Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION/"~" MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, October 26, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 FrUitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Mee't'ing ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldrick, Nellis and Schaefer Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Sie.gfried Minutes The followi'ng change was made to the minutes of October 12, 1983. On page 6, the last sentence under V-620 should read: "She added that she feels any fence put up would probably be in excess"of 6 ffeet in some places in order to have it look like a straight fence." Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading of the minutes and approve as amended. Commissioner Nellis seconded.the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Nellis moved to approve 'th~ items on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unani- mously 4-0. 1. GF-347 - Resolution Adding Cable T.V. Facilities as.a Conditional Use in the C-V zoning district 2. Eleanore Levine, 20950 Verde Vista Lane, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct a tennis court on a site with an average slope greater than 10% PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. GF-344 - City of Saratoga, Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow second units to occupy certain single family lots by obtaining a use permit The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Peggy Corr, of the Housing Committee of the Senior Coordinating council, indicated that they felt that the ordinance being proposed completely ignores the needs of Saratoga residents. She stated that i.t has been their contention that permitting a second unit that shares a common wall with the original structure and meets all requirements will not alter the residential quality of the City. She added that this privilege should be extended to all areas of the City. She discussed the existing violations of the ordinance. Commissioner Nellis noted the findings and indicated that he has a concern about what the impact of second units will be in the .City if they went in on a City-wise basis. He asked Mrs. Corr if she had any statistics relative to gauging what those impacts might be. She answered th.at she did not; however, she feels that the way the ordinance is now written there will only be a few people who request a use permit to have a second unit. The City Attorney suggested that in Section 5, the amendment to Section 16.1 should state "The Commission may deny the use permit if it finds that the proposed use will adversely affect exis. ting uses in the immediate neighborhood or will adversely affect surrounding property" He noted that this change will be made in the ordinance. Chairman Schaefer welcomed. Boy Scout TrOop 536 and their leaders. She stated that they were attending relative to a Citizenship and Community Merit badge. She gave a brief summary of the Second Unit Ordinance, listing reasons for the conditions and discussing the issues. *verbatim on page la Commissioner Nellis asked the City Attorney if he feels that this ordinance as it is presently written complies with the State law. He answered that the .~Pl~nning CommiSsion- Page 2 .~Meeting 10/26/83 GF-344 (cont.) State law sets forth certain requirements in the absence of an ordinance and allows a City in place of those provisions to enact an ordinance of its own. He stated that the City has at least on the surface outlined certain areas of the City where a determination has been made as a matter of policy that second units would seem to be appropriate, and limits with respect to the size and extent of. occupancy of these units have also been defined. He commented that it would be up to a court to say that those distinctions are arbitrary and unreasonable. He added that he can't predict what a court would do, but he certainly can say that an argument can be made that there has been a lot of time, effort and thought given to this ordinance; that there has been a serious concern about its impact on the community, and that the City has complied with State law. Commissioner Nellis also expressed concern regarding the possibility of a corporation or a joint venture or limited partnership buying a home in the City and then wishing to make a second unit on that piece of property. He asked if they Would be in violation of the ordinance., since it states that one of the units has to be occupied by the record owner of the property. The City Attor- · ney stated that it was clearly contemplated that the main or second unit would be occupied by a person; however, the ordinance does not specifically address that point and the Commission might consider some' further language on that issue. There was a consensus that such language should be added, to state that either the main or the accessory structure is utilized as the place of residence of the owner of record. Since there were only four Commissioners present at this time, it was deter- mined to continue.this item until after the public hearings before taking a vote, in the hope that another COmmissioner would appear. At the end of the public hearings, since no other Commissioner had appeared, it was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting on November 9, 1983, at which time a fuller Commission should be present. 4a. SDR-1545 Warren Sturla, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 4b. V-61S - 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 December 14, 1983, at the applicant's request. 5a. A-910 - Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Tyler, Mr. and Mrs. George Kocher (Duke of 5b. V-619 - WellingtOn~".Re.quest 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 It was directed that this matter be continued to a Committee-of-the-Whole meet- ing on November 1, 1983 and the regular meeting of November 9, 1983, at the applicant's request. 6. A-914 - Raymond Sinsley, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family residence at 12218 Farr Ranch Road in the NHR zoning district Staff described the proposal. They noted that they were concerned regarding the coloring of the structure and were recommending a condition that it be earthtone. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee repor.t, describing the site and design. She indicated that it does not affect anyone's view and there would be no privacy impact. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. The applicant inquired about the nearby school district property. Staff noted that there is a settlement agreement between the district and the City that is available for the applicant's review. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion', which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-914, per the Staff Report dated October 20, 1983 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. .~-Plahning Commission '!- ~ Page 3 ~'.Meeting Minutes 10/26/83 7. A-916 - Glenn Nelson, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family'residence at 12295 Farr Ranch Road in the NHR zoning district The application was explained by Staff. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the design of the home and the lot. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried Unanimously. C6mmissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-916, per the Staff' Report dated 'October 19, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. 8. .A-917 - Mr. and Mrs. Zaphiropoulos, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a minor second story expansion to a single family resi- dence at 14474 Sobey Road in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report and described the addition. She indicated that it does not impact any- one-. The public hearing was opened at 8:09. p.m. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. -Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve A-917., per the Staff Report dated October 20,. 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. 9. UP-529 - Abel and Leila Carreia (Pub:lic Storage), Request for Modification to Use Permit UP-529 to allow reduced setbacks and additi'onal floor area on Building D of. a mini-storage facility at 12299 .. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, in' the C-V zoning district .Staff outlined the modifications to the 'original use permit. They noted dis- · crepancies between the two plans regarding the wall and parking. 'The public hearing was opened at 8:14 p.m. Ron Nead, of Public Storage, explained that the parking as shown on the new plan is really for the grading plan and they are conforming to the 64 parking stalls. He indicated that,' regarding the wall, they want the zero lot line basis that .was originally proposed so they can have. additional landscaping adjacent to the condominiums. He commented that they were negotiating with the land owner of the. parcel sou~h of them for an easement for landscaping. He explained that the reduction of landscaping is to provide 'for better access into the facility. 'The location of the 'landscaping was discussed. Discussion followed on the driveways. Staff commented that the applicant probably does not have a right of access across anyone else's frontage a~ this point. He explained that if there is a district to provide for the frontage road the rights for the fronting properties can be obtained; however, in the interim they would need some access directly to the ]highway. There was a consensus that there are some concerns with the many changes. It was determined that this matter would be continued to a study session on Novem- , 1983 Discussion followed ber 1 1983 and the regular meeting of November 9, . on this continuance, and Hr. Nead stated. that they would like a vote as soon as possible..and indicated that they would like the Commission to vote on this matter at this time. Commissioner McGoldr. ick moved to clos~ the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis .seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to deny UP-529(a). She added that she was deny- ing it based primarily on the landscaping. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. The appeal period was noted. After a fifteen-'mih~t'6""'~ break, Chairman Schaefer reported that the applicant had asked for reconsideration of the vote on UP-529(a) and ]had requested that it be - 3 - '~l~hing Commission Page 4 · .. Meeting Minutes 10/26/83 .. UP-529(a) (cont.) continued to a study session on November 15, 1983. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to reconsider the motion for denia~ and continue it to a study session. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously 4-0. It was directed that this item be continued to a study session on November 15, 1983 and the regular meeting of November 22, 1983. 10a.V-621.- Abel and Leila Carreia (Public Storage), Request for Variance and 10b.A-915 - Design Review Approval for a free-standing sign and a directional if. sign exceeding 8 sq. ft. at 12299 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in the C-V zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on November 15, o at the applicant's request 1983 and the regular meetino of November 22, 1983, · 11. V-622 S..K. Brown Development, Request for Variance Approval to allow an exception to the undergrounding of utilities requirement at 12300 'Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in the C-V zoning district It was directed that this item be continued to the ineeting of November 9, 1983'. MISCELLANEOUS 12. Tom Lauer, Peach Hill Road, Request for-Lot Line Adjustment Chairman Schaefer stated. that it was understood that there was some concern on the app!icant's part as to wh'at the Commission had reached consensus on at the study session. Flowever, no input from the applicant had been submitted by Friday and it was noted that Mr. Lauer was not present at this time. Discus- sion followed on possibly continuing this item to another study session. There was a consensus that, since so much time.had been spent on this matter, a vote should be taken tonight. Staff stated that, as a result of some of the discussions with Mr. Lauer, they are suggesting that Conditions F & H be included in those items that are the subject of a Deferred Improvement Agreement (conditions for storm drain and turnaround for lot 1). Discussion followed on the conditions to be provided at this time. Staff r'eported that they had talked to the Fire Chiefs and they are willing to delete the condition for a fire hydrant, which is the last sen- tence in'Condition T. Commissioner Hlava stated that the record should show ti~at on this ?~'~j'~tion an important reason for the conditioning at this time is because it is the only way to involve .this lot in the potential subdivisio.n of Mr. Lauer's other pro- perty, the 7 acres, because the other 3 acres are a lot of record. The City Attorney summarized the various applications that have occurred on this property. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve the lot lin~ adjustment, per the revised Staff Report dated October ?, 1983, with a Deferred Improvement Agreement shown for Conditions F & H, and the elimination of the last sentence of Condition T. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously ~0. Mr. Lauer then appeared at the meeting and the conditions placed on the lot line adjustment were outlined to him. Discussion followed on the condition for the water system and a separate bonding for it. Mr. Lauer also inquired about Condit'ion Z concerning a scenic easement on Lot 1. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to reconsider the original vote on the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Nellis seconde~ the motion, which was carried 3-1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting. After further discussion it was determined that Condition U should have the following added to it: "Plans to be reviewed and approved by San Jose Water ~Vorks and Director of Community Development. Submit bond as required by Dir- ector of Community Development for construction of system and assuring that all improvements are completed by July 31, 1984." Commissioner McGoldrick moved to accept that condition. Commissioner Itlava seconded the motion,'which was carried unanimously ~-0. It was determined that Condition Z should read: "Scenic easement on.%6~'~l to be mrovided for all areas.~'~'~'~'~e_'~_r.,fi~than 30% in slope, as reviewed and approved by ~taff as a,cohesive uni'~l" C6~missioner McGoldrick moved to accept that con- dition. Commissioner Hlava seconded the'motion,.which was carried unanimously 4-0. -4~- ~'~l~n~ning Commiss ion = Page 5 '-~Meeti'ng Minutes 10/26/8.3 --. 13. A-898 - Fox and Carskadon Center (formerly Blue Hills Center), Request for Design Review Approval for a free-'standing si'gn at the south- west corner of Prospect Road. and Saratog'a-Sunnyvale ROad it was directed that this be continued' t~ a study session on November 1, 1983 and the regular meeting of November 9, 1983, at the 'applicant's request. CO~IUNICATIONS ~Vritten 1. Letter' from Herbert Cuevas dated October 18, 1983, regarding recon- sideration of interpretation concerning basement area relative to parking requirements. Bert Sabo spoke to the request in the letter, stating that they would like to complete the project on the adjacent property which is in rela- tionship to the parking ratio on the subje~'t property. He indicated that they would like to put a basement under the property and want to store donations; however, their prime interest is that they are 'anticipating the possibility of a solar system in the next 10-15 y'ears. He commented that they would like to have a large area that could'be'come a heat sink for the two' buildings. The basement space and the proposal for the heat sink were discussed. Commissioner Nellis asked how easily the tank can be taken out and expressed concern about setting a precedent. The applicant indicated that the tank can- not be easily taken out or put in. Chairman Schaefer commented that she feels if it is going to be used for general storage it would not be considered unless parking is provided; if the containers are difficult to remove that is a point for consideration. She added that Mr. Sabo should submit plans to Staff and coordinate with them, and if they are not approved by the Commission the appli- cant should have an alternate plan. Staff clarified that a storage area.under 6 feet would be allowed. Oral. 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and se'rv~ng coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unani-~ mously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Secretary RSS:cd ,,~) .~," ~lanning Commission g ~age la ~inutes 10/26/8~ GF-344.(Second Unit Ordinance) Some of the benefits that people have been seeing in having second units is particularly that seniors would like to be able to have a rental unit on their property. It has been stated that they feel it would be good for and entrance to the property. The feeling has been that if it ~ere done within the existing buildings that it would not adversely affect ~he outside appearance; that there would not be that many people living in the quarters and therefore there would be little traffic. It has also been stated that younger families or single parents with children would like to be able to rent places in Saratoga and that is very difficult to a child or two could live on one side and another family could li~e on the other side. It has also been stated that a separate unit could be provided The other s,de o the ,ssue has be n th on conti ued law may be challenged and overturned in court as an age discrimination, and two rental units there is a greater impact on traffic' perhaps you ~ave a greater impact on the number of people generally liviAg around and there- fore it may propos,e an invasion'of privacy or noise onto neighbors; that it is very difficult to control for a Small city like Saratoga as to lwhether it is a public, nuisance or not. There is some feeling in the Cit~ that it general area. There are other issues that go along with it since it is a very complicated project.