Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-25-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, June 25, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theatre, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call Present: Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Pines and Chairman Burger. Absent: Commissioners Harris and Peterson. Following are changes to Minutes of 6/11/86. Commissioner Siegfried made the following changes: On page 2, C-231, after statement from Siegfried ending "because of a misunderstanding", add the following comment as Change #1: He stated that he didn't want any developers to believe that if they come in with something that matches the numbers, that this would get approved. He would like it clarified that these numbers are only guidelines. On page 4, at the end of the comment on A-1144 change this paragraph to read as Change #2: Commissioner Siegfried commented that when an item such as this that has been before the Commission previously and comes up again where there will be recommendations to change a driveway or whatever, 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. On page 6, insert a sentence before the motion to reconsider add Change #3: The applicant asked that this matter be brought before a study session and therefore reconsider it. Commissioner Pines made the following changes: At the bottom of page 2, the sentence should read: He further stated the Commission and developers should be aware that what is stated in the ordinance are guidelines. Page 3, second to the last paragraph, the word "movement" should be in quotes. Page 4, after the first sentence, add the comments from Bill Heiss: Mr. Heiss discussed the grading and commented that no matter where you move the house on the site, you are basically talking about the total number of cut and fill being the same. Page 4, 3rd paragraph, should read: Commissioner Guch confirmed that the retaining walls were near the garage and stepped. The next to the last paragraph, page 4, change sentence to read: Neighbors ~ave nothing to say in the process of continuance, but have thousands of dollars at stake. Change the motion on A-1184, page 5, to read: Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 6/25/86 Commissioners HARRIS/SIEGFRIED moved to deny without prejudice because the applicant never answered any of the staff correspondence. Denied 6-0. Page 5, A-1197, 4th paragraph, sentence should read "there was no give-and-take when he wanted to build a second story to his house." Page 6, 2nd paragraph, last sentence should read: He further stated he had a problem with how the square footage that is added to the house after it was reviewed by the Planning Commission. This is what makes a sham of the hearings in reviewing and discussing house sizes. He is willing to allow this house size due to the location and size of houses in the immediate area. Page 6, V-738, second paragraph, first sentence, should read: Commissioner Siegfried questioned whether this gate would have any impact on traffic or parking? Third paragraph, 3rd sentence should read, "He also stated that Pike Road is a private road and the gate is 30 ft. back from the property line." Page 7, first paragraph, should read: "Commissioner Guch stated that the top of the fence would be level. The majority of the fence is 3 ft. and because the driveway 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." Page 7, after "Pines concurred", the next two paragraphs should be under the discussion of the landscaping issue. Page 7, 3rd paragraph from bottom, should read: "Commissioner 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. Page 8, V-735, 2nd paragraph, first sentence should read: "Mr. Bill Ey represented the applicant, Thomas Suit, and explained the building was destroyed by a falling tree and the owner thought he could just rebuild." Commissioner Burger had the following corrections to the minutes: Page 1, under corrections from previous minutes, change should read: " ..... and the green line refers to gradual grading at the rear of the lots." Page 3, under item #4, 2nd paragraph, first sentence should read: "Commissioner Siegfried questioned how much grading would be involved if the driveway was relocated." Page 4, first full paragraph, last sentence, should read: "Commissioner Burger stated she was greatly impressed with the architect's attempt to respond to the Planning Commission's concerns." Page 5, change spelling of "CHARLES ARING". Page 9, under "Written Communications", change date of study session from June 16th to June 26, 1986. Changes to Minutes of Regular Adjourned P.C. Meeting of 6/17/86: Page 2, last paragraph, motion should be made separately, as follows: SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE the variance subject to the conditions listed below. Motion carried 5-0. . Page 2, after roofing, add: "basically because of the side expansion." Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 6/25/86 WELCOME Commissioner Burger expressed a "Welcome Aboard" sentiment to Bob Johnston, minutes clerk, and the four new Associate/Assistant Planner additions to the Planning Department: Valarie Young; Lisa Welge; Bob Calkins; and Janet Harbin. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP-504 - Kimball & Martha Small, request for use permit approval for a home tour at 20131Rancho Bella Vista, in the R-I-20,000 zoning district. Passed 4-0 2. A-1182 - Pan C'al Investment Co., request for design review approval for two, single-story residences on Lots 1 and 10, Tract 7794, Via Escuela Dr., in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. Passed 4-0 3. A-1197 - Gallo, request for design review approval of a new, two-story home 28 ft. in height and 6,250 sq. ft. in area where 4,800 sq. ft. is allowed at 20130 Rancho Bella Vista, in the R-i-20,000 zoning district. (Continued to 7/9/86). 4. A-1203 - Lacroute, request for design review approval for construction of a new home that exceeds 6,200 sq. ft. standard on 22% slope on Star Ridge Ct., Parker Ranch, Lots 45 and 46, Tr. 6528, in the NHR zoning district. (Continued to 7/9/86). 5. SDR-1623 - Coffey, request for tentative map approval for one single family residential lot located on Miljevich Drive, east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. in the R-1-t2,500 zoning district. Passed 4-0 6. A-1177 - Heber Teerlink, request for design review approval to construct a two-story residence on a hillside lot and to grade in excess of 1,000 cu. yds. combined cut and fill on · Heber Way, Lot 13, Tr. 6781 in the NHR zoning district. (Continued to 7/9/86). PINES-SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE (Items 1, 2 and 5). Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger moved to continue Items Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in the Consent Calendar to 7/9/86. Planning Commission Page Minutes - Meeting 6/25/86 PUBLIC'HEARINGS 7. A-1210 - Kenny, request for design review approval for construction of second story addition to an existing home to allow the residence to exceed the 4,800 sq. ft. standard at 15052 Piedmont Rd. in the R-I-20,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened at 7:49 p.m. Commissioner Pines questioned a drawing submitted by the applicant, showing a building setback line of 25', when the staff report showed rear yard setback of 35'. The correct figure is 35'. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that the Report to Planning Commission, Agenda Item #7, Page.19, paragraph 2, should be "the applicant HAS." Commissioner Guch presented Land Use Committee Report showing that the property is on one acre in an R-1 zone, left relatively with an average site slope of 10%, and is under obligation of a Vegetation ordinance. Mr. Michael Layne, representing the Kennys, wanted to discuss the staff recommendation in Issue 7, which deals with the oak tree. Mr. Barry Coate, horticulturist consultant for the city, visited the site, inspected the tree and made a report of his findings (copies of which were distributed to The Commissioners). He respectfully asked for further consideration on the issue of the oak tree because his clients were very desirous of retaining the window seat. He said that the height of the oak tree would be affected by the trimming of branches. The City Horticulturist's findings state that 1/Sth of the canopy could be removed. His feeling was that the tree was a very vigorous, young tree, that would not be adversely affected by branch removal. He further stated that the Planning Commission's recommendations were followed during the process of construction. He requested that the small window seat be allowed to remain, by trimming the branch off the tree. Commissioner Pines felt that the report of the horticulturist was agreeable to Mr. Layne's assertion, and his request was, therefore, not unreasonable. PiNES~UCH MOVED TO CLOSE T.~ PUBLIC 'HEARING. .- .... ... "'- SIEGFRiED/PINES.MOVED TO ~PPROVE~A-1210, subject to deleting c6ndition 7 of the staff~ report and resolution, and adopting recommendation set out in the'report-of the City Horticulturist.'~ Passed 4-0. 8. SDR-1622 Hobbs, request for approval of negative declaration and 5-lot residential subdivision of 3.25 acres of partially developed property located at 13500 Saratoga Ave. in the R-i-20,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia presented the staff report. Planning Director Hsia indicated that there were two conditions attached to this application: The first, on Exhibit "A", height of structure, should read, "Lots 1 and 4." The staff were concerned that exhibits received showed the street would go through from Fruitvale Ave. to Ronnie Way, which would be in violation of the general plan. He expressed concern as to whether or not the Land of Kerwin property would be able to open future lots, because of traffic patterns. Traffic access to Ronnie Way would be by way of Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues. This comprises the amended exhibit in the staff report, revised page 37. Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 6/25/86 Mr. Toppel, the City Attorney, said that the Lands of Kerwin are not the subject of this application. The only concern at present is about the Kelly-Gordon subdivision; and people were in attendance who would be addressing that issue. Assistant Planner Caldwell said that the negative declaration in exhibit before The Commissioners, addressed requirements of traffic distribution. The schematic (page 37) was only an exhibit to show the possibility of distributing traffic without the negative impact. The City Attorney felt that it was a planning issue at the location of the cul-de-sac. He said that if it could be connected with the Kerwin property, there would be the possibility of other linkage to other lots using it as a means of access to Saratoga Ave., and that that was the only purpose for the exhibit. Commissioner Pines asked if there was any criteria of what can be one-story. Assistant Planner Caldwell said it was totally at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Guch pointed out that the entire development to the rear of the property is of one-story homes. Commissioner Guch presented Land Use Committee report describing the property and surrounding land use. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, engineer, appeared for the applicant. He said that making a left turn off Saratoga into the property, what is required now is to go down to the signal light and make a U-turn; so basically, with the present arrangement, it is a right turn in and a right turn out of the property. Commissioner Burger also felt it poses a problem for Scotland Dr. traffic. Commissioner Pines also was concerned about the turn. Mr. Heiss felt that the problem could be alleviated by modifying the safety island, or create some left-turn lanes within the island. Commissioner Guch felt that was a very good point and should be studied; as did Commissioner Pines, who suggested a reduction of the landscape and making another turn lane. Commissioner Burger felt it is an extremely dangerous condition. Commissioner Pines felt a mini-study should be made to see if the turn situation should not be completely closed, especially with the addition of nine lots in the area; and that the City Engineer should look into it. Toppel said that the situation can be conditioned so that the effect would be that the safety island was configured to prohibit left turns into the proposed street from Saratoga Ave., as it was approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Pines suggested closing off Scotland Ave., diagonally across Saratoga Ave. Mr. Heiss feels that in any case all concerned would have to wait until the suggested study is completed. A neighborhood resident, Carol Machol, said that the area had always been composed of single-story homes. She presented a petition signed by residents of Ronnie Way, who feel that the project should only be restricted to single-story houses, and that privacy of the neighbors will be assured; and the preservation of low density of Kentfield area. Mr. Robert Cooper also spoke as a friend of The Commission and expressed his desire that the beauty and peace of the neighborhood be assured through, what he expressed was the good work of the Planning Commission. David Cooper (not related) also felt that the openness and beauty of the hills should remain. Mr. Don Bowden, also a Ronnie Way resident, feels disappointed because of the development, but is not adverse to it. He wants the rural atmosphere to be retained. Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 6/25/86 Discussion about pad elevation followed, which would involve the construction of one and two-story homes. Brian Kelly, the applicant, was of the understanding that he and the Planning Commission would not be getting into a discussion of this matter during tonight's meeting. Mr. Bill Heiss indicated the pad elevations are required on which to build a house; indicated because of the ground which falls toward the rear of the property, and poses some problems, like drainage. Commissioner Burger asked him about drainage toward the street. Mr. Heiss said that the street would be put in as low a grade as possible; a storm line would be set in the street, bringing drainage from the property. The backyards could be sloped in their natural configuration and water brought out by a small pipeline. Commissioner Siegfried wanted to know about house style, etc., and asked about the possibility of reducing size. Mr. Kelly felt that could be done on an individual basis during the design phase with the Planning Commission. He mentioned the company's intent was to build homes in the 3,600 sq. ft. range. Commissioner Burger said that parameters can be established, consisting of height or story limitation. Commissioner Pines was of the opinion that there was nothing to justify two-stories to get square footgage on the site, because of the largeness of the lots. PINE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger said that she was very much in favor of limiting the five homes to single-story height, and was in agreement with that discussed by the other Commissioners. She was greatly concerned about the corner location and its traffic problems. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SDR-1622, WITH CONDITION AND RESOLUTION FOR SDR-1622, changing condition #l. to read: "The height and construction on Lots 1 and 4 should not exceed 22 feet"; and adding conditions "that all homes on the lots to be single story; and that the applicant shall submit a traffic circulation plan showing prohibition of any left turn into subdivision from Saratoga Avenue; and such plan shall be subject to City Engineering approval." Passed 4-0. 9. C-231 - Consider approval of negative declaration and amendments to the zoning regulations of the City of Saratoga to create an ordinance to establish a Planned Development Zoning Classification to allow multiple uses on a single ...... site having such designation pursuant to PD permit. Planning Director Hsia presented the staff report. Mr. Toppel, the City Attorney, spoke of a revised ordinance, dated June 18th; the draft incorporates only changes that were agreed upon by The Commission, but does not address the issue discussed at this meeting. He said that The Commission has the authority to move guidelines either up or down. With reference to senior citizen housing the language dealing with the ambulatory or bedridden in the ordinance, is stricken. The section dealing with the site area was changed from "net" to "gross". Results are also needed relative to parking for senior citizen housing, regardless of what area may be involved. The Planning Director, Mr. Hsia, asked The Commission to consider that "senior citizen housing may include facilities for rendering health care services and medical treatment for patients residing at the project" (reading from page 43 of report). He said that at the bottom of the page, after the phrase "facilities," a comma should be placed and the words "if appropriate" added. Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 6/25/86 Discussion followed regarding hotel/motel density, presented with the idea that it would be 400 sq. ft. per room, and if applicable to this site, would not be appropriate. He felt that the area should be 750 to 800 sq. ft. Commissioner Pines asked if floor area was to be used rather than room count. Mr. Hsia talked about the hotel issue first; felt that he was more comfortable using room count. Mr. Pine said that he wanted to emphasize Item "F", under Section 15-21,010 (Purpose of Article) in the report; and Mr. Hsia said that that item needs to be changed to .4, or 150 rooms. Commissioner Guch said it has to be understood in the context of Item "F", and it really worried her. Mr. Hsia queried about what would happen if it were changed to read "maximum density", and Mr. Pines said it could be changed to "guideline density", and it might be emphasized by saying "subject to paragraph (whatever), a proposed guideline." Mr Hsia: "or suggested density", to which Commissioner Guch agreed with that term. It was also stated by Mr. Hsia that what he suggested was a senior citizen house with medical facilities, if appropriate. Mr. Toppel's intent was to include that description in the proposal. It should say, he said, "3,000 sq. ft. per unit, plus area for medical facilities, as determined by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Guch felt that relative low density is the idea she wanted to convey, and over-development should be avoided. Mr. Pines felt that anything of a mixed nature cannot be provided for in conglomerated sites. Commissioner Burger asked for a consensus to call it "density guidelines" with a reference in sub-paragraph "A", back to paragraph "F", in section 15-21.010. Commissioner Burger opened the public hearing at 9:14 P.M. Don Skinner, PMC Associates, stated he understood the standards were guidelines. He felt there should be no concern about floor area ratio problems. Planning Director Hsia noted that on page 53, under Subsection "C", Multiple Family Dwellings, he would like to change the word "one" additional space on the site, to "half" additional space, for senior housing. The main section would not be involved. This would be more flexible and create a more open space area for the site. Instead of having two parking slots per unit for seniors, there would be only 1.5. Chairman Burger agreed, for those used exclusively by senior citizens, and asked for a consensus. Mr. Toppel said that the "parking" article was being amended and would apply city-wide. Within the article is the restriction that parking should be on.the site. Chairman Burger called for closure of the public hearing. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED THAT the negative declaration resolution, C-231, be approved, subject to amendments. Passed 4-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written and Oral ADJOURNMENT GUCH/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO ADJOURN. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted,