Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~MISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 22, 1984 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers,.13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION ~oll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Hlava, Harris, Peterson and Schaefer Absent: Commissioners McGoldrick and Siegfried Minutes The following'addition was made to the minutes of February 8, 1984: On page 2, fifth paragraph ~under UP-315: "Chairman Schaefer recomm'ended specific time- frames be added for compliance that were later adopted." Commissioner Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of February 8, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unani- mously.= 'PUBL~'C HEARINGS 1. 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 (and. Negative Declaration) It was directed that this.matter be continued to the meeting on March 14, 1984. 2. A-928 - Dwayne Richards, RequeSt for Design ReView Approval to construct a split level single family residence at 14012 Palomino Way, in the 'NHR Zoning District It was 'directed that this matter be continued to March 14', 1984. 3a.. SDR-!545 - Warren Sturla, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval 3b. V-615 - and Design Review .Approval for four (4) office condominiums 3c. 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' D'istrict Chairman Schaefer noted that the issues' were screening of the trash container and making the findings for the compact parking. She stated that Commissioner 'Siegfried had indicated at the study session that he would make the findings;. however, he is not present at the meeting tonight. Staff explained the project and commented that unless the Planning Commission is able to make the findings relative to the variance on parking, they would be unable to approve the design review. Staff indicated that they are unable to make those findings and are .recommending denial of the variance. They addressed the trash container and requested direction from the Commission as to location. The parking was addressed, and it was clarified that the parking would overhang 2~ feet into the landscaping. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Commit'tee report, describing the site. The setbacks were discussed. At the inquiry of Commissioner Crowther, dis- cussion was held on the 100 year flood line. The public hearing was opened at 7:.49 p.m. Jim Russell, representing the Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, stated that he does not believe people pay any attention to compact parking signs and expressed their opposition. He indicated that their concern is the actual density of the square footage. Commissioner Peterson noted that recent studies show that half of the cars on the road are compacts. Staff clarified that the ordinance allows 50% building coverage for a professional office. Chairman Schaefer explained that the 'reason that thi's proposal is 27% coverage is because that is the 'maximum amount of parking that the applicant has been able to provide.' Dr. Sturla, the applicant, addressed the compact car spaces and the turna- I " .~Planning Commiss ion Page 2 ~Meeting Minutes 2/22/84 .... SDR-1545, V-615 and A-900 (cont.) round. He indicated that he felt the area between the building and the creek would be appropriate for the trash container, and it will be screened. Commissioner Hlava inquired about the existing parking in the area, comment- ing that there were always cars parked non-stop along'Village Drive. The applicant stated that he felt it was the people's personal preference and indicated that the parking lots in the area are in excess of City requirements and..there are no compact spaces. The landscaping and impervious coverage were discussed. Chairman Schaefer pointed out that some of the Commissioners who were present at the study session were not present at this meeting, and vice versa. She stated that she feels the trash container is going to have to be bigger. She commented that she is in favor of compact parking and thinks that a per- centage of compact parking.is very reasonable; however, she cannot make the findings for it. She added that Commissioner Siegfried had said he would make the findings, and she feels that the applicant.had thought the issues had been resolved at the study session and that the Commission was generally going to go ahead with the project. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels very strongly that the flood control line should be shown on the plot plan. Dr. Sturla commented that the project has been engineered and been approved by the Flood Control. He des- cribed the lot. Staff commented that they felt Commissioner Crowther's comments are well taken because the project is adjacent to the creek and the homes that are built along the creek on the other side and across Cox have all been built in that location long before the concern about the flood insurance line came into being. He added that he feels this information is in the City offices or available thro.ugh the Water District. Commissioner Hlava stated that she is uncomfortable with this, because she was not at the study session last week, and she feels that Dr. Sturla does not deserve the runaround. However, she feels that Commissioner Crowther has a good point in terms of the flood control line an'd, more than that, she has a 'concern about the compact parking. She noted that she can make the three parking findings; however, she can't make the regular variance findings but feels'that it makes so much sense to be able to allow compact parking here. Chairman Schaefer asked if it would be possible, if the other issues were resolved, to approve the project, subject to the fact that a Compact Ordinance would go into effect within six months. The City Attorney' commented that there seems to be a general consensus toward incorporating compact spaces into the ordinance. He stated that if the Commission would like to direct, he can proceed with the preparation of an ordinance for review at the next meeting. He noted that any approval could be an approval in concept subject to the condition of an ordinance change. He added that this would involve an amend- ment to the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, it would have to go through public hearings at the Commission and City Council. Commissioner Crowther commented that he has a different view of the compact parking. He explained that he has no problem with it in areas where existing buildings are and the compact parking provides additional parking spaces. However, in the case of a new building, what it results in is a larger build- ing, greater site coverage, and less total area allocated to parking, and he feels this is a bad trend. He indicated'that he is opposed to it in this case because he would li.ke to see the building held down to the coverage that the other buildings in the area are. He added that by not allowing compact park- ing and not letting.up on setbacks, that would essentially force the building to be smaller and comparable to existing buildings in the area. He added that, based on that, he could not vote for either one of the variances. -Commissioner Peterson commented that he does not want to see the Commission initiate compact parking to allow bigger buildings; he wants to see it initiated to provide more parking. He stated that.he would like to revise the ordinance in some way to make the coverage of the building consistent with what is exist- ing, but allow people 'to come in and provide more parking by having compact parking. Discus'sion followed on the options relative to this application. Staff com- mented that, based on the comments tonight, providing a Compact Parking Space 4Planning Commiss ion Page 3 Meeting Minutes 2/22/84 ~._ SDR-1545, V-615 and A-900 (cont.) Ordinance is not quite as simple as it would seem if in fact Commissioner Peterson's suggestion that the providing of the parking spaces is not to simply increase the space of the building, as in this case. They added that trying to come up with a formula that doesn't do that will be more difficult than what could be put together for the next meeting. The City Attorney amended his earlier comment to Concu~ with~laf. f.."'.. Dr. Sturla made the suggestion that the density ought to be spelled out in the ordinance. He also suggested that the proposal be continued to another study session. There was a consensus to direct this matter to a study session on March 6, 1984 and the regular meeting of March 14, 1984. It was determined that the Commission would discuss the subject of compact parking after this meeting, to give direction to the City Attorney in preparation of the ordinance. 4. A-934 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story single family residence on Saratoga Heights Drive (Lot 10, Tract 6665), in the NHR Zoning District Staff explained the proposal. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot. She commented that the driveway area and part of the deck goes over the knoll. Staff stated that a new grading plan had been submitted, w]iich had been distributed to the Commission tonight, which shows some modification. They added that there is a significant difference between the grading figures given on the Staff Report and the figures indicated on the new exhibit. They stated that they had not had a chance to review the new information. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. The applicant discussed the proposal and the grading. He requested that they be allowed to flip the house over and change the location of the driveway to reduce the grading. There was a consensus that this new plan would have to be submitted for review. Staff noted that this would be a modification to design review and appropriate fees would be charged. Commissioner Crowther questioned the slope and calculations. Staff noted -that this is one of the subdivisions that are subject to the negotiated settlements and is not subject to the NHR Ordinance or Specific Plan for the area, but is subject to the HCRD regulations. Staff was requested to check the calculations. Commissioners Harris and Crowther expressed concern with the height of the structure and Staff was asked to check the height elevations. It was directed that this matter be continued to the regular meeting of March 14, 1984. ~5. A-935 - Parnas corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story, single family residence on Congress Hall Lane (Lot 25, Tract 6665), in the NHR Zoning District The application was.described by Staff. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report. She commented that this is on the other half of the top of the knoll, with'the Masters 'house on the other hal£. She indicated that there is a lot of building on this one knoll. She added that there is not a great deal of impact on the viewshe'd. Commissioner Crowther stated that he th.inks the house will be ]highly visible from Congress Springs Road, and he questions the appropriateness of a two- story house on this lot. The public hearing was opened at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Hlava' moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the exte'rior color should not be bone white. Com- missioner Hlava agreed that this house is going to be visible from Congress Springs Road and she indicated that she had a real problem with the fact that there is so much on the 'top of this one little knoll. She added, however, that she does not feel that tb.e Commission can penalize 'this applicant, since they approved the Masters applicati'on. She moved to approve A-935, per Exhibits "B", "C" and "D" and the Staff Report dated February 14, 1984, with Condition 4 amended to state that the exterior color be earth tone, subject to Staff approval. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. - 3 planning commission Page 4 ~Meeting Minutes 2/22/84 6. A-936 Pinn Brothers Construction, Request for Design Review Approval to construct 15 single story residences on the north side of Verde Vista 400 ft~ south of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Saratoga Horti- cultural Foundation), in the R-1-12,500 Zoning District It was directed that this matter be continued to March 14, 1984. MISCELLANEOUS 7. UP-526 M. Oudewaal, 14395 Saratoga Avenue, Review of U-se +ermit for Travel Agency The use permit was explained. Staff noted that Mr. Bob Hargrove had discussed the conditions of the Staff Report with Staff, and the removal of the real estate signs, installation of the landscaping and a landscape maintenance agree- ment have been agreed to. Discussion followed on a timeframe for removal of the signs and the 'landscaping, and it was suggested that it be 24 hours for the signs and 45 days for the landscaping to be completed. Staff commented that they would be also pursuing the accomplishment of the street improvements on Saratoga Avenue with Mr. Oudewaal. They suggested a 90-day timeframe for this. Mr. Hargrove stated that the signs are already down permanently. He indicated that he did not want to complete the landscaping until the off site improvements are completed, and he has requested that the performance bond be pulled so the improvements can be completed. Staff noted that there is a cash bond or savings certificate and they would prefer that the applicant perform the work, and they have put him on notice regarding thi's. The City Attorney noted that the change 0f ownership does' not.change the conditions of the site approval, and the fact that the seller has not done the work does not change the requirement that the work be performed by whoever may be owning the property at the time. He added that the matter is between Mr. Hargrove and Mr. Oudewaal, and it may become necessary for the City to use' the cash deposit. Discussion followed on the timeframe, and the applicant was requested to coordinate with Staff regarding the off site improvements and the landscaping. Commissioner Hlava moved to allow the use to continue, per the Staff Report dated February 8, 1984, with the addition to Condition 3 to indicate that those portions of the landscaping which are in conjunction with the off site improve- ments may be delayed at Staff's discretion until 30 days after the off site improvements ar'e completed, and the off site improvements shall be completed within '90 days. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 8. SDR-1558 - Richard Merwin, Sobey Road, Reconsideration of Condition II-D The request was explained by Staff. Commissioner Hlava stated that this is not the first time this subject has come up to the Commission, and she generally likes to support Staff on this. kind of thing. However, she has a real strong question about the requirement to widen this one little section on Sobey Road to rebuild a house, when there is the whole expanse of Sobey Road. She added that she is not sure it is the safest thing to do. She moved to reconsider Condition II-D of SDR-1558, since she would like to hear what the applicant has to say. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 5-0. Mr. Merwin, '.the applicant, gave the history of the site. He questioned improv- ing a portion of Sobey Road when it does not enhance anything aesthetically or functionally to the street. He noted that the property to the north will never be subdivided and improved. The parking on the site was discussed. Staff noted that all of the properties on Sobey Road recently have been required to make those improvements at the time of the development of the properties. The other properties in the area were discussed. Chairman Schaefer stated that it has always been the policy to widen the roads where possible when they are added. However, she personally questions the policy of doing that on rural streets in little pockets. She commented that she questions whether this is worth doing now, or whether it would be better to wait and do it as a Deferred Improvement Agreement. She noted that the issues are (1) cost, (2) safety and (3) aesthetics. Commissioner Hlava agreed, stating that in cases like this, where this house is going to be such an isolated section of widening, she almost thinks it is more 'dangerous to dO that than to wait until later. when it is done in conjunc- tion with the property south of the applicant, so there is some sizable strip J Planni'ng Commission "- Page S ...~M~eting Minutes 2/22/84 ~ SDR-15S8 (cont.) of wider road. She added that she realizes that the Staff feels strongly about not doing a Deferred Improvement Agreement and asked for the basis of their feeling on this. Staff commented that, on Sobey Road, they feel that if the Commission is inclined to modify the conditions here, then they should expect to see all of those applicants who have this condition who have not yet made the improvement, and perhaps even some grumbling from those who have. They added that it is not unusual for the City to improve these roads in this fashion, and Staff feels that it is the responsibility of the developing property owner. Discussion followed on the writing of a Deferred Improvement Agreement, and Staff noted that the City calls them up when they deem it appropriate. Mr. Merwin asked that it be subject to a Deferred Improvement Agreement until such time that either he takes it up on himself to' improve 'it or until the property to the south is improved. The City Attorney' clarified that the Deferred Improvement Agreement would be recorded and then be noticed to subsequent buyers. He stated that th. ere is the risk that some subsequent buyer might try to challenge enforcement of the agreement, and that is one reason why the City prefers to have the work be done and be assured that it is going in. Commissioner Hlava questioned if it were possible to have the Deferred Improve- ment Agreement such that before the title to the land is transferred the improvements have to be done, so Mr. Merwin in any case would be responsible for it. The City Attorney strongly recommended against that, stating that he feels it is unwise to: make any agreement conditioned upon transferability of title. Commissioner Hlava stated that she has a real problem with this, since there was the same kind of Deferred Improvement Agreement on the 7-1]. Store in h. er neighborhood, on the landscaping; it was transferred, and the landscaping was not done. She added that, on the other hand, this does not make sense to do this improvement right now. Commissioner Schaefer moved that Condition II-D for SDR-1558 be subject to a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners Harris and Peterson dissenting. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Mr. Paul McMullen dated February 14, 1984, requesting that the Comm~ss'xon consider cabanas and gazebos, etc. as accessory structures. It was determined that this letter can 'be reviewed when the Commission con- siders changes to the ordinances'.' 2. Petitions regarding the Blue Hills Union 76 Gas Station. It was noted that one petition is in favor and the other in opposition. Discussion followed on the procedure used regarding the design review. Commissioner Hlava noted that she had discussed this with the President of the homeowners group from which the petition in opposition had come, and also the Greenbrier Home- owners Association, and they had thought it was fine. Commissioner Crowther commented that there was a lot of discussion during the General Plan, and the neighborhood in opposition had indicated that they would like the park to remain at that corner. Staff commented that it was their intent to be in contact with the Union 76 people regarding the landscaping. Mr. Abe Kaabipour, operator of the station, addressed the lighting and was asked to use some kind of a dimmer, lower voltage lighting. It was noted that some more landscaping of trees is planned. Oral 1. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and.serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hlava moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Secretary RSS: cd