Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-1988 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: September 28, 1988 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 1.3777 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 September 14, 1.988 Commissioner Kolstad asked that on Page 9, third paragraph from end, final phrase be stricken. Commissioner Harris asked that Page 2, statement of Mr. Zeid read, "such might block the view.." On Page 4, final paragraph to read in part, "Noise impacts between 6:00 and 8:00 A.M .... " On Page 7, first paragraph to read, "without the proposed driveway, congestion may occur..." On the same page, Motion on DR-87-123.1 to read in part, "..to require trees to be added along the front elevation at the corner of the building near the handicapped parking space... On Page 8, second paragraph, to read, "...a connected roof... Add to third paragraph, "Commis- sioner Siegfried concurred, suggesting that a breezeway might meet the needs of the Applicant and eliminate the need fbr a variance. The City Attorney asked that Page 6, his comment read, "...concurred that language inserted was inconsistent and should... BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1.4, 1988, AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0. 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 September 23, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. V-88-025 Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for variance approval to A-1088.1 allow the floor area standard to be exceeded on a level 29,680 sq. ft. lot in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. The proposed additions to the existing residence modifying the previous plans will result in a total floor area on the lot of 10,374 sq. ft. where 5,220 sq. ft. is currently the maximum allowed.The previous approval allowed 7,419 sq. ft. total on the lot. Continued to October 12, 1988. 2. V-88-028 Blair, 13303 Paramount Drive, approval of resolution for variance from Ordinance 15-45.030 to allow an expansion of an existing single family dwelling up to 4,204 sq. ft. where the maximum allowable floor area is 4,050 sq. ft. Property is located in the R-1o12,500 zoning district. (Variance granted September 1.4, 1988. 3. DR-88-0i:~' McMullin, 14893 Bohlman Road, request for design review approval of plans li3r a new 6,525 sq. ft. two-story single family home on a 2.04 acre lot in the HC-RD zone district, General Plan RHC. 4. LL-88-008 Riley/Thurnhcr, 2001 1 & 1.9931 Bella Vista, request for lot line adjustment to relocate the exterior side property line westerly to follow existing fence line, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Commissioner Tucker requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 2. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 AND 4. Passed 6-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 2. V-88-028 Blair, 13303 Paramount Drivc, approval of rcsolution for variance from Ordinance 15-45.030 to allow an expansion of an existing single family dwelling up to 4,204 sq. ft. where the maximum allowable floor area is 4,050 sq. ft. Property is located in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. (Variance granted September 1.4, 1988. Commissioner Tucker removed the Item, since she had previously voted against the Application. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-028 PER THE .MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 5-1, Commissioner Tucker dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS' 5. SD-88-010 Kirkeby and Associates, Mr. Eden Road, request for tentative map approval for a two (2) lot subdivision of 7.2 acres of undeveloped property in the NHR zoning district, pursuant to City Code, Article 1.4-15. Property located on the ,,vest side of Mr. Eden Road approximately 1,500 ~. west of Pierce Road. Commissioner Burger reported on the !and use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Commission dated September 28, 1.988. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:43 P.M. The Applicant had no comment to make. Mr. William Brooks, Merrick Dr., Saratoga, cited Condition 27, second paragraph, and stated that the City had developed the standard of an 8 ft. equestrian trail width; however, such was un- necessary in the hillside areas and would require the developer to do a substantial cut and fill. Hc asked that the Condition require the trail to bc surfaced with an all weathcr material. Mr. Erik Brookson, Cupcrtino, notcd that the parcel in question would be a family estate. Applicants did not object to the cqucstrian trail required nor the construction materials considered; however, they had some concerns regarding the location of the trail on this property and did not wish such to interfere with thc beauty and/or view on-site. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:56 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris was favorable to requiring the all weather materials as suggested above. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88-010 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, CONDITION 27 AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE TRUNK PORTION OF THE EQUESTRIAN TRAIL AND ANY OTHER PORTION DEEMED NECESSARY BY STAFF AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, BE CONSTRUCTED OF ALL WEATHER MATERIAL. Passed 6-0. Items 6 and 7 to bc heard simultaneously. 6. GP-88-002 Lcs Maisons Provencal, 1.3150 Saratoga Avenue, rcquest for certification of ZC-88-001 an Environmcntal Impact Report, Gcneral Plan amendment and rezoning of property li3r thc l'ormer Paul Masson Winery sitc. The subjcct property involvcs 27.2 acres located cast of Saratoga Avenue and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The proposal is to amend the land use element of the Gcneral Plan from M (limited industrial) to MU-PD (mixed use planned dcvelopmcnt) and rczone the property from L-1 (light industrial) to MU-PD (mixed use planned development) to accommodate 79 townhomes and a senior lifccare facility. The proposed lifecare facility contains 190 apartments, 25 cottagcs, a personal care component containing 60 beds, and a skilled nursing component with 60 beds. 7. Les Maisons Provencal, 13150 Saratoga Avenue, request IBr approval of a conceptual development plan for the former Paul Masson Winery site pursuant to Article 15-21 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Report to the Commission dated September 28, 1988. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Malcome Sprau, LSA Associates, addressed procedural questions and introduced Ms. Chung. Ms. Laurie Chung, LSA Associatcs, reviewcd the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Dennis Reichardt, Managing General Partner, Les Maisons Provencal, made himself available for questions. The Chair asked that Application GP-88-002, ZC-88-001 be addressed first. Col. E. T. Barco, Camino Barco, commented as follows: - Was favorable to the overall plan proposed - Location for this senior complex was wrong; EIR pointed out adverse air and traffic impacts - While Route 85 and a possible interchange was .frequently mentioned in the Draft EIR, the impacts from the freeway on air quality, noise and traffic were not discussed - Suggested the care facility be moved as far from the freeway as possible and streets to be a minimum of 25 1/2 ft. wide - Asked that the EIR and the project either not be approved or postponed until a decision on the interchanges, the freeway and the resulting impacts were considered BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON GP-88-002, ZC-88-001 AT 8:25 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Tucker cited the Model Resolution which stated that upon review of the EIR, no adverse environmental impacts were found. She was concerned that the Draft EIR did not address the possibility of an interchange at Saratoga Ave; the Level of Service (LOS) Rating was an E or F at two major streets. She noted the ongoing concern of Saratoga residents regarding traffic congestion and asked that the issue of impacts be addressed. Vice Chairman Siegfried and Commissioner Kolstad concurred. Commissioner Harris asked that impacts on air quality from the on/off ramps also be discussed. Mr. Dennis Reichardt commented as follows on the possibility of interchanges at this location: - Facility was designed with the possibility of interchanges in mind - During the course of the EIR, CalTrans notified the Applicants that they intended to condemn a three acre portion of the site whether the City allowed an interchange or not - Applicant's position was they they did not know whether an interchange was better or not; in many cases, ambient air quality improved by the additional setbacks required - Incremental impact on air quality would not change whether there was an interchange or not - Minutes of October 30, 1985, made clear that the project was not dependant upon interchanges. Commissioner Burger had no objection to including statements in the EIR recognizing the fact that there may be an interchange at Saratoga Ave: however, she was concerned that no action would be taken on the grounds that decisions be postponed until all risks could be quantified and avoided. Commissioners Harris and Tucker asked that the possibility of interchanges be considered. Commissioner Kolstad noted that the EIR referenced the possible interchanges. Mr. Malcome Sprau stated that the Draft EIR did address the potential construction of interchanges and the impacts on Saratoga Ave. (Page 78),. air quality (Page 89) and noise (Page 96) with Mitigation Measures discussed on Page 97. Commissioner Tucker reiterated her request for additional information on Level of Service Ratings with consideration of increased traffic volumes; Commissioner Harris concurred and requested additional information on air quality impacts. Commissioners Burger, Kolstad and Tappan felt additional information was not required. BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE GP-88-002, ZC-88-001 TO OCTOBER 12, 1988. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Vice Chairperson Siegfried proceeded to Public Hearings on Item 7. Planner Caldwcll advised the Commission that the project could not be approved until the Enivron- mental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. The Public Hearing xvas opened at 8:58 P.M. Mr. Bob Tucker, Project Architect, presented the Site Plan and commented as follows: Required setbacks for the project had been meet by the Applicants Applicants proposed to install a sound wall and landscaping in the 50 ft. setback areas Areas within the prqject would be maintained by a homeowners association With respect to the Staff Report, Conceptual Development Plan: - 5, Analysis: t~nccs would be installed in the townhouse area contrary to the Report - 3., Analysis: part of the 50 ft. area along Saratoga/McFarland Avenues referred to would be open space and part of this area would be private space for individual home owners With respect to a 30 ft. height proposed, such promoted a residential character while allowing some latitude for increased ceiling heights which was a very desirable design lYaturc Based on other projects completed, he felt that the parking ratios proposed would be adequate Col. Barco, Camino Barco, suggested consideration of an emergency access from McFarland Ave. Mr. Andrew Beverett, Senior Coordinating Council, reviewed the historic role of the Coordinating Council and called attention to their letter of support for this concept. Mr. Joe Parker, The Vineyards, noted his initial enthusiasm regarding the project; however, he now had concerns regarding air quality impacts from the possible Saratoga Ave. interchange. He l~elt that the location of the pro. jeer adjacent to a freeway and possibly an interchange, was foolish. Mr. George Nedaous, The Vineyards, requested information regarding the nursing care facility. Ms. Lisa Garash commented as follows: Noted that the project did not appear compatible with Saratoga due to the density proposed Questioned the relationship of the various prqject elements to each other Noted the lack of recreational activities within the complex Open space in this project had been reduced to landscaped strips and corner landscaping Felt the City had not instigated a system of preserving public open space within Saratoga EIR addressed serious traffic issues; the proposed density was greater than the surrounding area. She questioned whether thc surrounding area would be able to increase their density Was favorable to the concept of developing senior complexes; however, the density o1' the town- house element was inappropriate BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBI JC HEARINGS AT 9:18 P.M. Passed 6-0. Mr. Reichardt stated that the Ordinance provided that the conceptual development plan could be approved in advance of certification of the EIR; certification was important at the final plan stage. He provided additional information on the personal/skilled care facility and adjacent open areas. Commissioner Harris commented as lbllows: The proposed name of Les Maisons Provcncal did not sccm appropriate liar Saratoga; she sug- gested that the history of the propcrty--the Paul Masson Winery--be considered Was appreciative of the comment in the EIR, that a portion of the mural bc used in the project Was sympathic to comments of Ms. Garash regarding the nature of the townhomes and was also concerned that the density proposed was not compatible with this area of Saratoga Furthermore, she was concerned regarding the use of landscaped strips as open space and did not sec that a feeling of open space was provided within the development Objected to the 30 ft. height which added to a crowded .feeling; however, she would consider a minimal percentage of the roof at the 30 ft. height Commissioner Burgcr commented as lbliows: Was more concerned about density of the townhouse project than density of the care facility A small percentage of the roof at a 30 ~. height would bc acceptable if the density of the town- house portion of the project were reduced Name was inappropriate; suggested the matter be referred to the Heritage Preservation Commis- sion for consideration; suggested consideration of the name of the artist who created the mural Asked that interior streets be widened Questioned whether driveways in the townhouse area would accommodate a parked car length Questioned whether all walkways in the senior area should be covered; suggested trellised walks PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger continued as follows: Noted that a response had not been made to the Commission's request for underground parking and asked that parking be adjacent to the apartment area to reduce the walking distance - Asked that up to two acres be provided for flower and vegetable gardens - Suggested consideration of a non-sectarian chapel on the grounds Commissioner Tucker commented as follows: - Asked that additional open space be provided and was favorable to a garden area - Questioned maintenance of the rear property area and suggested the project maintain this area - Concurred that inadequate street widths existed, causing cars to be parked on the sidewalk area - Felt the proposed staff/employee parking allotment of 45 spaces would be inadequate - Asked that the Applicant secure a contract with a life care organization prior to development; she was concerned regarding the project if such an agreement were not secured Commissioner Tappan commented as follows: - Concurred that the name proposed was inappropriate and asked that the project be tied to the former use of the site by Paul Masson Winery or use of the mural artist's name - Was unfavorable to the architectural design proposed and cited an incongruous mixture of traditional and contemporary elements - Objected to the differentiated color of the walkways from a safety point of view - Noted the critical role of landscaping in the project to mitigate noise and pollution; he was favorable to the meandering walk along Saratoga Ave. Commissioner Kolstad concurred with the above comments and added: - Asked that the name of the project be easily pronounced - Noted concern regarding the density proposed - Suggested removal of the rear yard fencing to create a greater feeling of opcn space - Was not favorable to the colored sidewalks proposed - Asked for significant increase in parking proposed; he was reluctant to grant any variance for parking requirements Vice Chairperson Siegfried was greatly concerned regarding the density of this mixed use project; due to the size of the townhouse units and number of bedrooms proposed, the project would be very dense. Such could be addressed by increasing the open space and reducing the number of units. He felt that parking may be adequate if the density were reduced. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE PC-88-003 TO OCTOBER 12, 1988. Passed 6-0. MISCELLANEOUS: 1. Article 15-45 - Design Review Ordinance - Assessment of Administrative Review Process. Planner Caldwell reviewed the Memorandum of September 28, 1988. The Chair recognized the following speaker. Mr. Rich CrowIcy, Vice President, Building Industry Association, noted the Association's letter of August 18, 1988. He cited examples of the lengthy design review process and provided examples, suggesting a study session be held to resolve any difficulties. He agreed that concerns raised were not with the Administrative Review Process under consideration. Commissioner Siegfried suggested they write Staff outlining their concerns regarding any difficulties they were experiencing with the Design Review Standards. Commissioner Harris responded to Mr. Crowley's request for a Study Session that the Planning Commission always welcomed new information but she did not care to get into further argument with the developer about the size of the homes. She was pleased with the Ordinance as it was. The City Attorney noted the following changes to the Model Resolution: First paragraph, amended to read in part, "...residential districts..." Exhibit A. 2., Standard design review procedure c) to read, "...planning-related approvals..." Procedures for notifying neighboring properties: 1. Insert, "...closest neighboring properties as determined by the Planning Department..." 5. Amended to read, "If there are objections to the project and the differences of opinion cannot be resolved, the applicant will be required to file a design review application..." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 MISCELLANEOUS Continued BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PC-88-004 ADOPTING PRO- CEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE. (ARTICLE 15-45) AS AMENDED. Passed 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - September 6,1988, - Noted and filcd. 2. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of September 7,1988, - Noted and filed. 3. Letter from Wayne Jerves re: traffic problem at the intcrsection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. and Sea Gull Way, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Commissioner Harris reported on the City Council Meeting of September 21, 1988. ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:04 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey