Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-1983 Planning Commission Minutes ,,'. .: !.. .....'. ~?,. .~i~,.;:;...'-..: . :. .; _ ! .,: . . ....f....,.~,2 ..' /_,- ...,,.. ~ ---,/ . ...... :.-~'2 :'2-: -~ .... CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMTSSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, December 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, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:35 p.m. and Commissioner Peterson arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Nellis Minutes: Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of November 22, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was ca'rried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Mr. Martin, 14403 Donna Lane, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct a pool and decking on a slope greater than 10% 2. SDR-.1495 - Sorens6n and Garner, Oak Street, 1 Lot, Request for One-Year Extension 3. SDR-1555 - George and Alexis Geranios, 18690 Afton Ave., Over 50% expan- sion, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 4-0. 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; continued from October 26, 1983 " It was directed that this be continued to February 22, 1984, at the applicant's .request. No one appeared to address the Commission on this matter. 5a. A-910 Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Tyler', ~r. and Mrs. George Eocher (Duke of 5b. 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; continued from November 9, 1983 It was directed that this be continued'to January 11, 1984, at the applicant's request. No One appeared to address the Commission on this matter. 6. V-541.- Joseph Brozda (Maddalena's), Request for Continuance o~ Vari- ance Approval from required parking for a restaurant use at 14503 Big Basin Way, in a C-C zoning district; continued from November 9, 1983 7a. V-627-- Joseph Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow the crea- ~b. A-926 - tion of 15 par. king spaces that do not comply with City Parking 7c. EP-19 - Space Design Standards and would provide fewer spaces than required by ordinance, Request for Design Review Approval of parking deck and exterior modification to barn, at northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way, and Request for Encroach- ment Permit to construct a stairway which would encroach about 6 feet into the Third Street right-of-way These items were discussed simultaneously later in the agenda,.. after the appli- cant had arrived. Staff gave ~j~.h~-S~,t'or~"'o"f'a~l'iCati0n"~-54i~"~nd"~Xi~la~d'the new application. They recommended denial ~'V-541, the new Vari'ance V-627 as requested by the applicant, and the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. - 1 - Planning Commission [.. Page 2 Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 V-541, V-627, A-926 an~ EP-19 (cont.) They noted that they can make 'the findings to allow the compact parking stalls and decreased st'all length 'for some of the parking stalls. Staff described the newlparking plan and the slope of the 'site. Discussion followed on the conditions from the Fire District. Commissi'oner Hlava gave 'a Land Use Commit- tee report. She noted that the 'slope 'is very steep. The required parking spaces were discussed. Staff also described the location of the emergency access.' The City Attorney distributed a proposed draft of an ordinance regarding in lieu parking, for the Commission's consideration at a future study session. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Doug Adams, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would be willing to comply with Staff Option No. 1, to eliminate intensification of uses on the site, i.e., pull out the 'studio apartment and eliminate outdoor dining. He noted that this would give 'them the 'required 15 parking Spaces. He commented that the owner of Maddalena's, Ms. Rouse, is not in favor of this proposal. He noted that she' was present; however, she had not been aware of the public hearing at this time and would like her attorney tO address the Commission at the next meeting. Mr. Adams discussed the si.zes of the parking spaces and commented that he will also discuss the Fire District's conditions with them. ~ It was clarified that the Brozdas have always been the applicant on this appli- cation and they are the property owners. The City Attorney commented that if outdoor dining rights is Dart of the tenant's lease and the Commission approves this with 'the 'understanding that the outdoor dining is eliminated, that ~is strictly a problem with the owner and the tenant. He added that the application is on behalf of the property owner. He commented that the tenant may wish more time to respond. He stated that he feels that', in view of the situation, the City would want to give the tenant every opportunity to address this issue, even if it requires continuing the matter for the tenant's attorney to be here. Mr. Adams suggested that the Commission grant the variance regard- ing the parking and the 'slope, and continue the other matter, because it could then be handle~ by discussion between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the in lieu parking situation. Discussion followed on the condition regarding in lieu fees. It was deter- mined that it should state that no intensification shall be permitted unless a further application is made, either for a variance or payment of the in lieu fees. Commissioner Peterson stated that he had