Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-1986 Planning Commission MinutesP CITY OF'SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION -' MINUTES· .:"DATE: Wednesday, April 23, 1986 - 7:30 PLACE: City .Council Chambers, i3777 Fruitvale Avenue', Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTiNE.ORGANIZATION Present: Commissioners.GucN, Harris, Peters.on, Pines and Siegfried Absent:. CommisSi. oner Burger Minutes A~rii'gth Minutes continued to May 7,'1e86' .. · ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CA'LENDA~ ... 1~ LL-14 -. AF'N 3e3-43-32~'33 Torczyne~ "' '.Consider transferring 2,052' sq. ft. from 13813 Saratoga ~ista 'Avenue to 13795 Sa~a'toga Vi!sta Avenue in the R-1 10~800 zoning .~istrict. 2. LL-15 - 'APN 503-72-001 & 503-75-015 -'Heiss .. Consider transferring 20. ft. wide strip of land from Rateel M to 'parcel L on Pierce Road. Passed 5-0~ ...... Commissioners Peterson/Sieg.~ried moved ..'to approve LL-14 and LL-15. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 3. A-I144 - Ken Chan, reHues't. for oesign. review approval for a .new, twc,-stOry, si'ng'!e fj~ily residence on a hillside tot at Lot' 13, Tr. 6528;, Farr Ranch Road, 'in the NHR zoning district: continued .- from 4/9/86:,.:.~£o be 'c'~ntinued to 8/11/88 to allow-'applicant 'time to revise 'p'lans-)'. "'~"" '.. .. .. · . . .':.-'4a. Negative Deciar~ion'-.SN2'28 =.Ric.~..Seno .~. 4~ SM-28 . Richard Geno,.[equeS. t for site modification approval ~or grading "- and retaini'n~ wall's on...a. slope greater than 10% and for swimming · -. ~ool location-~t"'21449 'Tol'lgat~. Road: continued from 4/9'/88 (appl i.qant' regUests: ~'ontinuance to 5/14/86.). .~. ~__.L_== ...... zr · . .... .:,... ...,-.. ...... 5a. A-I18'4 - Mr. and Mrs'C.ken Hc~lm~r~n", request for design 'review " approval to construct a tw~,-story residence' and approval of '.grading permi. t to move more than i~000 cu. yds. of dirt on Lot 'l'~.~r~Z':758'~y"Ten'AC~e.s ROad .in.the R-1 40,000 zoning district: (ap'p!ic~nt'.reqUes(~ continuance to 5/28/86) 8a. 'Negative Decla'ratic, n - SDR-!621 -.G~ant Adorador 6b'. A'-i18i - Grant 'AdclradOr, request for tentative building site and' .. 6c. SDR1621 .design review approval for a twoTStory single family. Pla~'ning'Commission Minutes - 4/25/86 Page 2 residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard on the north side of Mendel.sohn Lane about.100 ft. east of Piedmont Rdad in the R-1 20 000 z·oning district: (applicant requests , continuance to 5/14/88) 7. A-1155 - Ea.·J. Henry ~opatschek, Inc., request for design review .. approval for the construction of a two-story, single-family ./.". residence which e;:ceeds the 6,200 'sq-, ft. allowable floor area "and approval of the gradin'g permit to mo'~e more than 1,000 cO. .'... yds. combined cut and fit!' on Parcel C at the northerly. end of Blum Gum C'ourt:' (continued'. to 5/28/86) 8a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1620 - George Hwang -8b. ~S_7~PZ~1620 George Hwang, request for tentative building site, 8c.' V.-730 - variance and design review ~pprovals to permit 8d. A-11~5' - construction of .~ two-story, 24.5 ft. high, single family 'residence over 6,2~ sq. · . slope Which exceeds ~0% and whic. h requires grading in excess of 1,~80 cu.' yds. at 1~288 Bainter' ~venue in the HCRD zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City code: (continued tO THERE WAS .NO DISCUSSION ON ITEMS 5-8 BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL BEEN CONTINUED. PUBLIC' HEARINGS : '" ;"' :" = ':~ ' " (THE': PLANNING COMMISSION .POLICY .RELA~I.VE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS iS ' THAT THE 'APPLIC~NT'S BRESENTAT. ION SHAL'L' ~;E-LI~II'TEQ~.TO 1~ MINUTES, AND OTHER SPEAKERS WILL BE C.IMITED TO 5 MINUTES.) .