Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-1983 Planning Commission Minutes ! CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 12, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlav~, McGoldrick, Nellis, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the minutes of September 28, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR The One-Year Extension for SDR-1508, M. Oudewaal (and concurrent modification of SDR-1508 and Design Review A-793) was removed for discussion. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the remaining item listed below. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carriedZunanimously 6-0.- 1. SDR-1486 Tor Larsen, Pierce Road, Request for One-Year Extension Discussion followed on SDR-1508. Lynn Lindsey, of Pine Stone Condominiums, indicated that they are opposed to the project, and this opposition has been based on the intense coverage of the useable portion of the lot, massiveness of the structure, the fact that the geological report has never been updated, and an EIR is needed on the project. Discussion followed on the noticing of the project. Commissioner Siegfried commented tha't as a matter of course the Commission has granted these extensions. Staff noted that the amendment to the SDR and Design Review also need approval at this time for 3 units, as amended by the City Council. In answer to Commissioner Nellis, the City Attorney explained that if the Commission were to deny the extension, theF'apD_~i~.'~.n't:'.-.can".m~-.~a'n..~pe~l' td the City Council. He reminded the Commission that they are"dealing here with the SDR; the use permit was on appeal before the City Council and during the course of that proceeding the applicant revised the plan from 4 to 3 units. Commissioner Crowther commented that he had pr'e¥iously voted against this project and would have to vote against it at this time. He indicated that he thinks it is a much too intense use of the site and the setbacks are not adequate. Commissioner Nellis stated that he was not in favor of this project, but he feels that the City Council has made the decision. He added that they have the Commission's comments and have had an opportunity to hear the feeling of the residents on this.matter, and he feels that the Commission would just be delaying the inevitable process. He explained that, even though he does not favor this, he will be voting in favor.of it.- Commissioner Siegfried agreed, stating'that he feels the matter was reduced to a ministerial act. The City Attorney commented that it is ministerial in the sense that the Commission cannot impose new conditions now for an exten- sion to the SDR. He explained that the only reason this matter is before the Commission is that under the ordinances the time periods applicable to a site d~velopment are different from the time periods applicable to a use permit. He indicated that the Commission can vote to deny the extension but cannot impose new conditions. Commissioner Hlava stated that the major reason she had voted against the use permit was because she did not like the design. She asked how completely is the design of this project itself tied to the use permit. The City Attor- ney clarified that the use permit the City Council approved is based on this design. He added tha't the 'vote is also on the modification of the SDR to ,Planning Commission ~ Page 2 · Meeting Minutes 10/12/83 SDR=iS08 (cont.) reflect the change in the structure from the use permit proceedings. Commissioner Crowther stated that he does not believe the matter would b·e before the Commission if it were a ministerial act, and he would like to give the City Council a chance to'reconsider. the matter. Warren Heid, architect, stated that this matter is academic because it is an extension of the tentative map. He explained the changes that had been made. to the design, including the reduction of height and number of units. Chairman Schaefer stated that she did not believe this Planning Commission ha's ever assumed that when Something is~returned to them for review, that they are simply doing an academic vote.~ Therefor·e, she asked that everyone .vote the way· they feel is appropriate and fair on this matter. Commissioner McGoldrick state~ that she· does not feel that she can approve this, and since the applicant has an appeal before the City Council she would have to vote no on the matter. It was'clarified that if this. item were approved, it would be approving the design, in addition to the SDR. CommisSioner Crowther·moved to deny SDR-1508 as amended in~the .Staff!Report dated September 27, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. The recent creek damage to the site was.discUssed. Staff clarified that this would not. change the geology report on the site, nor would it change the useable-portion of the property. The vote was taken on the motion to deny the amendment to SDR-1508. The motion failed 3-3, with Commissioners Nellis, Siegfried and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny the modification to the design and extension of SDR-1508, per the amendments in the Staff Report dated September 27, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which failed 3-3, with Commis- sioners Nellis, Schaefer, and Siegfried. dissenting. Commissioner Siegf·ried moved to approve·SDR-1508 as amended, the modification to the design review, and the extension. of SDR-1508. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion,' which failed 3-3, with Commissioners McGoldrick,.Crowther- 'and'Hlav~'dissentin~ Commissioner Hlava stated that she is sorry for the applicant in this case because she realizes that this vote extends the time. HOweve~;='s~nc'~="S'lie ·voted against the project originally she cannot vote for the design with which she. doesn' t agree, ~'-b~ "l]{e' '&~n~ {'on l .... · "- The 10-day appeal period was noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. GF-34'4 - City o~ Saratoga, Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow " second'units to occupy certain single family lots by obtaining 'a use permit It was noted that this item will· be continued to the Committee-of-the-Whole on October 18, 1983 and the regular meeting of October 26, 1983. However, public testimony will be taken toni-ght. Chairman Schaefer noted some changes that were discussed: (1) accessory structures would be allowed in areas where a person had twi'ce the amount of land as required in that zoning district, (2) whether the!'size of a unit is going-to be 640 sq. ft. or 800 s~. ft. of living space, (3) that there will be a limit of two people living in a place regardless of their age, (4) any new additions would be reviewed by the appropriate fire district for safety, (S) the building in which an attached unmt would be is to be brought up to code, and (6) looking at potential for fines and legal fees if a us:e permit were not obtained and followed. The public hearing was opened at 7:24 p.m. Barbara Simner, President of the League'of Women Voters of Los Gatos-Saratoga, submitted a letter and read it into the'record regarding the ordinance. She stated·that they support the following:.(1) zoning changes as long as the neighborhood character is preserved and. any parking and traffic impacts are - 2 - pi~anning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 10/12/83 GF-344 (cont.) mitigated by (a) use of land intens'ity, (b) increase in density in appropri- ate locations on flat land near transportation corridors, (c) increase in current height limits in multi-family zones along transportation corridors, (2) preservation of the current housing stock, (3) encouraging the building of rental units, (4) increasing the amount of housing that is available for moderate and low income residents. She listed ways to increase the housing availability in'Saratoga using existing single-family homes without sub- dividing their lots. She noted the restrictiveness of the ordinance. She stated that they do strongly support the provision requiring owner occupancy of one of the units, and recommend that renewal of the use permit should be required when the property changes hands. She added that all of the existing secondary units should come under conditional use permits. Mildred Gordon, President of the Senior Coordinating Council, stated that she did not feel that it should be limited to two people in one unit, and discussion followed on this, limitation. She suggested that if it is considered an attached portion the'r~'~]~o~l'd be a ~o'i~moh"~w:~l.1.'..= ..-' · ...."~::=- It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on October 18, 1983 and the regular meeting of October 26, 1983. Staff commented that they hoped to have the revised draft available by the study session. 4a. SDR-1545 - Warren Sturla, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 4b. V-615 - and Design Review Approval for four (4) office condominiums 4c. A-900 - and Variance Approval for compact parking and a reduced side setback at the southwest corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek Drive in a P-A zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on October 18, 1983 and the regular meeting of October 26, 1983, at the applicant's request. 5. C-205 - City.of Saratoga, Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to continue to allow open house signs in residential zoning districts as provided for in Sections 10.2 and 10.11 of the ordinance before these provisions expire DeCember 17, 1983, per Ordinance NS-3.48 The amendment to the zoning ordinance was discussed. Staff clarified that this is dealing with off-site signs. Discussion followed on private home- owners being in violation and unaware Sf the ordinance. The City Attorney commented that in the near future the City will be implementing a general infraction procedure whereby anyone who violates the Zoning Ordinance would be cited. There would first be a warning to bring it into compliance, and if they fail ~o do so and there is a citation again, then they would be subject to a fine. The public hearing was opened at 8:10 p.m. Bill Murphy, Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realtors, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He indicated that they do police it and the ordinance is more effective with their own' members. He ~dded that they would like to see a fine instituted. Discussion followed on the policing. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CommiSsioner Nellis moved to recommend approval of Resolution C-205-1 to the City Council. Com- missioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 6a. A-910 - Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Tyler, Mr. and Mrs. George Kocher (Duke of 6b. V-619 - Wellington), Request for Design Review Approval to enclose an existing dining patio and Variance Approval to allow additional floor area without additional parking provided at 14572 Big Basin Way The'.~'publi'c"A'~hearin'~i.~as opened at 8:14 p.m. It was directed that this be continued to a study session on October 18, 1983 and the regular meeting of October 26, 1983, at the applicant's request. Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 10/12/83 · 7a. Negative Declaration SDR-1552 - SteVe Dorcich 7b. A-912 Steve Dorcich, Request for Building Site Approval for a 7c. SDR-1552 - greater than 50% expansion and Design Review Approval to construct a second story addition and additions which exceed the 6,200 sq. ft. floor area standard at 18570 Sobey Road (access off Evans Lane) Staff described the proposal. They stated that because of'concern expressed by the Land Use Committee, they were recommending that a condition be added under VI-F, "To improve the driveway to City standards or as approved by Cen- tral Fire District". They also noted that Condition II-C should be modified to state a 32 ft. radius instead of 35 ft. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and landscaping. She commented that they had been very concerned about the steepness of the driveway. Dis- cussion followed on improvement of the driveway. It was noted that the fire districts control the driveways, and the driveways in the Saratoga Fire Dis- trict are 17½% maximum slope and Central Fire District has generally agreed. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. The applicant addressed the steepness of the driveway and discussion followed on the appropriate.wording of the condition regarding it. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commission~r~'Si~ggfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1552. Commissioner Mc~O~-drick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously·6-0. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve 'SDR-1552, per the Staff Report, amending Condition II-C to read 32 ft. radius and adding Condition VI-F, that the driveway shall be brought up to City standards of 17~% maximum slope for 50 ft. and the design to achieve this shall be. approved by Staff. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 8a. A-91'3 - Charles Masters, Request for Design Review Appr'oval to construct 8b. V-624 - a new two-story single-family residence and Variance Approval to exceed the 15,000 sq. ft. maximum impervious coverage on Congress Hall Lane, Lot 24, Tract 6665 Staff explained the project, stating that they were recommending denial because they cannot make the findings. Discussion followed on the driveway. In answer to Commissioner Crowther, Staff indicated that they did find that the bulk of the structure was highly visible and would be to people in the higher elevations to the north. They clarified that a fault does run along the western edge of the adjacent property and down the southern edge of the sub- ject property. They stated that they we're not recommending approval of the 10 ft. rock wall because the tentative map states that no retaining wall shall exceed 5 feet in height. It was noted that the City Geologist has · reviewed this..s.p·ecific proposal and his report is in the packet. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She stated that the house would be extremely visible from the road and also from higher elevations. She commented that because of the way this is stepped down the side of the hill, the house would look very large from the road. She added that any house on this particular location would be visible from higher 'locations. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p..m. Ron Dick, the designer, discussed the S~aff Report and the grading. He gave a presentation on the project, speaking'to.the impervious area, specifically the pool, and the proposed landscaping.' He commented that the width of the driveway could be cut down to 18-20 feet. The Commission noted concerns regarding the size of the house and bulk. The applicant spoke to the size of the home and the driveway. He asked the Commission to consider the following: (1) They are not removing any of the natural landscaping; (2) The residence is as far back on the lot as practical, which gives the adjacent lot the maximum flexibility in locating their site, and (3) Landscaping will effectively shield the house. There was a consensus to bring this matter to a study session, in order to see wh·~t can be done regarding the landscaping and mitigating the driveway. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Meeting Minutes 10/12/83 A-913 and V-624 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels the driveway can be reduced substantially without changing what the applicant is trying to do. He added that' the Commission should try to reduce somewhat the size of the house and give some thought to the pool and landscaping. Commissioner Crowther com- mented that he would like to see more details on the landscaping to see if it is really feasible to shield the house in a fire hazard area like this. Commissioner Hlava noted that there are some beautiful huge oak trees on this property at the foot of the hill. She indicated that her concern about land- scaping in general in this area, in addition to the fire problem, is that it is'very steep and any kind of landscaping that goes in is going to disturb the soil and perhaps cause some major disturbances. She added that she has a lot of concerns about drainage and would not be inclined to make much of an exception to impervious coverage. HoweVer, she feels that narrowing the driveway would reduce it to an allowable coverage. Commissioner Nellis stated that he agrees with Commissioner Siegfried regard- ing a reduction in impervious coverage. He stated that he could not make the findings at ti~is time with respect to that or the compatibility with respect to the bulk. He added that he would like to see what can be done with landscaping to mitigate the bulk. Chairman Schaefer suggested that the landscape architect attend the study session. Commissioner Crowther also commented that he would like to see the stucco painted something closer to earthtones. It was directed that this meeting be placed on the study session of October 18, 1983 and the regular meeting of November 9, 1983. 9. UP-S44 Mr. and Mrs. Hancock, 14450 Leland Circle, Request for Use Permit Approval to construct a footbridge over 6 feet in height within the rear yard setback (and. Site Modification Approval) Staff described the project. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and stating.that the footbridge has no impact on anybody's visual view. The public hearing was opened at 9:02 pjm. The applicant appeared to answer any questions. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve UP-544 and the Site Modification for SDR-1405, per the Staff Report dated October 3, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Break - 9:10-9:25 p.m. 10. V~620 - George Magnett, 15200 and 15160 Sobey Road, Request for Variance Approval to construct a fence which exceeds the 6 foot height limit The application was explained by Staff. They stated that=they are unable to make the.findings and are recommending denial. The City-Attorney commented that the applicant has indicated that one reason he is requesting the variance is because he entertains various people and feels it is needed for security purposes. He explained that this would be a personal use of the applicant as opposed to a use determined by the 'property, and if the variance is granted it should not b8 granted on that ground. He added that variances are granted or denied based upon the physical circumstances of the property and not the personal use of the property by the owner. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She described the fence, the pillars and the archway, stating that the pillars and archway must be in the range of 17 ft. high and extremely visible from Sobey Road. She noted that there is a similar problem here as wi'th the R~nna application, in that On the applicant's side the fence is just a level brick top, but on the neighbor's side it is like a retaining wall. C6mmissioner McGoldrick indicated that the fence does not give the feeling of bulk that a solid wall of brick would, because of the wrought iron and the fact that you can see through it. She added that instead of seeing a wall you will see lovely landscaping and waterfalls behind it. Commissioner Crowther commented that it would seem to him that the only basis for finding that the fence is exceptional is the fact that it doesn't create a wall effect and you can actually see through. The public hearing was opened at 9:32 p.m. .o..P'l~nning Commission " Page 6 .MeEting Minutes 10/1.2/83 V-620 (cont.) The applicant submitted letters from the.neighbors in support and read the letter from the Iwanagas in support. Mr. Magnett indicated that he was working with Mr. Iwanaga on plans for berming. He discussed the project, describing the wall and archway. He noted that he wa's also going through the process of a lot 1.ine adjustment with Mr. Iwanaga. Mr.' Magnett noted significant differences between his property and the Renna property: (1) it is not a Solid wall, (2) the adjacent neighbors are in agreement, (3) 5% coverage on the property instead of 95%. He discussed the purpose of the archway and indicated that the contractor had started the work on the project without permits. Charles BliCk, 15211 Sobey Road, spoke.in support of the project, stating that it was a beautiful design and an integral coordination. Tom Coe, 15217 Sobey, spoke in support of it, stating that it is a very attractive addition to the nei'ghborhood. The requirements'for fences around tennis courts we're discussed. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve V-620, changing the findings in the St. aff Report, since the openness of the fence and the fact that this does not really create a wall effect as a normal fence have a major impact on all the findings and creates'a situation which actually permits the findings to be made for.the variance. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. Commissioner Schaefer stated that having the neighbors in support and-the · fact that the applicant is working together with them is definitely making .the difference in her decision. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the fences around tennis cou(ts a're applica- ble in this in terms that they are more open than a regular fence, and with all the landscaping she feels it does make a difference in the findings. Commissioner Nellis stated that he would not be toting in favor of this. He indicated that he feels it is a very nicely designed fence and if it were a design review approval item he might be able to vote differently. However, he cannot make the legal variance findings, specifically those relative to physica'l hardship and common privilege. The vote was taken on the motion to approve V-620. The motion was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Nellis dissenting. Commissioner' Hlava added that, regarding the findings, in addition to the openness of the fence, she also feels that it is important to look at the fact that the topography of'this lot iS such that there is a large variation in height throughout the lot, and it is very difficult to get an aesthetically pleasing fence withou.t having.it a strange jagged design. She .a~de.d tha~ she feels. any fence put up would.probably be ..i'n"~x:c~· '~:-~-_--6.:~.~'~!'~F~ ~!~ces MISCELLANEOUS : 11. K. Daniel, Addition of Cable T.V. as Conditional Use in the C-V Zoning District Staff explained the request. The applicant, when asked by Commissioner Crowther, stated that they do not plan at the time to. have microwave antennas. He indicated that there is the possibility that they would install satellite receive antennas.. He discussed the size of these and the reason for moving them from their present location on Garrod Farms. Mr. Daniel also explained their operation and need for additional space. Commissioner Crowther asked if a restri'ction.could be put on antennas as part of the addition as a conditional use. Staff explained that the Commission would just be adding the use tonight and the detailsi"Tcan be reviewed and considered at the use permit stage. The' City Attorney suggested that perhaps this use should be clarified as Cable T.V. equipment or facilities, as opposed to just the building. : The Commission also expressed concern ~bo'ut the parking of trucks, and it was - 6 - = Pi~nning Commiss ion Page 7 · Meeting Minutes 10/1.2/8.3 Cable T.V. (cont.) determined that this can also be discussed at the use permit stage. Com- missioner Crowther expressed concern about the finding that says that the use will not create odor, dust', dirt, smoke and unsightliness. He asked if there was some way to qualify that finding. He stated that he was con- cerned particularly about the unsightliness if microwave antennas are put up. Staff commented that the Zoning Ordinance requires"the Commission to make that finding, but the 'CommisSion' could consi'der' that wi'th the. use permit the antennas would be controlled and thus that concer'n would be mitigated. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she also has the 'concern that it is ensured that what' the applicant wants to do seemssomewhat reasonable on the property. The City Attorney' clarified to Commissioner Crowther that if the Commission approve this as a conditional use they' are not approving the planned antennas. He commented' that the use permit is 'a privilege and not a right, as opposed to a permitted use, which does not require prior approval. He added that all the Commission would be doing by adding thi's 'as a conditional use would be giving Mr. Daniel the' right to apply for the' COmmission's permission to conduct that use on a site, and that permission may either be granted or denied. Commissioner Hlava moved to add Cable T'.V. facilities and installation, per Section 14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, as a conditional use to the C-V zoning district, making the findings contained' in the Staff Report dated October 3, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded'the motion, which.was carried unani- mously 6-0. 12. Tom Lauer, Peach Hill Road, Request. for Lot Line Adjustment Staff explained the request and discussed the conditions placed on the lot line adjustment. The City Attorney gave the history of the project. He commented that there has been a change in that there is a possibility that .one person may buy all of the City property that has now been approved for division into three lots. If that is sold as a single parcel, there would be no necessity for.the filing of the final map, and with that all of the con- ditions in the' tentative map would be lost. Also, if the three lots that were always in the City were sold separately, when that person comes in for develop- ment approval the City has no jurisdiction over the remaining parcel owned by Mr. Lauer. The City Attorney explained that Staff has taken the conditions that were part of the tentative map approval and applied them to the lot line adjustment, to ensure that the road is built and the'other improvements are performed which relate to the entire property and which were worked out at the time of tentative map. Discussion followed on the conditions. Tom Lauer, the applicant, proposed a cul-de-sac at the end of Sunset, which would serve to access both"the 7-acre parcel and the 3-acre parcel. He dis- cussed the great cost to' build a secondary access, stating that he felt he would lose his buyers. Further discussion followed on the conditions and the possibility of a Deferred Improvement Agreement for the conditions. The City Attorney commented that, if in fact it is the plan of Mr. Lauer', if he has one buyer for Parcel 2, to put in a.cul-de-sac, one alternative would be to have Mr. Lauer create an easement for the benefit of Parcel 2, running over Parcel 1. Mr. Lauer stated that he would be' happy to do that. Additional alternatives on access were discussed. It was the consensus that this matter should be scheduled for a study session, to review the conditions and determine which ones are appropriate and which could be put under a Deferred Improvement Agreement. The applicant was requested to submit all options that he suggests and his reasons to Staff ~'~'~?"'the"~i~yi'~o~y,~prior to the meeting. Staff was requested to bring their 'r'e~omm~'nda~ions 'onewhich'conditions could be deferred and which they feel are necessary right now. Commissioner Crowther also asked Staff to determine how many units would be per'mitted if this were in HCRD, given the average slope of Parcel 2. It.was directed' that this matter be continued to a study session on October 18, 1983 and the regular meeting on October 26, 1983. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Herbert 'Cuevas, dated September 26, 1983, re Medical Office BUildi'ng,, 1'2967 Saratoga Avenue. Discussion followed on the request -' ~'P=lanning Commission Page 8 ',:~eeting Minutes 10/12/83 Written Communications (cont.) that basement area designed for st'o~rage be 'interpreted as not parking of the parking requirements.' Discussion followed and it was the consensus that basement space 'should be considered as standard office space and should be counted as part of the parking requirements.' Oral 1. It was det'ermined' th'at there will be a regular Planning Commission meeting on November 22, 1983, instead of November' 23, 1983. It was also noted that the'study session on November 1, 1983 will be at 6:00 p.m. and the Village Plan will be agendized for' that meeting. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Saratoga News for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group for atteH'ding and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. Re ectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd