Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CO~MISSION DATE: Tuesday, 3une l?, lgaG - ?:~O p.m. PLACE: Senior Cen~er ~ee~ing Room, 19GEE Allendale Rue. TYPE: Regular Adjourned Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Ouch= Harris= Peterson~ Siegfried, Chairman Burger Absent= Commissioner Pines l. U-735 - Suit, requesting variance fro~ side and rear yard and height limitation ~o construct detached garage at 18915 Devon Rue. Public hearing continued 7:32 p.n. ~r. Ey, designer for the project, 420 Union, Campbell, reviewed his co~ents ~ro~ ~he ~eeting of ~une 11, lgBG. He stated ~hat the new construction is only adding one (1) foot of height to the original garage, the shape of the lot justified the additional heigh~ and the location backing up to a conmarcia1 center justified ~he setback. Mr. Ey stated that he drew the plans after ~he job had been stopped by the Cit~ and the garage was already constructed. PETERSON/HARRIS HOUEO TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HERRING. The public hearing was closed at 7:37 p.~. Comnissioner Harris expressed concern ~ith ~he process ~hat the variance was required prior to receiving a permit and the Planning Commission ~as being asked to approve the variance after-the-fact. She felt that the garage impacted the neighbor to the rear. She could not have nade the required findings before construction and could not now Rake the~. Commissioner Paterson stated that the similar situation had been before the Planning Co~Rission a number of times. The Commission needed to appl~ ~he "fairness doctrine." The neighbor's ho~e is far a~ay and Owens commercial projec~ ~as not i~pacted. The new garage, however, is a very large structure and the Plannlng Commission is being aked to hake a decision after-the-fact. Commissioner Siegfried stated that ~he garage was there previously. The lot was odd shaped and he had no problem with the expansion ~o ~he rear. The neighbors see ~ore Planning Commission - Minutes Regular Adjourned Meeting - G/I?/aG Page Z U-735= cont, roofline, basically because of the side expansion. The neu garage can be effectively landscaped; hovevet, he would never have granted it if it was requested now. His concern was not with the rear extension, but the extension towards the Commissioner Guch would not have a problem if the old garage uas reconstructed; however= the rear structure, a "lean-to shed" was not part of the permanent structure. The hobby room is a definite expansion to the rear and side. Although not an impact on the Ovens property, the Planning needs to take a hardline on building and then coming in for approval. She could not have granted the request Made prior to building the Chairman Burger summarized ~he concensus that the rear addi- tion is okay and is similar to the structure tub lots doun. The e×pansion to ~he side is a problem because the roofline impacts the neighbor to the Commissioner Harris reminded the Commission that ~he struc- ture could accomoda~e two <Z) cars ui~hou~ ~he hobbyroo~. Chairman Burger stated that if ~he side expansion hated, the hobby room could still be in the rear. 7:50 p.m. public hearing reopened upon concensus of the ~r. Uidanage, the neighbor to the vest, expressed concern with the excessive noise that would result if the hobby room was alloued. The city attorney stated that noise uas not the subject of the variance and not to be addressed ui~h this hearing. The public hearing was closed at ?:52 SZEGF~ZED/HRR~ZS MOVED TD APPROVE the variance, subject the follouing conditions: Hotion carried 1. The applicant shall remove that portion of the hobby room e×tending to the west side beyond the uall of the garage as previously 2. Landscaping to be installed along the northuesterly corner of the structure to shield the neighbor. Plan to be submitted to staff prior to issuance of a permit and installed prior to final inspection or occupancy. The Planning Commission uould allow the extension to the rear. Planning CoR~ission - Hinutes Regular Adjourned Meeting - G/I?/AG Page 3 U-735, cont. The f~ndings to support the variance 1. The lot ~s odd shaped and the house ~s located on the so that a garage could not be placed elsewhere. 2, R significant portion of the structure was there previously. 3, The structure backs up to a commercial lot which is not 1ripacted. 4. There is a similar structure that sits on the property line tuo (2) lots away. ChairMan Burger stated that the decision could be appealed within 10 calendar days, ADJOURNMENT HARRIS/PETERSON MOVED TO RDjOURH THE MEETIHG, Passed S-D, The ~eeting uas adjourned at ?:SS Respectful.i~ submitted. i,~uek Hsia ' / etary YH/~C/dSC