~-' 9. ROsemary Albr..echt, a'~peal of ~ree' ~:.emovai Perm'i~ at 2~19~ Winn Roa.d · -:.- '(continued .frO'm 4/9/86')· '': ' "" -. ... "'The Plan'~ing:-C'ommi'ss'i-C,n"'cOntinu'ed this matter in .order to notify :.' .... the neighbors'about.removing the tree. Staff still c~nnot .make the findings :t.O.:'remOv. b' the tree. Three neighbors wrote in support Of the. the applicant removing the tree. .... The public hearing wa's opened at 7:44 P.M. The applicant, .Mrs; Albrecht, was. 'in .the .audience in support of the application. . , : 'Commissioher Gu.Ch repor.ted '.on her site visit and in 'par'tiCHlar -.. on the size of. the tree w~.~:h ~ts. multiple t'~Unks. A discUss.ion was held about the si~e and health of 'the tree and how 'it' a~fects the .nei'ghbo.rh:ood. Fu'rther discussion was held about the 16cation of the tree, size of the lot, maintenance, up;keep~ and economics and enjoyment of the property by' the. owner. Commissioner Siegfried·noted' i~ it should fall, it would take '.the whole house. Commission.er Pete~son/Pi-.nes moved to approve the appeal to '.: remove the tree.per the' Ai'brecht application No.'86~25 based on . . the first two criteria of ·Ordinance No. NS3, .Article 14A .with .. '. the cond'ition of replacinq the trees per staff report. Passed.- ' - 4=1. Commissioner Guch Opposed. F'lanning Commission Minutes - 4/23/86 Page 18a'.Negative-Declaration - SD 1619 - Brian Mot-row & Hakone Gardens 18b. SD-16!9 - Brian NorrF.w & Hakone Gard99s, request for building site app¢oV'al..fo'F..a 5~lot 'sUbdivisi'O~ on Bohlman Road just north of Norton Road and Big Basin Way/Congress Springs Road in the HC-Rd and R-1=48.,888 zoning districts respectively; ... ~ Associ. ate".~l~nner Ca'idwei~../!pr.~e~ented the staff report.' 'She .referr~e~.to a.~Op~,of'Bill='Cotton's. letter regarding the water ~evels and the necessi, ty to.h~ve.the well pump the water out of .., t~e area. Mr.~' Cotton rec'ommends ~.pproval of the tentative map. .' Therefore staff recommends approva.1 of application· subject t~ conditions of staff report dated 4/18/86. Th~ pUbl=ic'-h~.ing.'wa~.!open~d ~t 7~54 Bill Hei'Ss, ~'civil. engi.ne~r~j~Zor t~e applicant, discussed pump · .... -. company' ~'e~p~n~ibi 1 ! ty .' The~'Commissione.~S di~cussedZ monitoring water levels, slopes, .and · ~d.eveloping'the pa~kin~ lo.t...' Tennis courts and appropriate slopes, scenic easements were also discussed. COnsiderable .discussion w~S° Spent on widening of 'exis(ing 'dm~iveways/ro~ds and removal of trees ~nd construction of' an 'emergency access road. · Mr. Morrow desires· to .keep as many trees· as possible. Commissioner Siegfried felt (he width should be left to the determination o~ the city e=ngineer, but we should retain as many trees as possible and reduce the width of the ~c, ad to no' le'ss thmn !4 ft. Commissioner' Pines was ~oncerned about monitoring the well. A · ..." 'discussion was held and ~onsensuS was to ·leave it up to the r .-. staff. The Commission was concerned about the square footag.e of the homes being near· the standard if they are built near a dormant landslide.. ConSensus was to give developers more guidelines. Consensus clarified the dogleg was northeast of the road On lot 4. Commissioner' Peterson/Siegfried moved to appr.eve the Negative Declaration and SD-1619. .Izt was amended to stipulate that the parking' lot would be bonded for and constructed in conjunction =with the other development.' Passed 5-8. 1ia.. Negative DeClaration - SM-22 - Kemp Carter 11b~ V-7'15.Kemp Carter·, request·for site.modificat.ion and varia'nce 11c. ~-22 approvals to allow a sport court on a slope that exceeds i~% wi'th.~' setb'ack of 3 ft~ on the left· side where a minimum 28 ft. is required at 19306 Pinnacle Court in' the R~1-40,000 zoning district as per Chapter 15 of the C'ity Code. Associate' Planner Caldweil presented· a staff report and referenced additional correspondence· in the packet from Mr. Borelli in support of theZ Carter project. Staff recommends denial of the variance request and site modification. The public hearino was opebed at 8:29 P.M. ...... The applicant'··, KempJ Carter~ 19386 Pinnacle, was present.' He ' ·stated that he had mddified the or'iginal request .eXtensively. F'lanning CommiSsion Mi.nutes'-'4/25/86. Page 4 ~ ' He withdrew original request of a 10 .ft. perimeter fence and · "- installed a'6 ft. fence. He'also moved the proposed site for 'the basketba'l! cou'rt~.outside of the setback area sO' that a ... variance permit is not required. He has attempted to narrow'the .. sport court to a width ·that would provide a usable surface necessary for .the !proposed games and give the maximum > landscaping inside the fence. He has also received permission = from the Odd Fellows·to landscape appro~!imately 20 ft. that slopes towards the Odd Fellows. Dr. Carter'.f'eels that the property has requiired extensive fill and feels· that the sport court is compatible with use in · the area. His neighbor's sport coOrt is 5 ft.' from Dr. Carterrs " fence, and he is asking for a sport court to be'25 ft. from that same fence. " The Commissioners noted .~'there were 5 l~tters from adjacbnt · n~ighbo~s.~'~d/=pe~"itiE,~'~ig'n~d"f~o~ =~he balance of'the neighbors supporting. ~he sport court. · ' Commissioner H'~iS '~·eported on her site visit and stated she was able/to ~ake 'finding~ fo~ .exceptional circumstances. The · ."', front"ya'r.d i's so. deep..-.and On a"s!ope leaving a small backyard. '.. ~t i.s a'common privilege t6 prdvide lawn and recreational areas... Commissioner .Biegfri.ed.~s~ed for a..clarification of the width of ~' the area betweeh the countSand the 'fenc'e. Dr. Carter replied.it ranqed from 3-10 ft. = . ........ · . (i) La~S.~ap:)ng'op .the,..dc, wn slope'.(Odd Fellows) side of the fence'.- "" "~"' (2) There will."'be a Tp'lanting area - at least 5 ~t. between the ' court .... and the prope'(.ty i~ne~. "" ,. , (5) Regarding th'e variance, (he wall shall be reduced to a 6 -. :. ' ft. height within the:setback. Commissioner Siegf~ied/Peterson moved for a. Negative Declaration. Commissioner Siegfried/PeterSon also moved on the ..'. variance .making the findings on the conditions discussed for .... ., : V-715, and SM-22. It. involVed the 8 ft. fence and the ~ ft. planti.ng ar.ea between the court 'and the fence o~ Carter's property. Both Odd Fellows and .Carter's property' shall be' "' .landscaped prior to 'final. P~ssed ,12... A-'I18~''.-'Z OsterlundE'nterprises, reqUeSt ~or design review · A - F approval~ for Six (8) new, two-story, single family " ·residences over.26.ft...in height and.over '4,000 sq. ft. in size '/'.. ~o be built on·slopes that. exceed. 10% and where the required "' grading may exceed 1,.000 Eu. yds. in the R-1-12,500 zoning ~ .· district at Lots 1-4.,. Trac~"7499, Herriman Avenue a.nd parcels A .. and B.i SDR-l.