HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAP~TOGA PLANNING CO~,~IjSSION
MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 1984 - 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, ].3777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Me~ting
ROUTINE ORGANIZATION
Roll Call
Present: Commissioners H~rris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried
Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Peterson
Minutes
The following changes were made to the minutes of April 11, 1984: On page 4,
second paragraph, the second sentence should read: "Commissioner Hlava
indicated that she feels the proposed parking and circulation are better."
On page 3, the fifth line in the fourth paragraph should read "its lots"
instead of "their lots", and "second units" should be added to the third sen-
tence. On page 6, "[Iarris" should be added after the word "Commissioner" in
the second sentence. Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the
minutes of April 11, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Hlava seconded
the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Reorganization
The new chairman, Chairman Siegfried, presented a gavel to past Chairman
Schaefer for her years of service as Chairman of the Planning Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Attorney stated that the Section 3 of the ordinance regarding C-206,
Morrison &. Fox, should read: "This ordinance conditionally reclassifies certain
property shown on the attached sectional map from R-M-4000 to R-M-3000. This
ordinance shall become operative and take effect thirty ~0) days from its date
of passage." With that change, Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items
on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously 5-0.
1. LLA-84-1 Dorcich/Gibberson, Sobey Road (Evans Lane), Request for Lot Line
Adjustment
2. A-864 - George and Judith Claussen, Request for One-Year Extension for
V-604.- Design Review Approval and' Variance Approval
3. C-206 - Morrison and Fox, Consideration of Rezoning a 2.2 acre parcel from
R-M-4000 to R-M-3000 which could eventually allow the construction
of 12 additional apartment units at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road;
conti'nued' fro'm' Apr'il"ll, '19'8'4
4. Mr. and ~rs. Donald A. Schlotterbeck, ].9000 Sunnyside Drive, Construction
of a 6' High RedwOOd Fen'ce With'in 100' 'Of Sar'atoga-L'os Gatos Road
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5a. A-942 - Charles Aring, Request for Design Review Approval to construct
5b. V-630 - a second story addition, Variance Approval for a 11'6" side yard
5c. SDR-1562 setback and Building Site Approval. for a greater than 50% expan-
sion at 20080 Mendelsohn Lane in the R-I-20,000 zoning district;
'continued from March' 2'8',' 1'9'84
It was directed that thi's matter be continued' to the May 9, 1984 meeting.
6. GPA-83-1-A -. Consideration of Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact
Rep'ort;"co'ntinu'ed from Ap'r'i'l"l'l',"19'84'
~la~i~ng Commission ~' 'O Page 2
'~,eeting 4/25/84
7. GF-344 - City of Saratoga, Consideration of an ordinance to completely
preclude allowing second units in any residential district per
Section 65852.2(c) of the Government Code of the State of Cali-
fornia, per Article 18 of Ordinance NS-3 of the City of Saratoga;
continued from April '11, '1984
Items 6 and 7 were discussed simultaneously. Staff dommented that the major
issue before the Commission tonight is to vote on the Housing Element with a
positive or negative recommendation to the City Council. They commented that,
in terms of the Second Unit Ordinance, the key issue tonight is to determine
whether the Commission can reasonably make the findings to preclude second
units. The necessary findings were discussed. Staff reiterated that they do
not believe these findings can be 'made, based-on comparison of other ordinances
~from cities that have precluded second units and on Saratoga's situation. They
added that the Staff will prepare a report from the Planning Commission to the
City Council on the decision the Commission makes.
Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels the findings can be made, but she
has talked with people about the fact that there obviously is a major contro-
versy within the City. She commented that it has been pointed out, as the
Commission has expressed before, that there is a real need for seniors to have
a'place to live and for relatives, and yet right now it does not seem that an
ordinance can be passed that is going to be upheld for that. She stated that
her proposal would be to make the findings for a per'iod of time, for example
two years, or until there was a court decision on whether there could be units
for seniors only. If that came earlier than two years this would certainly be
reviewed with the 'anticipation that rec'ommendations and changes would be made.
If it did not happen within two years, the Commission would look at it and see
if they still consider it appropriate. That would essentially keep the status
quo, and she noted that there were no ordinances' that are known that were passed
on the books in California before July of last year. She added that, in talk-
ing with one of the 'City Council members from Palo Alto, she also found that
they felt that they had p~t in their proposa'l, perhaps not considering all the
options, and felt they had some very major problems. Now they are trying to
change and make up for those. She commented that perhaps this way Saratoga
can learn from other cities.
Commissioner Hlava noted that the 'findings made by the City of San Jose were
not approved by the Planning Commission; they' were voted down' on a 5-2 vote at
their meeting last week.
The public hea'ring was opened at 7:40 .p.m. Staff explained'the Housing Element,
at the request of a citizen.
Greg Nellis, 18366 Clemson, stated that if the Commission cannot make the find-
ings to prohibit second units in the City, he feels that there are a lot of
questions and concern over what will happen. He asked the Commissioners who
feel they cannot make the findings to prohibit them to state what they would
be in favor of, specifically where they would see second units as being appropri-
ate, how many, under' ~hat conditions, etc. He 'added that he feels this would
be beneficial to the public.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer
seconded the motion, which was ~arrie~ unanimously.
The following commen'ts were made by the 'Commission:
Commissioner' McGoldrick -. Ther'e is no way I can make the findings to preclude
second units. I appreciate having received from the Senior Coordinating
Council a great.many papers, one of which wa's the City Attorney's March 1st
draft of a proposal that went to the City Council. It was different from the
R-1-45,000 proposal that we had made, and his proposal would be my wish.
Commissioner Hlava --I also cannot make t]~e findings, primarily because I feel
that our Staff and our best legal advisors are telling us that they would
prefer to see us pass a Second Unit Ordinance, no matter how restrictive,
rather than try to make the findings and take the"chance of being sued and spend
endless dollars and time 'in court. We have in thi's city in the 'past passed
ill-advised legislation which resulted' in lengthy court cost's, and I don't
think we want to look at'that again for our city. In terms of what I would
like to see, I have said repeatedly that my two major concerns with the Second
Unit Ordinance are (.1) the 'number of illegal units we already have in the city
which. have been' built without inspectionS, which I' thi'nk is dangerous and a
situation we 'have to handle, and (.2) the fact that obviously since ther'e are
so many illegal units there must be some need, and I see that need as being
- 2 -
~71~nning Commission Page 3
~.~eeting 4/25/84
GF-344 and GPA-83-'l-A (cont.)
primarily with the seniors. I would like to see something that would deal
with that. I am willing to look at almost anything, even if it started out
with very restri'ctive in order to judge the impacts, that would deal in any
way with those two issues.
Commissioner Schaefer - I think the best one we came up with that could still
use some modification is the one on lots of 45,000 sq. ft. or greater. Perhaps
considering them on lots that are 25% greater than the other homes in their
own zoning district, or to look at them and bring them out to the neighborhood
and say, what do you want in your own zoning district, because I think it has
such a major impact. If all we are voting on tonight is either put them
everywhere or put them nowhere, then I would make a motion not to have them
now but. with a timeframe limit on that, .assuming that we would look at that
and clarify that at a later date.
Chairman Siegfried commented that the COmmission 'is voting only on whether or
not we can preclude them; the Council is deciding whether or not and where they
are going to allow them.
Commissioner Harris - I had presented at the last meeting 'the findings that I
thought could b~ made 'to preclude them.
Commissioner Siegfried - I was originally one in favor of the 45,000 sq. ft.
limitation, and after much deliberation and listening to comments, I have come
around to a different point of view. I appreciate the seniors sending that
ordinance that has' been considered. I would be inclined to go along with the
Council's proposal, except that I would insert in it a senior citizens limita-
tion', even though I think legally.it won"t survive. But I think we can cer-
tainly protect the ordinance in allowing severability, so that if that fails
the rest of the ordinance survives. SeCondly, I think I would, not in terms
of detached units, make.that limitation that the lot be twice the size of the
Zoning district. I think I would do it something less than that, 60% or 70%,
because if it is twice the 'size that es'sentially says there. can probably be'
two units.there anyway. I think I would compromise that to some extent, and
I am. somewhat inclined to say that, for any kind of second unit, it has to be
some percentage over' the minimum size, but I would be open to thoug~ about that.
