Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 1985 - 7:30 pomo PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger~ Bo Harris, Jo Harris~ McGoldrick~ Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: ·Commissioner Peterson Minutes Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 23, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner McGoldrick 'seconded the motion, which was cZarried, with Commissioner Bo Harris abstaining since she was not prese~to ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT.CALENDAR 1. A-1056 - Saratoga Office, ~tdo (Owen Companies), Southeast corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenues, Request for Design Review Approval for a Temporary Construction Sign 2o SM-12 - Scott McGraw, 18854 Ten Acres Road, Request for Site Modification for the construction of a one-story, detached guest house on a hillside lot 3o SDR-1588 - Damir Vukosa, 13525 Holiday Drive, Request for Tenta- tive Building SiteiApproval for Over 50% Expansion Commissioner Jo Harris moved to~ approve the items on the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0° PUBLIC· HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 4o SUP-7 - George Pentz, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing,~detached~ one-story second unit at 19841 Glen Una Drive~ in the R-1-40,000 zoning district The public hearing was opened a~ 7:35 pomo Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner Burger seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the item listed above on the Public Hearings Consent Calendar°- Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously PUBLIC HEARINGS 5ao V-670 - Bill and Barbara Sudl0w, Request for Design Review 5bo A-1035 - Approval to construct a new two-story residence and Variance Approval' for a 25 ft. front yard setback where 30 ft. is required at 21502 Saratoga Heights Drive (Tract 6665,'Lot 11)~ in the NHR zoning dis- trict; continued from January 23, 1985 (to be con- tinued to February~27, 1985) Staff explained the project, recommending approval° They noted the letter dated February 13, 1985 fr~om the City Geologist·, recommending approval° Stated stated that the ·date of the letter should be included in the approval. Commissioner MCGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the driveway is not within the driplineo She stated that the walkway would be made of wood° She added that the house is almost totally surrounded by Dpen space, other than the immediate neighbors° Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85 V-670 and A-1035 (cont.) Mr. Sudlow introduced the architezct, Steve Crawford. He discussed the fencing, indicating that there was no problem with reducing the fencing to include only 4,000 sq. ft. He described the retaining wall, which is stepped and will include planting. Commissioner .Schaefer moved to cl2ose the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, wh,ich was carried unanimously° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to ~pprove V-670 and A-1035, per the Staff Report dated February 6, 1985, add~ing the date of the Geologist's letter in the conditions and adding the~condition that the retaining wall be stepped and reviewed and approved by Staff. Commissioner .Jo Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0° 6o SD-1567 - Fremont Union High! School District, Request for Tenta- tive Subdivision ~proval for a 55-1ot subdivision on a 47.5 acre site in the NHR District located just south of the intersectioh of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks; continued from January 23~ 1985 Chairman Siegfried reported that a site visit had been made today° The public hearing was opened at 7:45 Bill Heiss, the civil'engineer~ referenced his letter regarding the conditions of the Staff Report. He gave a presentation on the project, suggesting that the open space buffer required by the Department of Fish and Game be reduced° He also suggested that this buffer be the back yard of the individual. homes~ andSthat the open space easement line be the building setback lineo The ~roposed park was discussed~ and Mr. Heiss indicated that there was a reluctance for the subdivision to maintain a public park. He commented that they would be agreeable to having a private park or private recreational area. The traffic impact on the intersection of Prospect and south Stelling was discussed. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she would like to see a condition on this property similar to that placed on the Owen property~ with a five- year timeframe in which to ask this developer to participate in any signal° The height of the homes on lots 36 to 48 was discussed° Chairman Siegfried asked Mr. Hei.ss to submit pad heights, suggested maximum height and information on ~ossible impact to neighbors° Fran Franklin, of the Parks and Recreation Commission~ expressed disappointment at the suggestioh that the proposed park be made a private park° Discussion followedon limiting the impervious surface if it were a private.recreational area° The City Attorney commented that an option the Commission might consider is for the .property to go to the City as a park and then leased to the Homeowners Association. Staff was asked to submit input onithe manning of a fire station in this subdivision. They were also asked. to submit information relative to the necessity for fences along the creek area° Commissioner J. Harris discussed the height of trees and possibly controlling the type of trees° Mro Heiss was asked to indicate lots where plantings might have a significant impact° It was directed that this matter be continued to February 27, 1985o 7a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1586 - Los Gatos Jt. Un° H.So Disto 7bo SDR-1586 - Los Gatos Jt. Uni6n High School District, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 3-lot subdivi- sion in the R-1-12,500 District on a surplus portion of the 35 acre Saratoga High School site located at the southeast corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Herriman Ave°; continued from January 23, 1985 Staff described the project,-rec6mmending approval° They noted that. there' is a cul-de-sac in excess. of 400 ft., and if the Commission approves the project they will n~ed to make an exception and make the finding relative to that. They explained that this exception would be for an interim period of time. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use · Committee report, describing the site and noting that some of the trees - 2 -. Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85 SDR-1586 (cont.) would have to be removed. Commissioner Burger commented that the site will still look very heavily. wooded° The public hearing was opened at 8:23 p.mo Bill Heiss, civil engineer, discussed the trees to be removed° Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion,, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the Negative Declaration for· SDR- 1586. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve SDR-1586, with Mr. Heiss' comments regarding the~trees that will be removed~ per the Staff Report dated February 5, i~'985 and Exhibit B-1. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the' motin, which was carried unanimously 6-0. · 8aoA-i050 - T.S..,Liu, Request.fOr Design Review Approval to con- '8b.V-682 - struct.·a two-story. si~ngle family· residence on a hill- side lot and Variance Approval to allow the residence to maintain a"25 fto ifront yard· setback where 30 fto is required at 12497 .Parker Ranch· Road (Tract 6528, Lot L) in the NHR zon, ing district The proposal was ex'plained by Sta.ff~ who recommended approval° 'They noted that there had been modification to the plans which reduced the grading, and they suggested that Condition 6 be removed from the Staff Report. Commissioner McGoldricb gave a Land Use Committee reports describing the site° She commented that the applicant felt that parking for guests Would be a problem without the circular driveway°· She added that he had indicated that he would like to have the exterior color be similar to that of the Sinsley home:=° The public hearing was opened at 8:'29 pomo Walter .Chapman, architect, gave !a presentation on the project° He discussed .the grading and the need for a circular driveway for guest parking. He stated that they would bring in a color sample for Staff review and approval° Commissioner McGoldrick addres~sed the driveway and suggested a · very large driveway with a turnaround, instead of the circular driveway° Discussion followed on the driveway, and Chairman Siegfried stated that · an attempt should be made to not have dual entrances on the driveway°. Mro Chapman suggested the solution of running a drive down along the front of the home, so there would'. only be two entrances, one at the lower level and one at the higher 'level, rather than three entrances° Mr. Chapman indicated that he would like to explain this change to the applicant. After a 15-minute co'ffee break, he stated that he had explained the change to Mro Liu and· they will meet with Staff for their review and approval. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing° Commissioner Burger ·seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1050~ and V-682, per Exhibits B, C and and the Staff.Report dated February 5~ 1985, deleting Condition 6, and with the conditions that the location of the driveway and t'he exterior· color be reviewed and 'approved by Staff° Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was· carried unani~.ously 6-0o 9o A-1021 - Parnas Corporation~ Request for Design Review Approval. to construct a 25 f~t., one-story residence. on. a hill- side lot at 21543 Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning district (to2 be continued to February 27, 1985) It was directed that this item be continued to February 27,· 1985. 10o A-1023 - Parhas Corporation,~ Request. for Design Review Approval· to construct a 27 f~to ~ two-story residence on a hill- side lot .at 21531 Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning district (tO be continued to February 27, 1985) · ··It was directed· that this item be co"ntinued to February 27~ 1985o - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85 llao 'Negative Declaration - UP-574~- Brookside Club llb. UP-574 - Brookside Club, Request for Modification to a Use Per- mit to allow extended hours of operation from 7:00 aom. to one hour 'after sunset, daily, for tennis and swimming at 19127~ Cox Avenue, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district Chairman Siegfried noted the correspondence received in opposition to the modification. Commissioner SChaefer abstained from the discussion on this matter since she is a member of the clubo Staff explained the application, describing the location of the club. They indicated they could not make the findings and were recommending denial. The public hearing was opened at 9~:02 pomo Carl Noing, member of the Board!of Directors of the Brookside Club, discussed the request for modification of the use permit. He gave the history and discussed the activities of the clubo He stated that they had just learned of the correspondence received and would welcome a study session to resolve these issues if they cannot be solved tonight° Gene Steiger, 19186'GUenther Courti spoke in opposition, stating that he represents the property owners :on the west side of the clubo He indicated that the club is used earlier in the morning than 8:00 aomo He discussed the traffic and noise, stating that he feels the present use permit is excessive. Lucille Reiter, 12743 Saratoga Creek, spoke in opposition to the modification, addressing the traffic and noise° Dolores Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Drive, spoke in opposition, stating that they had chosen their lot pr:ior to the club being there, and now cannot use their back yard any longer since they are directly behind the swimming poolo She discussed the 'noise in the morning and the decrease in the property values of the homes next to the clubo Chairman Siegfried stated that he ~ould like to give the club a chance to reflect on the comments made~by the neighbors° After discussion there was a consensus that a study'session was not needed° Commissioner Burger moved to close the publi~ hearing° Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° It was directed that this matter be continued to!the regular meeting of February 27, 1985, in order to allow the club to study the comments made this evening. 