Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-1983 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 9, 1983 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chamber's,' 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga,.CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, Nellis, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 8:10 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner McGoldrick Chairman Schaefer welcomed the new Commissioner, Don Peterson. Minutes Chairman Schaefer asked that the verbatim summary she had given of the Second Unit Ordinance be added to page 1 of the minutes' of October 26, 1983 (this is attached). Commissioner Nellis moved to waive the reading of the minutes of October 26, 1983 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried, with 'Commissioner Siegfried and Peterson abstain- ing because they we're 'not present. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Schaefer asked that Item #2 be removed for a separate vote. Com- missioner Siegfried moved, seconded by. Commissioner Hlava, to approve the remaining item on the Consent Calendar listed below. The 'motion was carried unanimously 5-0. 1. SDR-1458 John Rankin, Glen Una, Request for One-Year Extension Commissioner Schaefer explained that the recommendation to place no parking signs at the end of Crisp Avenue had been discussed at a study session. She stated that she has a concern about placing no parking signs there because of problems for the handicapped and the fact that enforcement would be diffi- cult. She noted that parking is allowed on the' rest of Crisp and it was originally intended to be a through street. Commissioner .Siegfried moved to approve Item #2, Recommendation to Cit'y 'Co'uncil to 'place no parking signs at the end of Crisp. Avenue. Commissioner. Nell~s seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. BUILDING SITES 3. SDR-1553 Eric and Linda Protiva, Oak PlaCe, 1 Lot, Request for Tenta- tive Building Site Approval Staff described the project. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report., noting that this is a small lot. Discussion followed on the need for sidewalks as required in Condition II-B. Staff clarified that this con- dition is subject to a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the following be added to Condition VI-A: "The residence shall not exceed 2,380 sq. ft., which is .approximately 68% of the standard 3,500 sq. ft. in that zoning area.", since this is such a small lot. It was clari- fied to Linda Protiva that this figure would include the garage. She indicated that some of the plans they had reviewed had been slightly over that figure. After discussion it was determined that it should be added to the condition that the residence shall not exceed 2,380 sq. ft. unless otherwise expressly approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR-1553, per the Staff Report dated November 3, 1983, adding the condition that the size of the house shall be no greater than 2,380 sq. ft., which is approximately 68% of the standard 3,500 sq. ft. in that zoning area, unless previous approval is obtained from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 1 Pl~-nning Commission Page 2 ~'~Meeting Minutes 11/9/83 -- PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. 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; continued from October 26, 1983 Chairman Schaefer explained that the voting on this matter had been continued from the last meeting in the hope that there would be a fuller Commission. Commissioner Peterson abstained due to the fact that he is new and is not familiar wi'th the subject. The public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. After discussion minor changes were made to the wording in the Statement of Findings. COmmissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hear- ing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Schaefer read Commissioner McGoldrick's comments into the record, since she was not present. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would like to. register a no vote on the recommendation of the present ordinance. She indicated that she felt the use permit.process would be sufficient to judge the individual cases for potential abuse and there are situations already existing in the City on smaller parcels which have had no negative impacts on the neighborhood. She commented that her objection is not against having second units, but she objects to the limitations imposed on them regarding the minimum lot size. Commissioner Nellis commented that he was going to support the ordinance. He read the Statement of Findings and stated that he agrees with them. He stated that he feels that .the ordinance is one that is admittedly a conserva- tive one, but feels that ~..'~.~p~i~sS~on~J~'haS.'~o. Vot'~-~s.edj on 'wha~"~H~"known impacts are going to be. He added that he feels that, while the people who have spoken feel quite honestly that there will be minimal impact if second units are opened up to more areas of the City, he does not feel comfortable that that would necessarily be the case. He noted the problem with enforce- ment in the City, and feels that, even though many conditions could be imposed, they could not be enforced. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was also going to vote in favor of the present ordinance. He explained that the City is faced with a State law that says if some ordinance is not.passed the City will essentially have to abide by the State law,' which .wo.uld open every area in every situation in the City to second units. He commented that he would like to start with an ordinance that is pretty conservative, being mindful that this doesn't pro- hibit second units in the sense of sharing of homes or a unit which is detached; it simply says it can't have a kitchen in it. He 'added that if State law changes or if the judiciary finds a Way to have 'constitutional ordinances"that would allow 'the City to res'trict this to senior citizen housing, he would vote in the future to expand this consider'abl~ into every area of the City where a second unit might meet all the other requirements that have been imposed in this ordinance. Commissioner'Hlava stated that she will Vote no on the recommendation of the ordinance, for two' reasons: (1) She is concerned regarding the number of ex'isting illegal units now in the City and she does not feel this.ordinance addresses that; and (2) She is concerned about senior citizen ne~ds'.and she does not feel the ordinance addresses that. She commented that she disagrees with the idea of allowing detached units on basically double size lots in the R-I-40.,000 zoning district, since she feels that it will encourage people to subdivide their property. She added that she.would have preferred to see the following in this ordinance: A situation where existing detached units would be legalized and the City would allow use permits On existing detached units for some date certain, perhaps on.e year from date of adoption of the ordinance and after that they would be.il'l'~'~.~l. She commented that she feels that the detached units are the ones thaf""mo'st people have problems with. She added that the idea of the common wall has been asked for by the senior citizens, and she feels it is a very valid concept and one that the City could deal with,.in all zoning districts with restricti. ons, such as no visible second entrance, that'the unit is an integral part of the main structure, that. one part is owner-occupied, and that it would meet all City codes and · be under the design review limit for each zoning district. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she was in complete agreement with Commis- sioners Nellis and Siegfried. She commented that she thinks that the inten- tion has been that on illegal projects they will be dealt with in a separate P~la~ning Commission Page ~ ~eeting Minutes 11/9/83 0rdi.nance. She added that from Staff review it appears that the majority of the cities in the area are going at a very conservative approach. She commented that Palo Alto is now reviewing their ordinance which was more liberal because they feel they are having problems with it. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend the ordinance with the 640 sq. ft. limitation in SectiOn 3, Subsection 1. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Nellis moved to recommend the ordinance with the 800 sq. ft. limitation, because of the large lot size being dealt with. Commis- sioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner Peterson abstaining. Commissioner Siegfried moved to adopt Resolution GF-344-1, recommending approval of the Second Unit Ordinance tO the City Council. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 3-1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting and Commissioner Peterson abstaining. Sa. A-913 Charles Masters, Request for Design Review Approval to construct 5b. 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; .continued from October 12, 1983 Chairman Schaefer commented that one of the questions to be considered with this application is whether wood decks are considered impervious coverage; if so, a variance is required. Staff described the proposal, recommending denial. The spacing of the decking was discussed. Commissioner Nellis gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that they had no problem with respect to the view problems. He noted that the ordinance speaks to a solid surface and he would feel comfortable that the deck would not qualify as impervious surface if there is some spacing between the wood slats. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. Ron Dick, the designer, described the decking. Mr. Masters, the applicant, addressed the decking and the spacing. He added that they have been very sensitive to the environment and the neighbors. Commissioner Nellis moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Further discussion followed on the decking. The City Attorney stated that if the Commission says unequivocably that a wooden deck is not deemed to be impervious coverage they are setting a precedent. He commented that an option would be that if there is spacing between the wooden deck such that the water is allowed to go through, the Commission can make a determination that it is not impervious. Further discussion followed on the spacing and the interpretation. There was a consensus that if there is spacing between the decking of 1/4" the deter- mination could be made that the decking is not impervious an~.~.~"~v~h~j~ould ~F~F'~!~.'~'e~d~.~.~"'7:r~bm~.~S~o~e.~.'Hl~'v'~"-'commented that she feels the decking is · mperv~ous coverage whether ft has 1/4" spaces or no spaces. She added that it encourages runoff. "' Commissioner Crowther expressed concern regarding the fire hazard of having things stacked under the deck.and also the scenic effects of the deck. He suggested a condition that requires that the deck be enclosed on the edges so that'things cannot be stored underneath it since it is over a slope. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve A-913, per the revised Staff Report dated October 7, 1983, adding the 'condi'tions that all decking shall have a minimum distance between the planks of 1/4" and that the downslope sides of the decks shall be closed to prevent storage of material under the deck. Mr. Masters stated that he is very concerned about the fire hazard also and will not store anything that will be hazardous. However, he commented that it would be very expensive to close it in. The cost was discussed. Wording for the condition was considered, and Commissioner Crowther suggested that it should be closed in with lattice work or other appropriate wood enclosure which will prevent access to the underside df-"the deck. Discussion followed on the need for this condition, and Commissioner Nellis then restated his motion, including just the first condition regarding the 1/4" spacing. Com- missioner Siegfried seconded the motion. ~"~l~anning Commission Page Meeting Minutes 11/9/83 A-913 and V-624 (cont.) Commissioner Hlava stated that she would be voting against this applica- tion. She commented that she could justify a house this size possibly on a flat land kind of lot. She indicated that she does consider the wood decking. impervious coverage. She added that, even though this lot is 3 acres, it has a very small buildi'ng site at the 'top of a hill, almost all of which is going to be 'covered with impervious surface as a result of the size of the house and driveway, and the runoff down that hill is going to be extreme.. Commissioner. Hlava commented that she possibly feels more rigid about this because she was on the Specific Plan Committee, and there is no way 'that she can justify a 10,000 sq. ft. house with this amount of impervious coverage on this hillside lot. The vote on the'.motion was taken. It was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Hlava and Crowther dissenting. Commissioner Crowther withdrew his previous condition. 6a. A-910 - Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Tyler, Mr. and Mrs. George Kocher (Duke 6b. V-619 - of Wellington), ReqUest for Design Review Approval to enclose an existing dining patio and Variance Approval to allow addi- tional floor area without additional parking provided at 14572 Big Basin Way; continued from October 26, 1983 No one appeared to address the CommiSsion on this item. It was directed that it be continued to December 14, 1983, at the applicant's request. 7. V-541 - Joseph Brozda (Maddalena's), Request for Continuance of Variance Approval from required parking for a restaurant use at 14503 Big Basin Way, in a C-C zoning district; continued from May 11, 1983 'No one appeared to address the Commission on this item. It was directed that this be continued to December 14, 1983. 8. 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; con- tinued from October 26, 1983 Chairman Schaefer noted that a petition has been received from the neighbors, requiring that this project be undergrounded. Staff described the current proposal.' it was noted that this variance concerns only the powe'r that will at this point only feed the buildings 'on the' adjacent proper'ty, and not the power that runs along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. It was also reported that a compromise has been suggested' by the"applicant, to put the 'pole onto the property where it serves, and when those buildings come 'in for changes it would be understood that the utilities would be undergrounded at that time. Discussion followed on the project.' ~addition below The public hearing was opened at 8:43' p.m. Jim Gould, representing the applicant, described the project. Dennis She'ldon, representing Viking Electric, discussed the cost, Specifically the difference between undergrounding the power lead from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road versus leaving it aerial. Commissioner Ne~lis suggested that 'the applicant under- ground the overhead line that goes from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the pro- posed new pole, which would not require a variance. Discussion followed on the process. Commissioner Hlava's'tated that she felt the equity issue is overriding in thi's situation and is prepared to grant 'the variance. Mr. Penning~on, the property owner n~xt door, stated that he is not object- ing to the variance and he would give PG&E an easement if necessary. He commented that he wants to cooperate 'so the applicant is not put to a lot of expense by moving a pole over tha~ was never any of their doing. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he was concerned about setting a pre- cedent. The City Attorney commented that there are a number of factors here that would distinguish this from the normal requirement that the Commission would impose 'of undergrounding the l~nes on a property owned by the applicant, i.e. (1) there will be less wires visible, (2) the most critical difference is that the undergrounding here is on adjacent property which is not owned by the applicant, and (3).that adjacent property probably will be developed in the. future, at which time the undergrounding will be done. ~The concern was expressed about sett. ing a precedent that if people had ease- ~o~.~ 'P~lanning Comm'ission Page ..5 .... · ~4eeting'Minutes 11/9/83 V-622 (cont.') Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the publ'ic'hearing. Commissioner HlaVa .seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-622, per the Staff Report dated November 2, 1983, making the 'findings,' with the condition that the lines be relocated as 'shOwn specifically on Exhibit "B-i" Commissioner Hlava seconded the moti'on, whi'ch w~s carried 5-1, wi'th 'Commissioner Nellis dis- senting. 