Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 25, 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 and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of September 11, 1985: On page 6, the second paragraph, the second sentence should read "view from the golf course". On page 5, the last paragraph, the second sentence should read "architect" instead of "house". Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of September 11, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he was not present. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Bert Martel, 14420 Fruitvale Avenue, read a letter into the record addressing the future construction involved in the Odd Fellows' proposed project. He indicated that adequate fire protection is needed for the homes in the immediate area around San Marcos Road. He explained that last year a broken line had resulted in a reduction of pressure of over 50% by the San Jose Water Company. He stated that the Fire District had then made measurements and found that the pressure was adequate for fire protection but low enough to warrant some concern. He noted the construction that has since taken place . He asked that the Commission put the Odd Fellows project on hold until the San Jose Water Company indicates that there is enough pressure to fight house fires while the Odd Fellows are on 100% city water. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. EP-22 - Douglas North, 19091 Portos Drive, Request for Encroach- ment Permit to allow an addition to be located in a pub- lic utilities easement 2. GF-352 - Resolution adding automobile upholstering as a condi- tional use in the C-V zoning district 3. GF-353 - Resolution adding Christmas tree sales as a permitted use in the P-A zoning district 4. GPA-85-4 -Odd Fellows, Resolution recommending approval of amend- ment of a policy within the text of the Land Use Ele- ment of the General Plan Commissioner Burger moved to approve the items listed on the Consent Calendar above. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 5. A-1122 - John Page, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story residence which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard on Lot 8, Tract 6665, Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning dis- trict; continued from September 11, 1985 Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 9/25/85 6. UP-587 - James and Kathleen Horner, Request for Use Permit Approval' to allow two horses on 1.89 acres where two acres are required in the NHR zoning district at 13857 Pike Road 7a. Negative Declaration - UP-588 - Park Saratoga Associates 7b. UP-588 - Park Saratoga Associates, Request for Use Permit Approv- al to permit a produce and gourmet food store in the Park Saratoga Shopping Center at 12200 Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road in the C-V zoning district 8. V-713 - Tibor Szalay, Request for Variance Approval to permit construction of a room addition within 2 ft. of the side property line where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required in the R-1-10,000 zoning district at 14328 Paul Avenue Item #6, UP-587, James and Kathleen Horner, was removed for discussion. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the Public Hearings Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Discussion followed on Item #6, UP-587. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mike Sobelman, 13810 Pierce Road, told of the landslide on his property in 1983 and commented that he has nothing against the present residence. He passed out a letter from the Code Enforcement Officer, pointing out that this area is zoned for only one horse. He explained that he has an existing lawsuit for drainage, siltation and feces which were in his living room during 1981, 1982 and 1983 from the residence when they were grazing horses at the property line. He explained the new drainage system that had to be installed on his property. He questioned the approval of this horse permit for two horses in the Staff Report, noting the 15% slope of the corral and potential drainage problem. He stated that to give a use permit to put one extra horse on that hillside is · absurd. Commissioner Siegfried commented that there would be conditions on a use permit, the first one being that the applicant would have to come up with a suitable drainage plan. He added that if the conditions are not met the use permit could be revoked immediately. Mr. Sobelman strongly urged a site inspection by all of the Commission. The City Attorney stated that unfortunately there was a miscommunication with respect to the process. He explained that the code provides that in the NHR zoning district a use permit would be needed if there are more than two horses but on a site 2 acres or greater in size. He referenced the map from the Zoning Ordinance designating the equestrian zones. He stated that this property is in the equestrian zone. He explained that the R-1 zoning regulations provide that 1 horse is allowed on a 1 acre site and 2 horses on 2 acres or more. However, if you are in the equestrian zone then those numbers are doubled. He added that the HC-RD regulations similarly contain that kind of special provision dealing with the equestrian zone, and that regulation preceded the adoption of the NHR Zoning Ordinance. He explained that all of the area shown on the map as the equestrian zone when that map was prepared was HC-RD, and with the adoption of new hillside regulations it became NHR. The provision dealing with additional horses allowed in the equestrian zone was not carried forward into the NHR zoning regulations. He indicated that he did not have any specific recollection of the subject being discussed during the meetings that were held when the regulations were adopted. He noted that the provision had been put in that in the NHR district a corral could not be on a slope greater than 15%, and it speaks to the keeping of of more than 2 horses on a site of 2 acres or more, subject to the regulations of obtaining a horse license. He stated that now the applicant would clearly be entitled to 1 horse and the applicant would not need a use permit. He indicated that if the site was 2 acres or more, then the applicant could have a second horse on it. He added that in effect the NHR regulations have - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes 9/25/85 Page 3 UP-587 nullified the equestrian zone. He commented that as part of the Commission's review of the Zoning Ordinance, they should consider whether they want to in effect apply the same rules to the NHR district as now would be applicable to a R-1-40,000 district or a HC-RD district. He stated that if the Commission is inclined to do that, and if by the same token they are willing to allow this applicant to have the horses for the time being, his suggestion would be to impose whatever conditions you wish. We would issue a conditional horse license subject to a subsequent change in the Zoning Ordinance to in effect adopt the same rule relative to equestrian zones that now apply in the R- 1-40,000 and HC-RD districts. He added that, as things stand now, there is really no basis under the NHR ordinance for a use permit; the use permit was intended to be used once the applicant wanted more than 2 horses and the site was more than 2 acres in size. He indicated that the applicant has been told to get a use permit or get rid of one horse. Since there is no legal basis at the time to grant a use permit, the applicant would have to reduce the number of horses down to 1, and there is no basis for any action by the Planning Commission. He reminded the Commission that under the Animal Control regulations there are rather extensive and detailed regulations which deal with the kind of things Mr. Sobelman addressed in terms of sanitary conditions and the like. At Chairman Peterson's inquiry, the City Attorney commented that procedurally the action this evening by the Commission would be to deny. Mrs. Horner asked what the procedural remedy would be while the Commission is debating this issue, relative to her second horse. She stated that she would like to answer Mr. Sobelman's concerns, but feels that at this point that is not pertinent. Chairman Peterson commented that the Commission would look at this issue as soon as possible; however, unfortunately at this time only 1 horse is allowed. The City Attorney stated that the only basis on which the applicant could possibly keep both horses would be if the amendment to the ordinance was initiated and we knew it was going to be adopted, and just allowed the applicant to maintain the status quo in the meantime. He added that that would involve the Commission's review of all the concerns that have been raised and the imposition of appropriate conditions. He commented that there is also the issue of Confirming the slope underneath the corral. Staff commented that, because of the confusion of this application, they would suggest that the Commission, in their motion, waive the fees for a subsequent application if made within 30 days of the final determination on this matter. Mrs. Horner stated that she would like to be on record as saying that she does not accept the statement that her two horses can pollute Mr. Sobelman's yard or home. She commented that if she grazed her horses 24 hours a day on that hillside, then she feels he would have definite grounds for complaint. She commented that she is very careful about the amount of time she lets them graze. Mr. Horner noted that there are a great number of people in the area with horses. He commented that they had bought the property specifically because they had City maps which showed it to be an equestrian zone. He addressed the cost of boarding a horse. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Discussion followed on the possibility of a temporary horse license and the timeframe for an ordinance amendment. There was a consensus to not issue a temporary license, since there was a complaint and the matter needs to be reviewed. Staff suggested that if the motion is to deny, that it be denied without prejudice, to allow the applicant to reapply immediately thereafter. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny UP-587 without prejudice and waive the fees should a subsequent application be made within 30 days of - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 9/25/85 UP-587 the final adoption of an ordinance. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Burger dissenting. The appeal period was noted. There was a consensus to move forward expeditiously with an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Burger stated that she voted in opposition to the motion because, while she does understand all of the legalities and is pleased with the fact that.the ordinance will be amended as discussed, she does feel that it is an extremely well maintained corral and she did not see any problems in the area at the time of her on-site visit. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. SUP-8 - Nadine McCullough, 14985 Quito Road, Request for Second Unit Use Permit to allow two (2) existing second units on two (2) separate parcels in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from June 26, 1985 (to be continued to October 23, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to October 23, 1985. 10. 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; continued from July 10, 1985 (to be continued to Octo- ber 23, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to October 23, 1985. lla. SUP-12 - Charles Bolander Trust, 14231 Douglass Lane, Request llb. V-678 - for Second Unit Use Permit to allow an existing, detach- ed, one-story second unit and Variance Approval to main- tain a 3.5 ft. rear yard setback and 3 ft. side yard setback where 35 ft~ and 15 ft. are required respective- ly and to provide two (2) covered parking spaces where three (3) are required, in the R-1-20,000 zoning dis- trict; continued from June 26, 1985 (to be continued to October 23, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to October 23, 1985. 12. 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 6200 sq. ft. stan- dard at 15265 Montalvo Heights Court in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from August 14, 1985 (to be continued to October 9, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to October 9, 1985. 13. A-1126 - Carol and John Fara, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, one-story, single family residence which exceeds 22 ft. in height at 12385 Parker Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district; continued from August 28, 1985 (to be continued to October 9, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to October 9, 1985. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 9/25/85 14a. UP-584 - Bryce Reynolds, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow 14b. A-1110 - an accessory structure to be located in the required rear yard 31 ft. from the rear property line and Design Review Approval to exceed the 6200 sq. ft. standard at 12182 Parker Ranch Road, in the NHR zoning district; continued from August 28, 1985 (to be continued to Oct- ober 9, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to October 9, 1985. 