Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 11, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theatre, 15777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Guch, Harris, Peterson, Pines Siegfried and Chairman Burger present at 7:52PM. Minutes Following are :,th6' changes made in the Minutes of 5/28 (no audio tape availble for meeting): Page 1, (paragra~ 1, Minutes) add "Conmlissioner Pines abstained because he was not present." Add Page 2 (.paragraph 1) should include a statement from Commissioner Harris that it "takes away from the 'overall appearance: ." Item No. 7 should state it was denied 6-0 without prejudice." Page 4 (paragraph 5) should say "saving the pine trees." Paragraph 5 should say "Crowther." Elsewhere in the minutes "~rother" should be changed to "Crowther". Page 5 should state "Commissioner Siegfried shares Commissioner Peterson's idea of the grading compromise, and the green line ~efe~-~cF2ad~ai-~.~ding. at the rear.of the lots. Paragraph 7 should state "Commissioners Siegfried/Peterson moved for approval of A-1201." Second paragraph from the bottom should read· "The City Attorney stated the ordinance under consideration would allow only 6-12 inches". Last paragraph should read "Commissioner Pines"." Page 6 (paragraph 1) ~hould 'state "Present ordinance relates to pilasters for individual homes." Page 7 .(paragraph.5) should state "Ms. Alexander." The last pargraph should read "Fran Louritsen." Page 8,. (last ..paragraph) should credit ~ssioner Pines rather than Peterson. Page 9 (paragraph 7) should add "and added an' early warning sytem." .The vote in paragraph 8 should be "5-1withthechanges as discussed." Page 12 (paragraph 7) should read "Passed 4-2 with Commissioners Guch and Harris opposed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Mrs. Jessie McGuire was concerned about homes larger than the recommended specifications for the zoning. She is in a one acre zoning and didn't forsee the impact to her neighborhood. She also did not want to complain to the new neighbors. She asked the Planning Commission to come and see the property in question at 15550 Best View Court. She also stated the citizens rely on the Planning Commission to stick to the standards and know when something.isn't right. Planning Commiss~' Minutes - 6/11/86 Page 2 Mr. Eugene O'Rorke of t~e Good Government Group stated he wanted to reiterate what Mrs. McGuire said and that they want the Planning Commission to be very- concerned about homes blending with surrounding properties. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. EP-26 - Dividend Development, requesting approval of encroachment per'~nit for landscaping, bomanite at entrance, island median and decorat, i.ve wall entrance in the public right-of-way. Project located%a~f Prospect Road west of Stelling Road in the NHR zoning district. Planning Director .~Lsia pulled the item from consent for additional input from the City Attorney. _Mr. Toppel, Esq., stated that a condition of approval should be added that the applicant sign an indemnity agreement per City Code. M/S Siegfried/ Harris to approve EP-26 with the condition receded by the City Attorney. Motion carried 6/0. PUBL I C HEAR I NGS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NO. 2 AND 4 ..REMOVED FOR DISCUSSlOll. ITEM NO. 2 W~S CONTINUED AFTER DISCUSSION. 'PUBLIC HEAPJlqGS 2. Negative Declaration - C-231 - City of Saratoga C-251 - Consider amending the zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga to create an ordinance to establish Planned Development Zoning Classification to ·allow multiple uses on a single site having such designation pursuant to a PD permit (continue to 6/25/86 Commissioner Peterson stated there were people in the audience to address this issue. He also stated he was not advocating a hotel but was concerned aOout floor arearatio formulas. (FAR) FARwere usually used for office buildings.