I thought perhaps for the attached unit it could be 20 or 25% larger, but I am
not wedded to that.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to forward a denial of the ordinance precluding
second units to the City Council, not being able to make the findings. Com-
missioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 3-2, with Commissioners
Harris and Schaefer dissenting.
Commissioner Harris expressed her frustration wi'th the whole procedure. She
stated that, having come on the Commission afte'r' this 'ordinance was considered,
she felt it was very awkward. She added that she felt that the Commission's
task was merely to see 'whether they could make the findings for preclusion or
not, and she found it very disc'oncerting that the' Commission kept considering
other things along the way beCause"it was inappropriate and it was not a com-
plete job.
Chairman Siegfried commente~ that the Housing Element contains a statement
that the City is considering second units, whi'ch is where the 'Commission would
be at thi's point. Commissioner' Hlava moved to approve 'the Housing Element and
forward it to the City Council. COmmissioner Schaefer' seconded the motion,
which was carried' unanimously 5--0.
8a. SD-1554 --Moreland SchOol District, Consideration of EIR and Request for
8b. E-2-83 - Subdivisi'on Approval for 36~.1ot subdivision at 12301 Radoyka
Drive.in.the..'R-.1-~10,000 zoning.district; continued' from April
"11', 1'9'84
Staff stated that the.~consultant'has submitted response's on the comments
made at the public hearing on the EIR. ThOse, along with the Draft EIR, would
become the 'Final EIR, whi'ch 'Staff is rec'ommending that the 'Commission certify
tonight.
Commissioner' Schaefer move~ to ~certify the EIR, making the statement that it
will have a significant impact on the 'environment. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0.
- 3 -
· P~'hnning Commission Page 4
~.~.~eeting - Minutes 4/25/84
SD-1554 (cont.)
Discussion followed on SD-1554. Staff stated that Exhibit "E" forms the
C'ommission's statement of overriding considerations and contains all of the
mitigation measures taken from the environmental report. Discussion followed
on these mitigation measures.
The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m.
Jim Russell, representing Saratoga Woods Homeowners, summarized comments from
the neighbors. ~Ie noted the traffic congestion and the'desire for open space.
Jim Rand, of McKay & Somps, gave a presentation on the p'roject. He reported
that the school district has met with the neighbors several times and have
tried to mitigate their concerns.
Commissioner Hlava asked if there would be any access from this subdivision or
· the.end of San Palo to Prospect High. Mr. Rand commented that he believes
there is currently a chainlink fence that prohibits any direct access. .After
discussion it was suggested that a small opening, a S gate, could be created.
.Alan Aspi, 12421'Lolly Court, expressed concern about two-stories and the
elimination of open space. Staff stated that the're was no restriction on two-
stories at this point~ and discussion followed on ~ossible 'locations for two-
stories.
Lorraine Bergman, ~osich and O'Brad, spoke in opposition to the project. She
commented that she represented five neighbors living in the immediate area.
Ken Evans, 18779 Kosich, expressed concern regarding two'-stories. He stated
that he would like to see undergrounding of utilities in the area be a part
of the project. Staff explained to Mr. Evans that any setback from a street
would be 25 ft. from the property line. They discussed the landscaping ease-
ment that is being required' by the 'City.
Virginia Glo~oVac",' 12309 Radoyka, inquired' about the setback of the houses
and an easement for the 'school. She 'expressed concern regarding traffic.
The setbacks were discusse'd. Commissioner' Scha'efer stated that she feels the
setback should definitely be 25 feet all the way around on corner lots.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close' the 'public hea'ring. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which wa's carried unanimously.
There was a consensus 'to. have a S gate at San PalO, if the neighbors approve.