15. A-1116 - Hashem and Nasrin Farr, Request for Design Review Approv- al to construct a two-story residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard at 15146 Sperry Lane, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from September 11, 1985 Staff gave the history of the application, stating that the applicant has made some modifications relative to discussions at the study session. They discussed the changes made, indicating that they were still recommending denial since they cannot make the necessary findings. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. The architect for the project noted the changes made since the last study session. He clarified that the front yard setback is 75 ft. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. There was a consensus that the modified proposal is basically in line with what was discussed at the study session. Chairman Peterson noted that Staff, in the conditions, has further reduced the height and conditioned it to 6200 sq. ft. He noted that Condition 6 states that the top of the house cannot be more than 470 ft. elevation, which would mean that the height of the home would be 24 ft. Discussion followed on the elevation suggested by Staff. There was a consensus to delete Condition #6. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1116, per the conditions in the Staff Report dated August 8, 1985,Fmaking Findings 1, 3 and 4. The home does not unreasonably interfere with the views or privacy of anyone within the neighborhood because the height has been reduced and, relative to the lot to the west, the view in any case is oriented in just the opposite direction from where this house is going to be built. Findings #3 and 4 are answered .by the applicant's response to the Commission's concerns in reducing the height of the residence and also reducing the square footage. She deleted Condition #6 and regarding Condition #7, she commented that she is not concerned about the square footage of 6890 and substituted that number for 6200 sq. ft. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. Commissioner Harris J. commented that she was unable to make the finding Perception of Excessive Bulk. The appeal period was noted. 16a. SDR-1610 -Brian Kelly and Barbara Harris, Request for Tentative 16b. V-712 - Building Site Approval for one lot and Variance and 16c. A-1134 - Design Review Approvals to permit construction of a new, two-story, single family residence within 23.5 ft. of the rear property line (existing home to be demolish- ed) at 14101 Loma Rio Drive, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district Commissioner B. Harris abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff described the project, recommending approval of the SDR and Design Review with conditions, and denial of the Variance. They - 5 -' Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 9/25/85 SDR-1610, V-712 and A-1134 described the lot, noting that it is substandard. Commissioner Siegfried commented that this is unlike a situation where an addition is proposed, since in this case a house is being demolished. He, therefore, has difficulty with the concept of granting a variance to allow construction of a new home. The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Brian Kelly, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He discussed the efforts they have made to alleviate the impact to the Vick property and submitted documents illustrating the concepts and comments that he clarified. He addressed the rear yard setbacks, noting the trapezoidal rear property line. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he feels the home could be designed without a variance. Mr. Kelly listed the amenities they would like in the home and stated that they calculated the square footage to be approximately 2200 sq. ft. of livable space. Commissioner Siegfried suggested moving the bathroom on the second story and slightly reducing the size of the dining room. Mr. Kelly noted that the master bedroom is now in the back. Commissioner Pines stated that he thinks the setbacks in the back preclude doing a straightforward rectangular situation like the proposed building has, but he thinks that could be stepped and there could be a bay back there. He commented that he would like to see some studies done to see if the back of the house could work with the trapezoidal shape of the back of the lot with the setback the way it is. He added that, other than that, he does not have a problem with it. Mr. Kelly stated that if the Planning Commission feels strongly about the variance he will be flexible in that regard. He commented that the real thrust of where they were coming from is because of'the odd shape of the rear of the lot. He stated that they felt there might be some consideration given to that. He described the existing nine lots in the area. He also submitted photos of the general landscaping on the property. Mr. Kelly indicated that they had met with most of the neighbors and commented that the applicants have an open mind relative to the proposal. Discussion followed on the height and square footage. Mr. Kelly indicated that they could work with a height of 26 feet. He addressed the calculation of square footage and commented that if they redesign the master bedroom they will be eliminating square footage. Patricia Vick, 14137 Squirrel Hollow Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposal. She submitted two petitions, one relative to the variance and one relative to the design. She spoke to the tremendous visual impact that the project will have on her home from almost every angle. She referenced the pictures she had submitted showing the impact of the proposed home on her home and noted that her hedge is 9 ft. tall instead of 12 ft. She requested a continuance so that the Commissioners can all come out and review the site. Mrs. Vick addressed the impact on the neighborhood and the other homes in the area. She asked that homes be built on Loma Rio that are proportionate to the site and in harmony with it. She asked for a one-story design that would not provide bulk and intense development on this tiny lot. She pointed out two critical inaccuracies in the plans presented by the applicant regarding the trapezoidal shapes. She noted that there is a 6 ft. difference in where the home is situated on the lot in the drawing of the original house and where it is in reality, and an 8 ft. difference in where the ridge is in reality. Gary Vick spoke in opposition to the variance and the very inconsiderate and invasive structure being proposed. He indicated that he feels the structure is in violation of the ordinance. He added that the - 6 - Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 9/25/85 SDR-1610, V-712 and A-1134 structure, regardless of whether it is 26 ft. or 28 ft. high, is going to be unreasonable and will substantially impact their view. He stated that he did not know why the developers did not choose to build a charming, single-story home with a reasonable roof height that would in effect minimize the intensity in this neighborhood. He added that he felt a single-story home could be constructed with the same amount of square footage, and would be one which everyone could be proud of. Robert Weisman, 14147 Squirrell Hollow, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He described his back yard and commented that he feels that a two-story house would have an adverse impact on his view and back yard. He submitted pictures showing that the screening between the two yards is not adequate. He commented that landscaping would provide privacy if a one-story house is built, but would not provide privacy if a two-story house is built. He discussed the trees in his yard and stated that he does not feel that the density of those trees justifies the statement in the Staff Report that they will allow him privacy. He added that he is now having to prune the trees in order to save them. Wendy Weisman also spoke in opposition. She commented that they use their back yard for many charitable events. She stated that they feel strongly that a second-story house looming over their property will greatly detract from the natural balance in their yard, and it would also greatly diminish the financial value of their home. She noted that another owner of three of the next four homes has submitted plans for single-story residences of 2,000 sq. ft. She indicated that the proposed structure would block their view and sunlight. She asked that something compatible with the neighborhood be built on this lot. Mr. Kelly stated that they recognize the effect on the Vicks' residence; however, he feels they have attempted to do a design that minimizes that effect. He added that they had suggested the planting of trees along that property line. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commssioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that she had viewed the site from the Vick and Weisman homes and yards. She indicated that there are a number of two-story homes in the neighborhood. She commented that the proposed home is a beautiful design and would be an upgrade to the neighborhood. However, the problem is that the home is totally inappropriate for the lot. She described the lot, noting that she feels that a home can be designed that will fit the lot. She added that she is concerned about the size of the home, and is concerned about a two-story home on that lot. Commissioner Siegfried echoed those concerns. He commented that if Mr. Kelly were to come in with a creative one-story home that required some variance, where the Commission could say there is a basis to grant it because it minimizes the impact on the neighborhood, then he feels the Commission could find some way to make the findings. He also expressed concern regarding the height. Commissioner Pines agreed, and stated that he feels the presentation in opposition to the application was well thought out. He commented that he had not originally felt that he would rule out offhandedly the two- story design scheme, and he still might feel that way if one came in that dealt with the situation a little more sensitively. He added that he feels there is enough room to do a one-story design and potentially a small area of a second story up front if it did not have much impact. Commissioner J. Harris added that there seemed to be more two-story homes in the neighborhood than were addressed by the neighbors, but they were all set back pretty far and they are on much bigger lots. She added that the proposed design does not seem in keeping and it would fill up the whole lot. - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 9/25/85 SDR-1610, V-712, and A-1134 Chairman Peterson echoed the comments by the Commission and added that the Commission is clearly on record that they want to encourage this kind of development in the substandard lots. He stated that he feels that area being developed will do nothing but enhance the value of the homes around it. It was determined that this matter should be continued in order to explore other possibilities for the project. Chairman Peterson stated that the Commission would like to see some alternatives that specifically address the concerns of the Commission and the neighbors. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on November 5, 1985 and the regular meeting of November 13, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS 17a. Negative Declaration - SM-21 - Raymond Leap & Thomas Const., Inc. 17b. SM-21 - Raymond Leap and C..Thomas Construction, Inc., Request 17c. LL#10 - for Lot Line Adjustment Approval to change the property line between Parcel A and B and Site Modification Approval to shift the approved building site to an area of 26% slope compared to 23% at the original site, at Parcel A and B of Lot 1, Tract 7382, Ten Acres Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (to be continued to October 23, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to October 23, 1985. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Don Jones, dated September 15, 1985, regarding the proposed' regulation of satellite antennas (information only). 2. Letter from Donald Given regarding structure at 13728 Fortuna Court. Staff was directed to follow up on the issues raised in the letter. Oral by Commission and Staff '1. Commissioner J. Harris gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on September 18, 1985. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is available in the City Administration Office. 2. It was noted that the on-site visit to Montalvo will be held on October 1, 1985 and the Joint City Council/Commission meeting will be held on October 15, 1985. 3. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Secretary RSS:cd