Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-1981 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, July 8, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther., King, Laden., Schaefer and Zambetti Absent: Commissioner Monia ' Minutes Commissione~ Crowther expressed concern that some of the changes made in the Final Draft of the Design Review OrdinanCe were not discussed at a regular Planning Commission meeting, but rather at a Committee-of-the-Whole. Staff and. the Deputy City Attorney clarified that the issue of increased setbacks and line of sight were discussed at both a Committee-of-the-.Whole and the regular meeting, and it was believed that the line of sight concept was the consensus of the Commission. Staff stated that the City Council was aware .of Commissioner Crowther's concerns and had considered both issues of increasing the setbacks for the entire building or utilizing the.line of sight concept, and the Council had concurred unanimously that it was their intenti. on as well to utilize the line of sight concept.* Commissioner King then moved to approve the minutes of June 24, 1981.as distributed and waive the reading. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. *Commissioner Crowther also :. expressed concern that the draft of the Design Review Ordinance given to the CONSENT CALENDAR (continued. below) 1. SDR-1443 - Charles Reed, Quito Road~ 2 lots, Tentative Building Site Approval - Request for One-Year Extension '2. SDR-1494 - Donald Elam, Live Oak Lane, 1 Lot (over 50% Expansion), Conditional Final Building Site Approval 3. PM-81-1"- Tor Larsen and Max Marutani, Pierce and Ashley Way, Parcel Map - Lot Line Adjustment (in Connection with SDR-1486) Commissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to approve the above items on the Consent Calendar. The motion was carried unanimously. BUILDING SITES 4.. SDR-1497 - Charles Goss, Austin Way, 1 Lot (over 50% Expansion), Tentative ~. Building Site Approval Staff described the proposal. Commis'sioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve SDR-1497 per the Staff Report dated July 8, and Exhibit "B". The motion was carried unanimously. 5a. Negative Declaration SDR-1499 - Paul DeVoss 5b. SDR-1499 -. Paul DeVoss, Farwell Avenue, 1 Lot, Tentative Building Site Approval : The project was discussed by Staff, including'the structures and the trees on si. te. Commissioner Crowther questioned this site as it relates to the section of the SubdiVision Ordinance which indicates that, except in a Planned Community zone, no hillside. lot shall be less than 40,000 sq. ft. · i'~:~ea F'~Tl~'~ ~'D'~'P'uffF~C i'tY':'~td'~'~?'61l~i~'~f~'.~h~'j.:~2~'h-i~:~, appears to be an s~ht setbacks; that there was no recollection of it having. been discussed at'.ttl~-.. .... _ ..-.,... ................................ . 2~.~. .,~ waS-'~'~e-cOrd '~i-t":.l~a~i~""be:en-.~d'j sc,h'ss=ed"~h~'~U~e~' ~Pl~nning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes -. 7/8/81 SDR-1499 (cont.) existing legal lot and the applicant' has a right to build on it. Richard Stowers, architect, questioned the condi.tion by the Saratoga Fire District requesting a 32 foot r'adius on site. He explained that a turnaround having that large a radius would be detrimental to the site because of the trees and topography.. It was determined that the Fire District does have various options t'o a standard 32 foot radius turna- ~·ound, and Condition V-B should read "Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 ~oot inside radius or other approved type turnaround which must meet req~irements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans." Commissioner Zambetti moved', seconde~d by Commissioner King, to approve the · Negative Declaration for SDR-1499. ·The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconde~d by Commissioner King, to approve SDR-1499, per the Staff Report dated. July ~, 1981 as amended, and Exhibit "B". The motio·n was carried unanimously. PUBLIC FlEARINGS 6a..Negative Declar·ation - C-197 - C. Neale 6b. C-197 C. Neale, Consideration of R=ezoning from R-1-12,500 to·R-M-4,000 on the 1.15+ acre'parcel loc. ated at 14230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Staff described the proposed rezonin~g. They commented that they have concerns regarding secondary access.~ The Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated that up to one-·qua.~ter~ of the site would be taken up by easements due to flood hazards, and this would significantly reduce the maximum number of allotted units tha:t could occupy the site. Chairman Laden stated that the issue. at this time is the rezoning of this property to bring it into conformanc,e with the General Plan.. She explained that the owners can later bring in a~ site development plan, at which time the structures can be conditioned and the access can be addressed. She added that the Commission can either. Suggest a rezoning or General. Plan Amendment to the City Council. The public hearing was opened at 8:0.5'p.m. clarence Neale, 14165 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that he has two accesses to the property in his deedS, both of which are accessible to Highway 85. He explained the history of the site, explaining that the property had pre'~iOus'ty been zoned R~-·M-4,000 and had not been developed; therefore the zoning had reverted back to R-1. Mr. Neale described the access roads and the proposed project, stating that he wished to build units for senior citizens on this pr.operty. The Deputy City Attorney clarified that the rezoning of the property would not give building site approval; that Can b~'dealt with at a later date. Chairman Laden explained to M·r. Neale that the emergency access condition could be addressed with the Fire Chief when the time comes to develop. Commissioner King moved to close the, public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther questioned why~ a zoning of R-M-5,000 was not'being considered, since it is listed in th~ ordinance. Staff explained that the R·-M-4,000 is consistent with adjacenZt developments and there is presently no R-M-5,000 in the City. COmmissioner Crowther commented that he felt R-M-5,000 would be more consis·tent with the density requirements of the General Plan. He noted that this site is already being used for multi- ..~lanning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes - 7/8/81 C-197 (cont.) family and is directly adjacent to another multi-family residential area. Commissioner Schaefer agreed that she felt the R-M-5,000 zoning would be reasonable. After discussion, it wasF the consensus of the Commission that a R-M-4,000 zoning would be consistent with the General Plan. The Ne~at'{'~e DeCiaration for the rezoning was discussed, and it was determined that the sentence reading y"The applicant intends to provide senior citizen rental housing on the 'site" should be deleted. Chairman Laden explained to Mr. Neale that he .can specify senior citizen rentals to the bank and City when he comes in with a site development plan. Commissioner King moved to recommend to the City Council the amended Negative Declaration and rezoning to R-M-4,000 for application C-197, bringing it into conformance'with the2 General Plan; making the necessary findings. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, amending it to = .~'include the conditions recommended in!the Staff Report, that the applicant shall prepare a total site development plan and submit proof of a viable secondary access to the site. The amendment ff~iled for lack of a second. Commissioner Bolger seconded Com~issi0ner King's motion'for. reComn~endat.ion of the Negative Declaration and rezoning'. Commissioner Crowther'moved t6' amend the. motion to rezone the property to R-M-5,000 instead of R-M-4,000. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which failed, with Commissioners Bolger, King, Laden and Zambetti dissenting. The vote was taken on the recommendation'for rezoning to R-M-4,000 and the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Zambetti stated he would'be voting no, explaining that it should be a conditional rezoning and he feels that at some future time, before final approval is given at thelCity Council level, the applicant' should submit a site development planlto ensure a viable double access for fire and emergency. He added that helfeels, if the site development plan was not activated in two years, then ~he plan should revert back to a R-1-12,500 zoning. Commissioner Schaefer agreed. The motion '~0'~" rez6ning to R-M-4,000 was carried, with CommisSioners Zambetti and Schaefer dissent-. ing. Chairman Laden suggested to Mr. Neale:that he follow Commissioner's Zambetti's suggestion to present a site development plan to the Planning Department' · f~r".'~h~Y"r~f~=~W; M~...'Neale stated he.would do so as soon as possible. 7. UP-503 - Dr. Collinson, Request for a Use Permi.t to allow the continuation, 'under new ownership, of an existing veterinary clinic.in the C-N (Neighborhood-Commercial district. at 13S6'1 Quito 'Road. Staff described the proposal. The public hearing was. openea at 8:45 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve UP-503, making the findings. Com- missioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff suggested that the Commission should consider changing the use permit to run with the land, as opposed to w~th the owner. The whole issue of use permiB will be taken up in a future study session. 8. UP-504 - Thomas Gwin, Request for a Us'e Permit to allow the construction of a detached garage over 6' in iheight (12' max.) in the required rear yard at 19621 Juna Lane: .A report on the proposal was given by Staff. The setbacks of the project were discussed. "'=Pl'~nning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 7/8/81 UP= 504 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 8:5'0 p.m. Since no one appeared, Commissioner :Zambetti moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner King seconde'd. the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner King, to approve UP-.504 per the"Staff Report., making the necessary findings. The 9a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1496 R. Araldi motion was carried unanimously 9b. V-551 - R. Araldi, Request for a Variance to allow the constructi,on 9C. SDR-1496 - of a two-story single family dwelling to maintain a 40' rear yard where 60' is required on a lot near the terminus of Canyon View Drive and Tentati. ve Building Site Approval Staff described the si. te and the var'i'ance application. They commented that the Fire District had indicated' that they preferred the longer driveway, which is Alternative No. 2: in the Staff Report. Staff explained that this alternative would not requ~ire a variance and would give ade- quate emergency vehicle space. Cons.idering the Fire Chief's concern with the emergency vehicle access to the site and turnaround area., as well as parking area', Staff indicated. that they could not make the necessary find- ings · to.grant the variance. Staff commented that the applicant had indicated that the first alternative. would require 250 cubic yards 1.ess of grading and would allow the preservation of a 27' oak tree. Staff reported that the applicant has submitted revised plans showing'the modified exterior side yard (Exhibit "B-I"). It was explained by Staff that .this site is designated on the Genera]. Plan as very low density residential. It is Staff's interpretation that th'is site is very low density residential and. therefore R-I-40,000; the zoning. and General Plan conform. The set- backs were discussed. The public hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Bill Heiss, the engineer for the pro~ect, gave a presentation on the project and discussed site coverage.~' He stated that they disagree with the Fire Department's analysis of the setbacks and feel the best location for the turnaround is.in another area. He described this location (.Alter- native #1), along with the trees in ~he area. Mr. Heiss explained that the additional road which will be added completes the turnaround, and. either alternative accomplishes thisi.and gives enough room for the turn- around. The status of the easement ~that runs on the private driveway was discussed. Public Works Staff commented that there is an emergency gate at the end of Canyon View to which the Fire Department has access. The fence there will be relocated through the construction of the McBain & Gibbs subdivision. They indicated that the Araldi construction will not begin until the subdivision is developed because of the water system and sanitary sewers. Chairman Laden commented that she fe:lt that Alternative No. 1, using the past criteria of trying to minimize grading and retain 'as. much of the natural.foilage and environment, even though it ~equires a variance, would seem' to be most appropriate for the hrea, provid~d'~'~that the Fire Chief will approve the driveway and turnaround at that time. Public Works Staff stated that they had discussed the driveway with Chief Kraule and they believe he prefers Alternative No. 2:, but they feel that he did not absolutely deny the other alternativ~ and there could be a compromise. Clarence Frazell, owner of the conti~uous property to the south, stated that this is a very steep piece of property and he would urge adoption of Alterna'tive No. 1 because of this. He commented that he feels b0'th alternatives have exactly the same hammerhead as far as emergency vehicles are concerned, and he would like to have the house'back as far as possible. Mr. Araldi, the applicant, stated that they had asked for the variance to move-the house closer to the McBain & Gibbs property because of the - 4 - ~.~'Planning CommisSion Page Meeting Minutes ~. 7/8/81 V-551 and SDR-.1'496 (cont.) grading, since they felt this had been the consensus of the Commission at a study session. Commissioner King moved tO close the p~blic hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion,.which:was carried.unanimously. It'was determined that the wording on the Negative.Declaration for this project, regarding conformance=with the General Plan, be replaced with the sentence "This is a long-standing lot of record created September 7, 1962." Commissioner Crowther moved to appr6ve the Negative Declaration as amended. Commissioner King seconded the moti6n, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner'Crowther moved to .approve V-551, subject to approval of the access by the Fire'Chief, and also subject-to a satisfactory coupling of the emergency access.with the McBain & Gibbs Subdivision, making