Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 23~ 1985 - 7:30 p.mo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, J. Harris, McGoldrick~ Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner B. Harris' Minutes The following change was made to ithe minutes of January 9, 1985: On page 6, the eighth paragraph should re~d "pages 3-11 and 3-12". Commissioner Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 9, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which .was carried, with Commissioner McG{ldrick abstaining since she was not present. Resolution Chairman Siegfried presented ReSolution No. 149 to Russell Crowther, commending him for his service and dedication to the Saratoga Planning Commission. Commissioner Schaefer moved to adopt Resolution No. 149° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Siegfried welcomed new Commissioner Barbara ·Harris. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Items #1, A-1045, Parnas Corporatfon, and #3, A-1047, John Schadegg, were removed for discussion. The publ%c hearing was opened on the balance. of the items at 7:38 p.mo Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick ~seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the balance of the Public Hearings Consent Calendar listed below. lCommissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously 6-0. 2. A-1046 - Gary Yoneda, RequeSt for Design Review Approval for a second-story addition to an existing one-story residence at 19354 Zinfand&l Court, in the R-1-40~000 zoning district 4o SUP-4 - ·'Robertand Sally Truaxw Request for a Second Unit Use· Permit for an exist~ing second unit at 12401 Green Meadow Lane, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district 5. V-677 - Sparks Properties, 2Request for Variance Approval to allow a 26 inch extension in height to an existing 6 fto fence along a portion of the southerly property line at 12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., in the C-V zoning district Discussion followed on Item #1, A~1045, Parnas Corporation. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the location of the home·. She commented that~ although the design seemed suitable, the committee was still concerned wit'h the height° She added that they had discussed the pitch of the roof line with the architect, asking him to consider lowering the roof line. The public hearing was opened at 7i:39 pom. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes -.Meeting 1/23/85 A-10.45 (cont.) Jerry LaGiusa, representing Parnas Corporation, addressed lowering the pitch of the roof. He clarified t~hat he could lower the pitch to 24 ft. Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, whiich was carried unanimously° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1045~ Parnas Corporation, per the Staff Report dated January 15., 1985, with the change that the pitch of the roof be 10/12 and the height will be a maximum of 24'6"o' Commissioner Burger seconded the miotion, which was carried unanimously 6- Discussion was held on Item #3~ A-1047, Mro and Mrs° John Schadeggo Commissioner McGoldrick gave a' Land Use Committee Report, describing the loto She indicated that the house to the rear is approximately 2 fto lower than this property° Sh~ noted the correspondence received regarding the oak tree° She s~tated that she would like to see a condition stating. that the ~pplicant Shall pay for the City Horticulturist to inspect the oak ~treeo She added that, if the neighbors were to agree to some landscaping=on their side of the fence and if that landscaping did not interfere with the oak in the horticulturist's opinion, she would like to see some landscaping paid for by this applicant° The public hearing was opened at 72:45 pomo Mro Schadegg described the design~ of the house° Discussion followed on the oak tree and the cost of the horticulturist° Commissioner Harris moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously° Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1047, John Schadegg, per the Staff Report dated January 7, 1985 andsExhibits B and C, adding condition #7, to state that the oak tree be reviewed by the City Horticulturist and his recommendation be part of the approval. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanrimously 6-0° PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. V-674 - Aaron Berman~ Request for Variance Approval for impervious coverage which would exceed 35% at 19140 Via Tesoro Court~ in the R-1-40,000 z~ning district; continued from January 9, 1985 (to be withdrawn) It was determined that the impervious coverage has been reduced and this matter has, therefore, bern withdrawn° 7a° V-670 -.. Bill and Barbara Sudlow, Request for Design Review 7b. A-1035 - Approval to construct a new two-story residence and Variance Approval f~r a 25 ft° front yard setback where 75 fto is required at 21502 Saratoga Heights Drive (Tract 6665~ Lot lle)~ in the NHR zoning district; continued from January 9, 1985 (to be continued) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 13, 1985o 8a. E-1-84 - Fremont Union High School District~ Consider an EIR and 8b. SD-1567 - Tentative Subdivision Approval for a 55-1ot subdivision on a 47°5 acre site~in the NHR District located just south of the intersection~of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks Staff recommended that the public:hearing had been held on