HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-1987 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DATE: May 13, 1987 - 7:00 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting .
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Siegfried, Burger, Callans,
Clay
Absent: Commissioner Tucker
Approval of Minutes: Meeting of April 22, 1987..
Chairwoman Harris asked that on Page 2, final paragraph, Manor Drive Improvement: delete
the word driveway and add, "street..." On Page 3, forth paragraph from the bottom, add a
phrase to read, "Chairwoman Harris commented that this property was unsightly and she
would like to see a sidewalk between the railroad tracks and Manor Drive." On Page 4, third
paragraph from the bottom, add a phrase to read', "Chairperson Harris questioned whether the
house could be adequately screened as it would also be visible from homes in the Pierce Rd.,
Wardell and Arroyo De Arguello areas to the southeast."
GUCH/CALLANS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 1987, AS
AMENDED. Passed 4-0-2, Commissioners Burger and Clay abstaining.
Chairwoman Harris introduced and welcomed Mr. Harold Clay as a Planning Commissioner.
ORAL 'COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Rick Denton, 21770 Heber Way, Saratoga, questioned the rejection of paint color for his
home being built and took exception to the variability in implementation of policies. He stated
that the proposed color for his home was identic.al to approved color for both commercial and
residential structures and questioned the ability of the City to maintain a reasonable objectivity
in this process; he noted the potential for an enf6rced mediocrity. He would defer to Staff for
a final decision in this matter. There was consensus to discuss Mr. Denton's colors at the May
19th Study Session.
REPORT OF CLERK QN PQSTING OF AGENDA:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on
May 8, 1987.
Deletions to the Agenda:
Planning Director Hsia noted that Item 7 would be Continued to May 27, 1987, at the request
of the Applicant.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR;
1. UP-87-002 Novakovich, 14251 Fruitvale Ave., request for use permit and design
DR-87-038 review approval of plans to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. accessory structure
(barn) in the Agricultural zoning district. Continued from April 8, 1987.
2. SUP-86-002 Horvath, 15209 Blue Gum Ct., request for use permit to legalize an
existing detached 650 sq. ft., second unit in the R-1-40,000 zoning district
per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to May 27, 1987 per request
of the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2
MAY 13, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR' Continued
3. UP-87-008 San Jose Symphony Auxiliary and Assoc., request for a temporary use
permit to allow a "house and garden tour" of property located at 15230
Sobey Rd. from May 31st to June 30th, 1987. Home will be open to the
public from 10:00 A.M.- 4:00 P.M. Tuesday through Friday, 6:00-8:30
P.M. Thursday evening, 11:00 A.M.- 5:00 P.M. Saturday and Sunday.
Parking for this event is proposed at property located at the southwest
comer of Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. and Glen Una Dr.
4. SD-87-002 Ozawa, 14350 Douglass Ln., request for building site and design review
DR-87-007 approval of plans to construct a new 5,681 sq. ft. two-story residence on
a 1.3 acre lot in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of
the City Code.
5. V-87-001 Hovey, 20631 Wardell Rd.~ request for variance approval to allow 12 ft.
exterior side yard setback Where 25 ft. is required for a new 480 sq. ft.
addition to an existing one:story single family home in the R-1-12,500
zoning district per Chapter !5 of the City Code.
6. DR-87-039 Lohr, 19574 Chardonnay, request for design review approval of a new
3,996 sq. ft. two- story single family dwelling in the R-1-12,500 zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
7. DR-87-010 Lohr, 18734 Cabernet Dr., 'request for design review approval of a new
3,661 sq. ft. two-story single family home that exceeds the 3,500 sq. ft.
in the R-l-10,000 zoning.district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to May 27, 1987; per request of the Applicant.
8. DR-87-035 Bocks, 15290 Pepper Ln., request for design review approval of a 510
sq. ft. second story addition/remodel in the R-1-40,000 zoning district per
Chapter 15 of the City Code.
9. DR-86-055 Poellot, 12441 Parker Ranch Rd., request for design review approval of a
new 7,121 sq. ft. one-story home in the NHR zoning district where
6,299 sq. ft. is the maximum per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to June 10, 1987; per request of the Applicant.
10. DR-87-032 Brian J. Kelly, 19387 Lisa Marie Ct., request for design review approval
to construct a new 6,000 Sq. ft. one-story single family home in the
R-1-20,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued
to May 27, 1987, per request of the Applicant.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR
WITH ITEMS 2, 7, 9, 10 CONTINUED. Passed 6-0.
