Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COmmISSION DATE: Tuesday, November 6, 1984 - 7:00~p.m. PLACE: Community Center Meeting Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION '·:·~, Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Crowther·, Harris, McGoldrick and Siegfried Absent: Commissioners Peterson and Sch~efer PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. V-666 - Amanna/Schiro, Request for Variance Approval to allow a 12 ft. corrective retaining wall along the property lines at 13898 Upper Hill Drive and 13902 U.pper Hill Court, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district; continued 'from October 24, 1984 The public hearing was opened at 7:13 p..'m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this be continued to November 14, 1984. MISCELLANEOUS 2. GF-3S0 - Resolution to Add Modeling and Finishing School as a Conditional Use in the C-N District After anY". explanation by Staff and discussion of the use, Commissioner Crowther moved to adopt Re'sOlution GF-350, adding this use as a conditional use in the C-N District. Commissioner McGoldrick :seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary RSS:cd' CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 24, 1984 7-; 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777,~Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ... ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Present: Commissioners Burger, Crowthe;r, Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried CCommissioner Crowther arrived at 8:11 p.m. and Commissioner Sc,haefer at 8:30 p.m.) Absent: None Minutes '. Commissioner Peterson moved to waive the.reading of the minutes'Df.Octobe. r: ~6~Fon'F"~vh'i_~h was ca.tried dn~nimousi7. "" PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Item #1, A-1019 and A-1020, Kathryn Pittman, was removed for discussion. The public hea~ng was opened on Item #'2, A-1026~ P. Pappanastos, at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. CommisSioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1026, Pete fi Vicky Pappana.stos, per the Staff Report dated October 11, 1984 and Exhib'its""B" and "C". CBmmissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously S-0. Discussion followed on Item #1, A-1019 and A-1020, Kathryn M. Pittman. Com- missioner McGoldrick indicated that the applicant had a problem with the conditions and that Commissioner Harris would like to add a condition. The public hearing was opened at 7:86 p.m. Commissioner Harris expressed concern relative to the two oak trees at the proposed driveway off of FruitVale and suggested that a condition be added,' stating that the driveway will be designed such that it will not impact those trees. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that the Land Use Committee tried to express to the applicant the concerns about the dormer windows and convert- ing to usable living space in the future. She commented that the applicants were quite willing to work with Staff and have suggested a wall behind ~he dormer windows or a fake ·window.· She added that they had asked Mr. Roberrs from Osterlund to present something in writing relative to the height and noted that two letters had been submitted. Mark Roberrs, of Osterlund Enterprises, addressed the dormer windows and the height, referencing his letters. He expressed· their willingness to put a solid wall behind the dormers, stating that they feel the dormers add to the architectural appeal of the building. Commissioner McGoldrick asked Staff their feeling relative to~thd'~eaSi bility of the applicant's suggestion. Staff noted past experience of the structural support being changed and ex'panded. They added that there is concern about the washing of the dormer window if the wall were built behind it. Mr. Roberrs indicated that it'.could be a smoked glass window. Discus- sion followed on the heights of the buildings and the windows. There was a consensus that the dormer".w±'ndo~s.~'b~eakL'up 'the appearance of the roof line. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1019 and A-10Z0, Kathryn Pittman, per the Staff Reports dated October 11, 1984 an'~ October 12, 1984 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D", adding the ·condition to both reports which states that the two oak trees at the entrance from Fruitvale to this new road will be preserved·, the condition that the height of the structures shall not exceed 2~.S feet on Parcel A and 24.7 feet on Parcel B, and the dormer windows are to be determined by Staff, in terms of a fake window or wall. Commissioner Planning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 10/24 A-1019 and A-1020 (cont.) Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1578.- William Lisac 3b. A-1003 William Lisac, Request for Design Review and Tentative 3b. SDR-1578 - Building Site Approval for a two-story, single-family dwelling over 26' in height on a hillside lot in the NHR District at 21045 Comer Drive; continued from October 10th It was directed that this matter be continued to November 28, 1984. 4a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1581 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher 4b. SDR-1581 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher, Request for Design Review and Tenta- 4c. A-1014 rive Building Site Approval to allow an existing single- story dwelling to be' converted to a two-story dwelling in excess of 4800 sq. ft. in the R-I-20,000 district at 15069 Park Drive; continued from October 10, 1984 Staff described the proposal, recommending approval based on a condition that the structure be no·-more than 4800 sq. ft. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She stated that they did not see the necessity for Condition #2 regarding the removal of the concrete storage area along the western proper- ty line. She noted that the neighbor to the east had indicated that the proposed second story deck was not a privacy problem. She commented that the applicant had indicated that he had discussions with the neighbor to the north, and they had agreed upon a landscaping scheme that would eliminate the privacy problem. Commissioner Harris added that there is a huge pine tree in the areaTwhere the concrete is; therefore, it would be hard to plant anything under it. She described the present landscaping, which she feels adequately screens the area. The public hearing was opened at 7:57 p.m. Mr. Fisher gave a presentation on the project. He indicated that he has discussed landscaping with the neighbor to the rear, and they have not yet reached any final settlement. He addressed the size of the structure, stat- ing that he feels the 4800 sq. ft. is a guideline only, and there have been a lot of approvals that exceed the guideline. Chairman Siegfried noted that, generally speaking, where the Commission has approved homes significantly above the guidelines, they have 'been on larger lots. Mr. Fisher described the recreation room, stating that it would be used by the community and not just their family. He 'added that removal of it would have a detrimental effect on the plan. He discussed the proposed height and the design rela- tive to solar. He submitted letters from the neighbors in s~pport and sub- mitte.d.p~·ctures illustrating the existing landscaping. and the ·view of·and·~ ~om the.p.r6p6sed' d"~'ck~:"~h~e"'.cbnditions of the Staff Report were discussed. Warren Gould, 19892 Mendelsohn, discussed the privacy issue. He submitted pictures showing the 'roof line and indicated that he was working with the applicant relative to the landscaping. Commissioner McGoidrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried' unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that everything she has heard from the neigh- bors has been so positive. She commented that she is in sympathy with Mr. Gould losing part of his view; however, on the other hand, she likes the roof line and the solar heating. She added that she is having a real problem trying to determine where ·it could be 'reduced' 900 sq. ft. and is tempted to approve the application. Commissioner Harris stated' that she really has a problem with the size of the house on this lot. Commissioner Peterson concurred, indicating that he cannot support the propose·d design on this size lot. Chairmarl Siegfried explained to Mr. Fisher that two concerns of the Commission were s~ze and height. He suggested that perhaps the matter could go to a study session, in order to come up wi·th some rea·sonable compromises. Mr. Fisher stated that he could eliminate the solar and reduce it by 3 ft. He commented that Pl.~ning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 10/24/ --' SDR-1581 and A-1014 (cont.) he believes that the. Commission is not really looking at the true usage of the roof line. Chairman Siegfried noted that the Commission's concern is visibility and the appearance of bulk. It was directed that this matter be placed on the agenda for the study session on November 6, 1984 and the regular meeting of November 14, 1984. 5. A-1016 McBain & Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single-family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR District at 21409 Tollgate Road, Tract 6628, Lot 5; continued from October 10, 1984' The public hearing was opened at 8:].8 p.m. Mr. McBain discussed the lots in the subdivision, asking to further discuss the issues at the study session on November 6, 1984. Staff requested that Mr. McBain submit a letter, list- ing the issues. Mr. McBain indicated that he will also meet with the neigh- bors. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing this lot and indicating that the committee was not disposed at all to even con- sider a two-story building on this sit~. It was noted that there will be an on-site visit on'November 3, ].984. It was directed that this matter be continued to the study session on November 6, 1984 and the regular meeting of November 14, 1984. 6. V-662 - J. P. & Gertie DeVos, Request for Variance Approval to allow a 10 ft. fence 7 ft. from the side property line at·14681 Farwell Avenue, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district; continued from Octo- ber 10, 1984 Staff gave the history of the project ~nd explained the request for variance. They noted that they. are unable to make. the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, commenting that mitigating the appearance of the wall to the satisfaction of everyone did not seem to be a major problem. However, making the finding for a variance seems to be the problem, and the committee explained again that situation to Mrs. DeVos. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 p.m. Mr. DeVos add~ressed the findings in the Staff Report. Regarding #2, Physical, Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances, he stated that the wall is so close to the house tha·t it is virtually part of it. He commented that if the wall is removed entirely a blank wall of 20 feet will remain, th~ physical structure of the house 'its.elf. He described the bathroom and explained how the wall had been raised to 10 feet 'to provide privacy for themselves and the neighbors. Relative to finding #4, Special Privilege, he stated that he does not feel that privacy is asking for a special privilege. Regarding #5, he commented that the nei·ghb·ors really do not mind the height of the wall. He asked that the variance be granted to ~nsure comfortable living conditions for themselves and the neighbors. Chairman Siegfried asked about possible 'things that could be done to mitigate the present view of the wall.if the variance were granted. Dick Stowers, the architect,. submitted photographs of the site. He commented that this is a hillside area wh·ere the house is built and the house that is located to the east is 16 feet' higher. He stated that the fact that i't is on a hill.- side is a mitigating factor. He discussed the topography of the area, the existing landscaping and proposed landscaping. He indicated that they were not'adverse to putting in a fence, even though they do not feel it would help the situation. Commissioner. Schaefer commented that the applicants have indicated that they are not willing to compromise and change the color whatsoever, and she feels that, with it remaining pink and with no compromise' on the height of the wall, granting approval of it is very difficult. She stated that she feels that the color ~s a major concern of the neighbors.· She 'added that if the wall were somewhat lowered it still would retain some privacy into the bathroom. Discussion followed on possibly painting the wall an earth tone color. Mr. Stowers commented tha·t painting the wall a brown' or an earthtone would not help the appearance ·of the· house. He 'explained that the wall now tends to - 3 - ~%.Pl.~ning Commission Page 4 Meeting ~linutes 10/24/ V-662 (cont.) disappear because it is the same colo~ as the house. He noted that the color is a standard color. He added that if the Commission really feels that color is important, toning it down could be discussed. Staff clarified.that the house could have been. sited a bit differently and would not have been so close to the property line. Mr. Stowers commented that it was necessary to move the house as far toward the property line as possible because of the large oak trees. Jerry Obe.rthier, 14651 Farwell, stated'tha't they do not object as m~c~t0.-.-the wall as the color, noting that it does not blend in with the landscaping. Mr. Stowers commented that they had thought the white house would not be as attractive to the neighbor and thought that a darker color would blend more with the landscaping and would tend to disappear. He added that the house is a total' architectural statement, and the wall is part of the experience of the house. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson commented that he has not seen the wall, but feels that if the wall is part of the house, then the house is too close to the property line. Therefore', the wall should be torn down or it should be an 8 ft. wall with some kind of treatment on the windows and some 'landscaping. It was clarified that variance findings would still have to be made to approve an 8' ft. wall. Commissioner Harris stated that she is unable to make the finding of extra- ordinary circumstances. She commented that she thinks this would be granting a special privilege, because the applicant did know at the time they designed the house that it was going right on the setback line and that the bathroom window was going to be on that wall. She added that she thinks it should have been taken care of at that time. Commissioner Burger commented that she cannot support the 10:ft. wall. She stated that if the fence goes up on the property line to mitigate the impacts of that wall, then there'~s no need for the wall to remain at 10 ft.; the fence breaks up all of the view. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she 'would make a motion and ma~9 the findings to approve because of the topography, but""only 'Under '~o: ~r-~Um~t~n~'- that the en. tire side of the house and wall were painted""a more neutral color, subject to Staff approval. She added that if that is not willing to be done, then she concurs with the rest of the Commissioner's. Commissioner C.rowther commented' that he would concur also, except for the fact that his neighbor has a lot where.he has a very steep cut bank one one side, which is about 20 ft. high. Under similar considerations he feels that his neighbor should be' allowed to, build a 15 'ft. wall. The'refore, he has a problem with this issue of special privilege, because he thinks the're are other situ- ations like that in Saratoga, and he would have trouble approving it because of that. Commissioner':McGoldrick indicated that she can make some of the findings Staff could n0.t~· bu=t she cannot make the special privilege finding. Commiss~'o.ner Harris moved to deny V-662, based that the fact that the findings cannot be made.' Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Chairman Siegfried noted the 10-day appeal period. He stated that there was some sense by at least two Commissioners that there might be some chance of granting the variance if there had been some movement'on the color of that side of the house to mitigate the impact on the neighbors, but there was no sense of consensus. ~Pl~ing Commission Page 5 '~4eeting Minutes 10/24/8 7. A-1022 Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con~ struct a 27 ft., one-story single family residence on a hill- side lot in the NHR zoning district at 14575 Saratoga Heights Court, Tract 6665, Lot 4 It'was directed that this matter be continued to N0vember~ 14, 1984. 8. UP-569 Roy Jones, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow construc- tion of an 8 ft. retaining wall in the rear yard at 21127 Bankmill Road, in the R-1-'40,000. zoning d.istrict It was reported that this application has bee'n withdrawn by the applicant. 9. V-664 - Anthony Thomas, Request for 'Variance Approval to allow a 5 ft. iron and cha'in link fence that encloses more than 4,000 sq. and is on a property that is higher than the street elevation -at 21401 Tollgate Road, in the 'NHR z'on.ing d'istr.i'ct It was directed that this item be 'continued to November 14, 1984. 10. V-666 Amanna/Schiro, Request for Variance Approval to allow a 12 ft. correc'tive retaining wall along the property line at 13898 Upper Hill Drive and 13902 Upper Hill Court, in the R-I-40,000 zoning district The public hearing was opened at 8:53 p.m. Mr. Amanna indicated that he had applied for the variance for the wall. Staff explained that the wall is on Mr. Schiro's property, as well as Mr. Amanna's, and Mr. Schiro has not yet given ]his approval to join~in. as an applicant on the application. Therefore, the app.~..~.~ion.~nn0.~ proceed' until that .~pproval is given. or_~th~ ~al'i'i~s m~d entirely on.'~I~2 '~~"'7~ .~'r~. "~.~Ir. "A~nn'~'~'indica~ea" t-i~at they': have ~'~]o_..a~ess... 0~ .-]his prop6rty. The timeframe'was discussed. Mr. Amanna submitted a photograph of the exist- ing temporary wall. After further discussion it was ~a~'e'~'i'ned ~}{~t"i'f'~the necessary papers are received th'is meeting could be continued to a regular adjourned meeting on November 6, 1984, .in order to expedite this matter. It was directed that fhis matter be continued to November 6, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW 11. A-1011 - Cox Avenue Professional Center,. Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, 15,000 sq. ft. office build- ing on Cox Avenue 'across' from Quito Shopping Center (Building "B"), in the C-N zoning distri'ct Staff described the application, indicating that they were concerned with the size of the structure. They noted' that.the"applicant disagrees with Staff's figures of the' gross square footage of the structure. They' explained that they have calculated the figure in accord wi'th the definition to include all space within the exterior perimeter of the building, excluding the inner courtyard and elevator shaft. The parking was addressed, with Staff noting that they are concerned with the proposed parking. The letter from the adjacent property owner addressing parking wa's noted. Staff indicated that they were recommending denial-of the application. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she felt there are new issues here tonight that wer'e not brought up at the study session, and suggested another study session on the matter. Joe Sanfilippo, the applicant, stated that he had left the last study session '.with an optimistic impression and had Submitted a design on the basis of what 'he felt the Commission would approve, i.e. in the range of 14,000-15,000 sq. ft. and parking in the range of 1:300. Mr. Sanfilippo suggested another study s. ession .on the project Ch~'i'~m~n~i'egf~'i~d commented that there has been a tremendous amount of debate over the pro3ect across the street, and he feels it has made the Commission more conscious of parking ratios. Mr. Sanfilippo stated t'hat he had taken a poll of eight communities within Santa Clara County, and none of them make the interpretation that exerior sidewalks and exterior balconies are included within the gross area. - 5' - ~P'l~a~'~-ing Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes 10/24/84 ~.- A-1011 (cont.) After further discussion regarding the parking ratio, there was a consensus to have a study session on this matter. Mr. Sanfilippo asked for direction as to how square footage is to be calculated. Staff explained the method by which they calculated the square footage of this project. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on November 6, 1984 and the regular meeting of November 14, 1984. MISCELLANEOUS 12. Consideration of Addition of Christmas tree sales lot as a permitted use in the P-.A (Professional-Administrative) District It was noted that the resolution states.'~hatl~.the'lots must be in the P-A zone and be a minimum of 10 acres in size. Commissioner Schaefer moved to adopt the resolution adding Christmas tree sales lots as a permitted use in the P-A district. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 7-0. 1'3. Consideration of Addition of Neighborhood Public Storage as a conditional use in the C-C (Community-Commercial) Zoning District in the Village Staff explained the request from Mr. Morrison, indicating that if the Commis- sion wishes, they can prepare a resolution adding neighborhood public storage as a conditional use in the C-C zoning.district in the Village. They reported that Mr. Morrison would also have to amend the General Plan and apply for a rezoning. Discussion followed on the appropriateness of the use in this dis- trict. Staff explained the proposed facility. Commiss'ioner McGoldrick sug- gested getting input from the residents in the Village and the Village Mer- chants Association. There was a consensus that that input would be needed, in addition to more information from Mr. Morrison as to what is being proposed, before further consideration of this matter. 14:.~'ConSideration of Addition of a Modeling and Finishing Professional School in the C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial) District Staff described the request' from Mr. and Mrs. PeterS. They indicated that they have some concern only in the terms of sales tax revenues and would, therefore, recommend the use as a conditional use. They noted that the Peters would then have to go through a use permit process,' which would delay their ability to lease the property in which they are interested. Tom Peters discussed the proposed operation in the Azule Shopping Center, sub- mitting a letter from Galeb properties. Discussion followe~ on the use. Staff discussed the timeframe and procedure involved in adding this as a conditional use. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution adding this as a conditional use, for the agenda of the' Regular Adjourned Meeting on November 6, 1984. 15. Consideration of abandonment of proposed trail in Tract 6665, Parnas Corpo'ration Staff explained the 'request, stating that the' Parks and Recreation Commission had reviewed it. Commissioner Burger moved to recommend the' abandonment of the proposed trail in Tract 6665 to the City Council. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded. the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 16. Mr. Halmquist, 12720 Arroyo de Argu~.llo, Site Interpretation Staff reported that the applicants would like to locate a pool, and pools need to be located in the rear yard if they are to be within 6 ft. of the property line. They explained that the applicants would like to call what Staff would consider the width as the rear property line. They indicated that the ordi- nance says that the depth of the proper'ty goes' from the front property line to the rear property line; therefore, Staff cannot make that interpretation and are concluding that a variance is needed. It was noted that the address is on Arroyo de Arguello, but the're 'is a driveway off of the other street. Paul McMullen, representing the applicant, described the location for the pool_. Discussion followed' by the Commission on the site. There was a consensus that the proposed location is the proper location for the pool. There was also a - 6 ~P,~ar~ing Commission Page 7 ='=M~¥1ng Minutes 10/24/84 Mr. Halmquist (cont.) consensus to have Staff and .the City Attorney review the ordinance to see if the interpretation can be made so that a variance would not be needed. COMMUNICATIONS Oral '1. Staff indicated that in the NHR zoning district there is a conditional use called "plant nursery", which excludes sales of items other than plant materials. They reported that they have a request for a Christmas tree farm in that area, and they question whether a Christmas tree farm would be the same as a plant nursery. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she would be opposed to Christmas tree sales in that location because of the traffic. She added that the sale of Christmas trees is an intense use.~.After discussion there was a consensus that a Christmas tree farm that sells trees is not the same as plant nursery. Chairman Siegfried commented that if the applicant wants to pursue the subject ~urther, he' should.'come formally before the Commis- sion with p.lans.-as,'t0"~ioc~ionf.and parking, etc. · 2. Chairman Siegfried thanked the· Saratoga News for attending, and the 'Good GoVernment Group for attending and· serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded'.to continue the meeting to a Regular Adjourned Meet- ing on November 6, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting'ended at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully .s bmitted, Robert S./Shook Secretary RSS:cd