Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-1990 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: August 8, 1990 - 7:30 p.mo PLACE: Community Center - Multi-purpose Room, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Burger, Caldwell, Kolstad, Siegfried and Tappan. Commissioner Moran was absent. Approval of Minutes of July 25, 1990: Commissioner Burger noted that the last line of the third paragraph on page 14 should read "opportunity to visit the site" rather than revisit. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the fourth paragraph on page 4 should read: "Commissioner Caldwell responded she is looking to the expertise of staff with respect to the loss of view and o~erbuilding issues." She also requested that the fifth paragraph on page 16 include the details of Commissioner Kolstad's comments with respect to the various parking spaces. BURGER/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1; Commissioner Siegfried abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: .Mrs. Nancy Nelson, 18532 Aquino Way, addressed the Commission regarding motor homes and recreational vehicles. She noted the City has regulations requiring owners to conceal their motor homes from the street but not from the neighbors. She indicated her neighbor's motor home is visible to her back yard, is about one foot from the common fence and stands about six feet above the fence. Mrs. Nelson read a letter she received from a real estate broker indicating that the visibility of the motor home would have an impact on the value of her property. Chairperson Tucker responded that the Planning Commission is working on the regulations and requested that staff notify Mrs. Nelson of the progress of the regulations. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 3, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 2 Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Walgren noted that the third finding of the Resolution for DR-90-027 (Item 5 on the consent calendar) should be amended to read: "The natural landscape is being preserved by minimizing tree removal...and soil removal is limited to excavation for foundation only" ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. V-90-022 Smith, 12140 Woodside Dr., request for variance approval to construct a 7-foot wall in the exterior side yard setback of a reversed corner lot in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (withdrawn). 2. SM-90-004 Morrison, 14170 Teerlink Way, request for site modification approval to construct a swimming pool and retaining walls on a site with an average slope exceeding 10% in the NHR zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code (cont. to 8/22/90). 3. DR-90-015 Deiwert, 12272 Via Roncole, request for design review approval to construct a 644 square-foot second story addition in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 8/22/90). 4. DR-90-040 Eisenberg, 12091 Saraglen Dr., request for design review approval to construct a 676 square-foot second-story addition and 138 square feet of additional first 'floor area to an existing one- story, single-family residence in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 7/25/.90). 5. DR-90-027 Anderson, 20574 Komina Ave., resolution approving V-90-013 design review approval to construct a 1,453 square-foot second story addition to an existing one-story residence and resolution approving to allow the structure to encroach into a required front yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code (public hearing closed 7/25/90). Commissioner Caldwell requested that item 5 be removed. BURGER/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 5. DR-90-027 Anderson, 20574 Komina Ave., resolution approving V-90-013 design review approval to construct a 1,453 square-foot second story addition to an existing one-story residence and resolution approving to allow the structure to encroach into a required front yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code (public hearing closed 7/25/90). Commissioner Caldwell requested this item be removed for clarification of the variance. She stated the language "or to the intended use of the property" is not in the variance ordinance and requested that it be removed from the resolution. She requested that "and koi pond" be added at the end of the paragraph. She also requested that "and no development of the right of way is expected" be added to the last paragraph of the first page of the resolution. Regarding the language "or to the intended use of the property", City Attorney Toppel explained that the variance language was amended to make it correspond with State law but the phrase in question was left in unintentionally and appeared to be a case of "word processor carryover". CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE V-90-013 WITH CORRECTIONS. Passed 6-0. CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-027. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. FE-90-001 Parker Ranch Homeowners Assoc., Tr. 6526, request for exception from the hillside fencing ordinance regarding the 4,000 square-foot maximum area of enclosure. The request was made by petition of more than 60% of the property owners within the Parker Ranch subdivision per the recent fence ordinance amendment to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Parker Ranch includes Parker Ranch Rd., Star Ridge Ct., Chiquita Ct., Farr Ranch Rd., Continental Circle, Diamond Oaks Ct. and Comer Dr. (cont. from 7/25/'90). Mr. Emslie reviewed the Staff Memorandum dated August 3, 1990. Using an overhead projector, Mr. Emslie pointed out examples of different percentages of enclosures. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Ronni Lacroute, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Parker Ranch Homeowners Association and a resident of 12832 Star Ridge Court, addressed the Commission. She reiterated her comments of the previous meeting regarding the necessity for the fencing regulations. She pointed out a map which was posted on the wall on which open space, easements and 30-foot street setbacks were outlined. Ms. Lacroute indicated there is one solid fence in Parker Ranch and the Homeowners Association is having difficulty dealing with that fence because it did not have any enforceable rules. Ms. Ingrid Sywak, President of Parker Ranch Homeowners Association, 12860 Star Ridge Court, addressed the Commission and requested the Commission to approve the fencing request. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Passed 6-0. In response to Chairperson Tucker's question regarding what would happen to the 60% enclosures if the Commission approves 40% or 50% enclosures, Mr. Toppel responded the Commission had the authority to establish whatever rules it desires and could set up a modification process that will be conducted under rules established by the ordinance rather than through the variance process. Commissioner Burger asked if it would be possible to grandfather the homes currently fenced at 60%; Mr. Toppel indicated that could be done. Commissioner Caldwell stated she would be willing to support a motion that modifies the resolution so that no more than 40% of each lot be enclosed but grandfather in those lots currently 60%, that all fencing be set back a minimum of 30 feet in the front yard and 20 feet in the side yard, that there be preapproval of the fence design by having the Architectural Review Committee submit the designs to staff for approval'and all fences erected in Parker Ranch must be in conformance. She said she would prefer, rather than exceptions to exceptions, togo through the variance process. She indicated she would be willing to make an exception in the side yard setbacks for lots that are contiguous with open space as long as there is a provision that there is no contiguous fencing. Commissioner Siegfried said he would prefer to see a modification rather than a variance. Commissioner Burger stated she would prefer to see the limit of lots covered to be 50% rather 40%. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried indicated he would be agreeable with 50%. Commissioner Burger said she would like to see those homes that already have 60% fencing be grandfathered in. CommiSsioner Caldwell questioned what should be done with the homes that do not meet the 20-foot side yard setbacks. Commissioner Burger responded she did not think there was enough of them at this point to make an impact if existing open fencing were grandfathered in but would not be in favor of grandfathering the solid fence. Mr. Toppel suggested that there should be some process for staff to give some form of approval for the lots that already had 60% enclosures so there is a record. He agreed with Commissioner Siegfried that the modification process rather than the variance process should be used. He suggested the Commission develop some findings that would give the Planning Director authority to grant modifications if he is able to make certain findings. CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED APPROVAL OF FE-90-O01 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN SECTION 1 OF THE RESOLUTION AND WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: THAT NO MORE THAN 50% OF EACH LOT BE ENCLOSED; THAT ALL ENCLOSURES THAT ARE 60% AS WELL AS EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK ENCLOSURES BE GRANDFATHERED IN SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL WITH FINDINGS THAT THE FENCES DO NOT CAUSE AN OBSTRUCTION TO PASSAGE OF DEER AND OTHER WILDLIFE; THAT THERE BE STANDARD OPEN DESIGN FENCE PROTOTYPES TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THAT WILL BE ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS TO THE RESOLUTION AND INCORPORATED THEREIN TO BE USED BY STAFF IN REVIEWING FUTURE PROPOSALS; THAT THERE BE A PROVISION TO ALLOW SIDE OR REAR YARD FENCING TO ABUT OPEN SPACE ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND AN ADDITIONALPROVISION THAT THERE BE NO CONTIGUOUS FENCING WHATSOEVER AND THE MINIMUM PASSAGE OF 40 FEET THROUGH OPEN SPACE; AND THAT THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD PROPERTY LINE WILL BE 30 FEET AND THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE SIDE YARD WILL BE 20 FEET. Passed 6-0. Staff was directed to give notice to those with nonconforming fences. 7. UP-88-010 Cupertino Union School District/Primary Plus, 12211 Titus Ave., review of Primary Plus preschool' use permit by the Planning Commission to ensure compliance with all City requirements. The review is required at 4-month intervals for the school's first year of operation. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Commissioner Caldwell and'Chairperson Tucker both indicated that they visited the site. Mr. Emslie reviewed the Staff Memorandum dated August 8, 1990. He recommended that this item be continued to the second meeting in September in order to allow the neighbors who could not attend this evening to be present. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. There was no one present who wished to address the Commission on this matter. Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern regarding landscaping along Melinda Circle. Mr. Emslie responded staff would request the School District to address the landscaping issue. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE UP-88-010 TO SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 AND THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING LANDSCAPING ALONG MELINDA CIRCLE. Passed 6-0. Break 8:25 p.m. - 8:35 p.m. 8. SD-88-008.1 Rogers & Brook, San Marcos Heights Subdivision, Crisp Ave./Gypsy Hill Rd., review of proposed decorative entrances to the subdivision. One at Crisp Avenue and the second at Gypsy Hill Rd. The entrances will include no enclosed gates. Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Mr. Emslie reviewed the Staff Memorandum dated August 8, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:40 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli appeared for the applicant. She requested approval of the entry treatments and stated the applicant is in agreement with all of the parts of the resolution except item 5. She pointed out that the entry treatments are not gates, are not intended to be gates, and there is no ability to gate any' of the entrances to the subdivision. She requested that the word "gate" be deleted from item 5 and also requested that the Commission consider the entry treatments at Crisp and Gypsy Hill. Ms. Fanelli indicated the entry treatments are important for the purpose of identification for sale for people coming to the area in response to advertisements. It is also important for the community identification of the residents of the subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Sheila Swanson, 19305 Crisp Avenue, addressed the Commission and submitted a petition signed by the neighbors on Crisp Avenue regarding their opposition to the entry treatments. The resident at 19300 Crisp Avenue addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. The resident at 19339 Crisp Avenue addressed the Commission regarding his opposition to the proposal. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Avenue, addressed the Commission regarding the neighbors' opposition to the proposal. Ms. Fanelli reiterated that any reference in the petition to "gates" would be misleading as gates are not intended. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:53 P.M. Passed 6-0. Chairperson Tucker expressed concern regarding the design and requested that the Commission address the design, the proposed entry way and the location. Commissioner Caldwell stated she is in agreement with the staff report regarding the Crisp Avenue side. As to the San Marcos Heights side, she said she has substantial concerns regarding the size of the treatment. She pointed out that the Sobey Oaks sign performs the function of identifying the neighborhood and does not do so in such a prominent manner. Commissioner Burger said shediscounted the petition submitted by the neighbors because of incorrect word usage and the fact that most of the neighbors who signed it may not have understood what they were signing. She expressed concern about the height and the length of the proposed treatment and felt the treatment could be toned down in terms of height and length. Commissioner Burger said she was in favor of the subdivision entrance treatment and both the Crisp and Gypsy Hill entrances. She felt subdivision signs do not create barriers but are invitations to a neighborhood. She stated that she believed the approval of the Gypsy Hill entrance and the denial of the Crisp entrance would constitute a special favor to the neighbors on Crisp Avenue, and she was not in favor of that. Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioner Burger's statements. He said he had no problem with either entrance to the subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried stated he did not feel there should be any type of entry treatment at the Crisp side. He said he had no problem with the design on the other side. Commissioner Kolstad agreed with Commissioner Siegfried. Chairperson Tucker said she would like to see a scaled-down version of the entry treatment because she found the present design to be imposing. She recommended that one of the entrances be named "San Marcos Heights East" and one "San Marcos Heights West" because it would be easy for visitors to determine whether they are in the right area of the subdivision. She did not feel the identifications markers would impede friendships of the neighbors but would make it easier to realize there is one large development accessible at two separate entrances. CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE SD-88-008.1 WITH AN ENTRY TREATMENT ON THE GYPSY HILL SIDE ONLY WITH SOME REDESIGN REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT AND REFERRING TO "ENTRY TREATMENT" RATHER THAN "GATE" IN ITEM 5. Failed 3:3 (Commissioners Burger, Tappan and Tucker voted no). The applicant was given the choice of appealing the decision to the City Council or continuing the matter until the full Commission is present. The applicant chose to continue the matter, and Ms. Fanelli indicated the applicant would appear with a redesign. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-88-008.1 TO AUGUST 22, 1990. Passed 6-0. 9. DR-90-042 Muilenberg, 22060 Mt. Eden Rd., request for design review approval to construct a 4,815 square-foot two-story, single-family residence in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 8, 1990. Mr. Walgren requested inclusion of Condition No. 19 that the applicant shall obtain Santa Clara Valley Water District approval for all grading work prior to issuance of zone clearance. Mr. Emslie pointed out a correction to the Staff Report in the Staff Analysis regarding the reference made to the third floor. He said it is actually the second floor, which is at a different level, and does not constitute three stories. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. The applicant and his architect were present and answered questions regarding the project. SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:14 PoM. Commissioner Siegfried said he had no problem with the proposal and would vote in favor. BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-042 WITH THE CONDITION THAT LANDSCAPING CLOSE TO THE HOME BE APPROVED AT STAFF LEVEL; THAT CONDITION 19 BE INCLUDING REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT APPROVAL FOR ALL GRADING WORK PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ZONE CLEARANCE; AND THAT STAFF APPROVE THE COLOR OF THE ROOF. Passed 6-0. 10. V-90-004 Drew, 21021 Sarahills Dr., request for variance approval to allow the construction of an ll-foot tall retaining wall designed to repair an active landslide at a residential site in the NHR and R-i-40,000 zone districts per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Mr. Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated August 8, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:20 p.m. The resident of 21055 Sarahills Drive addressed the Commission. He said he spoke with the applicant, who indicated he could not be present. He stated he is a long-time resident of the area, is familiar with the slide, and the plan. He indicated he is a civil engineer and feels the proposal is the only practical solution to the problem. SIEGFRIED/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:23 P.M. Passed 6-0. TAPPAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE V-90-004 WITH THE CONDITION THAT LANDSCAPING BE INCLUDED TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF AND THAT THE LANGUAGE WHICH READS "OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY" BE REMOVED FROM THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 1 OF THE RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 1990 Page 10 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming planning applications and projects. 2. Review of a draft memorandum seeking Council direction regarding second-story compatibility. The Commission discussed the draft memorandum in detail and suggested changes to the memorandum. Mr. Emslie indicated he would make the revisions to .the memorandum and discuss them with Chairperson Tucker. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Virginia Fanelli re: Birenbaum application, 22052 Sunset Dr. The Commission discussed Ms. Fanelli's request that the visit the property. Commission members' indicated they would visit the site individually. Oral ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Cuffman