Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 28, 1984 - 7: 30 p .m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Harris, ~4cGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Harris arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Crowther ~inutes Commissioner ScHaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of November ]_4, 1984 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNI CATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Regarding Item #4, Tract 7382, Staff clarified to Commissioner Schaefer that the easement will not be removed, but the improvements will not be completed at this time. Commissioner Schaefer requested that the word. "equestrian" remain on the map. Commissioner ~cGoldrick moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0.- 1. SD-1454 - Jo'hn DiManto, B~adrone Hill and Peach Hill Roads, 5 lots, Request for One-Year Extension 2a. SDR-1508 Martin Oudewaal, 14629 Big Basin Way, Request for One-Year Exten- 2b. A- 703 - s'ion. 3. LL~5 B~arie Gaspar, 14754 Pierce Road (Lot 5, Tract 5928), and Vintage L.ane (Parcel C), Request for Lot Line Adjustment 4. Tract 7382, Groteguth, Ten Acres Road, Request to Eliminate Pedestrian/ Equestrian Easement PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Items ~7, V-669, Holmquist, and ~10, C-2'14 (Appeals), were removed for discus- sion. The public hearing was opened at 7:.36 p..m. on the balance of the items. Commissioner B~cGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peter- son seconded the' motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the balance of the Public Hearings Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5. A-1029 - Bla'ckwell Homes, Request fo'r Design Review Approval to construct a tWo-story structure on a hillside lot in' the NHR zoning district at 12206 Vista Arroyo Court, Tract ~6528, Lot ~15 6. A-1034 - Linda and Randy Thorsch, Request for Design Review Approval to construct an addition and second-story deck to an existing two- story residence 'at 14199 Saratoga Avenue, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district 8. UP-S69 - Gal~b Properties ~Finlay), Request for Use Permit Modification to allow the addition of a restaurant/concession area to the exist- ing Saratoga Chamber Theater in the Azule Shopping Center at 12378 Sar'ato'ga-Sunnyvale 'Road Planning Commission Page 2 ~Meeting Minutes 11/28 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR (cont.)' 9a. Negative Declaration - UP-570 - Caleb Properties (Peters) 9b. UP-570 - Caleb Properties (Peters), Request for Use Permit to allow a model- ing and finishing school to operate in the Azule Shopping Center at 12378 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Discussion followed on Item #7, V-669, Holmquist. Staff explained the applica- tion. The correspondence from the neighbors who would be directly affected was noted. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, agreeing with the Staff's denial of the variance for the seat walls and the spa, since they felt they were very close. The public hearing was opened at 7:37 p.m. Paul McMullen, the landscape architect, stated that they could move the spa closer to the house approximately 2-3 feet, but he does not feel they could meet the 12 ft. setback requirement. He clarified that the spa is presently 6 ft. from the property line, with a 15" seat wall, one corner of which is 2 ft. from the fence. He commented that he does not understand how the seat wall is determined a structure. Discussion followed on the location of the spa. Mr. McMullen indicated that he would have no problem if the spa. were conditioned to have a 9 ft. setback. Regarding the seat walls, Staff commented that they. have consistently interpreted that when a structure is permanently attached it must meet setback requirements. Mr. McMullen clarified that the seat wall is 7 ft. from the property line; however, the little return by the pool is 2 ft. from the property line. He explained that aesthetically the pool dives into it, and it is a little raised brick 12" seat wall. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that if the spa is moved, he does not see that any of the other is going to have an impact. He stated that he feels the find- ings can be made on the basis of the unusual nature of the lot, because the Commission had to debate upon what was the side and what was the rear. Com- missioner Schaefer stated that she feels.the purpose of the seat wall is mostly aesthetic rather than usage. Commissioner Siegfried also noted the type of structure, stating that what he really looks at is essentially a kind of retain- ing wall for a planting area. Staff noted that there is a definition in the ordinance that indicates that a wall..isn't necessarily a structure. They explain- ed that if-:~his wcre just'a wal~ then'~can'be defined ~hat it is n0~ 'a structure and it WOuldn't have the setback problem. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he feels that the Commission ought to look at it on that basis. He added that any time a wall is put in to fence off the,poo.l_area, it.poten- tially is a seat wall, and he feels that the Comm~i.ssion ~s looking a~ an'lS" high wall, with an area that allows you to sit on it. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve'V-669, per the conditions in the Staff Report dated November 16, 1984 and makingt'~findings previously discussed, with an additional condition that the spa have at least a 9 ft. setback. Com- missioner Burger seconded the motion, which 'was carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion followed on Item #10, C-214. The City Attorney explained .the pro- posed amendment, noting that the 15-~r~y appeal period by the City Council was being eliminated. -Discussion followed on the appeal period and the definition and interpretion O.f the term "days" Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing'. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to recommend approval of C-214 to the City Coun- cil. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the'motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS lla. Negative Declaration - SDR-1578 - W~lliam' Lisac 'lib. SDR-1578 - William Lisac, Request for Design ReView and Tentative Building llc. A-1003 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 It was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting of December 12, 1984. - 2 Planning Commission Page 3 ..... Meeting Minutes 11/28 PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) 12a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1SS1 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher 12b. SDR-1SS1 - Wilbur & Gayle Fisher, Request for Design Review and Tentative 12c. A-1014 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 It was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting of December 12, 1984. 13. V-664 - Anthony Thomas, Request for Variance Approval to allow a S ft. iron and chain link fence that encloses more than 4,000 sq. ft. and is on a property that is higher than the street elevation at 21401 Tollgate Road, in the NHR zoning district Staff explained the proposal, recommending denial since they are unable to make the findings. The public hearing was opened at 7:56 p.m. Roger Mano, attorney for the applicant, commented that he had been working with the City Attorney on a modification of the CC&Rs to allow a variance for this fencing. He discussed the pool, indicating that the applicant is now allowed to put a S ft. fence around it, which they feel would be much more out of charac- ter with open space than would be the application which has been presented. Mr. Mano described the present proposal to put the 'fence around the parameter of the property. He spoke to the findings, describing the site and the area. Regarding the physical difficulty finding, he indicated that'~h'~ 'a~Dli~'aht r~-'-: cannot connect the pool to the 'house because of the amount of'feHci~g now allow- ed. Commissioner Siegfried suggested another design wherein the fence could be configured into the slope. The City Attorney explained the procedure for the amendment of the CC&Rs and suggested that the following language be added to Condition 1: "and approval of such amendment by the City Council." Discussion followed on the amount and location of the fencing and the topography of the site. Commissioner Schaefer commented that another option would be to do planting, and that would create shade on the pool area. She suggested that possibly pasture fencing be used, ~ince it is noticed less. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger · seconded the motion, which was 'carried unanimously. · Discussion followed on following the lower contour and fitting the fence properly into the hill, so that it will be less visible. Commissioner Siegfried com- mented that he saw no reason to enclose the whole lot. He stated that he thinks one of the exceptional situations here is that there is an existing fence along the back line of this property, and he feels the Commission needs to recognize that fact. Staff clarified that the fencing was there under the previous HCRD zoning. Commissioner Harris questioned whether the fence in the front yard has to be S'feet, stating that she' feels if there are spans of S ft. fencing on site after site, it will end up with a look that the Commission does not like. Staff noted that the Commission will have to make a decision on the front fence, since only 3 feet is allowed. After discussion on the front fence, Commissioner McGoldrick commented that she sees no point in having a fence in the front at that kind of a slope unless it is a S ft. fence. She moved to approve V-664, making the findings: Physical Hardship There is no way that the applicant can surround his home and pool within the 4,000 sq. ft. directire. Commissioner Siegfried added that by limiting the 'applicant to the 4,000 sq. ft., or by limiting him to an area wh'ich includes the pool, it puts the fence on a much more visible area to the 'neighbors and to the valley. Common Privilege - It is a common privilege for someone to have safety and protection, and therefore not a special privilege. Commissioner Siegfried added that peculiar to this lot is the fact that the rear lot is fence because it was outside of the NHR area, so there is already one whole side of the property line which is fenced. Commis- sioner McGoldrick stated that she also feels that the ste'epness of the slope has an effect on this, and she 'would recommend that the fence should follow the last contour line shown on the map, instead of all the way to the street. It was determined.' that this line should be followed or another appropriate location used after review by Staff. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners Harris and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she would certainly compromise on this; she does not think Plan;ning Commission ~' Page 4 =.'--Meeting Minutes 11/ V-664 (cont.) that 4,000 sq.,ft. is appropriate in this case. However, she cannot agree with the findings. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels it is important to note that, as was indicated', one of the unique situations here is the fact that the rear property line alrea'dy has an existing fence, and the fact that any fenced area to include the 'pool sits right on the top of the hill, visible. to everyone. 15a. Negative Declaration - SDR-'158'3 P'eter Buck 15b. V-667 - Peter Buck, Request for Building Site Approval for a greater 15c. SDR-1583 - than 50% expansion, Desi.gn Review Approval for a second-story 15d. A-1030 - addition and Variance Approval to maintain a 12 ft., 8 inch side yard setback whe're 20 ft. is required and for an existing acces- sory structure that maintains a 5 ft., 5 inch setback where 50 ft. is required, at 15214 Belle Court, in the R-I-40,000 zon- ing distri'ct The project was described by Staff, who stated that they were concerned about the proximity of the fence to the scenic highway, the dontinuance""0f ~hat' appears to be a second unit on the site, and the additional expansion into the side yard area with this proposal, wh'ere other room or options seem to be avail- able. They stated that they were unable to make all of the required findings for the three portions of the variance and are recommending denial. They noted that they are recommending approval of the 'Site Approval and Design Review, subject to the conditions of the Staff Report. Commissioner ~4cGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, noting that the exist- ing guest house is very close to the neighbors. She added that there did appear to be a great deal of room to the left of the existing house where there would be no problem expanding. The public hea'ring was opened at 8:25 p.m. The applicant gave a presentation on the: project, commenting that he feels the proposal will upgrade 'the 'immediate neighborhood. He indicated that it is his intention to use the existing structures as much as possible in. designing the addition. He described these 'structures and noted that the 'neighbors adjacent to the guest house are in support of the proposal. He addressed the fence which is existing, explaining that he only intends to apply stucco for the reason of sound deadening. He addressed' the findi'ngs.'. Regarding'moving' th~'gu'es'~ house to another location, he stated that he feels it would be impractical and a hard- ship due to the fact that it is a concrete slab type of structure. He added that it is his intention to not do anything to the existing guest house and garage combination other than simply connect it to the house by virtue of add- · ng a family room in the area between the two buildings. Discussion followed on the material and location of the fence. Commissioner Harris noted that the Commission has had a real concern with stucco, in that it is more obtrusive and much more visible than a wooden fence made of more natural materials. Commissioner Siegfried questioned if a new fence could be constructed which could be staggered, so there would not be one solid wall. Mr.. Buck stated that if he were to move the fence back along the two sides he wo. uld be doubly penalized as far as usability of his land is concerned. He added that the fence has been there for many years. Commissioner Schaefer Stated that she feels that'=a.20 f.~...~e.tbac.k'i~ ~ot neces- 'Sary;']~e'cauSg'~h~..'~t~i'nkS' ~tuc'co,wa:l.l~..'C~n ~e"~.'more""'~:t~.~c~ive~.~:..they are cer- --tiai~ly.n'ee'd'ed for noi'se; however, there.needs 'to be some setback other than the 7'ft. that is now"the're. She"added that the other' concern she has is that the corral, that is'now be'i'ng used as a kennel', is very close to a property line. Mr. Buck clarified that the second. unit is currently in use as a guest house, and he plans to continue that use' and get a second unit use permit. Commis- sioner Schaefer stated that her concern is that it is very necessary to have the appropriate setbacks to maintain the privacy of the neighbors in the area. She commented that perhaps some kind of a consideration needs to be made that the guest house is not going to be legitimized as a unit that can be rented out. She suggested that a study session be hel'd on the matter. Commissioner ~4cGoldrick moved to close tl~e 'public hearing. Commissioner Peter- son seconded the motion, whi'ch was 'carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson stated that he thinks the applicant makes a good point about the guest house being there for years,' and the neighb'Ors are not complaining. Discussion followed on the setbacks of the structures and fence. Mr. Buck commented that -.4 - Pl. anning Commission Page 5 '~'Meeting Minutes 11/28/ V-667, SDR-1583, and A-1030 (cont.) if the Commission could make the findings for the variance as a whole he could cut back the garage t6.e~f.~'i"~t~'~rh'~ 'post.'aH~'.'~tai'n"""fHe 2-~ ~'t."'Se~.ba'~kofor a consensus to have this matter ,~ontinue~ to a study 'session at ~:00 p.m. on'''~' December 4, 1984, and ai. 1 Commi'ssioners were requested to. visit the site. It was directed that this be continued to'the regular meeting on December 12, 1984. ~new portion.. There was .... 16. UP-571 Aaron Berman, Request for :Use Permit Approval to allow construc- tion of a 15 ft. high cabana in the rear yard at 19140 Via Tesoro Court, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to December 12, 1984. 17. SUP-1 - Ken ~Vallace, Request for a Second Unit Use Permit for an exist- ing second unit in the R-l-=20,000 district at 19978 Baroni Court Staff explained the application, noting that the applicant will enter into an Indemnity Agreement since it is in a flood hazard zone. The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SUP-1 per staff RepOrt dated November 16, 1984 and Exhibits "'B" and "C". The motion was carried unanimously 6-0. 18. C-213 - City of Saratoga, Consider amending the text of the Zoning'Ordi- nance (Ordinance NS-3) to allow compact parking stalls in the Village District of the City and establish standards for compact parking stalls per Ordinance NS-3, Articles 11 and '18 Staff explained the proposed amendment. They noted concern that applicants Will have to prepare two parking plans in order for them .to be adequately 'reviewed by Staff. The City Attorney' stated' that there is also the question as to what the standard size of the spaces' should be. There was a consensus to continue this matter to a study session on December 18, 1984. It was direct- ed that this matter will be continued to the regular meeting on January 9, 1984. Break - 8:55 - 9:10 p.m. MISCELLANEOUS 19a. UP-535 Professional Village. of Saratoga (Owen Companies), Southeast 19b. SDR-1539 - Corner of SaratOga Avenue and Cox Avenue, Clarification of 19c. A-989 - Conditions (City Council Referral) Staff explained' the modifications made to the 'Staff Report. Discussion followed on the traffic light, channelization of Cox, and left-hand turn off of Cox into the project.' It was determined that Condition 9 should state "Better delineation of Cox Avenue for left turns".~addition below Steve Douglas, rep'rese~'ting Owe'n Companies,' addressed the hours_of operation. · :'THe' _~o~ii!s S~i. dn ~g'~'~d.' that, .'~I~-~V~,.. t'li'eZ "h6~fs-'a~e, 'tHe"',~'onc~r .,o ~!' ~'6~mal or regular shall be inserted, reflec'fing the fact that these are office buildings and obviously someone may have to work beyond that time. It was noted that the berming will be' p~rt of the landscaping plan which will be reviewed by the Commission. Further discussion followe.d on the hours of operation. Commissioner McGoldrick suggested that the normal hours be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The City Attorney pointed 'out the enforcement problem the City would have, since people come and go in an office building. There was a con- sensus to have the 'hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Discussion followed on the security lighting, and it was determined that it would be houE''~.' after the regular hours of operation'. Commissioner Schaefer moved' that the hours of operation be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00p.m., with the word "normal" added' to the condition, and that the security lighting cease at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner' McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend the conditions for UP-535, SDR-1539 and A-989 listed in the Staff Report, as modified, to the' City Council. Com- missioner. Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. · ed' t i d n" s t'~t'i'h'~' '-t~ar the r.~"" ~ ~1'! b e '~' p'uS~z~--'--~earin~ '~'t"'~tt~e ~ity"'~"C~ncil "].~G1 ~ 'tile .n~ceS.sitX..-:'f'or"..t4ie l traf'f..~d I~-E-H'~"~'~'' Q.bii-~-~.--~l 'dj~ '~:~u-~'..- ...... - ...."' ' :." :."' .."~' . .... T:'::"""i.~-.:=: .'-'..'~'. '.-"'.' ...... -'-:j .....-"' ·'-- -- .'-'-" - s - "" ~.jp-la~ing Commission Page 6 'Meeting Minutes 11/28 ~ 20.' A-981 ~ R. D'e'wey/IV. Otterlei, Quito Road, Modification to Design Review Approval (Reconfiguration of House) Staff-explained the proposed modification. T]~ey referenced the report from Ba'rry Coates regarding the 'oak tree and bay tree which might be impacted. Dis- cussion followed on the report and all of the conditions ~n it. Cheriel Jensen addressed the original design, stating that the neighbors felt that it was the perfect plan for that site and the plan which they would like to see built. She discussed the oak tree and bay tree and the possible impact on them. She added that she felt that the new plan adds to the size and is not appropriate for the neighborhood. There was a consensus that the new proposal is a significant change, an~ if the' applicants wants to modify the Design Review they must submit an applica- tfon for the modification to the Planning Commission. ORAL COmmUNICATIONS '('by". Commi'ssi'on) 1. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the .Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.  hoo~~ Secretary RSS:cd