Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: October 8, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Siegfried, Guch, Pines, Call ans, Tucker Absent: Commissioner Harris Approval of Minutes: PINES/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1986, AS SUBMITTED. Passed 6-0. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda: None. QRAL CQMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Siegfried noted for the record that Site Review Committee Meetings of one Item only waste time and effort of Committee members. The City Attorney noted that consensus seemed to be to discuss this issue in connection with Design Review Ordinance; however, in view of continued inconvenience to Commissioners, if the Commission so directs, that portion of the Ordinance could be amended at an appropriate time. Commissioner Pines stated that the Commission was asked to submit a recommendation. From now on items would be heard at Planning Commission Meeting rather than at Site Review Committee. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1~ SD-1356 Cocciardi, request for design review approval of plans for landscaping, treatment of trail easement, emergency access gate(s) and retaining walls as required by previous Condition of 23 lot subdivision. Property located off Mt. Eden Road in the HC-RD zoning district. Commissioner Pines requested information on technical discrepancies: Staff Report of 1980, Map labeled Exhibit D, Lot 16 is not numbered. The assumption was made that the lot located on the corner of Quarry Rd. and Cocciardi Ct. was Lot 16, since this was the only unnumbered lot on the map. Staff Report of October 8, 1986, Project Description, a 23 lot subdivision is referred to, and the map presented also shows a 23 lot subdivision; however, in the 1980 Staff Report, Vlll, Specific Conditions, A.,6., stated that there are Equestrian Trails on Lots 24 and 25. Lots 11, 17, and 19 are not included in the Staff Report of 1980, Specific Conditions, Equestrian Trails, but are shown on map. Staff Report, 1980, Specific Conditions, I. E. refers to a "50 ft. right of way through Lot 19..." Lot 19 has an Equestrian Trail through it but does not seem to have a road through it. Staff Report of 1980, Specific Conditions, VIII, N,, "No access onto 'Quarry Road from Lots 12, 15, and 16." Lot 12 does not border Quarry Road and Lot 14 is not noted; however Lot 14 has a driveway onto Cocciardi Ct. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 OCTOBER 8, 1986 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued The City Attorney stated that there was a change in the Tentative Map which may account for the discrepancy in Lot numbers and access to Quarry Rd. What is shown as Cocciardi Ct. on the Final Map used to be the road continuing up to Mt. Eden Rd; between the Tentative and the Final Map, an agreement was reached by the Applicant and the City that for environmental and design reasons, the road continuing up to Mt. Eden Rd. would become Cocciardi Ct. Sole access now comes off of Quarry Rd. There was also a cost element involved, generating additional revenue for the developer in question; this revenue is part of the $527,000 cost of the repair project on Quarry Creek. The settlement reached does not alter nor change requirements of a Tentative Map and such requirements remain intact. The City Attorney deferred to Mr. Cocciardi to respond to other issues in question. Staff will work with the Applicant to clarify any remaining technical questions. PINES/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 2. SD-86-003-1 Robert Bostedt, request for modification to the engineering conditions of an approved subdivision requiring undergrounding of existing overhead utilities for property located at 12890 Pierce Road in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Cede. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Ms. Kathleen C. Barrie, 12900 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, stated that she built her home about three years ago; at the time she was required to underground utilities and complied with the law at considerable cost. She stated that what one person is required to do, another person should be required also. She noted that undergrounding utilities prevents damage and inconvenience during winter storms and favors the requirement. Chairwoman Burger clarified statements in the Staff Report, noting that the Applicant is not being required to remove utility poles or to underground lines from that point; only utility lines from the individual house are required to be undergrounded. Ms. Barrie stated that she was required to underground an acre back from her home. Mr. Warren B. Heid, Architect, responsed that Staff originally requested that utilities along Pierce Rd. be undergrounded; however, the Staff Report noted that this request would be a hardship on the Applicant. Neither the Applicant nor Ms. Barfie were required to underground power lines on Pierce Rd. The request made of both property owners is undergrounding of utilities from the street main line to the individual house; this is approximately 300 ft. and is an equal distance for both parties in question. With respect to undergrounding utilities, the deferred agreement suggested by Staff is acceptable to the Applicant. Mr. Heid asked for consideration regarding the widening of Pierce Rd.; no such request was made of Ms. Barrie. Pierce Rd. has since been widened across from the Applicant's property. With respect to the right of way, the majority of new pavement is across the street. With an addition of 18 ft. from the center line, the applicant will come in quite a distance, about 10 ft. beyond existing pavement. The center line is approximately 3 ft. toward the Applicant's property which increases the amount of pavement on the Applicant's