the EIR at the last meeting and the consultant~ has submitted the responses to the comments° They stated that the P~anning Commission should determine if the EIR is adequate and then opeh the public hearing on the Tentative 2 Planning Connnissio Page 3 Minutes'- Meeting 1/23/85 E-1-84 and SD-1567(cont.) Subdivision Approval° Russell Crowther, Norada Court, commented that a number of the key issues that were raised earlier in the process have not been addressed by the EIRo He stated that a number of the sections of the Government Code require that a subdivision not be approved which is inconsistent with the zoning and the General Plano He added that he feels it is totally inappropriate to approve what is~analyzed in the Environmental Impact Plan without changing the zonin~ and General Plan. He added that he feels the EIR is inadequate in that it doesn't address an alternative which is consistent with the the zoning and General Plan and it does not address changing them° He also indicated that a major concern in the neighborhood is flooding. He explained that during the Parker Ranch development a major concern had been a culvert that goes under Arroyo de Arguello near the railroad trackS° Discussion followed on the culvert° Mro Crowther expressed concern that the culvert will not clean itself fast enough to prevent serious flooding° He added that they fear that the combination of Seven Springs Ranch and this project is likely to Cause the culvert to overflow° He stated that he feels that the EIR is inadequate in addressing this issue° Commissioner Harris stated that t~ere is a letter from Bill Heiss in the Final EIR, stating that he had the understanding from the engineer for the Seven Springs Ranch that they Will have an individual drainage system going into Calabazas Creek, and~ it will not go into Prospect Creek° Staff clarified that a minor percentage will be going into Prospect Creek. They pointed out that there is a response from the Santa Clara Valley Water District that does nQt indicate any concern for the culvert° Mro Crowther commented that the2 Water District is assuming that the culvert is clean, which it is not° Chairman Siegfried stated that these comments will be incorporated and~consideredo Mr. Leavitt, the EIR consultant,~ clarified the traffic numbers in the Final EIR to Commissioner Harriso~ Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution E-1-84', per the Staff Report dated January 16, 1985, certifying the Final EIR as adequate, and acknowledging that the project will have a significant.effect on the environment by adopting the attached resolution° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously 6-0° Staff explained the Tentative Subdivision Approval application and the issues to be resolved. They noted a letter from Mr. Ball, who is concerned about the extension of Farr Ranch Road into the project and is requesting that it be only an emergency access and gated as such° The access to the project was' discussed° Discussion was held on the proposed park and Staff stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission will be submitting their comments, and they will also be looking at the broader issue of trails in that vicinity°! Commissioner Schaefer suggested that, since there are. many new peopleon that Commission, several people who worked on the Trail Study should make a presentation to them° The public hearing was opened at ~:18 pomo Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the applicant, gave a presentation on the project, explaining the new plan~o He discussed the access, the size of the proposed homes and the pedestrian walkwayo Mro Heiss also discussed the hydrology of the site and th~ flow of the water, indicating that he feels there is no problem relative to the culvert° Chairman Siegfried commented that this issue will be' discussed at the study session~ and Mro Heiss at that time can discuss th~ calculations made° Staff commented that the facilities of Prospect Creek and Calabazas Creek are under the jurisdiction of thee Water District° They indicated that .they would try to find out the frequency of review of these facilities and report it at the study session° Planning Commissioh : Page 4 Minutes Meeting 1/23/85 Mr. Crowther expressed concern tHat'the flow that will be directed into Prospect Creek will increase the ~chances of flooding. He questioned the percentages discussed by Mr. H~iss and asked that they be checked. Chairman Siegfried stated that ~his will be further discussed at the study session, and asked Staff the session, if they wish. Carl ~ranklin, 12312 ~arr Ranch and access. He also asked that ~ restriction be put on the planting of trees and a restriction of 24 ft.~on the height on the homes, so that the views of the existing homes will not be impacted. He also suggested that the one-acre lots not be allowed ~o use solid wall fencing° It was directed that this mattear be continued to a study session on February 5, 1985 and the regular meeting of February 13, 1985. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that, if a restriction on trees is to be considered, ordinances from other!cities should be obtained to review. 9a. Negative Declaration - SDR-158~ - ~os Gatos Jr° Un. H.S° Dist. 9b. SDR-158~ - Los Gatos Jr. ~ni0n High School District, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 3-lot subdivision in the R-l-12,500~District on a surplus portion of the 35 acre Saratoga High School site located at the south- east corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Herriman Ave.; continued from J~nuary 9, 1985 (to be continued to ~ebruary 13, 1985) It was directed that this matter ~e'continued to ~ebruary 13, 1985. ~0. SUP-~ - ~ewell and Glades Wood, Request for Second ~nit Use Permit to allow ~an' attached~ one-story second unit at 141~1 DoUglass Lane~ in the R-i-20,000 zoning district (application invalid) It was determined that this application is invalid and is withdrawn. 11. V-681 - David Morse, Request for Variance Approval to allow an addition to maintain a 1B ft. side yard setback where 20 ft. is required at 1516B E1 Camino Grande, in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district Staff explained the application, irecommending denial, having been unable to make the findings. They added that they have found that it is possible to build a standard si~e garage without encroaching into the setback. ' Commissioner McGoldrick gave a L~nd Use Committee report, describing the site. She stated that Mr. Mors~ had indicated that he had discussed moving the driveway so that it would not come under the dripline to disturb the oak tree on site. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. David Morse, the applicant, described the'proposal. Mr. Morse commented that his hobby is car collectihg and would like the size Of garage proposed. He addressed the oak ~ree, stating that he did not intend to do anything to disturb ito Mr. 2MOrse discussed the findings, stating that 1) Practical difficulty -~If he maintains the 20 ft. setback he feels it would require him to.mak'e a smaller garage; he does not feel the garage can be moved to the south because the two overhangs of the garage and the house would meet and it would force the driveway 5 ft° toward the oak tree. He added that it would also force him to store cars outside. 2) Exceptional circumstances - The site is unusual, in that there is a real difference in the setbacks ~f his house and the adjacent neighbors' house. He added that the garage!will be a good buffer for the swimming pool. He stated that he could easily keep the driveway outside of the Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 1/23/85 V-681 dripline of the .oak tree. He noted that there is a 38 fto setback on the other side, so that the total setb~acks are well within the requirement° 3) Common privilege - He would challenge whether or not a 3-car garage is a common privilege, since he counted 12 of them in the neighborhood° He commented that 24 ft. for a garag'.e is the most common dimension used in newer construction, and the architect felt that if it were cut back to 20 fto it would not be as aesthetica~lly pleasing° 4) Special privilege - There have been .variances granted! in the neighborhood for similar kinds of things~ i.eo impervious coverage, grading. He commented that he cannot have the desired depth without the variance° He added that he is willing to remove the existing ca~rport and keep the driveway outside of the dripline of the oak tree,'. and if necessary, have the City Horticulturist review it. He stated that there is space in the front of the property that would· not require a variance, but it would be aesthetically a lot less desirable° He added that he feels it enhances his property and also that of the! neighbor. He explained that he would like to build some shelves in the front of the garage and store ·bikes, etco in the space ahead of the cars° Staff clarified that the s~andard depth of a garage is 20 feet° Commissioner Schaefer commented that if the neighbors have been notified and do not object, she feels that 'a 3-car garage on a one-acre is not too much to ask° She added that she feels space is needed for the cars and storage of bicycles. It was noted that there have been no comments from the adjacent neighbor° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to ~lose the public hearing~ Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which ~as carried unanimously° Commissioner Harris commented that the applicant is going to use the old garage as a shop, which would give him-storage space° She stated that she feels there is a reason for thee setback requirements° Commissioner Siegfried stated that a 20 fto garage is standard, and he does not think there is anything that precludes the applicant moving the garage a little bit farther forwar~o Staff noted that this is actually a 5-car garage with the storage and an additional 12 feet beyond that° Commissioner Peterson commented that he does not feel a variance should be granted for 4 more feet to pu~ some storage for bikes and cabinets~ when in fact the' garage is 50 fto wide° Commissioner McGoldrick indicat':ed that she agrees with Mro Morris~ reasons for Finding #1; that the qverhang would be a problem if he moves it and that 5 feet closer to the Oak tree would not be a good idea° She also agreed that this is the only place on the site where any further building would be possible without really destroying some very beautiful natural aesthetics. Commissioner !Siegfried commented that the applicant is saying that he needs a 24 ft~. deep garage,'and he wonders if the applicant went to 20 feet, given the length of it, whether a 5 fto variance is needed. Commissioner McGoldrick agreed with that point° Discussion followed on possibly moving the garage forward 1 fto Commissioner Burger commented that she felt if it were moved forward at all it would impact the ability. to maneuver into the garage° Staff indicated that the driveway could~ actually be reduced and the applicant would still be able to get into th.'.e garage° Commissioner Harris moved to deny v-681, per the Staff Report dated January 16, 1985, based on the fact that the findings cannot be made° Commissioner Burger seconded the, motion, which was carried 5-1~ with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting° The appeal period was noted. chairman Siegfried commented that the Commission is essentially saying 2that they feel there are alternatives available without essentially moving the garage° - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 1/23/85 · DESIGN REVIEW 12. A-1048 . Classic Car Wash, :18560 Prospect Road, Request for Design Review Approval for a 34 sqo ft., free-standing sign Staff described ·the proposed sign,, re·commending denial. Keith Callahan, Vice President of~ Classic Car Wash, gave a presentation on the proposal° He pointed out ,that the buildings on either side are set back about 15 feet from the '~treet, and their building is set back about 35 feet and therefore cannot, be seen from the street° Commissioner Siegfried made the personal comment that this car wash is hidden, and he feels that is a ser!ious problem° He stated that he thinks this is a rather-. unique area of Saratoga in terms of signage, and' what is done with this application he does not feel would set any kind of precedent for the rest of Saratoga!. Commissioner Schaefer indicated that when the approval was given for' this car wash to be built the point was made that there would be something very distinctive about the build'.ing so signage would·not be a problem° However, the building went in as ai standard car wash. Discussion followed on the size and 'height of the sign. Commissioner Peterson commented that it is not ~ntypical in most cities, in commercial areas,. to allow around an 8·ft. to 10 ft. sign in total height° COmmissioner McGoldrick stated that she has no problem with the size of the sign and the' letter size; however, she has a concern with the materials. Commissioner Peterson indicated that he would have no problem with reducing the size of the si!gn to a 5 fto x 5 fto, adding that he feels that. would give fairly good identity and visability. He suggested that the total height limit be 8 feet, 5 ft. of sign and 3 ft. of base, not plastic--some ·kind of wood, and no internal lighting. He added that he might be open at some point· in the future to some kind of soft illumination from the base, after he sees the sign. Discussion followed on the design° Mro Callahan indicated that the visibility is lost with having to ~tick to the beauty that is natural for Saratoga, and therefore the reaso~n for the plastic. He commented that they cannot achieve·the same visibility with wood° Mro Callahan was requested to bring in a colored rendering of the proposal and the materials that he would like ·to use. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the concerns of the Commis=sion are size and the material, and perhaps the applicant can achieve t~he same effect which would be a little bit. nat'ural but yet have visibility. Discussion followed on th·e lettering. Incorporation of the r~tail gas operation in this single sign was addressed.. .The applicant was ask'ed to bring back the total sign program, showing what is needed in! terms of advertizing the gas prices° It was directed that this matteA be continued .to a study session on February 19, 1985 and the regdlar meeting of ·February 27, 1985o Commissioner Burger commented that~ she sees no problems with the size as was originally proposed by the applicant. She added 'that perhaps the Commission is forgetting wher.e ~his particular business is located. Chairman Siegfried stated that he feels the Commission should look at signage of this unique commercial area of Saratoga, because it has to compete with the area surroundi. ng i]t~ which is not Saratoga. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1o Letter from Peter Buck, dated January 16, 1985, requesting reconsideration ·of the projecto= Mro Buck indicated that he is now proposing a 50% or less addition ~o the existing house° He stated that that would involve no second-sto~y addition and not using the second unit,. but incorporating that building into the main house. He commented that he felt only one variance woul. d be required for the project° Commissioner Peterson moved to r~consider the project. Commissioner - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 1/23/85 Buck (cont.) McGoldrick seconded the motion, Which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was determined that the matter will be renoticedo Oral by Commission 1. Commissioner Burger ~ave a brief report on the City Council meeting of January 16, 1985. A 'copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration O£ficeo 2. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for.attending and serving coffee° 3o The items on the agenda for the study session on January 30, 1985 were discussed° ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McGoldrick moved to adjourn the meeting° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. R e tf 1 y ' ted, S. Sho Secretary RSS:cd - 7 .-