12ao SM-14 - Bryce and Lova Reynolds, Request for Site Modification 12b. V-683 - and Variance Approval to construct a one-story acces- sory structure that will maintain an 8 ft. front yard setback where 30 fto is required at 12182 Parker Ranch Road in the NHR z6ning district Staff explained the project, stating that the structure is larger than indicated on the plans and is setting within the setbacks° They commented that they cannot make the findings and recommends denial of the variance. Commissioner McGold~ick gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the pool covering° She stated that all the pool piping has been designed to go below this concrete pad and is embedded in the pad° She added that she could make findings 1 and 2 but cannot make 3 and 4. The public hearing was opened at 9~35 p omo Bernie Brawner, of Brawner Pools,'. reported that the applicant had not arrived for the presentation. The Commission addressed the balance of the items on the agenda and then continued this discussion° Mro Reynolds, the applicant, explained the proposal, noting that they have the approval of the neighbors° He described the arbor° Commissioner J. Harris pointed out'that the plans for the structure had not been submitted prior to the new ordinance. She explained that a pool had been approved and there was to be equipment~ but it was not to be a building. She added that she does not have a=problem with the arbor; in fact, the Commission has considered taking arbors out of the definition of accessory structu, res to allow them in side yards° Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85 SM~14 and V-683 (cont.) However, she stated that she consi'ders this structure a building and she has a real problem with it being that close to the road. She asked if there was any way to take away the',part of the building that is so close to the road. She explained tha~ she has no problem with where the equipment is and she feels she could make the findings for a little bit· of the equipment room reaching out into the setback. However, she is not happy with where the lawnmower storage pad and the changing area are o Mr. Brawner described the structure, and Mr. Reynolds discussed the. height of the structure and the· proposed shrubs and vines° Commissioner McGoldrick stated that findings 1 and 2 that she feels she can' make are based on the equipment room and not the changing area and the lawnmower storage pad. Commissioner Burger stated that she could make finding 3, based on 'the fact that the exceptional physical circumstance that exists on the site is that if the structure were to be moved so that it did not fall within the setback, additional grading would then be necessary, which w6uld include more cut and fill. She added that she could then make finding 4, that a common privilege is not a special privilege. Mr. Brawner indicated that the lobation of the pool had been chosen to minimize grading and to save some' oak trees. He commented that if the structure were lowered and moved it would be much closer to the Soden's yard. Mike Thomas, the landscape contractor, commented that the location of the structure had been chosen sO it would be less obtrusive to the neighbors. Mr. Reynolds stated that, as the structure is moved out, it becomes more visible from below and to the people across the street. Commissioner Schaefer commented that her initial reaction on this had been that the building is so visib'le and she does not like to see errors made on measurements. However, on this structure she feels it is very visible because it is a light co,lor and has not been painted, and if vines are planted and because there are good contractors working on the project, she would recommend making the findings° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried commented that, even if the Commission requires the appicant to take out the changing area and the lawnmower storage area, what is left is still in'~ the setbacks. He stated that the building is below the road and is probably in the least visible area from above and for many years it will be in the least visible area from below. He added that he feels if pool equipment is put in that area something is needed around it to' minimize the noise to the neighbors. He commented that he feels the Commission has to look at the topography of the site and feels the findin.gs. can be made on the basis of the site, and the fact that the structure is2 tucked in where· it iso He added that· after a couple of bushes are planted, no one will be able to see the structure and it will not impact 'anyone's privacy. He commented that these findings would ·pertain to ithe structure that is there and the applicant would have to try to maintain the appropriate setbacks for the arbor, etc. He made the following findings: Practical Difficulty or Unnecessary Hardship - We cannot tie it to the fact that this structure is there; however, we can tie it to the facet that, given the topography of the land, which is a fairly natural location for the pool, this is the most practical location for the pool equipment. It is pool equipment that has to be enclosed to avoid impact on the neighbors. Exceptional Circumstances: The finding can be made on the same basis. He added that he is speaking only of the structure that exists, not the-proposed additional arbors. The site is relatively unique and the structure does not have any visible impact. It is actually physically below the street. He added that he feels all of the findings can be made, based on the topography to the point that this is the location on the property that makes it the least visible. from the adjoining properties° He stated that he would conditio~ it on the basis that additional landscaping be required to screen it from the street and from the neighbor on the north side° Planning commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85 SM-14 and V-683 Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SM-14 and V-683, based on those findings, and' per the conditions in the Staff Report~ with the added condition for additional landscaping along the front and northerly. property lines. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion~ which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner J.. '.Harris dissenting. She stated that she feels the Commission is granti!ng a special privilege here because the work has been done. She added !that it bothers her to .see something come in after the fact because it was a mistake, and have the 'Commission grant a variance. 13~ UP-573 - Joseph Masek, Request for Use Permit Approval to. allow the construction of an apartment unit above a restau- rant, to allow the: building to maintain a 0 ft. side yard setback wherei 7.75 ft. is required, to allow the use of .compact parking spaces where currently stan- dard size spaces are required and to allow the use of an outdoor deck for seating~ at 14467 Big Basin Way~ in the C-C zoning district Staff explained the use permit~ recommending denial of the request for outdoor dining because of lack of adequate parking~ and approval of the other three portions of the use pe.rmit. They noted a letter submitted by the applicant from a neighbor regarding parking spaces; however, they stated that the letter is inadequate to ensure that in fact parking spaces would be available. The City Attorney explained that the city is in the process of trying to establish Parking District #3 under a proposal whereby land would be contributed and basically the City. would just be raising the cost to build the improvements and avoid, all the additional expense of an assessment district. He commen~ed that part of this arrangement involves the generation' of development rights from those people who are donating property; in effect they Would have extra parking spaces that they would be able to use to put additional improvements on their own property or sell those spaces to other people° He indicated that discussions are taking place with the one largest property owner of the proposed district, who has not been inclined to participate in it. He commented that if the district moves forward a parking space may become a marketable commodity. Therefore~ito the extent this Commission grants parking variances or any relaxation of the parking requirements, they are basically destroying market val'ue of what coul'd become the incentive of the largest property owner to join the district.. He added that Mr. Masek's property has been developed in accordance with the parking district ratios, even though the parking district is not in existence° Therefore, what the applicant is asking for is parking over and above what he would get .under that ratio2o He commented that there may very. well be parking spaces available for him to 'purchase at a future date, which could assist in solving his problem of dining on the balcony° The public hearing was opened at 9:~0 p.mo Herb Cuevas, the architect, explained the use permit request. He indicated that' the deck is intended to' be used for waiting and cocktails; it is not intended as a '.food-serving area. He commented that they would submit to the City a l'etter stating that if the deck was used for dining a equal number of indoor dining places would not be used; however, Mr. Masek does not intend to use it for that purpose. Discussion followed on the use of~ the deck° Staff stated that they have no objection.to the deck i~self~ but noted the diffi'culty of controlling the use. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she is against the deck being used at allo She stated that she thinks the restaurant'.s reputation stands! by itself. She added that the possibility for the outdoor dining 2in the future is there° Mro Masek commented that he has never mentioned that the deck would be .used for' dining or cooking. He ~.stated that he had been told in previous meeting that if he had two more parking spaces~ there would be no objection to the deck°' He explained that he has found these two spaces from a neighbor. The City Attorney explained that the letter Mro Masek submitted, from a legal enforceability point of view, is totally meaningless.. He commented that the neighbor may change his mind if he is part of the district and is aware that those two spaces that he is Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 2/13/85 UP-573 now offering for free may have a market value with the district being formed. He added that, assuming that's not an impediment, the applicant would need some sort 'of a recorded easement which permanently takes from that persongs property those two parking spaces° He stated that the neighbor could come forward and state that he is willing to relinquish parking on his own site, but the letter does 'not do that° Residents of 20616 Brookwood Lane expressed concern regarding the noise associated with living close to the Village° Staff clarified that the deck 'will be on the front of the:building on Big Basin Way° After commenting that they had not been': noticed of the application, Staff explained the legal noticing procedure to them and advised them to inform.the County of 'the fact that'..they are the legal owners of their property. Chairman Siegfried described the use permit request and Staff described-the location of the deck° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to cl6se the public hearing~ Commissioner Burger seconded the motion~ which was carried unanimously° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve UP-573~ per the Staff Report dated February 5~ 1985, for the apartment unit, the 0 fto side yard setback, and the use of compact parking spaces, and denying the request to allow the use of an outdoor deck for seating° Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. DESIGN REVIEW 14. A-1042 - Joseph Masek, 14467 Big Basin Way, Request for Design Modo Review Approval for~ signage and Lighting Commissioner Schaefer moved to ap~prove A-1042 Modification for the signage only, per the Staff Report~ dated February 5, 1985 and Exhibit "C" and a plan shall be submitted.by the applicant for the lighting. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. COMMUN I CAT I ON S Written 1. Letter from Central Fire District regarding conditioning .on Owen property. Staff explained that a condition regarding the Early Warning System that the Saratoga Fir. e District has in operation had been placed on this project. They stated that it is the Central Fire District's desire to not have the!property interconnected with that system. After discussion of the system Staff was requested to invite the Central Fire Chief to the next meeting to discuss this matter° Oral b_~ Commission 1° Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending the meeting 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 6-0° The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 pomo Respedtfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary RSS:cd