Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COBMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 12, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Crowther, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:45 p.m. and Commis- sioner' McGoldrick arrived at 8:37 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Schaefer Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of August 22, 1984: On page 1, the last paragraph 'should rea'd: "It was clarified that a corner of the coping around the pool is in the setback." On page 2, the sixteenth sentence in the eighthparagraph under A-995 should read: "Commissioner Crowther suggested that Condition No. 2 be modified to read "Natural wood background with lighter colors for the lettering and numbers is preferred." On page 4, in the fourth paragr'aph, McFarland should be changed to McGoldrick. On page 5, the word "not" should be added to the third sentence of the third paragraph. In.' the fourth paragraph, the fourth sentence, attest should be changed to asses.S=_. On page 8, the first sentence should read" .... and the fact that this'use requi.~es less parking is another basis." On page 9, two of the public that a.ppe'ared under SDR-1578 are Mr. Yu Wang and Mrs. Javahari. Commissioner Harris ~moved to waive the reading Of the minutes of August 22, 1984 and approve as. 'amended. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Item #5, SM-7 and A-912, Dorcich, was.removed for discussion. Commissioner Harris moved to approve the balance of the items listed below. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. 1. Daniel Heindel, 15234 Belle Ct., construction of a 6 ft. high redwood fence within 100 ft. of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 2. Mr. Saunders, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Aloha Avenue, Construction of a 6 ft. stucco'.fence wi'thin 100 ft. 'o'f Saratoga'-Los Gatos Road 3. SDR-1453 - M. Conn and C. Wellbeloved, Vaquero Court, Request for 1 year extension 4. A-958 - Robert Dewey, 12329 Vista Arroyo Ct., Consideration of Landscape Plan DiscUssion followed on 'Item #5. Staff Stated that they would like to add the following condition: "The landscaping plan is to include additional evergreen shrubs or small trees that will fully screen the proposed wall, and this modi- fication will be reviewed and approved by Staff." Jeff ~.~iller, 'representing the applicant, stated that, as a result of the study session, they had incorporated-redwoods 'into the scheme on the rear and they did not want to have to take them out. Staff clarified that they were not ask- ing for the applicant to change the other trees, but just to add some evergreen shrubs that would cover the deck but not extend above the deck. Commissioner Harris moved to approve 'SM-n7 and A-912 modification, per EXhfUits B, C and D and the Staff Report dated September 6, 1984, with the additional condition. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR The public hearing was opened at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the items on the Public .,~. Plal~ning Commission P'age 2 ~eeting Minutes 9/12/84 PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.) Hearing Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. 6. A-1008 David A. Clark, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the expansion of a second story deck at 14292 Old Wood Road in the R-i-40,000 district 7. V-655 - Charles and Virginia MacLean, Request for Variances to allow an existing main dwelling to continue to maintain an 18 ft.-front yard where 25 ft. is required and allow 'an existing carport and garage to maintain a 7 ft..separation where 10 ft. is required · n the' R-l-10,000 district located at 20'315 Herriman Avenue 8. A-897 David Myers, Request for Design Review Approval to allow the Mod. expansion of second-story decks on a residence on Farr Ranch Co'ur't, Tract 6528, Parcel H; continued from August 22, 1984 PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.. A-928 Dwayne Richards, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a split level single family .residence at 14612 Palomino Way, in the NHR zoning district; continued from June 13, 1984 Staff explained the application, stating that they were able to make the find- ings and recommend approval. Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the site appeared to be quite steep. She commented tha't the applicant had shown them wher'e the pad ~vill be and the geological- work was done in that very vicinity. The public hearing was opened' at 8:46 p.m. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried.unanimously. Commissioner Harris stated that she' would feel more comfortable if the report were back from the geologist before the Commission moved on this. Staff suggested that it could be agendized on the Consent Calendar for the next 'meeting, with the proviso that we have received the report. They commented that they have 'talked to the City Geologist and'he indicated that he feels the modification proposed by the applicant in the Ground Movement Potential 'Map would-be allowed. They added that the City Geologist would have the stan- dard geotechnical conditions and would also ask for conditions asking for a clearer map, further defining some of the areas. I.n addition there would also be a hold harmless statement signed by the applicant as a condition of approval. Staff added that, with those conditions, the 'Geologist is quite comfortable with saying that this particular project could be approved. Commissioner Burger stated that, with the indi'cation from the Geologist and with the conditions that Staff has added, she would move for approval of A-928', per the Staff Report dated September 6, 1984 and Exhibits B and C. Commis- sioner Peterson seconded the motion. Staff commented that it should be added that the applicant shall comply with all of the conditions of the City Geolo- gist. Commissi'oners Burger and Peterson accepted that amendment. Commissioner Crowther stated that he will. vote against this. He commented that he feels that the best evidence we have is the 'existing geologic.map, which.indicates this is a. Md site, and he does not believe that without very good evidence it should be assumed that.those maps are incorrect. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he does not think there is a question of assuming that the maps are incorrect. FIe explained that~he Ci'ty Geologist has said repeatedly that those maps were done in preliminary studies; they indicated problem areas, which meant that additional surveys would have to be made. The vote was taken on the motion to approve A-928. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissentfng. 10. A-998 - Donald Rumph, 14968 Granite Court, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story addition to an existing one- story residence in the R-i-40,000 district; continued from August 8, 1984 Staff described the proposal, stating that they were able to make the findings .