Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-1977 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CC~'BIISSION MINUTES DATE: ~Vednesday, October 12, 1977 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers - 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION A. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Mars.all, ~illiams and Zambetti Absent: Comnissioner Lustig B. 'MINUTES Comnissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner Zambetti, that the reading of the minutes of September 14, 1977 be waived and be approved as distributed. The motion was carried,_ with Conmissioner Callon ab- staining because she had been absent from the m_eeting. _The approval of the minutes of the September 28, 197'/meeting was deferred until they could be read by the members of the Planning Conmission. II. TENTATIVE SUBDBrISIONS A. SD-1323 - Lee Hancock Construction Company, Chester Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 6 Lots; Continued from September z8, 1977 ........ Staff reported that additional information on this item would be_for_tr~.oming__ ~_ter_the_._Od_d_~_'el lows_he_l d _the i r __ B_oar.d_Me_e_tingjo _c_onsider_a contract_..fo r 1 o t s affecting themselves and the aPPlicant. Chairman Belan~er directed that this matter be continued to Novembe~ 9, 1~77. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. UP-352 - Cross Missakian, 13998 Shadow Oaks ]Vay, Request for a Use Permit to allow for construction of accessory structure (Gazebo) within the requi.red r.earyard Staff reported they had made an on-site inspection and had submitted a report recommending approval on this matter. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. No one appeared to speak on this SUDj ect. Comnissioner ~'hrshail moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing ~s closed at 7:42 p.m. It was moved by Commissioner ~hrshall, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the staff report dated october 7, 1977 be adopted anxl UP-3S2 be granted. The motion was carried unanimously. B. V-475 - Palie Nimb, 12931 Brand)nvine Court, Request for a Variance to allow an ll-~oot rearyard setback in lieu of the required 25-foot setback for an addition it was reported by Staff that the Variance Cmmittee had made an on-site inspection. Staff stated that the property is large enough to provide for the addition elsewhere on the site, which would be within the legal setbacks. Staff further stated that they were recommending denial as submitted in report dated October 7, 1977. Commissioner Callon reported that the Variance Committee on-site inspection showed that the existing non-conforming structure is only I ft. from the east .property line ana already serves as a barrier to light and air for the lot to the east. Extension of the-garage to the rear along this crowded - 1- sideyard would increase the problem further. Additionally, it was found that the applicant could place the new portion adjacent to the garage without a variance. Commissioner Marshall commented that he felt, ~ere the variance granted, the Con~nission would be giving the applicant a _s_pecial p_rivil_e~e_._s_ince_ .......... imme~liately to the left of the existing garage One could build a structure and not need a variance at all. The public hearing ~s opened at 7:47 p.m. Mr. :P~l_~le Nimb, of 22931 Brandywine Court, stated that he felt his plans wuule use the wasted piece of property on his site. He ~urther expIained--that if he did not receive the variance he would have to raise the roof on the garage in order to extend into the backyard, and would completely cut off the area he is now trying to use. The applicant further stated that he felt that this plan would not be-nearly :'as goea looking. It was stated by the City Attorney that although the structure as it exists is non-conforming, it can be improved. However, the subject request does require the granting of a variance due to its intrusion into the rear side setback area. Conmisstoner Callon stated that she felt, fro, n the applicant's point of view, that the planning and design are to the 'benefit of the layout of his pro_p_er-__~_ _ty. She explained that the problem is extending the use because of the neighbors to ~H~'gide. Chairman Belanger asked the applica~t if he ha~ discussed t~nis adaition witch his neighbors. The applicant statea that his neighborsto the right does not understand why he should not get the variance, and agreed that the total look would De improved. The motion was made Dy Conmissioner Laden, seconded by Conmissioner ZamDetti, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously, and ~he public hearing was closea at 8:14 p.m. Conmissioner Zambetti stated tha~ he was prepared to vote to deny the vari- ance, since the applicant could put the structure ~,~thln the required set- back area. Con~nissioner Willjams stated he would De inclined to vote with the applicant were the~e documentary letters from the adjacent neighbors, stating they had no opposition to this addition or were in favor of the addition taking place. However, in the absence of that proof, he stated he would vote with the motion to deny. Conmissioner ZamDetti moved, seconded by ~ommissioner Marshall, to deny the variance per the findings of the staff report date~ (k~tober 7, 1977. The motion was carrie~ unanimously. ..The City Attorney was asked wha~ would be the legal effect of letters from neighbors or their appearance in behalf of a variance ~or which prope~ findings can not De made by the Conmission. The City Attorney stated that findings still have to be made. The applicant was advised by the Commission of his right to appeal the denial within 10 days to the City Council. C. GF-313 - Amen~nent ~o ARTICL~ 4 Zoning Ordinance #NS-3 re: PL~nD RESI- DENTIAL D~v~LOP~r: Continued 'from 'September 14 ~ '1977 Staff stated they had preparea a proposed amended draft ana staff report, which included their findings in support of the ordinance draft, with recommendation for approval. Staff further stated that the new draft differed from the draft o£' Septemb__er _3_0_ ,_1_ .9_ 7_~_ , ~n that it now contains __a n_._ro~ision~for-~-2S~-~cr-ease_of the net dwelling unit density_where _the_application_is_f_~r. senior_.citiz.en_.housing_exclusi~el~.