Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 1985 - 7:30 p.mo PLACE:' City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE:· Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present·: ·Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, Jo Harris, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and S~egfried Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of February 13, 1985: On page 1, under A-1035, the fifth sentence should read that the walkway would be made of wood. On page 3,'in the last paragraph under SDR-1586, the sixth sentence should read ".~.with Mr. Heiss' comments regarding the trees that will be ·removed...".. On page 5, the third paragraph, the second sentence should read "...so that it did not fall within the setback...". Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of February 13, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner ·, Harris seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Peterson abstaining since he was not presen~o ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A representative of SaratogaSign~ and Graphics explained his request for a business license. He commen~ed that there is nothing on the list of permitted uses for signs or graphic art shops in the C-V district. Staff stated that they did not fees that they could interpret that as a use that is permitted; however, it is like a number of uses in that district. After discussion of the use and the location, Staff was requested to bring a resolution back to the next meeting, adding it as a permitted use. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. A-1066 - Owen Companies, Cox and Saratoga Avenues, Request for Design Review Approval, for Landscaping The applicant asked that this' item be removed for discussion. Their landscape architect, Don Raichle, aSdressed the first four conditions of the Staff Report. After discussion Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve A-1066, per the conditions~ of the Staff Report, with Condition #1 amended to read: "or 25·ft.· if the type of redwood chosen is a cultivar.", and Condtion #2 amende~ to read: "where reasonable, subject to Staff approval." Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. BUILDING SITES 2. SDR-1592 - Burt Albrecht, 19275 San Marcos Road, Request for Tentative BuildingiSite Approval, Over 50% expan- sion staff stated that they have had word from the Saratoga Fire Chief that he has adequate means to turn arouhd without the requirement of the 32 ft. radius turnaround and, th'erefore, Condition II-E should be deleted. Curt And·erson, representing the applicant, reported that the road had been resurfaced last summer and as!ked that Condition II-D be deleted. Commissioner McGoldrick describediSan Marcos, indicating that it has always been a little lane. She added that she would be reluctant to force the applicant to improve the road to 18 ft. Commissioner Schaefer agreed but questioned whether there should be some condition regarding Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85 SDR-1592 the damage done to the road by the trucks during construction. Staff noted that this road is serving twelve homes; therefore, they feel the condition should stand. They added that if there are topograhic or tree problems they could allow for 16calized narrowing of the street to accommodate those. Mr. Anderson discussed the width variations of the road. Commissioner Schaefer noted ~that the road is used for walking and she would suggest 16 ft. as a maximum width. Staff noted that in the past the Commission has also made aeterminations for narrowing the width of roads, and they suggested that this matter be studied. It was determined that the applicant will. work with Staff and review the road, and the matter will be on the Consent Calendar on March 13, 1985o PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Items #3, A-1055, Garfield, and #4,, Sobey Road Project, were removed for discussion. The public hearing was~ opened on the balance of the Consent Calendar° Commissioner Schaefer'.moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldr2ick moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed below.' Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimous21y 7-0° 5. A-1058 - John Edwards, 12217 ..Vista Arroyo Court, Request for Design Review Approv!al =for a new, two-story, single family residence on a hillside lot, in the NHR zoning district 6ao Negative Declaration - SM-13 -~ Jack & Ann McCullough 6b. A-1059 - Jack & Ann McCullough, 20887 Michaels Drive, Request 6c. SM-13 - for Design Review Approval for a two-story addition to an existing residence and Site Modification Approval for an addition on a greater than 10% slope, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Discussion followed on A-1054, Milton Garfield° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee Report, ~tating that the neighbors had noted last year's approval on an adjacen~ lot and the fact that at that time the Commission had promised that there would be no two-story house on this lot. She indicated that the minutes of that meeting do not make any reference to such a promise° ~It was noted that the dimensions of the lot have been clarified by Staf=fo She added that the architect had agreed with the Staff's suggestion of lowering the house 2 fto She commented that she disagrees with:Staff's Finding #1 and feels that, because the lot is higher than the adjacent lots, it will interfere with their views. The public hearing was opened at 8:09 pom. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the architect has said he could lower the roof line by 2 ft. and the suggestion had come up that the two-story portion of the home could 'perhaps be lowered into the ground 2 ft., which would then make it 23-1~2 ft. She added that it would seem to her that this would be a much better use of the lot than a one-story design o Mark Roberts, from Osterlund Enterprises, stated that they are in agreement with the Staff Report° He introduced their architect, Richard Faust, who discussed the lowering 6f the building and the problem with drainage involved. He indicated that they could lower the roof and drop the building so that it would be 24"26'' in height at its highest point. Jeanne Johnston, 14210 Douglas Lane described the level of the street and the site in question° She sOoke in opposition to a two-story design. Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85 A-1054 Pat Hendon, 14257 Douglass Lane,~ spoke in opposition to a two-story design because it would impact views° She noted that their home is one and one-half stories, not twoSstory as mentioned in the Staff Report. Kathy Mays stated that she lives in the old Douglass Ranch house, a two- story adjacent to the property. she spoke in opposition to the design, stating that it would interfere wi~h her view and privacy. Dr. Robert Lauer indicated that he.will be moving into a home directly across from this one. He commenZted that he felt this design would impact his view and it is not compatible with the neighborhood in style. Staff reported that they had received a telephone call today from New York from a Sally Street, who ownszthe property at 14230 Douglass Lane. They stated that she had voiced her concern with the design, commenting that it would interfere with her vi~ewo Mark Roberts described the design Of the home and the other homes in the area. Staff noted that they are i~terpreting that the front of the lot is on Durham Court, rather than on Douglass Lane. Commissioner Peterson moved to clo:se the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she feels the neighbors are not going to be happy when they see t,he bulk of a one-story house of the dimensions that can be allowed under the ordinance. However, she does understand their feeling about thee view and the way the road slopes; therefore, she would.be willing to vote for a one-story house. Commissioner J. Harris shared tha~ concern, commenting that she feels the left side view which will be seen by the people who are considerably lower is going to look:very bulky. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he had problems with a two-story; however, the comments by Commissioners McGoldrick and Harris are very appropriate. Staff showed a scale drawing of the second level, and indicated the impervious coverage'if it were ao~e-storydesign. It was determined that this matter be continued.to a Study session, to try to resolve some of the concerns of the neighbors. ~The architect was requested to do a line of sight, one-story with the proposed coverage into the neighbors~ yards. vs. the two-story line of Sight,. and then meet with them to discuss. alternatives. Chairman Siegfried asked the neighbors to give thought to the proposed two-story home vs. a one-story design. It was directed that this item b.e continued to March 5, 1985 and the regular meeting of March 13, 1985. Discussion followed on A-1055, Sobey Road Project. Chairman Siegfried noted a letter received from the Sk~vs and the Johnsons, expressing deep concerns regarding the road in this location. Staff stated that the condition for the improvement of the access road is on a property that is being developed, and there wil~l be no final approval on the home until that work has been accomplished. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, commenting that Mr..Tager had indicated that he could fulfill the 2-1/2:1 gradient by the use of a retaining wall. Sh~ added that the applicant had also indicated that there was a bond Eor the road, and there should be immediate action on that issue. The public hearing was opened at 8:40 Bob Tager, the applicant, explained:that when he purchased the property it was in the contract that that road was to be completed by January 1, 1985. He added that James Day had told him that.they had tried to start grading this week; however, they thought the road was still a little too Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85 A-1055 wet. Mrs. Skov explained that this matter had been going on for five years° She commented that if the road is going to be completed shortly she has no problem° She questioned the height of the house, and Staff was asked to clarify the height. Jim Johnson, 14966 Sobey Road, stated that he would like the Commission to not wait for this development t.o have the road finished. He gave the history of the condition for the road, stating that first Veda Call'and then Mro Yauger were supposed to '.Improve the road. He suggested that the Commission put a date by which the road is to be completed, not contingent upon when the site is= to be developed. He described the road, noting how dangerous it is, And stating that it should be lowered° Mrs. Johnson described the hazardous condition of the road, asking that a date be put on the completion of the road. The bond on the completion of the access road was discussed. Mr. Tager asked that he be allowed to put'.his plans in and possibly get some grading done while the road is being completed. Staff commented that they could submit a report for the next meeting on the status of the road requirement and the necess~ary steps needed to complete ito There was a consensus that the ~ommission would like to allow the paperwork of Mr. Tager to be processed while the road issue is being resolved° Commissioner Schaefer"commented that she would like to see some kind of drainage behind th~ retaining wall, subject to Staff approval. Mr. Tager stated tha.~ he would like an option of either putting in the retaining wall or b'uilding up the back of the foundation higher. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve A-1055, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated February 15, 1985, contingent on the road issue being resolved. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. SD-1567 - Fremont Union High School District, Request for Tenta- tive Subdivision Approval for a 5.5-1ot subdivision on a 47.5 acre site in' the NHR District located just south of the intersection of Prospect Road and the SPRR tracks; continued from FebrUary 13, 1985 Staff explained the history of the project. They summarized the new Staff Report on the project. They noted that the applicant had to relocate' the park and rearrange some of the lots. Therefore, seven of the'lots with slopes greater than 10% are less than 40,000 sq. ft. in size, and the Commission would havje to grant an exception for these lots if they were to approve the subdivision. The public hearing was opened at 9~03 p.m. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project. He suggested that perhaps the park could be leased back to a Homeowners Association. He discussed the ~five-year timeframe relative to.a possible signal. Mrl Heiss noted that he had diagramed the building height situation with cross-sections and discussed home and tree heights relative to Mr..Franklin's .site° He indicated that the height of trees could be covered in the CC&Rs.' The possibility of an establishment of a scenic easement zone.was addressed~ Commissioner Schaefer suggested a third option regarding the park, to lower the amount of land, have a private recreational center for these Planning Commission ~ Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85 SD-1567 · hOmes and some open space, and.paying some fees into the City. She stated that she does not feel ther~e is any benefit to the City in owning the land and leasing it back to a Romeowners Association. Commissioner McGoldrick moved ,to clo the public hearing~ Commissioner ~ se Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After discussion there was consensus to have Staff submit input regarding a third option regardin~ the park° It was directed that this matter be continued to the regula~ meeting of March 13, 1985, at which time this matter can be discussed~ along with the fee for the Fire District. ' Break - 9:25 p.m. - 9:40 p.m. 8. UP-574 - Brookside Club, ReqUest for Modification to a Use Per- ,mit to allow extended hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to one hour after sunset, .daily, for tennis and swimming .' at 19127 Cox Avenues in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; continued from Febrdary 13~ 1985 Commissioner Schaefer abstained 'from the discussion on this matter.' Chairman Siegfried noted the changes made in the request from the club, i.e. adult' swimming from 8:00 a.m.i to 9:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and four swim meets at 9:00 a.mo on Saturday, during the summer. The correspondence received from the neighbors was noted° The public hearing was opened at 9:42 p.m. Joan Philbrick, a member of the bo'ard, clarified. the modification° She described the swim meets .and the other activities of'the club. · A gentleman who lives across Saratoga Creek Drive addressed the noise generated by. the club swimming, especially the swim meets° He expressed opposition to any extension regarding the swim meets. Dolores Askew, 12651 Saratoga C~eek, suggested that the swim team practice be at 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.~mo, instead of 7:00 a.m. Bob Salutric, 12635 Saratoga Creek, expressed opposition to the noise from the swim meets. He added ~hat the club is too close to the residential area. ' Mrs. Butt, 19164 Gunther Court,'addressed the traffic and parking relative to the club. She suggesteid that the club relocate if it wishes to expand. Gene Steiger, 19186 Gunther Court, agreed, stating that he feels the use permit should stand as is, with th~ swim team practice changed to.8:00 'a.m. from 7:00 a.m. Susan Windus, 12681 Saratoga creek, commented that the Brookside.Club has not lived up to their use permit. She stated that she would like to see the Commission review the'use permit in two or three years. She asked that there be no modification=to it. Shelley Tobar, 19264 Gunther Court] cited the noise created by the swim meets and spoke in opposition to an~ modification° Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner~ Burger seconded the motion, which w~s carried unanimously. It was clarified to Commissioner Mc'Goldrick that the swim team starts at 7:00 a.m. in the summer because of the summer school program. She questioned the team starting at a[t that time during the summer. She suggested that there be a trial of two swim team meets a~ the earlier time, to see what kind of cooperation is received. Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes -Meeting 2/27/85 UP-574 Commissioner Burger. indicated that. she has a great deal of concern over any modification to the' use permit because of the concern from the neighbors as it currently exists.~ She noted that it is a residential neighborhood. She moved to deny any modification to UP-574o Commissioner B. Harris seconded!the motion, which failed 4-2, with Commissioners J. Harris, Siegfried, Peterson and McGoldrick dissenting. Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the Negative Declaration for UP- 574. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioners McGoldrick and Burger dissenting. CommissiOner J. Harris moved to modify UP-574 by making the swimming hour at 8:00. a.m., for adults'only, as requested by the club, with no other changes. CommiSsioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 4-2, with Commissioner Burger and McGoldrick dissenting. It was clarified that the motion was a denial of the request to change the time for the swim team meets. CommissiOner McGoldrick explained that her no vote was because she was willing t.o give them a trial on the swim meets, although she was also interested in making the summer hours later than 7:00 a.m. The appeal period was noted° 9. A-1021 - Parnas Corporation, ~Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 25 ft., ~one-story residence on a. hillside lot at 21543 Saratoga H.eights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis- trict; continued fr6m February 13, 1985 (to be continued to March 13, 1985 ) It was directed that this item be continued to March 13, 1985. 10. A-1023 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a 27 ft., two-story residence on a hillside lot ast 21531 Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis- trict; continued from February 13, 1985 (to be continued to March 13, 1985) It was directed that this item be continued to March 13, 1985. 11. A-1052 - Mark Rapport, Montalvo Heights Drive, Tract 6732, Lot. 4, Request for Design Review Modification Approval for a new, two-story residence that exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. floor area standard in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (to be continued to March 13, 1985) It was noted that this project has not gone through architectural review as required by the CC&Rs. i The City Attorney indicated that that has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of this Commission to make a decision, but his .suggestion would be that the applicant be advised to run the matter through the Architectural Review Committee before bringing it to this Commission. 'It was determined that this will be brought to the applicant's attention and the matter will be continued to March 13, 1985. 12a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1590 - Liccardo 12b. SDR-1590 - Leonard Liccardo, ~20045 Mendelsohn Lane, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a three (3) lot subdivision, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district Staff explained the project, indicating that if the Commission wishes to approve the three lots it will be necessary to make an exception to the slope density requirement. They st"ated that Parcel B is in the 100-year flood zone. They noted that they r~commend that the approval be for two lots only. Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report,. stating that Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85 SDR- 1.590 the engineer feels that the addition of 1500 cubic yards of fill can raise Parcel B above the flood p.lain safely. Commissioner Schaefer expressed concern relative to the closeness to the highway and a possible safty hazard. She d~scussed the contours of the lot, indicating that she feels it .may net be an appropriate division. The public hearing was opened at 10:10 Bill Gissler, civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project, referencing the discussions held' at the previous study session. He discussed the grading and slope Of the site. He addressed the letter from the Water District and report] from the City GeologiSt relative to the flood plain, indicating that he does not feel this is a problem. He stated. that they would like to w'.ork with Staff regarding the 18 ft. driveway, the entrance gate and the existing bridge structure. Mr. Liccardo, the applicant, described the application. Dr. Dean Barney, owner of the property abutting this site, noted that the Staff Report indicates that the proposed development does not meet the requirements of the General P..'lan. He addressed the flooding that has occurred from Wildcat Creek. ., Mr. Gissler pointed out that theWe will be a 50 fto setback from the center line of Wildcat Creek dedicated to the Water District. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented ',that when she left the study session shw was very. comfortable with the exception to the slope density formula, based on the fact that th'.e two lots were of such a small slope, and it was essentially Parcel A thlat was the higher slope. She stated, however, that she is very concer!ned with the fact that flooding can occur and, given the closeness of Parcel B to the highway, she has trouble with .this proposal. , Commissioner Schaefer commented !~hat, looking at the map she could approve the proposal with all the exceptions; however, being on site gives a totally different view. She stated that she would vote for two lots. Commissioner Peterson commented'. that he had not visited the site. However, regarding the General Plan and the slope density issues, he feels that is addressed to the hillsides. He added that he had no problem with the 100-year flood. Commissioner Burger stated that she had left the study session feeling there was no problem with the pr~oposal; however, she has not had an opportunity to visit the site. '. Commissioner B. Harris concurred!with Commissioner Schaefer, stating that there is a very severe slope ,close to the highway. The City Attorney explained the use of an Indemnity Agreement relative to the 100-year flood. There was a consensus for the Commissioners who have not seen the site to visit it at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, and it was directed that this matter be continued to the regular. meeting of March 13, 1985. 13. SUP-8 - Nadine McCullough, 14985 Quito Road, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to a~low two (2) existing second units on two (2) separate parcels, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district It was directed that this item be continued to June 26, 1985. Planning Commission ·Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85 14. SUP-11 - Vuka Stepovich, 14233'Old Wood Road, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing, detached, one-story second unit·, in the R~1-40,000 zoning district (·to;be continued to July 10,!1985) It was directed that this item be continued to July 10, 1985o 15a~ SUP-12 - Charles Bolander Trust,'14231 Douglass Lane, Request for 15b. V-678 - Second Unit Use Permit.to allow an existing, detached, one-story Secohd. unitiand Variance Approval to maintain a 3.5 ft. rear y.ard setback and 3 ft. side yard setback where 35 ft. and 15 fro-are required respectively and to · provide two (2·) covered parking spaces where three (3) are · required, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district (to be contin- ued to JUne 26, 19,85)~ It was directed that this item be continued to June 26, 1985. 16. V-684 - Douglas North, 19091 portos Drive, Request for Variance Approval to allow an addition to maintain a 17 ft. front yard setback and. 6.67': ft. side yard setback where 25 ft. and 10 ft. are required, in the R-i-10,000 zoning district Staff explained the proposal, recommending approval for the front yard setback-and denial of the side yar, d setback° Commissioner McGoldrick gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that Mrs. North had stated that there were exceptional circumstances that Mr. North would explain. It was noted that the applicant was not present at the meeting. There was ·a consensus that this matter be continued. Chairman Siegfried asked Staff to indicate·to the applican~ that the Public Utilities Easement issue should be addressed first, and in addition the Commissioners who had visited the site had difficul~ty making the findings for the side yard variance. It was directed that this matter be continued to March 13, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS 17. SDR-1539 - Owen Companies, Cok and Saratoga Avenues, Review of Conditions for Fir~e District It was directed that this matter be! continued. 18. A-976 - Saratoga National Ban:k, 12000 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Review of Request for~ Lighting Commissioners Burger and Schaefer abstained on this matter beC'ause of a financial interest in the ·bank. Staff discussed the request,· suggesting a normal power sodium light, rather2 than a fluorescent light. There was a consensus that the·lighting should ·be turned off by 11:00 p.mo Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve the request for lighting for A- 976, per the conditions of the Staff Report, amended to reflect the 11:00 pom. shut-off time. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0, with C2ommissioners Burger and Schaefer abstaining. 19. .A-814 - J. P. DeVos, 14681 Farwell, Clarification of previous V-662 - Design Review Approva~l · Staff explained the history of th2e application, indicating ~hat the applicant has ask. ed for clarification of the condition regarding the height of the fence. It was the consensus of the Commission that it was their intent that, since the vari'ance had not· been granted, the wall cannot be over 6 feet in height. -8~ Planning. Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 2/27/85 20. Bill and Mary Benson, 20433 Montalvo Road, Request for Tree Removal Permit Staff explained that Mr. Benson is now requesting a Tree Removal Permit for a second tree on this site ~ecause it is unsafe. They commented that they have inspected-the.tree~and agree. They added' that Mro Benson has agreed to replace it. Mr.' Benson discussed the tree and:submitted pictures of it.'-Discussion followed on the replacement trees.~ Commissioner Peterson moved to grant the Tree Removal Permit, with the condition that the two trees be replaced subject to Staff review and approval. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Memo Regarding SDR-150!3, SaratOga Inn and Tree Permits 2o Memo Regarding Implementation of Site Review Committee Oral. by Commission 1° Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending and.the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee° ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Schaefer moved to a~djourn the meeting. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motionw which!was carried unanimously° The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. .R~'~ ~y u mitted Secret·ary RSS:cd