Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SAIATOGA PLANNING CO.~iMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 9, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Mee·ting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Harris, HlaVa, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Peterson Minutes The following change was made to the minutes of April 26, 1984: In the fourth line under Consent Calendar, (3) should read (30). Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading of the minutes of· April 26, 1984 and May 1, 1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried with Commissioner Crowther abstaining since he was not present at the April 26th meeting. CONSENT ·CALENDAR. 1. A-875 - Hichael Layne, 20445 Montalvo Road, Request for Modification of De·sign Review App·roval in the R-l-·40,000 zoning district A-875 was removed for discussion. Staff explained the modification and recom- mended approval. They stated that the applicant has suggested that the area · off of the master' bedroom be enclosed only on two sides and therefore con- sidered simply a deck and not counted as square footage of the building. Discussion followed on the modification. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that Dr. Call, of the Homeowners Association, had stated that he felt this application Should go through a new design review. She indicated that, unless it could be shown that this was substantially different from-the original pro- posal she would have 'a difficult time considering it a new application.. She added that she has a problem with the deck being enclosed on two sides. Chair- man Siegfried noted that there will be some additional fees required on the. modification; however, he would have a real problem starting the whole process over on the project before voting. Commissioner Crowther stated that he would vote against this. He indicated that he had opposed the project in the first place' and still can'not make the findings with regard to bulk for this particular lot. Michael Layne, the 'applicant, addressed the modification to the project and the enclosed portion of'the' deck. Dr. James Marino, the next door neighbor, asked for clarification of the height. Staff noted that it is now 28 ft. Dr. Marino also asked that cedar deodoras be specified as the type of tree to be planted. Staff discussed the landscap- ing. Commissioner Hlava stated that on the One hand she feels that, through no fault of the 'neighbors,· the Planning Commission or the City, we have ended up with a house ·which ·is not what was originally approved, nor what the neighbors thought they' were going to get·. She commented that, on the other hand, she is not sure what is accomplished by voting against it, because that foundation may be sitting on that lot for a long time or it will be sold to another person who will come in and note that the foundation is already there, and the same q~es- tion will have to be faced all over again. Commissioner' Crowt·her commented that· one of the major concerns with this house in the 'earlier discussions by the Commission and public was that it is a two- story. Ite stated that he 'still believes that a two-story is inappropriate on this lot and he 'feels it will have ·negative ~isual impacts. Discussion followed on the 'deck. There was a consensus to have the deck removed. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-875, per the Staff Report - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 . Meeting Minutes 5/9/84 A-.875 (cont.) dated. May 5, 1984, 'i·ncluding the removal of the deck and revised landscaping plan, and wi·th cedar deodoras being specified. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, wh·ich wa·s carried 4-2, with Commissioners Crowther and Hlava dissenting. The 10--day appeal period was noted. PUBL'I'C HE'AR'ING"C'ONSE'NT' CALEND'AR Items A~9S9 and A-.794 were removed for discussion. The public hearing on the Consent Calendar was opened at 7:54 p.m. Commis- sioner Hlava moved to approve the balance of the items listed below. Com- missioner' seconded the· motion, ·which was carried unanimously 6-0. 3. A~-971 ~ John and Sherry McCollum, 19810 Merribrook Drive, Request for · - ·DeSign Review Approval for an addition which would exceed the ...... floor area 's't'andard' in th'e R-.'I-.'10,0'0'0 ·zoning· d'istrict · Di~Cus's.'i.on'followed' on A--959. Commissioner Crowther noted that the col·or of the· wood si;ding is not indicated. He requested that it be a natural color.' Commiss·ioner· Hlava commented that on the on-·site visit it had been noted that the ungraded section of this· lot ' · steep. Therefore, there would be · ." li't'~le back .y'ard'~' 'Sh~ S'u'g~s"'ted '-~a~e.~e 'CS'mmis'sidH' m.a.~' .~a~t"-'to 'pu~ a 'con'di~ion in·the report that any"'fUture decking come back for·further review'because of the steep slope. Bob McBain, th·e applicant, discussed the possibility of a pool site. It·was noted that the applicant would have to. come back for review if they wished to have a pool. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-959,.,Mc~a..~ '~..Gibbs,.~ith the'am'endment that the wood siding be a natural ,color and that any future decking come back for site review. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-·0. Discussion followed on A-794. Robert Lewis, 15279 Sobey, stated that he had found that the initial approval for this was denied'by the Planning Commission in late 1981 and later appe.a'!ed and approved by the City Council in January of 1982. He pointed out that··the files will reflect that the notices sent at that time did not include all of the people within 500 feet of this lot. Ite asked that the existing building permit be suspended until he 'and.his neighbors can det·ermine what effect it has on their property. 'He added that he feels it could possibly affect their view. The City Attorney explained that the list of people within 500 feet was pre- pared by the original applicant in 1981 and 1982. He stated that there is no qUes·tion whatsoever that Mr. Lewis was entitled to notice and his name does not appear on the list. He-commented that-.i.f ~he~'~.'are .othe'r"'peo:ple'who '~'i~-~no't-r'ec'e{ve' 'not'j&"6 iFt' ~'impl~ compounds' 'th.e probl'.em. He ·no·ted· that two yea'rs' h·as··gone by"s.i.nce the"i.ni.ti. al approval was ·given, and whether· they are now preclUded from raising this· is·sue because of passage of time under the limitation peri.od set forth in·the ·Sta~e law ·and the ·City code is an issue he has not had a chance to revieW. FIe sugges·ted that the matter be referred to a study ses··sion, in order to give ·the neighbors an opportunity to review the plans·.·· Discu's'sion followed on noticing, and it wa's noted· that the procedure has bee·n· cleansed and th·e 'applicant is no longer res·Donsible for the· list of people ·to be not·iced. It was clarified' that Mr. Lewis and his neighbors had been noticed·for the ·current mod·ification. · Dr. Mayo, th·e applicant, commented that if the original noticing was not correct it was' an oversi'ght'. · I·t wa·s di·rected that thi·s matter be ·continued to a study session on May 15, 198-4 and th.e"regular meet'ing on May 23, 1984. Dr. Mayo stated that he would get the names·of th·e··nei·ghbo·rs not previously noti·ced' and show them the plans. The City Attorney· commented to the··applicant that the lack of notice might raise ·the ·questi'on as to ·the validity of the initial approval, and he would look into ·that issue. When· asked by ~·{r. J. Lohr if the applicant should con- tinue wi·th.·con·s~t·ruction, it'wa·s ·the City Attorney·'s opinion that he should not. 'Commissi.oner' Crowth.er moved to close the Public Hearing Consent Calendar. Commi·ssioner Hlava se'conded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - 2 - ~'anning Commission Page Meeting ."~Iinutes 5/9/84 · PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. A-942 Charles Aring, Request ;For Design Review Approval to con- 5b. V-630 struct a second story addition, Variance Approval for a 5c. SDR-1562 11'6~' side yard setback and Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expansion at 20080 Mendelsohn Lane in the R-i-20,000 zoning district Staff reported that the applicant has Changed his proposal so that it is under 50% expansion. He has ~rithdrawn his application for the variance and site approval. Staff explained the new design, recommending approval. Commissioner Schaefer inquired about trimming of the hedges or a stop sign on the corner. Staff commented' that any provision for a stop sign would have to be on the author. ity of the City Council. The public hearing was opened at 8:19 p.m. Mr. Aring, the applicant, stated that he would prune the hedges back again. 'Bill Henderson, son-in-law of Mrs. Oxendine, the next-door neighbor, addressed the hedges and also inquired regarding the nonconforming structures. Staff explained the conditions in the Staff Report relative to the nonconforming structures and the provisions in the ordinance relative to hedges. Commissioner HcGoldrick moved to approve A-942, per pages 1, 5 and 6 of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1984 and the Staff Report dated May 1, 1984, and revised Exhibits "B-i" and "C-I", modifying'the setback on page 5 of the ~qarch 21, 1984 report from 11½ ft. to 15 ft. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 6. A-928 - Dwayne Richards, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a split level single family residence at 14612 Palomino lVay, in the NHR zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to June 13, 1984. 7a. A-948 - Pero Glumac, Request for Design Review Approval for a 2-story 7b. V-633 single family residence on an infill site, Variance Approval 7c. 'SDR~1564 -. for a building height exceeding 30 ft. and Building Site Approval for a single lot at 14975 Quito Road in the R-l- " 4'0,000 zoning district Staff reported that the need for the variance has now been removed since the building'height does not exceed 30 ft. Staff explained the proposal, recom- mending approval. They noted that there is a letter in the packet from the Central Fire District, indicating that they would prefer to have a minimum access road, but recognizing the constraints, they have suggested an option of a 14 ft. wide road.. Staff is still recommending the minimum access road because to modify from that is a precedent that creates difficulty in future applications. The public hearing was opened at 8:31 p.m. Tom Mason, representing the applicant, stated that he would like even a more narrow road; however, a 14.ft. road with 2 ft. shoulders would be more acceptable than 18 ft.. The road was further discussed. Mr. Sulic, of Mason and Sulic, discussed the windows in the home. · Dick Nelson, a nei'ghbor, discussed the grade of the property and expressed concern about an erosion problem with the 14 ft. road. He also expressed · previous concerns of (1) privacy, (2) view and (3) large and overbearing structure. He stated that he feels the applicant has made a definite effort to correct some 'of these problems. He added that he would like to see some trees'and screening, and would like that clarified if possible. Richard' Anderson, an adjacent neighbor, questioned the need for a 14 ft. driveway. Chairman Siegfried commented that it has been required by the Fire District, and if it is a curved road then the width becomes much more important. F,Ir. Anderson discussed the type of traffic on the road and indicated that he 'feels 10 or 11 ft. would be reasonable. Mr. Sulic gaV'e"a presentation. on the project, discussing the location of the proposed house relative to the neighbors and the proposed screening. · ~l~nning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 5/9/84 A-948, V-633 and SDR-1564 (cont.) Mr. Nelson suggested that 10-15 ft..trees be planted to screen the fence line. FIe indicated that he would like to work with the applicant.regarding the planting of these trees. Mr. Glumac, the applicant, discussed the project, stating that he was agree- able to planting big trees. Commissioner ~cGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlav~ seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR-1564. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commis- sioner. S~haefer dissenting. Commissioner ~cGoldrick moved to approve SDR-1564, per Exhibit "B" and the Staff Reports dated April 4, 1984 and May 1, 1984, allowing a 14 ft. wide access road and requiring a fire hydrant on site, and A-948, per Exhibits C-l, D-1 and E-1 and the Staff Reports dated April 4, 1984 and May 1, 1.984, with the condition that the trees between the applicant's and the Nelsons' property be 10-15 feet. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. Com- missioner Schaefer commented that she feels the applicant has made a lot of requested changes, but she feels the height and the bulk ~e'not' compatible for an infill kind of home. Chairman Siegfried stated that if the 14 ft. driveway poses a significant problem in terms of an impact on existing trees, he would hope that the applicant would come back to Staff and indicate that there is a problem. Staff noted that the applicant will have to bring in the plans for review and there will be discussions of any problems of that nature during that review period. 8. A-958 - Robert Dewey, Vista Arroyo Court (Parcel E, Tract 6528), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2-story single family residence in t'he NHR zoning district Commissioner Crowther abstained from. discussion and voting. on this matter. St~ff des~ribe.d th.e~".p'ro~os-e'd.~roj'e'ct/stating they ~e're-rbc~'~m'endin~ ~pproval. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, discussing the 'location of the house. She stated that it is visible from Prospect but will not have a major impact on the viewshed from the Arroyo de Arguello area below. The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. Kurt Anderson, representing the applicant, addressed the project. He stated that they' would like to-come back to a study session with plans for the retain- ing wall and landscaping to mitigate the impact. Commissioner Hlava commented that they had gone on an on-site visit to look at the wall te. chnique that Floyd Gaines is proposing for his wall at the end of Fourth Street. She stated that they were very impressed with the way that the wall is put together and the fact that it does appear that you can plant on it. She indicated that they had recommended to Mr. Anderson that it was a possible solution to some of the problems. She added that she would be amenable to approving this and having Staff do.that negotiation on the look and con- struction of that long wall along the driveway, rather than having him come back to the Commission. She commented that the Land Use Committee is very interested in pursuing this technique which has been used for a long time in Europe and might be a solution to a lot of the problems with retainin-g walls. Mr. Anderson discussed the grading on the project. Russell Crowther, Norada Court, stated that his home is i0ca. t.~'d~.directly to' ~j~.~-"~e~s~'-.'~.~'-t]~e."~r~j~ect~ He stated that he.feels it willhave a major impact on the 'view,'and~=he disagreed with the comments in t.h~'Staff Report and by Commi~ssione.r' Hla.va that it will not be' major. He commented that it looks like th.e 'top of the"h'o'me will stickj up above the' top of the ridgeline and will be 'visible 'from the 'east. He stated that the vegetation shown on the eastern. si.de of th~~ lot will also' stick up above the top of the ridgeline and change th~j whole 'character' of the .ridgeline. He commented that the location of the ho'us'e 'violates' the' General Plan, and he 'feels it should meet the criteria of th~ General Plan and sh.Ould be stepped down and moved back from the ridgeline the i.nd~cated amount that is in the General Plan. He also indicated that he oppos'e's 'th~ metho~d of stabilizing the wall previously discussed, since he does not thi.nk it will stand up in that area.. - 4 - .Planning Commission Page Meeting Minutes 5/9/84 ~958 (~ont.') DiscUssion followed' on the 'criteria in the Specific Plan for rid~elineS'~ Staff noted that this parti'cular si'te is not subject to NHR but ~s subject to the HCRD.crite'r'ia. S'ta£.~ was asked' to see if. there were any setbacks from ri.dgelines in NHR'. Commissioner Schaefer commen'ted that she feels that, with the amount of stucco ~ork tha't appears in the design, it might be more ~ppropriate to use natural s'ton'e to add depth 'and richnes's. Commi'ssioner' Crowther' stated that there was not a good drawing of the ridge- line? and he 'wOuld like to have the location of the ridgeline plotted out so it can be determined what the. house is going to do to the viewshed relative to that ridgeline. Commissi~oner' Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the 'motion, which 'was carried unanimously. After further discussion regarding the ridgeline, it was determined that this matter should be.continued to an Adjourned Regular ~.~eeting. Staf~ was asked to provide 'additional input relative to the questions on the ridgeline, and the applicant was' asked to provide information regarding the possibility of. using stone 'vs. stucco in the design. It was directed' that this item be continued to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on May 15, 1984. 9. A-~960 ~ Harry and ~.~arie Yauger, 14528 Chester Avenue (Parcel E, Tract 6261, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2-story S'ingl'e"fam'i'ly"r'e's'i'de'n'c'e' i'n the 'R-1-'40,00'0"zoning d'is'trict Staff des"cr'ibed the 'proposal.. Commissioner Hla~a gave a'Land Use Committee report, des'c'ribing the site. She~ commented that there was very little privacy impact. She' described the grading, noting that there was one section of the wall that appears to be 'over 6 ft. in height. The public hearing was o~ened at 9:55 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissione~' Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Com- missioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-~960, per the Staff Report dated ~a.y 2, "C~' ='D~' and "E" Commissioner ~cGoldrick seconded' 1984 and Exhibits "B the mo. tion, which was carried unanimously 6~0. 10. A-961 ~ W'ilson Development, Inc., 2150~ Saratoga Heights Drive (Lot 12, -.Tract..6665), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a " 2'.~'s't'o'ry 's'ing'le 'fam'.i'l'y residence 'i'n 'th'e' NHR zoni'ng district Staff explained the application. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee, describing the 'site. Commiss"ioner Crowther commen'ted that he would vote against the project. He stated' that i't basically violates the conditions of the initiative that was passed' by the public, and he disagrees with any separate side agreement that was. made bF the City. He added that he would be opposed to it on the basis that'the 'lot is really too small for this house. The public hearing was opt. ned at 9:58 p.m. Dave Wilson, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, stating that he would not like to have the windows' be 'opaque. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, wh'ich wa's carried unanimously.. After further discussion on the windows, Commissioner McGoldrick moved to' approve A-.961, per the 'Staff Report dated May 2, 1984 and Exhibits "B" and "C", deleting Condition No. 2 regarding the 'obscure or opaque 'windows. Commis- sion. er Hlava seconded' the-motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. ~P~janning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 5/9/84 11. A-962 - Parnas Corporation, 21757 Congress Hall Lane (Lot 21, Tract 6665), Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 2-story single family residence in the NHR z'Oning district It was directed that this matter be continued to May 23, 1984. MISCELLANEOUS 12. A-912 Steven Dorcich, 18570 Sobey Road, Request for Modification to Design Review Approval to construct a '30 ft., 3-story tower in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff described the proposal, recommending denial. They commented that if the Commission wishes to approve the proposal they would suggest that the height of the tower be reduced to 24 ft. Dennis Henley, the architect, gave a presentation on the project. Commissioner Schaefer commented on the design of the tower, stating that it adds a very key architectural feature that ties it in and-makes it look as California-style as possible. She stated that because. it is open she thinks it will have a very minimal impact. She added that she will vote for it because it is less than 30 ft. and because the size of the ridge on this home is less than 25 ft. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she was uncomfortable with the fact that this application was not a public hearing, so that the neighbors could be noticed. John McNulty, a neigh. bor, spoke in support of the proposal, stating that he was impressed with the unique design. Steve Dorcich, the applicant, addressed the project, stating that he had dis- cussed the design with 'all of the 'neighbors. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the modification to A-912 for the tower, on the basis that it will have a minimal impact on privacy or views. He added' that he.does not consider it a 3-story'tower and that it will not add to the bulk of the residence because of its size. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, adding that it was open on the size. The motion was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Hlava and McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she was not opposed to the proposal. but was voting against it due to lack of a public hearing. COMMUNICATIONS Written .. 1. 'Letter' from 'F'l'o'yd 'Ga'ines dated April' 17, 1'98'4, re Tract 7578, conc'e'rni'ng hn'ae'rground ut'ilities, street ~mDrovements and retai'n~ng wall. Tim Raibley, civil engineer for the applicant, read.~h'e'let~er','askihg"that the street improvements and underground utilities be deferred. He stated that the existing pavement is in excellent condition and should remain intact, and they would construct the pavement between the proposed curb and the existing pavement. He commented that they feel it would be more cost effective to wait until the' whole 'street was improved for both underground utilities and street surfacing. He also addressed a new design for the concrete wall on the pro- jec. t. Staff .stated tha. t. they would review the technical details of the street improv'ements~ .Discussion was held on other' pro~ects'tliat.have'~ece~ved Deferred Improvement Agreements relative to undergrOunding in the area. Staff stated that they can further review these projects and bring back the data concerning them to the next study session. Mr. Raibley stated that they would also have a presentation available at that time on the'retaining wail. oral '- 1. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending the meet- ing and the Good Government Group for atteff~i'Hg and serving coffee. '~DJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on May 15, 1984. The meeting ended' at 10:28 p.m.