__Amendments were also provided to the DeVelopment Standards section, sDecifically in areas of building. setbacks. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. No one appeared to speak on this matter. -2- Conmissioner ~rshatl moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, trmt the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Williams stated that he had spoken with Mr. Bud Beaudoin, Chairman of the Senior Citizens Housing Task Force. ~r. Beaudoin had stated that he ~Duld not be able to attend the Planning Conmission Meeting ,and would like the opportunity to review the draft before it ~s finally adopted. Staff commented that the minor changes in density actually provides increases in favor of senior citizen housing, and that the previous drafts of August 1 and September 30, 1977 had been mailed to members of the Senior Citizens Housing Task Force and Mr. Beaudoin, and no con~nents had been received from Mr. Beaudoin. Chairman Belanger directed the Secretary to send Mr. Beaudoin a letter, explaining that a public hearing would be held by the City Council at a later date, where the Senior Citizens Task Force could again state their views. The motion to close the public hearing was carried, with Conmlissioner Willlares voting no. 'll~e public hearing was closed. Discussion followed on the HC-RD density coverage, which was not included in the new draft. It was concluded that the HC-RD density coverage should be contained in the ordinance, with PRD Maximum density of 20,000 and maximum building coverage of 25%. Commissioner Willjams stated he felt the density per sq. ft. should be increased per unit. He stated that he would like the R-1-40,000 PRD maximum density changed to 3800 sq. ft. and the R-1-10,000 to Z000 sq. ft., to give more units per 10,000 sq. ft. Commissioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner Zambetti, that the draft dated October 7, 1977 of Ordinance NS-3.37, as amended in Section 4.4 to add HC-RD PRD Maximum Density of 20,000 sq. ft. and max- imum building coverage of 25%, be approve<], and that Resolution No. GF-313 be adopted and forwarded to the City Council. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Williams voting no. Commis- sioner Williams stated he felt the ordinance should contain lower maxi- mum square footage (higher density) than the draft shows, so trmt more senior citizens housing could be encouraged within the area. He further stated that he was concerned about the stock of available land that is left for development. It was noted that Mildred Gordon was present from the Senior Citizens Task Force. Mrs. Gordon comnented that she would speak to Mr. Beaudoin regarding the new draft. She further stated she had not yet had a chance to read it, but would personally like to see it be approved. ~r. Dave Jones stated that, from his point of view, the Planning Com- mission had been conscientious and had put a lot of effort forth in this matter, and that he had no criticism of the ordinance. D. GF-314 - Amendment to ARTICL~ 3 Zoning Ordinance #N5-3 re: KECRE- AI'IONAL COURTS IN R-1 DIbTRICrS Staff reported that this ordinance attempts to regulate recreational courts, prohibits lighting ana opaque screening, and provides for minimum setbacks. It was pointed out that recreational court use per- mits will be required in the planned conmlnlity, planhen development and the hillside conservation residential and agricultural Gistricts. The public hearing was opened at 9:13 p.m. Mr. Bob Norton, 19752 M1noqua Court, aske~ if the sideyard setbacks in the ordinance were limited to siee or i~ they included the rear- yara. He stated he felt they should, since the rear of one property could be the side of another piece of property. Mr. Norton further statea that in some areas, as cul-de-sacs, backyards abut sideyards - 3 - or frontyards. He proposed that the setbacks should be the same as now required for structures. Staff explained that the 15 ft. setback is the minimum for front or side- yard except where the zoned sideyard setback is more restrictive. Staff further explained that the normal rearward setback in an R-1-40,000 zone is 50 ft. Commissioner ~rshall stated he felt the new draft was in accordance with ~-~r. Norton's wishes, since under the present ordinance a tennis court could not be closer than 15 ft. if a sideyard ~s abutting a neighbor's rearyard. Mr. Wayne Leposavic, 20675 Verde Vista Lane, stated he felt that setbacks for tennis courts do not serve any practical purpose and reduce the value of the property, and he is against them. A motion was made by Commissioner Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner Laden, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 9:25 p.m. Further discussion followed on amending the definition under Section 1- Commissioner Williams stated he would like to recommend this draft to the Homeowners Association groups and get their input. He further stated---that he ~s concerned about the setbacks in the denser zoning districts and the height of fences. It was pointed out to Commissioner Williams that the ordinance would be going to the City Council, and the Homeowners Associations would have an opportunitY to make their comments at that t'.