Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 22, 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, Pines and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Peterson (Vice-Chair Burger chaired the meeting in Chairman Peterson's absence) Minutes Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading of the minutes of January 8, 1986 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Guch seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 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; continued from January 8, 1986 2a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1614 - Robert Miller 2b. SDR-1614 - Robert Miller, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a two (2) lot subdivision at 18280 E1 Camino Grande Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve the items listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Later in the evening Gerald Butler, the applicant on Item 1, appeared and asked for reconsideration of A-1157, to allow him to address the conditions. Commissioner Pines moved to reconsider the item. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Butler addressed (1) the square footage, indicating that they are 5% over the standard due to the method of calculation now used by Staff; (2) the height, which is measured by Staff as 31-1/2 ft., and (3) the fact that he would like to move the house back 18 ft. from that shown on the plans, pointing out that it would reduce the amount of grading. Mr. Butler noted that the Montalvo Heights Architectural Board has approved the house as proposed. Staff suggested that if the Commission is inclined to approve the relocation of the house as proposed by the applicant, the item should be continued to allow the applicant to submit plans showing the new modification. They added that the square footage and height measurements are the standards that the Commission has directed. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris stated that, in view of the fact that the Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 A-1157 applicant is proposing to move the house 18 ft., the matter should be continued. She added that she can understand that the square footage may be higher now than previously calculated because of the double counting of the entry way. However, the method of calculation of height has not been changed. She indicated that she would not consider anything higher than 30 ft., especially if the house is moved further up the hill. Commissioner Guch gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site and the trees. She stated that the rear of the property at the crestline is visible from a number of properties. Commissioner Burger stated that she would like to see a site plan for the relocation of the house, since it will be moved up the slope and there may be significant impact on the perception of bulk. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he has no reason to deviate from the height measurement. He stated that the Commission may give some thought to the additional 300 sq. ft. if in fact all of it is a result of double counting entry hall space, etc. Commissioner Pines concurred, stating that, however, he feels it is easy to cut 300 sq. ft. out of the house. He noted that there is quite a generous gallery and a 3-car garage. Commissioner Guch stated that she would like to know the differential between the grading at the higher elevation and the present elevation. There was a consensus to continue the matter to February 26, 1986, and the applicant was asked to submit plans showing the proposed relocation and the change in the grading. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. A-1148 - J. Lohr Properties, Request for Design Review Approval for a two-story residence which exceeds the 3,500 sq. ft. floor area standard on Lot 3, at Tract 7655, Brook- view School site, southeast corner of Radoyka Drive and Palo Court; continued from November 13, 1985 (withdrawn) This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 4. A-1144 - Ken Chan, Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family residence on a hillside lot at Lot 13, Tract 6528, Farr Ranch Road; contin- ued from December 11, 1985 (to be continued to Febru- ary 12, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 12, 1986. 5a. Negative Declaration - SDRi1612 - Morrison and Fox 5b. SDR-1612 - Morrison and Fox, Request for Tentative Building Site 5c. A-1136 - Approval and Design Review Approval for the construc- tion of 12 apartment units at 14234 Saratoga-Sunny- vale Road; continued from December 11, 1985 (to be continued) It was directed that this matter be continued and renoticed at a later date. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 6a. A-1151 - Carl Franklin, Request for Design Review Approval 6b. V-719 - for a new, one-story residence and Variance Approval to maintain a one (1) foot side yard setback where 10 ft. is required, and modification of the Building Site Approval final map (SDR-1473) to allow the existing accessory structure to remain at 20680 Marion Road; continued from December 11, 1985 Staff explained that this matter had been continued to allow for the applicant to deal with the matter of an existing public easement on the site and on the adjacent site. They stated that the applicant had hoped to develop an agreement with the adjacent neighbor for a joint driveway to serve both properties; however, the neighbor was not interested. They reported, however, that he has agreed to join the applicant in requesting an abandonment of the easement. Staff commented that the applicant has rotated the house on the site and, with the elimination of the easement, there will no longer be a need for the variance for the side yard. They added that the applicant will be removing an existing shed, thereby eliminating the need for the variance. They recommended approval of the design review per the Staff Report, with the deletion of Conditions 1 and 6. Staff also noted that the site has an existing power pole which will be in the way of the driveway, and the applicant wishes to relocate the pole closer to the creek. Discussion followed on the relocation of the pole, with Staff recommending approval° The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously° Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-1151, subject to abandonment of the easement and per the Staff Report dated December 11, 1986, with the'deletion of Conditions 1 and 6. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The applicant appeared at this time, and it was clarified to him that the item had been approved and that Condition 3 had been removed after the last meeting. It was also clarified that the relocation of the power pole was approved. 7a. Negative Declaration - V-717 - Carol Mauldin 7b. V-717 - Carol Mauldin, Request for Variance Approval for two, substandard width (9' where 9.5' is required) parking spaces where a minimum of four parking spaces are required for a proposed office conver- sion of an existing residential structure at 14650 Sixth Street; continued from December 11, 1985 (to be continued to February 12, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 12, 1986. 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; continued from January 8, 1986 (to be continued to February 12, 1986) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 12, 1986. - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 9. SD-1595 - Murray Dey, et al, (Gypsy Hill Farm Residential), Request for Tentative Subdivision 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 January 8, 1986 Staff reported that this matter had been continued to allow the Commission to review the site. They indicated that they were recommending denial of the application because of the configuration and length of the cul-de-sac and the lack of an appropriate emergency access in the present proposal. They commented that any approval would have to be considered after the hearing and decision on the General Plan change relative to the deletion of a small park site that has previously been shown on this site. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, reported that they are in the process of having negotiating discussions relative to the secondary access. He reiterated his objection to Condition VIII relative to the trail along the westerly edge of the property. Staff was directed to discuss this condition with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Commissioner Pines expressed concern relative to the proposed connection of the cul-de-sacs and commented that it makes logical sense to have the secondary access road go in through the Hoffarts' property. He added that every effort should be made to keep the area along the creek in as natural a form as possible. Mr. Heiss stated that, in complying with the Department of Fish and Game criteria, Commissioner Pines' goal relative to the creek area will be met. Dick Merwin, 14466 Sobey Road, stated that he wanted to put the Commission on notice that there are a number of the residents that are concerned with the potential of flooding during substantial storms. He asked that Mr. Heiss discuss the proposed storm drainage system with the neighbors. It was noted that Mr. Heiss had discussed the system at the last meeting and had gone over it with a neighbor. It was also noted that the calculations for the system will be presented to Staff for review and approval. There was a consensus to have Mr. Heiss meet with the neighbors to discuss the calculations. The City Attorney requested Mr. Heiss to submit any available document in the way of an easement to Staff for review if he is successful in obtaining access from a neighbor. It was directed that this matter be continued to the meeting of February 26, 1986, after the hearings on the General Plan change have been held. (Commissioner Siegfried left the meeting at 8:11 p.m.) 10a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1615 - Carl Franklin 10b. SDR-1615 - Carl Franklin, Request for Tentative Building Site 10c. V-722 - Approval for a 6-lot subdivision and Variance Approval for the exterior side yard setbacks of future resi- dences on Lots 1 and 6 to be 10 ft. where 25 ft. is required at 13686 Quito Road This matter has been withdrawn by the applicant. lla. Negative Declaration - UP-590 Mod. - Prince of Peace Church llb. UP-590 - Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church, Request Mod. for Modification to a Use Permit and Design Review llc. A-1160 - Approval for a new 39 ft., two-story sanctuary build- ing without providing additional parking at 12770 Saratoga Avenue (to be continued to February 12, 1986) - 4 - planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 UP-590 Mod. and A-1160 It was directed that this matter be continued to February 12, 1986. 12. V-721 - Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Levy, Request for Variance Approval to exceed the permitted maximum 15,000 sq. ft. impervious coverage at 19800 Glen Una Drive Staff gave the history of the project and described the current application. They indicated that they are unable to make the findings relative to this variance and recommend denial. Commissioner J. Harris commented that at the time of the previous discussion on the project she was under the impression that there would be considerable off-street guest parking ability with the circular driveway; however, the plan indicates that that is not true. It was clarified to her that the circular driveway was on the Site Development Plan which was approved. Discussion followed on the impervious coverage calculations. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Mrs. Levy gave the background of the project and addressed the. circular driveway and the currently proposed driveway. She discussed the findings for the variance. She addressed the parking, indicating that it could accommodate four cars. Discussion followed on the parking area. Discussion followed on the zoning of the property, with Staff explaining that the requirement has been that all annexed properties be zoned HCRD or NHR, and the surrounding properties are zoned R-1-40,000. Commissioner Pines commented that he does not feel that four cars are going to adequately cover an entertainment situation and he expressed concern with the direction of the proposed parking. The designer clarified that the elevations were shown wrong on the original plan, and they found that the elevation of the circular driveway would have had to be changed, thereby impacting the oak trees. Commissioner Pines suggested that the plan could be modified to get a circular driveway and still be able to make up the elevation difference. He stated that he realizes that it would still not take care of the parking in the sense of getting all of the cars off the street, but it would make for a better drop-off situation than the proposed parking. Mrs. Levy commented that she does not like the turf block concept and she would like brick and sand, which is now considered impervious coverage. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris expressed concern that because of the way the house is set so close to the street, it would be incompatible with the neighborhood to encourage the proposed parking in front of the house. She added that she is not concerned with the impervious coverage numbers per se because it is only a 4% slope; however, she is concerned with the parking. There was a consensus to that effect, and the safety issue of the proposed parking was cited as a concern. Vice Chair Burger commented to the applicant that there appears to be a consensus to consider a variance for the impervious coverage, but the Commission would also like to see some rethinking of the front driveway. It was directed that this matter be continued to February 12, 1986. The applicant was asked to coordinate plans with Staff. - 5 - ..~'Plan~ing Commis~ Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 MISCELLANEOUS 13. Tract 7798, Quito Road, C & W Associates (John Chu), Review of Emergency Access Road and Gate Staff explained that the applicant has withdrawn his original submission for the emergency access gate and submitted a new design. They indicated that they have no problem with the new design and recommend approval. Mr. John Chu, the applicant, described the proposed gate. Commissioner Pines moved to approve the gate as indicated in the letter from the applicant dated January 20, 1986. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 14 A-1042 - Joseph Masek, 14467 Big Basin Way, Clarification of condition concerning landscaping Staff described the request relative to landscaping and the material on the decking. Herb Cuevas, the architect, discussed the planting strip, stating that they had previously indicated that they had brick planters in front in lieu of the 5 ft. planting strip. He commented that Big Basin slopes down approximately 18" across the front of the property and explained the height of the deck to accommodate this slope. He stated that they are adding 4 ft. planters on top of the deck. Mr. Cuevas indicated that during the previous discussion it was their understanding that it was agreed that the combination of the brick planters with planting and additional street trees would substitute for the 5 ft. buffer zone or setback. He explained that the original plans had shown a redwood deck; however, because the soil conditions are extremely poor they changed to a concrete deck to handle the drainage. He added that they would prefer to leave it concrete with tile, which will be compatible with the building. He indicated that if the Commission prefers the redwood deck they would like to put the redwood deck over a concrete patio. Staff expressed concern relative to the fact that the driveway is to be one of the primary entrances to Parking Assessment District #3, and Mr. Cuevas clarified that the planter at the driveway is at the sidewalk level. Staff commented that it is relatively simple to take care of the drainage under a redwood deck, and the redwood is the approved material. Discussion followed on the planter and proposed plantings. Staff expressed concern that if the planter is 6 ft. the plants will be above many people's eye level, and there will be a brick wall next to the sidewalk, with no landscape buffer between them. They stated that the landscape plan which has been submitted indicates seasonal plantings in the planters on the deck. Mr. Masek indicated that there will be some ivy hanging in the planters on the street side and the deck and seasonal plants will be replaced throughout the year. He explained that the street trees will be raised in planters above the street. Staff pointed out that the trees raised in planters above the street would not be in compliance with the Village Beautification Committee guidelines, and the type that the applicant has chosen is not on their list. Mr. Masek addressed the seating, and it was clarified that the seating for 85 is relative to the dining room only. The City Attorney commented that the deck had been approved on the expressed understanding that it would not be an area used for service of food. He added that the agreement with the applicant was that if the deck were used as a serving - 6 - Planning Commission ~' Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 A-1042 area, a corresponding number of seats would have to be reduced in the dining room. Mr. Masek concurred. Commissioner J. Harris expressed concern about how this project is going to fit into the total concept for the Village. She indicated that the Commission needs to give direction to Staff relative to the landscaping. Mr. Cuevas commented that he does not believe the type of tree ~ an issue and they will plant whatever is selected. Commissioner J. Harris commented that, in reviewing the minutes and plans from the previous meeting, she could not see where the Commission had deviated from the planters shown on the plans. She stated that she did not envision it being so high and she thinks that is losing the intent to soften the front of the building and have some landscaping between the building and the sidewalk. She added, however, that the record does not show that the Commission asked the applicant to deviate at all from the plans. Discussion followed on the height of the planters. Mr. Cuevas indicated that, by code, the planter could be reduced to 2'6" and still have a good safety barrier. Mr. Masek added that the reason for the higher planter boxes is security because of the vandalism in the area. At Commissioner Guch's inquiry, Staff explained that the request at this time is for clarification on the condition relative to landscaping; whether the Commission wants the 5 ft. buffer between the sidewalk and the deck or if, with the planters on the deck, the street trees will be enough. Discussion followed on the intent of the Commission at the previous meeting. Commissioner Pines stated that he would like to see planting on both sides; however, he was not on the Commission at the time of the previous discussion. Mr. Cuevas commented that it appeared that the Commission was trying to decide whether street trees.were substituted for the 5 ft. planting. He stated that that was not their interpretation; their interpretation is that street trees were required and this planting wall as a substitute for the 5 ft. setback. Commissioner Burger stated that she would like to see the street tree condition remain, with the type and method of planting being consistent with the Village Beautification Plan. There was a consenus to that effect. Commissioner Pines commented that, relative to the treatment of the wall planter, he would like to see it a little wider, i.e. 2 ft., no higher than 5 ft. from the sidewalk, with a more stepping. There was a consensus to that effect. Mr. Masek stated that the steppeddown planters would not be feasible because of the ramp going into the building, and the handicap ramp goes up again. It was noted that the plans will be reviewed by Staff and any problem relative to that issue could be picked up by Staff. It was also agreed by the Commission that the minutes reflect that redwood decking should be used. Break - 9:35 - 9:45 p.m. 15. Discussion of Revisions to Village Beautification Program Land- scaping Jackie Welch, Chairman of the Beautification Committee, in reference to the Masek application, commented that they were trying to achieve a coordinated appearance for the Village. She indicated that they would like Mr. Masek to put in one of the trees on their list and according to their guidelines for planting. She expressed their hope to get the - 7 - Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 Village Beautification Program guidelines in the hands of the property owners in the Village. She discussed the proposed tree map. It was pointed out by Vice Chair Burger that Mr. Masek had been requested to plant trees that conform with the plan, in accordance with the proposed method of planting. Ms. Welch commented that they would like to implement the plan as soon as possible and asked for support to raise money to implement the plan. She addressed the timeframe of the planting. Staff suggested that the Village Beautification Committee look to the City Council for a funding mechanism. They stated that it was their understanding originally that the Village merchants were going to work in such a fashion that there would be no public funds involved. Discussion followed on the installation of the paving stones. Staff indicated that the City would need an encroachment permit from the State before doing anything within the right-of-way. They commented that the installation could possibly be coordinated with a project now being discussed with Caltrans relative to the high crown on Big Basin Way. Commissioner J. Harris moved to recommend the Village Beautification Landscaping Plan to the City Council. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The City Manager addressed the Commission, indicating that a meeting had been held with members of the Beautification Committee, some City Council members, the Planning Commission Chair, and some of the Planning staff, at which time it had been concluded that the City should commence to go forward with new effort to implement a Village Plano He stated that it was determined to engage the services of a planning consultant firm. He commented that he has contacted two urban planning consultants, both of whom have extensive background in this field. He added that he asked both of those firms to submit proposals, which have been submitted to the Planning Commission tonight. He stated that he feels, since the Planning Commission and Staff will be the primary people with which the consultant works, it would be important for the Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council as to which consultant would be the best one to serve in this capacity. Commissioner Pines commented that, when he was on the Planning Commission in Marin County, they went through a similar process, and they advertised for a consultant. He indicated that the proposals were then reviewed by Staff; the five or six picked firms were interviewed, and the choice was made by the City Council. He stated that he would feel much more comfortable using that procedure, at least the portion regarding the advertising. He added that he feels a lot of different approaches can be obtained by doing that. The City Manager explained that it had been the feeling at the meeting to use the procedure he had explained, rather than going through a formal Request for Proposal procedure, because of the time involved. He added that the two consultants who were contacted have a successful track record in doing this sort of proposal. Commissioner Pines indicated that it had taken them only two months to make a selection. He added that he has no problem narrowing the selection down to these two consultants; however, he does feel uncomfortable with just picking-from two consultants. After discussion it was determined that the Commission could read the proposals and draft questions at their study session on January 28, 1986, with interviews being held with the consultants on February 4, 1986. Commissioner Guch stated that she would like the background on the parking in the Village for the January 28th study session. 16. Discussion of Planning Commission Priorities for 1986-87 The City Manager addressed the timeframe for the submittal of priorities. The matter was scheduled for discussion at the study - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 1/22/86 Priorities session on January 28, 1986. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Memo'regarding HCDA Projects - Commissioner Pines suggested putting the Zoning Ordinance into some kind of graphic form that is easily presentable to the public. Staff commented that they question whether that specific funding would be applicable to such a project; however, they will discuss the matter with Stan Carnekie. It was noted that if it is not applicable, the issue can be listed as one of the priorities of the Planning Commission. 2. Letter supporting the Denevi proposal on Paul Masson proposal- noted and filed. 3. Letter supporting the Orchard Supply Hardware and Nieman Marcus concept on the Paul Masson property - noted and filed. Oral by Commission and Staff 1. City Council Report - Commissioner J. Harris gave a brief report on the City Council meeting of January 14, 1986. A copy of the minutes of this meeting are on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Vice-Chair thanked the Good Government for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Pines moved to adjourn to a Regular Adjourned Meeting on January 29, 1986. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert ~ ~ ~ Secretary RSS:cd - 9 -