Ther~ was also a consensus'that issues to be resolved are (1) height limit
on single stories', ~2) limitation on two~.'stories' and location, and (3) setbacks
for corner lots. Staff pointe~ out t'ha~ it would be difficult to develop some
of the corner lots if a 25 ft. setback in the rea'r yard was maintained. Staff
also suggested Design Review 'Approval f'or the location Of two stories. Dis.-
cussion followed on the maintenance of the landscaping easement and what can
be done if not properly maintained. The 'City Attorney commented that he assumes
there is a Landscape Maintenance Agreement, which gives the City the right, if
the maintenance.is not performed, to g.o in and do the work and assess all the
lots for the cost. Staff noted that the 'Commission should determine if the
easement should be privately or publicly maintained.
Mr. Rand addressed the issues of two-.stories and height of one-stories. He
stated that ther'e was no builder tied into the property at this point and a
· reasonable approach would be to make some limitation on the location of some
two-story plans' and try to leave 'some 'flexibility for a potential builder to
develop his own' kind of mix. FIe 'suggested some two-stories possibly along
the southerly boundary.
· There was a consensus' to take the 'matter to a study session to discuss the
issues. Bob Bjoring, Moreland SchOol District, stated that they are under a
time constraint bec'ause the bi'd opening.is.scheduled for May 31, 1984, since
they were led to bel'~ev'e that the"approv'al could be obtained by that time.
It was determined that further discussion wo'uld be 'held on the issues at this
time, rather than take the 'matter to a study session. Commissioner McGoldrick
stated that. she would like lots 26~30 to be single-story. She explained that
she feels that if they. are two-.story, then' future development in the Prospect
High School proper'ty could come 'in and ask for two'-stor'ies ther'e because they
would be 'adjacent to two'-~stor'ies.
- 4 -
;Pl~nn~ing Commission Page 5
· "~Mee'ting Minutes 4/25/84.
SD-1554 (cont.)
Commissioner Schaefer moved that two'~'stories' not be allowed on lots 30-36 and
lot 16. Commis.~i.oner Ht~va se'conded the 'motion, which was carried 4-1, with
Commissioner McG'oldrick dis's-enting.
Commissioner McGoldri.ck mov'ed that 50% maximum of the' remaining lots can be
two--Stories, in a mixed kind of arrangement, and requiring a design review
public hearing.. Commis-sioner Hlava seconded the' motion, which 'was carried
unanimously 5~0.
Commissioner McGoldrick' mov'ed to have 'single-stor'ies no higher than 20 ft. and
the two-stories no higher' than 25 ft.' C0mmiss'ioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carri. ed 4--1, with Commissi'oner Schaefer disse~ting because she feels
th~ second stories should be '2 fee't' hi'gher'.
Commissioner Schaefer' moved to have 'a rear yard setback and street frontage
~etback. of 25 feet on lot 36. Commis. sioner Harris 'seconded the motion, which
was carried 3--2, w'i. th Co'mmissi.oners Siegfried and ~4cGoldrick dissenting.
Staff asked th.e Commi. s's'i.on' if th.ey we're willing for p. eople to apply for a
variance from that setback 'in case 'it 'doesn"t create a very large 'buildable
area. Commi.ss.i.oner Hlava ~tated that she may have'to rec'onsider her vote
h.ere, because 'she does' not w'ant 'to have variances 'at all. Commissioner
Siegfried stated that it was the"con'sen'sus and the intent of the Commission
to have '25 ft.. setbacks on lot 36, but 'allowi'ng for a design review public
hearing. It was 'clarified that the 'rear yard would be' defined as the property
line adjacent and contiguous' to the house'.
Commissioner.Harri.s s'tated that possibly the're 'could be"a compromi. se between
10 ft. and 25 ft. Commis-si.oner H'lava commen'ted that maybe the Commission
could state 'that they want a set'back 'there. in excess of 10 ft. to whatever
the lot will allow-..Z Commissioner Schaefer noted that 'another option would be
to combine lots. 33-5'~ into 3 lots.' Staff noted that the're will be design
review on th~ 'lots.
Mr. Rand commented that he' feels placing su'ch~j~ strict condition on lot 36
~ould be placing an undue hardship on that lot. He des'cr'ibed the' lot and
suggested that th.ere be 'a compr'omise', stating that they could pass on the
Commissi'on'~ con'cern to the bu~'er.
Commissioner Harris state'd that she felt it was 'the Commission's place to
make their i.ntent clear and she would like 'to' rec'onsider her vote. Commis-
sioner H.lava asked' for rec'onsideration of the' vote-'rei'~tive' to the setback
on lot 36. Commissioner Harris seconded the 'motion, whi'~h was carried unani-
mously
Commissioner Harris. moved that the 'rear yard setback, the 'rear yard being
defined' as' that line 'on the southerly portion of lot 36, be a minimum of 15
feet, leaning towards' an average of 20 ft. Commissioner Hlava seconded the
motion, which. was' carried unanimously 5-.O.
Commissioner Hlava asked the City Attorney what would be the most effective
way t.o ensure 'that the. landscaping is being co~ptet'ed-i--.'~He.-Sta't~d ~t' t]~'~
· '..~ormal"proc%dUre ~ould~be 'fOr ~h~'~Ci.ty'~to'~req'u'ire 'aj LandsCape Maintenance.
Agreement, with that obligation then passing from the developer'initially to
the Homeowners Association when it is established. He commented. that the
Homeowners Association would have their normal assessment .processed to raise
the funds to do that. He added that, should the Homeowners Association fail
to landscape under the CC&R, which the City has the right to approve and can-
not be amended without the City's consent, the City has the prerogative
do the work and assess the properties for the cost.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SD-1554, per Exhibits "B-l" and "E"
and the Staff Report dated April 11, 1984, with conditions that (1') the S gate
for pedestrian access to Prospect High on San Palo Court be installed, with
it coming back to the Planning Commission if the homeowners object, when noti-
fied, (2) the landscaping, including the entry way, be accomplished, per the
.~p~vious wordin~..by the City Attorney, and (3) the nu'mbe'r ~nd~lj0¢'a~i~n .of
· '.two-~t~rie'~,'.~he~heigh~' of single stories and the setback on lot 36 be that
incorporated in th.e 'pre~i.ou's' mot'ions, ~Commi. ssioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which. was 'carried unanimou's'.ly 5~.0.
Break ~ 9:0D ~ 9:'15 p.m.
- 5 -
.=PFa.nning Commissio. n Page 6
· l°'Meet'~ng Minutes 4/25/8.4
9. C-207 - City of Saratoga, Consideration of amendment of the text of
the. Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum site area require-
ment.of Section 4A.4, clarifying Section 4A.3(b) to allow second
story structures only when specifically appr0ved by the Planning
Commission, and other minor modifications per Ordinance NS-3,
Article 18 (Planned Community District); continued from April 11,
.1984
The proposed text amendment was explained by Chairman Siegfried and Staff.
Commissioner McGoldrick questioned wh'ether the amendment states that the
developer must make provisions for a common aree'n development, which she felt
it should. Staff commented that the 'Commission can condition applications for
a common green when they are reviewed for Building Site 'Approval. Commissioner
McGoldrick stated that she'would have a problem' approving the proposed amend-
ment without this provision and suggested that it be added.
The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. Commissioner Hlava moved' to close the public hearing. Commis-
sioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
It was determined' that an addition would be made to Section 4.A.5 to read:
"Any PC area shall contain a common green unless otherwi'se specifically waived
by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Hlava moved' to 'adopt Resolution No.
C-207-1 and'forward it to the 'Ci'ty Council, making the findings as shown in
Exhibit B, wi'th the 'addition to SeCtion 4.A.5. Commissioner McGoldrick
seconded the motion, which was carried' unanimously 5-.0.
10. C-208 -. City of Saratoga, Consider'a~ion of Amen'ding the Text of the
Zoning Ordinance 'to allow multi~story additions of 100 sq. ft.
or les~ without a formal Desi'gn Review 'application or public
hearing. However, such additions would be subject to staff
approval. if the nece's'sary findings 'under' Section 13A.4 can be
made. TheSe tex't amendments shall be per' Article 18 of Ordinance
NS-.3'. ............
