Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 8, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Guch, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of December 3, 1985: On Page 1, second paragraph, add to the fourth sentence that the restaurant will also be open to the public. On page 2, the first sentence in the sixth paragraph should read "Commission" instead of "Commissioner". On page 2, the third sentence in the ninth paragraph should read "Chairman Peterson noted that'the cost of the maintenance of the huge existing building is relatively high...". On page 3 the word "they" in the first and second paragraphs should read "the Andrew Harbrook School". 'In the last full sentence in the last paragraph "stories" should read "stores". Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of December 3, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The following changes were made to the minutes of December 11, 1985: On page 11, the first sentence in the third paragraph should read "neighbor" instead of "owner". In the first sentence, the second "is" should be deleted. Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of December 11, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of December 17, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining since she was not present. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. A-1153 - J. Lohr, Request for Design Review Approval for a one- A-B story, single family residence on Lot 7 and a two-story single family residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard on Lot 11, of Tract 7795, Congress Springs School site at the northwest corner of Glen Brae Drive 2. A-1154 - J. Lohr, Request for Design Review Approval to construct A-D a one-story, single family residence on Lot 6 and a two- story, single family residence on Lots 25, 26 and 29 and to exceed the floor area standard on Lots 25 and 26 in Tract 7655, Brookview School site, southwest corner of Radoyka Drive and San Palo Court 3. SDR-1513 - R. Pearson and H. R. Pearson, Request for a One-Year extension for a Tentative Map Approval to convert two existing lots into three lots (one new residence) at 15070 and 15050 Sobey Road 4. SUP-16 - Herbert and Mary Williams, Request for a Second Unit Use Permit to permit construction of a new, detached, one-story second unit at 14691 Quito Road Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - 1/8/86 Items #1, A-1153, J. Lohr, and #2, A-1154, J. Lohr, were removed for discussion. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar listed above. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. Discussion followed on Items #1 and #2. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. on A-1153. Beverly Remler expressed concern that the proposed houses are too big for the lots. Mr. Lohr, the applicant, addressed the house on Lot 11. He indicated that they have reduced the square footage to 4,194 sq. ft., which is under the Staff's recommended 4200 sq. ft. Mr. Lohr clarified that the house on Lot 7 is now 3738 sq. ft., which is within the standard. It was also clarified to Ms. Remler that the measurements include the garage. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-1153, J. Lohr, per the Staff Report dated December 19, 1985. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. The public hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m. on A-1154. Mr. Lohr stated, relative to A-1154, that the only two homes in question are those on Lots 25 and 26. He indicated that the house and garage on Lot 26 is 3,702 sq. ft., and he can reduce the garage to bring it to 3,500 sq. ft. since it is a spec house. Relative to Lot 25, he stated that the client would like to have 3,783 sq. ft. Commissioner Guch gave an on-site report, describing the sites. She commented that she feels that 3700 sq. ft. is adequate for Lot 25. Commissioner Burger stated that with the reduction of the home on Lot 26 to the standard of 3500 sq. ft., she would then be comfortable with granting the additional 283 sq. ft. for the home on Lot 25. She added that this would eliminate the problem of two very large homes next to each other in the subdivision. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1154, J. Lohr, per Exhibits B through I and the Staff Report dated December 27, 1985, amending Condition #2 to read 3783 sq. ft. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 5. A-1016 - McBain and Gibbs, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family residence with gross floor area which exceeds 6,200 sq. ft., on a hillside lot in the NHR zoning district at Lot 5, Tract 6628, Tollgate Road; continued from December 11, 1985 Staff explained the history of the project, indicating that the item had recently been at a study session, where the revisions submitted by the applicant were generally unacceptable to the Planning Commission. Staff stated that they are unable to make the findings and continue to recommend denial. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Peter Kynell, the applicant, explained the changes that had been made, indicating that the square footage was now 6972 by the new form of measurement. He addressed the height and Staff noted that the drawings - 2 - ~lanning Commission Page 3 Minutes - 1/8/86 A-1016 had not been drawn to scale; however, it would be required that they be drawn accurately to scale at the time of building permit. Staff explained the method of measurement of height and noted that Mr. Kynell has measured to the top of slab or service walk, which makes a difference of aprproximately 4". Don Steinbach, 14600 Bougainvillea Court, spoke in opposition. He pointed out that during the hearings on the subdivision, in response to the neighbors' concerns, Mr. McBain had commented that they were overreacting, and the only thing that would possibly be appropriate for the lots in this area would be a moderate, one-story, 6200 sq. ft. maximum house. Bob Sprague, 14605 Bougainvillea Court, also supported the Staff recommendations and noted the impact that this home would have. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Pines pointed out that, although the site is .1.7 acres, the building pad is quite small, and he cannot find any reason to allow a house over the 6200 sq. ft. guidelines. Commissioner Burger and Commissioner J. Harris concurred. CommisSioner J. Harris added that she appreciates the applicant trying to reduce the square footage some and moving the home back. However, she cannot make the findings relative to the perception of bulk. Commissioner Burger commented that she feels that the Commission, in the many meetings that were held on this project, indicated their major concerns, which is the small building pad and the size of the home. She stated that there have been little changes, but she does not see a definitive response to the major concerns. Commissioner Peterson concurred, pointing out the small building pad. He stated that he cannot support anything over 6200 sq. ft. He added that he might have a difficult time supporting this particular design at 6200 sq. ft. and a height of 21 ft., because he feels it may still have an impact on the neighbors. He commented that he feels the house has to be redesigned to be more compatible with the neighborhood and the building pad size. Commissioner Burger moved to deny A-1016, per the Staff Report dated Decemer 27, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The appeal period was noted. 6a. E-2-85 - Murray Dey, et al, Consider a Draft EIR (Gypsy Hill 6b. SD-1595 - Farm Residential Subdivision) and Tentative Subdivi- sion Approval for a 23-1ot subdivision on a 27.85 acre site located at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Chester Avenue; continued from December 11, 1985 Staff commented that the EIR consultant has replied to all questions brought up at the last public hearing and Staff recommends that the Planning Commission certify the Final EIR as being adequate. They reported that the Commission is scheduled to visit the site on January 18, 1986. A correction in wording was noted by Commissioner Pines on page 2.2 of the Final EIR. The public hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m. on the EIR. Richard Reinhart, 14660 Sobey Road, expressed concern with the storm drainage that is going to be added to Sobey Creek. He addressd the - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - 1/8/86 E-2-85 and SD-1595 problems they now have relative to drainage. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing on the EIR. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve Resolution E-2-85, certifying that the Final EIR is adequate. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. The public hearing was opened on SD-1595 at 8:11 p.m. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, gave a presentation on the project, describing the access. He expressed concern with some of the conditions of the Staff Report and discussion followed on the following: (1) Condition VIII regarding the required trail. Staff stated that they would review this condition with Parks and Recreation. (2) Condition IX-D regarding the timeframe of the landscaping. (3) IX-F regarding the secondary access. In response to Mr. Reinhart's concern, Mr. Heiss addressed the proposed drainage system for the project. Staff commented that this site on the General Plan has a park shown on it. They stated that before the Planning Commission could act favorably on this site the General Plan would have to be modified. They asked for direction as to whether Staff should begin the General Plan change or if the Commission is anticipating that the applicant will apply for the General Plan change. They reported that the Parks and Recreation has recommended that the park site be deleted. Discussion followed on the fees connected with a General Plan change and the process and timeframe. Staff was directed to proceed with the General Plan change, with the applicant to pay for the hard costs. It was directed that there will be a site visit at 9:00 a.m. on January 18, 1986, and the item was continued to January 22, 1986. 7. V-716 - William and Mary Benson, Request for Variance Approval to allow an existing stucco fence which in certain sections'exceeds the maximum 6 ft. height restrictions and to allow existing pilasters which also exceed 6 ft. in height at 20433 Montalvo Road; continued from December 11, 1985 Commissioner Pines abstained on the discussion and voting of this matter. Staff explained that this item had been continued to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to view the fence. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Benson, the applicant, submitted a picture of a situation which demonstrates the problem of the sloping of the land. He commented that not all of the sections are the same length. Commissioner Guch pointed out that the pilasters seem to be much higher than the fence itself where it doesn't step down. Mr. Benson addressed the height of the pilasters relative to the slope of the land. Jack Christian, President of the Montalvo Homeowners Association, pointed out that Mr. Benson is a seasoned contractor and questioned the number of variances requested by him in the building of this home. He stated that their primary concern is the precedent being set in the Montalvo area. He commented that they do not want Mr. Benson to have to take down his fence and rebuild it; however, they would like to put an end to the variances in the area. Mr. Benson pointed out that he had asked for only one other variance, which was for a setback on a poolhouse. He stated that he did not feel - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - 1/8/86 V-716 the City should assume that every piece of real estate is the same and that ordinances can be established which always, without variance, can apply to every problem that arises. He added that he feels that good planning dictates that you have some reasonable flexibility to look at unique situations. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney commented that the Planning Commission, in the future, will be considering an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that will make a distinction between the pilasters and the fence itself. It was clarified to Commissioner Guch by Commissioner Peterson that he had suggested a crown or architectural treatment that gives relief to the pilasters. Discussion followed on lighting, and the applicant indicated that he did not plan any lighting on the fence. Commissioner J. Harris stated that unfortunately the side of the fence seen from the road is the high section. She commented that she feels there has to be some variation because of the drop off in the topography. She added that she would prefer to see heavy landscaping in the area that is most visible as you are approaching the gates of Montalvo. Mr. Benson discussed the trees and landscaping on the site, noting that the landscape plan had been submitted to the City. Commissioner Burger moved to approve V-716, making Findings 1 through 4: #1 - The practical difficulty is that there are only a few panels that are over 6 feet in height and it is essentially the interior measurement. If the panels were to be lowered to 6 ft. on the Benson side, it would be 5 ft. on the neighbor's side, which would cause an inconvenience. #2 - Exceptional circumstance is the topography of the land and the difficulty involved in building a 6 ft. fence, since the land slopes down. #3 - Because there is the exceptional slope you are not violating the spirit of a common privilege of having a fence, when it is difficult to build a fence down the slope and keep it at 6 feet. #4 - Since it is therefore a common privilege, it is not a special privilege. The motion was per the conditions of the Staff Report, adding a condition that landscaping along the western property line be required, as approved by Staff. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4-1, with Commissione~ Pines and Siegfried abstaining and Commissioner Guch dissenting. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he abstained simply as a matter of principle. He indicated that he would have voted for this had it been a matter of his vote being necessary for approval. He commented, however, that he wants to make it clear that, while Mr. Benson has not been before us for that many variances, he has pushed us to the extreme on the 6200 sq. ft.; there was the discussion about the cabana; there was the problem with the tree, and now a problem with the fence. He stated that he wanted to make it clear that the next time Mr. Benson comes back and needs a variance for something that is already constructed, he is certainly going to take the position that he take it down, and that the Commission not grant a variance. Break - 9:05 - 9:20 p.m. 8. A-1155 - E.J. Henry Kopatschek, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval for the construction of a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area and approval of the grading permit to move more than 1,000 cu. yds. combined cut and fill on Parcel C at the northerly end of Blue Gum Court (to be continued to January 22, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to January 22, 1986. - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - 1/8/86 9. A-1157 - Gerald Butler, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard on Lot 5 of Tract 6732 on Montalvo Heights Court (to be con- tinued to January 22, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to January 22, 1986. 