Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION B~INUTES DATE: Tuesday, January 17, 1984 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Meeting. Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga,.CA TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Present: Commissioners Hlava, McGoldriCk, Nellis, Peterson and Schaefer (Commissioner Peterson arrived at 7:40 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried PUBLIC HEARINGS ta. V-629 - Ralph Renna, Request for Design Review Approval for a second lb. A-920 - story addition to a single family residence and Variance Approval for balconies which do not maintain the required sideyard set- back at 15041 Sobey Road in an R-i-40,000 zoning district; con- tinued from January 11, 1984 Staff stated that they have not been able to verify the comments made by Mr. Francis at the last meeting as they relate to various projects of Mr. Renna being previously denied but constructed anyway. Commissioner Nellis noted that he is not concerned about the balcony on the southern. end. He indicated that he felt. there was a great distance between the Hexim home and the balcony, and landscaping has been suggested. FIe commented that he had a problem with. the northerly end, since he has a concern with the possible privacy impact of the balcony on a future 'home on that lot. Staff discussed the location of the windows and the French doors. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would like to see the balconies an'd.'the.:French doors removed, and 'n'oted that the · size"5~and impervious coverage are also problems. COmmissioner Hlava stated that the Hexims may want to subdivide their lot in the future and would be completely constrained on what they could put on that lot because of the balcony. She indicated that she did not have a problem with the house itself in terms of the two-story. She commented that if these plans had been submitted originally to the Commission for the accessory.struc- ture, she would have voted against it. She added that it is an expensive building and is already built; however, the 'applicant constructed it without · permits and she does not see why the Commission should make an exception. Staff explained that the accessory structure, as a single story structure with a high roof, has previously been approved. They indicated that the matter before the Commission, relative to both structures, is the conversion of the second story space, and the bulk of the two structures is there by previous .approvals. They noted that one option would be to require that the second story in both structures be removed. Co'mmissioner Schaefer suggested that another option would be to remove all of the windows on the second story. Discussion followed on the option of removing the windows. Commissioner McGol- drick commented that she was concerned about the extra 2,000 sq. ft. and she could not justify approving that. Commissioner Nellis stated that he has con- cerns regarding the privacy impacts on the northern side; however, he feels that the extra 2,000 sq. ft. will have no privacy impact on the people around it. Discussion followed on setting a precedent. Staff noted that the Planning Commission has varied from the 6200 sq. ft. guideline substantially at differ- ent times. Commissioner Schaefer commented that this home is down in a valley and there will be no invasion of privacy except from the two balconies and French win- down. She added that she feels it is aesthetically pleasing to have the dor- mers,'?j~'inc~ 't]~ey.break up the roof line. She noted that the geography of this land is different than the normal lot. Staff described the accessory structure. They indicated that the Hexim property is not large enough to subdivide. The public hearing was opened at 7:18 p~m.. Mr.' Patric Kelly, the'attorney.representing the applicant, discussed the find- ings regarding the balconies. He indicated that the neighbors on the northern side have stated that they have no concerns, and in addition perhaps landscaping coul'd be added on that side. He submitted letters from the neighbors in support - 1 - ~"~ Commission Page 2 P~l~nn' g . M~'~fing Minutes 1/17/84 of the project. He reiterated that the Central Fire District has indicated that it would be.a benefit to have the balconies. Mr. Kelly added that the Staff Report maintains that privacy will not be an issue as far as the Hexim property is concerned. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion,-which was carried unanimously. Staff commented that they had been in contact with Mr. Gaub of the Central Fire District, and he indicated that the district is looking at other options for fire safety other than the turnaround. They added that one of those options might be a permanent stairway leading down from Surrey Lane to access the accessory structure in the rear yard.. Therefore, the Planning Commission may want to amend the condition requiring the turnaround to allow for other options that would be approved 'by the Central Fire District. Commissioner Hlava commented that she cannot make the findings for the bal- conies on either side, and noted that the current owner of the empty lot does not live there and may sell it. She stated that, regarding the balconies, it is not a design review. She stated that the balconies have to be considered from the point of view of what privacy impacts they have and variance findings have to be made. Commissioner Nellis stated that he might feel differently about the variance if the property on the northern side were developed and the owners of the property were living there. He 'explained that if that were the situation and it looked like there was no privacy impact, then perhaps he could make the findings. However, he cannot make them at this time. FIe moved to deny V-629, per the Staff Report dated December 29, 1983. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. It was noted that this can be appealed to the City Council within'ten calendar days. The City Attorney clarified that the items listed 1 through 7 in the Staff Report for the Design Review are items that Staff noted on the latest drawing submitted in connection with the variance application. He commented that they were put in the r.eport for two reasons: (1) to advise the applicant of these things in the hope that they can be worked out at the Staff level, and (2) the concern that if the' Planning Commission approves the Design Review as recommended by Staff, it should not be interpreted as an approval of everything on the drawing. He added that, as stated at the last meeting, the Planning Commission is only approving those' items that;ar'e subject to Design Review, even though some of these other things may be on the drawing. Discussion followed on the impervious coverage on the lot. Staff noted that there is a condition in the Staff Report stating that the impervious coverage shall not exceed 35%. The size of the windows were d'iscussed, and it was suggested that the windows on the northern side should be opaque glass. Commissioner Nellis moved to approve .A-~20, per the Staff Report dated Decem- ber 29, 1983 and Exhibits "C", "D", "E"" "'F" and "G" with the addition to Con- dition #2 that the French doors shall be converted to windows which are one- half the size of the doors, and the windows on the northern elevation shall be opaque glass, and an addition to Condition #7, reading: "The turnaround may be deleted only if approved by the Central Fire District, and if any other fire protection requirement by the District is installed prior to final occupancy." Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 3-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting and Commissioner Peterson abstaining. The 10-day appeal period was noted. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hlava moved to adjourn the meeting'. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously, The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd