Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: February 8, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairperson Guch, Commissioners Siegfried, Burger, Harris, Tucker, Kolstad present at 7:30 P.M. Commissioner Tappan present at 7:39 P.M. Approval of Minutes: Meeting of January 25, 1989 BURGER/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 1989, AS PRE- SENTED. Passed 5-0-2, Commissioner Harris abstaining, Commissioner Tappan absent. 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 February 3, 1988. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-88-091 Huang, 14590 Deer Springs Ct., request for a single family residence to V-88-046 exceed the 8 ft. height limit above a major ridge line by 11 feet. Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 1989 to permit sub- mission of revised plans reducing building height and allowable floor area. 2. DR-88-100 Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Drive, resolution setting forth conditions to approve a request for design review approval to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 6,822 sq. ft.; and a variance to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sq. ft., in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed January 25, 1989. 3. DR-88-083 Kermani, 15187 Blue Gum Ct., resolution setting forth conditions to approve a request for design review approval to construct a 5,981 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the .R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed January 25, 1989. 4. V-88-025 Kocir, 12855 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd., 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 resi- dence modifying the previous plans will result in a total floor area on the lot of 9,100 sq. ft. where 5,220 sq. ft. is currently the maximum allowed. In addition, variance approval is requested to allow the additions to the resi- dence to be a minimum of 17 ft. from the exterior side property line where 25 ft. is required. Continued to February 22, 1989, at the request of the applicant. 5. DR-88-086 Bedard, 21750 Vintage Lane, request for design review approval for a new 5,780 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 6. SD-87~023.1 Duncan, 19560 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for modification to condi- tion of previously approved subdivision to allow undergrounding'of utilities along Glen Una Drive to be deferred. 7. SDR-1590.3 Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn Lane, request for one-year extension of time for a three (3) lot subdivision of a 2.64 parcel in the R-ira20,000 zoning dis- trict per Chapter 14 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Chairperson Guch requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 2. A member of the audience requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 7. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 5 AND 6. Passed 6-0-1, Commissioner Tappan absent. 2. DR-88-100 Prolo, 19841 Glen Una Drive, resolution setting forth conditions to approve a request 'for design review approval to construct a 2,013 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 6,822 sq. ft.; and a variance to exceed the maximum floor area allowed on this site by 2,342 sq. ft., in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public Hearing closed January 25, 1989. Chairperson Guch stated she removed the Item to clarify wording of the Model Resolution. Planning Director Emslie amended the Model Resolution to read, in part: The project will minimize the perception of excessive bulk in relation to the immediate neighbor- hood in that the addition is to an existing two story home. The project is compatible in terms of bulk and height with those homes within the immediate area and in the same zoning district in that two story homes exist in the neighborhood. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-100 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, AMENDED TO READ.IN PART: THE PROJECT WILL MINIMIZE THE PERCEPTION OF EXCESSIVE BULK IN RELA- TION TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT THE ADDITION IS TO AN EXISTING TWO STORY HOME. THE PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF BULK AND HEIGHT WITH THOSE HOMES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT IN THAT TWO STORY HOMES EXIST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Passed 4-2-1, Chairperson Guch, Commissioner Tucker dissenting, Commissioner Tappan absent. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF V-88-043 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-2-1, Chairperson Guch, Commissioner Tucker dissenting, Commissioner Tappan absent. Commissioner Tappan present at 7:39 P.M. 7. SDR-1590.3 Liccardo, 20045 Mendelsohn Lane, request for one-year extension of time for a three (3) lot subdivision of a 2.64 parcel in the R-i-20,000 zoning dis- trict per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission of February 8, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. Ms. Jane Farrelly, 20076 Mendelsohn Ln., Saratoga, opposed the extension requested and the subdivision of the property at 20045 Mendelsohn Ln. for the following reasons: Site was in a flood control plane and was in a potential flood hazard from Wildcat Creek An existing sewage problem in the neighborhood would be intensified An access road would cause problems at the Mendelsohn Ln./Piedmont Rd. intersection which already carried the often heavy traffic exiting from Montalvo The increasing high density development of large homes on small lots already endangered the charming bucolic character of Mcndclsohn Ln; this density would only increase Ms. Kathy Liccardo, Applicant, reviewed her letter of December 19, 1988; she requested a one- year extension for this project. Mr. Rick Rickenmocker, Consulting Civil Engineer, stated he had been retained by Ms. Liccardo. The Applicant was prevented from completing the project due to circumstances over which she had little control; however, Ms. Liccardo was now prepared to go forward. He stated that he had been working diligently on the project and noted the progress made. They were working to complete the project by the April 17th deadline but such could not be guaranteed. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Harris noted that she had previously been unable to approve the extension requested based on wording of the Model Resolution and the Findings required; however, she was able to grant the request before the Commission at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Siegfried noted the controversy surrounding this Application; the Commission had carefully considered the project at that time. This was an administrative item; such requests were usually approved. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-1590.3 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 8. SD-88-018 Maynard, 29330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, request for tentative map approval to create a two-lot subdivision of 1.5 and 1.35 acres of partially developed property in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued from January 11, 1989. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Memorandum Re: SD-88018, dated February 8, 1989. Planner Jacobson reviewed the Staff Report and presented a map comparing the Maynard property with adjacent sites. The Public Hearing was open at 8:50 P.M. Mr. Doug Adams, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Cited Staff Report statement,"The Planning Commission will find on the attached map that lots created will be smaller than adjacent lots. Staff recognizes that smaller lots exist in the vicinity." - Cited the map presented in the packet and noted that while there were larger lots on both sides of the site in question, there were smaller parcels to the south of the subject site - Did not understand the Staff Recommendation; Staff had previously approved this request - Proposal was for approval of a two-lot subdivision which met the zoning requirements - Did not believe that there would be any damage or harm that would come to any of the adjoining lots from approval of this application. Mr. Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Los Gatos commented as follows: - Construction of the bridge was not of concern; a bridge could be engineered to cross anything - Lot size was not necessarily the concern either - Concern was this highly irregular piece of property; the tail-end of the parcel was a remnant - Applicants had tried to give this portion of the parcel to the Santa Clara Water District in order to create a conforming lot - If the property were to be developed, access from Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. would be the reason- able entrance, rather than trying to build a bridge over the creek - Noted the changing contour of the creek ~vhich occurred during the rainy season - Granting the Applicant's request would create a non-conforming, completely irregular parcel - This was the third attempt the Applicant had made to obtain approval of the request - Precedent had already been set for denying lot splits which created non-conforming parcels - Respectfully requested that the Commission deny the Application A response to Chairperson Guch's question regarding access, he stated that he objected to creating a buildable lot which had only 122 ft. width/frontage; secondly, he objected to taking access for the southern portion of the site by way of a bridge. Mr. Frederick Dorr, Property Owner across the Creek, stated that in his deed restriction, and he believed, in the Applicant's deed restriction, Bainter Avenue had the right-of-way. The outer corners of the Applicant's property on the south end had not been staked off to show the right-of- way easement. He asked that the property be resurveyed to ensure that the bridge would not encroach upon the Bainter Avenue right-of-way. Ms. Jacita Cymball, Westfall Engineers, commented as follows: - With regard to Bainter Avenue and its right-of-way, she confirmed that the property line was within the right-of-way easement - If Bainter Avenue were ever widened, a portion of the property would have to be used - There was no question the bridge would ever interfere with Bainter Avenue roadway - The bridge would clear the creek, which was well-defined and was very deep at this point. - Confirmed that the bridge itself would not encroach into the right-of-way - In addition, the road could not extend over the flood plane area, ~vhich ~vas in fact, the creek - Secondly, while the lot was not rectangular, it did comply with the zoning. ordinance - Reviewed the dimensions of the proposed bridge per request of Commissioner Harris - Cited an existing bridge on Bainter Avenue as an example of a similar bridge in the area PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Sally Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga, commented that the creek changed dramatically during the time they had lived in the area, despite the fact that there had been limited changes during the past few years. She did not understand how, by dedicating the tail-end of the property, including the creek, to the Santa Clara Water District in order to create a frontage, would result in a conforming lot. She disputed the contention of Mr. Adams regarding lot sizes in the area and cited examples of adjacent lots which were much larger. She concluded that it would take a major bridge to complete this project; the existing bridge referred to was much smaller in size. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 P.M. Passed 7-0 Commissioner Kolstad visited the site and noted the drop in elevation at the rear portion of the site. He observed the perceived lot sizes as opposed to specific lot lines and felt he could approve the application as presented. He did not have any problem with the bridge and felt that, if anything, the bridge would improve the southern portion of this site and the immediate area. Commissioner Siegfried disagreed with the above comments; this was the third review of this request. While he could understand the owner's desire to go forward on this application, it raised a question about the implications of the ordinances that, by giving away a portion of the property to the Santa Clara Water District, a non-conforming lot could be converted into a conforming lot. The question was, did such meet the intent of the ordinance? He felt that it did not. It would be difficult to vote against an application that conformed to the ordinance requirements; however, if the majority of the Commis-sion wished to approve the Application, he asked that severe restrictions be placed on any house built on the lower portion of the site and noted the visibility of this house. Commissioner Burger reviewed the history of the application and noted that the City Council's decision clearly reflected the viewpoint of the neighbors. She would not approve the application as presented and noted that the solution presented in an attempt to create a conforming lot, was one of the most convoluted approaches she had seen. She would not be voting in favor of the lot split. Commissioner Tucker stated she would be voting in favor of the Application; it was a conforming lot. In addition, she felt the access off Bainter Avenue may in fact, be safer than access from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. She saw no reason not to go forward with this application. Commissioner Tappan abstained on this item, having not been present for the previous hearing. Commissioner Harris concurred with Staff Report statement, "Staff feels that developing new lots in the midst of an established residential neighborhood presents extraordinary issues of sensitivity and compatibility..." She cited previous problems with this Application and felt very strongly about the construction of a bridge in this neighborhood; such would be incompatible with the exist- ing neighborhood. She could not make Finding 2, "The site is physically suitable for this development at this density..."; installing a bridge of the size proposed would significantly impact the rural character of this neighborhood. Chairperson Guch concurred with Commissioner Burger's comments. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO DENY SD-88-018. PASSED 4-2-1, COMMISSIONERS KOLSTAD, TUCKER DISSENTING; COMMISSIONER TAPPAN ABSTAINING. 9. SD-88-013 Rivoir, 20411 Hill Ave., request for building site approval on two parcels · measuring 27, 704 and 28,837 sq. ft. in the R-I-20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Continued from January 25, 1989. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Chairperson Guch noted the letter received from Coats Consulting, dated February 3, 1989. Planning Director Emslie and Planner Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney pointed out that the garage on the Smith property was located directly on the property line. The City did not have any information whether the structure was legally constructed ~n the first place; however, even if it was legally constructed, the garage had been there for some time. By being on the property line, it was a non-conforming structure and a non-conforming accessory structure could not be grandfathered. Therefore, even making the assumption that the garage was legally constructed, whatever amortization may have applied to the garage, it had long since expired. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The City Attorney continued, stating that the City could, if it so wished, issue an abatement order on the Smith garage as a non-conforming structure not in compliance with setback requirements. This fact needed to be taken into account in the deliberations of the Commission on the extent to which they may require this Applicant to accommodate the garage on the Smith property. Commissioner Siegfried questioned the outcrime, if the Smith garage predated City requirements. the City Attorney replied that upon establishment of the City's zoning, it would have become a non-conforming structure. Even if it was legally created, as soon as the City established a setback requirement through the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, the structure became non-conforming. The owner would then be entitled to a reasonable time to allow the garage to be located on the property line; then, it would have to be removed. The garage had been there ten or fifteen years-- beyond whatever time the Ordinance provided for the elimination of non-conforming structures. The public hearing was opened at 8:27 P.M. Mr. Bill Heiss, consulting civil engineer, commented as follows: - Reviewed the history of these lots Bonnie Brae Map originally created 17 lots, Vine Street, Pleasant Avenue and Hill Avenue Streets were dedicated to public forever but not accepted by County in 1906 which predated the City and were not improved; however, they were dedicated and are public right-of-ways - Chain of acquisition by the Rivoir's and the Smith's were separate transactions involving indi- vidual lots which are legal; however, some are non-conforming because of their size - Building site approval was obtained in 1987 for Lots 14, 15 and 16 - The original approval included an agreement to Master Plan the rest of the Rivoir property in cooperation with the City Implementation of the Master Plan consisted of a reversion to acreage which combined some lots and eliminated others resulting in two lots instead of five; access was from Vine Street Such was intended to help mitigate the concerns about Vine Street The Smith property accesses Hill Avenue with existing asphalt driveways, a circular drive servicing the home and its guests, but a separate driveway accesses for the garage When, and if, the Smith property were developed, some lot lines would probably disappear and a cul-de-sac could be formed; this would be a logical way for the property to develop - Proposal before City for parcels E and F contemplated a minimum access road within Vine St. This was a logical way to proceed since only three parcels would access Onto Vine St. and such would have the least impact on neighborhood; in addition, this proposal would mitigate some concerns and address the problem of the Rivoir driveway and the Smith garage Proposal presented was to construct a minimum access road to ensure a full 20 ft. of clearance between Mrs. Smith's driveway and the new road This access road would narrow