Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLXNNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: July 22, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Tucker, Clay Mr. Steve Baird, Attorney, represented City Attorney Toppel at this Meeting. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of July 8, 1987 Chairwoman Harris requested that on Page 7, the following sentence be added to the second to the last paragraph, "Chairwoman Harris noted that Mr. Pines had chosen to delay submitting such a change in time for consideration tonight even though the Commission had expressed its desire previously." Commissioner Burger noted that on Page 5, the 5Commissioner seconding the motion on Item 13 had not been indicated; Commissioner Siegfried asked that a 26 ft. height be recorded, to read, "SIEGFRIED/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF AZO-87-003 WITH THE CHANGE THAT THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT ON STRUCTURES BE REDUCED TO 26 FEET..." Commissioner Burger asked that on Page 6, third paragraph, state, "..the sign on the east side" GUCH/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 8, 1987, AS AM.ENDED. Passed 6-0. Deletions to the Agenda: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; None. REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on July 17, 1987. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. SD-87-011 Cunningham, 14226 Paul Ave., request for building site and design DR-87-048 review approval of a new 3,080 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to August 12, 1987. 2. DR-87-034 Rivoir, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,800 sq. ft. two-story home in the R-I-20,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to August 12, 1987. 3. DR-87-027.1Casabonne, 14435 Big Basin :Way, request to modify three conditions of a previous design review approval of plans to expand an existing commercial building in the C-C zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The three conditions relate to the restriction of vehicular access through a rear roll-up door, a requirement to install fire sprinklers along a side wall, and the specification of a rear driveway arch height and width. Continued to August 12, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued 4. DR-87~072 J. Lohr Properties, 13049 Glen Brae Dr., request for design review approval for a new 3,645 sq. ft. single story home in the R-1-12,500 zone, general plan designation medium density per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 5. DR-87-075 J. Lohr Properties, 19538 Chardonnay , request for design review approval for a new 3,951 sq. ft. two-story home in the R-1-12,500 zone, general plan designation medium density residential per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. DR-87-006 Hobbs, 19413 Lisa Marie Ct., request for design review approval of a new 4,840 sq. ft. one-story single family home in the R-1-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. SM-87-005 McCormick, 21424 Tollgate Rd., request for site modification and design DR-87-059 review approval of a new 4,864 sq. ft. two-story single family home and pool in the NHR zoning distric;t per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-87-058 Sinsley, 21273 Diamond Oaks Ct., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 5,032 sq. ft. two-story residence in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. DR-87-049 Brown, (Winklebeck) 139.17 Albar Ct., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 4,853 sq. ft. two-story home and site modification approval for construction of a swimming pool in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 8, 1987. 10. UP-87-011 Navai, 14599 Big Basin Way, request for use permit and design review DR-87-052 approval of plans to construct eight condominiums and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building in the C,V zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 8~ 1987. Chairwoman Harris requested removal of Item 7 from Public Hearings Consent Calendar. Planner Caldwell requested removal of Item 10 from Public Hearings Consent Calendar. BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEMS 7 AND 10 REMOVED. ITEMS 1, 2, 3 CONTINUED. Passed 6-0. 7. SM-87-005 McCormick, 21424 Tollgate Rd., request for site modification and design DR-87-059 review approval of a new 4,864 sq. ft. two-story single family home and pool in the NHR zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 22, 1987. Chairwoman Harris noted her concern regarding height and visibility of the proposed structure which would be placed at the crest of the hill. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:10 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Applicant, reviewed the application and stated that the proposed house met all Ordinance requirements. At a neighborhood meeting held July 9th, concerns of adjacent homeowners had been addressed. She noted that the front of the house would be approximately 20 ft. in height; the rear of the house--the two story portion of the house, from the lowest point of the grade to the roof peak was 24 ft. high. The roof then stepped back to 27 ft. and finally to a 29 ft. height; thus, the impact of the 29 ft. was considerably different than if a salt box type of house were built at a 29 ft. height. Mr. Reuben Haas, Designer, reviewed the renderings and added that a hip roof was proposed for this house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:16 P.M. Passed 6-0. Chairwoman Harris stated that her concerns had been answered and noted that a design which stepped up the hill did not appear unduly massive. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE SM~87-005 AND DR-87-059 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. 10. UP-87-011 Navai, 1459~ Big Basin Way, request for use permit and design review DR-87-052 approval of plans to construct eight condominiums and a 1,251 sq. ft. commercial building in the C-V zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from July 8, 1987. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 22, 1987, and noted the following changes in Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval, DR-87-052: 12. to read, "No restaurant facility approved unless adequate on-site parking is provided..." 13. to read, "Exterior colors shall comply with the Conceptual Village Plan Design Standards and subject to staff review and approval." 17. add, d., "Gate to be approved by the Saratoga Fire District." 18. to read, "Agree to join an assessment district for public facilities maintenance and/or parking which may be formed in the future."' 19. to read, "All off-site improvements shall be constructed and bonded in accordance with the Village Plan, including paving and landscaping." Planner Caldwell added that this Application Was identical with the previously approved project, which had expired; however, the Heritage Preservation Commission now wished the existing home to be retained as part of the proposed development. Staff recommended approval of both the Use Permit and the Design Review application. Commissioner Tucker questioned the following: - Manner of determination the number of employee parking spaces required Whether a study assessing traffic impacts on'Big Basin Way had been completed Ingress/egress traffic patterns to the site - Type of commercial development proposed The Public Hearing was opened at 7:28 P.M. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Applicant,;. reviewed the history of this application and noted that the house had previously been determined to be structurally unsound for moving to another site; the Use Permit was then modified to allow destruction of this home. In 1980, the Use Permit and Design Review applications were evaluated, approved and modified as follows: Number of townhouses reduced from 10 to 8 units Both retail shop and townhomes were reduced approximately 4 ft. in height Ms. Fanelli reviewed the plans and stated that currently: The height of the proposed townhomes was 33 ft., where 20 ft. was allowed Garages were placed under townhouse units due to the narrowness of the lot Proposed three stories conformed with the Village Plan Commercial building would be at an elevation of about 513 ft., with 20 ft. at its highest point and a 10 ft. setback. : - First townhouse would be 96 ft. from Big Basin Way, with a pad of 503 ft. elevation; impact from the street would be minimal. She noted the Heritage Commission's review of the existing residence and added that the site had not been designated as a historical residence. 'Information on the historical importance of this site presented to the Commission was found to be inaccurate by the Applicants; examples were cited. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. Bill Carlson, President, Village Association, stated that the Executive Board had no objection to this development. He noted concern regarding the limited ingress/egress to the development and favored an exit on 4th Street; the Board continued to support the Village Hart and the development of Big Basin Way past 5th Street for retail/commercial use. Mr. Miles Rankin noted his active involvement in the Saratoga Village Plan and favored the development of this property. He addressed the following concerns: The need for more and varied commercial in the Village area - A proposed 1250 sq. ft. of commercial use of a 44,000 sq. ft. site would not create the desired atmosphere; interruptions in commercial establishments would cancel the continuity being sought. He suggested consideration of a 50/50 commercial/residential split as more beneficial for the Village. - Proposed parking was not to the rear of the' property as promoted by the Village Plan; he noted potential traffic hazards in backing out - Proposed driveway would cut across the sidewalk, interfering with pedestrian traffic - Proposed height of the structures - Failure to collect the in-lieu fees for parkingto eliminate on-site parking Mr. Richard Tyrrell, Heritage Preservation Commission, noted that the Marsh-Metzger house was listed on the inventory of historical sites. He noted that some members of the Heritage Preservation Commission were not convinced that the house could not be relocated. Ms. Sharon Landsness, Heritage Preservation 'Commission, stated that the inventory was being updated and corrected where necessary and reviewed the opinion of historian M. Oden regarding this site. She noted concern that this property would not be subject to architectural guidelines and noted potential impacts to the adjacent Irwin-King house from decisions made on this property in terms of: - Setback differences between historic/residential property and commercial/retail - Lack of a transition between historic/residential and commercial/retail - Current availability of unleased retail space ih the Village Ms. Mary Boscoe, 14611 Big Basin Way, Sara. toga, noted concerns regarding density and height of the proposed condominium and added. that she understood that commercial was to stop at 4th Street; in addition, the proposed commercial would be located very close to the street. She felt that this proposal would set a precedent for the Village. Mr. Frank Behnke stated that while he had no objection to the proposal, he was concerned that future condominium owners would dictate the use of Village property he owned. Ms. Anne Fitzsimmons, 13480 Saratoga Avenue,' Saratoga, objected to the setback differential between retail/commercial and residential, the proposed retail use of this site and parking in front of the building; the above would completelyi obscure the historic structures. She objected demolishing the Marsh-Metzger home due to her great interest in historic homes. Ms. Barbara Voester, Heritage Preservation Commission, added that the site of this historic home commercial uses ended and the historic/residential area began; she asked that this transition point be retained. The Commission's decision on this issue would set a precedent. Ms. Fanelli responded that: - Parking district 6 and in lieu of fees would ntt serve the property in question. - Retail use without street exposure would be marginal - There was already a physical interruption in the continuity of retail - Current Applicants had already attempted to save and/or relocate the house - Fire District requirements for ingress/egress on the site dictated two exits - Bringing people to the Village to live would benefit the Village - Questions remained regarding the historic value of the home in question Ms. Fanelli responding to questions, reviewed the' extensive renovation needed for the house. Mr. Herbert Quavis, Architect, detailed the extensive renovation needed, adding that there would be very little of the interior finishes left; the structure itself was a problem. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Burger noted that there was currently no transition between retail/commercial and residential use in the Village. She added that old did not necessary equate with historical; in this case, she did not feel that this structure was of historical significance and was not favorable to incorporation of this home into the proposed development. Commissioner Guch was not favorable to intensifying commercial use on site. Commissioner Burger concurred that a small commercial building would meet the needs of a transitional use and stated that this proposal would accomplish such a transition. Both Commissioners favored a reduction in the height proposed. Commissioner Tucker understood that the three story height was allowed to the rear of the property, where visual impact would be lessened. Commissioner Clay noted that his concerns were: Automobile traffic crossing the pedestrian walkways Questions regarding the historic preservatio.n of this building; he suggested a compromise of incorporating the design elements of the present structure in the new building Commissioner Siegfried favored this proposal and added that the requested 33 ft. structure was 100 ft. removed from the street. The structure proposed was less impactful on adjacent properties than a single, large commercial structure to the front of the property. Commissioner Guch noted reservations regarding the 33 ft. height; in addition, she asked that the parking requirements be reviewed. Chairwoman Harris expressed concern regarding the plainness of the design for the commercial building; Ms. Fanelli responded that Victorian style design elements would be added. With regard to building height, a change in the roof style would lower the height 2-3 ft; however, such would probably be insignificant and the Victorian flavor would be lost. Chairwoman Harris summarized the concerns of ihe Commission; Planner Caldwell stated that if the Commission did not wish to retain the existing structure on the property, Staff suggested a Condition of Approval be added, to read, "Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the Marsh-Metzger residence, the Applicant will document the structure by submitting photographs and a floor plan to the Secretary of the Heritage' Preservation Commission for inclusion into their resource inventory." GUCH/CLAY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE S PUBLIC HEARING ON UP-87-011 AND DR-87-052 TO AUGUST 26, 1987, WITH A STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 4, 1987. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11. City of Saratoga Saratoga Senior Housing Report, review report of Senior Housing issues in Saratoga and make recommendations to the City Council. Planner Young reviewed the Memorandum of July 16, 1987, and noted that a cover letter had been drafted for signature by the Director of Planning to be forwarded to the City Council. The Commission was asked to review both the Report which had incorporated the changes requested and the cover letter. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:56 P.M. Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, cited differences in text between the cover letter and the Report; consensus reached that text be identical. She asked that Area L be included in maps and read the following statement into the record; Housing Element, Section 34, Governmental Constraints, "Another vital consideration is the desire to keep densities low to maintain neighborhood character. Allowing higher densities on infill parcels create incompatible uses when they are substantially surrounded by low density single family development. One of the major reasons Saratoga incorporated in 1956 was to preserve its low density character." 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planner Young noted that Area L had not been separated out in survey responses; consensus reached that Area L be added to the map with a notation clarifying the lack of survey responses. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that on Draft Cover Memo, Background, be expanded to include the first full paragraph in Recommendations. Mr. Andy Beverett, 19597 Via Monte Dr., Saratoga, complimented Planner Young for the Report presented and the Commission for retaining substantial portions of the original Report. He added his concern regarding wording in Senior Housing Sites, 2, statement was incompatible with the social, economic and demographic trends in Saratoga, namely, the aging of its population. He asked that further consideration be given to possible sites. Ms. Peggy Corr, President, Saratoga Senior Coordinating Council, concurred with Mr. Beverett and noted disappointment at the elimination of sites from consideration. She asked that the Commission consider any proposal which might have potential. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:11 P.M. Passed 6-0. , Commissioner Siegfried suggested that efforts be concentrated on sites currently zoned and designated for higher density use; such would relieve pressure on residents who live near other sites previously considered for senior, multi-density use. The Planning Commission could encourage development of the two sites already designated for this use. Commissioner Tucker noted previous consideration that Appendix B, Government Funding Sources Related to Senior Housing be deleted; consensus reached to retain Appendix B. In the Memorandum, Recommendations regarding the City's involvement in other programs designated to help seniors, consensus reached to retain the first two recommendations on the grounds that they were issues of concern to the Planning Commission and to delete the third recommendation on the grounds that this was a political consideration more appropriately decided by the Council. Recommendations retained to be added to Existing Zoning Regulations relating to Senior Housing in Saratoga. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REPORT ON SENIOR HOUSING. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried absent at 9:17 P.M. Break: 9:17 - 9:34 P.M. 12. DR-87-047 Leverett, 13946 Damon Ln.,. request for design review approval for a 6,016 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code.: Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 22, 1987, and noted that Staff could not made the Finding that.the natural landscape was being preserved; therefore, Staff recommended denial without prejudice. Chairwoman Harris reviewed decisions made on adjacent homes and noted concern regarding the height, size and color proposed in this Application. The Public Heating was opened at 9:40 P.M. Mr. Randell Levereli, Applicant, deferred to the ajchitect on the project. Mr. Don Mariano, Architect, noted that the only issue cited in the Staff Report was the excessive grading; he stated that grading would be done to create a building pad on a very steep site. He reviewed alternatives previously considered by the Applicants. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Leverett noted efforts to build a Mediterranean style home, compatible with the rest of the subdivision; he presented pictures showing cuts made on other property sites and confirmed that the proposed cut would be over 900 cubic yards. Commissioners commented that pictures presented seemed to show fill, rather than cut. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:45 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Guch noted that Staff had listed the cut at 993 cubic yards and suggested consideration of alternatives to prevent such an' extensive cut. She stated that she could not made Finding 2. Commissioner Burger added that the site was being designed to fit the home. Chairwoman Harris noted that she could not make Finding 3, Perception of excessive bulk. GUCH/CLAY MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-87-047 BEING UNABLE TO MAKE FINDINGS 2 AND 3. Passed 5-0. 13. SD-87-009 Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., 2request that the Planning Commission LL-87-003 recommend approval to the City Council for a reversion to acreage plan SD-87-009.1 to establish four (4) lots where nine (9) lots currently exist and to consider a lot line adjustment application to allow various adjustments between the four (4) lots. In addition, the applicant is requesting tentative building site approval for 3 lots in the R-I-20,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. : Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 22, 1987, and noted corrections in Staff Analysis, 3., to read: - Lot 14: Frontage 40 ft., Width 104 ft., Depth 220 ft. - Lot 15: Frontage 105 ft., Width 116 ft., Depth 210 ft. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, reviewed the history of this Application and presented a 1906 map of record which created legal lots of record and dedicated Hill Ave., Pleasant Ave. and Vine St.--streets which served this subdivision. The current Application only addressed Lots 14, 15, and 16; however, at the request of Staff, a Master Plan had been designed. No improvements were being requested for Vine St. at this time; Applicants were favorable to a deferred improvement agreement. Mr. Heiss suggested the following changes to Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval: In B., Specific Conditions - Engineering Division, 19., until such time as Vine St. became a public street, or was abandoned, there was no purpose to require changes to this driveway. A modification of the driveway could be included in the deferred improvement agreement relative to Parcels E and F. In G., Specific Conditions - Planning Depfirtment, 2., request made that this accessory structure be removed before final occupancy approval rather than prior to final building site approval. The City Engineer suggested that the removal of the accessory structure be completed within the one year period of construction of required improvements and secondly, to require the posting of a bond, insuring that this relocation was completed within the time allotted. Mr. Steward Smith read into the record a letter o.f Mrs. S.M. Smith, dated July 15, 1987. Mr. Dave Arata, representing the senior Aratas at 20400 Hill Ave., presented a preliminary title report from Valley Title Co. which proved that Hill Ave. was not a public road; he asked for resolution of this issue in the near future. He noted concern regarding the volume of traffic on Hill Ave., the use of a hammerhead instead of a cul de sac at the turn around and suggested an additional lot line adjustment on the border of Hill Ave. to create a wider interior road. He noted his interest in creating a plan which would be harmonious with the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 JULY 22, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Chairwoman Harris' question, Attorney Baird stated that the City would not become the insurer of title to the Rivoir property. Conditions of Approval require that the Applicant (Rivoir) provide a dedication of Hill Ave; if such cannot be provided through sufficient documentation to the satisfaction of the City, the applicable Condition would not be satisfied and the Applicant would not be able to proceed with the project. The City Engineer noted that improvements made to the driveway in question would make any future decision more difficult. Attorney Baird suggested that in Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval: B., Specific Conditions - Engineering Division, Item 19. could be incorporated into Item 7. Mrs. Smith noted that the property had been in her family for forty years and suggested that the property in question have two homes on it; this would prevent excessive traffic on Hill Ave. BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M. Passed 5-0 BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE SD-87-009. Passed 5-0. BURGER/CLAY MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION LL-87-003. Passed 5-0. BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-87-009.1 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS; Written: 1. Letter from County of Santa Clara re: Quarries, - Noted and filed. 2. Planning Commission Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes dated June 30, 1987, - Noted and filed. 3. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of July 8, 1987, - Noted and filed. 4. Letter from Don Peterson, Mayor, re: City-owned Parcel at Cox Ave. and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Rd., - Noted and filed. Commissioner Burger noted for the record that because this parcel was owned by the City, it was necessary for the City to talk to developers of the property before this Application could be heard by the Planning Commission. Oral by Commission: Commissioner Clay reported on the Meeting of the City Council of July 15, 1987.. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:06 P.M. ~~l~st-Caugh~~