Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OFSARATOGAPIANNINGCCMMISSION DATE: August 13, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present:Cu-~t,~ssioners Harris, Siegfried, Pines, Tucker, Callans Absent: Chairwoman Burger, Conmtissioner Guch Introduction of New Commissioners: Vice Chah--woman Harris introduced and welcomed the two recently appointed Planning C~utHssioners: Mr. L. Dans Callarts and Ms. Karen Tucker. Approval of Minutes: Planning C~.mission Meeting of July 23, 1986: The following changes were requested: Planning Director Hsia asked that the corrected Page 9 of the Minutes be inserted. On Item 9, paragraph/sentence beginning with the words, '~4rs. Janet Needman, Applicant.." deletion of the phrase, "in the R-1-40,000 zoning district." The Applicant did not use this technical term in her testimony. Ccmmtission F~rris, page 2, Item 2, paragraph 2, to read "Commissioner Harris reported on the Site Visit. Cc~,~,~ssioner Guch c~me_nted..." On page 3, 1st paragraph after the opening of the Public Hearing, second sentence, C~mi-,~ssioner Harris co~m-~ented that the easemant is already there; C~.~dssioner Siegfried stated that his recollection was that the applicant was referring to the power lines, not the easement. Corrected sentence to read, "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 box near Ashley Way;..." Page 3, last paragraph add a final sentence to read, "The pole has been in for over 20 years." Page 4, Item 5, add the word "not" to read, "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 not have to be added to meet future needs." On page 6, first paragraph under Item 7, add the word "feet" to read, Planner Calkins stated changes in Conditions I.O deleting the word 'and' to read '11/2 feet asphalt concrete... ';" On page 10, first paragraph after Closing the Public Hearing, first sentence to read, "Cunut,~ssioner 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." A_a.__~_ to the end of the paragraph the sentence, "The Planning Cormmission has 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." SIEGE/PINES MDVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 23, 1986 PIANNING ~SSION MEET/NG AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICAT/ONS: - Mr. Ken Chart, owner of Lot 13, Parker Ranch, Farr Ranch Rd., requested approval to change siding on his house, approved at Design Review in late June; he requested a change frc~u stucco to cedar wood siding. Both menbers of the Oaiu~,~ssion and Planning Staff wished to review this request. Consensus reached that Mr. Chan could bring his request to the study session of the Planning Commission on August 19, 1986; The Planning Oat~,~,~ssion Meeting will be continued to August 19, 1986, and this request will be considered and voted on at that time. PIANNING CCMMISSI Page 2 AUGUST 13, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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. cca~ined out and fill on Heber Way , Lot 13, Tr. 6781 in the NHR zoning district. 2. S~R-1626 Alan Pinn, request for tentative map approval to resubdivide 12 lots into 9 lots ranging from 20,000 sq. ft. to 35,000 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. Continued to August 27, 1986, pending resolution of Hill Ave. issues 3. SM -29 - Mike Olavarri, request for approval of plans to construct a single story addition on a 10% slope on property located at 20480 Montalvo Heights Rd. in the R-i-40,000 zoning district 4. SEe-1630- Andrew Carter, request for building sits approval and design Ee-86-021 review approval for a new single family residence on a 1.18 acre lot located on Pierce Road approximately 900 ft. sough of Houston Ct. in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Continued to August 27, 1986 5. ~R-86-007 J. Lohr, request for design review approval to construct a one-story 4,125 sq. ft. single family dwelling where 4,000 sq. ft. is the standard at 19542 Chardonnay, Tr. 7795, Lot 15, in the R-l-12,500 zoning district. Vice Cha~ Harris requested that ITEM 1 be removed frum Consent Calendar. Planning Staff requested removal of ITEM 5 frcm Consent SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO REMOVE ITEMS 1 AND 5 FRCM CONSENT CAT.ENDAR; ITEMS 2 AND 4 ARE CONTINUED TO THE PIANNING ODMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 1986. Passed 5-0. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT C~I.RNDAR WITH ITEMS 1 AND 5 RE~DVED. ITEMS 2 AND 4 TO BE CONTINUED TO THE PIANNING OC~4MISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 1986. Passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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 ou. yds. ccmbined out and fill on Heber Way , Lot 13, Tr. 6781 in the NHR zoning district. Planning Director Hsia read the Report To Planning Cu~.~.~ssion of August 13, 1986. Vice Cha~ Harris reported on the land use visit. She expressed concern regarding the visibility of the house to hc~as to the east and questioned whether due to height of the proposed house, screening would be re~red in the front. She asked for/nformation on the proposed color beige noting that Saratoga avoids use of light colored houses in the hills, especially on houses of this size. In addition, she requested information frcan the applicant regarding the proposed three colors for the roof. PIANNING OIMMISSI Page 3 AUGUST 13, 1986 ITEM i (Continued) Planner Caldwell stated, in reference to the height of the house, the elevation is 717 feet as one exits from Heber Way; the finished floor of the house will be at 699 feet; the height of the house (peak of the roof) will be about 727 foot elevation which is 10 feet higher than the cul-de-sac elevation. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Teerlink, in response to questions, stated that beige is beige and that he does not like being questioned by scmeone who asks what color beige is. In response to further commants by the Applicant, Vice Chairwc~an called the Meeting back to order; she stated that hillside homes are required to be earth toned in color and are subject to Staff approval. A Condition will be added with these requirements stated. C~mmissioner Seigfried asked for information regarding the variegation of colors on the roof tiles; the applicant responded that he would comply with whatever the Curemission wanted as long as it w-us ccm~atible with his ideas regarding his ranch of 26 years. Approval of this application will be oonditioned upon review by the Staff of any colors used. SIEGE/PINES MDVED TO CIDSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:56 P.M. Passed 5-0. Vice Cha~ Harris restated Conditions of approval for this application; adding a further Condition that Staff would determine, during oonstruotion of the house whether landscape screening is necessary along the eastern elevation. Further hearing by the Commission will probably be unnecessary; however, the C~L,,mission wishes to reserve final decision until review of the building is cc~pleted. SIEGE/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE A-1177 PER THE STAFF REPOR~ WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDIT/ONS ADEED: 1) C~OICE OF COLOR WILL BE SUSMITIED FOR REVIEW BY THE PIANNING STAFF, 2) THE STANDARD OF R~G THE USE OF EARTH TONED COLORS WILL BE ENFORCED, 3) A DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE WHETHER LANDSCAPE SCRR~f/NG WILL BE REQUIRED DUE TO THE ~RVATION OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE AND, 4) ADD THE WORD "SH~T.T." TO EXHIBIT 'A' TO READ 'FIRE RETARDANT ROOF COVERING AND CHIMNEY SPARK ARRESTOR DETAILS SPLAT.~. BE SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PIAN. Passed 5-0. C~f,~ssioner Pines cammented that on a site visit, he was pleased with the site design. C~f,~ssioner Siegfried added that there was no intent on the part of the C~.mission to suggest that the design w~s inappropriate or was not well executed; the Ccmm%ission wished only to clarify a few questions. 5. ~R-86-007 J. Lohr, request for design review approval to oonstructa one-story 4,125 sq. ft. single family dwellingwhere 4,000 sq. ft. is the standardat 19542 Chardonnay, Tr. 7795, Lot 15, in the R-1-12,500 zoningdistrict. Planner Hsia read the Report to Planning emmnission, dated August 13, 1986. Planner Caldwell informed the C~.~assion that additional information had been received in the form of a letter frcm Mr. and Mrs. Peter Vutz, 19640 Junipero Way, Saratoga. The Vutz's stated a concern about eight large M~nterey Pine trees which may be in jeopardy due to lack of adequate setbacks; secondly, Mr. and Mrs. Vutz requested retention of existing rainwater drainage to the north from the western part of lot 15 and from their property. A memorandum fr~r~ Assistant Planner Welge was submitted requesting the addition of Condition 5 in response to the neighbor's concern regarding landscaping; Condition 6 addressed the second concern of the Vutz ' s. Planner Caldwell called attention to the Site Plan which shows a storm drain e_~-~ement; Staff wishes to insure that this storm drain easemant is protected as a drainage system after construction. Letter frum Evans Family, 18779 Kosich Drive, Saratoga, w-as submitted. PIANNING CCMMISSI Page 4 AUGUST 13, 1986 ITEM 5 (Continued) The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 P.M. Mr. J. Lohr, J. Lohr Properties, accepted the Conditions of approval for the Application. He stated that the house slightly exceeds allowable square footage due to the large garage for five vehicles owned by this family. This enlarged garage area will allow the family to keep the vehicles off of the street. Mr. Lohr stated that there will be no damage to the trees nor will the be a change in the drainage system. SIEGE/PINES MDVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8: 05 P.M. Passed 5-0 SIEGE/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE Ee-86-007 PER THE STAFF REPOI~ WITH THE ADDIT/ON OF THE FOLLOWING OONDIT/ONS TO READ: 5. APPLICANT SH~T.~. RETA/N THE SERVICES OF THE CITY HORIICULTURIST TO INSPECT THE PINE TR~-q ALONG THE WEST PROPERIY T.TNE AND RECCMMEND A IANDSCAPING PLAN FOR APPROPRIATE SCRR~F/NG, REMOVAL, AND REPLACEMENT, IF NEcF-qSARY. APPLICANT SH~T.~. COMPLY WITH THE PROV/SIONS OF SUCH PIAN PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY. EXISTING EPAINAGE TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERPZ SH~T.L BE MAINTAINED. PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE PIANNING DIRECIOR PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. Passed 5-0. 6. V-86-001 Cindy & Glen Thcmkls, request for variance approval to allow the construction of a 289 sq. ft. carport where 342 sq. ft. is required at 13336 Ronnie Way, in the R-l-15,000 zoning district. Planning Director read the Report to the Planning Cc~ssion of August 13, 1986 and introduced letters from neighbors objecting to the proposed application. Vice Cha~ Harris noted letters frum: - Shiela Markuszewski, 19140 Dagmar Drive - Charlotte Crabtree (Austin), George Crabtree, 13395 Ronnie Way - Helen C. Mc Cay, 13345 Ronnie Way - Martha E. Sutton, Ralph E. Sutton, 13396 Ronnie Way A land use visit was made by Vice Cha~ Harris. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Glen Thcmas, 13336 PDnnie Way, responded to the statement that carports are unusual to the area; there are 15 carports and 11 garages conversions without carports in this small area. On Dagmar there are 8 carports already built and 2 garages conversions without carports. The applicants assumed that erecting a carport would not be unusual for this area. Cc~missioner Pines stated than on the site visit, he did not see even . 3 or 4 carports; Vice Cha~ Harris noticed only 8 carports. Pictures were submitted. When converting the garage to a bedrocm, the Thomas'assumed there was no difference whether space was used for living or garage space. When a cc~plaint reached the City, they realized that a Permit application w~s required. In response to Cc~.~issioner Tucker's question, Mrs. Themas stated that a licensed contractor w~s not employed; however, her brother, a civil engineer, helped. The existing roof or w~lls were kept; the interior was insulated and made into a bedroom. The Thomas' now wish to sell the house; prospective owners are waiting for issuance of the Mr. Thomas consulted the Planning department to meet setback requirements; since the house is on a diagonal, the setbacks are unusual and it ~as difficult to place the carport in a place that meet the requirements and that was attractively placed on the property. PIANNING CCMMISSI~G Page 5 AUGUST 13, 1986 ITEM 6 (Continued) SIEGFRTRD/PINES M~VED TO CLOSE THE FJBLIC HEARING AT 8:22 P.M. Passed 5-0. C~.~,~ssioner Pines c~.~ented that a major concam of this application is the piecemeal planning on the property, which is potentially destructive to neighborhoods. On-street parking is a problem. Enclosing a garage seems to be a simple solution to lack of living space; however, conversion of garages creates parking problems. The C~uL,~ssioner stated that he found this application difficult to resolve. In response to questions asked by Vice Chairman Harris, Planner Caldwell stated that the 9,124 sq. ft. lot is substandard, although the lot is 500 to 1,000 sq. ft. larger than scme of the adjacent interior lots. OaL,,~,~ssioner Siegfried feels that fees should be collected even if garage conversions are done without city approval. He is not in favor of this application for a carport; however, the C~.~assion recognizes that the garage has already been enclosed. He wishes to see plans for a carport with less environmental impact than the application presented. The proposed carport is unattractive; however, a Variance may be granted for a better designed carport. Cummissioner Pines concurred that carports do not improve the visual impact of a neighborhood; this landscaped residential area is cluttered with cars. He favors an enclosed carport if a Variance is to be granted. Vice Chairman Harris stated that the Findings have yet to be made; Ccmmlissioner Pines expressed doubt that he could made the necessary Findings. Mrs. Thomas intervened to state that neighbors have 8 cars parked in front of the house. She stated that the proposed carport is colonial in design and the roof line matches the lines of the house; the applicants consider the design aesthetically pleasing and in proportion to the house. A garage would look too bulky for the rather small sized house. Planner Caldwell responded to Vice Chariwcman Harris' question, saying that additional living space could be found elsewhere on the property. Faeping in mind the applicants statement that minor changes were made to convert the garage to living space, the garage could be restored and a thousand square feet of living space added to the rear of the house. The street side of the house would not be affected and the applicants would have both additional living space and a garage. Mr. Thcmkls intervened, stating that conversion of the garage required the building of two walls, insulating the room, adding sheet rock, panelling and two months of work on the room. The Vice Chairweman stated that she cannot make the required Findings; there is not practical difficulty although there is practical difficulty now due to the conversion of the garage; approving such a Variance would be granting special privilege. C~.~,~ssioners concurred. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he is willing to look at alternatives; however, Findings cannot be made for this application. SIEGE/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY V-86-001. Passed 5-0. 7. SUP-86-001 Carol Batson, request for a conditional use permit to legalize an existing second unit located at 18710 Aspesi Dr. in the R-l-10,000 zoning district City Attorney Toppel requested necessary documents from the applicant. Planning Director Hsia read the Report to Planning C~Lumission of August 13, 1986. He called attention to six letters received which protest the proposed Permit approval. The City Attorney stated that Condition 2 should be deleted; this requirement has been met. On Condition 6, delete the wording "Condition # 4" and insert "Condition # 5". PIANNING Page 6 AUGUST 13, 1986 Vice Cha~ Harris reported on the Sits visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:30 P.M. Ms. Carol Batson, stated that she has no arguments with requests made by the City; paving over lawn area will be done to provide an extra required parking space. A plan design will be forthccmting. To the hack, facing south, plantings will be done to block the view of the house, make the area quieter and provide more privacy for neighbore. The Applicant assured the Commission that plants would grow in this area; it is a matter of finding which will grow best. The Applicant addressed the concerns of the neighbors; application for a Permit was made to camply with City requ/rements and have an older person in occupancy in the hack unit. She has been a widow since 1984 and has had health problems; her mother-in-law had lived in the hack unit for 11 years. There were no problems until her son occupied the unit; he has agreed to move out and will put this agreement in writing to satisfy the neighbors. This is the main concern of the neighbors. Secondly, Ms. Batson does not believe that this application will cause a rash of second units to be built in the neighborhood. This second unit ba-~ existed since 1963 and no other neighbor has applied for a permit to build a similar unit. The applicant wishes to utilize this unit for needed extra income for herself and her children; she has spent time and money to prepare this unit for rental use. In summary, the applicant stated that this testimony answers the main concerns of the neighbors, namely, that: 1) There would be non cumpliance with City Codes addressing the age of an 2) Rental units would increase significantly in the neighborhood Ms. Batson presented a letter verifying that her son occupied the second unit frum 1978, six months after the death of her mot/her-in-law. Planning Director Hsia added that Ms. Batson is eligible for a housing rehabilitation loan. The Council has agreed to defer payment of fees; Plaming departmant is awaiting a decision on the second unit and is prepared to help the applicant rehabilitats the main house and the second unit. Vice Cha~ Harris confirmed that Council action will enable the applicant to rehabilitate her home even if the Platruing Ccmmlission denies the application for a Use Permit for the second unit. The Planning Director informed the Applicant of the options and procedures available to her at this time. city Attorney Toppel clarified the legal definition of a second structure used as a dwelling; the kitchen is a benchmark of what defines a second unit. He stated that if the Application is denied, the unit would have to be removed or relocated due to nonconformance of setback requ~renents unless a Variance was obtained. The C~Hssion can modify the setback standards in granting a Use Permit; this unit could then be occupied as a rental unit, subject to City Code restriction. Such occupancy must be by a senior citizen with the owner residing on the property. Mr. Robert Culp, Wildcreek Homeowners Association, 13638 Riverdale Ct., Saratoga, presented a formal statement to the Ccmmtission which registered objections of the Wildcreek Homeowners Association to the application under consideration. Mr. F. Ryalls, 13631 Riverdale Drive, Saratoga, read a letter of Mr. and Mrs. J. Lucas, 18696 Aspesi Drive, Saratoga, dated August 8, 1986. The letter registered the objection of the Lucus' changing the second unit fret, occupancy by a family member to a rental unit and listed other concerns. Mrs. Batson restated that her intention is to make the neighborhood a quieter area. She plans to screen potential renters and prefers to rent to one, older person; this would reduce traffic and noise. PIANNING Page 7 AUGUST 13, 1986 ~ 7 (Continued) Ms. Becky Riles, 13631 Riverdale Drive, stated that the neighborhood does not want second unite; she asked why the question of bringing this building up to Building Code has not been raised. Vice Cha~ Harris responded that the Staff Raport clearly address this issue. City Attorney stated that this unit would be brought into compliance with 1986 Building Codes and an inspection report would detail any work to be completed. SEE/CAr.vANS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:56 P.M. Passed 5-0 C~Lu:dssioner Siegfried stated that he originally opposed second unite in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Upon reconsideration of the issue and review of the Council's ~tions, this lot is 9,950 sq. ft. with a house in excess of 2,200 sq. ft.; a second unit is very close to the property line. This unit would not have been permitted to be built. The potential impact on the neighborhood is of serious concern. C~:.tdssioner Tucker concurred and stated that she visited the site. She noted that one of the trees in the hack yard with a limb, ten inches in diameter, which overhangs the roof of the second unit; the City Horticulturist needs to assess whether _de_mage will be caused to the tree if overhanging limbs ere removed. In the opinion of the C~t.:assioner, renoval of overhanging limbs will insure the safety of the roof and prevent fire hazard. Secondly, the Cnmmissioner noted the narrowness of the driveway which would have to be widened to accommodate another car; this is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood character. Finally, the impervious coverage is greater than noted on plans; there is a shed and a patio. Vice Chairwcmmn Harris stated that she did not concur with Staff Finding 3 that approval of the Use Permit would not cause any additional or unreasonable noise; any unit 6 feet frum a property line will create additional noise. The Ordinance requires the lot to be 1.6 times the Standard; this application is below Standard. The Vice Chairwoman was unable to make the necessary Findings. C~.:,~ssioner Callans stated that he sees no place to add additional parking in the front lot. He added that he has difficulty with the fact that the second unit b~-~ been on this property for a long time without any prior cc~plainte. The City Attorney stated that while the City has grandfathered main dwelling unite in residential districts, City Ordinances do not grandfather accessory strum; there is no evidence that this secondary strum was legally built in the first place. Even if the structure was legally built, with the adoption of present zoning regulations it would have became non conforming. The structure would then have been removed, or a Variance granted allowing setbacks at the existing allocation of the structure. A second Variance application is required to allow the building to stand. SEE/TUCKER MDVED TO DENY SUP-86-001. Passed 5-0. COMMUNI CATI ONS: Written: - Letter frcm Mrs. Martin Ray, 22000 Mr. Eden Road, Saratoga regarding Detour of Pierce Rd. Planning Director Hsia stated that he has checked with the City Engineer who Dxiicated that the area in question has been subdivided and cannot be restored. Staff has rec~mea3ded that this letter be forwarded to the Heritage Preservation C~mdssion. - In regard to the second letter frcm the Evans family, the Planning Director stated that it stands on ite own merite. - Vice Chairman Harris acknowledged a letter regarding the Senior Coordinating Council, there will be a study session and a presentation by the ~ Chair Center. She asked if Ccmmlissioners would be able to visit continuing care facilities. Planner Caldwell will research further information on possible visite by Commission members. PIANNING Page 8 AUGUST 13, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS: (Continued) Oral by Cu~t~Hssion: 1. City Council Report: Copy of the Minutes of the August 6, 1986 Meeting were given to CcMmissieners. Commissioner Pines asked whether study sessions have been scheduled to discuss design review before the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning C~u~,~ssion. Planner Hsia stated that a study session has not been scheduled at this time; Planning Staff is finalizing a proposal for design review which will be submitted to the Council and to the C~mmission for review. The joint meeting between the Council and the Commission will then be held after which public testimony will be taken. Commissioner Pines recc~utended the C~m~Hssion hold a study session or use part of a Regular Meeting to discuss issues that have been put off during the year. Planner Caldwell stated that two issues will be discussed at the study session on August 19, 1986. The Planning Director stated that a retreat is being planned for C~.missioners and Staff to meet and discuss a number of issues. Ccmm~ssioner Siegfried c~m~-ented that bringing large projects to a Public Hearing without first hearing these issues in a study 'session is a serious error; Public Hearings will become long and the process will break down due to the difficulty of addressing complex issues and answering necessary questions at public hearings. In the past, such cc~plex issues were referred hack to study sessions frum Public Hearings. Vice Cha~ Harris noted her concern regarding carports; some of these carports are unattractive and poorly constructed and create a negative visual impact. Evidently, carports can be erected if the it is within setback requiremants. The City Attorney stated that the Code required covered parking; he suspects that many of the garages and carports were constructed without Permits. C~-~dssioner Siegfried concurred on the appearance of these garages and carports. Planning Director Hsia stated that the Ccmm~ssion could reevaluate the Zoning Code, covered parking, to consider deletion or revision of the use of The Meeting of the Planning Ccmm~ssion was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. to August 19, 1986, for consideration of Mr. Chan's request and a Study Session. Respectfully submitted,.., ,:..., ...