~Plan~ing Commission Page 3 Heeting Minutes 9/12/84 .~-998 (cont.) and recommend approval. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report. She indicated that their only concern was that which has been addressed in the Staff Report, regarding the north side of the property. She commented that, with the addition of some landscaping and either reducing the number or using stained glass for the windows, she feels that the privacy impacts are mitigated. The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. Mike Dillon, the landscape architect, addressed Condition #1, indicating that he would.like to have the option to either reduce the windows or opaque them, rather than both. Mr.' Dillon described the proposed windows:and discussion followed. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-998, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report dated September 12, 1984, modifying Condition #1 to read: "Use opaque or stained glass to minimize potential privacy impacts." Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-.0. lla. SDR-1539 - Professional Village of'Saratoga (Owen Companies), Request for llb. UP-535 - Use Permit, Building Site Approval and Design ReView Approval llc. A-989 for 129,264 sq. ft., in .3 office buildings at the southeast corner of Saratoga Avenue and Cox Avenue in the P-A zoning district; continued from August 22, 1984 Chairman Siegfried noted that'this item will be continued to a study session on September 18, 1984 and the regular meeting of September 26, 1984. He commented that there was great concern expressed at the last meeting and there appeared to be a general consensus against the project as proposed. Therefore, he assumes that a different version will be presented at the next meeting. The public hearing was opened at 7:59 p.m. Mrs. Eleanor Sabella, Devon Avenue, submitted signatures of neighbors against the Owen development, in favor of single family residential. Jim Russell, Saratoga Park Woods Homeowners Association, commented that he will continue working with the City. It was directed that this be continued to a study session on September 18, 1984 and the regular. meeting of September 26, 1984. 12. A-1004 - Robert Schiro, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a second-story addition to a garage at 13092 Upper Hill Court, in the 'R-I-40,'000 zoning district'; 'continued 'fr'o'm ~ugust 22, 1984 It was directed that this item be continued to September' 26, 1984. 13. UP-185 - Allen Wong, Request for review of an existing Use Permit for a pre-scho01 facility in the R-i-40,000 district at 19010 Austin Way, to determine if the Use 'Permit must be modified per the provisions of Article 16,'Ordinance NS-3 Staff explained the use permit and gave the history of it. They indicated that in May of this year complaints were received relative primarily to the number of cars that approach this site in the morning, block traffic, lack of parking, wedding receptions, flea markets, etc. Staff reported that they have reviewed the site and have found that there is a second dwelling on the site. They stated that a second unit use permit would have to be obtained for the dwelling to continue. Staff addressed t'he traffic and parking and indicated that, with appropriate conditions, they are able to make the findings and recommend continued use of the school. They noted the correspondence ~eceived. The public hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m. Allen Wong, the applicant, stated that they will try to do everything they can to upgrade the school. Mark Krag, representing Daniel and Jea'n Krag, 1'5705 Lancaster Road, read a letter from the Krags'which summarized previous complaints, i.e., it is an eyesore, traffic, and they feel it is a nuisance. 3 P'l~ning Commission Page 4 "' ~4eeting Minutes 9/12/84 UP-185 (cont.) Lynn Rodney, Director of the school, commented that 75% of the families that attend are from Monte Sereno, Los Gatos or Saratoga. She stated that all schools are in residential areas and she feels that they have a very systematic way of handling the traffic. She described the 'traffic control. Phil Vozbrink, 19051 Austin Way, addressed the cars parked along Austin Way and noted that some were intruding on the red brick section of the road, which constitutes a traffic hazzard. He stated that he does not object too much to cars if they stay off the road. He added that he feels they have abused the use permit and feels some restraints should be put on it. Chuck Nunally, 18980 Ojai Drive, referenced the'.letter he had submitted. He spoke in favor' of the school, stating that it should be in a residential area and it is well located. He described the system of traffic ontrol, speaking in favor of it. He suggested' that the Schbol allow the children to come 5 minutes earlier, reducing the backlog of cars. Betty Peck stated that she is a kindergarten teach and spoke to the historical interest of the building. She commented that she feels that we should be pleased that it is being conducted as a school. She added that she feels that schools must earn money in various ways and feels that it is an ideal location for the school. Lynn Rodney discussed the parking and the other events being held in the neighborhood which use their property. She indicated that she feels that the roads are narrow. She commented that she feels everyone in the neighborhood needs to communicate and work together if there is a problem. She added that she is available to the neighborhood and she would like to open up the possi- bility that the problems can be 'solved. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson commented that he feels schools should be in the neigh- borhoods. He noted that the're were twelve years without any complaints. He stated that he feels Staff has done a thorough job of coming up with conditions to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors, and he will vote in favor of con- tinuing this particular use. He asked if the applicant is fully aware of Condition #8 relative to the second unit. Mr. WOng discussed the second unit on the property. The City Attorney explained the ordinance and the procedure for a use 'permit for the second unit. Commissioner Crowther noted that there should be the word "are" added to Con- dition #7. In reply to his inquiry, Staff described the site. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the continued use of UP-18S, per the Staff Report dated September 4, 1984, modifying Condition 7 to' include the word "are". Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the Commission does have continuing jurisdiction over the use' permit. He stated that the thought about communica- tion is a very important thought, and the owner of the school should talk to the neighbors and be aware of their concerns. The 10-day appeal period was noted. 