~86, Alta·Vista Avenue per Chapter 15 of the. City Code. ,' Associate'Planner Caldwel! presented the staff report. Mark Roberts, applicant', st'ares they will compl. y. with the requests. .Planning Commission Minutes - 4/23/86 Page 5 CommisSioner Siegfried stated he was impressed with the style and design 'of the homes. .. Wendy Weisman~ Squirrel Holi'ow, verified that the privated drive would not cause her to have headlights in her bedroom, dining room~ and liging room windows. Ray Goney~ 14080 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated there were several people in his area who were concerned about a thoroughfare from Harriman to the highway. The 'Planning Commission assured that there would not be. Commissioner Siegfried/Peterson moved for approval of Resolution , 9 A-1185-1 and findinqs of the staff report for Lots l~ ~ 34 4~ and parcel A with a condition 10 that the homes on lots 1 and 2 shc, uld be done in a way to'maximize the sideyard setbacks. The Commission also added the condition to provide screening along the property line between Parcel B and lands of Miner (south by southeast). Parcel B would' be continued to 5/14/86. Passed 15. Ar!i64 - Parnas CorporatiOn, request for design review approval for a two-story sing'le family residence with grading which exceeds 1,000 'cu. yds. on Lot ~9, Tract 6665, Saratoga Heights ~' Drive in the NHR zoning dis~trict per Chapters !4 and 15 of the '. City Code. Associate Planner Caldwell presented the staff report and findings of Exhibit A-1. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. A-1164-1 and Exhibit A-1 with conditions to inclOde revised grading plans to eliminate rear retaining walls and proposed fill subject to approval by the City Engineer. Cotton's letter regarding the results of the geotechnical field inspections to test the property was presented. Cc, mmissioner Guch rep6rted on her site visit. The public hearing wa~ opened at 9:08 P.M.' .. Wendell"Roscbe, designer for the applicant, stated the Parnas ' Cor~c. rat'ion ~ ' . 'felt they should provide an area for children to play or an eventual pool. The level area would be screened. The area was designed so it would not be visible downslope but would be usable. It:~ould also eliminate the need to haul the dirt -. away. " .. ".. Commissio'ner Peterson~Si'egfried moved to approve A-1164-! with the c6nd~tion of "allowin~ 1,410 cu. yds. of earth fc, r constrUCtion of a 4~400 sq. ft. single family dwelling and that any future pool would be in that area. No additional grading wc, uid be~allo~ed for a po. ol.and a review should be done by a ' city geologist.-. 1'4. .'SDR-1585 A!ber't.and Ann Lorincz, APN 510-05-10, A-1040 Consider revocation of final building site approval and design review approva.1 on parcel behind 19605 Glen Una Drive per Chapter't5 of'the City Code. A letter from the Dept. of Environmental Health dated April .17th was presented. Based on that letter, the staff 'recommends that P. lanning Commission Minutes - 4/25/86 Page 6 · - .- '.' -the Planning Commission recommend to the'City Council that since -. the conditions of"the final map of approval have not been made, · ." that the final building site apprnva~ be revoked and the design '. review approval be suspended, since the information 'submitted was-inacCurate. The appl. i'can~'would have Zthe remaining' months .of the.tentative map to c~,mp!ete the conditions and work out the ~ ·problems of the leach line. There'were also two letters from law offices: John' J. Hartford in support of the LOrincz '. '.'. property and a letter from Nino, Fei'ice and Arata who represent · the ShellOoes~ The public hearing was opened at 9:24 P.M. Albert· Lor'incz, applicant,~ stated he'was willing to do whatever is right and 'reasonable. He' sta'~ed the plans showed' exactly where the leach line was. Z AboQt-!3 years ago he had the' leach .. lines cleaned out for preventive maintenance. Dr. Lorincz stated ~hey were on the east coast when the drain field was created. " He feels there is ~,'.bas.is'.for. tbe.-.Planning Commission to revoke their sit~ andS.deSign app~o~.al~."-.~. --, ".. Bill Shellooe, 1~9605 G!eo Una Drive, discussed placement of the /' leach line based. On-?,the--sl~,~e ...of.. the ·land. Originally, Mr. · -... '. Shel looe could ~. ng'~-'.~p'~rove~/'= t'hat '.th.~. leach fiei'd ' ran north. .... · Su~sequen. tly"~.h.eShe!~oes·d·ug up-.. the'septic tank last week '. '. through 2-5 feet pas!.the Lorincz 'lide and turned on the. water. He brought .two neighbors: tp verify...Mr~. Lori'ncz's son-in-'law -'. placed t~'e drain f'i~l'd'i~n !itS' :.p~esent ~location and that Lorincz was aware of the·location. '. Steve FOX', i~63~ j.u~:a ~ane=~ ba'S. property-On th'e southeast corner · . that butts the .property in.= question in their northwest -Corner. He stated he h~s k~O~O t.h.e'Lor~nCz family, 'including'· their .: 'son-in-law, ~o~'a n~i~e~i. of.~ars.'~' He stated that in 1·972 or · ~ '75 Brad was out there with..beavX equipment trenching and making arrangements for a dr~'n fim'!d in property .that is now being disputed.· There is.~o do~bt'i~ Mr. Foxes mind that that is what -. happened. He d'id not knoW'-when the Lorincz's were on the east coast, but at one ti'me or' another, they ·were out there with Brad determining layout of this ~rain field. .... D~vid Mocrison,..19590 Juna Lane, Stated he li.veS directly north Of the vacant lot Owned by. Dr. Lori.nCz.' The lot .is · . approximately 28,000 sq. ft.' and iS relatively Small. The average lot is 70,.000 Sq.'~t.. Dr. Lorincz wants to build a"=home '~' .'. and'create a second leach field and a septi'c tank On this vacant ". ". lot. 'Dr. Morrison i's...oppo~ed. to the construction because it '.' -·would invntve a leach field on top of another leach field. He is concerned that the le~ch. field would lead to Sewage in his yard-and pool area.. .. ' Mrs. Ann Lor-incz, applicanti stated t~at 13 years ago A~I Septic Serviqe did regular servicing and some roc. ting service. She stated Dr. and HrS~ Lorincz were on the east coast and didn't .. ' supervise any leachi.ng. She alsc~ stated her present. son-in-law : was 16 or' 17 at the time~. Steve Baird, DepUty 'Cit~ Attorney,. s'tated that these are -. .advisOry public hearings f~r the. City Council, and the Planning Commision shcold make a reEommendation to'the City Council. The two actions proposed' wer'e~ (1) revocation'of the building site .approval and (2).-suspensiOn. Of the design revieW'approval on the Planning Commission Minut'es - 4/25/86 Rage 7 2nd property. The. jbuilding site approval could be revoked based on the leaching' of the property. ' The Health Dep.art.ment condition is not being met. There is no need for a new application. The present ,permit '.would expire ·January of. 'i987, · . ' and the Lor. incz's could apply' 'for three one-year extensions. The~ key piece of evidence .is the letter from . the Health Department wh~. states the Planning Commission.should revoke. the' Commissioners Sieg'fried/Pines moved·· to uphold staff 5s recommendation to revoke final building site approval Passed COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral· by CommisSion i. City Council Repor.t ..' ·There was no City Council .report. , Associate Planner Caldwell distributed Planning· Commission . budget information and design review process t'ranscriptions from .. the'City Council meeting. She also .presented a-listing of courses from the UC Extension O~fice regarding Planning courses. Commissioners shall return the completed forms to the Planning Secretary if they wish to attend a .course. Commiss~Oners Siegfried/Pines moved to adjourn at 9:55 P.M. Passed 5-0. 'ReSp6ctfuliy submitted.' . .,."t ....... . ........,. · ...:,.. Sec:retary '." ,.".",'-:' .' " Planning Cc, mmiss~c~n ,'-~ :' .. -"-"' ~j... "