Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-1991 Planning Commission minutes• • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: March 13, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council- Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Bogosian, Durket, and Forbes. Commissioner Moran arrived as noted below; Commissioner Caldwell was absent. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes of February 13~ 1991. FORBES/BOGOSIAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1991 AS WRITTEN. Passed 4-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 8, 1991. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Walgren noted a correction to Item No. 9 on the Consent Calendar (DR-90-070, Namimatsu). He indicated that the following sentence should be added to Condition No. 12 of the resolution: "In addition, the large eucalyptus tree identified by the City Arborist as tree No. 2 shall be preserved." Commissioner Moran arrived during review of the Consent Calendar items. - PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. UP-90-006 Peninsula Recreation, Inc., 21990 Prospect Rd., request for use permit approval to expand the Saratoga Country Club golf course with new fairways, a driving range and a manmade lake. The property proposed for expansion has recently been annexed to Saratoga and a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and adopted by LAFCO for the annexation of the property to the NHR zone district which included a review of the golf course expansion. The relocation of an • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 2 UP-90-006 underground gas storage tank to a new above ground (cont'd) location is also part of this application (cont. to 3/27/91 at request of applicant).. ---------- ------------ 2. DR-90-036 ---------------------------------------- Gerla, 22188 Villa Oaks Ln., request for design review approval to construct a new 6,659 sq.,ft., two-story, single family residence on a 2.54 acre parcel in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 3/27/91). -------------------------- ------------ 3. DR-89-018 ------------------------ Kwong, 14581 Saratoga Heights Ct., request for design review approval to construct a new 7,528 sq. ft. two-story home on a 1.78 acre parcel in the Parnas subdivision within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to - 3/27/91). ------------------------------------=--- = - ---- ------- 4. DR-90-076 ------ - - Shepherd, 10665 Lomita Ave., request for design review approval for a one and two-story addition to an existing one-story, single family residence in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 3/27/91). ------ --------- ------------ 5. SD-87-008.1 - ---------------------------------- Serena Investments (Sung), 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., request to extend a tentative map approval for a four-lot subdivision (cont. to 4/2 study session and•4/10 Planning Commission). ---------------------------------------------- ------------ 6. SD-87-008.1 ---- Serena Investments (Sung), 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., resolution approving a request to delete conditions requiring the construction of portions of the SW/NE Road which serves as access to the four-lot subdivision (cont. from 3/5/91 study session). ------------------------------- ------------ 7. V-90-040 ------------------- Bennett, 21131 Canyon View Dr., request for variance approval to reduce an interior side yard setback from 11.6 ft. to 11.4 ft. and to reduce a rear yard setback from 22.8 ft. to 19.10 ft. in order to legalize an existing deck in the R-1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 3/27/91). ------- - ------------ 8. ROS Zone - ----------------------------------------- City of Saratoga, consideration of recommending the creation of new zone district relative to addressing the unique topography typical to the unincorporated hillsides northwest of the City limits. The Planning Commission will. consider creating a new zone district which will establish lot sizes, setbacks, permitted and conditionally • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued ROS Zone permitted uses and requirements for the dedication (cont'd) of open space for the topographically constrained hillsides currently under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. The Planning Commission will consider adding text to the existing zone ordinance. The application of this zone to specific property will require separate and subsequent action by the Planning Commission and City Council (cont. to 3/19 Study Session and --------- 4/10/91 public hearing). ----------------------------------------------------- 9. DR-90-070 Namimatsu, 14510,Sobey Rd. (Singing Hill Ct.), request for design review approval to demolish an existing home and construct a new one-story, 6,808 sq. ft. residence within the R-1-40,000 zone --------- district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Bogosian and the applicant requested removal of Item No. 9. DURKET/FORBES MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6. Passed 4-0-1 (Commissioner Moran abstained). 9. DR-90-070 Namimatsu, 14510 Sobey Rd. (Singing Hill Ct.), request for design review approval to demolish an • existing home and construct a new one-story, 6,808 sq. ft. residence within the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Don Snyder, architect for the project, appeared for the applicant. He indicated that. the applicant would like to investigate alternative site plans for a pool and accessory structure. The applicant requested that the item be continued after opening it to a public hearing this evening to allow the Commissioners to express any concerns they may have regarding the proposal. Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 13, 1991. Commissioner Moran reported that the Land Use Committee visited the site and had nothing to add to the Staff Report. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mr .' Snyder described the proposal, in detail. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 4 Commissioner Bogosian indicated he visited the site and also visited the neighboring lot that has not been developed. He expressed concern that the tennis court might be lighted in the future and could have a significant impact on the neighboring properties. Chairperson Tucker pointed out that there is an ordinance which indicates that there is to be no lighting on tennis courts. MORAN/DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Passed 5-0. MORAN/DURKET MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-.90-070 TO APRIL 10, 1991. Passed 5-0. Planning Director Emslie introduced Planner Susan Riggs. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. DR-91-005 Lazares, 19209 Panorama Dr., request for design review approval for a 427 sq. ft. first floor addition and a 1,272 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 4,565 sq. ft. single-story residence in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 2/27/91). -------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Riggs presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 13, 1991. The public hearing was opened at 7:48 p.m. Using an overhead projector, Mr. Park Miller, architect for the applicant, described the project. BOGOSIAN/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Passed 5-0. BOGOSIAN/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-91-005. Commissioner Durket stated he could not support the proposal because of its massive appearance. Commissioner Bogosian said he visited the site, and there is a significant amount of mature vegetation surrounding the site. From his perspective the second story would be compatible. The motion carried on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Durket was opposed) . • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Forbes stepped down on the following item. 11. V-91-002 Bullock, 12901 Pierce Rd., request for variance approval to allow a 404 sq. ft. room addition to encroach 10 ft. into a 20 ft. required side yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The addition follows the existing nonconforming wall line of the house. The subject property is within the R-1-40,000 zone (cont. from 2/27/91). ------=------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Riggs presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 13, 1991. . The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Bullock, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He requested that the Commission consider a longer time for him to remove the automobiles from his property. He suggested a period of one year with the provision for periodic inspections to assure that he is complying with the conditions. Mrs. Bullock addressed the Commission and stated that it may take some time to remove some of the vehicles because ads will have to placed to sell. them. Mr. Carson, 12915 Pierce Road, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal.. MORAN/DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08 P.M. Passed 4-0. DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE V-91-001. DURKET/BOGOSIAN AMENDED THE MOTION TO ALLOW FOR AMENDMENT OF CONDITION NO. 3 THAT THE VEHICLES MUST BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ZONE CLEARANCE OR 180 DAYS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. Commissioner Durket pointed out that there are two number threes listed in the resolution and noted that the amendment is to the first number three. In response to Commissioner Moran's concerns about removal of structures on the property, Mr. Emslie suggested that the Commission add a sentence to Condition 4 (the second Condition No. 3) requiring the applicant to submit evidence that all structures have been removed prior to issuance of zone clearance. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran stated she was not able to make the finding that there is a floor plan hardship involved in this variance request. She believed that the fact that it follows the existing wall line, that it does not increase the extent to which the structure fails to conform, and the fact that there is a neighboring flag lot are all reasons for which she could make the variance. However, she said she would not agree with the argument that the encroachment is unavoidable due to the physical layout of the home. Commissioner Durket withdrew his amendment to the motion. MORAN/DURKET MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW FOR AMENDMENT OF CONDITION NO. 3 [THE FIRST CONDITION NO. 3 LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION] THATTHE VEHICLES MUST BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ZONE CLEARANCE OR 180 DAYS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST AND THAT CONDITION NO. 4 [THE SECOND CONDITION NO. 3] BE AMENDED TO INDICATE THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT EVIDENCE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ZONE CLEARANCE THAT ALL STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED. The amended motion carried on a 4-0 vote. The original motion carried on a 4-0 vote. Commissioner Forbes was reseated on the Planning Commission. 12. DR-90-057 Gault, 22068 Villa Oaks Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 5,963 sq. ft. two- story single family residence on a 1.4 acre site in the NHR zone .district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 2/27/91). ------=------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated March 13, 1991 and reviewed the history of the proposal. He also discussed the Planning Commission's policy relative to approval of projects and the procedural issue which was raised by this application. Commissioner Tucker stated the situation arose through an unusual circumstance and apologized to the applicant for the delay. Because of this issue, .procedural, legal and ethical issues arose. She indicated that when the Commission finalizes a proposal by approving a resolution the vote on that resolution is the vote of those Commissioners that voted on it prior to the resolution. In this case Commissioners voted on the Gault resolution and directed staff to prepare the resolution. When a resolution comes back to the Commission, the standard practice of the Commission has been that the Commission votes on it and even those Commissioners who may .not have been present at the time of the vote may vote approval. All those Commissioners would be doing is voting • ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued approval of the resolution as approved at the prior meeting. On the resolution, those in favor and those opposed to the proposal are those who voted at the prior meeting. If a Commissioner votes denial on a proposal and then votes approval of the resolution, the denial vote appears on the resolution. Now a .situation exists where the Commission has lost some Commissioners and has new Commissioners who were not part of the process or decision for this proposal. The new Commissioners have a dilemma. They can either abstain from voting because they did not participate in the proceedings or they can vote on the application and perhaps alter the outcome of the application. MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-057. Commissioner Moran withdrew her motion because of lack of a second. DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DENY DR-90-057. Since there was a motion and second by Commissioners who were not present during the initial deliberations on this application, Chairperson Tucker reopened the public hearing in fairness to the applicant. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m.. Commissioners Durket and Bogosian indicated that they reviewed the record, visited the site and are prepared to vote on the proposal. Ms. Virginia Fanelli appeared for the applicant. She expressed her disappointment that the Commission has chosen not to follow the procedures that the City has followed over the years. She stated she realized that the Commissioners may have reviewed the record and visited the site. However, the presentation documents are not included in the public record nor was there anyone present from the public who may or may not wish to support the application. Ms. Fanelli requested that the item be continued so the applicant can return to the next meeting with a full presentation and with legal representation. Commissioner Moran was in favor of the continuance. Commissioner Durket suggested that the item be scheduled for a study session. Ms. Fanelli stated the applicant. had no objection to the study session if it would help the Commissioners understand the project. However, she indicated she would be coming back during the public. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 8- PUBLIC HEARING Continued hearing and putting on the record what she feels needs to be put on the record legally. because of concerns regarding the procedure. Commissioner Durket said he understood the project but would like to have some open communication on the design review and a study session would helpful. In response to Commissioner Moran's question regarding streamlining, Mr. Emslie stated that the earliest the matter could be scheduled for a study session is April 2 and the public hearing would be April 10 which would be beyond the permit streamlining act. The applicant could agree to an extension of up to 90 days, which is allowed by the statute. In response to Commissioner Moran's question, City Attorney Faubion advised that i.f the item is to be continued, a 90-day time extension would be required. One extension of up to 90 days is permitted; therefore, as a practical matter it would be easiest to extend the time for 90 days. That could be agreed to verbally for the record. Ms. Fanelli indicated the extension would be agreeable to. the applicant to the extent that the study session is held on April 2 and the public hearing is held on April 10. In response to Ms. Faubion's request for a specific agreement from the applicant to extend the Permit Streamlining Act deadline, Ms. Fanelli stated that the applicant is willing to extend the Streamlining Act for 90 days providing that the proposal be heard on the dates suggested. DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-082 TO APRIL 10, 1991 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON APRIL 2, 1991. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Break 8:30 p.m. - 8:45 p.m. Chairperson Tucker announced the resignation of Mr. Tappan from the Planning Commission. 13. DR-90-082 Williams, 21272 Chiquita Way, request for design review approval to construct a new two-story, 7,440 sq. ft. residence on a 10-acre parcel within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is Lot #3 of the Chadwick Place subdivision (Tract #7770). -----------------------------=-------------------------------- • • PLANNING .COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 13, 1991. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. The public hearing was opened at 8:44 p.m. Mr. Philip Williams, 12161 Parker Ranch Rd., addressed the Commission and described the proposal in detail. . Ms. Lou Ann Niemann, 13217 Padero Ct., distributed a letter opposing the project to the Commission and read the letter into the record. She indicated she was not sent a notice of the public hearing. Mr. Williams stated that he recently lost his home, and this proposal is the only way he could recover his losses. He felt he has done everything required by the City and is trying to be a good neighbor. He said the restoration plan was included with the approval because the only way they could pay for the restoration was to get a construction loan for the house. DURKET/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:57 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Bogosian stated he would be uncomfortable at this point to suggest that any building on the property be discussed until something is done about the grading and restoration that the City has prescribed be done in the situation. Mr. Emslie responded that the City Council has made it a policy that there will be no work, including subdivision work, until the site is restored. However, at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Williams the Council authorized this application to proceed. The Council did that knowing their policy was to seek full restoration. The Council felt this was an expeditious means to get restoration in a way that fit in with a financial scheme that made sense. The Council concluded that Mr. Williams was~a purchaser of the lot and was not involved in authorizing the contracts for the subdivision and, therefore, was of some innocence in terms of what actually happened on the site in creating the pad. The Council felt the relationship was exceptional and warranted consideration of the plans ahead of the lots that were still under the ownership of the developer. Commissioner Durket stated his concerns relative to the design review. He felt the design contained very strong vertical elements, he had a small problem with the chimney caps, the overall .~ ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 • Page 10 height of the building would make it appear very bulky and boxy. He suggested reduction of the vertical elements and requested consideration of natural exterior materials. Commissioner Bogosian expressed concern regarding the situation on the hillside. He said he would consider the design but suggested requiring a performance bond to ensure the work will be done by a certain date. Commissioner Forbes suggested that 26-foot poles be erected on the building site so the Commission can look at the property. Commissioner Durket requested that the poles be marked at the 22- foot level as well. Commissioner Forbes suggested a study session because he was not happy with the design of the house and would like to study the effect of the height of the property from adjacent hillsides. FORBES/DURKET MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-082 TO APRIL 10, 1991 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON APRIL 2. Commissioner Durket stated he also had a problem with the turret on the rear elevation on the east. Commissioner Forbes expressed concern with the height and mass of the structure and suggested that some attempt be made to lower the roof line. Commissioner Moran expressed concern regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed structure and a one-story or less of a two-story would address her concerns. She was also agreeable to a study session. Commissioner Durket indicated that he suggested the 22-foot marker in order to determine whether that height appears to be bulky. If the 22-foot height appears bulky, he would then suggest a single- story structure. At Mr. Williams' request, Chairperson Tucker reiterated the Commission's concerns regarding the proposal. The applicant was agreeable to a study session. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. 14. UP-91-001 Kolotouros, 20210 Prospect Rd., request for use permit approval to continue a nonconforming trucking business approved by the Planning Commission in January 1989 in the R-1-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of, the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 13, 1991. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Chairperson Tucker noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Borosky opposing the proposal and a petition from the neighbors supporting the request. The public hearing was opened at 9:29 p.m. Mr. George Kolotouros, the applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the proposal. He emphasized that as soon as the wall is erected for Highway 85, the trucks will no .longer be parked at his residence. Mrs. Maria Kolotouros addressed the Commission regarding the proposal. Mr. Peter Kolotouros addressed the Commission .regarding the proposal. He reviewed the last request for an extension. and answered Commissioners' questions. He reemphasized that the request for the extension is only until construction of Route 85 begins. MORAN/DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:45 P.M. Passed 5-0. BOGOSIAN/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE CONTINUANCE OF UP=91-001 TO TERMINATE WHEN ACCESS FROM THIS PROPERTY IS MADE IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 85 AND THAT TERMINATION BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. Commissioner Forbes seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Commissioner Forbes stated he was not in favor of granting a continuance for the use permit contingent on what the State does. He said he would like to see a six-month continuance. He felt that the applicant is making a sincere effort to ameliorate the problem and whether the neighbors were in ,favor did not affect his decision because the neighbors could change at any time and there should be a definite time limit to solve the problem. Commissioner Bogosian stated he was prepared to make the findings that the permit could be continued but felt that realistically six months is a short time frame. He said if .there were any doubt in his mind that this would burden the property over a long term he • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 13, 1991 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued would be opposed to it, but the. existence of the freeway is a foregone conclusion which should be taken into consideration. The motion carried on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Forbes was opposed) . Mr. Emslie clarified for the applicant that the Commission tonight directed staf f to prepare the document to extend the use permit with the condtions stated because the findings in the resolution prepared by staff did not coincide with the decision. He indicated that a new resolution will come back to the next meeting. Ms. Faubion requested that the Commission members clarify that they are able to make the findings for approval. Chairperson Tucker said she could find that the proposal is compatible with the objectives of the ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district because this was a continued use that was granted earlier. She did not feel it would be detrimental to the neighboring properties because it is a use that will be discontinued at a certain date. .She did not feel it would be detrimental to the public health,, safety or welfare because the business has so far been run in a safe way and has not created any problems. Commissioner Bogosian indicated that those were also his conclusions regarding the findings. DIRECTORS ITEMS 1. Heritage Preservation Minutes 1/9 and 2/6/91. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Rebecca Cuffman