Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: July 27, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad; Commissioner Tappan absent. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of July 13, 1988 Chairwoman Guch noted under Oral by Commission that Commissioner Kolstad reported on the Meeting of the City Council. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 13, 1988, AS AMEND- ED. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS| - Mr. Wilhelm Kohler, Pierce Canyon Homeowners Association, presented pictures and noted his concems regarding Oak trees which had been marked; residents feared that these trees were earmarked for cutting down. Planner Caldwell stated that an Application had been received by the Planning Department. The trees were marked with ties to show the effect of widening Pierce Rd. just south of Surrey; however, the Oak trees would not be cut. She reiterated that the Applicant understood such. REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on July 22, 1988. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Caldwell noted the following amendments to the Packet Material: DR-88-041: Delete sentence following the words, "(City of Saratoga 16-60)" SD-88-029: Change in the Resolution reflected the ability of the property owner to enter into a deferred improvement agreement; Staff felt that such was appropriate. Applicant .had been informed of this change and was agreeable to such. Condition 23 amended to read, "The accessory structures on the slab shall be removed prior to final inspection." PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-88-046 O'Dell, 21363 Saratoga Hills Road, request for design review approval of plans to construct a 1,943 sq. ft. second story addition and add 878 sq. ft. to the first floor of an existing single family home in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to August 10, 1988, for revised plans. 2. V-88-026 Barr, 13914 Camino Barco, request for variance approval of plans to construct a 6 ft. high fence, set back 24.5 from an exterior side yard property line where a 25 ft. setback is required in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. In addition, variance approval is requested to permit a 7 ft. high rear yard fence where a 6 ft. high fence is allowed per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to August 10, 1988. 3. ZC-87-039 Nelson/Chamberlain, 21350 & 21290 Blue Hills Road, request for pre-zoning to NHR (northwestern hillside residential) two adjacent lots, developed with single family homes. The parcels total 2.68 acres and are located approximately 600 ft. west of Prospect Road in the RHC (residential, hillside conservation) general plan designation. Pre-zoning is required prior to annexation of the parcels into the City of Saratoga. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 JULY 27, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued ' 4. DR-88-039 Lohr, 14659 Chester Avenue, request for design review approval for a new 5,822 sq. ft. one-story Single family home in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 5. DR-88-041 Lohr, 14622 Chester AvenUe, request for design review approval for a new 5,595 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. DR-88-026 Waldron, 19826 Merribrook Drive, request for design review approval for a 780 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one-story single family home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total proposed area is 3,368 sq. ft. 7. SD-88-009 Pierce, 15295 Sobey Road, request for tentative building site approval for V-88-013 a 50% expansion to an existing home in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Also consider granting a variance to allow alteration and expansion of an existing detached garage with nonconforming setback of 18.25 ft. in lieu of 20 ft. minimum requirements per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-88-049 Alff, 14185 Teerlink Way, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 5,115 sq. ft. two-story home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. DR-88-032 Moore, 18691 Vessing Court, request for design review approval of a new 5,832 sq. ft. two-story home on a 1.507 acre parcel in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 10. DR-88-038 McNeish, 14124 Dorene Court, request for design review approval of a n~w 4,898 sq. ft. two-story single family home on a 1.455 acre parcel in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 11. UP-88-009 Herring, 14563 Big Basin'. Way, request for a conditional use permit allowing a professional office use to be located in the C-C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Ms. Dora G-rens r~quested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 3. Commissioner Kolstad requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, AND 11. Passed 6-0. 3. ZC-87-039 Nelson/Chamberlain, 21350 & 21290 Blue Hills Road, request for pre-zoning to NHR (northwestern hillside residential) two adjacent lots, developed with single family homes. The parcels total 2.68 acres and are located approximately 600 ft. west of Prospect Road in the RHC (residential, hillside conservation) general plan designation. Pre-zoning is required prior to annexation of the parcels into the City of Saratoga. Ms. Dora Grens questioned the exact location of the property and why the City was encour- aging such requests. Commissioner Burger responded that Staff had not initiated this Item. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of July 27, 1988; a Site Map was made available to Ms. Grens. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF ZC-8%005 PER THE MODEL RESOLU- TION. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JULY 27, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 8. DR-88-049 Alff, 14185 Teedink Way, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 5,115 sq. ft. two-story home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Commissioner Kolstad noted the bulk and the grading proposed; in addition, he questioned whether the siting proposed for the house was the most suitable on the lot. i~lanner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 27, 1988 The Public Hearing was opened at 8:06 P.M. Applicant's Architect not present; the City Attorney noted that it was the responsibility of the Applicant to be present; it was left to the discretion of the Commission whether to delay hearing the Item. Consensus reached by the Commission to hear the Item later in the agenda. MISCELLANEOUS: 12. Discussion of zoning ordinance amendment to restrict hours of operation in the commercial zone district. Commissioner Burger presented slides of the Argonaut Shopping Center to demonstrate the Commission's concerns surrounding commercial shopping centers, namely, property maintenance, safety, conformity with Health and Fire Safety Cedes. The Chair recognized the following speakers: Mr. Jerry Kocir, 1255 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., Saratoga, stated that violations/hazards result- ed from a 24 hour operation; Safeway was the only store operating on this basis in the City. The City Attorney advised that of the concerns listed, requiring landscape maintenance without a pre-existing condition, was difficult to enforce from a legal point of view; however, it was within the prerogative of the City to adopt Ordinances addressing this concern. With respect to trash/garbage brought to commercial sites and disposed of, there were specific Code prohi- bitions; however, enforcement of such was difficult since the violation was incurred by those dumping the trash/garbage, not the property owner. Mr. Paul Bowland attested to Commissioner Burger's and Mr. Kocir's statements. Mr. Adrian Staga, President of the Chamber of Commerce, commented as follows: - The issue under discussion was the responsibility of merchants, landlords and citizens - Cited the unsolved burglaries at Argonaut Center; noted that the area was unsupervised - The Merchant's Association intended to assess itself in order to clean the area up - Asked what the Chamber could do in conjunction with the City to remedy this situation Commissioner Burger felt that merchants were enti~ed to run their businesses in an area flee of Health Code violations. 13. Hwang, 19288 Bainter Ave. - Appeal of Planning Director's decision to allow fencing of approximately 2.9 acres of property located in the NHR zone per Section 15-29.020 (c) of the City Code. Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 27, 1988, and called attention to a letter received from the "Lands Styblo" dated July 21, 1988. The Chair recognized the following speakers. Ms. Wanda Alexander, Coalition for Hillside Protection, commented as follows: - Questioned Staffs action recommending denial of the appeal - Reviewed the character of the hillside area and experiences with deer on her property - Fence was very objectionable and was disruptive to the orchard and injurious to the deer - Cited repeated efforts to obtain information from the City on the fence in question o Concluded that any fencing system which blocked territorial rights of the animals was hostile, insensitive and irresponsible - Noted the many exceptions granted to this property and objected to further exceptions PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 JULY 27, 1988 MISCELLANEOUS Continued Mr. William Young, Representing the Hwangs, stated that the Staff Report accurately reflected the situation; adjacent property owners on the east wished the fence to prevent trespassing. Ms. Dora Grens, 13450 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Was very familiar with the property in question; she reviewed the history of the site - Questioned whether trespassing was the sole reason for safety concerns - Stated that deer could not jump 6 ft. fences going uphill Mr. Bill Rosen, Ravine Road, commented as follows: - 200 ft. chain link fence was unattractive and endangered wildlife and their traditional trails - Only water available in the area at this time was from San Thomas Creek - Cited instances of deer entrappeal by this chain link fence - Questioned whose safety/security was as stake; saw only two other such fences in 21 years - Was concerned how the fence addressed the concerns intended - Cited the prohibition of chain link fencing in Zoning Ordinance 15.29.12 d; - Zoning Ordinance 15.29.12 c; asked for documentation on the required Findings - Cited the differing responses received from the City and conflicting information on the issue Mr. Bill Jefferson stated that there were no security problems warranting a 6 ft. fence. Mr. Russ Crowther strongly opposed the fence; Such would set a precedent. Ms. Robin Sing stated that she could see this fence every day; while she did not object to the fence, she questioned why if others did not have such, this Applicant was allowed a fence. Chairwoman Guch commented as follows: - Did not want the property fenced, noting the amount of land' that would be fenced - Did not see a safety issue for this property; neighbors indicated that there was none - The fact that ivy was required on the fence showed that it was not hidden by the topography - Agreed that allowing this fence would be precedent setting Commissioner Harris commented as follows: - Recalled that the Commission's feeling in general was that there would not be fencing in the over R-1-40,000 zoning district; anyone can claim more fencing was needed for safety. If the Commission were going to make exceptions, they should do away with the Ordinance. - Voted against every Application for fencing in the hillside area; this fencing was not in conformity with the intent of the Ordinance - Could not find any argument for safety and would not vote in favor of this Application Commissioner Siegfried concurred that a safety issue was not involved; the issue of the fence's impact on wildlife raised by the public was a point well taken. Commissioner Tucker stated that she had expressed her concerns regarding the deer at the Study Session; such remained unchanged. Granting this request would set precedent. Chairwoman Guch suggested that the impact on wildlife in the hillside districts be reviewed; Commissioner Siegfried concurred, adding that a second issue was the allowance of fences for areas under 4,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: Noted that his impression from the Study Session was that the fence was not visible; since that discussion, he had made a site visit and found that the fence was visible If fencing were required, he questioned whether the entire area needed to be enclosed Safety concerns could be addressed with fencing a smaller area - Open space feeling would be destroyed by fencing the entire site; such would set precedent - Asked that guidelines for fencing in the hillside districts be set Commissioner Burger commented as follows: - Concurred that the 4,000 sq. ft. allowance for fencing was an arbitrary number - Felt that the fence in question could not be seen from neighboring properties - The Commission had not previously considered nor discussed impacts to wildlife; the issue brought to the Commission's attention at this hearing was well taken - Suggested consideration of enclosing a smaller area, adjacent to the home - Noted that the Applicant felt there were safety issues involved - Suggested consideration of alternative security measures, not interfering with the wildlife PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JULY 27, 1988 MISCELLANEOUS Continued SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, DENYING THE APPLICA- TION. Passed 6-0. The City Attorney advised the Commission and the Public that this decision would be pre- sented in a Resolution at the Planning CommissiOn .Meeting of August 10, 1988; furthermore, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be considered at the Commission's request. The City Manager noted for the record that no Permits had been issued in this case. Ms. Wanda Alexander presented the Commission with copies of "Chief Seattle Speaks, 1854" The Commission returned to Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8. 8. DR-88-049 Alff, 14185 Teerlink Way, request for design review approval of plans to construct a new 5,115 sq. ft'. two-story home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 27, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Fred Stratsdee, Architect, noted the efforts to design this structure and cited the Applicant's desire for privacy; the proposed siting of the house was a better location. Commissioner Kolstad reviewed his concerns on:. the boxy appearance, excessive bulk, lack of architectural relief and the amount of grading proposed. Mr. Stratsdee responded that the lower area of the structure was for the owners hobby of restoring cars; the intent was conceal the six car garage and work area from the street scape. Furthermore, the site was considerably lower than either Teerlink Wy. and Pierce Rd. Chairwoman Guch was concerned about the proposed 2300 cu. yds. of cut and stated that a Finding for preservation of the natural landscape could not be made. Mr. Stratsdee commented as follows: Responded that the Applicants felt that a garage/work shop area was an absolute necessity Applicants did not wish the garage doors to be visible from the street and planned to dig the garage/work shop into the hillside They had determined that the resiting the house was desirable About 25-30 % of the grading was for the house with an equal percentage for the driveway, in order to bring the driveway in off the slope ' Reviewed the limited view of the house from various angles and added that reasonable amounts of landscaping would screen the house on either the original or the resited area - The house was below street level; the street itself would hide the house Commissioner Burger also was concemed about the amount of grading proposed; the original pad would probably require a redesign of the home. She noted that the site may not be able to accommodate the proposed design and stated that she preferred that the original pad be used. Mr. Stratsdee stated that the Applicants strongly favored the resiting of the house; traffic on Pierce Rd. would impact the original site. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9:25 P.M. Commissioner Burger reiterated her request that the house be sited on the original pad. Commissioner Kolstad stated that the requested siting was a forced location. He remained concemed about the excessive bulk which would be visible from adjacent homes and the storm drain easement; furthermore, there was no architectural relief to diminish a perception of bulk. CommissiOner Harris noted while she shared the. Applicant's concern on traffic impacts from Pierce Rd., the approved pad was known to the Applicants when purchasing the property. Sufficient evidence had not been presented to warrant the excessive grading required. Commissioner Siegfried suggested a Study SeSsiOn to further review. this proposal. Commissioners Harris, Burger were willing to Continue the Item and hold a Study Session. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page JULY 27, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued Chairwoman Guch questioned the purpose of a Study Session; she opposed the excesiive grading. A majority of the Commission favored siting the home on the original pad. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-49 TO AUGUST 24, 1988. Passed 5-1 Chairwoman Guch dissenting. Commissioner Kolstad questioned whether the original pad was the most appropriate siting for the house; he asked the Applicant to address the issue as well as the perception of bulk. Commissioner Harris was concerned about grading especially when a pad was already created. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that the AppliCant use a model to demonstrate the proposal. Break: 9:28 - 9:52 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS; 14. SD-87-020.10lsen, 15231 Quito Road, consideration of preservation of an adobe wall as a historic resource. Continued from June 22, 1988. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 27, 1988. The City Attorney cited his concerns regarding the Application, namely, the question of who would maintain the wall and the ownership of the wall itself. Commissioner Burger noted that the home was now for sale and asked that the Applicant ful- fill the obligation to designate the home as a heritage resource. The Public Heating was opened at 9:57 P.M. Mr. Warren Held, Heritage Preservation Commission, stated that he supported the Application. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:01 P.M. Passed 6-0. The City Manager suggested that the recipient property owner have responsibility for maintain- ing the wall in it's entirety with an easement being granted to the property owner for that area where the wall existed. The easement agreements to be recorded. The City Attorney suggested language stating that the Applicant shall prepare an agreement to be recorded which addresses the ownership and maintenance of the wall; agreement to be submitted to the City for approval. Such would insure that concerns had been addressed. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-87-020.1 PER THE MODEL RES- OLUTION ADDING A CONDITION THAT AN AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED PROVIDING FOR THE OWNER OF THE LOT CONTAINING THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO MAINTAIN THE ADOBE WALL AND THE GRANTING OF APPRO- PRIATE ACCESS EASEMENTS TO MAINTAIN THE WALL. Passed 4-2, Chairwoman Guch, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. Chairwoman Guch opposed the Motion, stating ~hat moving the wall destroyed it's historical placement; in addition, she had concerns regarding walls and open space easements. 15. DR-88-012 Sun, 12502 Parker Ranch Ct., request for design review and variance V-88-005 approval to allow the construction of a new 5,225 sq. ft. two-story single family home, where only 4,440 sq. ft. floor area is allowed. A variance is also requested to allow the construction of the home on 35% slope at the building site in lieu of 3.0% allowed by the City Code. The home is located in the NHR zoning district. Continued from July 13, 1988. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, July 27, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:05 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 JULY 27, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Kurt Anderson, Architect, presented pictures of the site and adjacent area and commented: - Noted the difficulty of the site due to triangular shape and topography of the lot, the open space easement and the agricultural area - Reviewed modifications made to the proposal - Premise that the siting of the house and the original layout of the Parker Ranch project conformed with the intent of the new Design Review Ordinance although the lot lines would not be drawn as they were originally drawn - If lot lines were redrawn, the same area would be available even though the lot configur- ation would be somewhat different and the Applicant could build the size of house requested Mr. Sun, Applicant, asked that this Application be approved. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:19 P.M. Passed 6-0. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE V-88-005 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. KOLSTAD/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DENY DR-88-012. Passed 6-0. 16. DR-88-048 Frankel, 19123 Via Tesoro Court, request for design review approval for V-88-012 a new 6,010 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter !5 of the City Code. Also consider granting a variance from Ordinance Planner Caldwell confirmed that the Applicant requested a Continuance to August 10, 1988. She reviewed efforts of the Planning Department'to inform the Applicant of their recommenda- tion for denial; the Applicant wished to bring this Item to the Commission for a hearing. 17. 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. Continued from June 22, 1988. Planner Welge reviewed the Memorandum of July 27, 1988. The City Manager noted an amendment to the Section entitled West Valley Freeway, stating that the projected time for construction of Highway 85 was 3-5 years, not 5-7 years as stated. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:35 P.M. Ms. Cheriel Jensen commented Mr. Will Kempton had stated that an addendum or supplement to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was being prepared for the Route 85 project since the original report did not address the contingency of interchanges in Saratoga; she asserted that Cal Trans wrote the City a letter, the contents of which were a de-facto admission that the contract signed was not in effect as far as Cat Trans was concerned. She asked that reference to the 1987 EIR not be made in the Air Quality Element of the General Plan. City Manager confLrmed that a supplemental Environmental Assessment on potential impacts of the proposed Route 85 interchanges as well as other design changes would be completed. The City Attorney added that Environmental Assessments did not necessarily invalidate docu- ments already completed nor agreements reached with Cal Trans. Assessments and studies were ongoing and therefore, statements in the General Plan should not be definitive. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 10:45 P.M. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE GPA-88-004. Passed 6-0. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 JULY 27, 1988 COMMUNICATIONS; Written: 1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of July 6, 1988, - Noted and filed. 2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - July 5, 1988, - Noted and filed. 3. Memo from Heritage Preservation Commission Re: Heritage Resource Inventory - Noted and filed. 4. Letter from Rothmuller dated June 20, 1988, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: None. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Res~cffully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey