Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-1986 Planning Commission Minutes(2) CITY OF SARATOGA PIANNINGCEMMISSION MINUTES DATE: July 23, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Co~.,Hssioners Guch, Siegfried, Harris, Pines, Approval of Minutes: Relative to the Minutes of July 9, 1986 the following changes were requested: Ccm~nissioner Guch page 4, third paragraph: change to read "C~n¥,~ssioner Guch said that she originally had a great deal of difficulty..." On page 9, paragraph ten to read: "Ommissioner Guch feels that there is no cc~plaint in the ~ay staff handled the Safeway problem, and that ample warning had been given; however, caution should be exercised to avoid over-reaction." CEmmlissioner 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." C~n~dssioner Harris page 1, end of the changes to the Minutes of June 25, 1986: add "The Minutes were approved as amanded. C~n~Hssioner Harris abstained, having been absent from the June 17, 1986 Planning Commission 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 (Commissioner Siegfried) would lik~ to add the condition that if sems time in the future an error in calculation w-as discovered, the builder would still be obligated by the density which was previously approved." This sentence is to be added to paragraph 8. 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 was felt those areas so zoned, could be the most impacted in town." On page 9, paragraph 8: delete the word "others" to read, "Coi~fdssioners Siegfried and Pines feel..." and adding a sentence to the end of the paragraph to read, "Co~L-:dssioner Harris stated that if other merchants in the city are required to apply for Permits for sidewalk sales, these merchants should not be exempted." PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 9, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MRF~ING AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. Additions and Deletions to the Aqenda: Planning Director Hsia stated that the Written Co~mfonication regarding Mr. Steve Pearson be withdrawn per the Applicant's request. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 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. cc~bined 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-standing identification sign for dental offices at 20444 Prospect Rd. in the C-V zoning district. Planning Cummission Page 2 July 23, 1986 CONSENT C~T.~AR (Continued) 3. SEe-1628 - Dr. Marcus Bitter, request for tentative building sits approval for a 19000 sq. ft. sits 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. C~u~,~ssioner Guch requested that Item 2 be removed from Consent Calendar. SEIGFRIRD/ HARRIS MDVED TO APPROVE CONSENT C~T.RNDAR WITH ITEM 2 REMOVED FREM CAT.k~DAR. 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 rec~:.~end approval of this application per the Rssolution and the Findings in Exhibit A-1. Conmdssion Guch reported on the Sits Visit. C~.:dssioner Harris conmen~ 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 was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Robert Seid, Applicant, clarified the placemsnt of the sign and stated that additional landscaping is being done by the property owners. He stated that the sign will not be an obstruction to traffic nor is the sign objectionable in appearance. HARRIS/PINES MYv1ED TO CLOSE THE M/BLIC HEAR/NG. Passed 5-0. C~u~Hssioner Harris concurred with Oca:.:dssioner Guch that placement of a sign in the proposed location might cause confusion. The Cem~ssioner 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 monumant sign. The Oa~,,~,~ssion has been strict in not allowing monument signs; instances where momment signs were permitted do not apply to this situation. Due to the nature of this business, people will have prior appointments and will be seeking a specific address. Granting this application would be a special privilege. Csm~ssioner Guch suggested that the landscaped strip along the front of the building would be a mDre suitsble place for a sign; however, a 6 foot sign is excessive for identification of this type of business. Chairwoman Burger concurred regard/rig the height of the proposed sign. Ccmmlissioner 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. C~m~dssioner Pines agreed, but cautioned that putting the sign in front of the building where there are no plantings at present may requ/re the applicant to plant the area in question. The building is paved to the street. Secondly, the Cemmissioner questioned the statement in staff report that there were no issues. Planner Calkins stated that the Variance request results fr~-a the prohibition against free standing signs in this zoning district. HARRIS/GUCH MDVED TO DENY V-737. Passed 5-0. Planning C~.~Hssion 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 undergrounding 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 Approval 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 reco~u~ends denial of the Variance. C~u~-,~ssioner Guch reported on the Site visit. Cha~ Burger introduced into the record two additional letters; one from Mr. David O. Weibel and one from Mr. Robert C. Smith both of whom reside on Ashley Way. In response to C~u~issioner Harris' question regarding what other point in time could the City underground these power lines, Deputy City Attorney Baird stated that in this situation, the only time the C~,.~,~ssion 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 undOrounding requiremant would be waived by granting the Variance unless the approval was conditioned on a duration of time or some other performance standard. In response to C~,.,,~ssioner Pines' question regarding conditioning the Variance upon bonding should the rest of the overhead be undergrounded at some future time, Mr. Baird stated that this would be a reasonable condition of the Variance. Planner Calkins explained that the easement runs along the property line and is on Mr. Shuster's property. In response to C~a~u~,~ssioner Pines, question, Mr. Calkins stated that the way the Hill Property is being developed, the junction box which supplies the power is located approximately where the temporary pole is. In response to questions by the C~,,,~,~ssioners, Deputy City Attorney confirmed that it is too late in the process for the C~,,~,~ssion to condition the subdivision for additional The Public Hearing w~s 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. Originally, he proposed to taka the 160 foot easement on the property for 20 years, all the way to the street and put the junction box near Ashley Way; this was not feasible since there were underground cables on the Hill property already. The underground trench is already in place from the Hill property to the Shuster Property. P.G.& E. plans to bring the power to the Hill Property junction box so that they can service additional adjacent sites. In response to the Staff Report, Mr. Shuster stated that: 1) The visual 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 from this power pole is minimal. 2) Regard/rig 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 Ca~u~-,~ssioner Harris' question, Mr. Shuster stated that when he purchased the property he had no knowledge of easements thereon. The Grant Deed did not contain a description of these easemants. The easement was recorded within a month of the recording date for the subdivision and was never shown to buyers of the property. Planning CUremission Page 4 July 23, 1986 ITEM 5 (Continued) Mr. Dave Weibel, 20767 Ashley Way, Saratoga, reaffirmed his concern that common 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 cc~a in. He would have objections to the Variance if the power poles were to be located on his property; since the application is amanded 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) Additional power needs for undeveloped lots; P.G.& E. cannot guarantee that the pole will not have to be enlarged nor that transformers will have to be added to meet future needs. PINES/HARRIS MDVED TO CLOSE THE FJBLIC HEARING. Passed 5-0 Cammissioner Pines stated that the Cammission has approved a similar case and questioned the statement that granting this Variance would set a precedent. He stated that there would be a greater impact frum undez~rounding power lines on developed property. The few residents affected by the requested Variance have given their approval; C~mHssioner Pines favors the granting of this Variance. C~t.~,~ssioner 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 fr~ use of overhead lines. C~m~-dssioner Gush favors the granting of this Variance. Commissioner Pines added that the C~dssion ba-~ created other easements in the past. If the Cc~ssion feels strongly that the power line should be undergrounded, cannot the Cammission request P.G.& E. and the property owner to establish an easement on new property which is not landscaped? Cc~missioner Harris stated the Finding that it is an unnecessary physical hardship on the Shuster's to have their property disrupted by trenching. The C~t.f,~ssion could have addressed this issue when the Hill property was approved. Ccm~nissioner Guch stated that approval of this application does not grant special privilege since the neighborhood as a whole is serviced by overhead lines. C~u~,~ssioner Harris stated that given the proper set of circumstances, the Cc~mission strongly favors undergrounding power lines. Cemnissioner Siegfried concurred and stated that when the Ccm~ission has required underg~g in the past it has accc~plished other purposes; since this is at the tail end of the power line, undergrounding this small portion acccmplishes little and could increase the impact if mature trees are lost. C~,~assioner Harris asked that a Condition be added requiring screening of the power pole; Mr. Shuster agreed to planting a tree to screen the pole. Cha~ Burger clarified that the Cammission wishes to state that the power pole will be located on the Shuster property. HARR/S/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE V-740 PER THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 23, 1986, MAKING THE F/NDINGS THAT IT WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY PHYSICAL HARESHIP TO REQUIRE UNDERGRgJNDING OF THE POWER LINE ON DEVELOPED AND SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRECEDENT SINCE OVERHEAD POWER nINES ARE CC~MDN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD; SIMILAR VAR/ANCES HAVE RR~N APPROVED. OONDIIIONS SHALL STIt~3IATE THAT THE POWER POLE BE LOCATED ON THE SHUSTER PROPERTY AND THAT THIS POLE BE PROPERLY SCRR~ED WITH NEW LANDSCAPING. Passed 5-0 Planning C~t,,~,~ssion 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 Solaria 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 comply with City setback requiremants or reducing the width of the proposed pool by 4 ft. 2)Mar~__atory Findings cannot be made to support the Variance request. Staff rec~u~ends denial of Application V-746. Site visit was made by Ccmnissioner Guch. She stated that the plans presented to the C~m~-dssion do not reflect scm~ 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~-dssion to read 6 feet side setback and 9 feet The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. Mr. Atchinson, 19770 Solana Dr., Saratoga, Applicant, stated that he had a motor home 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 square feet, not 1929 square feet as listed. The applicant noted that his neighbor has 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 suhnitted. Mr. Atchinson submitted 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. The letters were not received by the City due to illness of the staff person who received them on the Site visit. Mr. Iscm, Lifetime Swinmming Pools, provided information regarding the pool, placement of the pool with respect to the property and urged approval of this Variance. PINES/GUCH MDVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 5-0 In response to C~u~-,~ssion Siegfried's question, ~r. Iscm stated that of the 6 feet between pool and side property line, 3 feet would be landscaped. C~m~,~ssioner Harris stated her reluctance to grant a Variance in such cases; however, she noted that the neighbors have a pool. Conumissioner Siegfried ccmnented that, due to the pool in the neighbor's yard, and the fact that the hack of the property abuts the freeway corridor, there is no reason not to grant a Variance. Ommlissioner Pines concurred. Chairwoman Bur~er, favorable toward the Variance request, added a Condition requiring three to four feet of landscaping along the side yard. C~m~,~ssioner Pines stated that special privilege could be addressed by noting the fact that the adjacent property has similar pool placement; it is a cc~on privilege for the neighbor. Deputy City Attorney suggested to the C~u~-assion that clarification be made regarding the distance of the side yard setback so that the Variance can properly state the distance being encroached. PINES/SIEGFRTRD MDVED TO APPROVE V-746 WITH THE FINDINGS THAT SINCE THERE IS AN EXISTING POOL ON AN AIAIACENT SITE WITH THE SAME SETBACK RECUIPa}~eFTS, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED AND EUE TO THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OF A FREE~RY COEDOR AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY THERE ARE NO REAR YARD NEIGHBORS Passed 4-1, Cu~m~,~ssioner Guch opposed. Planning Commission ~ting Page 6 July 23, 1986 C~.~Hssioner Siegfried left the Planning C~ssion Maeting at 8:35 P.M. 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 ~ed approval of a Negative Declaration and Tentative Map. Planner Calkins stated changes in Conditions I. O. deleting the word "and", to read "11/2 asphalt concrete..."; in Condition VI, D. insert the word "noise" to read "interior house level noise standards..." C~.,Hssioner 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 w~rning fire alarm systems required of all hc~nes in this vicinity? Planner Calkins explained that the Fire Chief recc~u~-~ended that this re~enent should be included at the Tentative Map stage. Ccm~issioner 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. C~.~,~ssioner Harris stated that she would prefer alignmant of the driveways for Lots 4 thx~-ugh 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 requ~t 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 t/k%n as part of the Tentative Map Application. Lots 9, 10 add 11 are wider and could acccm~nodate two story houses without significant impact. HARRIS/GUCH MDVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 4-0, Cammissioner Siegfried absent. Cc~missioner 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. C~mu~'dssioner Guch is not in favor of two story houses on any of the Lots. Cc~missioner Harris would accept two story houses on Lots 5 and 6 since these are interior lots; Chairwoman Burger would also accept two story houses on Lots 5 and 6. Planning Director Hsia stated that Staff rec~.~ends the height limitation rather than a limitation on number of stories. Cnmmissioner Guch accepts the Conditions of this proposal. She favored amanding the early w~rning fire alarm requireant 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 Cammissioner is also favorable to orienting driveway access to the cul de sac. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO GRANT A NEF~AIT~E DECLARATION. Passed 4-0, Cammissioner Siegfried absent. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE SD-1624 PER STAFF REPOR~ OF JULY 23, 1986 CHANGING THE OONDITION V.D. ADDING "IN ANY RESIDENCE GREATER THAN 5,000 SQ. FT."; CONDITION VI.C. CHANGED TO READ "NO TWO STORY HOUSES WILL BE PERMIITED ON LOTS 1, 3, 4, 7 - 11; LOTS 5 AND 6 WILL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT A IATER DATE." CONDITION VI.D. ADDING THE WORD "NOISE" TO READ, "..INTERIOR HOUSE NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS..."; ADDING A CONDITION G. TO VI. TO READ THAT THE EeIVEWAYS FOR LOTS 4 THROUGH 11 SPLAT,I, ORIENT TO THE NEW ~ DE SAC. Passed 4-0, Commissioner Siegfried absent. Cnmmissioner Harris reiterated that the Planning C~Hssion 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 Cammission iting Page 7 July 23, 1986 8. SEe-1626 - Alan Pinn, request for tentative map approval to resubdivide 12 lots into 9 lots ranging frc~ 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-1-20,000 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 maximm 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. '~3pon 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 ~ approval of the Negative Declaration and the Tentative Map per the Resolution. Cc~.~ssioner Harris reported on the Site visit. Ccnm~ssioner Pines asked 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~.~nded since Vine Street is currently not 30 ft. in width. In response to Cemnissioner Harris' question, Planner Calkins stated that it was his understand/rig 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 was opened at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Alan Pinn, 15055 Montalvo Rd., Saratoga, deferred to other speakers. In response to Chairwc~an 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 Ccmmission w~s 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 tima 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 document terminates and where the lines of the Assessors Map begin; since there appears to be a dispute regarding the title to the land in question, he advised the Commission not to make any decisions at this time. The Cha~ 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 Cha~ stated that the Public Hearing will be continued to another meeting; however, public testimony will be taken at this time. Mr. Arata stated that his parents are also concerned about the access provided from 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 Environmantal Impact Report on traffic and noise. Planning C~L.L,~SSiOn Page 8 July 23, 1986 ITEM 8 (Continued) Mr. Duane Sandel, 14910 Vickery Lane, Saratoga, stated that he is concerned regarding the easement for the utility trench which may d~stroy 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 w-as unresolved a few years 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 frum 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-Mandelsohn Homeowners Association, reviewed the history of the area. He stated that in the 1978 General Plan, Montalvo Rd. was made a collector street which was the first mistake. The Butler subdivision which w-as developed in 1972 added 144 trips per day; The 1978 subdivision, 228 trips per day. The proposed sits 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 C~L,,~dssion. 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 as~ad 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 CUremission 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 cc~g 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 Cc~ssion and rejected. A Traffic Study was 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 easenent was designed to be 10 feet wide so that the pips can be structured to miss any trees in the easenent area. Ccmmlissioner Harris asked about the Staff Report discussion of Slope at Building Site; Planner Calkins defined the term for the C~-~Hssioner and described the percentages of the slope. In response to the Ccmmlissioner's question, Mr. Pinn stated that the intent is to develop the upper lots at this time and the improvement on Vine Street would wait until the plans for Mrs. Smith's property are developed; this is a timed project and will phase the lower half. Planning C~.L,~ssion ~ting Page 9 July 23, 1986 ITEM 8 (Continued) Chairwoman Burger stated that she recalled the appearance of Mr. Pinn before a study session and that most of the concerns of the C~,,L,~ssion were answered. She asked whether a new document regarding Hill Ave. w~s being introduced at this Hearing; if this is so, the C~.~,~ssion will not ma~ 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. Co~.~,~ssioner Guch asked if additional information such as Minutes of previous hearings, was available. Co~-~issioner Pines stated that he remembered the study session did not come 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 Envirornnental Impact Report in light of the cumulative impact of traffic as well as future development. Several CEm~issioners noted that needed information was not available at this hearing, nor were the C~,~ssioners aw~e that such information w~s available; for example the Traffic Study already cc~pleted but not included in their materials. C~.~Hssioner Pines called attention to the statement in the Staff Report, "The cul de sac street design is the only feasible method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned." The Cc~,~ssioner questioned the wording "the only feasible method,,. This hearing will be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of August 13, 1986. Mrs. A. Smith stated that she favors one acre zoning and suggested that when the C~mmission 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 are alternatives available which would allow the proposed developmant to conform to code. Staff reco~ends denial of the variance having been unable to make the mandatory findings. Site visit was made by Ccem~issioner Harris. The Public Hearing w~s 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 improvements 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 from the street; pictures of the property were submitted. 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 that her measuremante 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 O~L,~ssion grant the variance. Planning Ccm~mission~eting Page 10 July 23, 1986 ITEM 9 (Continued) PINES/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE KIBLIC HEARING. Passed 4-0, C~.~assioner Siegfried absent. C~u~-assioner Pines questioned the percentage of impervious coverage and as~ad the reason for putting the driveway which now results in a request for a variance. The applicant stated that when the driveway w~s put in there were no questions reqard/ng 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. C~L~dssioner Harris concurred; however, a 12% difference is too much to maka an appropriate finding for a Variance. HARRIS/GUCH MDVED TO DENY V-739 PER STAFF REPOR~ DATED JULY 23, 1986. Passed 4-0, C~,m,~ssioner Siegfried absent. O0MMUNI CAT/ONS: Written: None. Oral by Cun.~dssion: Chairwc~an Burger stated that the first meeting of the Design Review has been scheduled as a joint meeting with the City Council on August 7, 1986 Two new Planning C~-~assioners 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 Co~,~ssioners' review. City Council Report: Cha~ Burger reported on the City Council decision regarding the Paul Manson Winery property. A memo was passed out to Oa,mHssion m~m~_rs. The Chairwoman stated that she had 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 ~as approved by consensus of the City Council; consensus of the Planning C~.~m-assion was requested before it becomes effective. C~m-~ission study sessions will not be used to review a project prior to submitting the c~mpleted application and the ccmpletion of one public hearing. Revised drawings can be submitted for review. A Condition of all final resolutions will now requirethattheApplicant submit a written agreement to all oft he Conditions of Approval within 30 days of the passage of the resolution or theResolution is automatically voided. Certificate of Final Occupancy will notbe issued until all conditions of approval havebeenmet. The Chairman thanked those who provided coffee for the C~.~dssion Meeting and thanked representatives of the Saratoga News for attending. She thanked Planner Calkins for the information supplied to the C~L~ission in their deliberation of the applications. HARRIS/PINES MDVED TO AEIIOURN THE Mm~IING. Passed 4-0, Commissioner Siegfried absent. The Meeting of the Planning Oa~.~Hssion was adjourned at 10:35 P.M.