14. UP-5.65 - International Order of Odd Fellows (Saratoga Community Gardens), Request for Use Permit Approval to allow the Community Gardens in the R-i-40,000 district and to construct a new barn at 14.52'0' Fruitvale Avenue '(Negative Declaration) The application was described by Staff. They indicated that they are able tO make the 'findings and recommend..approval. They noted the correspondence received on the project. Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the location. The public hearing was opened at 8:26 p.m. Cynthia Rockwell, President of the Community Gardens, discussed'the lease for the current year. She 'stated that when the petition last year was presented to the City they realized they h~d never received a use permit. They there- fore proceeded and there have been no weddings since that time. She indicated that one of the 'neighb'orhood residents provided a donation to help sustain the Gardens due to loss of income from the weddings. She addressed amplified Planning Commission ~= Page 5 Meeting Minutes 9/12/84 -~ UP-565 (cont.) sound, noting that they have two festivals per year and occasionally have music. She also indicated that 'the exist.ing barn is going to be torn down. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp, noted that they had presented a petition at a study session which expressed concern about the 'Gardens regarding their activities. He commented that they approve~of the Gardens but the petition focused on the nuisance aspect of weddings and the fact that they would like the status quo. He indicated that he 'is the resident who ~ontributed the $500 to help offset their financial problems. ~He' stated that he was under the impression that the Gardens have given up their plans for weddings or any other kind of events of the like. He expressed their opposition to weddings and amplified sound and events of up to 250 people, stating that he feels it is totally inappropriate. fie concurred with the conditions in the. Staff Report and urged acceptance of it. Jackie W.elch, 20925 Jacks Road, spoke in support of the Saratoga Community Gardens. She discussed the local historic value and the fact that it is a part of the national agricultural heritage. Pamela Nesbitt, from the Board of Community Gardens, stated that she basically agrees with the Staff recommendations with the exception of the fact that only 100 people can be located on the site 'at any one time. She stated that this would affect their two festivals. She.discussed these, indicating that there are usually approximately 200-250 people in attendance. Commissioner Harris inquired'about Condition 9, regarding the list of exist- ing animals. She expressed concern about limiting it to the numbers the Gardens have right now. After discussion it was determined that the Gardens could submit a list' of approved animals. Betty Peck spoke in support of the Gardens. She described the operation, indicating that she takes her kindergarten classes there. Tom Palamengi, 19332 Crisp Avenue, addressed Item 6 regarding the temporary.. sign on the 'Crisp Avenue cul-de-sac. Staff explained that there is a tem- porary sign that says no parking on Crisp Avenue and in addition two City si.gns that say no parking. Therefore, the temporary sign is no longer neces- sary. It was clarified that the permanent signs would stay. Peggy Corr, Dellaviland Drive, spoke in support of the Community Gardens. She stated that' it is a real value to the community and she feels they do need the fund raising events. She indicated that the festivals are very simple family events and they should continue. Mr. Swanson discussed the Spring and Harvest Festivals. He indicated that they would like to see some restrictions on the number of people so it would not become a nuisance to the neighborhood. Discussion followed and Commis- sioner Crowther suggested that Condition 11 be modified to read that the exceptions are the Spring and HarveSt Festivals, which shall be limited.to no more than 250 people, provided that excessive parking and noise problems are not created in the neighborhood. Mr. Swanson indicated that if two events a year were held and if parking were discouraged, in fact prevented from Crisp, and the numbers were limited, then he thinks it would achieve the spirit of what they want to accomplish. .Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger-' seconded the motion, which'was carried unanimously. CommisSioner Harris commented that she 'would like to add the words "except for Spring and Harvest Festivals" on Condition 1, change the word "existing" to "acceptable!'on Condition 9, and add Commissioner Crowther's wordage to Condition 11. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he would not go along with .amplified sound. Commissioner Harris pointed out that it had been said that music was used for the festivals. There was a consensus to approve amplified sound for those two dates. Commissioner Harris moved to approve UP-565, per Exhibits B, C and D and the Staff Report dated S~ptember 6, 1984, with the above changes. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. The 10-day appeal period was noted. Chairman Siegfried commented that this is a Use 'P~r'mit over which the Commission has continuing jurisdic- tion. He stated that he is hopeful that the sense of what was said tonight will be carried through by the Community Gardens. He added that the Commis- sion tried to grant some recognition for these two special events and not for 5 Pla~nning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 9/12/84 UP-565 (cont.) activities that have been a problem in the past. 15a. SM-6 Joseph Kennedy, Request for Design Revie~ and Site Modification 15b. A-1009 - Approval to allow construction of a garage, shop, pool house and a pool, and relocation of the driveway at 15480 Peach Hill Road in the ItCRD and R-i-40,000 zoning districts (Negative Declaration) It was directed that this be continued to September 26, 1984 because of a need for a Variance. 16a. SM-9 Gary & Jerri Kimmel, Request for Use Permit Approval for loca- 16b. UP-566 - tion of 14 Peruvian Horses and Exercise Area within 20' of the 16c. V-660 - side property line, Site Modification to allow grading of over 1000 cubic yards for exercise area, construction of a barn and Variance to allow grading at 1:1 and 2:1 slopes (versus 3:1 slope) (Negative Declaration) Staff expl.ained the project, stating that they are not able to make the find- ings for the. Variance on the grading and recommends denial. Commissioner Harris gave a Land Use Committee report, stating that the slope in question that does not meet the 3:1 slope is planted with ground cover. She stated that the applicant indicated that they are trying to control erosion on that. Commis- sioner ~cGoldrick commen'ted that it looks like where the error in the ratio was involves only one corner. Discussion followed on that area. Staff indi- cated that the NHR Ordinance does not allow for 3:1 slopes without approval of the Planning Commission. The City Attorney stated that if the application is approved he would request that an additional condition be added that "The applicant shall enter into an Indemnity Agreement with the City, indemnifying the City against any claims if there should be some damage to the structure by reason of earth movement or the fact that he is constructing within proximity of the fault." He stated that we might add to that als0 a stipulation under the Use Permit that the structure shall at no time be used for residential purposes. Commissi.~ner'Si~gfried'asked, when a'condition is added like. that, does it~'-~t recorded against the land so it shows up in the title? The City Attorney answered that the indemnity agreement he would normally draft in recordable form, and he would throw that restriction in as a part of that agree- ment, and combine it into one document. He added that "and such an agreement shall be recorded" should be added to the condition. Staff addressed Condition 6, stating that "or improve as required by the Fire Chief" should be added to it. They explained that the applicant has indicated that a 16 ft. all weather driveway might cause removable of some of the trees; therefore, the Fire Chief might be willing to waive that. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p~m. Mr. Kimmel, the applicant, submitted a petition signed by all the neighbors that see the property, in support. He described the project and discussed the grading and the slope of the property. He addressed the Staff Report regarding the fenced corral and the slopes on the side of the existing arean. He noted that there is no'objection to the arena from the neighbors. Mr. Kimmel addressed the findings as follows: Practical and Unnecessary Physical Hardship He will have to bring in 600 yards of dirt and destroy 3200 plants that they have already planted. If the Geologist says it is going to be stable and the neighbors don't complain.about it, he feels that is a good reason for making that finding. The applicant clarified that there is no structure or road below that would be damaged if it did slide. Exceptional Circumstances The City Geologist is going to have to approve the project. The fact that the neighbors who see it have approved it. It is going to require the '600 yards of fill, destroying the landscaping. By adding this 13-16 feet going out into the property, it is going to cut off access around the corral. He added that they did build it last winter without a permit, and he apologizes for that, but it did survive 'the wi'nter quite well. Common Privilege'- This is a relative new law, and there were many earlier permits issued at less than 3:1 and variances against this ordinance have been granted in the past. Special Privilege - He does not think it is, since he can prove special circumstances. Public Safety and Welfare - The fact that the City Geologist has to approve this already takes care of that issue. ~le indicated that he would like get a grading permit and get the grading done by October 15th, so the barn can be done this winter. He s~ated that he would - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Meeting ~,~inutes 9/12/84 SM-9, UP-566 and V-660 (cont.) be willing to put up a bond for the other things. Mr. Kimmel discussed the driveway, stating that if he has to build a 16 ft. driveway it totally des- troys the whole project, since it would destroy the trees and create more erosion problems. He questioned the condition that states that he has to pay double fees for the work already done. He added that he would like the con- dition which states· that he has to regrade all the slopes to the 3:1 slope requirement changed. Elinor Ray, of the Martin Ray Vineyards, spoke in support of the project. She stated that they are very proud of the project and have improved the property tremendously and added vast prestige to that area and to Saratoga. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels this is extremely beneficial to Saratoga and this kind of use for this kind of land should be strongly encourag- ed. He stated that he personally thinks it is ridiculous to put some of the conditions that are proposed on this kind of a site. Ite indicated that he is strongly in favor of deleting the condition for the 16 ft. road, and he would certainly grant a variance on the grading because he does not see any hazards from those slopes with only an 8 ft. height on that particular section that is steep. Discussion followed on the timeframe for a grading permit.. Staff noted that the City Geologist would have to approv~ the grading prior to issuance of the permit. Mr. Kimmel stated that he would like to grade up to October 31st if it has not started raining yet. Staff·e~p~ained that they would take the application the applicant makes, but ·.they·-do not see any real purpose, unless there is additional information relative t6 long range weather, to extend that time. They added that if the prediction changes weatherwise they would deal with that; however,.'if·'i-~·d6'~sn't they do not think the Commission should grant ~.~r. Kimmel any extension simply on the basis of his request·this evening. Staff added that he would have to comply with the conditions ·of the use permit prior to getting a permit. They indicated that they are concerned about the erosion control, and any other landscaping could be bonded. The other con- ditions of the Staff Report were addressed. Staff noted that it would be appropriate to see the conditions from the Eve·rgreen Resource Conservation District before bonding for them. Further discussion followed on the grading. Staff spoke to the waiver of the conditions. They stated that this is the NHR district and these are the conditions. They commented that it may be that there is something unique about this application, but they are having some difficulty. They added that they think it is somewhat unusual that some- one comes in does illegal gradino, and then uses.ha'rdship and"e.~':pense'aS a '~'~e. an~'..0f 'm~k~ the ·findings 'to' a~16w i~ to remain as"-~;~.'leg~'~'y~j~.7~:6~'~"Th'e~ · '~om~H~.ed '~'h~'~tli'ere."(~ill b~ mo'r~ ~f"'~"th'~'Se"t~b'es 6f~""things'~"in the NHfi'diS~ri6t~ "and~'i£"se~in~' difficult fo~ the '~£aff t'o de'~l' ~i'~th ij't. Chairman Siegfried commented that he was looking·at it from·a different way, which is not because the applicant did it and therefore he ought to be able to keep· it, but that maybe it is not unreasonable that it be at those particu- lar slopes. He indicated that he is having a little more trouble with the applicant wanting to postpone all of these conditions and bond for them because he wants to go forward and get·the barn built. He added that he is not sure that he totally understands the consequence of all of that, in terms of being ensured of what he is going to go forward and do now meets the needs. Commissioner Crowther stated that the City Geologist's report almost looks like something that would be placed on a residential structure. He questioned whether those ·conditions are appropriate for this kind of a project. Hr. Kimmel noted that ~{r. Cotton's report was based on reviewing a geotechnical report tb_at.was done in 1979 for the previous owner to develop the site for four.~'o't?,., Dora Grens addressed the Commission, stating that she is uncomfortable with all· of these restrictions being placed on what she feels is a good land use for that area. She commented that bonding has been granted for large developers and their wa·s late grading on the Parker Ranch. She added that this project is what the residents in the area· hoped would happen. Staff indicated that the City Geologist has verbally said go ahead with the .., Plar~ning Commission ..I Page 8 ~eeting I~4inutes 9/12/84 SM-9, UP-566 and V-660 (cont.) approval, but they still need to look at it and condition it, and get the hold harmless agreement. They added that the Geologist believes that the stability of that-exercise area should be looked at. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP-566. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP-566, per the Staff Report dated September 6, 1984, modifying Condition 6 to add "or improvements required by the Fire Chief." ConditiQn #13 should read "There shall be no human occupancy of the barn." Regarding Condition #7, it iS to be bonded and have it deferred. Regarding Condition #1, the landscape plan shall be bonded, other than the erosion control. She 'added that she would like to leave the Evergreen con- dition. Discussion followed on the condition relative to the requirements of the City Geologist. CommissiQner Crowther asked that the condition be revised to say "comply with the requirements of the City Geologist for specific con- ditions for this project." He added that he does not want to refer to the letters because he thinks they are inappropriate. Commissioner McGoldrick accepted the amendment. Commissioner Crowther discussed Condition #6. He expressed his concern that the Saratoga Fire District is going to treat this like a general case and assume it is residential or that residential could ultimately be built on the site, and not know some of the background. He indicated that he would prefer to see Condition #6 changed. Staff noted that this is subject to residential development; ~r. Kimmel is keeping alive the previous tentative map of the ~ares. Further discussion followed on the con- dition. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that her motion was to have Condition #6 read "Comply with the requirements of the Saratoga Fire District regarding the driveway prior to issuance of a building permit." Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously 6-~. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve V-660. Commissioner Crowther commented that he feels the applicant did the best job he has seen in proposing the find- ings for a variance and he would recommend that the findings be adopted, in the interest of time. Commissioner ~4cGoldrick accepted those findings. Chairman Siegfried clarified' that the Commission is not basing it on the fact that it is there and it is done,' but given he were to come in today and say this is what I want and thi's is where I want it, that these are the kind of reasons. Com- missioner Peterson commented that he agrees with the applicant's reasoning. Chairman Siegfried added that he thinks Staff made a good point, that just because something is there you don't want to shoehorn your way into a variance. However, it seems, given the kind of use we are talking about, that these slopes are not unreasonable with the kind of landscaping and. erosion control that is proposed. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Break - 9:35 - 9:50 (Commissioner Siegfried left the meeting at this time.) At"th~s time~Commis~oner ~cGoldrick added Condition #14 to the approval of UP-566, t'o state "The 'applicant shall enter into an indemnity agreement with the City and it shall be recorded." That amendment was accepted. She moved to approve SM-9, per Exhibits B~i and C and the Staff ReporF ~ated September ~, 1984, with.Conditional1 stating "The'slopeS of the exercise areaZshall be regraded~ if required by the City Geologist." Commissioner Crowther stated that he strongly disagrees and feels that the. condition should be deleted. He stated that he feels Condition #2 should be modified to read "Comply with the require- ments of the City Geologist", and the letters should be ignored. Commissioner McGoldrick accepted that amendment. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion. Further discussion followed on Conditions #1 and.-~2.' .... .~o~mi'S~'ione'~'~B~'r~er'~ated' th~, while 'she'.'~reC~'~t~F~g~'f-'s C~n~c.~'~n about this, the major concern for such heavy restrictions in that area had to do with single family residential up there, and now we are looking at something that is not residential. She' agreed that Condition #1 could be eliminated. The vote was taken, and the motion failed 4-1, with Commissioners Burger, Crowther, Harris and Peterson dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SM-9, eliminating Condition #1 and chang- ing #2 to state "Comply with City Geologist's requirements which factor into account the specific conditions of this agricultural project." Commissioner Burger seconded the motion. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she will vote no because she feels that. the City Geologist would not require something that is not needed. The vote was taken .and the motion was carried 4-1, with. Commis- sioner McGoldrick dissenting. - 8 - · ..Plafining Commission ~I Page 9 Meeting Minutes 9/12/84 17'a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1580 Pacific Coast Investments 17b. V-656 - Pacific Coast Investments,.Request for variance and Tentative 17c. SDR-1580 - Building Site Approval to allow the creation of a two-lot subdivision with one lot having a minimum width of 68 ft. wh'ere 85 ft. is required in= the R-l-10,000 district at l'4'.7'.3'2"Oa'k Str'eet The project was explained by Staff, who indicated that, because of the unusual shape of the lot, they are able to make-the 'f.indings for the variance and recommend approval, and also rec'ommend approval of the Building Site Approval. They noted the correspondence received on the. project. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, stating tha't she did not feel there was any effect on the neighbors by adding a second story to the building. She described the lot and stated that the'r'e appears to be a~ second story on the house furthest from Oak Street. Staff clarified that the ne'ighbors are not concern6d that the existing building would be expanded; they are! concerned that either the exist- ing building would be converted to a guest ho~se or accessory structure and some new larger building would be built furth:er back on the lot. They noted that there would be a public hearing for desi~gn review if that happened. The public hearing was opened at 10:02 p.m. Warren Heid, the 'architect, described the proposal. FIe addressed the conditions of the Staff Report, stating that he feels they should have two driveways. He also addressed the 14 ft. driveway and turnin.g radius under the Fire District conditions, wh'ich would seem appropriate for a single driveway going to the rear. , Wells Marvin, the owner', discussed the reques~t for two driveways. Staff des- cribed the 'plan for the common driveway.' ' Jean Bogosian, 20630 Lomita Avenue, stating that she was also representing the HopkinS, their neighbors. She summarized the~ir letter, expressing opposition 'and concern that at some future date it will .be developed as condos or a two- story house. Susan McChesney, 20620 Lomita Avenue, stated .that they had just purchased the Lawrence prope'rty and submitted a letter. She expressed c. Oncern that once a variance is given for the road, that it coul~ c0'nti'nue backj; ~'h~ questioned the real use of the property. : Jerry Girley, the neighbor next door, express~ed concern about the granting of a variance of this magnitude. He stated that; the applicant knew what the stan- dards of the City were when they bought the pZroperty. He .described the lot, indicating that it is very deep and narrow. iHe indicated that a two-story home on the existing location of the cottage woul~ bother him. He submitted letters of concern from the neighbors. Mr. Girley al:so exp'ressed concern about two oak trees in front of this property which will be~ affected by any additional drive- way and traffic. He added that this is now ~ very quaint and unique house and they are planning to change this home drastidally. He commented that the pro- ject is not compatible with the thinking of tzhe neighborhood, and he cannot believe that the Commission would grant a variance of this size. MT. Girley clarified that the adding of a second story ~ould impact his p~ivacy,-.~ather 'ti~'an his view. Discussion followed on the second unit on th~ lot. The other substandard lots in .the area were addressed by Staff. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he opposes this type of subdivision with a substandard lot that is a flag lot. He stated that it seems to be poor planning pradtice. Wells Marvin commented that the existing second unit is already two-story, with a total height of about 20 ft. He added that there are a lot of lots in that area that are less than 85 ft. The ownershi~ of the lot was discussed, and it was clarified that Pacific Coast Investments ~is the owner of the lot. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the p~blic hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carrie~ unanimously. Commissioner Crowther indicated that he cannot make the findings for the vari- .ance. He stated that, although he thinks there are substandard lots in the neighborhood, he would question whether ther'~ are substandard flag lots. He added that he thinks it is poor planning, and he would not create a flag lot by granting a variance on width. ' Pla.~ning Commission ~ Page 10 Meeting Minutes 9/12/84 j V-656 and SDR-1580 (cont.) Commissioner Harris agreed. She added that there is already the second unit and it sounds like it could be legitimized. She commented that she feels that is a privilege that the owners have and it doesn't require the Commission to make the variance· Commissioner McGoldrick stated that sheJwas h~ving a diffi'cu-l~)'t.i~'with.'.'.thiS because she thinks it is a special circumstance. She ~ommented that she thinks the Commission would be denying this owner the privilege that others on the street have. She added that she feels very strongly that there be one driveway, and she does not see the problem with the flag lot'if you have one driveway, because it is not that different from any of ~he other substandard.lots. She commented that, as far as what is going to happen with the property in the future, although her neighborhood is very sensitive to that, she cannot see denying something on the basis of what m.ight be. She added that she would be able to make the findings for the variance. Commissioner Burger indicated that she was also have some problem wi~h this, in both directions. Regarding Commissioner McGoldrick's concern about the driveway in particular, she thinks the impervious coverage will be increased with one driveway as.oplposed to two. Sh.e stated that her major concern focuses around, although.it may not be valid, who owns the land. She commented that she feels a lot better about an individual owner coming in and asking for a lot split, when he intends to'maintain title to the land, rather than Pacific Coast Investments or a similar company owning~the land· She indicated that she could not make the f.indings and would be voting against it. Commissioner Crowther moved to deny V-656, on the basis that the necessary findings cannot be made. Commissioner H'arris seconded the motion, which was carried 3-~ with Commissioners Peterson and McGoldrick dissenting Commis- ~, · sioner Crowther moved to deny SDR-1580, per EXhibit B. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 3~-2, with Commissioners ~cGoldrick and Peterson dissenting· The 10-day appeal period was noted. 18a. A~1007 Joseph '& Sharon Schauf, RequeSt for Design Review Approval 18b. V-661 - to allow a second story addition to an existing one story residence and Variance Approval for the existing one-story structure 'that maintains a 50. ft. setback where 60 ft. is now required at 19965 Douglass Lane 'in the R-I-40,000 zoning dis'tri'ct · Staff explained the proposal, stating they ar~ unable to make the findings for the Variance 'and recommends denial. They~ added that if the Commission is able to make the findings for the Variance, they are able to make the findings for the Design Rev'iew and would rec'ommen.d approval of it. Commissioner ~cGoldrick gave the Land Use Committee r~eport., indicating that there is a great deal of mature landscaping on all sides and no privacy impacts. She commented that,. although Staff must go by the ordinance~ as it is, she feels that the Com- mission is changing the ordinance and she can'make the findings· The public hea'ring was opened at 10:40 p.m. Oscar Sohns, architect, described the pr.oject!. He submitted an aerial photo- graph, displaying the fact that it would be extremely difficult for this addi- tion to be seen from most areas· He added that they feels that, since the ordinance is being considered for change., the. one-story portion that is there should .not be removed just to satisfy th.is 60~ ft. setback. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close t'he public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve. V-661 and A-1007, per the conditions of the Staff ~eport dated September 5, 1984, ~aking the following.findings: Common privilege - Within as long a time as i~t takes for the ordinance to be changed this will be a privilege g'ranted in common, and therefore not a special privilege. The addition would have no privac~ impact and it is on the front of the house. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 5-0· : Commissioner Crowther stated that he voted fo~ it, but he does not ~hink it is a good idea to make such findings contingent 'on an ordi.nance we haven't made yet. FIe added that he had other reasons on which he could make the findings. Commissioner ~cGoldrick agreed, stating that .if there had not been a s.~rong Pia~ning Commission ~ Page 11 Meeting Minutes 9/12/84 V-661.and A-1007 (cont.) consensus at the discussion she would have had a hard time making the findings. MISCELLANEOUS 19'. V-652 Dorothy Shaw (Pollack),'14502 Big Basin Way, Request for SDR-1576 '- Clarification of Condition Staff explained the request for clarification of Condition F regarding a use permit for real estate offices. TheF stated that.the applicant.is maintaining that it was not the intention of the Commission to include that condition. It is Staff's opinion that it was. It specifically relates to whether.the exist- ing real estate offices there need to immediately apply for a use permit to remain there for the length of their leases. Commissioner Peterson stated that it was. his feeling that the Commission did not condition it up'on getting'a use permit for the existing real estate offices for'the 3 years remaining on the lease term. Mr. Pollack, the applicant, stated that .that was his understanding from the discussion at the meeting and after listening to the tape of that meeting. 'There was a co'nsensus that Condition F is inconsistent with the intent of the Commission. Commissioner McG01drick agreed with the intent but stated that she still thought they would do the paperwork that says they are a nonconform- in.g use. Staff commented that 'they wanted to have the use permit in hand, so the real estate offices would indeed be .allowed to stay in the lower level for those three years, but at the termination of that three years the applicant can either go upstairs or move to some other location. They indicated that their concern was to have that control. Discussion followed on the cost of an application for a use permit. Mr. Heid, the architect, addressed the conditions of the Staff Report. He stated that he believed it was the intent that Mr. Rankin's office would be allowed to continue until the l¢.as.e_.~xp!~es~o.r..~e..get a use permit and Con- dition F contradicts that. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she thought. the Commission had agreed that it was to go to retail after three years. Staff noted that the Commission increased the variance number of parking spaces for that very reason,. that this square footage be converted to retail. After further discussion the City .Attorney .stated that, because of the uncertainty here, he would recommend that the Commission frame language upon which you arrive at a consensus, whether it is the one interpretation or the other,'and adopt that as an amendment to the earlier'approval. It was noted that there is a last sentence on the copy of Mr. Heid's report that was not on the one that was in the packet to the Com- mission. Mr. Heid stated that it read "The a~plicant shall submit p'roof of lease termination dates within 30 days." Commissioner Crowther moved to clarify the application by crossing out the words "or exist g on Item F on paoe 15 and leaving the rest of it the way in" ~ , it was amended at the'previous Planning Co~mission meeting, which read: "prior to the location of any new real estate office in this complex." Commissioner Crowther clarified that when Mr. Rankin's lease expires, according to Condi- tion 3, he has to apply for a use pe'rmit, and within 30 days he has to let us know when his lease is going to expire. Staff noted that there is another real estate office in this complex' and the area is being substantially modi- fied. If this 'is change as suggested we may lose the hold we have on that. Commissioner Crowther then proposed to cover Staff's point by modifying Con- dition #3 to state "When the current leases for t.he existing real estate office uses have expired or modifications are made in the real estate facilities." Staff added that it could be said if the real estate office is increased in size. Commissioner Burger commented that it could be said when the current leases for the existing real estate uses have expired or the offices have increased in size. The City Attorney stated that he would like to see some reference to the representation on which we all have relied rfrom the applicant, that the lease does in fact expire'in three 'years. Staff suggested that they come back with a modified report, reflecting the 'Commission's intent, at the next meeting. P4r. Pollack commented that he has a time constraint. The City Attorney clari- fied that the Commission is saying: (1) there does not have to be an applica- tion now; (2) Mr. Rankin is allowed to remain in occupancy as a real estate - 11 P~nning Commission Page 12 Meeting Minutes 9/12/84 _ V-652 and SDR-1576 (cont.) office for the remainder of the term, which is approximately three years and two months, and (3) at that'time he would have the right to apply, if he so desires, for a use permit at that location, which may or may not be granted. Mr. Heid suggested that., on Item F, the'words "or existing" be replaced ~'ith "or expanded" real estate office. Commissioner Crowther also suggested adding a sentence to Condition F that essentially says that "existing real estate offices must obtain a use permit within three years irrespective of Staff Condition #3. There was a consensus to do that. Staff was directed to agendize this for the next meeting and bring back the modified Staff Report for Commission approval. 20. SDR-1573 Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Brozda, Northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval to allow the construction of a new parking deck and paved area over 1,000 sq. ft. in area, 'in th'e C-C zoning district Staff explained the application, recommending approval. They noted that the applicant has provided information concerning a 1968 agreement and he is stating that the work being required is ~ontra~y.