a problem with limiting the outdoor seating and he Would be 'in favor of limiting it to the number of seats. It was noted that there would be difficulty with enforcement if this were done. Bunny Rouse, owner of Maddalena's, noted that she was not aware that there was a new variance and stated that her attorney was not present. She stated that if the outdoor dining is deleted she'migh~ as well close the restaurant. She indicated that she would be more 'than happy to give up indoor dining and work with the Brozdas and the City. Discussion followed on a condition regarding the number of seats. The parking ratios for indoor and outdoor dining were discussed. It was noted that a letter from Mai IndUstries had been received, in opposi- tion to the variance. Discussion followed on whether to close the public hearing or continue it. It was the consensus to close the public hearing and take a vote on the deck, and reopen the public hearing later if necessary. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff clarified that Exhibit "B-i" is for 4 compact stalls and 11 9 ft. x 18 ft. stalls. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels the stairway should be one of the conditions of the variance, since it is one of the mitigating circumstances. He added that the only way he could make the findings with regard to the variance on the parking stalls is to have the stairway as' part of that, since that will give access to Parking District #1 and will improve the parking situation. It was determined that there could be a condition on the variance that there be a stairway at this point, and it could later be specified where and what that will be at the Design Review stage. Commissioner Siegfried asked Staff if the 9 ft. x 18 ft. parking spac~ has · ..IPlanning commission ' Page 3 Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 -- V-541, V-627, A-926 and EP-19 (cont.) been considered elsewhere in the Village in terms of the ability to create more parking space, and what kind of precedent would be set for the'future. Staff commented that there had been no study of a reduction in general regard- ing parking spaces. Commissioner ttlava stated that she cannot make the findings to make an excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance. She.commented that if there were no other way for the applicant to use their landZshe might possibly be able to make some kind of exception. However', this is an intensive commercial site, which is already short of parking spaces. She added that they will be intensifying the site by adding an antique shop in the one building and. further uses in another one. Commissioner H.lava stated that she cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance or the findings for the variance and would be voting against this. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she can make the variance findings but cannot make the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve V-627, per Exhibits "B" and "B-I", on the condition, which the applicant has agreed to, that the outdoor dining be eliminated in the existing restaurant and that the stuio apartment option be eliminated.. Commissioner Crowther pointed out that there had been a consensus to not specify how the applicant gets the 15 spaces. Commissioner Siegfried amended the motion to state that the approval is on the basis that the uses of the property be such that in fact the requirement for parking be 15 spaces, rather than 22 as originally proposed, and making the findings for the excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance. He explained that this is different than other situations in the sense that a house is not being built on a slope, and the deck can be supported away from the steepness of the slope. He added that, while there is some intensification of Use, the City is well short of parking on that site right now and he feels that getting to 15 spaces and putting in the stairway, which will make better use of the space below, is going to help the' parking situation. He clarified that the requirement for a stairway is. part of the motion for approval of the variance, and the location will be specified at Design Review. Commissioner Crowther stated that it should be added that the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance is conditioned on the applicant showing that there are no geological problems with that site. Com- missioner Siegfried accepted that amendment to the motion. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion. Commissioner Peterson suggested a condition al~lowingMaddalena's to work with Staff to allow some kind of outdoor seating during the warmer months. Com- missioner Siegfried commented that his motion states that they can only have uses which come up to a total requirement of 15 parking spaces. He added that the applicant can come back to the Commission wi'th a proposal for the use of the restaurant and the 'Commission can determine 'at that time if they meet the condition. Commissioner Hlava'stated that she 'feels there is an equity issue here in · terms of the other merchants in the Village. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels the 9 x 18 ft. is in fact a usable number for parki~ng spaces and he feels that the Commission should maybe consider moving in that direc- .tion generally.' The vote was taken'On the motion, which'resulted in a split 3-3 Vote, with Commissioner McGoldrick, Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she does not see the deck a~.~".a practical solution and she cannot make the exception to t]~e 'Subdivision Ordinance.' The City Attorney stated that if a motion fails by an evenly split vote under the ordinance it automaticaly comes back to the Commission unless within 10 days the applicant files an appeal to the City Council. If it comes back a second time and again fails for any reason, including an evenly split vote, it is deemed a denial and it may then be appealed to the City Council. It was to.be determined if there will be a full Commission at the next meeting, Since Staff explained the proposal 'for the encroachment permit EP-19.. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve EP-19, per the 'Staff Report dated December S, 1983 and Exhibit "B". Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0'. Commissioner 'Siegfried commented that one of the 'main reasons he was willing to make the motion for approval was that he is willing to consider moving generally to 9 ft. x .18 ft. parking spaces throughout the City. He added that if he was · - 3 Planning Commission Page 4 ~Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 V-541, V-627, A-926 and EP-19 (cont~) ~ not willing to consider that he would not have been in favor of .the variance. It was directed that V-627 will be c.ontinued to January 11, 1984 unless appealed to the City Council. by the applicant. V-541 and A-926 were also continued to January 11, 1984. 8. V-628 - Mr. and Mrs. Nederveld, Request for Variance Approval for a 50 ft. rear yard setback where 60 ft. is required at 19015 Springbrook Lane in the R-i-40,000 zoning district This item was heard later in the evening because the applicant was late in arriving. Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She stated that a very small section of the balcony encroaches into the setback and there are no privacy impacts. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V-628, per the Staff Report dated December 1, 1983 and Exhibits "B" and "C". Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 9a.A-923 Victor Tinsley, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 9b.SDR-1556 and Design Review 'to construct a one-story single family resi- dence on the northeast side of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (150 ft. northwest of Belle Court), in an R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff described the project. They noted a correction to the Staff Report, stating that Condition 2 under Design Review should read: "Fencing is pro- hibited wi'thin the road dedication." Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She noted that the applicant was con- sidering redesigning the driveway, which would result in fewer. trees being removed and provide better visual access onto the. highway. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the applicant had indicated that he was going to move the house forward so he would have a 70 ft. setback in the rear. The public hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. The conditions of. the Staff Report were explained to Mr. and Mrs. Tinsley. It was suggested that the applicants contact the San Jose Water Company conc~n,- ing further discussions regarding the requirement for a fire hydrant. Mr. Tinsley clarified that he is going to make the driveway straight out and also is moving the house forward. Sid Kaufman, 19677 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road asked about the requirements for completion of the project. The City Attorney commented that the construction and completion is the responsibility of the owner. He commented that the City does not impose a date by which it must be 'completed; however, the're is a date by which work must be commenced after a building permit is obtained. Staff clarified that the Uniform Building Code does not have any closure on it as long as there is activity on the permit on the structure. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR-1556, per the Staff Report dated December 7, 1983, as amended, and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D". CommisSioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Hlava moved.to apprOve. A-923, per the amended Staff Report dated December 7, 1983 and Exhibi'ts "B", "C" and "D" Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was 'carried unanimously 5-0. 10.A-924 Mr. and Mrs. Barr, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family residence on the southeast corner of All'enda'.le A'venue and Camino Barco, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district ~ h~e' "p ~b ~ ~:6 .'Tff'~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~"'~ o~ ~ H e~: '.~'t". 8. ': "~' -~!!~'-~.: '. ~ 'i'~a i-~ ~;~ .-W i ~ ~ n-~.. 18945 A '~ ~ n d a ~ e _,"" ~:.. ~. '. =.~d~S'~d.~j~]~:~.~'mmission~ and it was explained tha~ the item' is being con~i~ed at the request of the 'applicant. Ms. Wilson indicated that they would appear at the next meeting. It was directed that this be 'continued to January 11, 1984. 4 ~Planning Commission 'Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 11. A-925 Chester Spiering, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story addition on a s~ngle story residence at 12135 E1 Camino Grande, in a R-I-40,000 zoni.ng district Staff explained the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She commented that there appeared to be no privacy impacts or inter- ference with views. It was noted that ti~ere iS now a lot of impervious coverage an-d the applicant plans to take away some of it to put on the addition. The public hearing was opened at 7:55...' p.m. Don Boos, the landscape architect, described the proposal and indicated that they have tried to minimize the existing impervious surface. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-925, per the Staff Report dated'Decem- ber 7, 1983 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D". Commissioner McGoldrick 'seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 12a~ Negative Declaration - SDR-1513 - Harvey and Pearson 12b. SDR-1513 - Hoover Harvey and Ralph Pearson, Request for Tentative Map Approval for three (3) lots (one new residence) at 15020 and 15050 Sobey Road in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff ~xplained the project. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lots. She noted that where the. driveway'is located. is the appropriate .~'~'~'::~"~T:.~',"'t~.~&~"".~"~ ~'iY'~:l'~: ~;~']~.':':~'~:'~'~.-~.,'~:~..~'~..".l~.e'.i~' .Cut down if the Central Fire District's requirement of an 18 ft. width zs met. She added that very few would have to be removed if the driveway were 16 ft. and she has some real' concerns about wh'e'~her the Fire District does in fact need 18 ft. Commissioner Crowther inquired about the slope calculation. Staff discussed the method by which it had been calculated. Staff also commented that they had contacted Central Fire, and they had indicated that they wanted to maintain the 18 ft. width. The tree removal was discussed. The public hearing was opened at.8:00 p.m. Skip Pearson, representing the applicant, discussed the conditions of the Staff Report. He described the driveway and stated that they concur with the City regarding the width of the drivew'ay and the' concern wi'th the trees. The fee schedule was clarified to Mr. Pearson regarding new .lots. Mildred Inman, 15040 Sobey Road, appeared in opposition to the project. She noted that the entrance was right at the!edge of hers. She stated that the driveway was much too narrow. Dolores Roszkows'ki, 15060 Sobey, also commented on the applicant using the Inmans' driveway since it is so narrow. Mr. Pearson noted that the~o.~gi~al plan. was to put a driveway access to this lot along the applicant's.~f]~rl~"'.boundary. FIe commented that that would have been even closer to tH~'I'n~H~° and at the same'level. He added that now the Inmans' house'is quite above the access road. Mr. Harvey commented that only two lots will be using the driveway'. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried un.animously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels'the City should have a consistent way of dealing with slopes, and he feels that some of the problems here are caused by the Subdivision Ordinance wh'ich applies in this case, which allows rounding up. He added that he does not think this kind of lot split is the right thing to do. Commissioner Hlava stated that she appreciates Mrs. Inman's concerns because there is no doubt that her property ~s going to look down over this~ lower piece of property. She commented that she assumes that when the applicant comes in for a building request the City will add'some conditions in terms of screening and landscaping to ensure both people's privacy. She added that she believes .Planning CommisSion O 'O Page 6 ~.'='Meeting Minutes 12/14/83 SDR-1513 (cont.) that any kind of driveway on the Pearson residence would be real prob!em~tical because it is quite a steep'hill going. down to this residence and much more intrusive on Mrs. Inman. She added that she feels one of the advan- tages of this application is that the driveway will be' widened to a regular access road. width, which will be much safer. She indicated that she would be voting in favor of the application, with the hope that more of the trees on the Harvey residence can be saved. Commissioner McGoldrick concurred with the comments regarding the driveway. She moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1513. Commissioner Hlava seconded-the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SDR-1513, per the Staff Report dated December 5, 1983 and Exhibit "B", subject to further discussion with the Fire District regarding the preservation of trees. She also made the findings for the exception to~he...Su~di~ision O~dinance. Comm~Ssione~ Sieg~.ried seconded the motion. ~'jC~m~'~i.~r'.~'~'e'r.."?~'at~.~ha.t b~'.'wO'~l~]7~e'Z~o~'j°n'~ against the application because he 'cannot approve the Negative Declaration. He explained that he feels the public concern in this case is such that a Negative Declaration. is not. appropriate. The vote was taken and the motion was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. CO~UNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Jacelen Emiston dated November 28, 1983. Oral 1. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that, regarding the Brozda variance, the finding that she could not make is related'to the slope. She stated that the only thing that could possibly change her vote at the next meeting would be' some more engineering data to show that the situation could be mitigated 2. City Council - Commissioner Schaefer gave a brief report on the City'Council meeting. held on December 7, 1983. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 3. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting· Commissioner Hlava seconded the moti6n~'which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ~~li~~~d' Secretary RSS:cd