side of the center divide. Mr. Heid suggested that this may cause a safety hazard. The presentation was turned over to the Applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 OCTOBER 8, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. Bostedt, Applicant, presented a diagram for review. He stated that actual size and shape of 300 to 400 ft. of the street is not correctly presented on maps. His main concern is safety in the area. He is willing to widen the road if required; however, he questioned what would be accomplished by widening the road and noted that such widening cotrid be detrimental to the public welfare in general, per Article 14-35, 2. The legal center line of Pierce Rd. is 3.67 ft. from the marker reflectors shown; widening a full 18 ft. will place the street too close to his property. He suggested that the street be redone in line with Ms. Barrie's property to the west; this would then line up the Applicant's property with property to the east. Mature shrubs, which act as a sound barrier, would then be preserved. Mr. Ernest Soderstrom, 12900 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, stated that he built the property to the west of the Applicant about 4 - 5 years ago; at that time the City required that no permanent structures be placed in the area where future widening of the road was expected. He was required to underground utility lines; if there is a change in the requirement, Mr. Soderstrom felt that recompense should be made to property owners who complied with the rule while in effect. Commissioner Siegfried corrected the misunderstanding, stating that the Applicant is not asking for an exception required of other property owners; the Applicant is requesting for a deferred agreement to not underground existing power lines along Pierce Rd. Commissioner Pines asked that the requirement for street widening be dealt with by deferred agreements also. Ms. Bartie presented a surveyor's copy of street widening required of her. In response to Commissioner Guch's question, Mr. Heid pointed out street widening required of both property owners. Chairwoman Burger noted from the surveyor's copy that Ms. Barrie widened the street 10.5 ft. from the center line of the road; the Applicant is being asked to widen the street 18 ft. Chairwoman Burger assured Ms. Barfie that the requirements for one property owner would be the same as for another property owner on Pierce Rd. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF SD-86-003-1, AMENDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 6, TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL ENTER INTO A DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TO UNDERGROUND THE EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES/" WIDEN PIERCE ROAD TO ALIGN WITH PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND TO COMPLETE A DEFERRED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE REMAINING 18 FEET OF WIDENING REQUIRED. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. V-86-003 Clarence Furuya, request for variance approval to allow an existing deck with lattice roof to encroach 19 ft. into the required rear yard area where a 4 ft. encroachment is permitted at 13550 Toni Ann Place in the R- 1 - 12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission," dated October 8, 1986, and stated that Staff recommended approval of this application. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 OCTOBER 8, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Clarence T. Furuya, Applicant, stated that an existing deck overlooks adjoining property; a complaint of encroachment was made by adjoining property owners. He stated: The deck is level with the house Windows of the house overlook adjoining properties The allowed 4 ft. of deck would not change the fact that one property overlooks another - Noise has not been a problem Existing shrubs will eventually screen the adjoining yard The Applicant requested that the deck be allowed. Chairwoman Burger noted on land use visit that the property to the rear (east) has fast growing shrubs and there is some lattice work on the fence. Mr. Dick Applebaum, 20568 Sevilla Lane, Saratoga, registered his concern regarding loss of view. In the original development of the area, some properties were graded up; at present, houses to the rear are approximately 2 ft. higher than adjoining properties. There is a 11/2 ft. retaining wall that abuts the fence of Mr. Applebaum. He now no longer has a view of the mountains. Mr. Bill Gillen, 20535 E1 Dorado Ct., Saratoga, requested denial of the request for the following reasons: - Privacy inp act on his home. The deck overlooks his pool and patio area. - The view from his house is of the back fence and a deck which appears to be connected to the fence. Shrubbery is insufficient at present to screen the yard; he did not feel it was his obligation to provide screening to block the neighbor's view of his yard. In addition, the deck was built without permit. Mrs. Judy Gillen, 20535 El Dorado Ct., Saratoga, cited an incident of privacy impact on her back yard when the adjoining neighbors gave a party on their deck. Although the deck is at house level, the houses were built at an elevation that overlooks adjoining properties. Ms. Linda Berkman, E1 Dorado Ct., Saratoga, stated that occasions she has been in the Gillen's back yard she was appalled at the proximity the neighbor's deck. She noted the privacy encroachment. PINES/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. Passed 6-0. In response to Commissioner Pines' question, Planning Director Hsia stated that the deck was built after the house. The City Attorney qualified Findings, 1. Exhibit "A-l" stating that the fact that the deck has already been built without permit, would not constitute of itself, a hardship. Commissioner Pines stated his reluctance to grant the Variance requested since the house was built to the setback line and then, after the fact, a request for a Variance was submitted to allow encroachment into the rear yard area; he will vote to deny the Variance. Commissioner Siegfried concurred that a deck at the height presented impacts privacy; however, he suggested that the Applicant be allowed to present a revised plan, including privacy screening, rather than removing the entire deck. Commissioner Callans concurred with Commissioner Pines. Commissioner Guch stated that she gave serious consideration to the request for a Variance. She noted that the deck was well designed; however, it was built without a permit. In addition, the height of the deck is of concern. She concurred with other Commissioners who will deny this request. Commissioner Tucker expressed her concern regarding privacy impact on property owners to the south and suggested consideration of lowering the deck. Chairwoman Burger stated that even if the deck extended only 6 ft. from the home, privacy inpact would still occur. Additional landscape screening was considered. Commissioner Pines noted that a concrete patio at grade level would be acceptable to the Commission and would lower the area about 2 ft. The Chairwoman concurred with other Commissioners that the deck was beautifully designed; however, she would not have approved the application initially, due to encroachment. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 OCTOBER 8, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Pines stated that the use of the rear yard is not precluded by a denial of the request for a Variance. PINES/GUCH MOVED TO DENY V-86-003 BEING UNABLE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS, ESPECIALLY FINDING 1. Passed 6-0. 4. DR-86-023 McCormick, request for design review and variance approval to allow V-86-008 construction of a new, two-story 5, 130 sq. ft. single family dwelling on a average natural slope of 35% where 30% is the maximum allowed at 12609 Star Ridge Ct. in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission," dated October 8, 1986, and stated that Staff recommended denial of the Variance and Design Review Application. Commissioner Guch reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell requested a correction on TeChnical Information, Impervious Coverage, to read "9% (6540 sq. ft.)" The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 P.M. Mr. Miles McCormick, Applicant, stated that he and his wife chose the lot in question because they believed that the following goals would be met: - The house be sheltered from a lower view of the valley and the street - Preservation of the oak trees on the property - Minimal amount of excavation into the hill, preserving natural landscape and controlling COSTS Preferred design would allow the applicants to stagger the house on the hill With respect to sheltering the house, it is nearly impossible to see the house from below the property; natural vegetation and the large oak trees below the proposed house adequately screen the house from this angle. He disagreed with Staffs statement that the house can be viewed from a mile and a half away. Current design plans allow only the garage to be exposed to street view. Both vegetation on the property and the proposed design of the house reduce concerns that the house appears bulky. Although the rear view appears bulky on the plans, only a minimal view of the house will be seen. There are numerous oak trees on the property; the proposal removes only 4 trees exceeding 12 in. in diameter, one of which is diseased; removal of these trees will have no impact on the sheltering effect nor from the street level view. The Applicant presented additional diagrams and drawings of the proposed house. Mr. McCormick stated that they anticipate excavating only 30 cu. yds. of soil. The staggering of the house, despite the additional cost, was the best way to achieve minimal cut. He was aware of the Planning Department's recommendation to recess the house 6 - 8 ft. into the hill; this would defeat the original purpose. Granting a Variance would protect the landscape; recessing the house further into the hill will infringe on trees on the western knoll and will require an additional 1000 cu. yds. of excavated soil. He noted that they have a difficult lot to develop and acknowledged the Planning Department's concern that the crawl space will be used for living area at some time in the future; he assured the Commission that it would not. Mr. Many Oakley, Architect, commented on the statement in the Staff Report that the house could be easily relocated. He presented the site plan and noted that the lot itself restricted the building area; the house has been designed to follow the natural contours of the slope. In response to remarks by Commissioner Siegfried, he stated that the cut into the hill is 8 ft.; creating a level pad on which to build the house into the slope. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 OCTOBER 8, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Guch suggested that the house could be moved back 5 ft. toward the retaining wall; Commissioner Pines questioned why designs presented at the Hearing had not been presented earlier for review by the Commission; he proposed that this Application should be referred to study session. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:39 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/PINES MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Passed 6-0. Application will be heard on October 28, 1986, study session and heard at Planning Commission Public Hearing on November 12, 1986. Commissioner Pines stated that the Commission would be looking for additional recessing of the house; he questioned whether the design submitted effectively steps the house down the hill. 5. AZO-86-002 City of Saratoga, consideration of amendment to the Zoning Ordinances to allow new second residential units in the R-l-10,000 zoning district subject to a limit of not more than five per year, without restricting the occupancy of a person sixty years of age or older. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Planning Director Hsia stated that in May, the Planning Commission was directed by the City Council to review the Ordinance allowing second units in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; the City Council has referred this Ordinance back to the Planning Commission for consideration of removal of the restriction requiring occupants to be at least 60 years of age. He reviewed Issues in the Memorandum dated October 8, 1986. Staff recommended that the Commission eliminate references in the City Code requiring the occupant to be 60 years of age or older. In response to a question of Commissioner Siegfried, the City Attorney stated that state law requires that the Commission consider the issue of waiving of the age requirement in the Ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:48 P.M. Ms. Harriet Handler, 13385 Ronnie Way, Saratoga, read a statement to the Commission. She noted that age discrimination in so-called second units is a burning issue for her; age is a factor but not an insoluble issue. She concurred with Councilmember Peterson's statement that second units in Saratoga are a non-issue. The Ordinance has been put to the test and there has been very few application for second units; in addition, there are not many seniors in Saratoga who require separate living space. Ms. Edna Angle, who could not attend the hearing, asked Ms. Handler to speak for her. Second units are the only viable alternative for some seniors. She asked the Commission not to eliminate the age requirement from the Ordinance. The new Ordinance will control the number of use permits, space permitted, number of occupants and will prohibit any facade changes. Senior citizens or professionals will rent second units in Saratoga since students cannot afford rents in the City. She asked the Commission to approve the age restriction in the Ordinance. Ms. Louise Cooper, 22701 Mr. Eden Rd., Saratoga, Legislative Chair for the Saratoga area Senior Citizen Coordinating Council, stated that Mr. Andy Beverett wished to be at the Commission hearing but was unable to do so. She stated that the issue of second units is very important to them; affordable senior housing, in gereral, has been of great concern to the Coordinating Council. Although they welcome the Ordinance, they regret that it has not been more effective and look forward to a time when the Ordinance helps in providing more low cost housing, which meets health and safety standards. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 OCTOBER 8, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Cooper expressed appreciation for the Commission's action recommending that new units be allowed in the R-1-10,000 zoning district; discrimination due to lot size is thus eliminated. The present issue appears to be a legal question. The Coordinating Council believes that the City of Saratoga should have a straightforward Ordinance eliminating discrimination of age as well as location. SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:59 P.M. Passed 6-0. In response to comments by Commissioner Siegfried, the City Attorney stated that under the existing Ordinance, either the main unit or the second unit must be occupied by a senior citizen. Owner occupancy is not a issue at this discussion. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the question is, should either unit have to be occupied by a senior;, the Commissioner felt strongly that this would be a serious mistake, creating an issue that does not currently exist. It will become an issue if the suggestion is that neither of the units have to be occupied by a senior citizen; this would be detrimental to the concept of what the Commission is trying to do. Commissioner Tucker noted that seniors should favor the stipulation since it provides housing; if removed, there may be problems with rent control. She stated eliminating the age restriction would open the City to duplexes in districts zoned R-1. SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED THAT A RECOMMENDATION BE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE ORDINANCE NOT BE CHANGED AND THE PROVISION REMAIN THAT EITHER THE MAIN UNIT OR THE SECOND UNIT BE OCCUPIED BY A SENIOR CITIZEN. Passed 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS; Written: Memo regarding Village Plan. The public hearing will be held on November 12, 1986. Planning Director Hsia gave the Commission an update stating that the Planning Department hopes to present a Report on November 4, 1986. Oral bv Commission: City Council Report given by Chairwoman Burger. Commissioner Siegfried stated that Site Review Committee Meetings items are often very brief; such items could be best served on Consent Calendar. The Planning Director recommended that the practice remain for this year, with a decision being made by the Council and the Commission on Design Review procedures and standards. The City Attorney noted the Ordinance which defines which items are referred to Site Review Committee; however, the Commission could establish as a policy direcfive, that all design reviews are presented to the Commission. Consensus reached that design reviews are of sufficient importance that staff exercise its authority to refer directly to Planning Commission Hearing. / PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 OCTOBER 8, 1986 ADJOURNMENT; The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:14 P.M. Respectfully submitted,