Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: July 23, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitv~le Avenue, Saratoga, CA Roll Call: Present: C~-,~ssioners Guch, Siegfried, Harris, Pines, Approval of Minutes: Relative to the Minutes of July 9, 1986 the following changes were Cummissioner Guch page 4, third paragraph: change to read "C~mdssioner Guch said that she originally had a great deal of difficulty...,, On page 9, paragraph ten to read: "Ccamnissioner Guch feels that there is no complaint in the way staff handled the Safeway problem, and that ample warning had been given; however, caution should be exercised to avoid over-reaction." C~i~-dssioner Pines page 4, first paragraph, second sentence: addition of the word "two story" to read, "He would be more concerned if other two story houses were build along Mendelsohn Ave." Cc~i~i-dssioner Harris page 1, end of the changes to the Minutes of June 25, 1986: add "The Minutes were approved as amended. Commissioner Harris abstained, having been absent from the June 17, 1986 Planning CcmmLission Meeting." On page 2, paragraph 8 to more clearly indicate that LL-16 was approved with a Condition as stated in paragraph 3, "and he (CcmmLissioner Siegfried) would like to add the condition that if sc~e time in the future an error in calculation was discovered, the builder would still be obligated by the density which was previously approved." This sentence is On page 7, last paragraph, third sentence, delete the word "active" to read: "One of the opposition ' s strongest stipulations was not having second units in the R-1-10,000 zone, because it w~s felt those areas so zoned, could be the most impacted in town." On page 9, paragraph 8: delete the word "others" to read, "Cc~missioners Siegfried and Pines feel..." and adding a sentence to the end of the paragraph to read, · "Cc~midssioner Harris stated that if other merchants in the city are required to apply for Permits for sidew-d/k sales, these marchants should not be exempted." PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPRDVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 9, 1986 PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. Additions and Deletions to the Aqenda: Planning Director Hsia stated that the Written Ccmmunication regarding Mr. Steve Pearson be withdrawn per the Applicant 's request. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. 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 8/13/86) 2. V-737 - Robert G. Seid, request for variance approval for a free-starding identification sign for dental offices at 20444 Prospect Rd. in the C-V zoning district. " Oneeting Planning Canmdssi Page 2 July 23, 1986 CONSENT CAL~qDAR (Continued) 3. S~R-1628 - Dr. Marcus Bitter, request for tentative building site approval for a 19000 sq. ft. site in the P-A zoning district. Property located at 19040 Cox Avenue. 4. SM-33 - Yang, request for approval of plans to construct a redwood deck on a slope greater than 10% at 12889 Chiquita Ct. in the NHR zoning district. Cnmmissioner Guch requested that Item 2 be removed frc~ Consent Calendar. SEIGFRIED/ HARRIS MINED TO APPROVE CONSENT CAI.RNDAR WITH ITEM 2 Pa~3VED FRCM CAI.~qDAR. ITEM 1 TO BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 13, 1986. Passed 5-0 2. V-737- Robert G. Seid, request for variance approval for a free-standing identification sign for dental offices at 20444 Prospect Rd. in the C-V zoning district. Planning Director Hsia stated that the proposed sign would be 6 feet in height; Staff have no issues and recc~fend approval of this application per the Resolution and the Findings in Exhibit A-1. C~L-~,~ssioner Harris reported on the Site Visit. C~m-dssioner Guch c~m~ented that the proposed placement of the sign is in a landscaped median strip to the left of the building; this placement will create confusion as to what the sign is identifying. The Public Hearing w-as opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Robert Seid, Applicant, clarified the placement of the sign and stated that additional landscaping is being done by the property owners. He stated t_hat the sign will not be an obstruction to traffic nor is the sign Objectionable in appearance. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 5-0. C~¥dssioner Harris concurred with Commissioner Guch that placement of a sign in the proposed location might cause confusion. The C~fassioner disagreed with Staff assessment that the design of the building and the landscaping would prevent placement of a sign attached to the building itself; an attached sign is more desirable than a monument sign. The Cammission has been strict in not allowing monument signs; instances where monument signs were permitted do not apply to this situation. Due to the nature of this business, people will have prior appointmants and will be seeking a specific address. Granting this application would be a special privilege. Commissioner Guch suggested that the landscaped strip along the front of the building would be a more suitable place for a sign; however, a 6 foot sign is excessive for identification of this type of business. Chairwoman Burger concurred regarding the height of the proposed sign. C~.~dssioner Seigfried concurred that individuals will be looking for a specific address; a sign for this business requires a visible address and the information that this is a dental office. Cc~missioner Pines agreed, but cautioned that putting the sign in front of the building where there are no plantings at present may require the applicant to plant the area in question. The building is paved to the street. Secondly, the Commissioner questioned the statement in staff report that there were no issues. Planner Calkins stated that the Variance request results from the prohibition against free standing signs in this zoning district. HARRIS/GUCH MDVE~ TO DENY V-737. Passed 5-0. Planning emmnission Page 3 July 23, 1986 5. V-740 - Joseph/Stella Shuster, request for variance approval to al 1 ow overhead power and tel ephone 1 ines, where under~founding is required at 20773 Ashley Way in the R-l-12,500 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia stated that the issues of this request for Variance to allow the installation of a new overhead power pole are: 1) The potentially adverse visual impact of the new power pole 2 ) The precedent-setting nature of an Appz~val in this case 3) Staff's inability to substantiate the required findings for a Variance Planner Calkins stated that the Applicant had revised his application; the applicant proposes to erect the new pole on his own property. Planning Director Hsia stated that Staff reoa~.tends denial of the Variance.' Cammissioner Guch reported on the Site visit. Cha~ Burger introduced into the record two additional letters; one frum Mr. David O. Weibel and one frum Mr. Robert C. Smith beth of whom reside on Ashley Way. In response to Cammissioner Harris' question regard/rig what other point in time could the City under~ these power lines, Deputy City Attorney Baird stated that in this situation, the only time the Commission could require the power lines to be under~ed is at the initial installation. In this case, the lines will be run across the easement area. The undel~g re~t would be waived by granting the Variance unless the approval was conditioned on a duration of time or scme other performance standard. In response to Cc~missioner Pines' question regarding conditioning the Variance upon bending should the rest of the overhead be under~ed at seine future time, Mr. Baird stated that this would be a reasonable condition of the Variance. Planner Calkins explained that the easenent runs along the property line and is on Mr. Shuster's property. In response to Cummissioner Pines' question, Mr. Calkins stated that the way the Hill Property is being developed, the junction bex which supplies the power is located approximately where the tamporary pole is. In response to questions by the Oa~Hssioners, Deputy City Attorney confirmed that it is too late in the process for the Cun~-assion to condition the subdivision for additional The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Joseph Shuster, 20773 Ashley Way, Saratoga, Applicant, stated that he had been in contact with P.G.& E. The 160 foot easement has been on his property for 20 years; originally, he proposed to take the power lines all the way to the street and put the junction bex near Ashley Way. This was not feasible since there were underground cables on the Hill property already. The undel~ trench is already in place frum the Hill property to the Shuster Property. P.G.& E. plans to bring the power to the Hill Property junction bex so that they can service additional adjacent sites. In response to the Staff Report, Mr. Shuster stated that: 1) The vi~m] impact, which is very important to people, is not an issue for him; there has been a power pole in their back yard for 23 years which serves four residences. Any visual impact frum this power pole is minimal. 2) Regarding the establishment of a precedent; he stated that a precedent would be established if a property owner who has developed his property for 22 years, is then required to dig a trench measuring 4 feet deep and 18 inches wide, with the resulting destruction of mature trees. The Applicant stated that use of the power pole is the best alternate approach to providing power for newly-developed sites at the cost of a very minor visual impact. In response to C~.~assioner Harris' question, Mr. Shuster stated that when he purchased the property he had no knowledge of e~_~ements thereon. The Grant Deed did not contain a description of these easements. The easement was recorded within a month of the recording date for the subdivision and was never shown to buyers of the property. The pole ba~ been in for over 20 years. Planning Cc~mission Page 4 J~ly 23, 1986 ITEM 5 (Continued) Mr. Dave Weibel, 20767 Ashley Way, Saratoga, reaffirmed his concern that c~L.~n sense prevail in this situation. Although the proposed power pole would be located directly in front of his property, he does not find placement of the pole objectionable. He feels the Shusters are being inconvenienced by a lack of planning on the part of the contractor and urged approval of the Variance. Mr. Jim Hill, 12192 Atrium Drive, Saratoga stated that neither he nor the contractor determined where the power would c~me in. He would have objections to the Variance if the power poles were to be located on his property; since the application is amended and the pole will be on the Shuster property with a 5 foot setback, minimizing its visibility, he has no objection. Mr. Hill stated his concerns as: 1) The integrity of the power lines that extend along a tree line. He questioned whether storms would interfere with the power supply 2) Ad__aitional power needs for undeveloped lots; P.G.& E. cannot guarantee that the pole will not have to be enlarged nor that transformers will not have to be added to meet future needs. PINES/HARRIS MDVED TO CLOSE THE [UBLIC HEARING. Passed 5-0 C~.~,~ssioner Pines stated that the Curemission has approved a similar case and questioned the statement that granting this Variance would set a precedent. He stated that the would be a greater impact frcm unde~3rounding power lines on developed property. The few residents affected by the requested Variance have given their approval; Cnmmissioner Pines favors the granting of this Variance. Ccmnissioner Guch concurs that this Variance application is not precedent setting; since the area is served by power poles, this application cannot be regarded as an issue of special privilege. Trenching of the Shuster property would have greater impact than that resulting from use of overhead lines. Commissioner Guch favors the granting of this Variance. Ccm~nissioner Pines added that the C~m~-,~ssion has created other easements in the past. If the Ccmmdssion feels strongly that the power line should be undel~ed, cannot the C~m~dssion request P.G.& E. and the property owner to est_~blish an easement on new property which is not landscaped? Oam~dssioner Fa~ris stated the Finding that it is an unnecessary physical hardship on the Shuster's to have their property disrupted by trenching. The Cc~ssion could have addressed this issue when the Hill property was approved. Cc~-dssioner Guch stated that approval of this application does not grant special privilege since the neighborhood as a whole is serviced by overhead lines. Commissioner Harris stated that given the proper set of circumstances, the Ccmnission strongly favors undergrounding power lines. Cammissioner Siegfried concurred and stated that when the C~u~-,~ssion has required undergrounding in the past it has accomplished other purposes; since this is at the tail end of the power line, undergrounding this e~lll portion accomplishes little and could increase the impact if mature trees are lost. C~m~-dssioner Harris asked that a Condition be added requiring screening of the power pole; Mr. Shuster agreed to planting a tree to screen the pole. Chairwuman Burger clarified that the Commission wishes to state that the power pole will be located on the Shuster property. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE V-740 PER THE STAFF REPOR~ DATED JULY 23, 1986, MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT IT WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL HARDSHIP TO REQUIRE UNDERGRg3NDING OF THE POWER LINE ON DEVELOPED AND SPEC/AL PRIVILEGE NOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRECEDENT SINCE OVERHEAD POWER T.TNES ARE OCM~ON IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD; SIMILAR VARIANCES HAVE RR~N APPROVED. CONDITIONS SHALL STIFJLATE THAT THE POWER POLE BE LOCATED ON THE SHUSTER PROPER~Y AND THAT THIS POLE BE PROPERLY SCRRRNED WITH NEW IANESCAPING. Passed 5-0 Planning Ccmnissionlting Page 5 July 23, 1986 6. V-746- Mr. & Mrs. Neal Atchinson, request for variance approval to allow the construction of a swimming pool to be built within 6 ft. of a side yard where 10 ft. is required for property located at 19770 Solana Dr. in the R-l-12,500 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia restated the scope of the application and noted the following issues: 1) Design options exist which allow the applicant to construct a pool in accordance with City Standards, including locating the same size and shaped pool along the rear property line, redesigning the shape of the pool to camply with City setback requirenents or reducing the width of the proposed pool by 4 ft. 2)Mandatory Findings cannot be made to support the Variance request. Staff recc~ea~ds denial of Application V-746. Site visit was made by C~m~-Hssioner Guch. She stated that the plans presented to the Commission do not reflect s~me of the changes on the property: i.e. an entrance now closed off by landscaping; the garage attached to the house; entrance to the garage at the front of property and a pad for an R-V; there is no longer a circular drive. Correction of the plans presented to the C~.mission to read 6 feet side setback and 9 feet rear setback. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. Mr. Atc/~inson, 19770 Solana Dr., Saratoga, Applicant, stated that he had a motor hcme which was sold in 1977; he has no plans to buy another motor home. He corrected the figure on the Technical Information Sheet, Size of Structure, to read 3,000 sc~_are feet, not 1929 square feet as listed. The applicant noted that his neighbor ba~ a pool in a similar location in his yard. He did not realize that a Variance application would have to be made until the plans were submitted. Mr. Atchinson suhnitted to staff on the Site visit letters from neighbors stating that they have no objections to the proposed pool; the applicant also submitted a letter of his own. These letters were not received by the City due to illness of the staff person who received them on the Site visit. Mr. Iscm, Lifetime Swimming Pools, provided information regarding the pool, placement of the pool with respect to the property and urged approval of this Variance. PINES/GUC~ MDVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 5-0 In response to' Ccmnission Siegfried's question, Mr. Isom stated that of the 6 feet between pool and side property line, 3 feet would be landscaped. C~L,~ssioner Harris stated her reluctance to grant a Variance in such cases; however, she noted that the neighbors have a pool. Oa~ufdssioner Siegfried caromanted that, due to the pool in the neighbor's yard, and the fact that the back of the property abuts the freeway corridor, there is no reason not to grant a Variance. C~u~-,~ssioner Pines concurred. Chairwoman Burger, favorable toward the Variance request, added a Condition rec~ing three to four feet of landscaping along the side yard. Commissioner Pines stated that special privilege could be addressed by noting the fact that the adjacent property has similar pool placement; it is a common privilege for the neighbor. Deputy City Attorney suggested to the Cammission that clarification be made regarding the distance of the side yard setback so that the Variance can properly state the distance being encroached. PINES/SIEGE MOVED TO APPROVE V-746 WITH THE FINDINGS THAT SINCE THERE IS AN EXISTING POOL ON AN AEUACEME SITE WITH THE SAME SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED AND DUE TO THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OF A FREEWAY CORRIDOR AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERI~ THERE ARE NO REAR YARD NEIGHBORS Passed 4-1, Ommnissioner Guch opposed. C~u~-,~ssioner Siegfried left the Platoling Commission Maeting at 8:35 P.M. Planning Cummission Page 6 July 23, 1986 7. SD-1624 - Don Coffey, request for approval of Negative Declaration and tentative map approval for an 11 lot subdivision located on the northeast corner of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and Miljevich Dr. in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia stated that Staff had no issues in this application and recommended approval of a Negative Declaration and Tentative Map. Planner Calk/ns stated changes in Conditions I. O. deleting the word "and", to read "1 1/2 feet asphalt concrete..."; in Condition VI, D. insert the word "noise" to read "interior house level noise standards..." C~f,~ssioner Pines questioned the statement that there are no issues in an application concerned with two story buildings and a new development. With respect to Condition I. O, why is the Applicant required to overlay the entire width of Miljevich Drive? On Condition V. D., are early weg fire ale systems required of all homes in this vicinity? Planner Calkins explained that the Fire Chief recammended that this requirement should be included at the Tentative Map stage. Cc~ufdssioner Pines questioned Condition VI. C. prohibition of two story houses on Lots 7 and 8; he questioned why this prohibition applies to only two lots. This is a neighborhood of one story houses. Ccmm~issioner Harris stated that she would prefer alignment of the driveways for Lots 4 through 11 to exit off of the cul de sac; only Lot 3's driveway would open out to Miljevich Dr. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:50 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, representing the Applicant, stated his agreement to a rec~ement that Lots 4 through 11 be accessed from the cul de sac. With regard to the two story homesites, the Applicant would prefer this matter to be resolved during design review rather than as part of the Tentative Map Application. Lots 9, 10 and 11 are wider and could accommodate two story houses without significant impact. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE t~BLIC HEARING. Passed 4-0, Cc~missioner Siegfried absent. C~umissioner Pines stated his opposition to two story houses in this .location; he prefers imposing a Condition restricting number of stories rather than height. Chairwoman Burger concurred and favored a Condition restricting structures to one story or setting a height limitation for the subdivision. Cummissioner Guch is not in favor of two story houses on any of the Lots. C~.k-,~ssioner Harris would accept two story houses on Lots 5 and 6 since these are interior lots; Cha~ Burger would also accept two story houses on Lots 5 and 6. Planning Director Hsia stated that Staff reccmm~nds the height limitation rather than a limitation on number of stories. C~m~issioner Guch accepts the Conditions of this proposal. She favored amending the early warning fire alarm requiremant to apply to residences exceeding 5,000 feet and would like to see a Condition limiting height or prohibiting a second story in this area. The C~Hssioner is also favorable to orienting driveway access to the cul de sac. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECIARAfION. Passed 4-0, Commissioner Siegfried absent. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE SD-1624 PER STAFF REPOR~ OF JULY 23, 1986 CHANGING THE CONDITION VoD. ADDING "IN ANY RESIDENCE GREATER THAN 5,000 SQ. IT."; CONDITION VI.C. CHANGED TO READ "NO TWO STORY HOUSES WILL BE PERMITTED ON LOTS 1, 3, 4, 7 - 11; ~ 5 AND 6 WILL BE SUB3ECT TO APPROVAL AT A I2~TER DATE." CONDITION VI.D. ADDING THE WORD "NOISE" TO READ, "..INTERIOR HOUSE NOISE LEVEL STANDARD8..."; ADDING A CONDITION G. TO V/. TO READ THAT THE E~"v~i~aAYS FOR I3DTS 4 THROUGH 11 SH~;.I. ORIENT TO THE NEW CUL DE SAC. Passed 4-0, Cc~missioner Siegfried absent. C~.~,~ssioner Harris reiterated that the Planning Cc~mfdssion would like to see a diagram illustrating that if two story homes are proposed on Lot 5 or 6, these houses would be on a low level and conform to the area. Planning Ccmnission Page 7 July 23, 1986 8. S~R-1626 - Alan Pinn, request for tentative map approval to resubcLivide 12 lots into 9 lots ranging from 20,100 sq. ft. to 35,200 sq. ft. on property located off Hill Ave. between Vine Ave. at the east and Pleasant Ave. at the west in the R-l-20,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia stated that the major issue is: 1) The proposed subdivision is to be served by two cul de sac streets the lengths of which exceed the maximum allowable under the Subdivision Ordinance. The cul de sac street design is the only feasible method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned. On Condition VII. add F. '~Jpon receiving final Map approval for Phase II or final Map approval involving Lot 7 the Applicant shall close the driveway located at the northwest comer of Vine Street and Hill Avenue." Staff reccm~nends approval of the Negative Declaration and the Tentative Map per the Resolution. Ccmm~issioner Harris reported on the Site visit. Co~fdssioner Pines as~ad if Vine Street is a dedicated city street at present; Planner Calkins stated that Vine Street is currently a dedicated street. Condition I.D. is rec<atuended since Vine Street is currently not 30 ft. in width. In response to C~t~-assioner Harris' question, Planner Calk/ns stated that it was his understanding that some of the lots do not meet minimum size requirements of the R-i-20,000 Zoning District; however, these lots were approved several years ago. He deferred to the City Attorney the question of whether these non-conforming lots could be developed, who in turn stated that he did not have a definitive answer at that time. The Public Hearing w~s opened at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Alan Pinn, 15055 Montalvo Rd., Saratoga, deferred to other speakers. In response to Cha~ Burger he clarified the elimination of three of the small lots. Mr. David J. Arata, representing David and Alma Arata, property owners at 20400 Hill Ave., Saratoga, stated his concerns as: - The dedication of Hill Ave. as a public street. Documents of Record indicate that the first 400 ft. of Hill Ave. is a dedicated public street, dated 1969. Mr. Arata can find no other document of record, although Civil Engineer Dorsey has a file card which indicates that a roadway was dedicated in 1953. He presented a 1982 map for tract 6632 which indicates that Hill Ave. is owned by the Aratas. Cha~ Burger stated that the Cc~-,~ssion was being asked for approval of a Tentative Map with the question of the Hill Ave. dedication in dispute. Deputy City Attorney stated his concerns regarding the lack of information available at the time of the hearing; an Assessor's Parcel Map was presented to Deputy City Attorney for his review. He stated that it is unclear where one dedication documant terminates and where the lines of the Assessore Map begin; since there appears to be a dispute regarding the title to the land in question, he advised the C~u~-,~ssion not to make any decisions at this time. The Chairwoman concurred; however public input was taken. Planner Calkins stated that this application was presented with the knowledge of the Civil Engineer; it is his view that Hill Ave. is a public street. The Chairwoman stated that the Public Hearing will be continued to another m~eting; however, public testimony will be taken at this time. Mr. Arata stated that his parents are also concerned about the access provided fret, Hill Ave. to the lots in question. There was no Environmental Impact Report regarding traffic or noise generated from servicing the proposed subdivision. This application proposes to serve 9 lots with a cul de sac traffic scheme; R-1-40,000 zoning exists on one side and R-1-20,000 zoning exists on the other side. Average traffic figures suggest that 12 trips per day would occur, multiplied by the 9 lots; these figures do not account for the two potential R-1-40,000 lots on the Arata property. He suggested a General Plan amendment that would change the zoning in the area to R-i-40,000 and an Environmental Impact Paport on traffic and noise. Planning OaL.,L.~ssion Page 8 July 23, 1986 ~ 8 (Continued) Mr. Duane Sandel, 14910 Vickery Tane, Saratoga, stated that he is concerned regarding the easenent for the utility trench which may destroy existing oak trees. Mr. Stuart Smith, son of Mrs. Smith, property owner to the east of Vine Street stated that he is pleased to hear that Vine Street is a dedicated street; this question was .unresolved a few ye~s ago. His concern is the use of approximately 200 feet of Vine Street as an access to the rear of the house; the garage, with no setback fret, the street, would be virtually inaccessible if. a street were made there. Mr. Smith concurs with the Arata's regarding the aesthetics and the proper zoning of the area; the proposed development will be detrimental to the beauty of the area. He favors a review of the area to prevent ugly development. Ms. Margaret Dennis, Hill Ave. stated that the area surrounding her property is under one acre zoning. She is concerned about the increase of traffic in this area. The proposed development of half acre lots is inconsistent with the original plans for the area. Mr. Jack Christian, 20230 Bonnie Brae Way, Saratoga, representing the Montalvo-Mendelsohn Homeowners Association, reviewed the history of the area. He stated that in the 1978 General Plan, Montalvo Rd. w~s made a collector street which was the first mistake. The Butler subdivision which was developed in 1972 added 144 trips per day; The 1978 subdivision, 228 trips per day. The proposed site will add another 108 trips per day. In the early 1980's the Smiths and the Aratas requested a rezoning to R-1-40,000 which was denied. The owner in the current application had legal documents that stated that in 1906 the lots were subdivided at smaller sizes than R-I-20,000 zoning requires; this was brought before the Planning Oa~umission. There is an attempt to rezone this area to R-1-40,00. Should a development go in, current residents of the area would like the lots to meet neighborhood standards (R-I-40,000). In addition, they would like the variance procadure to be strictly enforced. Lots 4 - 7 of the current application are too small for the area and have questionable access. Mr. Christian asked that: 1) Consideration be given to requiring an EIR to mitigate, or at least address, the traffic problem 2) No variances be approved regarding home size or second stories 3) The subdivision be limited to a maximum of five lots Mr. Pinn stated that he wished to respond to the above testimony; he based his application upon the Civil Engineer's belief that Hill Ave. is a public street. The Civil Engineer and the Planning Cc~ssion have reviewed the issue, the evidence provided by adjacent property owners and have determined that this is a public street. The Civil Engineer's Condition I. C. and D. is in the Exhibit so that the City can obtain the land needed to widen the street onto the applicants property. None of the property is coming from the Smith or Arata property; it has been determined that this is public land. The questions raised by the previous speakers have already been answered. The question of rezoning was considered four or five years ago, heard by the Planning Cammission and rejected. A Traffic Study w-us submitted to the City that analyzed the additional impact of the proposed development and concluded that traffic would not impose a significant impact on the neighborhood. The easement was designed to be 10 feet wide so that the pipe can be structured to miss any trees in the easement area. C~Hssioner Harris asked about the Staff Report discussion of Slope at Building Site; Planner Calkins defined the term for the Ccmmmissioner and described the percentages of the slope. In response to the Commissioner's question, Mr. Pinn stated that the intent is to develop the upper lots at this time and the improvement on Vine Street would ~rait until the plans for Mrs. Smith's property are developed; this is a timed project and will phase the lower half. Planning C~-f,~ssion Page 9 July 23, 1986 ITEM 8 (Continued) Cha~ Burger stated that she recalled the appearance of Mr. Pinn before a study session and that most of the concams of the C~umission were answered. She asked whether a new document regard/rig Hill Ave. w-as being introduced at this Hearing; if this is so, the Cammission will not make a decision until full information on the dedication of Hill Ave. is available to the Commission. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he wished to confer with the City Engineer before proceeding. The Planning Director suggested a continuance of the application. Commissioner Guch asked if additional information such as Minutes of previous hearings, was available. C~,~ssioner Pines stated that he remenbered the s~_dy session did not came to a decision and there was confusion regarding the questions already asked during the hearing of the application. He suggested a possible need for an Environmental Impact Report in light of the cumulative impact of traffic as well as future development. Several Cnmmissioners noted that needed information was not available at this hearing, nor were the Oa~dssioners aware that such information was available; for exanple the Traffic Study already completed but not included in their materials. Cnmmissioner Pines called attention to the statement in the Staff R~port, "The cul de sac street design is the only feasible method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned." The Ca~m-Hssioner questioned the wording "the only feasible method". This hearing will be continued to the Plarming Ccmmlission Meeting of August 13, 1986. Mrs. A. Smith stated that she favors one acre zoning and suggested that when the C~.LHssion reviews the issue they include Vine Street in the search. Very large trucks have, on occasion, been parked in the area causing difficulty for Mrs. Smith in using her garage and driveway. 9. V-739 - Needman, request for variance approval to allow impervious coverage to exceed 40% on a lot at 13917 Camino Barco in the R-i-40,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia stated that the issues are: 1) No extraordinary physical circumstances apply to the subject property. 2) There ere alternatives available which would allow the proposed development to conform to code. Staff rec~-~ends denial of the variance having been unable to make the mandatory findings. Site visit was made by Ccmnnissioner Farris. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M. Mrs. Janet Needman, Applicant, stated that she is seeking a variance of 12% over the 40% maximum impervious coverage allowed on a one acre lot. She stated that improveante have been made on the property such as a driveway. Granting the variance would be following precedent in the neighborhood. She submitted a petition signed by the neighbors stating that they have no objection to the proposed application. The half acre set aside for the tennis court is totally flat and would not be visible frc~n the street; pictures of the property were suhnitted. Corrections on the Technical Information and Staff Analysis are: - On size of structure, House, to read 3,436 sq. ft. - On Staff Analysis, to read, "(12%) exceeds the ordinance" Mrs. Needman stated t_hat her measuremente of the concrete around the house disagree with those of the staff: her findings indicate that their existing impervious coverage is 26% rather than 34 %; the total then is 44% which exceeds the maximum by only 4%. She asked that the Oa~Hssion grant the variance. Planning C~.~,~ssion Page 10 July 23, 1986 ~ 9 (Continued) PINES/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE I~JBLIC HEARING. Passed 4-0, C~,.~,~ssioner Siegfried absent. Cc~Hssioner Pines questioned the percentage of impervious coverage and asked the reason for putting in the driveway on Allendale which increased the impervious coverage thus making necessary a Variance for the tennis court. The applicant stated that when the driveway was put in there were no questions regarding impervious coverage. The Commissioner requested confirmation on the figures for impervious coverage stating that he would be favorable toward approval of this variance if the impervious coverage was a 4% excess. Commissioner Harris concurred; however, a 12% difference is too much to make an appropriate finding for a Variance. The Planning Commission b~-~ been very strict about limiting impervious coverage to the amount allowed; other residents have been forced to remove paving or walkways in order to allow for other development by staying within the allowed amount. HARRIS/GUCH MDVED TO DENY V-739 PER STAFF REPOR~ DATED JULY 23, 1986. Passed 4-0, Ca~u~Hssioner Siegfried absent. OZMMUNICATIONS: Written: None. Oral by C~,.,dssion: Chairwoman Burger stated that the first meeting of the Design P~view has been scheduled as a joint meeting with the City Council on August 7, 1986 Two new Planning Commissioners have been appointed. The formal resolution will be made by the City Council on August 6, 1986. Application forms from the new appointees were made available for the Conmtissioners' review. City Council Report: Chairwoman Burger reported on the City Council decision regarding the Paul Masson Winery property. A memo was passed out to Cammission members. The Cha~ stated that she bad a meeting with the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Mayor and the Director of Planning; procedures were discussed to prevent applicants from changing proposals for developments denied by the Commission and appealed to the Council. This was approved by consensus of the City Council; consensus of the Planning Co,~-Hssion was requested before it becomes effective. C~u~,~ssion study sessions will not be used to review a project prior to submitting the completed application and the ccm~letion of one public hearing. Revised drawings can be submitted for review. A Condition of all final resolutions will now require that the Applicant submit a written agreement to all of the Conditions of Approval within 30 days of the passage of the resolution or the Resolution is automatically voided. Certificate of Final Occupancy will not be issued until all conditions of approval have been met. The Chairman thanked those who provided coffee for the Cu~u~-assion Meeting and thanked representatives of the Saratoga News for attending. She thankad Planner ~ for the information supplied to the Commission in their deliberation of the applications. HARRIS/PINES MDVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Passed 4-0, Ccmunissioner Siegfried absent. The Meeting of the Planning Oa~.~dssion was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. ~"' fully ted, A ' .gh Recording Secretary