9. A-919 - ~r. and Mrs. Nederveld, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a seCond-story balcony addition to a two-story single family residence at 19015 Springbrook Lane, in the R-i-40,000 zoning. distri'ct Staff described the proposal. CommiSsioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, b~sically agreeing with the Staff Report. She commented that the entrance 'to the new balcony is off the kitchen and ther.e will be sliding glass doors; therefore, there is a potential privacy impact because the house is on top of a hill and the pool of the neighbors is directly below it. However, from the 'nei'ghbor's pool you can also see most of the appli- cant's back yard. The public hearing was opened at 9:05 .p.m. No one appeared, and Commis- sioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-919, per the Staff Report of Novem- ber 1, 1983 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D". Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimouslye6-0. 10. A-920 Ralph Renna, Request for Design Review Approval for a second story addition which exceeds the standard floor area at 15041 Sobey Road, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district No one appeared to address th.e Commission. It was directed that this item be continued and reagendized at a future date. lla.A-918 Dennis Cunningham, Request for Variance and Design Review lib.V-623 - Approval to construct a free standing sign at 14401-07 Big Basin Way in the C-C zoning district Staff explained the application. Th~'y indicated that the' architect and owner have provided an alter'nate 'sket'ch, showing a modificati'on that would produce the sign in a location that would not create confusion when enter- ing.the lot. Commissioner Hlava gave the Land Use Committee' report, addressing the new proposal. She commented that the' proposal adds land- scaping to what is a huge area of asphalt. She added that she had agreed with the condition restricting the sign to 6 ft. high if it were to g0 in the planter, but felt that the 8 ft. height would be appropriate in the middle of the large triangle of landscaping in front of the Pacific Valley Bank. Warren Heid, the architect, discussed the parking and gave a presentation on the sign. Commissioner Schaefer commented that' she has a personal problem with adding more signs for buildings that are i~ the back. She added that she ques- tions making a variance .to add a fre'e-standing sign when the Commission has tried to limit that to shopping centers. Commissioner Hlava commented that she feels that iS a good point from the point of view .of the tenants of the building, but there is a need for people who are driving, trying to find particular addresses. She noted that in commercial areas most places don't have their numbers on front of the buildings. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt a small sign 18" high, which gives the number of the building, with a small arrow to the back, would be sufficient. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve.V-623, making the findings, per the Staff Repor. t dated November 3, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "B-i", deleting P~anning Commiss ion" Page =6~ 'Meeting Minutes 11/9/83 ~- ' " A-918 and V-623 (cont.) Condition 1. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-918, deleting Condition 1, amending Condition 2 to read that the sign program shall be reviewed by Staff instead of the Planning' Commission, and adding conditions that "A letter from the owner of the proper'ty shall be obtained, indicating approval of the ease- ment" and "LandScaping to be approved by Staff." It was also noted that the 8 ft. sign is being approved because of the change in location and all reference to the height limit should be deleted. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dis- senting. MISCELLANEOUS 12. A-898 - Fox and Carskadon Center (formerly Blue Hills Center), Request for Design Review Approval for a free-standing sign at the southwest corner of Prospect Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; continued from October 26, 1983 It was directed that this item be continued indefinitely, at the request of the applicant. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from League of Women Voters re West Bay Transportation Forum. Oral 1. Staff asked for clarification regarding the building permit of Mr. Hansen on Carnelian Glen'. They explained that a few years ago he had a variance and design review on.his site. The building permit shows a house that is the same as the original design review, except there is an addition in a space that was originally to be an open area above the family room, of approximately 370 sq. ft. They explained that with this addition he exceeds the standards that would be allowed by design review. Mr. Hansen has indicated that the Commission approved the family room area but the minutes do not reflect this. They explained that he is asking that the Commission allow the 370 sq. ft., and noted that this will not add to the visible bulk of the house; the exterior won't be changed and it will not have any privacy impacts. Mr. Hansen explained the space and the desi'gn. After discussion it was the consnensus of the Commissi'oners pres'ent at the previous meeting that this addition was approved. 2. Commissioner Crowther gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on November 2, 1983. A copy of the minutes. of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 3. Chairman Schaefer thanked Councilmember Clevenger and the Saratoga News for attending the meeting, and the Good Government Group for attend- ing and serving coffee. ADJ'OURN~ENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ReSpectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd