Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-1984 Planning Commission Minutes, CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 25, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 8:05 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes The following addition was mad. e to the minutes of January 11, 1984: On page 4, under V-627 and A-9.26",_~"Commissioner Schaefer added that she also has a concern about the accuracy of the scale of the drawings for the landscaping that is going to cover the decking in the back and the general safety of the deck." CommiSsioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 11, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Harris abstaining since she was not present. Resolution The Commission presented a resolution to Greg Nellis and welcomed the new Commissioner, Janet Harris. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Mr. and Mrs. Lally, 13245 Padero Court, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct a spa enclosure on a two-story residence on a hillside lot (S'DR-1272) Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and the proposal. She commented that they had some concern regarding the overall drainage structure. Commissioner McGoldrick noted that there is erosion on the end of the second wooden drainage ditch. Staff indicated that the two wooden retaining walls have not received final building approval, and at that time they would be checked for the drainage. They added that the condition in the Staff Report for the structure would entail reviewing the two exist- ing retaining walls. Mr. Lally, the applicant, discussed the drainage system and the length of the building. He suggested that the. length be 40 ft., instead of the 30 ft. recommended by Staff. The proposed landscaping was discussed. After further discussion there was a consensus that if it were shortened to 40 ft. 'the most critical and visible portion of the structure would be eliminated. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Modification for SDR-1272, per the Staff Report dated January 20, 1984 and Exhibit "B", with Condition No. 2 amended to read 40 ft. instead of 30 ft. CommisSioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2a. A:929 Richard Merwin, Request for Design Review Approval and Build- 2b. SDR-1558 ing Site Approval to construct a two-story single family residence at 14466 Sobey Road, in an R-I-40,000 zoning district Staff described the applications. They noted that the previous home on this site had been destroyed by fire. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot.and the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Merwin, the applicant, appeared to answer questions. He indicated that he would rather apply for a variance, rather than move the garage. .-P.I..an~ing Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 1/25/84 A-929 and SDR-1558 (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried moved' to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve SDR~1558, per the Staff Report dated January 16, 1984 and Exhibit "'B" and A-929, per the Staff Report dated January 16, 1984 and Exhibits "B~, "C"' and "D". Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried' unanimously 6-0. 3a. Negative Declar'at'ion - SDR-1549 Horvath 3b. SDR-1549 - Frank and Dagmar Horvath, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval to create two' (2) lots at 22122 Mt. Eden Road in the NHR' Zoning District It was directed that this matter be' continued to the meeting of February 8, 1984. 4a. Negative Declarat'ion UP-550 - Desert Petroleum 4b.. UP-550 - Desert Petroleum~ Request for Use Permit Approval to allow an exist'ing gaso'line service station to continue as a non-conform- ing commercial use in an R-M-5000 PC (residential) zoning dis- trict, at 126'0'0' Sara'toga Avenue (cor'ner of Bucknail) Staff explained the' use 'permit, including th'e modifications to the exterior of the service station and the landscaping plan. They indicated that they feel the 'changes substantially improve the appearance of the service station. They commented' that they have tentati'vel'y conditioned the use permit for a 10-year period, at which time 'the 'Planning Commission can consider an extension, and have 'also conditioned it for a 5-year review. They noted that they have 'also included conditions for the hours of operation, the movement of the Bucknail Road entrance so that it i.sl50 ft. from the curb. line, and sidewalk along the perimeter of the property. The City Attorney commented that he would not envision anything in the forth- · coming reVise~ Nonconforming Ordinance as being inconsistent with what the Commission is doing at this time with regard to the conditions that the Staff has recommended. Discussion followed on the proposed move of the Bucknail Road entrance ·as it relates to landscaping. Commissioner Harris referenced the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Stillman. The public hea·ring was opened' at 8:08 p.m. Dan Carobini, attorney' representing the' applicant, addressed the proposal. He requested further consideration regarding the hours of operation, indicat- ing that one of their most productive times is 9:00-11:00 p.m. He asked that the station be allowed to remain open at least until 10:00 p.m. Rick Norman, the designer, explained the proposal for the corner planter. He stated that there is no problem with removing the light standard at the corner. He requested that consideration be given to low level lighting that would light the price sign. He also asked that the Commission give further consideration to the requirement for the sidewalk, since it would be torn out at the end of the 10 years. Staff noted that other projects in the area had been conditioned for sidewalks. They commented that if the use is changed the· sidewalk could be used for residential or any subsequent use on this site. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Further discussion followed on the landscaping, with a possible bonding to guarantee that it be installed within 90 days. The City Attorney commented that the Commission h~s the option of having a bond for the landscaping or they could revoke the use permit, which would leave them with ~a nonconform- ing use. He stated, however, that they would be subject to amortization provisions under the existing ordinance, and he has had discussions with other counsel for the applicant on the interpretation of that ordinance and thinks that the point of interpretation is that their. amortization period may have run. Therefore, obviously it is in the applicants' best interest to have the use permit to ensure'the use. He added that, while it has been suggested that they have the use permit for a 10-year period, that by no - 2 - Pta~ning Commission 'O Page 3 Meeting Minutes 1/25/84 UP-550 (cont.) means should imply that it simply expires. He stated that, while it would be appropriate for the applicant to calculate their amortization based upon 10 years, he would not want them to have the impression that that would simply be the end of the use; they' would have the right to come back to the Commission and request a renewal. The City .Attorney also suggested that'the following be added to Condition #7, "and in compliance with the City of Saratoga's Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance." It was also determined that a condition should be added regarding the Stillmans' letter, to read: "The station shall be kept in good repair and free of dilapidated autos or other eyesores." Commis- sioner Crowther asked if the school in the area was still operating. It was clarified that it was as a daycare center, and Commissioner Crowther commented tha.t he felt that that was a key issue relative to the sidewalk; if there are kids around there the condition should remain. Commissioner McGoldrick noted a phone call from Mrs. Schnedler, a neighbor, in opposition to the 9:00 closing time; she would like it to be 8:00 p.m. Discussion followed on the hours of operation for the station and those of other service stations in the area. Commissioner McGoldriCk then suggested that the telephone booth be placed in the Saratoga Avenue-Teresi corner, rather than on the Bucknall side of the station. It was also noted that there are two existing yard lights on the site. Mr. Norman addressed the lighting, stating that the purpose of the remaining light is to light the entrance driveway on Saratoga Avenue. He also stated that if the phone.booth is relocated there will be a problem with the cir- culation. Discussion followed on the location of it, and it was the con- sensus to have Staff work with the applicant to determine where it should be located. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP-550. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP-550, per .the Staff Report dated January 18, 1984 and Exhibits "Bv', "C" and "D", with 'the following changes to the Staff Report: Condition #4 shall read: "The service station shall be open only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00'p.m. from Monday through Thursday, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, and f~om 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday." Condition #7 shall read: "All gasoline pumps and storage tanks shall comply with the regula- tions of the San Francisco Bay Area Pollution Control District and with the City of Saratoga's Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance." Condition #8 shall read: "Any office exterior lighting visible 'from outside of the struc- ture s.hall be turned off at the time of closing specified in Condition #4. The existing yard light at the 'corner of Saratoga Avenue and Bucknall Road shall be removed and replaced with low level lighting." Condition #13 shall be added to read: "The station shall be kept in good repair and free of dilapidated autos or other eyesores." Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Direction was given to the applicant regarding the sign. There was a con- sensus that it should be a maximum of 4 feet and as aesthetically pleasing as possible. The majority of the Commission favored the plan with the trellis. The applicant was requested to come back with a plan for consideration. 5. UP-551 - Brian Moran, Request for Use Permit Approval to construct an accessory structure in the rear yard setback area at 18580 McFarland Avenue, in an R-l-10,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that there is no immediate neighbor on one side. She commented that in the back there are large trees and trees along the back fencing. She noted that the Staff Report is recommending moving a turn- around into the area that is generally labeled lawn. However, that is not really a lawn and the turnaround where recommended would move into the app'~i- cant's only small area of lawn. She indicated that they had discussed the idea of perhaps extending the cement toward the fence and having a small planter along the fence. She ~Xp~a~ined' ~hat .tH.is~Wo~ld ~esUlt in a 6 ft. setback, as opposed to 10 ft.; however, she does not feel that would be a problem. ~.P~-~ffning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 1/25/84 _,. UP-5'51 (cont.) Mr. Moran submitted letters in support of a 6 ft. setback from the neighbors on both sides. He described his proposal. It was clarified to Commissioner Crowther that the Building Code requirement for setbacks with regard to fire safety. is 3 fee't'; if it is 'any closer fi're .wa.l.li~g .iS.needed. Commissioner' Siegfried moved' to close'.the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the' motion', wh'ich 'was carried unanimously. Staff explained the need for a use permit in this situation, as opposed to a variance. Discussion followed on the turnaround proposal by the applicant. It was the consensus that the ·design of the turnaround should be reviewed and approved by Staff. Commissioner··Crowther moved· to approve UP-551, per the Staff Report dated January 18, 1984 and Exhibit "B", changing Condition #3 to state that a paved backup area' shall be added for turnaround purposes and shall be subject to Staff approval.· Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1, with Commissioner McGoldrick dissenting because she would approve the 6 ft. setback. Mr. Moran noted that the·re wer·e ·other 6 ft. setbacks in the area for garages and many garages' bui'lt "'on '~h~'jp'roperty line or within 3 ft. He added that he feels that 6 feet is in keeping wi·th the nei·ghborhood. Commissioner Crowti~e·r stated that he would like ·to leave it 10 ft., because the required setback is 25 ft. and 10'ft. on the side, and at least some semblance of that ·ratio is being kept. He added that, even then he has a lot of concern about it ·and feels if it ·had come in as a variance it probably would not have been approved. After discussion Commissioner Siegfried moved· to reconsider the motion. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 6-1, with Commis- sioner Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve UP-551, per the Staff Report dated Janu- ary 18, 1984 and Exhibit "B", changing Condition #1 to state that a 6 ft. rear yard setback is acceptable and Condition #3 to read that a paved backup area shall be added for turnaround purposes and shall be subject to Staff approval. Commissioner· Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 5-2, with Commissioners Crowther and. SC]~aefer dissenting. Commissioner Peterson noted that he voted' for the new.mqtio~','~ce he had thought the first motion was for the approval of a 6 ft. setback. Break - 9:05 9:20 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW 6. A-660 - Joseph Masek, Request for Modification to Design Review Approval for a commercial building in a C-C zoning district at 14435 Big BaSin Way Staff described the requested' modifications. The City Attorney gave the background of the project, stating that the City had sold the property to Mr; Masek and the original proposal was for a restaurant. He explained that after the 'project was not constructed after a considerable period of time, the City commenced an action to rescind the agreement.they had entered into and recover the pr.op.9[ty ..... He stated that ~.'mee'ting Was thg~ held, and '- it was Mr. Masek's .determinati0'n that a' restaurant wa~ n6t ec6'nomically ~iable, The City Attorney added that Mr. Masek has now submitted a proposal and the litigation has been held in suspension. He commented that if the applicant goes forward with this project that will resolve the City's concern. He added that Condition #5 in the earlier Design Review approval, stating that the applicant be required to participate in Parking District #3, still remains with this new approval, and the 25 ft. access easement is a link with Parking District #'3 and should also remain. He also suggested that a con- dition be added to state that construction shall be commenced within a cer- tain period of time, i.e. 120 days. Ite added that if the Commission wishes a longer period of time they could consider that. The proposed landscaping was discussed. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that Mr. Eagleston, from the Merchants Association, had earlier expressed concern that this applica- tion might put on limitations or make another extension of the project. - 4 - ~l~ning Commission Page 5 ~eeting Minutes 1/25/84 --. A-660 (cont.) Since there 'was no one 'pres'ent to speak on thi's issue, it was the consensus that this matter be' moved to a study session'. Commissioner Peter'son stated that he has some 'problems with taking a restaurant design and making it retail. He commented' that 'the City wants to 'en'cou'rage people 'to walk along Big Basin and asked wh'ere 'the 'merchants' would display wi'th 'this design. Commissioner Hlava also"eXpres's'ed concern regarding signs, noting that the big shop will be"in the 'rear. It was directed that th'i's item be continued to a study session on February 14, 1984. 7. A-932 - City of SaratOga, RequeSt for Design ReView 'Approval for City 'e'nt'rance.'signs at v'ari'o'us'locati'ons. Staff discussed the request, noting that the"City Council'has given prelimi- nary approval to 'the sign th'~t ha's 'the stone facing, as opposed to wood. They submitted a sample of the stone be'i'ng considered. The material was discussed, i.e. rust' or brass. There wa's consensus that the Commission all agree with the stone, and Staff was requested to look into the pros and cons of the brass and rust, specifically the upkeep of the brass. The matter will then be reag~ndized. MISCELL'ANEOUS 8. A-924 - Mr. and Mrs. Barr, Request for Reconsideration of Design Review Approval to construct 'a two-story single family residence on the southeast corner of Allendale Avenue and Camino Barco, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district Chairman Schaefer' g~.ve the background!of the application, indicating that it had be. en denied at the 'last meeting, and modifications to the design had been considered at the last study session. She stated' that the applicant is asking for reconsideration at this time. She noted that the issues had been the height and the appearance of bulk. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to reconsider A-924. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 5-2, wi'th Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer dissenting. Graham Wilson, a neighbor, stated that he no longer opposes the construction for personal reasons; however, as a resident of the City he opposes it because of the mass. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-924, per revised Exhibits "B", "C" 'and "D" showing the modifications contained in Martin Oakley's letter dated January 20, 1984, and subject to re'celpt of new original exhibits within two weeks. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther stated that he still agrees with 'Staff. He commented that it is an area 'of"pred'omi'na~tly 'single 'S't'or~ r~S'~i. dences'; it. iS.'.a"'corner lot so it will be highl~ visible, and he cannot make findings #3 and #4. He added that he does not feel that the changes are sufficient. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that she would vote against the motion. She stated that the design is beautiful; however, the setback from Allendale is much too small. She commented that she feels it would create a very great impact'.a~ far as the outward size of the house being that close to a major street. The vote was taken to approve A-924. The motion was carried 4-3, with Com- missioners Crowther, Harris and Schaefer dissenting. The City Attorney noted that he assumes that the applicant's appeal will be withdrawn; however, other citizens have a right to appeal within 10 calendar days to the City Council. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letters from Tom Lauer dated January 17, 1984 and January 19, 1984 regarding his lot line adjustment and request for garage building permit. Chairman Schaefer gave the background of the project. Staff stated that their decision to deny the building permit for the garage is based on a pOli- cy of not permitting nonconforming structures to be modified so as to increase - 5 - ."=F%a~Ling commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 1/25/84 .... Tom Lauer (cont.) the nonconformity. They added that they do not see that circumstances have changed to support any modifications to the conditions on the lot line adjustment that we're imposed' in October'1983. Discussion followed on the nonconformity issue. The conditions of the project we're discussed, and the possibility of grant- ing the garage permit wi'th a bonding for the water and sewer, to allow Mr. Lauer's proposed sale to be completed. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels they' are separate 'issues' and does not see the garage being tied to the lot line adjustment. He stated that he feels the 'conditions on the lot line adj.ustment should remain. However, he does not feel that there should be conditions 'on the addition of a garage on the site. He added that he 'believes the garage is in me ~City's interest and agrees with Mr. Lauer that it will be less nonconforming with. the addition of the garage. Mr. Lauer gave the history of the project and discussed the conditions required for the lot line adjustment. He discussed the cost of the improve- ments and asked that the garage permit be granted and the other improvements put into a Deferred Improvement Agreement. It was clarified that if Mr. Lauer sells the 7-acre parcel and ther'e is a condition for the Deferred Improvement Agreement, it would pass on to the new owner. Mr. Lauer indicated that the new owner understands that. lie noted that there is $87,000 worth of water and sewer improvements, and he is asking for time to dispose of the 3-.acre parcel in order to complete the improvements. Further discussion followed on possible conditioning relating to the garage permit. Mr. Lauer suggested that language could be put in the escrow to state that when the property closes simultaneously the new buyer is granted the garage permit and SD-1509 is cancelled. The City Attorney commented that he feels the only real issue is whether the Commission is going to defer the sewer and water as Mr. Lauer is requesting. He added that even if the tenta- tive map was cancelled, the City would still be looking for the sewer and water to be installed, and he feels that the City would still be looking for certain easements and ~reserving the access just as a matter of proper planning. Staff explained the standard Deferred Improvement Agreement. The City Attorney exp.'lained that, ih. Order'to.accommodate Mr. Lauer, the City had annexed property and zoned the County land HCRD, and the remaining property is R-i-40,000. He stated that the City has re'zoned and changed the General Plan for the little strip that will need a lot line adjustment, and the house not only straddles the lot line, it straddles two separate zoning districts. He explained that if Mr. Lauer's buyer comes in and wants to do something on his house, there is the existing lot line here between two different zoning districts. He added that he feels that is a situation that anybody, includ- ing the property owner, would want to clean up. He commented that he feels if the Commission is willing to defer the sewer and water, there should be some incentive there that if it is not done by a certain time, then there is recourse available to the City. .He added that he feels it is important ~ in the City's interest that the lot line adjustment be recorded. Commissioner Hlava indicated that she is not willing at this point to make an exception. She commented on all of the time that had been spent on this project to come up with the conditions .* She added that she appreciates Mr. Lauer's position; however, she feels that the Commission is not respon- sible for negotiations that Mr. Lauer enters into for his private business. Chairman Schaefer stated that she is very concerned about turnover in the Commission, so that when the matter comes back it will look rather simple and'.no't"=show all of the work that went into it. She added that she feels that the conditions are the very best that the Commission could come up with, and some possible bonding and timeframe is needed at this time, or the con- ditions should remain as th'ey are. Commissioner Siegfried suggested, in order to move the matter forward, that a motion be made to grant the garage permit, on the condition that there be bonding for the installation of the water and sewer to be completed within 18 months. Commissioner Crowther asked that a condition be added that when a lot line adjustment i.s made, both parcels shall go into HCRD. The City Attorney indicated that timewise that would be almost impossible, because it would necessitate a change in the zoning, which would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and a General Plan change. *which represent compromises on the-Commission's, neighbors' and Mr. Lauer's BR~ She does not feel the Commission should look at these conditions piece ~=~:.t~ing Commiss ion Meeting Minutes 1/25/84 .i Page 7 Tom Lauer (cont.) Discussion followed on the amount of bonding. Commissioner Siegfried moved to grant the garage permit, on the condition that ·there be bonding for the installation of the water and sewer to be ·completed within 18 months; the 'amount of bond to be deter·mined by Staff. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion. It was clarified that the conditions of the lot line adjustment are not being changed, including the condition regarding the water and sewer. The only change is ~hat·.the installation must be completed within 18 months instead of by July 31, 1984, and there will be a bond established to ensure completion. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would like a condition that both parcels have to be in common ownership, so that when the lot line ~adjustment takes place in the future the parcels do not become separate. The City Attorney indi·cated that the only way to do that would be·to require a new ·parcel map to eliminate the ·line. He added that the lot line ·adjustment is here to create two separate parcels. Commissioner Crowther inquired about a con- dition being added to the garage permit that says it has to be reverted to acreage. The City Attorney commented· that that could not be done because the final. map has not been recorded; there would have ·to be some kind of with- drawal of the tentative 'map. Commissioner' Siegfried commented that tie is trying to move the matter forward and would not want to make any other conditions at this time. He explained that all he is ~rying ~o do is preserve the status_ quo,·with the exception ~hat the gafage .permit is =being'.'~ted, bu'~ f~r' that.Mr.-LaU.e-r has t'o.put up a bond to ensure that the Wate~ and sewer will b~ ~nstalled within 18 months. Commissioner Crowther suggested asking Staff to make the one parcel HCRD during the next General Plan review. The City Attorney commented that the tentative map would then be inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. Staff clarified that the only change an approval of this motion to grant the garage permit involves is that it grants a one-year extension of time for the completion of the water and sewer; it still leaves the responsibility with the current owner and does not transfer it to subse- quent owners. The vote was taken on the motion. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commis- sioner Hlava dissenting and Commissioners Harris and Peterson abstaining. 2. Letter from Mr. Donald Brown, dated January 23, 1984, regarding the Union 76 Service Station at 12015 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Abe Kaabipour, owner of the statmon, appeared, stating that the advertising sign allowed is only 6" above the ground and is hidden by landscaping. He submitted a picture showing this and also a picture of th'e·~statiOn·'=a·cross the street. He asked · that the banners and temporary sign for his grand opening be allowed to remain for 20-30 days, indicating that Staff had asked that they be removed immedi- ately. Commis~i·oner Hlava noted that the Commission as a whole has not been very happy about how the gas station looks, c0mpa~ed to' the'-plans 'that were presented. She commented that she feels that the huge canopy that dominates the whole street and has a large sign on it is enough advertising for the gas station. There was a consensus that there was no support for the banners or the temporary sign, and they must be taken out tomorrow morning. It was noted that all of the conditions for the sign were established when the design was approved. Oral 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Saratoga News and the Good Government Group for attending. 2. It was noted that the League of California Cities meeting is being held in San Diego on February 29-March 2, 1984. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, bert S. Shoo SeCreta·ry RSS:cd