10. V-718 - Jeff and Kim Hutchins, Request for Variance Approval to maintain a 20' rear yard setback where 25' is required at 20793 Pamela Way (withdrawn) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 11. V-720 - Joseph and Poppy Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow 7 parking spaces which are sub- standard in size on a site which has a restaurant and retail-type uses where approximately 42 parking spaces are required at 14503 Big Basin Way Staff explained the past parking deficiencies of this property and the history of the applications. They reported that the variance for parking has expired and the Tentative Building Site Approval is about to expire unless there is a request for continuance. They discussed the intensification of the use on the site and the options available. Staff indicated that they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial of the application. The City Attorney commented that the City Council expressed a very strong sentiment at their meeting last night that if the variance is granted, it should be on some condition revolving payment of in lieu fees, an obligation to join the parking district or something equivalent. Staff stated that they were at the meeting also and feel that it was not necessarily the Council's intent to have the applicant join the district because the district may not be able to reach this property, but in some way to provide parking somewhere in the vicinity to accommodate this property, i.e. acquiring of development rights or the payment of in lieu fees. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Bill Carlson, current owner of Bella Mia Restaurant, stated that he discovered after he bought the restaurant that the variance for parking was lapsing and it had to be renewed in order to get a business license. He commented that he feels that he is the pawn in a chess game with the parking situation. He noted that there are three other businesses on that property that are doing business without any problem. He stated that he did not feel that he should be the one that has to find the solution to the parking situation. He added that he would help to find a solution; however, if he is asked to cut down to just open at night or to seat only 50% of the capacity, as suggested in the Staff Report, he would not be able to survive as a successful restaurant. He stated that there have been no complaints from neighbors about the parking. There was a consensus that the property owners are responsible for speaking to the issue of the variance and not Mr. Carlson. Chairman Peterson commented that he feels Mr. Carlson is in the middle, and he feels that the Commission needs to urge successful business in the Village. Doug Adams, representing the Brozdas, stated that they intend to file a new application for the variance. Staff clarified that the variance application will have to be renoticed for the appropriate parking spaces and the applicant needs to apply for an extension on the Tentative Building Site Approval before January 11, 1986. They added that Final - 6 - 'P~anning Commission Page 7 Minutes - 1/8/86 V-720 Building Site Approval should then be obtained from the City Council. Staff noted that the design review for the deck has also expired, so the applicant will need to reapply for that. They clarified that once the variance is granted and the conditions complied with, then Mr. Carlson's business license could be issued. It was also clarified that Mr. Carlson can continue business while the application is being processed. Mr. McKenzie, 14554 Big Basin Way, stated that the Commission has been as kind as they can be to these people for more than two years. He commented that if they are going to use his and the other owned parking spaces, they should pay for them. He pointed out that, in order to satisfy the City of Saratoga, he had to buy property from the bank next door. Jim Rosenfeld stated that he is very uncomfortable with the existing situation at this corner. He commented that he would like to support Mr. Carlson. He added that paying for the parking spots may have some financial considerations but it is not practical. He stated that it appears that the Commission either has to set some deadlines to improve the parking that exists there, or make some proposals that would be effective whenever this property is changed in ownership. He added that perhaps in the future something like the old barnyard structure in the back might be considered appropriate parking and would make a very positive contribution to that corner. He commented that he feels that corner is going to be impacted somewhat by people who do not want to park down in the parking lot below for their hotel. He stated that he feels it is important that the Commission give clearly defined direction to the Brozdas in the next few months. The process for the project and the parking requirements for the site were discussed. It was pointed out by Mr. Adams that the Tentative Building Site Approval was valid until September 27, 1986. Staff stated that they would check into this matter. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny V-720, subject to receipt of an application for design review and modification of the variance by January 17, 1986, and an application for an extension of the Tentative Building Site Approval, if necessary, by January 11, 1986. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously 7-0. It was noted that this matter will be reagendized for February 12, 1986 upon receipt of the applications and scheduled for a study session on February 4, 1986. MISCELLANEOUS 12. UP-565 - Odd Fellows Home (Community Gardens), Fruitvale Avenue, Notification of Special Events The Special Events were noted by the Planning Commission. 13. EP-24 - Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell, Reconsideration of Encroachment Permit (City Council Referral) Staff explained that this application had been previously denied on a split vote by the Commission. They stated that it had been appealed to the City Council, and the Council has now referred the matter back to the 7-member Commission for reconsideration. They referenced the memo from the City Manager relative to this matter. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he could understand the City Manager's perplexity in reading the minutes. However, he thinks that everyone on the Commission understands that they have the duty to vote on what is before them, but, as so often happens in the City, the Commission does look at compromises. He added that he took a little offense to the letter from the City Manager. He stated that the City Manager seemed to presume that the Commission did not really understand, and they do. Staff - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - 1/8/86 EP-24 commented that, in defense of the City Manager, they believe that the direction came from the City Council. The City Attorney explained that the point the Council wanted to make was that they wanted the Commission to consider either the fence as it now exists or denial. Commissioner Peterson stated that he agrees with Commissioner Siegfried, in that he feels there is a third alternative to grant the encroachment and make the applicant move the fence back to the basketball court. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he feels that is an important point and he is sorry to hear that the direction came from the City Council. He added that the Commission has always considered the possibility of other compromise positions, and if the Council thinks the Commission is going to do otherwise they are mistaken. There was a consensus to that effect. Staff noted the letter received from Mr. Webster, in opposition to the encroachment permit. Sam Farb, representing the applicant, stated that the City had issued an encroachment permit EP-21 on a similar matter in September. He discussed the conditions relative to that permit and inquired about the additional conditions mentioned in the City Manager's letter. Mr. Farb also asked about the timeframe of the completion of the fence if the permit is granted. Commissioner Burger pointed out that, relative to EP-21 on Oak Street there had been no curve in the road and it was a wrought iron fence, as opposed to a solid one. Staff added that it was also set back among some large oak trees. At Chairman Peterson's inquiry, Mr. Farb stated that he had the impression from Mr. Cohen that if it came down to denying the permit or moving the fence back to the basketball court, he would probably move the fence back. Chairman Peterson commented that he had heard that Mr. Cohen had indicated to someone that he would prefer either an approval for the existing fence or a denial. Mr. Farb commented that he does not feel that Mr. Cohen would be terribly pleased with tearing down the fence that is partially built. Discussion followed on the fence and the Council's deliberation on the matter. Commissioner Pines stated that he still feels that nothing is accomplished by allowing the fence to be moved back to the basketball court if it is still encroaching. He moved to allow the encroachment as existing, with the conditions in the Staff Report, deleting Condition #6. He stated that, relative to Condition #5, he does not understand the need to have the fence insured for $2 million with the City if there is a requirment for an indemnity agreement. Discussion followed on this condition and it was determined that the condition should read "The applicant shall insure the fence for $2 million with the City, or as determined by Staff to be appropriate." Commissioner Pines added that he drives by the street quite often and he does not think that the particular jog stands out as something that is anywhere near obtrusive, given the nature of the rural setting of the curb, etc. He commented that he does not think it is at all a hazard; if it were near the corner he would be against it immediately because it would be a hazard. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 4-3, with Commissioners B. Harris, J. Harris and Guch dissenting. COMMUNICATIONS Written - None Oral by Commission and Staff 1. Discussion followed on the height issue in the Design Review Ordinance. 2. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending the - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - 1/8/86 meeting and the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Pines moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Secretary RSS:cd - 9 - CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 29, 1986 -7:30 p.m. PLACE: Snack Bar Area, Community Center, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, Guch, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of Potential Use of the Paul Masson Site at 13150 Saratoga Avenue There was a consensus to adjourn the meeting to a study session. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Pines moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary RSS: cd