Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 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, J.: Harris, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioners B o Harris ~nd McGoldrick Minutes .. The following changes were made ',to the minutes of March 13, 1985: On page.. 7, the second paragraph under SDR-1590~ the second sentence should read-: "She stated that the two issues concerning the other Commissioners on their site visit were the 'slope off of the road above and the possibility of flooding on Parcel 2Bo" The seventh paragraph should read that the motion to approve the Negative Declaration failed 4-2° On page 9, the first sentence should readi Commissioner J. Harris. Commissioner Schaefer moved to waive the reading of the minutes of March 13, 1985 and approve as amended° Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he had not been at the meeting° ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Florence Barker, of the San Jose Symphony Auxiliary, spoke regarding the Showcase Mansion, asking permission to have a private party on the night of April 25th, from the hours of 7-10. She explained that it was inadvertently omitted from the original proposal. After explanation of · the party Commissioner Schae=fer moved to approve this event. Commissioner Burger seconded the motions which was carried unanimously PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Items #1, A-1054, Milton Garfield~ #5, A-1068, Abraham and Suzanne Darwish, #6, A-1069, Eric and Linda Protiva, #7, A-1070, Sinsley Construction, and #8, A-1071, Jon. Witkin~ were removed for discussion. The public hearing was opened on .the balance of the items at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which Was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris approved the balance 6f the items on the Consent Calendar listed below. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. '. 2. A-665 - Dominic and Virgini~ Fanelli, 14561 Oak Street, Request Mod. for Modification to a previous Design Review Approval to allow an open carport to be converted to an enclosed 8-car garage in the R-M-3,000 zoning district 3o A-1051 - Parnas Corporation, Tract 6665, Lot 8~ Saratoga Heights Drive, Request for Design Review and Site Modification Approvals to construct a new. one-story single family residence in the NHR=. zoning district 4. A-1065 - Parnas Corporation, Tract 5928~ Lot 1, northeast corner of Pierce Road and C6ngress Hall Lane, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence in the NHR zoning district 9. A-1072 - Harold and Rillie Cornelius, 14199 Short Hill Court, Request for Design R.~view Approval to expand a second- story of an existing. two-story residence in the R-1- 40,000 zoning district ' Discussion followed on Item #1~ A-1054~ Garfield. Staff reported that the project had been redesigned -~o it is a single-story structure and recommended approval. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 3/27/85 A-1054 Jeanne Johnston, 14210 Douglas Lane, asked to see the new plans° Chairman Siegfried explained th~ new proposal to her and the public hearing was continued to a later .time in the agenda after the neighbors had reviewed the plans. The public hearing was reopened at 8:50 p.mo Mark Roberts, of Osterland Enterprises, discussed the modifications made to the proposal. Kathy Mays commented that she feels the developerrs intentions are good relative to the modifications but feels that the roof line should be lowered 2 feet. , Sally Stream, 14230 Douglass Lane,. asked that the roof be lowered° Annette Woosley, 19952 Durham CoUrt, expressed concern with the height of the house on a high piece of l'ando She discussed the walnut tree on the lot and stated that she would prefer to have the roof line lowered rather than save the tree° Dro Lohr, 14300 Douglass, stated ~hat it still appears that the house is a little higher than he would prefer and is also a little large for the existing lot. Mrs. Johnston discussed the t~ee, which she feels is dying, and suggested that it be taken out in2order to lower the roof° Mark Roberts discussed the grading involved if the home is lowered. He discussed the surrounding homes a~d stated that he felt the integrity of the design would be compromised if the roof were lowered° He commented that the height of the home ranges from 16 to 20 ft. Richard Faust, architect, pointediout that this is a corner lot and the floor level of the home is appr~ximat'ely 4 or 5 feet lower than the corner of the property itself° Kathy Mays commented that she feels her water lines are running through the middle of this lot and the Other lot that is being built on now° Mro Roberts clarified that there, is no easement and they have been in touch with the subdivider of the~properties to rectify the situation° Discussion followed on this by the Staff, and it was clarified that the situation should be taken care of'by the subdivider. It was noted that if there is a water line running'across this property in review of the plans for the permit on this application, the applicant will have to work out the situation with the Water Company and the adjacent owner° Commissioner Peterson moved to cl~ose the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commnissioner Burger moved to approve A-1054, Milton Garfield,, per the Staff Report dated March 19, 1~985 and Exhibits B-l, C-1 and D-l, changing Condition #2 to read that the height shall be no more than 19 ft. Commissioner Jo Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted° Discussion followed on Item #5, A-1068, Darwisho Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report,:describing the homes in the area and the new addition. The public hearing was opened at ?:45 pom. Craig Steinman, architect, discussed the square footage coverage° He described the site and the size of. the home° Carol Burke stated that she shares a common corner with the Darwisheso She expressed concern about the opaque windows because of privacy for swimming. Mr. Steinman noted that there ~will be large trees and additional landscaping. After discussion on the windows.it was suggested that the architect discuss the plans for the windows with the neighbor to resolve her concern. The matter was continued to a later time in the agenda to allow for this review. After discussion with the neighbor Mro Steinman Planning Commission Page 3 Minuts - Meeting 3/27/85 A-1068 proposed to make three windows that face off of the entry stair opaque, reduce the nunmber of windows off of the bedroom wing and grade niches so that the window is set back into the room. He commentedthat this solution was satisfactory to Mso Burke. She expressed app~ova!: Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1068, Darwish, per the Staff Report dated March 18~ 1985 and Exhibits' B~'C and D~ W~th Condition #1 amended to read that the height Will be 24 feet~ Condition #3 to read that the gross floor area will be reduced to 3700 sqo ft., and with the changes to Condition #4 relative ~o the windows. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion followed on A-1069, Eric and Linda Protiva. Staff explained the application and noted that during the Site Approval for this lot there was a condition placed stating that there would be no more than 2380 sq. ft. of structure. They.commented that they would recommend approval for a structure of that size. Commissioner J. Harris gave a Land Use Committee report~ noting the two- story homes in the area and their isetbacks. The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. Althea Coughlan, 14474 Oak Place,~ spoke in opposition to the proposal~ citing (1) bulk of house on a small lot, (2) setbacks~ and (3) height of the home. Greg Grodhaus, 20379 Saratoga-Losi Gatos Road~ spoke in opposition° He stated that he had been told by t. he title company that these lots had been subdivided 50 years ago but would conform to current standards. He asked that they all be reviewed relative to building° The City Attorney commented that they are lots of records and developable as such. Staff clarified that this lot is a lot 0f record; there may be one of the five lots that may not be. Holly Davies, 14478 Oak Place, expressed concern over the size of the home for the small lot. Dolores Smith, 14560 Wescott, sp~oke in opposition to the size of the home. Linda Protiva, the applicant, gave a presentation on the proposal, addressing (1) height, (2) square foota~e~ and (3) oak tree on the site. She described the other homes and ~ots in the area° Commissioner Peterson moved to cl6se the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. After discussion relative to the~square footage there was a consensus that the home should not exceed 2'380 sq. ft. and be no more than 26 ft. in height° It was also determined that the applicant should comply with the City horticulturist~s recommendations regarding the oak tree on site. Commissioner Harris expressed concern with the side yard setbacks. She asked if the home,were reduced~ would there be larger setbacks. Staff stated that it would depend on the new design. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1069, Eric and Linda Protiva,, per the Staff Report dated March 18~ 19~5 and Ex~~B and C, a~i~g Condition #4 to allow Staff to review and approve the report from the City horiticulturist° Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissioner Jo Harris dissenting, stating that she feels the setbacks should be larger. Staff was asked to submit input at the next meeting regarding the status of the four remaining lots of this subdivision. Discussion followed' on Item #~7, A-1070, Sinsley Construction° Commissioner J. Harris gave a LandsUse Committee report, indicating that this is not the major ridgeline about which the Commission was concerned during the review of the Dewey property° She stated that there is a back drop of the County hillside off of Prospect. The public hearing was opened at 8~38 p.m. Brian Trusler, 21450 Prospect Road~ stated that he and his neighbors agree with the recommendations in ~he Staff Report. He stated that the Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 3/27/85 A-1070 height of the proposed structure is much too high for the building site, and he feels that it should be r~duced to 25 ft. or lower to mitigate the visual impact. , Ray Sinsley, the applicant, addressed the deletion of the window in the master bedroom, which he feels cannot be done because of the house being designed for the view. Discussion followed on the design relative to reducing the height to 25 ft., as'required in the Staff Report. It was determined that this item will be:contlnued to April 10, 1985, to allow the applicant to review his plansias to how the height reduction can be accomplished. Chairman Siegfried stated that the Commissioners will revisit the site and make a determination relative to the bay window in the master bedroom at that meeting. Commissioner J. Harris also suggested that landscaping be required for the screening on the eastern side. Relative to Item #8, A-1071, Jon Witkin, Commissioner Schaefer suggested that the early fire warning system condition be added to the Staff Report. After discussion of the cost of the system Commissioner Peterson moved to approve A-1071~ Jon Witkin, per the Staff Report without the condition relative~ to t"~e early fire warning system° Commissioner Harris seconded the ~otion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 10a. A-1064 - Joseph Waller and David Zicovich, 14035 Saratoga Avenue, 10b. UP-576 - Request for Design R~view Approval to construct a new two- story single family residence and Use Permit Approval to allow a garage to be' located in the rear yard setback area 25 ft. from the property line~ in the R-1-20,000 zoning district (to be continued to April 10, 1985) It was directed that this item be continued to April 10, 1985. Break - 9:10 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. (Commissioner Schaefer left the meeting at this time.) lla. A-1067 - Wendell Whitfield, 15021 Fruitvale Avenue~ Request for llb. SDR-1594-Design Review and Tentative Building Site Approvals for a new two-story, single family residence over 26 fto in height in the R-1-40.,000 zoning district Staff described the project, recommending approval. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report~ noting that the impact will be minimal. She stated that they recommend that the Staff conditions be upheld, especially those applyingito reorientation of the garage and the increase of setback to 10 ft. from the large oak near the center of the site. The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.mo Mr. Whitfield discussed the reorientation of the garage, stating that he did not know if it would be possible° staff commented that if the City horticulturist approved the western entrance and felt that the trees would not be damaged by it, Staff would agree. Commissioner Peterson commented that he ~as a fundamental problem with approving a house of almost 8,0002sqo ft, which is virtually 30% above the guideline, and he cannot support that. Mro Whitfield indicated that he could remove the wine cellar. It was directed that this item be 2continued to April 10, 1985, in order to allow time for the report f.rom the City horticulturist to be received. 12o V-686 - Humberto Gerola, 20390 Knollwood Drive, Request for Vari- ance Approval to allow an existing addition constructed without a building permit to maintain a 15 ft. rear yard where 25 ft. is required in the R-1-10,000 zoning district Staff explained the application, recommending denial, having been u~able to make the findings. They commen~ed that they would have great concern over the approval of a variance to legitimize unpermitted work° Commissioner Burger gave a Land U~se Committee report, commenting that Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 3/27/85 V-686 ~ ""' they feel that a 10 ft. encroachment into a rear yard setback would have privacy impacts on the neighbors in the rear. She added that the committee also feels that the Commission should not be condoning illegal construction without a permit, noting that probably the permit process would have precluded this addition with a 10 ft. encroachment as proposed. Staff pointed out that.the structure is not up to code. Mr. Gerola, the applicant, indicated that he had purchased the house in its present condition, with the ihtention of extending the living room. He stated that he is now involved zin a lawsuit with the previous owner° Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny V-686, per the Staff Report dated March 19, 1985. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. The appeal period was noted. 13. C-218 - City of Saratoga, Amend the Zoning Ordinance by establish- ing a Site Review Co]mmittee to hear and decide applica- tions for Single Family Dwelling Design Review (and assoc- ated variances for s~etbacks), and Modifications to such approvals. The City Attorney stated that bef6re the Commission are revised drafts of the ordinances presented at the last study session° He explained that two of them are for information purposes only, the ordinance amending Article 1 of the City Code to establish the Site Review Committee, and an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance designating that committee as the advisory agency with respect to certain Building Site Approvals. He commented that Commission action is needed on the amendment of.the Zoning Ordinance to designate the Site Review Committee as the approving authority on certain Design Review Approvals. He noted that changes have been m~de since the study session to define the scope of jurisdiction of the Committee as being those Design Review Approvals where the square fo0tage is within the standards. He explained that if it goes above the standards it automatically goes to the Commission. He added that the~committee would have the authority to grant setback variances associated with the Design Review Approvals they are considering; that is theonly ~ariance authority the committee would have. He explained the amendment to the!Subdivision Ordinance, exempting from the requirement of Building Site Approval any expansion of an existing residence over 50% which meets a set of criteria. He explained the criteria involved for this exemptign. Chairman Siegfried noted for the record that the Design Review Approvals coming before the Site Review Committee will be public hearings and neighbors will be noticed. He explained that the Commission hopes to take many of ~ose items which have.been non-controverial before this new committee, which will be composed of two Commissioners and a Staff member, and those individuals will have the right to bring any of those items to the Commision. He added ~that, therefore, those items will get full and adequate public hearing but the process will hopefully be expedited. He explained that, regarding the Building Site Approvals, the Commission found situations where on over 50% expansions applicants were having to prepare maps that were very similar to those which were required in cases of subdivisions !and requiring excessive expenditures, when in fact there were no condit'ions that the City would then impose on that individual as a result of ~he expansion. Dis'cussion followed on referralis back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Peterson moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Peterson moved to adopt Resolution No. C-218, recommending the Zoning Ordinance amendment to the City Council. Commissioner Burger seconded.the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0. - 5 - Planning Commission : Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 3/27/85 14. A-1077 - Toshi Funaki, 18830.Cox Ave°, Request for Design Review Approval for an illuminated sign which is not consistent with shopping center program Staff explained the applicationr ~ecommending denial° Craig Maynard, of Cal-Neon S.igns2r described the proposal° Discussion followed on the proposed sign, and Staff indicated that they felt approval of the sign would 'be setting a precedent and they are concerned about consistency. Mr. Maynard commented that the section of the building involved is different than the others and he does not feel a precedent would be set for the rest of the mallo Commissioner Peterson moved to~deny A-1077, per the Staff Report. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motionr which was carried unanimously 4-0. The appeal period was noted° It was clarified to Mr. Maynard that if he builds an individual letter sign which conforms to the sign program the sign will no~ have to come back to the Commission° MISCELLANEOUS 15. Discussion of Amendment to CC&Rs for Tract 6628; continued from March 13, 1985 It was directed that this matter be continued to April 10r 1985. 16. Angelo Karavaras~ Appeal of S~aff Denial of a Business License for a Pizza Parlor in the Argonau~ Shopping Center, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Staff explained the request for a 2business license, recommending denial of the appeal based on the lack of parking. Discussion followed on the parking situation at the Argonaut Shopping Center° Mr. Angelo Karavaras, the appellant, explained his request and the calculations for parking. The Commission expressed concern relative to the impact to the neighbors of a pizza parlor at that end of the centerr and the fact thatr because that location is so secludedr they feel it would invite a lot of loitering. Chairman Siegfried a~ked if that is a legitimate concern that the Commission can addressr since it is a permitted use. The City Attorney commented that there has2been a recent court case upholding a denial of a permitted use, based~upon circumstances of the type that have been described° He added that there would have to be further investigation and some findings Would have to be made, but it is not without precedent. Commissioner:Siegfried suggested scheduling this matter for a public hearing, rather than denying this on the basis of inadequate parking. He added that he feels the parking at that end of the shopping center is never used°. Commissioner Peterson commented that the parking at that end may never be used, but there are parking ratiosr and if this exceeds it he will go on record as voting to deny. Discussion followed on the calculations used by Staff to determine the parking. Commissioner Peterson stated that he feels the last thing the~City needs to do is create a Golden Mushroom in the Argonaut Shopping2Centero The City Attorney commented that it is probably in a sense a .bit easier to deny on the grounds of parking; then we are relying expressly on the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He added that the Commission can add additionally concerns about the use. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he has no problem voting for a motion which would deny on the basis of parking ratios; however, he would like the record to clearly indicate that if the applicant finds a way to meet the parkingr he would have serious problems with the use in this loca~iono There was a consensus relative to this concern. ~ Commissioner Burger moved to deny the appeal of a Staff denial of a business license for a pizza parlor in the Argonaut Shopping Centerr based on inadequate parking. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 4-0.~ It was noted that this decision can be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 3/27/85 COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter regarding Rhett~s on Big Basin° The City Attorney reported that he understood that the temporary license has been extended until June, with the understanding that by that time they would have had a 'permit processed as require]d under the new Dance Hall Ordinance. He commented that as of this date5 they have not applied. He added that if nothing occurs between now and: June, not having the permit required by ordinance, the dancing would h~ve to be discontinued. Oral by Commission and Staff 1. Staff gave a statds report on the Sobey Road Project access road. 2. Chairman Siegfried thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good. Government Group for att~[[~'~' ~d ~ving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, R~~k Secretary RSS:cd