Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 23, 1984 PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale .Avenue, Saratoga, CA. TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Crowther, Harris, Peterson, and Siegfried (Commissioner Hlava arrived at 7:35 p.m. & Commissioner Schaefer arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner McGoldrick Minutes; There were no minutes from the meeting of May 9, 1984 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR-1475 - Thompkins & Associates (Charles L. Johnston) - Request for a Second One Year Extension to Tentative Building Site Approval, 3 Lots on Brookwood Lane Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the item listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. BUILDING SITE APPROVAL 2. SDR-1566 - Jonathan Roeloffs - Request for Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 Lot at 18665 Woodbank Way in the R-1-40,OOOzoning district It was directed that this item be continued to June 13, 1984. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 3. A~800 ~ Bryce.& 'LoVa'Reynolds.~ ReqUest MOdification to Design Review to..~construct a 2-story Addition to an existing 2-story residence at 12182 Parker Ranch Road, in the NHR Zoning District Commissioner C~owther withdrew the item from the Public Hearing Consent Calendar because he would be abstaining from voting'on the application, due to .pending t~tigation. The public .hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that they did not see any bulk or visibility impacts and that it was a very minor addition to the home. Mrs. Lova Reynolds, the applicant, stated that the addition was less than 250 sq. ft. of deck, part of which already exists. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-800, making the findings, per the Staff Report dated May 16, 1984, and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining.. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1563 - John Zaches 4b. A-952 - Mr. & Mrs. John Zaches - Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 4c. SDR-1563 - new, two-story single family residence and Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expansion at 15400 Peach Hill Road in the R-1-40,O00 zoning district~ continued from April 25, 198~ It was moved that the item be continued to a Study Session on June 5, 1984 and then to the Regular Commission Meeting on June 13, 1984. -1- ""Pianning Commission Page 2 Meeting 5/23/84 5. A-794 - Mr. Cesar Mayo - Request for Modification to Design Review Approval at 18801 Montewood Drive, in the R-1-40,O00 zoning district; continued from May 9, i984 Staff described the application, noting that the'item was before the Commission at an earlier meeting. The public hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. Lynn Bellanger, attorney representing the applicant, noted that because the item was originally on an earlier Consent Calendar, she did not have any comments but would let the Commission know that the applicant was present and available to answer any questions. Chairman Siegfried asked if they would be proceeding on the second item, which is the second story addition, but is not before us tonight. Lynn Bellanger stated that they had not determined whether or not to submit a second applica- tion or to stand on the 'Statute of limitations. In the meantime, they are attempting to work ~ith the Lewises and their problem. Commissioner Crowther made a comment that he was out to the site late that afternoon and that the tree cutting that has taken place looks quite bad. He stated he could see how the Mayo's could have a complaint about what has happened on the neighboring property and he thinks it has affected their view. He stated that he was personally concerned about the project being red tagged. He believes that the City is partially responsible for what has happened. He stated that he can't help but believe that the City was partly responsible for the notice not being appropriate in this case and that there is an injustice in having this project red tagged. CommisSioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-794, per the Staff Report dated May 3, 1984 and Exhibits B-1 and C-1. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried 6-0. Chairman Siegfried stated that he did not necessarily agree with Commissioner Crowther that the City was in any way liable for the process of noticing, and that we still were not sure that the neighbors were not notified. 6. A-962 - Parnas Corporation - Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family residence at 21757 Congress Hall Lane (Lot #21, Tract 6665), in the NHR zoning district; continued from May 9, 1984 Staff gave a description of the proposal. .It was pointed out that the standard fire code condition was inadvertently left off the Staff Report and that it should be added to the list of conditions at this time. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report de- scribing the property and the proposed home. She stated that the home would be one-story in the front and two-story in the back and is a fairly straight forward application with no impacts to surrounding properties. Commissioner Peterson asked if there was any impact from below on the two-story .home. Commissioner Hlava stated that there did not appear to be any impact. Chairman Siegfried commented that the Staff Report recommended removal of the proposed second story deck off of the family room, and asked if the Land Use Committee got any sense of the impact of the deck. Commissioner Hlava stated that this issue was not discussed at any length. Commissioner Harris stated that if there was a concern about the deck on that side of the house, maybe there is also a concern about landscaping on the north side. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. This item was continued until no later than 9:00 p.m. in order for the applicant to'be present. Th~ public hearing was re-opened at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Hlava commented that the reason the public hearing was continued was because there was a question about the landscaping and the privacy impact of one deck. Mr. Kamangar, representing Parnas, commented that they have no problem with providing the extra screening with the landscaping. He did not have any comments on the privacy impact of the balcony. He also stated that there would be no problem reducing the driveway slope from 20% to 17½%. Commissioner Crowther asked if there would be opposition to changing the off-white stucco to .an earthtone. Mr. Kamangar stated that as long as the exterior stucco matches the brick, it would be fine. -2- ~P~anning Commission Page 3 Meeting 5/23/84 A-962 (cont.) CommisSioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-962, per the Staff Report dated May 11, 1984, Exhibits B and C, changing Condition #4 from off-white stucco exterior to a medium earthton~ color that matches the brick beneer and adding the standard fire code condition, and adding to :Condition #1-B that'landscaping plans showing how the privacy of the property to the north and the west shall be protected and that landscaping shall be installed prior to final occu- pancy/inspection. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion which was carried unanimously 6-0. 7. A-963 - McBain & Gibbs, Inc. - Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two- story single family residence on Tollgate Road (Lot #13, Tract 6628), in the NHR zoning district~ Staff described the application. They noted that a condition.of significance was that the location of the structure be adjusted to allow the proper setback from the access road. It doesn't appear that there is any difficulty in accomplishing this on the site. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that the sketch on the plans does not show that the home will be s~t into~a'larg~hill and that t~e.fact that it is two-story should not have any impact on surrounding properties. The public hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner'Schaefermoved~to'.close the'~public'~hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he had a problem with the ivory stucco. He would like to see it a more natural color which would blend in with the hillside. He stated that he thinks that it is inappropriate on all of the hillside lots to use white or ivory exterior colors. Chairman Siegfried pointed out that in this particular case, that the home is set into a- hillside at the top of Canyon View and is not sure that the house will be visible from any point. Commissioner Hlava stated that the hill wraps around the house and that the grading has been done so that the house will set back into the hill. She does not believe that it will have any impact on surrounding properties. Staff noted that there would only be one existing home and two proposed homes in Parnas which would have any view of this home at all. CommisSioner Harris commented that it would be appropriate to leave this home the light color in view of the location and in order to allow some versatility in the area. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-963, per the Staff Report dated May 16, 1984, and Exhibits B and C. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 8. A-964 - McBain & Gibbs, Inc. - Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two- story single family residence on Tollgate Road (Lot #14, Tract 6628), in the NHR zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to June 13, 1984. 9. A-965 - Dewey Halligan - Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family residence at 12327 Farr Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district Commissioner Crowther abstained from the discussion and voting on this item because of pending.litigation. Staff described the application, noting that there is a requirement for a grading permit because the grading is in excess of 1,000 cu. yds. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that it was difficult to put any house on the site Without a lot grading and that the site will necessitate putting in retain- ing walls on the back and .frontside of the hill. They also discussed the drainage which was apparently in place at the time of the subdivision. Another matter discussed was the possi- bility of taking the portico off the house in order to minimize or shorten the front retaining wall, but'the area where the portico is proposed will get a lot of fill from the other area so it'balances the site. The public hearing was opened at 7:54 p.m. The applicant, Dewey Halligan, was present but did not have any comments. -3- "Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting 5/23/84 A-965 (cont.) Russell Crowther, 20788 Norada Court, stated that he was opposed· to the ivory stucco siding on the hillside. Dewey Halligan, the applicant, stated that there would not be that much of the ivory stucco standing out ·because of the dark brown tri·m, window area and roof. Commissioner Hlava commented that there is another house whichfis directly across the street from Mr. Halligan's and that Mr. Halligan has very little view of the valley and, in turn, she does. not believe that the valley will have very much view of his house. Commissioner Harris also noted that the house across the street was also light colored. Staff commented' that they did look at the site from the valley and that a portion of the site could be seen from Arroyo de Arguello, but you would have to be directly across from it to see'the site. As you move further down Arroyo de Arguello, you will not see as much of the site, but portions of the valley will see it. Russell Crowther commented that the Tentative Map for this site specified natural colors and that there was a reason for this condition. Commissioner Hlava stated that she was thinking also that the ivQry color was a little light and maybe they could move from ivory to beige. Chairman·' Si·egf~ied· co~meh~ed ~h~t'there- was a. general sense 'that·'~he~' WoUld l~ke to stay ·in. the ~arthtones~..'~. Mr. Halligan stated that he chose the ivory color to match the rest of the trim and the design of the house. He felt that there would not be very much ivory color seen from the front of the house and that it didn't make much difference what color it is due to this. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Harris stated that she would like to see added to Condition #6 that the landscaping be installed prior to final occupancy/approval, and that the exterior color be changed from ivory to an earthtone. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve A-965, per the Staff Report dated 5/17/84, and Exhibits B, C, and D, adding to Condition #6 that landscaping shall be installed to screen·the re- taining walls and shall be installed prior to final inspection/occupancy, and adding Condition #7 that the exterior color shall be changed from ivory to a medium earthtone color. Commis- sioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0, with Commissioner Crowther abstaining. 10. A-966 - Ira & Genie Oldham - Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second · story expansion to an existing two-story residence at 19861 Robin Way, in the R-1-20,O00 zoni~ district · Staff explained the project. They stated that the total addition exceeds the ordinance stan- dard of 4,800 sq. ft. in that it is 4,977 sq. ft. It was pointed out that the expansion of the existing two-story was started without permits. Staff is able to make the findings rela- tive to the 2½ ft. expansion to the existing two-story portion of the home, but cannot make the findings relative to the addition of the bedroom on the single story portion. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee 'report, indicating t·hat· the house is in a neigh- borhood where there is a lot of mature vegetation existing, so that in terms of privacy impact, the neighbors on the left of the house would not be impacted because that is the side of the house away from the proposed bedroom wing. The neighbor in the back of ·the house has a lot of vegetation screening them so they also have no privacy impact. When they were on the site, it did not appear that there would be a lot of impact to the next door neighbor from the bed- room wing, however, when they went on the neighbor's property, they noted an obvious·impact both on privacy and bulk. This structure would be very imposing over Mrs. Redington's back- yard, due to the fact that there is no vegetation screening this side and the lot is lower than the Oldham's. The bedroom addition will almost completely block Mrs. Redington's view of the hills. Commissioner Schaefer commented that there have·been o~her requests for second stories in this neighborhood but they have never reached the application stage. The public hearing was opened at 8:08 p.m. Mr. Oldham, the applicant, explained that there were three parts to their request. The first was for the 2½ ft. expansion on the main level in the front, which was two-story in the back. Their architect failed to recognize that they.would require Design Review for this addition. He stated that they desperately needed that 2~ ft. addition because it is already half built, and that whatever else is decided, they would very much like to have this part approved. The second item is a bedroom addition on top of the bedroom wing of the house. This wing is on -4-' 'P~anning Commission Page 5 Meeting 5/23/84 A-966.' .( cont. ) Mrs. Redington's side and extends back from the main part of the house. He stated that they have a letter from their neighbors to the west and across the street who support this bedroom addition, and that the opposition is Mrs. Redington, who is to the east. Mr. Oldham went'on to explain what the objections might be to their proposal. One, the neighbors might be concerned about the bulk and the affect on the neighborhood. He does not think this will be a problem, because the addi'tion will only be 4 ft. higher than the existing home and is toward the back. The next question would be one of privacy for Mrs. Redington. He thinks there should be a provision in the approval addressing this question. T~eir archi- tect has suggested installing a garden window with opaque glass to alleviate the privacy im- pact. He would ask that the approval specify that the view out the window to the neighbor's yard must be blocked, but that a garden window on that side be approved. Another problem would be the view from Mrs. Redington's yar.d being blocked. The primary view to the south would not be blocked, but the view to the west would be blocked. Mr. Oldham explained that the third part of the application was the solar addition, which caused the square footage to exceed the maximum allowed. He stated that this would not add to the appearance of bulk from the street or from Mrs. Redington's side. They would like to have this room to provide passive solar energy. Dennis Burrow, architect for the Oldham°s, stated that he had brought amended drawings showing the change in the window configuration on the east side. He explained that the intent is to provide both light and ventil'ation into that side of the bedroom and still be able to maintain the privacy on Mrs. Redington's side. The secondary point is that the same bays would allow some variety and some shadow lines and provide interest on those elevations. Mrs. Elizabath Redington, 19831 Robin Way, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that the addition will overlook her backyard and pool ares and will take away all privacy from her yard. In addition, she stated that the addition will take away all of her view of the hills. CommisSioner Schaefer commented that the 2½ ft. expansion looks fine, but that the second story addition would not be suitable in this case. Mrs. Genie Oldham, the applicant, commented that she went around to her immediate neighbors that morning to get their feelings and this is when she learned of the petition against their proposal. This is when she asked her n6ighbors to sign a petition in favor of the proposal. She stated that the Land Use Committee was able to see that there is no one from the back of their yard who was able to view the project and, essentially, the only neighbor who would be affected is Mrs. Redington. Ruth Breckline, 12529 Greenmeadow, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that two-story homes that obstruct the view or privacy of the property surrounding them should not be allowed. She stated she would not like to have a two-story next door to her without having due consi- deration in the matter. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Hlava stated that she feels very strongly in this matter due to the fact that when she was in Mrs. Redington's backyard, there was too great a privacy impact to allow the second story expansion. Commissioner Peterson stated that he concurred with Commissioner Hlava's comments. Commissioner Crowther stated that he agreed and was concerned about setting a precedent. He commented that perhaps the structure could be brought down to the same height as the current structure. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-966 for the 2½ ft. expansion and denial for the second story bedroom addition, per the Staff Report dated May 15, 1984 and Exhibits B, C, D and E. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Chairman Siegfried informed the Oldham's of their right to appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. lla. A-968 - Ferhatbegovich - Request Design Review Approval to construct a two-story llb. SDR-1568 - addition and Building Site Approval for a greater than 50% expansion at 12871 Pierce Road, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district Staff explained the project. Commissioner Hlava gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the project. She stated that as far as the structures themselves, there did not seem to be a problem. What creates the problem, is that there are very many large mature trees in the front yard which make it very difficult to move the carport and the turnaround close enough to the house to satisfy the Fire District's requirement that they have a turnaround within -5- ~P~a'nning Commission Page 6 Meeting 5/23/84 A-968, SDR-1568 (cont.) 150 ft. of the structure. They discussed removing one very small redwood and moving the turn- around closer to the house, thus satisfying this requirement. The public hearing was opened at 8:37 p'.m. The applicant was present, but had no comments. The applicant's engineer, from Westfall Engineers, stated that the turnaround could be located in two locations, either close to the street exactly 150 ft. from the back of the house or al'l the way to the front, which would require removal of one small tree. This can be accom- plished with no major problems. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR-1568 and A-968 per the Staff Report dated May 14, 1984 and Exhibits C and D. CommisSioner Peterson seconded the motion which was carried unanimously 6-0. 12. UP-558 - Mr. & Mrs. Ken Levy - Request Use Permit Approval to construct an accessory structure 15'2" tall in the rear yard setback at 19800 Glen Una Drive, in the HC-RDzoning district The proposal was described by Staff. Staff noted that they were recommending approval with a condition to remove theexcess impervious coverage. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the additional impervious coverage, they must make one or more'of the findings listed in the report. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she didn't think they should ever go against the imper- vious coverage, except in this instance it happens that the zoning is HC-RD but the lot is essentially flat and they should be allowed greater impervious coverage. The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m. Commissioner Hlava moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated he was concerned about setting a precedent in that area. Commis- sioner Hlava commented that she was having trouble making the finding for the excess impervious coverage. Commissioner Schaefer asked if Staffmight have a suggestion for making the finding in this case. Staff commented that they could vary the coverage through the Use Permit process rather than using the HC-RD findings. 'Chairman Siegfried stated that he thought they could tie the finding to the uniqueness of this particular site and its characteristics, as it is the only site in this area which is a flat lot with HC-RD zoning. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP-588, per the Staff Report dated May 16, 1984, Exhibits B and C., Condition #1 excluding Condition #2 and making the finding that the im- pervious coverage, in this particular case, can be exceeded by 760 sq. ft. because this is a flat or close to zero sloping parcel within a HC-RD Zoning district and will minimize dis- ruption of the site. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion which was passed unanimously 6-0. .13. UP-185 - Katherine Cain, Letter from Daniel Krag regarding New Spirit Montessori School on Austin Way Chairman Siegfried asked whether they wanted to go to a Study Session on the matter or have Staff proceed at this point with the revocation of the Use Permit. He asked if Staff had any comment. Staff pointed out that in addition to Mr. Krag's letter, there was another letter' submitted this evening from William J. Vosbrink commenting to the uses of the site. He st'ated that it would be Staff's recommendation to take this matter to a later Study Session. Mr. Bill Vosbrink, 19051 Austin Way, stated that on several occasions on weekends activities had been held at the school which were not approVed under the original use permit, such as weddings, flea markets, etc. They have seen as many as 50-60 people on weekends gathered at the site with multiple cars parked in the vicinity, some on Austin Way. This represents a traffic hazard, and is what prompted him to write his letter in opposition to the school. Chairman Siegfried stated that they would propose to take this to the Study Session'on June 19, 1984 which would give them time to visit the site. He stated we would notify those who have commented on the site in advance of this Study Session. -6- P~'anning Commission Page 7 · Meeting 5/23/84 UP-185 (cont.) Allen Wong, owner of the property, stated that'Lynn Brock, operator of the school, had used the school on weekends at three differnet times and was not aware that this was not permitted. She had a complaint in 1982 about the use of the school on weekends and since that time, she has only had one weekend event held at the school which was a parent flea market. The owner also stated that he only became aware of the problem as of last week. Chairman Siegfried suggested'that the owner and the operator of the school attend the meeting on June 19, 1984 to discuss the matter. 14. LL #3 - Ray Anderegg - Request for Lot Line Adjustment, Parcel #19 and Parcel #20, of Tract 6665 (Parnas), in the NHR zoning district Staff described the project. Commissioner HlaVa gave a Land Use Committee report, stating they had no problem with the proposal. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve Lot Line Adjustment #3, Parcel #19 and Parcel #20, of Tract #6665 (Parnas) per the Staff Report dated May 18, 1984 and Exhibit B. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 15. SM-2 - Russell Schneider - Request for Site Modificati6n Approval to construct a drive- way and elevated stairway on a slope exceeding 10% at 14425 Sobey Road in the R-1-40,O00 zoning district~ It was directed that.this item be continued to June 13, 1984. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1.Letter from Michael & Barbara Ulrich dated May 16, 1984 re Request for Variance to be moved to an earlier Planning Commission Agenda. Staff stated that the Planning Commission Agenda~ were complete until the end of July and that the appliCantS'were: requesting that their matter be heard before this time. Staff has informed them that they take the applications on a first come first serve basis and were not in a position to deviate from that procedure. It was suggested that the only alternative they would have would be to come to the Commission with their request. Mrs. Ulrich, owner of the property, stated that the house was approximately 10 years old and they were the third owners of the home. She stated that they had a slide where the retaining wall pushed the deck into the house and moved the house. They were stopped from repairing the decks because they were too close to the property line. They were not aware of this. There is no intrusion on surrounding properties. She also stated that theonly reason they are asking to have their variance heard at an earlier date is because for over a year now they · have not had a place to go outside and they are confined to staying indoors over the summer. Chairman Siegfried stated that he appreciated her concerns but a Staff Report has to be pre- pared and this involves considerable preparation and time, and would also involve a public not}ee and we can't shuffle applications in this manner. He added that what could be done is to pull the building permit process and the variance procedure as close together as possible. Staff stated that this would most likely be possible as long as there were no problems with the application. or plans. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully~ed, ~hook Secretary RSS:'dsc