Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~,~ISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 11, 1984 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 137'77 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Schaefer Minutes The following corrections were made to the minutes of June 27, 1984: On page 3, the seventh paragraph under V~641, the third sentence should read "General Plan" instead of "General Park". On page 7, the sentence should be added to the first paragraph "It was determined that the sign shall be located to the rear of the planting area, with a meandering sidewalk between the sign and the street." .Commissioner ~4cGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of June 27~.1984 and approve as amended. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimOUsly. CONSENT 'CALENDAR Item 2, SM-4, Donald Rumpf, was removed.for discussion. Commissioner McGoldrick .moved to approve the' balance of the items listed below. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, wh.'i'ch was car. ried unanimously 4-0. 1. A-839 Gerald Butler (Rapport), Lot #4, Tract 6732, Request for One-Year Extension 3a. Negative Declaration .- SM-'5 - Douglas Fairbairn 3b. SM-5 - Mr. Douglas Fairbairn, 14253 Hilltop Way, Request for Site Modifi- cation to construct a single story addition and deck on a slope great'e'r' than'10%, in the' R-I-40,000 zoning' dis'tri'ct' Discussion followed on Item 2. Mr. Timothy Jen, 19396 Crisp Avenue, stated that he lives in the residence just below the construction of the planned swimming pool. He asked for clarification of the drainage of the area, since it could possibly be aggravated by the construction.of.the pool. Mr. Jen discussed the current drainage situation and indicated that he would like to have the water drain down' to the creek instead of his front yard. It was noted that there is a condition concerning drainage in Mr. Cotton's letter relative tp:..M~.:".'RUmpf's site. However, Staff indicated that they would prefer that the applicant pursue a solution to the drainage before the matter is approved, since they are 'not sure that the applicant has access to a drainage facility. Michael Dillon, the' landscape architect., stated that they were now catching the runoff water and described the proposed system. He noted that at present they don't have plans engineering-w~se as to how the water line is going to be, and alternatives were 'discussed. Chairman Siegfried stated that the Commission needs to see some adequate plans to show how the water is going to be drained. It was directed that this matter be continued to the next meeting on July 25, 1984, to allow the appli- cant to submit plans for a solution for the drainage. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT 'CA'LENDAR Item 4, A-981, Dewey and Otterlei, was removed for discussion. The public hearing'on the Consent Calendar was opened at 7:46 p.m. Commis- sioner McGoldrick moved.to close the public hearing on. Items 5 through 9. Commissioner Peterson seconde.d the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve I'tems 5 through 9 listed below. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried' unanimously. P!~nning Commission Page 2 ~4inutes Meeting 7/11/84 PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT 'CALENDAR (cont.) 5. A-982 - Gerald Butler, Request for 'Design Review Approval for a 5,870 sq. ft., two-story single family residence in the R-I-40,000 zoning 'd'i's't'rict'o'n Lot #1, Tract 6632, ~lontalvo Heights Drive 6a. Negative Declar'atio'n '- A-'985 Warfel 6b. A-985 - Thomas Warfel, Request for Design Review Approval for a two-story addition to an existing single-story, single family dwelling in the R-'l-'40',0'0'0' zoning district at 21279 Canyon View Drive 7. A-987 - Lynn'& Susan Weber, 'Request for Design Review Approval for a 4,127 sq. ft. single-story, single family dwelling which exceeds the allowable floor area standard of 4,000 sq. ft. in the R-1-12,500 z'oni'ng di's.'t'r'i'ct at' 12.88'5 Pierc'e Road 8. A-988 R.F. Anderegg, Request for Design Review'Approval to construct a two-story, single family residence at 21771 Congress Hall Lane, in th'e NHR z'o'n'i'ng' d'ist'ri'c't 9. A-925 - Chester' Spiering, RequeSt for Design Review Approval to enlarge Mod. a second story'addition at 15135 E1 Camino Grande, in the R-i-40,000 zo'ning distr'ict David.Smit.h~'.Quito Road'and Aspesi, addressed A-981, expressing concern about the widening of Quito Road relative to the Highway 85 Corridor. Staff commented that if in fact the improvement of the West' Valley Corridor involves acquisi- tiom along Quito Road, those will be made by CalTrans at the appropriate time. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-'9'8'l,"Dewey and Otte'rlei. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which' was carried~ unanimously 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. SDR-1530 - Professional Village of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Considera- UP-535 tion of EIR and Request for Use Permit, Building Site Approval A-989 - and Design Review Approval for 129,000 sq. ft. in 3 office buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga' and Cox Avenue in' the"P'~A Z'o'n.ing Dist'ri'c't'; 'cont'inU'ed fro'm'Ju~e 27, 1984 Chairman Siegfried stated that the public hearing had been continued in this matter until this meeting to get input on the traffic studies from the traffic consultant. The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. Steven Douglas, of Owe'n Companies, introduced Jack .Pee'~" and Brent Oo-den of PRC Engineering, who conducted' and prepared the