~to~this' in that it is maintenance. Staff commented that it is not maintenance; it' is the construction and recon- struction of improvements on Third Street and does not fall within the term maintenance in this agreement. The City Attorney concurred' with Staff. He discussed the agreement, indicating that it was his interpretation of the agreement that if there had been no change in the property, then we would be operating under ~.."H~'a'dd~d,.'ho~e~er, t]~at the 'subje~t'~f.imp~'~eme~'of the property and the ~mposition of normal development conditions in connection with that improvement is not addressed here, and we do have the right to request the applicant to do the same thing we would request of anyone else that was developing under similar circumstances. Doug Adams, representing the applicant, referenced the agreement, indicating that it was a judgment and gave the background. Discussion followed on the maintenance listed in the agreement. After further discussion of the current application there was a consensus to approve the tentative map as it is with the conditions. It was Clarified to Mr. Adams as to what conditions are under a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Staff also' clarified Condition II-D, stating that there is a portion of the connection of the storm drain from the site to the public drain. They commented that in discussion with Mr. Adams they spoke about the potential of a catch basin along the~ street frontage, and that would be considered part of that condition. They added that it is true that it is not a major portion of the master storm system. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SDR-1573, per Exhibits B and C and the Staff Report dated August 2, 1984, with the amendment to add DIA to Con- dition II-M. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS Oral 1. Mr. Bob Peterson, architect for Mr. Joseph Kennedy, addressed the concern about winterizing a downhill slope below the existing house. They explained that if the Site Modification and Design Review are continued, they are afraid it will be too late to ha~e this taken care of. Staff pointed out that the previous 'lot line adjustment approval requires that the applicant do all of the conditions prior to getting any grading permit. Mr. Peterson discussed the grading. Staff commented that nothing is happening on the site regarding the water or conditions placed on this whole matter, and they would be reluctant to grant approval for any other activity on this site. Commis- sioner McGoldrick commen~ that she has 'seen a lot of people winterize and work erosion control without doing a lot of grading. She added that she is having a problem understanding needing sprinklers during the winter time. Joseph Kennedy, the applicant, stated that he 'feels that they have done every- thing that has been asked of them. Commissioner Crowther agreed but explained to Mr. Kennedy that he was asking ~he Commission to get into a grading issue, which is really Staff's prerogative. Mr.. Kennedy indicated that they were asking for a relatively minor amount of .grading to allow them to winterize. :~.,~Pl~naing Commission. .~ ~e Page 13 !~'Meet{ng Minutes 9/12/84 ~' Kennedy (cont.) Discussion followed on the grading. Staff noted. that there will still be a iS-day appeal period on the Site Modification decision at the next meeting. The Commission discussed the possibility of extending the time period on the grading because of the fact that the City overlooked the fact that a variance would be needed on the project. Staff noted that the October 15th date is in anticipation of the onset of winter and to get the erosion control accom- plished. They added that if in fact it"'is only a couple of hundred yards there probably isn't a problem of getting approval during the IS-day appeal period and being ready to begin that work. Discussion followed on the timeframe. It was determined that this issue will be further discussed at the meeting on September 26, 1984, at which time the other applications are to be discussed. Mr. Peterson then addressed a condition of the Lot Line Adjustment, to provide an easement for a road to the lower' parcel. He explained that it was their understanding at the 'study session that the easement would not be required unless and until a project was approved and anticipated for that parcel. H~ indicated that they had changed the lot line to make a direct connection so that a future easement could be put in; however, it was their understanding that the easement did not have to be provided until they decide to develop. They asked that the Commission clarify that they don't have to record the easement on the lot line adjustment or build the road.at this time. Commissioner Peterson stated that it was his recollection that the Commission wanted that easement recorded butZ~that the 'applicant did not have to build the road. Mr. Kennedy stated that he did not remember it that way.. '-~He""~'~m~'~d.'~.]~'~~ !je"'~.~a'~ not '. hr.'~ui'~' '.~.t~'~-."f~c~ '-th'~t" i-f '."~hey_ build. 'o~ '~]~e second 16t 'tlr~y ~ill'have to build a road. He asked the question of what is the value in granting an easement if there is no road being built on it. The City Attorney stated that if the applicant sold the other lot there would be no way to assure access in the absence of that easement. Commissioner Peterson commented that the property line is adjusted so that is the only way in. He stated that now his recollec- tion was that the applicant had to either adjust that lot line in such a way that the other property would ahvays have access or grant an easement. Mr. Kennedy agreed, stating that they agreed to maintain an easement that they have against the adjacent property that makes the connection. Commissioner Peterson stated that if the lot line is adjusted in such a way that the access has been created for the other property to that other street, then he does not have a problem. There was a consensus that if the 'map reflects that there is access, then the condition could be deleted. Staff was directed to agendize this for the next meeting and bring back to the Commission the map so that this could be verified. 2. Mr. Daniel Heindel stated that he was late for the meeting when his fence was approved on Item #1. He' questioned the condition about the 15 ft. setback. Staff noted that the recommendation is in line with the policy state- ment established at the study session on this issue. Mr. Heindel noted the other fences in the area and their setbacks. He suggested possibly an 8 or 10 ft. setback. The City Attorney stated that, regarding the policy statement that the Commission agreed, while it said 15 ft. as a general standard, the Commission also agreed that those exceptions would not be handled through a variance procedure so'findings would not have to be made. He added that while it was to be a general standard, each.case was still to be evaluated on its own merits. There was a consensus to make an on-site visit and look at the fence. Commissioner Harris indicated that she has already looked at the fence and feels Mr. Heindel has a good argumen{. She mov.ed t~.'re~onSider Item #1 and hear it at the next meeting. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner McGoldrick abstaining. After further discussion it was directed that this be continued to a Regular Adjourned Meet- ing on September 18, 1984. 3. Vice-Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to continue the meeting to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on September 18, 1984. COmmissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meetinglended at 12:15 p.m. ~~. S~ook SeCretary RSS:cd