in the proximity of the Oak tree, and although such was not supported by City Engineer; it was possible to get 15 ft. of clearance and still protect Oak - Applicants proposed a small retainingwall about 3 ft from Oak tree and 15 ft of roadway up to center line of Vine Street which would still provide a full 20 ft. distance to the Smith garage - Applicants would build a minimum access road on their side of center line which worked fine except in proximity of the Oak tree; the road would have to be narrowcd to protect the tree Plan showed 14 ft width from the retaining wall to the center line of Vine St.; possibly, a 15 ft. width with a 3 ft. clearance from oak to road may be possible Within the Rivoir site, the road would widen to 18 ft., jog and then continue at a 14-15 ft width Beyond the Oak, toward parcels E and F, road would fully be widened to 18 ft.; this was best way to ensure a full 20 ft. from minimum access road to Smith garage Asked that Condition 18 be amended to allow a road narrowing to, perhaps, 15 ft. Wished to pursue not requiring a change in Mr. Rivoir's driveway; the existing rock wall and Oak tree would in effect be destroyed if this driveway were to moved - With two driveways, it was not unreasonable to ask that they remain as they presently existed; it was not an uncommon situation to have two driveways 10 ~. apart. - Applicants felt a minimum access road didn't fall into the category of a driveway; in this case, the minimum access road was a private drive for three homes, not a public road - With full development of the property, there might be a total of 12 lots - This configuration with two driveways indicated that drivers should exercise proper caution as they approach Hill Ave. as opposed to a T-intersection of two public streets - A modification to the Conditions of Approval was requested to address this situation - Stated that developing Vine Street had unfortunately become a source of conflict between the two families; this proposal represented the correct way to deal with Vine St. as a minimum access road within the right-of-way - This proposal would not satisfy everyone; however, the Smith garage would in time not exist and development of the Smith property would trigger a requirement to remove the non- conforming structure as part of the development PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Heiss continued his comments ad follows: This short-term solution with a 20 ft. clearance to the garage was reasonable. Asked that Conditions include this modification, eliminating further potential for conflict Commissioner Siegfried felt that access to Vine St. could be made well away from the major Oak tree (18 inches in diameter) even if smaller Oaks were impacted; Mr. Hciss explained that prior evaluation of the Rivoir property showed that a retaining wall would be necessary. The Oak tree's root structure could be preserved with air holes, etc:, in the new paving. Mr. Coats, Representing the Smith family, presented Exhibits and commented as follows: Provided additional history and clarified the status of the existing road Their concern was the significant safety problem created for Smith family When the Planning Commission's decision was appealed, the City Council denied the Appeal because they felt it was an inappropriate time to discuss the access to these lots However, the Council unanimously favored amending the access via Vine St. per Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 depicted a possible solution presented by Applicant's engineer--that diagram accurately reflected an agreement previously reached with Mr. Rivoir Problem today was whether to abandon or continue the non-acceptance of the easement in order to create a private road; the City Council was not convinced that the existing road had to be a. public right-of-way With respect to the existing right-of-way, it is not a City right-of-way Smith garage was not on the property line; the right-of-way was still under private ownership In light of safety issues, it would be appropriate now to abandon that process Options were reviewed and photos intended to show a significant safety hazard, were presented Without stopping Mr. Rivoir or subsequent property owners from developing these two parcels,. the Smith's asked that their family not be endangered which occurred when vehicles were backed out of the garage - Exhibit 2 was the proposal presented at the City Council hearing - Mrs. Smith did not wish to have a one-sided situation where she would receive land from the Rivoirs and give nothing in return; she proposed that additional land on her side of the theoret- ical center line given back to Mr. Rivoir, who would then receive more land than the Smith's - Exhibit 3 called for the reconstruction of the rock wall entrance; in an agreement reached, the Smiths would use materials that matched this element. - Design elements surrounding the rock wall had been put to rest. - Summarized that they wished to see the configuration presented by the Applicant reversed - From an engineering and safety point of view, there would appear to be no difference; however, from a safety standpoint, there would be a resolution of the safety hazard to the Smith family - Confirmed that Oak trees would be lost by the proposal they espoused Mr. Keith Miller, Vickery Ln., Saratoga, stated he had used Vine Street for years; he had not en- countered problems with the Smith driveway, unless cars were parked on-site. The Rivoir drive- way and the stone wall had existed for a long time and were attractive features for the area. Mr. Bill Plimpton, Representing Mr. Joseph Waller of 20420 Hill St., stated it was important to maintain access onto Vine St. in its present configuration. In designing homes for Lots 14 and 15, efforts had been made to minimize impacts on the neighborhood. A minimum access road within the Vine St. easement was the best solution; he did not object to narrowing the entrance. Mr. Heiss added the following Comments: With respect to Vine St. being a plan line, language in the Bonnie Brae Owner's Certificate stated, "We hereby dedicate the streets as shown on the accompanying map, to the use of the public forever." This was the way it existed today, as a plan line, if not an actual dedication -. With respect to the Smith's design, this alternative was evaluated by both parties; Applicants felt the resulting impacts would be significant. He noted the rather steep climb of the Rivoir drive- way; a 5 ft. retaining wall extending 200 ft. with extensive grading and fill would be required Mr. Richard Rivoir, Applicant, stated that he had conferred with the Smiths but they were unable to agree; he reviewed the history of this Application and added that he had attempted to address the Smith's objections by combining some of the lots; this was done voluntarily. He noted that if he did not own Lot G, they would not be having this discussion; in addition, if the Smith's non- conforming building was brought up to Code, there would be no problem. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:12 P.M. Passed 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Commissioner Harris' question, the City Attorney stated that this access was dedi- cated to the public, although this dedication had not been accepted by the City; as such it was a private road and was shown on the map. Mr. Coats was incorrect in saying that such was to be ignored for purposes of determining the property line. If the road were ever abandoned, it would become a private road in the sense that it would not be subject to any outstanding dedication. He did not see the City entertaining thoughts of relinquish- ing or abandoning the dedication until it was determined whether any portion of the road was needed. The Smith property was not yet developed and future circulation patters were unknown. Until such time as the ultimate use of the dedication were determined, the City would not consider abandoning the roadway. With respect to the claim that Mr. Rivoir could use the other 20 ft.; that was an offer giving him what he already had. He was entitled to use the entire 40 ft. because that dedication was for the benefit of his property. It was not a matter that he was entitled to 20 ft. and Mrs. Smith being entitled to the other 20 ft. The right-of-way was for the benefit of the entire subdivision; that benefit still remains outstanding even if the dedication had not been accepted by the City. The City Attorney added that if the Commission were to accept the proposal made by Mr. Coats, Mr. Rivoir would have to be required to made a dedication of what was not his property; now the Smith's representative was suggesting a road beyond the boundaries of a 40 ft. right-of-way. In response to Commissioner Burger's question, the City Attorney stated that Vine St. was the legal means of access to the two lots under consideration; the only question was, where within the right-of-way, was the road to be built? There was confusion about the distinction of accepting or not accepting the dedication; even though the City had not accepted the dedication, it did not mean that the two lots in question did not have a legal meang of access over that dedicated right-of-way. If Mr. Rivoir were not the Applicant, the Commission would not be having this discussion. Commissioner Harris commented as follows: Despite Mr. Coats' concerns, the safest place for the Smith garage would be to relocate it The Smith garage was a non-conforming structure and was in a very undesirable location; in addition, there was plenty of property on the Smith parcel for the garage to be relocated Noted the importance of preservation of the Oak trees A narrow driveway was more aesthetic and would discourage the general public from using it Did not object to narrowing the drive to 14 ft; such was done throughout the City to accom- modate large trees or to avoid excessive grading A 200 ft. retaining wall would be unsightly and out of keeping with the area Wished to retain the stone wall rather than having an extensive retaining wall - Supported the Rivoir's design alternative, having the driveway cross the present right-of-way and narro~ving the entrance to 14 ft. Commissioner Kolstad stated that he had visited the site; he felt that the safety issue was overrated. The Rivoir des'ign proposal flowed better; the Smith proposal did not make sense. He was in favor of the Application as proposed. Commissioner Siegfried stated he initially favored something similar to the Smith proposal; how- ever, he now felt that the Rivoir proposal with a right-of-way was the best alternative, would pre- serve the Oak trees and would be safer in that traffic would not be passing by the Smith driveway. Commissioner Tappan agreed; the issue was the non-conforming structure which was a safety hazard; there was plenty of space on the Smith parcel to move the garage. He would support the Application as presented. Commissioner Tucker was favorable to the Application; however, she did have concerns with the 14 ft. driveway width. In response to her question, the City Attorney confirmed that the City would have jurisdiction to require future developers of property in the area, to widen the road. Commissioner Burger concurred with the above comments of other Commissioners. Chairperson Guch stated she was saddened by the conflict between the two neighbors; however, from a planning standpoint, it was logical to use the right-of-way. While she would pretYr .to have an 18 ft. right-of-way, if the Commission would accept the 14-15 ft. width, she would not offer a strong objection. Moving the roadway closer to the Rivoirs or going through the Rivoir's drive- way did not make sense when a logical solution existed. She supported Staff Recommendation that the minimum access roadway be moved as far as possible away from the Smith garage even though it was a non-conforming structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-88-013 WITH AN 18 FT. WIDE MINI- MUM ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ALLOWING AS GREAT A DISTANCE AS IS PRACTICAL BUT WHICH PRESERVES THE OAK TREE AT HILL AVENUE AND ALLOWING THE ACCESS TO NARROW TO 14 FT. AT THE ENTRANCE. Passed 7-0. Break: 9:30 -9:45 P.M. 10. DR-88-076 Yoshioka, 20570 Prospect Road, request for design review, tentative map SD-88-016 and use permit approval to construct ten, two-story, 2,476 sq. ft., condo- UP-88-013 minium units; create a two-lot subdivision of 53,575 sq. ft. and 23,090 sq. ft., and use permit approval to allow a residential use in the neighborhood commercial zone district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie and Planner Jacobson reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Guch introduced the following letters into the record: - Thomas A Morgan, 20612 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, February 2, 1989 - Dennis Albrecht, 20614 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, February 5, 1.989 - Thomas and Elfriede A. Aykroyd 20608 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, February 7, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:50 P.M. Mr. Paul Tai, Project Design Engineer, commented as follows: - Noted that the property owner had lived on-site for more than thirty years and intended to con- tinue doing so; the owner wished to see a quality development on this site Reviewed the history of the Application and noted the dimensions and conditions of the site Due to land costs, shape of the property and the demand for condominium units--especially adjacent to commercial development, the Application was submitted as shown A medium type of density was desired; 10 condominium units were proposed for this site; such would make the project economically feasible Units would be luxury accommodations, 2400-2500 sq. ft. units with a two-car garage; he cited the unique design for the deck and the solarium area which prevented privacy intrusion Noted the height limitation imposed and reviewed the proposed materials and colors Mr. Thomas Morgan commented as follows: - Despite relatively short notice of the Hearing, a petition circulated was signed by 15 individuals - Cited the flooding in 1977; since that time, the Parker Ranch development had occurred; he was concerned regarding the lower elevation of this property which would channel drainage to the site as well as onto adjacent properties - Questioned the density proposed, the two-story element and the assertion that privacy impacts would not result from the second story deck area; in addition, he wondered why the units would not face the creek area - Asked that the project be redesigned with the neighborhood in mind, lo~vering the density and height proposed and consideration for the preservation of the existing trees - Residents were favorable to a residential development on-site Mr. Thomas Ayrkoyd read into the record his letter cited above, objecting to this high density project ten feet from his property and the resulting privacy intrusion. Mr. Harlen Snyder, 20602 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, concurred w~?h the above caromed/5' a,,zdre- quested reconsideration of a second story element and the density proposed. Be was concerned about noise impacts and the lack of compatibility with the existing residential homes. Mr. Ken Fontus, 12056 James Town Ct., Saratoga, stated that his home was a single story build- ing; the development as proposed would eliminate any privacy in their rear yard area as well as in some portions of their home. He felt parking would be inadequate and asked that single family units be placed on this site. Mr. Dennis Albrecht, 20614 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, re-emphasized comments made in his letter; in addition, he objected to the peach color and stucco design proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Jack Styles, 20626 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, concurred with the above speakers and strongly objected to the design and colors proposed; he asked that the development be single story units. Ms. Jane Styles, 20626 Ritanna Ct., Saratoga, stated that two homes which backed up to the Applicant's property were split level; due to construction, the main living portion of these homes was elevated approximately four feet from the grade. She cited the resulting privacy impacts. The Public Hearing remained open. Commissioner Kolstad commented as follows: - While he preferred single family units, condominiums were acceptable - Requested better exhibits showing the quality of architectural design and a comprehensive land- scaping plan showing heavy landscape screening and designs for the open space areas Asked for additional guest parking with a ratio of one guest space per unit Wished to see greater setbacks, less density, less repetition of design which would reduce bulk, elimination of privacy impacts Stated that he would have to consider the proposed colors in order to assess compatibility ~vith the neighborhood Commissioner Harris commented as follows: Noted the Commission's sensitivity to adjacent commercial/residential uses (Saratoga Oaks Commercial Development) Stated that there were no openings between the units; residents to the rear would see a massive expanse of unbroken building In addition, there was insufficient architectural interest, insufficient area for landscaping - Proposed units were too close to each other and had insufficient setbacks from the adjacent residential; color proposed was probably incompatible - Questioned why the units were not orientated toward the creek; Unit 9 received no benefit at all Commissioner Siegfried echoed the concerns raised; if the project were approved at 10 units,' a later application to develop that portion of the site now occupied by the property owner, would further magnify the problems. He suggested that a variety in size of the units be considered along with a overall reduction in project density. Finally, he asked that usable common area be included in the development which would make the project more compatible with the adjacent residential. Commissioner Burger commented as follows: Stated she had strong feelings about the proposal and they were all negative; stated she had reservations with other.previously approved condominium developments Noted the narrow deep lot in this case and felt that the attempt was being made to overbuild The project was far too dense; she felt that no more than 6 units could be accommodated on-site Asked that setbacks be increased and a combination of one and two story units be incorporated In addition, the 2400-2500 sq. ft. units were too large; the project had to be redesigned Commissioner Tucker stated she had strong concerns about the density, setbacks and height pro- posed; she wished to see the mass broken up and agreed that 6 units was much more acceptable. She was not opposed to condominiums especially between a commercial and residential uses. Commissioner Tappan commented as follows: - Was concerned about density although he did not wish to suggest any specific number of units - Requested a detailed landscaping plan which considered screening the adjacent properties - There were attractive ways to incorporate one and two elements into a design; this proposal presented a "walled" effect which was not pleasing to the eye and presented privacy intrusions It would be useful to overlay existing properties and lot configurations relative to this project Chairperson Guch agreed with the other Commissioners; in addition she had concerns regarding the access of this property and requested information on traffic impacts onto Prospect Ave. The units proposed were much too bulky and boxy in appearance; as such, they were impaetful and intrusive. She was unfavorable to the color and style proposed. The project required a redesign showing a variety of roof lines, a combination of one and two story units with the two story units closer to the commercial site; the project was too dense. She would not approve 8-10 units on-site. KOLSTAD/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-076, SD-88-016 AND UP-88013 TO MARCH 8, 1989. Passed 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 11. DR-88-080 Mollard, 13977 Albar Court, request for design review and variance ap V-88-001 proval to construct a 6,449 sq. ft., two-story home~ with an attached 3-car garage in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The variance request is to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 234 sq. ft. Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Eroslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, February 8, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:34 P.M. \ Mr. Wendall Roscoe, Designer, stated that the Applicant's were unhappy with the former Architect's proposal, specifically the orientation of the house and the size of the living, dining and master bedroom areas. When he was contacted, he re-oriented the home and rearranged the living space for the home. He felt a reduction of 100 sq. ft. could be done; however, he was unsure whether additional square footage could be eliminated without modifying the foundation and/or changing the redesigncd living areas. The house complied with the 26 ft. height requirement. Mr. Ray Mollard, Applicant, favored the new layout and stated that they needed an exercise room. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:48 P.M. Passed 7-0 Commissioner Tappan stated the Applicant had not provided a reason for granting a Variance. Commissioner Siegfried agreed; however, the proposed design was beautiful. Commissioner Burger concurred that she could not make the necessary Findings; she cited the Commission's recent efforts on the Design Review Ordinance and was reluctant to make exception for a few hundred square feet; soon every applicant would require similar consideration. Commissioner Kolstad also could not made the Findings required. SIEGFRIED/HARRIS MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-88-080, V-88-001 TO MARCH 8, '1989. Passed 7-0. 12. DR-88-089 Schaller, 18840 Ten Acres Rd., request for design review approval for a new 6,098 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Kolstad reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the Report to the Planning Commission, February 8, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:00. Mr. Kevin Schaller, Applicant, stated that before the project was undertaken, Ordinance guide- lines were reviewed in order to conform with such; he reviewed the design, architecture and land- scaping proposed. Photographs of the property and adjacent homes were presented to show the variety of designs in the area. He added that this was the third revision of the plans. Mr. Peter Fera, 18801 Ten Acres Rd., Saratoga, was impressed by the drawings presented by the Applicant; the design would be an asset to the neighborhood. SIEGFRIED/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:06 P.M. Passed 7-0. Commissioner Siegfried noted the existing landscape scre.ening, the elevation proposed, the parcel size and the fact that this Application met all the Ordinance requirements and questioned what else could be asked of this Applicant. While the design was different, it was well executed. Commissioner Burger concurred; she noted that the neighborhood was changing. She was im- pressed with the design and the setbacks proposed. Commissioner Kolstad commented that most of the homes in the area were 25-30 year old homes; this Application would be precedent setting for the five lot subdivision and a benchmark for other homes. While he initially had questions, he would accept the Commission's decision on this Item. Commissioner Tucker did not have problems with this Application due to the significant setbacks from the street; however, she would not guarantee approval of other, similar houses. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued TUCKER/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-88-089 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: 1. Draft Memo to City Council Re: Appeal of SD-88-006, Saviano, 13502 Pierce Rd. Consensus reached to accept the Draft Memo as presented. 2. Upcoming Planning applications and projects, - Noted and filed~ 3. Reviewed administrative changes made by Staff to plans approved by the Planning Commis- sion for two projects on Oak P1.; such changes were viewed as inappropriate modifications because of the potentially substantial impacts. Consensus reached that the request for modifi- cations would be heard by the Commission. COMMISSION ITEMS: None. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - January 17,1989, - Noted and filed. · 2. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of January 18,1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by Commission: Commissioner Kolstad reported on the Meeting of the City Council of February 1, 1989. AD,IOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Carol A. P;obst-Caug~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT DATE: Tuesday, January 31, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room, 19655 Allendale Ave. TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole I. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION A. Written correspondence from Bert Martel - Discussion of concerns about recent grading at 19431 San Marcos Road. The Planning Director reviewed the permit history and current conditions for the recent grading, retaining wall and fence construction at 19431 San Marcos Road. The Director indicated that the Chief Building Official visited the site and determined that no violations to grading procedures or codes were present. The Director went on to describe the extent of the recent construction. The side and rear yard of 19431 San Marcos Road was raised and leveled to install landscaping and a lawn. In order to complete this grading, a 2-1/2 to 3 foot retaining wall was constructed near the property line at the top of the creek bank. The wall was constructed of wood members and was not subject to building permits and ~nspections. The Director also reported on landscape irrigation problems noted by the Building Official which were corrected by the property owner. The Director also mentioned that a separate retaining wall apparently on the neighbors property was in a state of disrepair. The Director also called attention to a recent letter from Bert Martel. which indicated that the concerns are neighborhood wide and that this is not an issue isolated to his property or interest. The nearby property owners were in attendance and spoke to concerns regarding increased hazard due to flooding because of the recent grading. Concerns included creek bank failure, increased vegetation and debris in the creek and maintenance of the drainage system. The Planning Commission concluded that the creeks and natural drainage ways are significant concerns especially during peak rainfall periods. The Planning Commission requested that the neighbors and the City Engineer meet to discuss specific concerns and solutions. The Planning Commission also requested that a specific proposal addressing neighborhood concerns be brought back to the Planning Commission at a study session. The Planning Director will arrange for the parties to meet as soon as possible .... 1 Committee-of-the-Whole 1/31/89 Page 2 B. Les Maisons Provencal - Review of further details on the senior care facility The developers presented recent architectural renderings for the congregate senior care facility. The applicants requested an additional study session on February 14, 1989 to discuss the relationship between the senior care and the residential portion of the development. The discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and the developer regarding the senior care facility. In response to a Planning Commission concern, the developers explained the age restrictions and how the different age groups would interact. The developers also indicated that townhouse or cottage units would be approximately 1400 sq. ft. Lastly, the developers responded to the Planning Commission questions regarding the long term financial security of the project. The developers requested an additional study session on February 28, 1989 to present the relationship between the residential and senior sections of the project. The developers and senior representative, Andy Beverett, also provided an update of the air quality research which has taken place recently. The Planning Commission looked forward to receiving additional information with regard to dissipation rates from computer models, possible filtration systems and air intake locations. C. Mike Kermani - 15187 Blue Gum-Ct., request for design review and variance approvals to construct a 6,200 sq. ft. single family dwelling in the R-1-40,000 zone. The Director indicated that the applicant was able to comply with the code allowance for floor area without the study session. D. Huang - 14590 Deer Spring Ct., consideration of revised plans showing a floor area reduction. The applicants, their architect and the adjoining neighbor were present to discuss revised plans which show reduction in floor area and building height above the ridgeline. With regard to the square footage, the Planning Commission agreed that the reduced floor area was necessary as findings to justify a variance were not present. Committee-of-the-Whole Report 1/31/89 With regard to the height above the ridge line, the Planning Commission received the input of the adjoining neighbor most directly impacted by the building height. The neighbor reviewed the plans and indicated that the height reduction proposed was beneficial to his previous concerns and that existing and proposed landscaping will mitigate the small area where increased height above the major ridge line was proposed. The Planning Commission concurred that the findings were present to consider the variance for the ridge line height. E. Draft Revision to the Commercial Districts The City Attorney was present to brief the Planning Commission on the changes proposed for all commercial districts in the City. The City Attorney then reviewed his memorandum which detailed the specific changes proposed. After receiving the Attorney's report, the Planning Commission responded with questions and concerns. The Planning Commission concluded that bed and breakfast establishments should remain as conditionally permitted uses; and that medical clinics should be converted from permitted to conditionally permitted uses. The Planning Commission also discussed with the Attorney the applicability of the revisions to maintenance issues now experienced with some commercial areas. II. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted Planning Director