Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-1989 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: May 24, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Siegfried, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Tappan present. Commissioners Tucker, Kolstad absent. Pledge of Allegiance: Led by Commissioner Harris Approval of Minutes: Meeting of May 10, 1989 BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 10, 1989, AS PRE- SENTED. Passed 3-0-1, Commissioner Harris absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was prope~y posted on May 19, 1989. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Graft stated that in Item 4,.DR-89-004, the stan- dard Condition, requiring that "Owing to drought conditions, bonding from the installation of land- scaping shall be allowed prior to the issuance of zone clearance" should be added to Condition 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-89--017 Nolle, 19935 Herriman Ave., request for design review and variance ap- V-89-006 proval to construct a one and two-story, 959 sq. ft. addition to an existing home fro a total of 3,773 sq. ft.; the variance is to encroach into an existing non-conforming front yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Cede. Con- tinued to June 14, 1989. 2. DR-89-020 Heath, 18681 Kosich Drive, request for design review and variance ap- V-89-013 proval to construct a 1,273 sq. ft. first and second floor addition to an exist- ing one-story home for a total of 3,432 sq. ft.; the variance is to exceed the maximum allowed floor area by 61 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Cede. Continued to June 14, 1989. 3. DR-88-107 Hernandez, 14626 Big Basin Way, request for building site approval for SD-88-023 one lot and design review approval for a three (3) unit apartment complex within the R-M-3,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to June 14, 1989. 4. DR-89-004 Ingle, 21417 Tollgate Road, request for design review approval to construct a 5,749 sq.ft. home in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Public hearing closed May 10,1989. 5. LL-89-002 Harbor Builders, 22183 Quarry Road, request for lot line adjustment ap- proval to transfer 2,614 sq. ft. of property form one parcel to two other parcels which would gain 2,265 sq. ~. and 394 sq. ft. per Chapter 14 of the City Code. 6. LL-89-001 Dividend Development, 13150 Saratoga Ave., request for a lot line adjust- ment to reconfigure five (5) parcels, totaling 28.086 acres, into three (3) parcels, per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Proposed parcels A, B, and C would be 12.814 acres, 11.073 acres and 4.199 acres, respectively. All parcels are zoned Multiple Use - Planned Development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 MAY 24, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 7. DR-89-015 McKenzie, 18690 Vessing Road, request for design review approval for a new two-story, 4,891 sq. ft. residence and pool in the R-l-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-89-038 Fitzsimmons, 14410 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval to renovate an existing commercial building in the C-C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant proposes a new dry cleaning business at this location. 9. DR-89-029.1 DeBella, 12826 Jepsen Ct., request for modification to an approved design review application that allowed the installation of the three (3) dormer win- dows to an existing residence in the R-1-12,500 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The modification would allow the removal of one win- dow and replacement with two skylights. 10. DR-89-002.1 Christiano, 21120 Wardell Road, request for removal of condition of approval. The condition required the applicant to enter into a deferred improvement agreement to provide a fn'e hydrant in the NHR zoning district per the recommendation of the Saratoga Fire Chief Chairperson Siegfried noted that Items 1, 2, 3 and 6 were being Continued to another hearing. Commissioner Tappan requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 8. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4, 5, 7, 9, 10. Passed 4-0. 8. DR-89-038 Fitzsimmons, 14410 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval to renovate an existing commercial building in the C-C zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant proposes a new dry cleaning business at this location. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 24, 1989; he noted that the Applicant's Architect submitted a statement on the issue of the kiosk. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:43 P.M. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, reviewed their concerns about safety in the placement of the kiosk. Commissioner Tappan asked whether the potential safety hazard of a kiosk was their main concern; Mr. Held confirmed that they felt the proposed location and its possible size would create a danger. Ms. Ann Fitzsimmons, Applicant, opposed the placement of the kiosk at this location due to the potential traffic hazard; when motorists found they could not stop, they would park on her site. She suggested any informational signs be placed at the exits from the parking districts. Commissioner Harris, Planning Commission Representative on the Village Task Force, updated the Commission and the public on discussions of the Task Force; their goal was to create a pedes- trian atmosphere in the Village, which would be helped by placing a kiosk at this corner. Mr. Sangi Lee, Hillview Cleaners, Saratoga Village Center, reviewed the letter of May 17, 1989. Mr. Daniel Benjamin, Super Quality Cleaners, Saratoga, reviewed the letter of May 17, 1989. TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:56 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger noted that the proposed use was permitted; she did not wish to address the objections of other dry cleaning establishments to this new business. She noted the efforts to develop a Village Plan and wished to see it implemented; however, she understood the safety con- cerns about the location of the kiosk. Chairperson Siegfried stated he wished to retain the option of placing a kiosk at this intersection. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 MAY 24, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Tappan had the following concerns: - While he agreed with Commissioner Burger's comments on a free enterprise system, he was sensitive to the concerns raised in the Saratoga Village Association's letter, namely, that "the Village cannot support a concentration of like service businesses..." - In addition, the Village Plan sought to promote a diversity of retail uses - While he supported the goal of encouraging a pedestrian atmosphere in the Village, he did not agree with Mr. Heid's suggestion to locate a kiosk in Blaney Square, rather than at this corner - Felt a kiosk should be located as proposed to encourage foot traffic; he did not feel that vehicular traffic would stop to examine the information posted on the kiosk - The elevation plans did not give him a feeling for the appearance of the remodelled building Commissioner Harris concurred with Commissioner Tappan's comments and added that she was very concerned with the types of uses that would be located in the Village. Mr. Heid commented that they had followed the Village Task Force Guidelines for the landscaping; he reveiwed the Landscaping Plan for the site and presented a rendering. With respect to Commis- sioner Tappan's concerns, there were few uses that could utilize the limited square footage on this site; he discussed the architectural detail planned for the building. Commissioner Tappan commented that he did not wish to increase the Applicant's costs; however, a great deal of effort had been expended to create the Village Plan. This site was the entrance to the Village, a critical element in the Village Plan and would set the tone for all of Big Basin Way; he suggested that a model be prepared showing the general layout, color scheme and landscaping. Mr. Heid responded that merchants who had not stayed in the Village had left because they could not support a 1200 sq. ft. area; it was the small shops that were having difficulty. He noted their efforts to improve the appearance of the existing building. Chairperson Siegfried reiterated that he wished to reserve the space for a kiosk; with respect to the number of dry cleaning establishments in the area, he concurred with Commissioner Burger's reluctance to interfere with the market place; such would step far beyond the bounds appropriate for the City. However, he urged the Merchants Association and Chamber of Commerce to work with landlords and property owners to be creative in attracting desirable uses; the greatest problem in small communities such as this was multiple establishments of the same use. The City Attorney, responding to Commissioner Tappan's concerns, stated that the Village Plan had promoted retail uses by various methods; however, this was a permitted use. The City did not try to regulate the competitive operation of businesses when such were allowed to operate. If the City wished to strengthen its focus on retail uses, such could be done when dealing with commer- cial regulations for the Village, namely, personal service uses could be designated conditional uses. Commissioner Harris suggested the Item be Continued to allow the Village Task Force to review it; she had concerns about the starkness of a white building and suggested additional trim and plantines. Commissioner Tappan asked that a detailed plan and elevations be presented at a Study Session. Ms. Fitzsimmons cited the financial costs which might result from the additional architectural drawings; the building could be left exactly as it now existed, but her desire was to make improvements so long as the cost was not excessive. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-038 WITH ADDING A CONDITION INDICATING THAT SPACE BE RESERVED FOR THE KIOSK, AND THAT DESIGNS FOR THE KIOSK, APPROPRIATE TO THIS LOCATION BE PREPARED. Failed 2-2, Commis- sioners Harris and Tappan dissenting. Alternatives available were outlined; Mr. Held stated they would accept a Continuance. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-038 TO JUNE 14, 1989. Passed 4-0. Break: 8:25 - 8:31 P.M. PUBLIC HEARIN.GS: 11. SD-87-008 Cocciardi, 22631 Mt. Eden Road, request for tentative map approval to subdivide 52.5 acres of land at 22631 Mt. Eden road into four (4) single family residential lots which comprises 21.5 acres, and a remaining parcel to remain under a Williamson Act contract comprises 31 acres. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 MAY 24, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris was concerned that comments.previously made by the Planning Commission when considering the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were not yet included in the Conditions; Planning Director Emslie responded that Condition 43 required the Mitigation Measures incorpo- rated in Exhibit "B" as well as adding Subsections a. and b. to this Condition. The Commissioner noted that there had been concerns about drainage from Lot 4 and had asked to have the City Engineer review the situation; the Planning Director commented that Condition 43 alluded to these concerns; however, if the Commission so wished, the Condition could be made more specific by requiring a detailed drainage plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:43 P.M. Mr. Tom Burke, Representing the Applicant, commented as follows: - Wished to address the access road between the Mr. Eden Rd. right-of-way and the County road - A road widening to a 26 ft. width with improvements (curb and gutter) would require a sub- stantial removal of trees, grading, and the installation of retaining walls in excess of 5 ft.-- possibly on both sides of the road - In addition, a 26 ft. width would require a cut beyond the limits of the right-of-way - This was primarily an engineering problem, similar to that encountered on Pierce Rd., other sections of Mr. Eden Rd., and Saratoga Hills Rd.; it was impractical to have a 26 ft. width - In response to Chairperson Siegfried's question, he stated that most of the road was about 18 ft. at present; there were a few areas that could be widened to 26 ft. without significant problems - However, there would be severe problems in a number of areas; examples were cited - While the access road could technically serve more than four lots, for practical reasons such would not happen since there was no place for a fifth lot to access the road - With respect to safety, lack of adequate sight distance was primarily a question of trees interfer- ing with the sight line; he suggested consideration of thinning certain branches of the trees - Applicants had no preference whether the road were named Nina Court or Eden Crest Lane Mr. Velitir Susid, Engineering Consultant, presented a series of pictures showing the steephess of the terrain and the growth of the trees; the impacts of widening the road to 26 ft. were cited. Mr. William Peretfi, 13485 Old Oak Way, Saratoga, reviewed a letter of May 24, 1989, asking that the developer install the necessary fencing and gates. Mr. Willem Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, Saratoga, commented as follows: - Urged that the developer's request to preserve some of the existing trees be granted - Contended that not all the information was available to the Commission and asked that a decision not be made until all information were reviewed - Asked that upon approval of the Tentative Map, all mitigations would be implemented and all improvements be installed Mr. Vince Garrod, Mt. Eden Rd., Saratoga, commented as follows: - Suggested the name "Eden Crest Rd." be removed from consideration; ninety percent of the road was owned by him and it would continue to be called "Garrod Rd." - Did not wish to see the road widened; he cited the steepness of the terrain and the removal of ap- proximately twenty-four Oaks (six inches in diameter or larger) in addition to various other trees - The Garrod's had maintained the road for as long as he could remember; they did not intend to give any permission to anyone, i.e., Mr. Cocciardi, the City of Saratoga or anyone else to widen and/or improve the road; the road would be left as it presently existed - With respect to the 1600 ft. that was within the City limits, there was a 60 ft. right-of-way; however, he did not wish to see curbs and gutters installed - With respect to South West/North East Rd, commonly referred to as SWINE Rd., he saw no reason to call the road such; there were no pigs in the City - Furthermore, citizens had decided that they did not wish through roads on Quarry Rd, Old Oak Wy., or Canyon View Rd.; such was acceptable to him; in any case, SWINE Rd. would not be allowed through their property - The Garrods had decided that they would not allow any through roads on their property - When SWINE Rd. was originally planned, it was anticipated it would extend to Prospect Ave.; however, if SWINE Rd. were extended now, it would terminate on Comer Dr., not Prospect Mr. George Tobin, Attorney for the Applicant, stated that with respect to the widening of the road and the installation of improvements (curbs and gutters), there was a statutory problem; applicable Sections of the Government Code were cited. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 MAY 24, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Tobin, Attorney for the Applicant added that the previous speaker made clear that they did not intend to allow anyone on their property to widen and/or improve the road; while the wishes of some property owners were unknown, there were five who did not wish the road to be widened. Environmental concerns alone prohibited the widening of the entire length of the road in question. Commissioner Harris reiterated her concern that the comments the Planning Commission made when considering the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were not included; Planning Director Eroslie stated that all comments and responses were incorporated as Conditions in the Model Resolution; Mitigation Measures previously presented were included in the Sub- division Approval under consideration. The Commissioner responded that she was disturbed that the Commission was not presented with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or that the Final EIR was not referenced in the Recommended Conditions of the Model Resolution. Such appeared to be an irregular procedure and did not work in the best interests of either the City or the Applicant. Chairperson Siegfried questioned whether a detailed layout for the road should be required; he agreed that a 26 ft. width should not be required for the entire length of the road. Commissioner Harris, citing Mr. Peretti's testimony, felt it appropriate to require gating du~ing the construction phase. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger was strongly in favor of not widening the entire length of the road to 26 ft. Chairperson Siegfried noted that in the development of the Pierce Rd. area, the developer was required to present a detailed plan for the road, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney suggested that the trees be shown on any plan presented for consideration. Commissioner Harris had reservations requiring a 26 ft. width if the road in question only served a limited number of homes, and was not a through road to either Prospect Ave. or Comer Dr. She preferred to see narrower roads in the hillsides. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-89-002 CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STATING OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FOUR LOT MT. EDEN SUBDIVISION (22631 MT. EDEN RD.) Passed 3-1, Commissioner Harris dissenting. Commissioner Harris stated she dissented on the Motion since the Final EIR was not available. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED TO APPROVE SD-89-008 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: APPLICANT IS TO PRESENT A DETAILED LAYOUT OF THE ROAD DESIGN, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF THE TREES, TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, A DETAILED DRAINAGE PLAN IS TO BE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND A GATE IS TO BE INSTALLED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT. Passed 4-0. Break: 9:27 - 9:40 P.M. 12 V-89-009 Falcon Hill Development, 14045 Quito Road, request for variance and SD-89-007 parcel merger to construct a 6 ft. high sound wall along the front property line where a 10 foot setback is required and a merger of parcels to result in two (2) parcels where three (3) currently exist per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated May 24, 1989. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:44 P.M. Mr. Arthur Cody, Falcon Hill Development,noted that the official plan line called for Quito Rd. to curve sightly; a sketch showing the road reconfiguration was presented. The placement of the sound wall as proposed by them would clear the anticipated road widening and realignment and would still be 33 ft. back from the center line of Quito Rd.; such would be sufficient to preserve the Oak trees on their side of the property. He noted that landscaping that would exist on both sides of the sound wall; Staffs Recommendation would impact some of the existing trees. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 MAY 24, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Robert F. Uranski, 14045 Quito Rd., Saratoga, continned that if the wall were set back 10 ft. as required, there would be significant damage to several of the trees on-site; they asked that they be allowed to align the sound wall with an existing grape stick fence on the property to the south. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:52 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger stated that either location for the sound wall was acceptable; if the Variance Findings could be made for a 5 ft. setback, Findings could be made for a 10 ft. setback; in any case, the wall would have landscape screening. It may be that some Oak trees would be disturbed as stated in the testimony taken. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-89-007 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-0. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED APPROVAL OF V-89-009 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION, MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS AND ADDING A CONDITION REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT A PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THE EXISTING OAK TREES TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY HORTICULTURIST. Passed 4-0. 13. DR-89-022 Jepson, 21090 Chiquita Way, request for design review approval for a two- V-89-014 story addition of 1,922 sq. ft., to an existing one-story single family dwelling. The total square footage is 5,784 sq. ft. Variance approval from Ordinance 15-45.030 is also considered to allow the structure to exceed the allowable floor area of 5,298 sq. ft. by 486 sq. ft. The home is located in the NHR zoning district. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 24, 1989. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:01 P.M. ' Mr. Walter Chapman, Project Designer, presented a photograph of the site; additional landscaping had been planted during the three years that elapsed since the photograph had been taken; he had nothing to add to the Staff Report. TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:04 P.M. Passed 4-0. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-89-022 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-0. HARP/S/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-89-014 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 4-0. 14. DR-89-031 Thorsch, 14199 Saratoga Ave., request for design review approval for a 1,308 sq. ft. two-story single family dwelling in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, dated May 24, 1989. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Adar reviewed the recommendations of the Heritage Preservation Commission per Com- missioner Harris' inquiry on Staff Report, Heritage Preservation I~s~es, Commissioner Tappan stated he wished to see a pitched roof on the second unit. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:12 P.M. Mr. Randy Thorsch, Applicant, felt the requirement for a deferred improvement agreement was un- reasonable; he would be the only Saratoga resident paying for this portion of the improvement. Planning Director Eroslie updated the Commission on the status of this situation. Mr. Ban'y M. Brook, Builder, requested additional information on requirements being imposed. Ms. Thorsch, Applicant, objected to the imposition of a deferred street improvement agreement and cited the fmancial impacts of such a requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 MAY 24, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Applicants were agreeable to a Continuance in order to further consider the project. The Commission made clear that a deferred improvement agreement was a standard Condition imposed on Applications of this type; there was no consensus to waive the requirement. The Public Hearing remained open. HARRIS/TAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-89-031 TO JUNE 14, 1989. Passed 4-0. 15. DR-88-081 Jayakumar, 18846 Ten Acres Road, consider modification to subdivision SDR-1507.1 SDR-1507 to narrow the width of an access easement which exists on the lot form 35 ft. to 20 ft. Design review approval is also requested for anew 5,410 sq. ft. new two-story single family dwelling in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Application DR-88-081, SDR- 1507.1 Continued to June 14, 1989, per request of the Applicant. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming Hanning applications and projects. COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. City Council Report The City Manager reported on the City Council Meeting of May 17, 1989. 2. Review of Capital Improvement program and certification in accordance with the General Plan. The City Manager reviewed the Capital Improvement program and answered questions addressed by the Commission. TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR FISCAL YEARS 1989-90 AND 1990-91 AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND OBJEC- TIVES OF THE SARATOGA GENERAL PLAN. Passed 4-0. COMMUNICATIONS; Written: 1. Heritage Preservation Commission, Minutes of May 3,1989, - Noted and filed. 2. Commiuee-of-the-Whole Report - May 2,1989, - Noted and filed. Oral by CommiSSion; ADJOURNMENT: The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Resp.....:' tfully sub ' ed, / ./ ,../