Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: June 22, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Vice Chairman Siegfried~ Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad, Tappan; Chairwoman Guch absent. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of June 8, 1988 Commissioner Burger asked that Page 4, third paragraph, add statement, "The Commissioner went on to note the next paragraph of the agreement which she quoted, '...parties expressly acknowledge that the improvements described...represent a preliminary conceptual plan only and are subject to change during the course of processing developer's applications...' Commissioner Burger also indicated that she believed this indicated that the City Council had no intention that the Planning Commission should abrogate its duties in this matter." Commissioner Harris asked that Page 4, sixth paragraph be amended to read, Commissioner Harris concurred with all of Commissioners Burger's and Siegfried's comments and added that at the time of the agreement, the cumulative impacts of this and the adjacent project may not have been envisioned; now that plans have been presented and the density of the adjacent development is visible, impacts..." Add to end of paragraph, "...of the commercial buildings." HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1988, AS AMENDED Passed 6-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPQRT OF CLERK ON POSTING 9F AGENDA; Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on June 17, .1988. Technical Corrections to the Agenda: Planner Caldwell noted in Application DR-88-003, an added Condition 21., to read, "Applicant shall sign indemnity agreement as prepared by the City Attorney for construction of the pool and garage in the fault setback zone." Applicant'had been informed and was agreeable to such. Application SDR-1590.2 Condition 41. Section 3., to state that an extension of 12 months was granted; Section 4. to state that the extension was valid until April 17, 1989. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. DR-88-006 Campbell, 12793 Star Ridge Court, request for design review approval of a new 4,691 sq. ft., two-story home in the NHR zoning district. Continued to July 13, 1988, for revision of plans. 2. DR-87-152 Foley, 18929 Monte Vista Drive, request for design review approval for a new 5,640 sq. ft. two-story single family home on a vacant lot in the R-l- 40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from June 8, 1988. 3. DR-88-010 Estate I Development, 21518 Saratoga Heights Drive, request for design review approval of plans. to construct a new 6,092 sq. ft. two-story dwelling in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from June 8, 1988. 4. SD-87-020.1 Olsen, 15231 Quite Rd., request for approval of landscape plans for the subdivision to provide screening for the adjacent properties. Approval is required per the subdivision conditions, approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JUNE 22, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR'Continued 5. SM-88-015 Simon, 12665 Star Ridge Court, request for site modification approval to remove an existing oak tree that was to be preserved per the previous design review approval. 6. DR-87-126.2 Lautrup, 18247 Montpere Way, request for modification to a conditions of the previous design review approval of a new 3,416 sq. ft. one-story home to allow shrubs and vines rather than trees to provide screening for privacy along the rear property line of a 10,301 sq. ft. site in the R-l- 10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. DR-88-029 Archer, 12057 Parker Ranch Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 6,729 sq. ft. two-story home on a 2.58 acre lot in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-87-029.1 Rosenberg, 14134 Dorene Ct., request for modifications approval of (SM-88-018) plans to exceed the grading quantities approved as part of the applicant's design review approval. Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval to place 80 cu. yds. of fill at the rear of the home adjacent to the pool area. 9. LL~88-007 Kaufman, 13648 Vaquero Ct., request for lot line adjustment to transfer 32 sq. ft. of area from parcel A to parcel B' in order to more equally divide the level area between the lots. 10. DR-88-003 Saffarian, 21757 Congress Hall Lane, request for design review approval SM-88-020 of plans to construct a new 4,907 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zoning district and site modification to allow construction of a swimming pool. Vice Chairman Siegfried noted that Public Hearings Consent Calendar was continued. Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 4. A request was made to remove Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 7. A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 10. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALEN- DAR ITEMS 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, AND 9. Passed 6-0~ 4. SD-87-020.1 Olsen, 15231 Quite Rd., request for approval of landscape plans for the subdivision to provide screening for the adjacent properties. Approval is required per the subdivision conditions, approved by the Planning Commission on March 23,. 1988. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 22, 1988. Commissioner Tucker cited Exhibit A, Model Resolution, Specific Conditions - Planning Department, 42., "No structure or fences shall be allowed in any open space easement" and requested clarification of the existing wall, whether such would remain and if so, who would be responsible for maintenance. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Gene Zambetti, Applicant's Representative,. commented as follows: Adobe wall was considered historical to the structure and would be maintained/repaired according to standards of adobe construction Wall encroached into the building envelope of Lot B and would be moved into the scenic area to the rear of the historic structure While the wall was of concern at Tentative' Map hearings, it was not addressed at the time Applicant had stated that he wished to preserve the wall Responsibility for maintaining the wall would be with Lot A property owners Confumed that a portion of the wall encroached on all three parcels Asked that the Final Map indicate that an existing historical adobe wall was located in the easement area Commissioner Burger stated that the question. was one of responsibility for maintaining the wall on three lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JUNE 22, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued The City Attorney responded that two issues had: been raised, namely, maintenance of the wall and whether a maintenance agreement would .be recorded to prevent any future adverse possession claims. Such would be required, imposing an obligation on owners of Lots B and C and would also recognize that they owned property on the opposite side of the wall. He questioned whether such was the intent of the COmmission in creating open space easements-- an area free of structures. Planner Caidwell stated that research showed that the Heritage Preservation Commission made no mention of protection of the wall in question; the Planning Commission did not previously consider such and may not wish to consider the protection of a wall that was not called out in any of the public hearings. With respect to Condition 42, add "...except for the wall." Such would provide the leeway to either remove or maintain the adobe wall. Staff did not feel the adobe wall was an intricate part the heritage resource. The City Attorney added that due to the irregulir shape of the lots, building envelopes would abut the 'boundary lines of the open space easement; it was reasonable to expect that property owners for Lots B and C would wish to remove the wall to create additional open space. Mr. Zambetti responded that the Heritage Resource Commission could review the adobe wall; Applicant was very concerned about preservation of the wall and would not object to a main- tenance agreement with future owners of Lots B and C, including a gated access in the wall. An adobe specialist had been retained to reviewe the entire project. He asked that the Commission review this issue at a future date with the adobe specialist giving testimony. Commissioner Siegfried noted that a landscape agreement was before the Commission. Mr. Zambetti confumed that Italian Cypress trees in the far north west comer of the site would be preserved; he requested a cash bond for the landscaping in order to install such in January. Mr. Vincent Philbrick, 15200 Oriole Way, Saratoga, was favorable to the plan proposed and asked that plants on the perimeter of his home as.well as the Italian Cypress be maintained. Mr. Clark Beck, 15300 Sobey Rd., Saratoga, concurred with the above speaker. Mr. Zambetti presented an estimate on the cost of the landscaping and reiterated the request for a cash bond. He presented for the record a chart' showing the growth rate of plants selected. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:54 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris had no objection to plans presented; she asked that a Condition require the preservation of the Italian Cypress trees and that a cash bond be acceptable. The City Attorney suggested that the estimate provided by the Applicant be reviewed by Staff; the bond to be at least one and a half times the amount of the estimate. The City Attorney advised that landscaping plans could be approved at this time; however, the adobe wall raised a series of questions. If approVed with Conditions as stated, the burden was on the Applicant to take further action to modify these requirements. Condition 42 could either remain as stated or the Commission could reserve judgement, requiring the Applicant to return within a specified time for a determination on the wall. It was the structure (house) that was considered the historic resource; as Planner Caldwell pointed out there had been no discussion on the wall. No claim had been made that the wall was part of the heritage resource. Commissioner Burger favored approval of the: landscaping plan, req.uiring the Applicant to return to the Commission for a determination on the wall; Commissioner Harris concurred, adding that she was not in a position to allow removal of the wall without further assessment. The City Attorney responded to Mr. Zambetti's question stating that this heating would be continued so as to not require additional public noticing. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN ADDING CONDITIONS: THAT THE ITALIAN CYPRESS TREES BE PRESERVED, THAT THE APPLICATION BE RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION IN 30 DAYS FOR A DETERMINATION ON THE ADOBE WALL AND THAT A CASH BOND BE REQUIRED IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE AND A HALF TIMES THE ESTIMATE AS DETERMINED BY STAFF. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JUNE 22, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued 7. DR-88-029 Archer, 12057 Parker Ranch Rd., request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 6,729 sq. ft. two-story home on a 2.58 acre lot in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 22, 1988. Commissioner Tucker resported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:03 P.M. Planner Caldwell introduced Mr. R. Koeltl's Impacts to the Property at 21150 Maria Ln; Applicant had shifted the house 10 ft. toward the 'easement since the first submittal of plans. Mr. John Young, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Original designs showed the house approximately 8 ft. further north than current plans - A berm adjacent to the neighbor's .swimming pool was raised 3 ft. to create privacy - Landscaping plan, dimensions of the house, distance and degree of angle from neigh- boring homes were reviewed; exhibits and pictures were presented - House was centered on the lot in order to take advantage of the view; in addition, the house had a low profile with a 2.25:1 pitch of the roof - Responded to Mr. Koeltl's concerns as shown on his prepared statement - 7 1/2 degree angle of this house would not block the neighbor's view - Neighbors could have orientated their home differently - Home was not sited at highest point; however, it was on a higher portion of the lot Mature palm trees would be maintained as shown on the Plot Plan - Felt that concerns raised had been addressed Mr. Richard Koeltl, 21150 Maria Ln., Saratoga, Commented as follows: Reviewed the view he enjoyed from his home With respect to adjacent parcels, homes were sited further toward the front of the property Did not understand why the house could not be located further north and east on the site Cited potential view impairments to existing homes Understood that homes could not be built above the ridge line; proposed house was 14 ft. above the ridge line, impairing his view and. deteriorating the value/beauty of his home Ms. Maria Koeltl, 21150 Maria Ln., Saratoga, invited the Commission to their home to see the view impairment that would result from the proposed house. Mr. Archer, Applicant, stated that the house could not be moved south due to an existing P.G. & E. easement; he not object to moving the house laterally forward approximately 5 ft. There was a difference between impacted and affected.' Mr. Koeltl stated that pictures presented were taken at a higher elevation. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:25 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger's distinct impression from a land use visit, was that the Koeltl's primary view was to the left rather than center front; this view would not be impaired nor obstructed. Commissioner Kolstad felt that the property at 20166, not the Koeltl's site, would be impacted; he concurred that the major view was to the left of the subject property. Commissioner Harris did not consider this hillside a ridge line per se; due to lot size and align- ment of homes on Parker Ranch Rd., moving the proposed house further up the lot would provide a visual break; however, she was not opposed to Mr. Young's suggestion of a 5 ft. distance, so long as the house did not impact neighbors on the opposite side. Commissioner Burger added that moving the home forward/left would alter the line of sight. Commissioner Tucker felt the Applicant was sensitive to the hillside in designing the home; having considered the concerns raised, she concurred with other Commissioners. Commissioner Tappan agreed from a site visit that the primary view was to the left. Vice Chairman Siegfried was favorable to moving the house forward and to the left. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-029 PER MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 JUNE 22, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 10. DR-88-003 S affarian, 21757 Congress Hall Land, request for design review approval SM-88-020 of plans to construct a new'. 4,907 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zoning district and site modification to allow construction of a swimming pool. Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 22, 1988. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell noted that the Applicant who was not present at the time, had been contacted regarding the amendments to the Model Resolution and was agreeable to such. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:37 P.M. There were no speakers. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:37 P.M. Passed 6-0. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-003 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 6-0. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF SM-88-020 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 11. GPA-88-004 City of Saratoga, consider a proposal to amend the Conservation Element of the General Plan, adding an Air Quality Section. The proposed section identifies air quality issues' in Saratoga and develops goals, policies, and implementation measures to address them. A Negative Declaration has been prepared Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, June 22, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Rd., Saratoga,' commented as follows: Statement that the air quality would improve after the freeway was built was not true County traffic patterns would be rearranged by Route 85 as noted in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); examples cited Noted the considerable air pollution that would result At the time the EIR was approved, there was no valid traffic study; the Barton-Aschman Study was completed after the Transportation Commission had approved the EIR/EIS Cited efforts, including a lawsuit, to obtain the data and figures used; in addition, there was no public heating at which these issues could be addressed Figures used in EIR/EIS were false; cited examples of discrepancy in numbers presented Cited the impacts to the City of Saratoga from the increased traffic Urged the Planning Commission not to approve the document under consideration Mr. Robert Wilson, 18709 Miller Ct., Saratoga,' commented as follows: - Air Quality Element under consideration gave the impression that air pollution was not a problem; cited examples of respiratory disease and existing levels of air pollutants Noted the lack of interest in more restrictive standards for the State of California - San Jose Mercury News' view that there was no problem was short sighted Cited efforts to obtain information on impacts of the freeway system and development Reviewed data on violations of air quality Standards in the area and impacts of Route 85 BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 8:59 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris felt that an endorsement. of Route 85 was suggested in the Air Quality Element, specifically, West Valley Freeway; she wished the text to be as unbiased as possible. Planner Welge stated that references were taken from the Environmental Impact Statement. Commissioner Burger suggested that neutrality could only be maintained in the document by avoiding the subject of Route 85; she cited the .conflicting information surrounding this issue. Vice Chairman Siegfried concurred that there were unanswered concerns regarding Route 85. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JUNE 22, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger suggested that references from the EIS be noted in the text. Commissioner Tucker commented as follows: Barton-Aschman Traffic Study was somewhat unclear and subject to interpretation Asked that the Table 4 show State of California Standards, rather than federal standards, such should be referenced throughout the entire document In the Section entitled West Valley Freeway, asked that final paragraph be documented Commissioner Tappan noted that language used in the EIS was equivocal; he concurred with the above recommendations of other Commissioners. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE GPA-88-004 TO JULY 27, 1988. Passed 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. SDR-1590.2 Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn Ln., Saratoga, request for a one year extension of time to complete conditions of tentative map approval for a three (3) lot subdivision for a 2.64 acre parcel in the R-1-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia reviewed the history of the Application. Mr. Liccardo, Applicant, stated that items of concern had been addressed last spring; he updated the Commission on the status of this Application. Commissioner Harris stated that she was unable to make the Findings when this Application was originally considered; she was not able to make the required Findings and would not vote in favor of this request. : Vice Chairman Siegfried stated that he was able ~o make the Findings originally and would vote in favor of this request; he noted that requests fo/' extensions were usually granted. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF SDR-1590.2 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 4-1-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting, Commissioner Tucker abstaining. CQMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of June 1, 1988, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Commissioner Burger reported on the City Council Meeting of June 15, 1988. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:13 P.M. Carol A. Probst-Caughey /