Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call = Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of July 10, 1985: On page 2, in the fourth sentence in the fifth paragraph, the word "almost" should be deleted. On page 3, in the last paragraph, in the third sentence, the words "at his reques:t" should be replaced with "at the applicant's request". On page 8, Commissioner J. Harris moved to recommend denial of GPA 85-3 and C-225, rather than Commissioner Burger, and the second sentence in the second paragraph should read "and the City shall not expand commercial into that which is residential." Commissioner Siegfried moved to waive the reading of the minutes of July 10, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Pines abstaining since he was not present. Chairman Peterson welcomed new Commissioner David Pines. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. EP-20 - Robert Pollack, Request for Encroachment Permit for second floor wall and planter on 3rd Street side of 14502 Big Basin Way; continued from July 10, 1985 2. GPA 85-3- Ary Investments, Resolution Recommending Denial of Proposed General Plan Amendment 3. SM-19 - Robert Gibbs, 21432 Tollgate Road (Tract 6628, Lot 19), Request for Site Modification Approval to Con- struct a swimming pool on a hillside lot Item #1, EP-20, Robert Pollack, was removed for discussion. Commissioner Schaefer moved to approve the balance of the items listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on EP-20. Commissioner Siegfried asked for clarification of the notes regarding potential liability, since he was not present at the study session. The City Attorney stated that it was his understanding that what was originally intended as a planter on the street level will now be replaced by landscaping. He explained that at the time the memo in the packet was written it was the understanding that the planters would remain as structures, and because they were within the right-of-way and the sidewalk would be narrowed, there had been a concern regarding potential liability. He stated that under the present proposal what was originally intended as planters on the street level will now be replaced by landscaping; therefore, he no longer shares the same concern. He added that the other area of concern apparently was alleviated by the elimination of the second floor planters, because there had been a concern there regarding the clearance. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 7/24/85 EP-20 Warren Heid, the architect, discussed the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve EP-20, Robert Pollack, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 4. A-1111 - Blackwell Homes, Request for Design Review Approval for a new 30 ft., two-story, single family residence on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at 12833 Star Ridge Court; referral from Site Review Committee 5a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1604 - Donald Miner 5b. SDR-1604 - Donald Miner, Request for Building Site Approval for A-1104 - two lots and Design Review Approval for a new two- story residence on one of the lots at the east side of Alta Vista at its northerly terminus (14040 Alta Vista Ave.) in the'R-l-10,000 zoning district 6a. Negative Declaration - UP-585 - Larry Schnaidt 6b. UP-585 - Larry Schnaidt, Request for Use Permit Approval to permit outdoor dining at Crepe Daniel Restaurant, 12100 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, in the C-V district Items #4, A-1111, Blackwell Homes, and #6, UP-585, Larry Schnaidt, were removed for discussion. The public hearing on the balance was opened at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, #5 listed above. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. The public hearing was opened on Item #4, A-1111, at 7:42 p.m. Robert Clary, the architect, stated that to solve a crowding problem in the kitchen he would like to move the front wall forward slightly and compensate for that by rotating the house to the rear. He discussed this modification and the change in grading which would result. He submitted a drawing showing the rotation. Mr. Clary clarified that the rotation will diminish the slope under the home. After discussion there was 'a consensus to approve the project on the basis of the drawings in the packet, and Staff will review the new drawing and verify the modifications. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1111, Blackwell Homes, per the Staff Report dated July 17, 1985 and Exhibits B-1 and C, adding the provision that the changes mentioned by Mr. Clary are verified by Staff. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. The public hearing was opened on UP-585, Larry Schnaidt, at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Schaefer noted that the wording in the Staff Report should be changed to reflect the fact that the restaurant had made use of outdoor dining as it was becoming popular, but it had not been given a legal status, and came to the attention of the Commission because of complaints from the neighbors. Betty MacDonald, 20420 Atrium Drive, expressed concern about the noise created by the cleanup of the outdoor dining, since the restaurant - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 7/24/85 UP-585 closes at 10:00 p.m. and the employees now stay out there and create noise. It was clarified to Ms. MacDonald that the outdoor dining will only be allowed from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. It was suggested that the owner be notified of the noise problem created by the employees. Commissioner Schaefer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP-585, Larr~ Schnaidt (Crepe Daniel), per the Staff Report. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. A-1103 - Parnas Corp., Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area stan- dard on a hillside lot, and approval of grading in excess of 1000 cubic yards on Lot 20, Tract 6665, Congress Hall Lane, in the NHR zoning district; con- tinued from June 26, 1985 Staff commented that they were recommending that this item be continued to the next meeting. They explained that this project had been discussed at the last study session and the consensus was that the applicant should reduce the size of the structure by 5%. They stated that the applicant has not provided sufficient plans to demonstrate that, but simply has taken a xerox reduction of the original plans. The public hearing was opened at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Roscoe, the architect, stated that they had submitted an adequate plan by reducing it by 5%. He explained that they had reduced the whole house, all of the dimensions, by 5%. He commented that the plan is drawn on a 1/8 scale, and working drawings will be submitted later, showing a measurable square footage reduced by 5%. Staff stated that they will review the plans on the basis that every dimension is reduced 5%. Commissioner Pines questioned dealing with a percentage, rather than an accurate number. Discussion followed and Staff clarified that the square footage determined at the study session was 6895 sq. ft. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff noted that the drawings do not show the driveway discussed at the last regular meeting. Commissioner Burger stated that, although the Commission had apparently reached some consensus regarding the reduction of the square footage, she is uncomfortable about approving this because she does not have the drawings of the driveway as it was discussed at the study session, and she still is not comfortable with the reduction of the xerox by 5%. It was pointed out that the exhibit on the wall does show one curb cut for the driveway, as discussed at the last meeting.. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-1103, on the basis of the new exhibit for the driveway and a requirement that the maximum square footage of the house be 6895 sq. ft., with the understanding that that will be accomplished by reducing the dimensions of the home by 5%. He added that the approval is subject. to the condition that the applicant at the appropriate time produce the working drawings to show that is how it has been accomplished. He stated that the approval is per the Staff Report, with Condition #1 amended to state that the house be no more than 6895 sq. ft., which is to be accomplished by an overall 5% - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 7/24/85 A-1103 reduction in the exterior dimensions of the home as shown in the attached exhibits; Condition #2 amended to show a maximum height of 26 ft. for the structure and 28 ft. for the tower, and deleting Conditions #6 and #7. It was noted that the approval is per Exhibits "F-i", "C" and "D". Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-2, with Commissioners J. Harris and Burger dissenting. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she thinks this home is almost 700 sq. ft. above the standard for a one-acre lot. The appeal period was noted. 8a. A-1097 - James and Roxanne Axline, Request for Design Review and Tentative Building site Approval to remove an existing residence, construct a two-story, single family residence and exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. on site allowable floor area standard at 20170 Thelma Avenue, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; continued from July 10, 1985 (application withdrawn) This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 9. A-1101 - Mr. and Mrs. Sudin Vittal~ Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story single family residence on a hillside lot which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. standard at 15265 Montalvo Heights Court in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from July 10, 1985 (to be continued to August 14, 1985) It was directed that this item be continued to August 14, 1985. 10. C-224 - Clarence Neale, Consider Granting the Rezoning of a 1.16 acre parcel located at 14230-C Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road from R-M-4000 (10.89 dwelling units/acre) to R-M-3000 (14.52 dwelling units/acre) Staff explained the application. The public hearing was opened at 8:11 p.m. Mr. Neale, the applicant, indicated that he had paid $15,000 for a fire hydrant and water main. It was noted that that was relative to conditions of the Tentative Building Site Approval on the site. Commissioner Siegfried moved to adopt Resolution C-224-1, recommending approval of the rezoning to the City Council. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. lla. Negative Declaration - SDR-1602 - Tom and Ann Copenhagen llb. SDR-1602 -Tom and Ann Copenhagen, Request for Tentative Build- llc. A-1107 - ing Site Approval for a three (3) lot subdivision of a 14 acre site with an average slope of 31%, and Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two- story, single family residence on lot B in the NHR zoning district at 14440 Pike Road The project was described by Staff. They commented that the application involves a cul-de-sac longer than 500 ft. with more than 15 units on it, and the requirement for such a situation is that there be an emergency access. They noted that an emergency access from Pike Road to Saratoga Hills Road has been conditioned if the project is to be approved. They stated that the feasibility of this project had been discussed at a study session, and at that time the major item under discussion dealt with the emergency access connection. They added that the applicant had been requested to determine the availability of that access by contacting the appropriate property owners between their property and Saratoga Hills Road to determine if it was possible. Staff indicated - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 7/24/85 SDR-1602 and A-1107 that to serve the three sites with sanitary sewers there is a problem because there is a split in service area between Sanitation #4 and the Cupertino Sanitary District, and to resolve this matter would involve the annexation to those two districts. Staff stated that they are recommending denial of SDR-1602 and suggested that the Commission may want to continue this matter to a study session. The public hearing was opened at 8:19 p.m. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project, describing the site and the proposed subdivision. He discussed an existing driveway which is considered by those living in the area as an emergency access. Commissioner Siegfried noted that in fact that driveway had been used as a road at one time. Mr. Heiss explained that, after receiving the Staff Report, they revised the tentative map as submitted. He commented that they are now requesting that Parcel C be considered a second phase, to be developed at a later date. He explained that Parcel C would remain part of Parcel A at this time, but the project should be conditioned to provide for when Parcel C is proposed to be developed. It was suggested to Mr. Heiss that Parcel C should not be considered at this time because of the problems associated with its development. Mr. Heiss discussed the conditions of the Staff Report; specifically Condition II-E relative to widening of the road and undergrounding of the overhead 'utilities. Commissioner Schaefer described the site and commented that the telephone pole is a very visual pole to the proposed homes and a few surrounding ones. Discussion followed on the cost of the undergrounding. Staff commented that the Commission may want to review a previous request relative to the Teerlink Ranch before making a determination. Mr. Heiss addressed the emergency access, indicating that the people on Pike Road feel they do have emergency access. He submitted a letter from Sue Kruse relative to access. Dorothy Miller, 14440 Pike Road, addressed the emergency access. She indicated that her attorney and neighbors had told her that she already had emergency access and she should just resubmit. She pointed out that Dr. Head had opened the road for all of Pike Road to use when there had been road damage, and he has never stopped the neighbors from using it as an emergency access. She indicated that she had shown the Fire Chief and City Staff the road that the Water Works had used when they built the water tanks;*however, the road was taken out when the tanks were completed. Mrs. Miller stated that there are 30 homes in the area that think the City gave them an emergency access. Vince Garrod, 22600 Mt. Eden, gave the history of the area. He noted that the Fire Department had a key to the gate. He addressed emergency access, stating that he does not feel the City would be creating any problems by lifting the restriction relative to emergency access. Chairman Peterson stated that the problem is, can someone put up a barrier there? He asked Staff if the Water Company has an easement there, which would prohibit the homeowners from putting up a permanent barrier. Mr. Garrod indicated that he thinks the Water Company does have an easement. The City Attorney commented that there had been a lawsuit relative to the use of this area by pedestrians. He stated that it was his understanding, in communicating with Mrs. Miller's attorney, that there is some order on file prohibiting the use of that roadway for pedestrian purposes. Mr. Heiss indicated that there are three owners of the road and noted that there is an easement. The City Attorney commented that an emergency access does not exist because a group of people may believe that it exists, and it doesn't exist depending upon whether Dr. Head may happen to feel neighborly enough to unlock the gate. He added that he had indicated to Mrs. Miller's attorney to simply provide evidence to demonstrate the fact that the emergency access is there. He stated that to his knowledge there is not a single document that has established the actual existence *for the Tollgate Subdivision - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 7/24/85 SDR-!602 and A-1107 of this roadway for the use of people on Pike; they may think they have the right to it but nothing has proven that. He commented that they may wish to go into court and establish some sort of prescriptive easement right to it. He explained that it is not the City's responsibility to provide the access to them; it is the applicant's responsibility to show the City that the access exists. He added that if the Commission is inclined at all to approve this project, it should be approved based upon an exception to our Subdivision Ordinance requirement that there be an emergency access. He stated that the Commission may think in their own mind that the road is there, but he thinks the Commission should recognize the reality of the situation, that the legal right of anyone on Pike to use this road has not been established and there has been at least some litigation indicating the contrary. He added that the one thing he would very strongly request the Commission not to do is to approve the project subject to Mrs. Miller obtaining an emergency access. He explained that by doing that the Commission is putting her in a position of acquiring rights on someone else's land. If Mrs. Miller comes back to the Commission later and says she cannot acquire those rights, that puts the City in the position of having one of two options. Either the City has to go in and condemn it as an emergency access or waive the condition. If the City condemns it we are going to have the anomaly of a public facility between two private roads, and that would be an untolerable position. He commented that, as far as Mr. Heiss's proposal of the tentative approval or reserving for future development, to his knowledge the City does not have any process or approval that would accommodate that. He stated that it seems that what is being requested is the benefit of a tentative map without the burden of the conditions. He added that if there is a line there, then he would have a question as to what is the configuration of the tentative map; either the approval is for two or three lots. He stated that either the line should be there with all the conditions or it should be removed. He commented that if Mr. Heiss wants to explore the possibility of a development agreement with the City for some long term plan, we can entertain that possibility. However, it would be difficult to envision how it would be determined that a final map is in compliance with the tentative map when all we are really approving is two lots. Mr. Heiss stated that he does not want a condition on Parcel A that there be no further development, so they can develop Parcel C at a later date. Commissioner Siegfied commented that he would make as part of the findings that in fact the practicality is that the existing road is probably a better access road than is seen normally because it is paved. He added that he thinks the Commission has to recognize the fact that it has been there for many years and it has been used. He added that it can be blocked, but this is an entirely different situation than a new subdivision with no other conceivable alternative unless an emergency road is constructed. Therefore, he feels the Commission can move forward on the item. Discussion followed on the emergency access. The City Attorney clarified to Mrs. Miller that proof of emergency access would require the consent of all three owners of the road. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried stated that, as he indicated before, he is not terribly troubled by the proposal to add the one additional parcel. He indicated that he feels an exception could be made in this case because he feels the Commission should recognize the fact that, whether that access could be closed in the future is a possibility, but in fact it is there, and he feels it makes it an uniquely different situation. Chairman Peterson stated that he is wondering why the applicant is still - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 7/24/85 SDR-1602 and A-1107 hesitant on going to the owners and getting something in writing that states that they will not put up a barrier. Mrs. Miller explained that she had been told by her attorney that she had emergency access. She added that she has no objection to going to the three owners. The City Attorney stated that the City would be looking for an actual easement document that could be recorded. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she would like this matter continued to a study session, to allow some feedback from Mrs. Miller relative to the neighbors. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she did not feel she could vote for the project tonight and make an exception. Discussion followed on the conditioning for a 2-lot subdivision. Mr. Heiss indicated that he would revise the tentative map to eliminate Parcel C. He asked that the Commission look at the location of the power lines. Commissioner Burger asked that it be clarified to Mrs. Miller as to what the Commission is asking her to do. The City Attorney clarified that it would have to be an easement, and he would like that for the benefit of all property owners on Pike. He added that that doesn't mean that it has to be open for through traffic; it can be gated at both sides. Commissioner Siegfried stated that if Mrs. Miller cannot get the easement, another alternative would be for Mrs. Miller to show that there is an easement for the Water Company, that he believes must exist to get to the tanks, and get Mr. Head to agree that she can cross his property. There was a consensus that the Commission cannot support granting an exception without some kind of an easement or confirmation that the Water Company has an easement and getting Dr. Head's permission to cross his property. Mr. Heiss discussed the height of the proposed home. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on August 6, 1985 and the regular meeting of August 14, 1985. Mrs. Miller was requested to talk to the owners of the road regarding an easement. It was suggested that she have her attorney at that meeting, and the City Attorney suggested that her attorney call him to discuss the substance of the easement. 12a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1605 - George Hwang 12b. SDR-1605 -George Hwang, Request for Building Site and Design 12c. A-1102 - Review Approvals for a new, two-story single family dwelling which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. standard and is over 24 ft. in height, on a greater than 10% slope at 19288 Bainter Avenue in an unincorporated area of Santa Clara County to be annexed to the City and pre- zoned HC-RD (to be continued to August 14, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to August 14, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS 13. SDR-1559 -Osterlund Enterprises, Inc., Request for Relief from Undergrounding of Present Pole System and Deferred Improvement Agreement for Widening of Fruitvale Ave. Staff explained the request, stating that after deliberation they feel that the Commission should reject the request and require that the undergrounding be implemented and that the subsequent widening be a condition for this development. Mark Roberts, of Osterlund Enterprises, indicated that they were requesting that they not put in the improvements at this time but - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 7/24/85 SDR-1559 contribute a cash deposit to the City to take care of the improvements at some future date. Discussion followed on the undergrounding and the widening. Mr. Heiss described the street layout of Fruitvale in the area of the development. Commissioner Schaefer stated that it was not an easy decision, but she does question having Fruitvale wide in that area for a period of time, with the children on bicycles. She commented that in this particular case she does not think that adding a parking strip in that area is safe. She suggested perhaps having some landscaping in the median strip or putting some of the money towards a bike lane. Staff commented that it is their position that the improvements should be done, and there have been other locations where undergrounding has been required. They stated that if the Commission is to grant the alternative they would recommend that in lieu of a Deferred Improvement Agreement, that the Commission accept the developer's offer for a cash deposit for future costs. Commissioner Siegfried moved to direct Staff to review the matter and determine the dollar amount of the cash deposit necessary for the required work. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. M. C. Towns dated July 11, 1985, regarding compliance with City codes. Chairman Peterson directed that Staff prepare a letter, informing them that this subject will be discussed relative to a change in the ordinance, if necessary. Oral by Commission 1. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Secretary RSS:cd - 8 -