traffic studies. Jack Peers- gave a presenta.tion on the traffic study relating to traffic counts, impact on the'local neighborhood, ~he 'impact on Saratoga Avenue and access to Saratoga Avenue. Brent Ogden discussed the overall process and findings made during the study. Regarding conclusions and mitigations, he indicated that the project has been made smaller and attempts have been made to redirect some of.the traffic. Discussion followed on ~he square footage used in 'the assumptions for the study. Mr. Douglas addressed the probable uses for the buildings. Discussion also followed on the possibility on putting a portion of the building below grade level.. The applicant's representative indicated that this would be possi- ble; however, they do not feel it would appreciably reduce the mass of the building. He added that he does not feel there. would be much 'difference seen unless a whole story was put underground, and that is'impractical. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the traffic, referencing his letter of July 21, 1983. He discussed the other buildings and uses in the 'area. Commissioner Harris inquired about the channelization of Cox. Mr. Peers replied that they have been working with the developer to see if a channeli- zation scheme can be found that will provide a similar kind of access to that which is shown on the plan for McFarland. He indicated that they would like to come back to the next meeting with the appropriate information. PI. anning Commission Page 3 ~,r.-Minutes ~eeting 7/11/84 SDR-1539 (cont.) Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, addressed access onto Saratoga Avenue and the heavy traffic in that area. She stated that she feels the study should have 'taken the proposed freeway into account. She commented that Saratoga Avenue is not a highway; it is an arterial, and the City would not dream of putting something this size on other arterials in the City. She added that the City has encouraged Seniors to live in this area and money was appropriated to. put in a park in that area to give a feeling of open space. She spoke against the project, stating that it is large and will destroy the visual look of the corner and will set a precedent for other large undeveloped parcels near it. Mrs. Machol indicated that she would like to see the parcel developed into residential. She noted that there are homes around the Argonaut-Shopping Center and it.works out fine. She added that she feels the low-density resi- dential look is what the City has always wanted. Joan Faunce, President of E1 Quito Park Homeowners Association, stated that she still feels ~hat they need to address the traffic impact that some of. the other undeveloped parcels would have as far as count is concerned, i.e., the Teresi property, the E1 Quito Park School property and development of 85~ She added that they appreciate the efforts that the developer has made and reit- erated that they feel strongly that the channeling of traffic on McFarland is very important, and if something similar could be managed on Cox Avenue she' feels it would also eliminate a great deal of traffic that would impact on .their area. She commented that she feels there'may be some consideration of change in the.ordinance that has to do with no more access on Saratoga Avenue in order to make that work. Ralph Sutton, Ronnie Way, addressed the traffic and stated that if this kind of development is allowed to begin, the streets will become one big shopping center. He stated that he would like to see the area be residential. It was noted that single family residential was not an alternative in the EIR, and there was a consensus that the Commission would like to see that alterna- tive considered. Staff commented that they will discuss that alternative with the EIR consultant. It was directed that the public hearing be continued on the EIR to July 25, 1984, to allow the traffic consultant to answer ques- tions on the channel'ization of Cox and the potential impact of Highway 85. Break - 9~02 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. lla. A-983 - Mr. and Mrs. Geno, Request for Design Review Approval to con- lib. V-654 struct a 3-story, single family residence and Variance Approval to exceed the 30 ft. height limit at 21449 Tollgate Road, in th'e NHR zoning. district Commissioner McGoldrick gave 'a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. Staff describe~d the project, stating that they have found that there is a potential to reduce the height without otherwise modifying the building, by putting a concrete slab in the area, which would reduce the height of the house. They indicated that they are unable 'to make the findings for the variance, design ~eview, and the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, and · ~re recommending denial. The access was discussed. Staff noted correspondence received on the project. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Geno gave a presentation on the project, indicating that he would like a variance for 32~ ft., red'ucing the'height from 35 ft. He submitted a picture from Saratoga High'Scho_ol,.show.ing.a view of the home, and also 'an ~nlarged photo :graph"o'f'~t~e' site ~hd the hOme.drawnL'to sc~'i~'.: Mr. Geno discussed the pro- posea.s'tone to be used for the exterior' and submitted a sample, indicating that he had gotten the concept from Windsor Castle. He commented that he feels the color of the stone will blend into the environment. He stated that the home is not really a three'-story, noting that only the garage, basement and shop area are on the lower level. Mr. Geno commented that he has the support of his neighbors. The elevations for the proposed home were discussed. Mr. Geno indicated that he would slide the house back to accommodate a 5 ft. retaining. wall. He explained the design of the home, stating that the 32~ ft. height is needed for the architectural design of the house. The driveway was discussed, and Staff commented that the barricade is suggest- ed as a condition relative to protection of driving off of the driveway. Mr. P. fanning Commission Page 4 'F-Minutes - Meeting 7/11/84 A-983 and V-564 (cont.) Geno indicated that he has an easement for access but cannot build on it, since he does not own it. Staff suggested that the applicant discuss this with the developers who still own the lot. Commissioner Harris expressed concern about the color of the stone. She stated that one of the' big Concerns with development in the hillsides is anything that stands out glaringly, and the light color has been something that has been avoided. She added that there will be little ground showing because of the landscaping'and instead there will be dark foilage. Mr. Geno commented that he thinks~_it is a very blendable color; however, he could go a little darker. the 'designer Annelie Long/explained t~at the color will darken'-over the years, and it does indeed at this time blend in with the natural environment. A1 Giavanni, mason, Stated that the stone is going to be made special order and comes in ,various colors. He added that the sealing will darken it. Don Head, owner of the Pike Estate below the project, stated that he has met with the Genos. FIe explained that from hi.s site he can see the oak tree and everything that rises above it. FIe noted that his main concern is that the house be aesthetically right. He commented that the color needs to be much darker, and'the house should not stand out and not be obtrusive. Clarence Frazell, ~ho lives at the.top of Canyon View Drive, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that he shares the view that it should be slightly darker. Dorothy Miller, who lives on the ridge, commended the applicants for'dis- cussing the proposal with her. She addressed the problem of noise, stating that the 'applicant is willing to work out the whole thing with them. She commented that she is concerned with the City telling citizens exactly what they can do, but it is telling citizens what they can't do. She added that she feels they still have some property rights. She noted that the City keeps changing the acceptable colors, and. she feels that there will be a patchwork iquilt in the hills if a group of people continues to have such authority. She commented that the people who live in the hills are extreme individuals and she would like 'to maintain that individuality. Mrs. Miller added that she has no problem with the proposal as long as privacy is respected. Standord Atwood, one 'of the'owners of the Pike Estate, stated that the pro- posed structure will Occupy a prominent ridge and it is highly visible from a. number of areas of the valley. He commented that he does not want a mistake up there and suggested using the 'expertise of the Planning Staff, along with their conditions and those suggestions made by Mr. Geno. Staff discussed the new exhibit which had been submitted, expressing concern about the scale on it. After discussion there was a consensus to continue this matter to a study session. The .City Attorney commented that one of the areas of concern is the matter of the three story. He explained that there is a statement in the General Plan that says that no structure 'shall be over two stories in height, except for structures located within the Village. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on July 17, 1984 and the regular meeting of July 25, 1984. 'Staff was asked to supply the foilowing information: (1) the height of the oak tree, (2) the height of the existing pad, (3) the height of ~he Millers" ~oof, (4) the visibility from the lots below, and (5) the McBain & Gibbs Subdivision plan. 12. A-984 ~ John Greenleaf, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single family residence at 12391 Farr Ranch Court, in the NHR zoning district' The proposal was.described by Staff. They stated that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report. She stated that the applicant will be happy to rotate the house so the impact would be minimized, and close the decking that now shows as being open. She questioned Staff as to why the landscaping along the proper'ty would not mitigate the situation, noting that the applicants are happy to do it. The public hearing was opened at 10:24 p.m. p~l~ning CommiSsion Page 5 · =~.~l~inutes - 'Meeting' 7/11/84 A-984 (cont.) St.aff commented that, because of the lower area along the eastern property li'ne,.~-~e'S..:'.~laHt=~d'-'t:li~'~'f~c~'dld never go high enough to screen the deck, which was the primary concer:n for privacy impacts. The applicant discussed the landscaping, indicating that he could plant taller landscaping to mitigate some impact between the houses. He submitted a plan showing the rotati.on of the house and discussed this proposal. Commissioner'McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded'.the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she could make the findings for view and privacy based on landscaping,. the adjustment of the house and the.bl.Oc_~i. ng of the upper deck.,.aS"co~ditions"of' 'approval. 'She moved -F~" 'S'~'aff ~eport 'da~"ed"'j~'l~' ~',' 1984. Commiss'ione.r Harris. seconded~ the motion '~vhich was Carried unan~.mously ~-0.' "' 13a. Negative Declaration -' SDR-1574 - MacLean 13b. V-653 - Charles MacLean, Request for Variance and Tentative Building 13c. SDR-1574 - Site Approval for a two-lot subdivision in the R-l-10,000 zoning district with lot widths of 79.96' where 85' is re'qui'r'ed at 2031'5 Herr'iman Avenue " Chairman Siegfried explained the application. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that she saw no problem with the project. The public hearing was opened at 10:32 p.m. Larry Tyler', representing the MacLeans, discussed the conditions of the Staff Report. He stated that they' would ].ike to delete conditions VIII.-D and E. He explained'that re VIII-E, which requires a variance for the existing 18 ft. front yard setback, until 1961 the front yard setback was in'adcord with the ordinances, but the City obtained 10 ft. of their property in order to widen Herriman Avenue, thus making them nonconforming for the convenience of the City. Regarding VIII-D, requiring either to relocate or tear down the carport or receive a variance, he 'explained that this was built in accordance with a building per'mit.at that time. Staff noted'that these conditions are standard .and in the past e. xisting structures have been required to get variances and legitimize them'entirely with a new.application. Chairman Siegfried commented that he understands ~,~r. Tyler's points, but the Commission has been fairly uniform in t'rying to le~itimize these setbacks and requiring variances. After discussion Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the. Negative Declaration for SDR-1574. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which:was carried unanimously' 4-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V-653 and'SDR-1574, per the Staff Report dated July 3, 1984 and Exhibit "B", making the findings. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. The 10-day appeal period was noted. MISCELLANEOUS 14. Mr..and Mrs. Herman Shapiro, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Construction of a 6' high red brick wall within 100' of Saratoga-Los Gatos ROad Staff explained that the General Plan calls for the increased setbacks of up to 100 ft. for fences along scenic highways. They indicated that, because of that, they were recommending denial of this fence request. Staff do. mment'ed that this policy causes many problems for residents, Staff and the Commission because there is no building permit required for a fence 6 ft. and under; the applicant proceeds to build a fence or wall and finds that it is in violation. of the General Plan. Discussion followed on the location of the wall. Mr. Shapiro commented that the contractor had called and was told they would not need a building permit and went ahead, and the fence is now 75% completed. There was a consensus tO have a study. session on this policy, where the Com- mission could look a~ various walls and give some direction to Staff to come up with a more reasonable policy. It was directed that this subject be agendized for the study session on August 14, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. It 'was the consensus that, with the addition of a requirement for landscaping and'adequate water, the Commission could recommend that the stop work order be removed from Mr. Shapiro's fence. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve' 5 ~ ~anning Commission Page 6 · ~' ~.lIinutes - Meeting 7/11/84 Shapiro (cont.) the fence, with the condition that there be adequate water for additional landscaping which'is to be planted'within'.9'0 days aft~r'complet'ioH wall. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried'unani- mously 4-0. 15. SM-3 - Mr. and Mrs. Bryce Reynolds, 12182 P~rker Ranch Road, Request for Site Modification Approval to construct-a pool and land- s. cape area .on a slope exceeding 10% Staff described the request, stating that they were recommending approval. They showed pictures from the.applicant, indicating what is meant by spaced' boulder rip rap. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that there are huge mounds of dirt on the site and she does not see any protection for the oak tree.~.. Bert Brawner, representing the applicant, discussed the proposed. treatment of the oak tree. He clarified that the wall will only be 5 ft. high because it is on a slope which is 2:1. He indicated that the dirt on the property is there illegally and will be used in the compaction, and it will be moved away from the trees. He commented ~hat the a landscaping plan will be submitted and that the applicant would be willing to put up a bond if necessary. Mr. Brawner discussed the slope to be used, which would be 2~:1 around the pool area and 3:1 on the rest of the site. Staff noted that the conditions of the tentative map are for a 3:1 slope. Discussion followed on reducing the amount of the lawn area around the pool ~n order to reduce the slope. Mr. Brawner stated that they would.comply with Staff requirements regarding the slope. Commissioner Harris suggested that Conditi~.n'-3--.sho~ld=r.ead. I".tha~'.~n~Scaping shall also be planted along the eastern property line. Commissioner'Peterson moved to approve SM-3, with the amendment to Condition 3. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. CO~B~UNICATIONS' Written 1. Letter from Dr. Abrams regarding a temporary permit for continu- ation'of a Christmas Tree Stand at the corner of'Cox and Saratoga Avenues. The City Attorney was directed to review and recommend what could be permitted. Oral 1. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending. and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried Unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Secretary RSS:cd