Planner Caldwell noted that the Applicant for Item 1 was present; Mr. Novakovich asked to
address the Commission.
BURGER/GUCH AMENDED THE MOTION TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONSENT CALENDAR WITH REMOVAL OF ITEM 1. Passed 6-0.
1. UP-87-002 Novakovich, 14251 Fruitvale Ave., request for use permit and design
DR-87-038 review approval of plans to construct a 2,400 sq. ft. accessory structure
(barn) in the Agricultural zoning district. Continued from April 8, 1987.
Planning Director Hsia reviewed the status of this Application for the Commission.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:16 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
MAY 13, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
Mr. Novakovich, Applicant, agreed to plant trees on the side of his property adjacent to the
barn and to clean up the property; however, he was not agreeable to removing the barbed wire.
The barbed wire was to prevent children from trespassing on his property and damaging his
equipment. Commissioner Burger stated that on a land use visit, it was noted that only three
strands of barbed wire had been added to the top of the chain link fence; she noted that such
was unobtrusive and concurred that it prevented vandals from trespassing. The City Attorney
stated that if the Commission elected to allow the barbed wire, it would be a non conforming
structure and would not necessitate an immediate removal. He added that the Commission
could review the Fence Ordinance and build into the Ordinance the ability to grant exceptions.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:21 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
SIEGFRIED/CALLANS MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-87-002 AND DR-87-038 WITH
DELETION OF CONDITION 6, EXHIBIT "A". SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FENCE ORDINANCE.
Passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
11. AZO-87-003 Revision of Design Review Regulations, an Ordinance of the City of
Saratoga amending the City Code to abolish the site Review Committee
and eliminate the authority delegated to said committee, to amend the
definitions of gross floor area and multi-story structure, to reduce the
height limit for single family dwellings and accessory structures in
residential districts, to modify the standards and procedures for design
review of single family dwellings and accessory structures in residential
districts and to modify the provisions concerning issuance of grading
permits. A negative Declaration has been prepared for this application.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Memorandum of May 8, 1987.
The City Attorney noted changes in the Ordinance and called attention to the Memorandum of
May 1, 1987, which outlined these changes. Design Review Standards, formerly called
guidelines, would now become standards and the site Review Committee would be abolished.
Areas left open for determination by the Commission included:
Section 15-45.040 Setbacks~ if a structure.was more than 18 ft. in height, an additional
foot of setback would be required for each fOot in height
Differences between paragraphs: a) a mandatory requirement for setbacks applying to any
new structure, whereas paragraph b) only .applied to an existing structure wherein the
setback requirement was discretionary with the Commission. This was the latest position
taken by the Commission, the Ordinance had been drafted on the basis of this position.
Staff recommended that setbacks requirements be made mandatory as opposed to being
merely guidelines.
Section 15-45.050 Additional guidelines, was intended to replace language in the existing
Ordinance; Staff recommendation was that paragraph a) be made a mandatory requirement
rather than a guideline.
Section 15-45.060 Requirement for design review; public hearing, a); he referred the
Commission to the applicable table presented in the Memorandum and stated that one of the
major issues was that design review would now be required on any multi story structure;
Staff questioned whether such would increase the number of applications to be presented
to the Commission. In addition, Staff questioned whether any home (whether multi story
or single story) if build on a hillside lot (any lot built in excess of 10% average slope)
should be subject to design review. He noted the wide variation between the present
Ordinance and the draft Ordinance.
Planner Young reviewed the procedures used to .complete the Staff Analysis; such procedures
were used to apply retroactively, draft Ordinance requirements in order to assess the impacts on
these Applications.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
MAY 13, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Planner Young noted the following issues:
- Height and Setbacks for single story residences, which could be considered together; she
noted that designs for single story residenceg appear to be two story residences. She cited
the concern of the Commission regarding bulk and compatibility rather than setback per se.
Application of a stricter standard at 18 ft., rather than at 22 ft., may not be the best
approach; she suggested that enforcement of the existing standard (22 ft.) may be more
effective in addressing the concems of the COmmission.
- Questioned whether the proposed floor areas would indeed be significantly less than
approvals granted in the past year; Staff found that approximately two-thirds of
these applications were under that which would be allowed in the proposed Ordinance.