· City Attorney Toppel stated one of the reasons this item has been- continued is to work out procedural changes related to floor area ratios. Commissioner Siegfried was concerned about a process'starting that could be very dangerous - .................. so the indication is the Commission is looking for a combination and that the control .is ultimately going to be with the Commission. Commissioner Siegfried doesn't want a situation· where a developer has to change his plans from 150,000-90,000 sq. ft. because of a .......... __mi__sundeCstanding. He stated that he didn't want any developers to believe that if they cc~e in with scmething that matches the numbers, that this would get approved. He would like it clarified that these numbers are only guidelines. City Attorney ~oppel clarified he was not referring to any one specific project but was working off a report to the City Council. The only argument the Commission should be looking at a~ tnis point snoulO De whether the Commission is open to a possioility of say 100 rooms, then the figure the Commission has generate0 would not yielO a hotel room of average size or a size that the Commission would want to see. Commissioner Peterson clari~ieO he was not advocating a no~el Out was concerneO abOUt the ~ioor ratio. Commissioner Pines stateO ne ha0 the same concern as reiateo to the medical facilities.. He further stated the Conm~ssion and ~veiopers Planning Commission Minutes - ~/11/86 ·Page 5 should be aware that what is stated in the' ordinance are guidelines. Planning Director Hsia stated the guidelines should be flexible but also realistic to reflect the uses we are trying to propose. Don Skinner, =MC Associates, Palo Alto stated he would like to discuss this matter at the next study session. The Planning Con~lission agreed and continued-the item to the next Planning Con~nission n~eting af_ter_the_.Committee-of- "the-~ole meeting"on'6/l~TS6, 5, Negative Declaration - SDR-1622 - Hobbs SDR-1622 - ?HoDbs, request for approval of a 5-lot ~ 'residential subdivision of 5.25 acres of partially developed property loated at 15500 Saratoga Avenue in the R-1,20,000 zoning district. (Continue to 8/25/88) 4. A-1144 - Ken Chart, request for design review approval for a new, two-story single family' residence on a hillside lot at Lot 15, Re. 8528, Farr Ranch Rd., in the NHR zoning ·district. Planning Director Hsia presented his staff report. Commissione> Siegfried questioned how.much grading would be involved if the driveway was ~0c~ted.. Associate Planner Caldwell s~ated in that it waSn't·calCulated bdt in the past fthe Rlanning Commission discussed-the location of the driveway on the-left side ~f·the house.to reduce the grading; no action was taken,·Chai± Burger'opened the public hearing at 8':10 P.M,. Phil- Schwimmer, architect for Ken Chan, discussed the conceptual 'landscaped plans. Mr. Schwimmer stated '.he understood 'the City' of Saratoga's main. concerns dealt with general bulk and appearance of the house, grading in. relationship to the driveway, and how the house fits into the neighborhood. Mr. Schwimmer stated he changed the colors from white to beige and tried to make the house a little less · imposing and fit more into the hillside. The architect chose to get a balance of out a~ fill "'~Ha'i~e'As'~"=th&"6~l~'i'~a~' cut .~.rom 450' yds., to 850' yds,. but architect was able to.Use the cut in the garage area, It would not be seen, He further stated -'!mo~i "'.~ ' the house has a lot of _ emeint. .and fits well with the hillside. -" Commissioner Harris asked for clarification on the 1,000 yds. of grading. Mr. Schwimmer stated he wanted to stay with'sta~f's recommendatons of 1,000 yds. One way to do this is move the · driveway to the left side. But this would not reOuce the bulk or maintain a lower profile. He further stated he was cutting the vast majority Planning Commission Mi~ - 6/11/86 -- Page 4 ~ unc garage and asked Bi to clarify details. ':'. .......... ~tr. }Iei.sS. discussed' the. grading. and corcnente~_... that. no mat. t.er .. where you move the house On the site, yo~ are basically talking about the total number of cut and fill being the same. Commissioner Peterson stated this presentation was a great improvement over what was seen in January-February and had no problem with the grad ing. Commissioner Pines concurred. Commissioner Burger stated she was greatly impressed with the architect's attempt to respond to the Pl~in'~ 'C~lon ' s concerns. Commissioner Guch confirmed that the retaining walls were ...}near the garage and stepped. 'Commissioners PINES/PETERSON moved to approve ' A-1144 excluding condition no. 14 and with the stipulation that grading should not exceed 1530 cu. yds. of combined cut and .fill. Passed 5-1 with Commissioner Harris opposed. ........ ~sSiOner Siegfried dCmment&d'that'{~hen'an item su6h as this that has been before the Con~nission previously and comes up again where there will be reco,~endations to change a driveway or what- ever, be sure that on that night they have before them, either through the staff or the applicant, what the impact will be in terms of reducing grading. Commissioner Sieg'~ried commen'~ed that if staf¥' stated there was a serious concern and the Planning Commission doesn't know what its impact was, the appl ication should go to a study session; otherwise we would have had a public hearing with no purpose. 5'. A-1184 - Mr. and Mrs. Ken Holmgren, request for design review approval to construct a two-story - residence and approval of grading permit to move -' more than 1'~000 cu. yds. of dirt on Lot 1, Tr. 7382, Ten Acres Rd. in the R-1-40,000 zoning district Planning Director Hsia presented sta{f report. Public hearing was opened at 8:40PM. Applicant was not present. Don Jones, 18850 Ten'Acres Road, stated he was the neighbor most directly a{{ected.' He stated .this hearing had been'continued 2-3 times. As a consequence he rescheduled local business and cancelled a trip east. He felt he was the only one who could speak in defense of their viewpoint. The proposed application would allow bedroom windows to look directly into their bedroom. Mr. Jones stated it would be most helpful for people directly a'f. fected to have some option for continuance 'on a hearing. Neighbors have nothing~ ~o say. in -~e. prog. ess .of 'continuance, but have thousands' of dotlars-...at-stake.. H~ would'also like the a~chitect to..s~ake out the ._perimeter of the property o s6 that it's.clearwhat changes. City Attorney Toppel stated continuance is merely an option. The Planning Commission can make the applicant reapply when ready. The best thing is to deal with it on a situational basis. Six months is the on4y requirement as far as limiti=ng conti'nuances. He further stated the Planning Commission is not bound to continue anybody but can take as many continuances as the Planning Commission Minutes - 6/11/86 Page 5 Planning Commission likes. Planning Director Hsia stated if the applicant continues more than once, we could ask him to submit a request for continuance and charge a $100 fee. Planning Con~nission has the option of continuing or not. Commissioners HARRIS/SIEGFRIED moved to deny wi thout pre jud ice because,the applicant never answered .any of ' ." --- the ~ta~'f 'correSpo~.denCe. Denied '6=0.. 6. A-1197 - Gallo, request for design review approval of a new, two-story home 28 ft. in height and 8,250 sq. "~' ft. in area where 4,800 sq. ft. is allowed at .20130 Rancho Bella Vista, in the R-1-20,000 ~ zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented staff report and Commissioner Guch presented her site visit report. Public hearing was opened at 8:50 P.M. Applicant Nino Gal lo stated the house was remeasured to include 200 ft. of covered porch. He further stated that staff gave permission to build exercise room and carport on another house where the home was already at the maximum sq. footage. This home was two doors down from the present home in question. Commissioner Harris was concerned how ~Zhe · "a'd'd i't i o n" 'to" 'th'~"' s~'~e "'f0otage "6f' ~/i~ '~e~hbo~in~"house "recently · setbac_k Of subjec.t._hoFe. ' ......... Charles ·' .~rin.~., _Mendelson Lane, lives across frcm Mr. Gallo. He asked the Ccmnission to remember _Mrs. McGuire!~s appeal to limit size of hcm'e~'-~nd-stated. t~te_j. was no _give_rand-take ,,when he wanted to build a "s~co~d story.. If there is .a law,. he. state.d,. it. S~_.u!d .be..honeIed and wants to see all Saratoga citizens treated equally. He requested the Planning Co~nission reconsider why the Planning Conm~ssion set the original standards. Consensus to check into how changes· are made after Planning Commission decisions. · Commissioner Harris stated 5400 sq. ft. was too ...... Bi~'fo~" 't~'i~' ~i~e i" she "~6~'~d" ~h~ ':i~S' '~'S~n~D~h-e~i~ 'to--' . .. double counting, but that a limit had'to be set." ..."' Commissioner Peterson stated this was a 22,000 sq. ft. lot and the City has allowed this in the These standards were primarily for 'the hillsides, he stated, and did not have any real problem with this. Commissioner Harris stated the design of the home looks so imposing because of its height; ordinarily she would go along with it. PlAnning Commiss Minutes - 6/11/86 Page Commissioner Guch stated the house on the side is at a lower elevation and for that reason she had a major concern about the size in that it will look much bigger than the house to the side. Commissioner Pines stated he had maOe many site visits and felt the houses in this area were all oversized for 1/2 acre lots. This one really ......... doesn°t affect anyone off the cul-de-sac. ..... H~ 'fu~ 'stated he had a pr~i'~ ~ith 'how 't~e square. footage that is added to the house after it was reviewed by .the!7.Planning Commission. This is what makes a sham of the hearingS'-~' viewing and discussing house sizes. He is willing to t~is house size'due to the location and size of houses in the immediate area. Chairman Burger stated 5he was not so concerned about the sq. ft. but was concerned about .the bulk on the lot and that it sits higher than the lot ne×t to it. Commissioners SIEGFRIED/HARRIS moved to deny application. Denied 4-2 with Pines and Peterson opposed to denial. Applicant has 10 days to appeal. \ ........ Th~ ~bl~can~ asked that this matter 'be brought before a study session and therefore reconsider it. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS motioned to reconsider 'a~d bring this to a study session and public hearing o n J u n e 25. ~n carried 6/0. 7. V-738 - Bohn, request for variance approval from front yard setback to construct a 6 ft. gate, 20 .ft. from edge of right-of-way where 30 ft. is required at · 14124 Pike Rd. in the NHR zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented staff report and Commissioner Hart is presented land use visit. · Commissioner Siegfried questioned whether this· traffic and there would be quite a bit parking inside the gate. Public hearing was opened at 9:22PM. Applicant Mike Dillon explainedxthere-.were fairly large structures on.._~bo_th: ~s-i-des .... of the road. · Would like to have a 6 ft. gate to give a good scale. He 'also stated tt~a~T Pike'R6ad'.is--a.priva~e road. a~d " the._gate is-' 30 ft; back'' from the pr6per~y' lin~.. s-tructura.'lly~ it would'...be very .d'ifficult. tO have a 3' ft.' high, 6 ft. long gate and b~v.e' i~. hold-. .tQg. ether~.. It woUld be' .~ery easy to bash down with a vehicle~ "'- Commissioner Harris asked for clarification 'of .... materials, and the applicant stated it was wrought iron with landscaping on both sides. Mr. Di 1 lon further stated it would be very attractive with pilasters on the front and it was designed for front entry. P~,anni~g Commission M.' nutes - 6/11/86 Page 7 "Commissioner Guch stated that the top of the fence would be level. The majority of the fence is 3 ft. and because the drive- way is below the mounds on either side, it is not raising the fence up 3 ft., but is filling in the bottom." Commissioner Pines concurred. Commissioners PINES/PETERSON moved to approve V-738 with the Findings as described in Exhibit B. Passed 6-0. SM-31 Bohn, request for modification to site plan to construct 1,440 sq. ft. patio at rear of home on a 13% slope and concrete pad at west side of garage at 14124 Pike Road in the NHR zoning district. Commissioner Pines inquired about the landscaping and whether a plan was available or should be presented at design review. Staff responded that there was none but is required under City Code. Staff would ensure one was submitted if the Ccmnission wished. After discussion Chair Burger s~,~,arized that consensus was not to begin enforcement of landscape plan but in- clude it as an item of discussion when we cover design review to get some idea of what kind of landscaping the Planning' ~Commission wants. Planning Director Hsia presented his staff report and Conmlissioner Harris presented a site visit report. Public hearing was opened at 9:39 P.M. Mr. Dillion, applicant, stated he had a new landscape plan for the rear of the hane and_presented it to the Planning Commission and stated the spa has been eliminated. Cc~f~ssioner Harris asked for clarification of trees around the patio' - area. The applicant stated there are very large trees on both sides of the house to. reduce the bulk but won't block the view. There are also oak trees on the front of the house to reduce the bulk. He further stated a terraced effect creates another horizontal line and reduced bulk. There will also be plant 'material and ornate railing around the patio that will aid in reducing the bulk of the house. Com,~ssioner Pines expressed his problem with the pad off the garage. He could not go along with RV parking in the side yard. It should have been .considered at design review. Canmissioner Siegfried stated he would prefer to see a truck parked in the garage or the driveway. Cun. f,~ssioners PINES/SIEGFRIED moved to approve the patio and deny the concrete pad with staff Planning Commission Minutes - 8/11/86 Page 8 reconmendations eliminating condition #2. Condition #4 is ~mended to read "landscaping per plan dated 5/4/86," submitted to the .Planning Conmission at the June llth meeting. PaSSed 5-1 ~o~[th Cc~missioner'Harris' opposed -bec_~ause 'there is not enough landscaping at the rear. 9. V-755 - Suit, request for variance from required side and rear yard to construct detached garageto within 6 'ft. of the side property line'where 10 ft. is required and 6 ft. from rear property line where 25 ft. is required and variance from height ""limitation to allow 15 ft.6 in. garage where 10 ft. is allowed at 18915 Devon Avenue in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented staff report, and the public hearing was opened at 9:50PM. Mr.' Bii~ ~Ey-rep~eSent~d the applicant, Thbmas'S~it;7'and .... · explained the-. building wa~. destrQyed. by~-a faI.~ing ~' tree and tli~ owner though~'~e could just rebuild. The structure is ohly'l ft. higher than the old structure. He further stated the c~rrent ordinance would'allow. existing setback with a flat roof but would be less attractive than what is there now'. Mr. Kusum Vidajage, 18955 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga, stated he was surprised the building was almost complete without permits. He lives right in back of the garage and stated the hobby room disturbed his family with power saws 'etc.. He further stated his bedroom is only 25 ~t. away from the hobby room. Mr. Gerald Chang, 18901 Devon, stated he lives immediately next door to Mr. Suit on the right. He stated his kitchen is less than 10 ft. from the structure and he has no problem with the hobby room or noise from it. He stated he did not hear a sound and that he goes to bed at 8:30 P.M.- Tom Clark, 18887 Devon Avenue~ stated the depth of the building was the same but the width has been changed. .He stated the applicant has added. to the beauty of the building. CommissionerSiegfried would like to get a better feel of neighbors' living area adjacent to the structure. Commissioner Peterson stated the 1120 sq. ft.unit is almost as big as .the house. .... ~ ~.-Planning Commission Minutes - 6/11/86 Page 9 Chair Burger stated it was the consensus of the Commission to get more detailed information, especi- ally regarding how it impacts the neighbors. Commissioner Peterson suggested a site visit before the study session. Consensus to adjourn the regular meeting to 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, June 2~tha~theConmUnity Center meeting room to'make a decision at that time. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Callandar Assoc. re joint study sessf~n - Villa Montalvo Master Plan, June 16th, 1986. · Due to a conflict in schedules, the Commissioners could not attend and agreed that the July 1, Committee-of-the- ~Whole meeting would be an appropriate date. Staff to contact Callander Assoc. Oral by Commission Planning Commission adjourned at 10:40 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 17, to make a decision on V-735, following a site visit. Respectfully submitted, Yuchuek Hsia Secretary of the Planning Commission YH:mj