Staff explained the 'text amendment. The public hearing wa's opened' at 9:29
p.m. No one appea'red to address the Commission. Commissioner McGoldrick
moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adopt ReSolution No. C-208-1 and forward it
to the City Council, making the"findings 'as shown in Exhibit B. CommiSsioner
Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
lla. Negative De'clara'tion - SDR-1563 - John Zaches
llb. A-952 - Mr. and Mrs. John Zaches, Request for Design Review Approval
llc. SDR-1563 - to construct a new, t~o-story single family residence and
Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expansion at
154'00 Peach' Hill Road 'i'n the R-1-40,000 z'on'ing' d'istrict
Staff described the applications, noting that the water supply is a critical
concern, and it has been conditioned to have 1000 gpm for a period of two hours.
Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot and
expressing concern regarding the.'C'loseH~ss of-'.tHe'.h~U~e. to a h~ge 'old redwood
tree. Discussion followed on the present and required water flow.
~arren Heid, architect, gave a presentation on the project. He noted that
there was a parcel map submitted in February of 1966 with a 40 ft. right-of-
way 'for Peach Hill, and the Staff Report does request a dedication. He asked
for clarification of Condition II-E and expressed concern about how the road
improvements are handled in that area, to ensure that the quality of Saratoga
is maintained. He asked for clarification on Condition J and discussed the
Sanitation District fees. It was.clarified that a new hydrant is not required
by the Fire District. The early warning system and requirement for the water
flow were also discussed. Mr. Heid stated that he would like to take this
matter to a study session if the issues cannot be worked out tonight.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to close' the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which wa's carried unanimously.
Staff discussed examples' of other applications concerning the water requirement.
There was a consen'us to take this matter' to a study session t0 further dis-
cuss this requirement. It was directed that it be continued to a study session
...P~anning Commission Page 7
~'Meeting Minutes - 4/25/84
A-952 and SDR-1563 (cont.)
on ~4ay 15, 1984 and the regular meeting of ~.~ay 23, 1984. Staff was requested
to submit comments on the new plans for the cantilever and the different
location of the house on the' lot.
12a~ NegatiVe Declaration - SDR-.'.1565'-.'Jim Hop'kins
12b. A-954 -. ~r. and ~4rS. Jim Hopkins, Request for Design Review Approval
12c. SDR-1565 to construct a second story addition and Building Site Approval
for a greater than 50% ex'pansion at.20650 Lomita Avenue in the
R-1-'10,000"z'on.in'g d'.i's't'r'i'c't ........... '
The-correspondence received on the 'project wa's noted. Staff explained the
proposal, recommending approval. Commissioner' Hlava gave a Land Use Committee
report,. noting that a major issue was the privacy impact. She stated that she
fee~s that this could.be mitigated by some 'landscaping.
The public hearing wa's opened at 9:54 p.m.
~4r. Hopkins.dis"cussed the conditions Of the Staff Report, specifically Con-
ditions II-.D, E and O. He stated that he felt Condition II-.E should also be
under a Deferred Improvement Agreement, since 'there is no. storm drainage system
on Lomita.
Carl Bumpass, the 'd~signer, discussed the project, including the solar panels.
Commissioner ~cGoldrick mov'ed to close the'public hearing. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Discussion followed on the 'conditions. Staff clarified that the bond required
in Condition II~O would not cover' items under'a D.I.A. Discussion followed
on the storm drain system requirement and the width of Lomita. Commissioner
Schaefer' expressed concern about traffic and it w'as noted that Lomita is
already 18-ft and the're are no ~aDs "."""""" ~"
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1565.
Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried. unanimously 5-0·
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve SDR-l~65, per' Exhi'bit "B" and the Staff
Report dated April ].7, 1984, with the 'condition that Condition II-.E regarding
the,storm-drain system would be subject to clarification bet~veen the appli-
cant and the. Chief Engineer, and if the're is a problem it can come back to the
Commission. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-954, per Exhibits "B":.
and "C" and the Staff Report dated April 17, 1984. She no'ted. that the land-
scaping should be reviewed wi'th the"neighbors. Commissioner Harris seconded
the motions, which were 'carried unanimously 5--0.
13. A-955 - William Young, RequeSt for Des'i'gn Review Approval to construct a
h'~'t'~'~f:Oy'y',' ~ih~le .family '~6sidence 'a~' 15391 "Huge DriVe' (LQt
'#6,'T~=act-#'SQ'23), ~n"the' R.-.l'~4'0',00'0 'zonin'g 'dis'tr'i'ct
The proposal was described by Staff. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Com-'
mittee report, commenting that the only privacy impact is on the Conholly house
next door.
The public hearing was opened at 10:09 p.m.
Mr. YOung described' the propOs. al, indicating that he 'had a problem with the
18 ft.'width f6~ the'dr'ive~.~.ir"can be dealt with, and agreed that the
slope shall not exceed 17½%.
Commissioner ~I~cGoldri'ck moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris
seconded the motion, which ~vas carried unanimously.
Commissioner ~cGoldrick moved to approve A-955, per Exhibits "B", "C" and "D"
and the Staff Report dated April 19, 1984, changing Condition to read that
the driveway shall be a minimum width of 18 ft. or as approved by the Central
Fire District and City Engineer, and that the slope of the driveway is not to
exceed 17~~ Commissioner seconded the motion Commissioner Schaefer suggested
landscaping to screen the deck posts. Commissioner McGoldrick amended the
motion to include landscaping with Staff approval. Commissioner Hlava accepted
the amendment. The motion was ca.rried unanimously 5-0.
- 7 -
.~ P~'a.n. ning Commission Page 8
:"."' Meeting Minutes 4/25/84
14a. A-956 - Mr. and Mrs. Glen McLaughlin, Request for Design Review Approval
14b. V-636 - for a second story expansion to an existing two-story residence
and Variance Approval. for a reduced rear yard setback at 14016
Camino Barco in the R-1-.40,000 zoni'ng district
Staff explained the applications. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee
report, describing the site and the houses in the area. She noted that all
of the houses in the area are visible to each other. She added that the back
of the house is very massive and there are privacy impacts.
The public hearing was Opened at 10:19 p.m.
Mr. ~.~cLaughlin, the applicant, described the lot. He discussed the proposal,
including the deck and landscaping. He read let'ters from the neighbors in
support of the proposal and a letter which opposed the deck extension.
Oscar Sohns, the architect, addressed the possibility of cutting the deck in
half, thereby making it 5 feet instead of the proposed 10 feet.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the 'public hearing. Commissioner
Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve V-636 f~.r the existing rear balcony and
post and arbors, per the' conditions in the Staff Report dated April 19, 1984,
with the arbors having a 1 ft. maximum overhang, making findings No. 1, 2, 4
and 5 listed in the 'Staff Report, plus finding No. 3, that it is a denial of
common privilege not to have sha'de on the second balcony which is a living
area of the house'. Commissioner' Schaefer seconded' the motion, which was
carried unanimously 5~0.
Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve 'the variance for a 5 ft. wide deck,
making the findings. Further' discussion followed on the 'deck. Commissioner
Schaefer clarified her motion to approve a 5 ft. wide deck extending from
the existing balcony, making the findings. The motion failed for lack of a
second.
Mr. Previte, the neighbor on the 'other' side, spoke in support of the variance
for the deck as proposed by the 'applicant. It was explained to Mr. Previte
that findings must be made for approval.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved' to approve 'the 10 ft. deck as proposed by the
applicant, making the 'findings that it is already into the setback and is not
changing anything~ the topography is unique 'and the heights of the adjoining
properties were noted~ and she does not feel that the 'primary purpose is to
give deck space but will give some architectural relief to the back of this
propert'y for ~he' neighbors. The 'motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Hlava moved' to deny the"variance 'for the deck, stating that she
cannot make the 'findings. S'he noted that 'the ho'u'se was poorly conceived at
the time of design review relative 'to placement on the lot and the size. She
added that she cannot make 'the variance findings to put such an addition into
the setback wh'en there i.s. no muc~ intense use on this lot. Commissioner Harris
seconded the motion. Commissioner McGoldrick stated' that the only reason she
will not vote for the 'motion'is because nothing will be done to mitigate the
horror th.at i.s already th.er'e. The vote ~a's taken' on the motion to deny the
variance for the' deck. The motion was carried 4--1, with Commissione:r McGoldrick
dissenting.
Commissioner Hlava moved' to approve A--956, per' the 'Staff Report dated April. 19,
1984 and Exhibits "B", "C"' and "D". Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0.
The appeal period was noted. The 'City Attorney cl'ari'~i~d that the variance
approved ~va's shown on the original drawings and is part of the living area,
and is necessary because the house was incorrectly placed on the lot.
15. UP-.555 - Pinn Brother's Construction, Request for Use Permit Approval to
operate 'a model' home sales"office on the northwest corner of
Verde Vista Lane 'and.Ton'i.Ann Place..(Lot.#2, Tract 7580), in
the R-..1'~.1'2,500', z'on'in'g' d'i's't'r'i'c't
Staff explained the use permit. The hours of operation were discussed. The
public hearing wa's opened at 10:56 p.m. No one appea'red to address the Com-
mission. Commissioner' Schaefer' moved' to close the' public hearing. Commis-
sioner Hlava seconded the motion, which. was carried unanimously.
8
.Planning Commission ~ Pa~e 9
-/!M~ting Minutes 4/25/84 ·
UP-555 (cont.)
Commissioner Hlava moved to approve UP-555, per Exhibit "B" and the Staff
Report dated April 10, 1984, with Condition No. 5 to read "The temporary real
estate office shall open no sooner than 8:00 a.m. and close no later than
6:00 p.m. This office shall only be open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m." Commissioner'McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried
unanimously 5-0.
16a. UP-556 -.. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Prev'ite, Request for Use Permit Approval
16b. A-953 - to construct an accessory structure in the rear yard setback
area and Design Review'Modification.Approval at 14008 Camino
Ba'rcO"i'n 'th'e' R.-.'l-'40',00'0 zOni'ng"d'is'.t'r'i'ct
Staff explained the applications, recommending approval. Commissioner Hlava
gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that there were no privacy impacts.
The public hearing was opened at 11:00 p.m. No one appeared to address the
Commission. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Com-
missioner Hlava seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously.
Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP~556 and A~953, per the Staff Report
dated April 20, 1984 and Exhibit "~", making the 'findings. Commissioner Hlava
seconded the'motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0.
MISCELLANEOUS
· .~.7j~'~SDR-1542 Publ'i'c Stor'age, Inc.'..',"Re'qu'esY.'fOr"D'e'fermen't'Of I'mp'rOvements
Staff described the requests, rec'ommending denial for the deferment of improve-
ments and recommending deletion of Conditions II-.E.and F regarding the emer-
gency access road. They noted' that the Fire. District has agreed to this
deletion.
Commissioner Hlava moved to delete Conditions II-E and F regarding the require-
ment for an emergency access road. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion,
which was carried unanimously
~atherine Hetzer, from Public Storage, addressed' the frontage.road improvements,
stating that they would like to see the' improvements done simultaneously with
their project. The City Attorney' explained the procedure for formation.of an
assessment district. The applicant was reques'ted' to get together with Staff
to initiate the process for circulating a petition.
.COMMUNICATIONS
Oral
1. The City Attorney asked that the meeting be continued to an Adjourned
Regular Meeting, in order to consder an amendment to an approved tentative map
regarding location of a road. He explained that the map is involved in Measure
A litigation and is under a time const'raint.
2. Chairman Siegfried' thanked the SaratOga News' and the Good.Government
Group for attending.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded to continue 'the mee't'ing to an Adjourned Regular
Meeting on May 1,' 1984 at 7:30 p.m. The 'meeting was 'adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
S~'c'ret'ary.
.RSS:cd