~n.__e.. . .., ___- Cormnissioner Laden suggested that another study session be held before a final decision was made on this matter. It was moved by Con~nissioner Zambetti, seconded by Commissioner ~rshall, to rescind the_ qlosing.. of the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. It was dirertea_' Chairman Belanger that the matter be continued. Commissioner. Callon ob- jected, stating she felt the Commission was close to a motion, and that the matter should be completed. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing ~s closed at 9:40 p.m. f~ DiscuSsion followed __ on- .increasing. __ .the_ ..a__l_lg_Wed_ area. from. ...4_00: $~. ft.. to 800 sq. ft. in the definition NN-1, and adding pickle ball courts and similar activities to the list of uses described. A motion was made by Commissioner ~,~rshall, seconded by Commissioner Callon, to adopt the draft of NS-3.38, dated October 7, 1977, mended as follows: "Section I(NN-1), Recreational Court - Any planked, paved, or othen~ise hard surfaced outdoor area in excess of 800 sq. ft., used primarily for athletic activities, and/or any outdoor area enclosed by a fence, wall or other surface in excess of 6 ft. in height, measured from finished grade, the use of which is designed primarily for private single-family athletic · , .; activities, and including, by way of illustration but not by way of limita- tion, courts for tennis, racquet ball, pickle ball, paddle ball, squash, platform tennis, basketball and similar activities", and that Resolution GF-314 be adopted and fomqarded to the City Council. The motion was carried. Commissioner Williams voted no because of the side setbacks on the smaller R-1 zoning, and stated he would recommend 5 to 7½ ft. setbacks in the R-1-10,000 zoning. Chairman Belanger directed that a ten minute break be taken. The meeting resumed again at 10:05 p.m. IV. DESIGN REVIEI~ A. A-589 - Wayne Leposavic, Sp.e.rr~ Lane, Lot #3, Single-Family Residence Staff stated that there was a report recommending denial of the plans as submitted in this matter. Mr. Wayne Leposavic addressed the Cormnission, stating that he had designed his tennis court so as to minimize cutting the hills and had designed his home to surround the tennis court, observing all of the setbacks regulated-':, - 4 - by existing ordinances. Mr. Leposavic further stated that after his original plans for the house and tennis court were not approved by the Planning Commission, he submitted a revised design for the house and the tennis court, with an alternate tennis court design away from the heuse. Mr. Leposavic commented that he felt a tennis court adds to the beauty of the hills and blends well with the beauty of nature. ~ommissioner B'~rshall moved, seconded by Conmissioner Y. amDetti, that design review be granted in the matter of A-58~ to the house as sho~ on Exhi'Dit "A-2", and tb~t design review specifically De denied to the tennis court, or the alternate tennis court as displayed on the plan. Conmissioner Callon stated that she belieyea a tennis court placed against the property line, at the topj-of the knoll, with a 10 ft. high fence, shoul~ not be approved, because of infringement of privacy and the noise involved. Cormnissioner Wiliiams agreed, and stated he would find the alternate tennis court acceptable, in spite of the cut and grade, but would 'oppose-' thb tennis court against the hillside. Commissioner Laden stated she felt the noise and location of the cornet would be unsuitable for the neighbor. She stated she would vote no on both the house and tennis court because she felt the entire plan was not the best design for the hill. Commissioner Marshall stated he would not accept either tennis court plan, since he felt the first plan was an infringement of privacy, and the alternate would involve excessive grading. The motion granting design approval to the house only was carried, wi~h Commissioner Laden voting no. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal the decision within 10 days to the City Council. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. UP-15-A - Saratoga Country Club, 21990 Prospect Road, Revision of Amend- ment to Use Permit to Allow Tennis Court 'Lighting Staff commented that this revision would increase the number of light poles allowed under the approved use permit from 8 to 16. However, the resulting wattage would be reduced, and the light impact would be the same or less than originally permitted. Conmlissioner Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner ~rshall, to grant '..approval to the revision, allowing 16 poles with separate lights, instead of ':_ ~- 8 poles with twin lights, with a maximum height of 22 feet. The motion was carried, with Commissioner Laden abstaining because of her participation in the Saratoga Country Club. VI. CONMUNI CAT IONS A. WRITTEN - None B. ORAL 1. City Council Report - Commissioner Marshall gave a report of the City Council Meeting held October 5, 1977. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration Office. 2. Commissioner Zambetti reported that Portola Valley had approved its first subdivision since the incorporation of the city 12 years ago. It contained 205 homes, occupying 43 acres of land, and provided for a large amount of common open space similar to the original Parker Ranch application. 4. Chairman Belanger thanked Mrs. Hunter, of the AAUW, for attending the meeting. VII. AIUOUFd~Fr Conmissioner Zambetti made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Callon, to adjourn the meeting. 'rhe motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Marry ' MVD:cd '- -6-