Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINU~ES DATE: Wednesday, September 14, 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, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:43 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes Commissioner Nellis moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to waive the read- ing of the minutes of August 24, 1983 and approve as distributed. The motion was carried, with Commissioners Schaefer and Siegfried abstaining since they were not at the meeting. Appointment of Vice-Chairman Commissioner Hlava nominated Commissioner Siegfried as Vice-Chairman. Commis- sioner McGoldrick seconded the nomination. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the nominations. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, and Commis- sioner Siegfried wa·s unanimously elected Vice-Chairman, replacing Edward Bolger. Chairman Schaefer presented Resolution PC-146 to'Ea~a~Fd'' B01ger, commending him for his service and dedication to the City. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 1. SDR-1447 - Marcus Bitter, Cox and Saratoga Creek Drive, 1 lot, Request for One-Year Extension ' 2. V-591 - Lewis Franklin, 13209 Padero Court, Request for One-Year Exten- sion BUILDING SITES/SUBDIVISIONS 3a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1541 Carson Heil 3b. SDR-1541 - Carson Heil, 14781 Farwell, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 Lot, and Site Modification Approval for addition on over 10% slope; continued from August 24, 1983 Staff commented on their recent meeting with Sanitation District #4, noting that the district is in receipt of the letter prepared by Mr. Heil's tree expert. Discussion followed on an alternative location to place the sanitary sewer on the opposite side of the creek. Staff noted that they are recommend- ing approval of the project, per the Staff Report, which does include the requirement for the construction of the sanitary sewer as outlined in the letters from the Sanitation District #4. Mr. Heil explained the prQject and described the trees in question. He asked about the appeal process, ~:~a~·~ that he would appeal the condition for the sanitary sewer if the project ~s approved subject to it. The 10 calendar day period was noted. Commissioner· Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1S41. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR-t541, per the Staff Report dated August 30, 1983 and Exhibit "B", recognizing that there is some environmental damage that will be done, but unable to make the findings that would exclude - 1 - Plafining Commiss ion Page 2 Meeting Minutes 9/1~,-/53 ..~.~ SDR-1541 (cont.) the requirement that the sewer be completed. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. The City Attorney clarified-that if the Commission made the findings and approved the SDR without requiring a sewer, that does not preclude the Sani- ~a~A]ifi:.Distri'ct from initiating proceedings to put the sewer district in and condemning the property. Commissioner Siegfried amended his motion to be subject to the addition of the letter of June 8, 1983 from the Sanitation District that was not included with the packet. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the amendment. The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Hlava commented that one of the reasons she voted for the motion is because she feels that if the Commission made an exception now, it is quite obvious that the Sanitation District does have a plan to put through the sewer at some future date. She added that she feels the environmental damage will be that much greater if there is a condemnation and the sewer is put in later when the trees are much more established. 4a.. Negative Declaration - SDR-1543 Be'rt Reid 4b. SDR-1543 Bert and Diane Reid, Kittridge Road, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 Lot Staff indicated that the fees have not been received on this item and it should be withdrawn from the agenda because it is incomplete. The Planning Commission accepted the withdrawal. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1540 F1..oyd Gaines 5b. SDR-1540 Floyd Gaines, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval, 5c. A-8-79 - Design Review Approval, and Variance Approval to construct six 5d. V-616 - (6) townhouses which maintain a front yard setback of 19 ft. where 25 ft. is required and an 11 ft. retaining wall in the RM-3,000 zoning district at the northerly corner of the Fourth Street StairwaV and Oak Street; continued from August 10, 1983 Staff explained the project and the previous concerns that have been resolved. They noted the following changes in the Staff Report: On page 2, "The Fire CHief is requesting that the wall height.not exceed 5 ft." should be deleted. On page 6, it should read: "The Planning Commission approves'....", ra.ther than "The Staff Report recommends approval". The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. TimR~!!~y,.i".~ir'.~%~'~k.~'=noted that the plans have been revised to show a 2 ft. setback and a 6 ft. planting strip. He submitted four samples and dis- cussed the cost and materials for the surface treatment of the retaining wall. Commissioner Crowther asked about the findings for the variance for the wall, and Staff noted that the findings combine both setbacks and wall. Commissioner Cr0wther commented that one finding for exceptional circumstances would be that other walls on adjacent properties are as high. The wall on the Zambetti pro- perty was discussed and it was determined that the height of the wall is over 6 ft. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff clarified that Condition VIII-B requires that the planting strips be 2 ft. and 6 ft., not to include walls or structures. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he would like to see a condition that says that the engineering of the wall shall be dependSnt on the landscaping plans and types of trees. It was determined that Condition VIII-D should be revised to state that the landscaping design shall be compatible with the engineering design of the wall. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1540. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 9/1.4/83 SDR-1540, A-879, and V-616 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-616, making the findings in the revised Staff Report dated July 22, 1983, as amended this evening, to include the fact that the Commission makes' the five findings on the same basis for the wall and the 'setbacks, with the addition that, relative to the wall, variances have be'en granted on adjacent properties for the same reason. Com- missioner McGoldrick seconded th.e motion, which was carried unanimously. 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR-1540 per Exhibit "B-4" and the revised Staff Report dated July 22, 1983, amended to include the condition that the design for the landscaping shall be Compatible with the engineering design of the wall. Commissioner Siegfried made the findings of consistency with the General Plan, noting that the statements refer to open space, pre'- servation of trees, and the rural qualities of Saratoga. He explained that, while the Staff comments are well taken, he feels that the Commission must take into mind what is there today and what'is being accomplished with the screen- ing and landscaping on the back of the property. He added that over time it will be well screened.from the Village, and by not having the access over Oak St.reet he feels the appearance and the atmosphere will be improved, so the totality of it will be an improvement over what is there today in terms of appearance. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting. She explained that she cannot make the findings in accordance with the General Plan. She added that she appreci- ates what the applicant has done in the way of trying to mitigate some of the concerns with the height of the wall and landscaping, but she still has a hard time seeing this as being an enhancement to the Village. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-879, per Exhibits "B" through "E-i" and the revised'Staff Report dated July 22, 1983, amended to include the requirement that both the 4 ft. and 7 ft. wall have the Stucco stone facing as shown in sample #3 s.ubmitted this evening, believed to be flagstone in color. Commissioner' Nellis seconded the"motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commis- sioner Hlava dissenting. 6. A-903 - Alan Pinn, Request for Design Review Approval to'construct a two- story, single family residence on the east side of Sobey Lane, 300 ft. ~orth of Sperry Lane Staff described the application. It was noted that the tennis court is not part of the application at this time. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot. She commented that the proposed house is fairly well integrated into the knoll. The public hearing was opened at 8:24 p.m. Art Mandell, future owner of the property behind the site, stated that it was his understanding that there is no driVeWay easement granted to the property in question by his proper'ty. St~ff indica'ted that 'on the 'final map there is a recorded ingress-egress easement and it is worded in the owner's certificate. Discussion followed on the. driveway access. It was then clarified by a copy of the recorded map that there is a joint access to both'parcels. Alan Pinn, the developer, discussed the driveway. He indicated that they would grant Mr. Mandell an extra easement and will widen the road to alleviate h~s concerns regarding parking. He stated. that a tennis court location as shown on the plan was previously granted by a use permit, which has exp%red. He added that he would be applying for a new use permit for the same location. It was clarified to Mr. Mandell that such an applicat. ion would be a public hearing and he would be notified. Mr. Pinn discussed the condition for the roofing. It was determined that the word "bright" should be added to Con- dition No. 3. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-903, per Exhibits "B" and "C" and the Staff Report dated September 6, 1983, amended to state that'bright red tile roofing is prohibited. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 7. A-904 = Carl Franklin, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single family residence on Farr Ranch Roa~, Lot #3 of Tract No. 6528 Commissioner Crowther abstained from t'he discussion and voting on this matter because of pending litigation. Commissioner Hlava. gave a Land Use Committee - 3 Planning Commission Page 4 'Meeting Minutes 9/14/83 A-'904 (cont.) report, describing the lot. She indicated that there was some concern expressed at the visit regarding visibility from the upper driveway. She added, however, that they had been able to see a vehicle coming down the street. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the vehicle in question had been a larger panel truck and, even though it could be seen, any kind of planting would have to be carefully controlled. Commissioner Nellis commented that any problem would arise only when a left hand turn is made out of the driveway. Staff described the proposal, recommending approval subject to the' elimination of the driveway and reconfiguration with a single driveway opposite Farr Ranch Court. Discussion followed on the proposed driveways. The public hearing was opened at 8:48 p.m. Carl Franklin, the applicant, explained the proposal and discussed the two separate garages. He indicated that he had submitted a report on the sight visibility 'and stated that he would like to have the separate driveway approach. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously. *addition below The.~e was a consensus that it would be difficult to approve any home that has. tw~driveways taking access for a 3,000 sq. ft. home. Commissioner Hlava added that to have a 3,000 sq. ft. home with a 1,500 sq. ft. garage seems to be asking for people who move in to immediately want to expand the size of the house. After discussion of options the applicant asked the Commission to vote on the matter with a modification to the driveway. There was a con- sensus that the Commission would like to see a new plan before approving the application. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A~904, subject to the Staff Report dated September 6, 1983, with the condition that plans showing the revised driveway be brought back to the Planning Commission on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. 8a. SDR-1548 F. Schneider, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval and 8b.A-905 - Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single family residence at 13291 Pierce Road Staff explained the application. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report., describing the site. The public hearing was opened at 8:56 p.m. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner' McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Mr. Schneider the applicant, asked for clarification of the conditions of the Staff Report. Discussion followed on the improvements required in Conditions II-D and E and th~!"7~'~"~FF~fi"~nST~' f.t~7'i~h-~" ~p'l'i'~afi'~: ~'hd~"~ter in~o~ a'-.: ~.e'fe'~'~"d'~I'~Z~V'e:~i~n~.".~'~ree'~'~F'~':: t~ ';l~.dVemen~."" It was also determined t]{~t Co'ndit~"'I'i"-'E"'~'H"ai'i"'~'~aa"';'.'. .~.donvey s't~rm runoff to Storm sewer or watercourse .... ", deleting the word "Street". Condition VII-D was also added to read: "Applicant shall submit plans for deck and landscaping for review by the Permit Review Division." It was clarified to the applicant that the landscaping should be kept as natural and erosion proof as possible. Con- dition II-O was amended to read: "Enter into Improvement Agreement for required non-deferred improvements to be completed within one year of receiv- ing Final Approval." Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR-1S48, per Exhibit "B-I" and the Staff Report dated September 1, 1983, amended to reflect the above additions and changes to the conditions. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-90S, per the Staff Report dated September 1, 1983, as amended, and Exhibits "B-I" and "C" Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. *Commissioner Siegfried commented that this was the second home that the applicant had proposed with a S=.car-garage for his own use. ='Pt~nning Commission Page 5 M~eeting Minutes 9/14/83 9. UP-540 - Mr. and Mrs. Nchekwube, Request for Use Permit Approval to con- struct a tennis court which maintains 7 ft. and 9 ft. side yard setbacks where a 15 ft. setback is required at 14314 Old Wood Road The.Planning Commission accepted the withdrawal of this application. 10. UP-541 - L. Fast, Request for Use Permit Approval to construct a tennis court which maintains a 23 ft. front yard setback where a 30 ft. setback is required at 14130 Sobey Meadows Court Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot and indicating that there is no impact on the neigh- bors. The public hearing was opened at 9:18 p.m. The applicant explained that the contractor had constructed the tenni's court in the wrong location. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve UP-541, per the Staff Report dated Septem- ber 7, 1983 and Exhibit "B", making the findings. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she had been upset in the past about things being built acci- dently; however, she sees this as a different situation as she sees no benefit to the owner in terms of this accident. Break - 9:20 - 9:30 p.m. COmmUNICATIONS Written 1. Revised Staff Report for Site Modification ApprOval for SDR-1541, Carson'Heil, Farwell Avenue (for Planning Commission information) 2. Letter and Petition dated August 29, 1983 from Robert H. Swanson, re Saratoga Community Gardens. Discussion followed on the activities of the Saratoga Community Gardens, specifically the holding of weddings. There was a consensus to hold a study session in the near future on this matter with all involved parties. 3. Letter from So K. Brown Development Co., Inc., dated September 8, 1983, re temporary relocation of power and telephone poles. After a discussion of the. request by Staff, Mr. Jim Gould, of S.K. Brown, described their project and the reasoning for the request. After considerable discussion by t!.~.e Com- mission, Commissioner Hlava moved to allow 'the 'te'mporary moving of the two poles in question, wi'th the underst'anding that, unless 'and until a variance is.approved, all of the-conditions in the previous 'approval still apply. Staff was requested to write a letter to S. K. Brown' to that effect. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was 'carried unanimously 6-0. 4. Letter from Renn Zaphiropoulos dated September 9, 1983, re permit for a 60 sq. ft. addition. The definition of a second story and the proposed ~'~dition were discussed. It was noted that the Design Review Ordinance states that any addition to a second story requires a public hearing design review. They added that the item could not be agendized for a public hearing until the second meeting of October. The City Attorney commented, re the applicant's request that the Planning Com- mission waive the design revie~ requirement, that he does not believe that the Commission has the power to do that. He stated that he knows of no provision in the ordinance that calls for a waiver. He added that the only thing the Commission might do is expedite the matter on the agenda within the constraints of the public hearing process. Mrs. Zaphiropoulos discussed the addition and showed a photo of the current home and proposal. Discussion followed on possible expedition of the applica- 'tion. Staff explained that the plans submitted did not reflect what was seen in the field review 'and the applicant was then informed that a public hearing design review would be needed. There was a consensus that it would not be fair to other applicants~to expedite this matter. Mrs. Zaphiropoulos asked that the item be put on the agenda for October 26th and indicated that her husband would submit the formal application on Friday when he returns from a business trip. 5 ~.P~nning Commission Page 6 ,~.M~eting Minutes 9/14/83 Written Communications (cont.) t.rip. Co'mmissioner Hlava suggested that the Commission might want to look at the public hearing requirement for this kind of minor addition at a study session. It was noted that an ordinance change entails a period of approximately three months. Oral Communications 1. City Council - Commissioner Hlava gave a brief report On the City Council meeting held on September 7,198.3. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City A'dministration Office. 2. Commissioner Hlava gave a report on the Planning Commissioner's meeting. She asked that the Commission review the Public Information Pamphlet which she has drafted and submitscomments at the next study session. 3. Chairman Schaefer thanked Councilmember Fanelli and the Saratoga News for attending the meeting, and the Good Government Group .for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commiss.ioner Hlava moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:0~' p.m. RespeCtfully submitted, · ShOo Secretary RSS:cd