Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-1990 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE REPORT DATE: November 6, 1990 PLACE: Community Center Arts & Crafts Room 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Committee-of-the-Whole meeting Attendance: Gillian Moran, Ann .Marie Burger, Karen Tucker, Meg Caldwell, Thomas Tappan Staff: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director George White ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 1. City of Saratoqa - Housing Element Overview The Planning Director provided an overview of recent legis- lation which restricts the City's ability to deny affordable housing projects when it does. not have a Housing Element approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The Planning Director explained several op- tions the Planning Commission could take in considering reviewing its Housing Element, because he felt that it would be impossible for Saratoga to comply with State Guidelines. One option would conduct a review of updated market condi- tions and demographics and consider policy changes within the established framework. Carol Mackol, Ronnie Way, .Saratoga, spoke regarding the City's need to maintain its'low density residential charac- ter. She felt that any change to the City's housing policy would compromise the City's primary objective to maintain its neighborhoods as single family. The Planning Commission discussed staff direction in revis- ing the Housing'Element. It was concluded that no extraor- dinary effort should be made to comply with State guidelines and that staff should continue to update its demographic analysis of the City. No policy shifts from the current Housing Element will be included in the revised draft. 2. AZO-90-004 - City of Saratoga ~ Residential Open Space Zone The Planning DireCtor explained the status of the Planning Commission's review of the new zone district. The City Attorney reviewed the changes made to the ordinance as directed by the Planning Commission at its last study. ses- sion. The ommission noted the changes were consistent with its initial direction and requested that the revised ordinance be distributed as soon as possible to facilitate review at the November 14th public hearing. John Di Manto discussed his'concern regarding the necessity for a 6,000 s.f. maximum house size. The Planning Commission recalled City Council direction at the joint meeting last week. The City Council directed that the Planning Commission begin to study the visibility of certain areas including major and minor ridges. The City Attorney and the Planning Director explained that the termi- nology used in the R-0S zone is consistent with the City's current.practice of regulating ridgeline development in the NHR zone. A new system for determining visibility may result from the Commission's study of viewsheds which may be incorporated into the R-OS zone at a later date. 3. DR-89-032 - J. Lohr, 14671 Sobey Oaks Court The Planning Director.displayed a minor change to the ground floor deck proposed for a house previously approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission concluded that the change would not be detrimental to the design as ap- proved, and authorized the Director to' consider the modifi- cation administratively. 4. DR-90-055 - Handa,' 20315 Calle Montalvo The applicantts representative, James De Young, reviewed a photographic analysis of two story construction in the neighborhood as well as the visibility of the second story addition from neighboring properties. The Planning Commis- sion also acknowledged Mr. Handa's letter which cited eco- nomic hardships if his plans were not approved. The Chair stated that economic factors do not influence Planning Commission land use decisions. The neighbors adjoining the Handa's rear and side yards reviewed their concerns that anticipated loss of vegetation would make the second story Visible from their properties. The Planning Commission voiced two viewpoints regarding the proposed addition: 1) That the addition is compatible with the design of the existing residence and additional land- scaping can be installed to eliminate any deleterious ef- fects; and 2) The second story is inconsistent with the City's objectives to require compatible designs without the reliance on landscape screening. The Planning Commission noted that the public hearing on the two items was continued to November 14th when a decision can be rendered. 2 5. DR-90-021, V-90-015 - Dix, 15404 Madrone Hill Road The applicantts engineer explained that the proposed grading and retaining wall'were essential to stabilize the driveway damaged in the October 17th earthquake. He stated that the situation requires immediate attention to prevent further property damage. The Planning Director stated that once the grading is com- plete there will be a retaining wall with an exposed height no greater than 5 feet which is consistent with the City code. The Planning Commission felt that the proposal was reasona- ble and necessary to correct an unstable slope and author- ized staff to consider the work as an administrative change to the approved plans providing suitable replacement trees are provided. 6. SD-90-008t V-900-028 - Ebner, 13741 & 13755 Saratoga Avenue The Planning Director stated that the Study Session was arranged at the request of the applicant who wished an opportunity to elaborate on the unique nature of the request and the presence of the variance findings. A lengthy discussion ensued between the Commissioners, the applicant and his consultants. The Planning Commissioners were asked to articulate their specific concerns to which the applicant and his agents responded. Several Commission- ers continued to be concerned about the precedential nature of the request and the lack of physical circumstances ap- plicable to the land involved. Other Commissioners felt that the request was reasonable and the variance findings could be made. The applicant provided each Commissioner with a tape record- ing of the statements made at the public hearing which the Commissioners agreed to review prior to November 14th when the resolutions, SD-90-008 and V-90-028, will be presented. 7. Joseph Masek, La Mere Michele Restaurant - 14467 Big Basin Way The owner of La Mere Michele Restaurant displayed his plans to enclose the patio on Big Basin Way. The Planning Direc- tor stated that the designs were compatible with the Village Plan by creating an interesting pedestrian environment directly on Big Basin Way. A majority of the Planning Commission agreed that the changes were beneficial and.could be considered administra- tively, provI~ ample notice and opport ty to comment was afforded the surrounding properties. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. /~TEPHE~ EMS~., Planning Director COW\11-06rprt:cw 4 DRAFT MrNUTES/~TEM 4/ 10/24/90 4. SD-90-008 Ebner, 13741 & 13755 Saratoga Ave., resolution V-90-028 approving request for tentative map to subdivide a 17,894 sq. ft. parcel with a 7,137 sq. ft. and 10,757 sq. ft. parcel within the R-i-20,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Resolution approving variance to allow the subdivision of an existing substandard lot and to create two (2) smaller parcels per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 10/10/90 to public notice CEQA Negative Declaration). Chairperson Tucker requested that this item be removed because of her concerns about the proposal. She said she would have to reverse her vote on the item and vote for denial because she believed it is a special privilege. Commissioner Moran stated she, too, had concerns regarding her vote on the item and about the issue. She said she revisited the site, reviewed the Staff Report and the minutes and felt it would not be good variance policy to grant the variance. She did not believe there are extraordinary physical circumstances and, after reviewing the Commission's decision, felt her concerns about the property were not resolved. She was not able to find that it does not constitute a grant of a special privilege to the applicant and indicated she would not be favoring the resolution. Commissioner Caldwell said she also revisited the site, reviewed the draft resolution and also reviewed other resolutions that deal with variances that have addressed similar issues. She stated she also had major reservations about the direction given to staff. She also indicated she would reverse her vote as well because she felt it would be granting a special privilege, the circumstances do not deal with the physical features of the site and she could not make the variance findings. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the background of this item. Commissioner Burger stated she wished to understand why three members of the Commission have reversed their votes since the last meeting on this subject. She said she was not aware of any change in the land or the basis on which the Commission made its decision and would like to more fully understand why the 'Commissioners now have grave concerns. Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioner Burger's comments, pointed out that the vote on the item was unanimous and requested further explanation from the other Commissioners. Chairperson Tucker said she was initially concerned that the Commission would be setting a precedent and would be granting a special privilege to the applicant. She was persuaded at the time that this was a unique circumstance but after further reflection she could not see it was a unique circumstance and felt it would open the City up to a lot of second units coming forward. She realized the argument at the time was that these two dwellings face a street and cited the possibility of a flag lot configuration. She believed that the applicant knew when he purchased the property that he was purchasing one lot with two dwellings on it. Commissioner Moran stated her major problem was that did not feel there are physical circumstances that would support the variance requested. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that what led her to move in the other direction was that she had serious reservations when discussing this item and felt that the Commission may have been stretching it to go in the direction it went. After she reviewed the variance provision and variance findings she could not find a special physical circumstance associated with the property. Chairperson Tucker added that the Commission was willing to grant this with a special condition that the house could not ever be enlarged by the square footage but she felt that the Commission would be denying the person that buys that house what is given to other people that have substandard lots. She felt it would be a favor to the applicant per se and a detriment to the person who purchased the property and did not feel it was a good precedent. Mr. Gene Zambetti addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He expressed concern because as of October 2 the applicant had approval for the variance. He requested the opportunity to discuss the item and the issues further in order to show that it is not a special privilege, that it is an unusual circumstance and it would be a special privilege if there were not two houses already there. He noted that there are different properties along the street that have enjoyed the privilege of having smaller lots. During Commission discussion of whether to continue this item to a study session, Commissioner Caldwell indicated she would like to review this case in particular along with the view toward what the Commission perceives might be a problem facing other properties in the future. Commissioner Tappan noted that this is a peculiar area of the City. It is one of the oldest areas established years ago when lot lines were not drawn very evenly. MORAN/TAPPANMOVED TO CONTINUE SD-90-008 AND V-90-028 TO NOVEMBER 14, 1990 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON NOVEMBER 6. Passed 6-0.