim property. He added that the culvert runs parallel to the fence, so he would ]have to do the whole fence in excess of 100 ft. long. Discussion followed on the condition, and it was determined that the condition should read that the offer be made to the Hexims to do the grading and associated drainage improvements to reduce the measurement of the fence to 6 ft., as approved by the City Engineer. Commissioner Nellis indicated that he would not vote for the variance because no landscaping is being required. He noted that the Commission routinely conditions to have landscaping and he is disappointed that that offer cannot be in the letter. The vote was taken on the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Nellis and Crowther dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 8. A-887 Bill O'Meara, Lot 10, Farr Ranch Road, Parker Ranch, 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 on this item because of pending litigation. Staff explained the proposal. They clarified that there is an erroneous comment in. the Staff Report that indicates that ~P..la~.ing' Commission Page 5 =~e'eting Minutes 7/1.3/83 A-887 (cont.) these two lots are involved'in the negotiated 'settlement with Parker Ranch. They explained that Mr. O'Meara felt thei need to have a gre~ter space~so he has acquired two lots and will combine them and build the home. They noted that there is some 2,000 additional sq. ft.' of attic that is easily converted, thereby exceeding the floor area standards. They added that they could not make the findings and w.ere'recommending denial. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use .Committee. report.. She described the site,. indicating that it was a huge lot and there is a large hill rise in-the back of the house so there are Ho privacy impacts. The public hearing was'opened at 9:05 p.m. The applicant submitted a letter from the neighbor in supp.Rrt and photographs of the style of the home. He. described the proposal and ~ addressed the findings. He commented that he did not feel that the attic space should be considered in determining total space. He noted that there are other homes appro~ed in Parker Ranch with large first floor footprints, where if attic space were added it would greatly exceed their request. Marty Oakley, the architect, discussed the attic space. Bud Johnson, the contractor, stated that at no time during the design stage of this building was .the attic space considered for livin~ space. He cited other homes approved in the area that had been approved with large areas of attic space. Commissioner Hlava inquired if the'steep pitch of the roof could be softened to mitigate the large appearing building. Mr. Johnson'described the design, and the applicant commented that if th~'roof~ line had to be changed it would change the whole concept of their project. Russell Crowther, Norada Court, stated that one of the problems that many of the neighbors have had with the Parker Ranch site is that they felt large homes were being built on lots that are too small. He added that one of the concerns has also been that the lot sizes do not agree with the Initiative Measure that was adopted by the voters. He indicated that he feels the applicant should be commended for what he has done in combining two lots for this home, and he feels that it should definitely be given consideration in the deliberations. Commissioner.Nellis moved tO close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava · seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Nellis commented that he feels he can make the findings regarding the bulk because of the ste.~p ~tched roof line. He stated that the only problem he had'..~!~t~Y"~h'e~.'p~6p0s.~i 'iS':.'~H~".~~'-~o'~tage. He suggested amending Condition ~3 td"~ead th'~F'tti~'co~erSiOH'of"a'~ti'c'space to living space is prohibited, and also '~d~in'~"~a""~'0nd'ifi~'n~'~ha~ th~ do'~'~e~em~'Ved'~j~'om"'7'..?· the roof above the garage. Discussion'followed on the dormers. Commissioner Nellis' commented that if these were removed it would minimize the likelihood of ~hat floor area being converted to livable space. Discussi6n followed and there was a consensus that the dormers should remain. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he'had had some concern about the bulk but in hearing about the roof line he does not have much problem with it, esp.ecially when very little 'of the attic space is usable. He added that he feels that the dormers will .help soften the impact of the garage roof. He indicated that he feels Mr. Crowther's point is well taken, and the applicants should be given credit for the fact that:they have taken two lots and combined them, since if two houses were built there within ordinance size the impact would be dramatically different. 'Commissioner Hlava added that she could make the-finding on bulk since there is a hill behind the home; there is a lot of landscaping behind it to he~p minimize it, and it doesn't directly impact any neighbors. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-887, per the conditions of the Staff Report, amending Condition #:3 to read that converting the attic space shall be prohibited, making the findings. Commissioner Hlava second the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0., Break 9:30 - 9:40 p.m. : - 5 - Flanking Commission Page 6 Heeting Minutes 7/13/83 9. A-889 Mr. and Mrs. Delia, 14332 Maclay Court, Request for Design Review to construct a second story addition to an existing two-story single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal, indicating'that they cannot make all of the find- ings and recommends denial. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She described the house and site, indicating that there is a lot of landscaping so that the impact on the neighbors is not great at all. The public hearing was opened at 9:41 p.m. Mr. Delia described the 'propOsal. CommiSsioner [{lava moved to close the public hearing~ Commissioner McGol:drick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. ' 'Commissioner Siegfried. stated that he feels there. is ~nimal impact. He added that the addition is. in a swale or hole and th'e?.~'i~6~e 'ha~.'t~e .appearance from the street of a one-story house and will even with the addition. .Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the major concern with excessive bulk is the .effect on views and privacy, so he is not concerned with bulk if it has no impact. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-889, making the findings that it does not, because of the topography of the lot, create a situation of excessive bulk or height, and because of the s'creening from the adjacent neighbors. The approval was per Exhibits "B" and "C" Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 10. V-.612 Woodruff Tompkins, 1~740 .Sob'ey Road, Request for Variance Approval to construct a single 'story addition' to.an exist'ing single story .. dwelling which'.'maintains a rear yard setback of 44 ft. where 50 ft. is requi'.red in the R-I-40,00.'0 .z'O'n"ing 'distriCt Staff described the ~roDosa'l, indicating that, while they are of the opinion that the proposed addition is less 'likeIv to be 'impactive to surrounding properties than locating it elsewhere on the 'site, there are alternate locations within the setbacks. They noted that they cannot make 'the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee Report, describin~ the lot. The public hearing was opened at 9:48 p.m. Mr. Tomnkins explained the proposal. He'stated that he does not feel that there is any ontion but to build in back. He submitted a statement from the adjoining neighbors in support of the :project. : Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissione'r McGoldrick seconded the motion, which.w. as carried unanimously. · COmmissioner {{lava stated that she cannot see.a single wa'v that this impacts anyone and no logical reason not to do it, except she cannot make the variance findings. She added that sh.e would certainly be interested in hearing a per- suasive argument .on makin~ the findings on exceDtional circumstances or common p.rivilege. 'Commissioner Siegf-rie.d stateld that he feels there is an unusual circumstance in the sense that the~F==~'7~'&~%~.~."~:~j'l~.~::~B=~U'~' the way the house was ~ositioned on .that property with'the slope of th~ laHd beyond it. He added that, in terms of improving the house in a :usable way, he does not feel. there is any other way of,doin~ it. He commented t'hat he feels the findings can be made on the basis of' topography and the siting of the house. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he felt .if the applicant built :up it would have more visual impact on the house behind it. Commissioner Hlava a~reed. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve V-612, making the necessary findings in .accordance with Commiss.ione~ Siegfried's earlier statements. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the .motilon, which was carried unanimousIv S-0. 11. V-613 William and Sylvia Bickenbach, 13100 Pierce Road, Request for Vari- ance 'Apnroval to construct an addition which maintains a 23 ft. rea'r yard setback where 60 ft. is required in the R-i-40,000 zoning 'd'i's't'ric.t It was reported that this item has been withdrawn by the applicant. - 6 -, =PlaStering Commission Page 7 'Meeting Minutes 7/13/83 12. SDR-1540 - Floyd Gaines, Request f'or Tentative Map Approval and Design A-879 - Review Approval for six townhouses on a ~ite 'in the RM-3,000 zoning district at 'the north'er'ly corner of the Fourth Street Stairway and Oak Street Staff reported that the applicant is expected to ask for a continuance on this project and there 'is a need'for a front yard variance. The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m. No one appeared to speak. It was directed that this matter be continued to July 27, 1983. MISCELLANEOUS 13. A-431 - Safeway Stores Argonaut Shopping Center, Request for Modification to Design Review to change 'roofing materials Commissioner Siegfried reported that at the study session the proposed material was presented, which is an aggregate and the color is somewhat compatible. with the existing~roof. Mr. Mastardi, of Safeway, st'ated that the Safeway roof looks much more faded and older than' the rest of the roof. He indicated that he did not feel that the red aggregate is going to look much different 'th~n the remainder of the shopping center roof. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that she had noticed that See's candy store on Prospect has a red gravel roof and it does not look any different than it would with shingles. Commissioner Nellis commente'd that he still has a. concern ~'~"~t'~t]i~'appi'~cant,s ~ggre'gat~..r~.of. ma~rial~ ~.~"..h'~..m~t~C~'_.M~.~..~X'i~ting shjingle ro~fi'ng mate~A~l · now ~=~ the sh~pping center, and he cannot support the application Mr. Mastardi added that the .built up roof is better than a shingle roof. He commented that part of the rear roof is too flat to replace with a shingle roof and that part is also failing. Commissioner Crowtber noted his concern that he feels there is going to be a difference in the lookswhen =the two roofs are side by side. Commissioner McGoldrick indicated that she does not see a problem if her perception from the road is that they all look alike and she has never nO~.iCe.d a difference at See's. 7~ommissio'ner.Sie. gfried commented'that he w~hed..~h~e 'Whoi~'sh6p:.ping ~e.H. ter ~'~l'd".b~' treated.~at. one 't~'e~.. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the .A-471 modification, to change the roofing materials to red aggregate to match the adjacent roof. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Mr. Mastardi stated that if he cannot come up with a gravel source to match he will go back to the shingle. It was determined that that condition should be added to the approval. The vote was.taken on the motion. The motion was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Crowther and Nellis dissenting. 14. A-807 - Calderone, 1265.1 Saratoga, Reconsideration of conditioning for one- year extension of Design Review Approval There was a consensus that the Commission was not prepared to vote on this issue until more information was given. them, including the full. Staff Report listing the original conditions. It' was agreeable to the applicant .to continue this item to the next. agenda. It. was directed that it be agendized for the meeting on July 27, 1983. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. Commissioner Nellis. gave a brief report on the City Council study session on the Housing Element and the City Attorney gave a brief report on the regular me~ing of the City Council on July 6, 1983. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are availabl~ in the City Administration Office. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hlava - 7 - P.-1-an.~i. ng Commission Page 8 M~:eting Minutes 7/13/83 seconded the motion, wl~.ich was carried unanimously. The' meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Secretary RSS:cd