the find- in. gS. Commissioner King seconded. the motion. Commissioner Crowther then 'amended his motion to include the condition that the access be only an emergency access and that there not'be a through access road. The Deputy City Attorney stated that it would not be appropriate for the Commission to condition a site on something that the City may or may not- choose to do.. It was explained that Mr. Araldi doesn't have any control over the City as to whether they choose to make this an emergency only or a public road. Commissioner Crowther withdrew his condition related tO emergency access only. The vote was taken on the motion to approve V-551, per Exhibit "B-I" (Alt'ernative No. 1), with the condit:ion that all emergency needs are met to the approval of the Fire Chief, w~hich is the turnaround and gate lead- ing to the McBain & Gibbs property; making the findings. Commissioner ~ing seconded.the motion, which was =carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to appro:ve SDR-1496, per the Staff Report dated. July .2, 1981 and Exhibit "B-i"~, amending Condition V-B tO read "Construct a turnaround at the propoised dwelling site having a 32 foot inside radius or other approved typei turnaround which must meet require- ments of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans." Commissioner ~ing seconded the motioh, which was carried unanimously. 10~ V-552 - Jackson/Woods, Request for a'Variance to allow the construction of a two-story office building to maintain a height of 24'6" where 20' is the maximum allowed at 12300 Saratoga-Su~nyvale Road Staff described the current proposal!and .the pre'vious application for a racquetb'all cou~t. They added that they have not been able to make the findings for approval.. Chairman Laden commented that the applicant had allowed the use permit for.the racquetball court to expire ~nd is proposing an office building rather than a racquetball facility. ;She added that she was surprised. to see this application now, since at the time of approval of the racquetball facility the Commission had requested a plan showing conversion of that court into an office building in the.event that the court was.built and. later might be standing vacant. She.stated that she now finds this applica- .ti0n in reverse, where there is a ra~quetball building which has not been built, trying to be proposed as an office building. She added that it seems a proposal is needed for an office building designed specifically for ~hat,. and not something that was~intended to be a racquetball.court. Commissioner Crowther expressed concern about g'ranting a variance beyond that permitted by the ordinance because of the public concern related re~ated to that area and the impact On Saratoga. - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes -. 7/8/81 'V-552 (cont.) The public hearing was opened at 10 05 p.m. Warren Jacobsen, architect for the project, discussed the height limita- tion. He stated that they needed the height because of the various levels of floors. Mr. Jacobsen commented that it is almost impossible to build a two-story office building with a 20 ft? height limitation. He stated that they will resubmit their plans for an office buildi'ng, and during design review they will have a very acceptable solution. He described the proposed building~ Chairman Laden commented that perhaps a two-story office building'in this location may not be-appropriate if it requires a variance. It was pointed out to Mr. Jacobsen that the pr'e¥io~.'aI'ternative was.for an office building if the racquetball facility failed. William Benevento stated that he lives immediately behind this facility. He commented that the proposed building is still not a ru.ral residential building but much like a warehouse. He 1-isted various concerns, stating that he prefers an office.building to a racquetba!l facility. If the building was 24'6"~but properly located with architectural tr.eatment all around and landscaping, he would approve Of that. Commissioner Zambetti moved to close the public hea'ri. ng. Commissioner King seconded t. he motion, which was~.carried unanimously. Commissioner Zambetti moved to deny variance V-552 without prejudice, ~t'in.g h-~wO~td~'~'ke.~o see elevations of a building that is'more con- ducive to an o~fice building. Commissioner Crowther seconded,the motion, stating that the proposal is inconsistent with the C-V ordinance and he f'eels it would be granting special privilege to allow the height to be greater than 20 feet.. .'The"._mO t'i OnF' ~a~s' ~Y~'r~h ~'. ~ i ~ dis s e d ', a~d"th'~"vo t~'~ W'~S ~:~H~fi: .. t'~.~e~ '..~.~' 2V ~.'55.2, with the underst~naing that the Commission iS unable to make"the findings. The motion was carried, with Commiss'ioner Schaefer dissenting, stating that sh~ would prefer to see the i~em continued at this time. Chairman Laden informed the applicant that the Commission i's looking for a site development plan and a design review plan of an office building. It was suggested to the Mr. Jacobsen that he work with Staff to schedule a study session on this matter after submittal of a site development plan and design review. He also suggested to Mr. Benevento to continue to express his interest in the development of this site and to take part in the discussions, along with the other neighbors. 11.. V-553 - Park Saratoga Associates, Request for a Variance to allow the erection of a freestanding.sign for a commercial building at the southeast corner of Prospect Road Staff described the proposal, stating that they have concern with these signs because of setting a precedende' and the intent 6f the ordinance. They indicated they were unable to make the findings and were recommend- ing denial. The public hearing was opened at 10:Z30 p.m. James McLey, of Cal-Neon Signs, stated 'they had put a lot of thought into the=designs of the signs, which ble~d and flow with the building'whZi&h'is much different in design than the Park Saratoga development. He indicated that the present sign criteria for i't would be very incompatible with this building. Mr. McLey added that if the sign were put on the building it would take away from the design of the building itself. Bob Gadis, a partner in Randall's Cr'ystal Shop, introduced his other partner, Ms. Mabel Bricks, and they 'submitted a photo of the building and - 6 -, .~.=~P'l~nning Commission Page 7 · Meeting Minutes - 7/8/81 V-553 (cont.) discussed the operation. They stated that a sign on the side'of the building would detract from the overall appearance, and they feel that quality should be maintained from the inside on out. It was pointed out that these signs had not been presented at a previous study session, and it had been indicated that the signs would be on the other side of the building. Mr. Gadis and Ms. Brooks explained that they were asking for the variance becaus_e~!hey felt the sign would not be-seen if it were on the opposite s'i'~ 'of the ~uil'ding, Other applications for variances for free-standing signs on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, which have not been granted, were discussed.. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she felt it would be difficult to conduct a busi- ness and not have a sign out on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road or Prospect Road. After further discussion, it was the'consensus of the Commission that the findings for the variance could not be made. Commissioner King moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried:unanimously. Commissioner King moved to deny V-553 for the reasons discussed, addressing the findings as outlined in the Staff Report~ Commissioner Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Schaefer dissent- ing.* The applicants were advised of the 10-day appeal period.(*because she felt that the sign was an attractive addition, and she does not feel-there DESIGN REVIE~.V .can be a successful business on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road without "a"si'g'n' fac'i'n'g'th'e 'mai'n' Street'.' . f idenCe 'on Aloha 12A-773 GomeY/Saunders, TW~-'~ory, single- amily res Avenue,' Final Design Review,Approval Staff described the proposal. Carl Bumpass, the architect, discussed the setbacks.. Commissioner BOlger asked if there would be any walling or sound barrier. Mr. Bumpass answered no, indicating that there were numerous. trees on the site along Aloha Avenue. Commissioner King moved to approve A.-:773, per the Staff Report dated June 24, 1981. Commissioner Zambetti seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Bolger dis;senting. COMMUNICATIONS Written - None Oral 1. City Council Repoirt - Commissioner King gave a brief report on the City Council meeting .held on July 1, 1981. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file in the City Administration Office. 2. Chairman Laden thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. 3. Commissioner Schaefer suggested that' the Commis~.ion extend an invitation to the School Board to concerns that the schools: may have about und. erlying zoning. It'was.determined that the General Plan CAC should meet with them, since this is an issue in the General Plan Study that has been discussed Staff was reauested to wri~.~e a letter from the Commission to the General Plan Committe~, suggesting that they meet with the S~hool Board to discuss that element of the General Plan. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner King moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, to adjourn the meet- ing. .The motion was carried unanimously,.and the meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m. ~:~"P~anning Commi, ssion "' Page 8 Meeting Minutes' - 7/8/81 Respectfully submitted, · S ns on, Jr. RSR:cd :