Commissioner Burger added that approval on a Staff level of one-story residences, not in the
hillside areas, was of concern to her and she asked that the Commission discuss this issue.
Commissioner Guch requested clarification on Staff's recommendation for mandatory
requirements rather than guidelines. Commissioner Siegfried noting that only one third of
applications exceeded that which would be allowed in the draft Ordinance, cautioned against
over reaction by the Commission; he suggested that the Commission make clear that there
were guidelines for R-1-40,000 zoning districts, especially for visible, hillside lots. Planner
Young noted that there were incremental increases in the chart of Proposed Allowable Floor
Areas. Chairwoman Harris noted that aesthetics of buildings had not been addressed.
Commissioner Clay asked for information regarding factoring of irregularly shaped lots.
Members of the Commission complimented Staff on a comprehensive and well executed draft
Ordinance and the Staff Analysis presented. :
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:07 P.M.
Mr. Bill Heiss presented a letter regarding Design Review Ordinances proposal; he noted that
in projects where open space was created, the dr'fit Ordinance put such projects at a distinct
disadvantage. He recommended consideration of a bonus for projects with allotted open space.
Secondly, the penalty was determined by the average slope of the entire lot, rather than by the
building site; he questioned the equity of such situations, the visibility of some sloped lots and
added that degree of the slope on a property did not necessarily address the issue of visibility.
Mr. Wendell Roscoe concurred regarding comments on hillside lots; he stated that he:
- Favored freedom of choice vs. the encroaching government intrusion in building
- Favored guidelines over mandatory requirements
- Questioned recently approved hillside housing that appeared bulky and ugly; he suggested
that the Commission promote education for professionals to avoid such developments.
Ms. Janet Kline stated that Dividend Development Corporation, owner of a 55 lot subdivision
at Prospect Rd. and Stelling Rd., Saratoga, felt it had vested right to the particular zoning and
design review regulations under which the subdivision was approved; approval of the entire
subdivision was based on present statute and the city was obligated to comply with approved
zoning standards for R-I-20,000 and Code Regulations relative to design review in place at the
time of the subdivision.
The City Attorney disagreed with the above statement; in his opinion, any vested right may
have been created under the Subdivision Ordinance, not the Zoning Ordinance. The City had
the right to review it's Design Review OrdinanCe and felt that the speakers comments were
incorrect. He suggested consideration of a provision stating that when design review approval
had been granted, the proposed Ordinance would not negate such approval.
Mr. Edward O'Farriell noted the following:
Questioned the use of the term penalty and suggested language such as "slope adjustment"
The significant impacts on the R-1-12,500 zoning district as noted in applications
reviewed from the previous year and as shown in Allowable Floor Area chart.
Mr. Doug Singsley questioned the impact of the proposed Ordinance on applications submitted
but not yet approved. The City Attorney suggested the Commission consider the concern
expressed an make a recommendation to the City Council. He suggested the addition of a
provision to the draft Ordinance stating that "Applications accepted as being complete at the
date of adoption of the Ordinance could be processed under the current Ordinance."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
MAY 13, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Mr. Don Coffey concurred with the concept of averaged slope and noted concern regarding
setback requirements on smaller lots; he asked that Staff recommendation on this item be
followed. In the 12,500 and 15,000 zoning districts square footage would be lost under the
draft Ordinance; he asked that this square footage remain as it currently existed.
Mr. Gregory Sterling questioned annexation policies of the draft Ordinance.
The Public Hearing remained open.
Commissioner Siegfried concurred with statements made by Mr. Heiss and questioned
penalizing property owners on non visible, flat: sites; he asked that the Commission address
this issue. The City Attorney noted the issue of'open space also addressed by Mr. Heiss.
Application AZO -87-003 Continued to Study Session on Tuesday, May 19, 1987.
Chairwoman Harris recessed the Meeting from 8:50 - 9:05 P.M.
12. UP-87-004 Caudle, 20360 Blauer Dr., request for use permit approval to legalize an
existing 400 sq.ft. addition (recreation room) to a detached garage and
modify the setback requirement s to allow a rear yard setback of 2 ft. 6 in.
where 6 ft. is required and to allow an 11 ft. 4 in.high structure where 8
ft. is allowed in the R-1-12,500 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City
Code.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use Visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission of May 13, 1987.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:05 P.M.
Mr. Robert Caudle, Applicant, stated that he received incorrect information regarding the need
for a Use Permit to modify an existing building. He noted the following:
An existing 4-5 ft. extension to the garage had been incorporated into the 20 ft. addition
His calculations on impervious coverage were inaccurate
Modification was not intrusive to adjacent neighbors
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:08 P.M. Passed 6-0.
The City Attorney stated that this was a setback issue, normally addressed through a variance
process; under the Use Permit process of the City Code, the Commission could approve
accessory structures in a rear yard, having less setbacks than required by the Ordinance. This
structure was currently a non- conforming structure and would remain so if the Use Permit
were denied. The City could demand removal of the su'ucture; there would be no amortization
with respect to the addition since it had not been legally constructed.
Commissioner Burger noted her difficulty in gra'nting a use permit for a structure already built
and stated that she could not make the necessary findings. Chairwoman Harris, noting that the
roof line extended to the adjacent property, commented on the potential fire hazard.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO DENY UP-87-004. Passed 6-0.
13. DR-87-031 Dalton, 20558 Beauchamps Dr., request for design review approval of
plans to construct a new 4;967 sq. ft. two-story residence where 4,800
sq. ft. is the standard. Property located on the "Fremont School
property" in the NHR zoning district.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, May 13, 1987,
recommending that the Commission continue this Item to a Study Session to order to address
the issues of height and bulk.
PLANNING COMMIS S ION MEETING Page
MAY 13, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Chairwoman Harris called attention to the enlarged plans posted and noted that plans for other
two- story homes approved on Beauchamps, had wide side yard setbacks; current plans called
for 15 ft. side yard setbacks. Commissioner Burger noted that lots 32-35 were split level lots.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:18 P.M.
Mr. Jack Dalton, Applicant, stated that he took is. sue with Planning Staff recommendation for
denial of this Application; he addressed the Issues as follows:
1. From guidelines and conditions for subdivision approval, there was indication that a 30 ft.
high home could be built, with no requirement for incorporating the split level pad into the
design. In response to comments of bulky appearance, current plans show the roof line
dropping off on the left side. Design of 'the lower floor without interior stairs was
necessary due to needs of elderly family members; a fully contained guest area was
included in the plans. Split pad design was. also done for purposes of energy efficiency,
privacy and security.
2. Floor area calculations of 4,590 sq. ft., (210 ft. below current allowance); he questioned
inclusion of air space in Staffs calculations and the practice of double counting. Plans for
lots 34 and 37 had been approved, both of which had identical entry ways as being
proposed; neither had double counted spaces.
3. Original approval of this subdivision was designated for a home not to exceed 30 ft. in
height; other homes in the area had been approved at 30 ft. height limit and pad elevations
from 8-35 ft. higher than currently being proposed. On the subdivision plans, structure
heights were from 28-30 ft.; these homes would be significantly higher.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:37 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not' particularly concerned regarding the square
footage; however, he felt that the proposed house did not fit the lot. Maximum height allowed
was used and the single story element of the house on the left hand side would not relieve the
impact to the viewer from the existing neighborhood. As a member of the Commission when
other approvals were given (for example, the DiVidend subdivision), he did not anticipate that
other homes could be built to similar heights. The proposed house was at a transitional point in
the subdivision; the Applicant had not taken such into account.
Chairwoman Harris reiterated her cormnent regarding the proposed 15 ft. side yard setback and
noted that such would set a dangerous precedent for this subdivision.
Commissioners Burger and Callans concurred with the above comments; Commissioner
Callans noted that maximum limits were used with minimum side yard setbacks which did not
place the house on the lot properly. Commissioner Guch noted her main objection was the
height proposed. The applicant responded that if greater side yard setbacks were required, the
proposed design would have to be completely redrawn; he agreed to a Study Session.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-87-031 JUNE 10, 1987, WITH A
STUDY SESSION ON MAY 19, 1987. Passed 6~0.
14. SUP-12 Bolander, 14231 Douglass Ln., consider revocation of a second unit use
permit for property located at 14231 Douglass Ln. per City Code Section
15-56.100.
Planning Director Hsia provided an update of the status of this Application.
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M.
Mr. Bolander, Applicant, apologized for the delays and noted that he had a problem with time.
He has paid the necessary permit fees; however, due to health problems he was further
delayed. He had scheduled time within the coming week to complete the work required and
would call for an inspection this coming Tuesday. He asked that the Commission continue this
Item one more time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
MAY 13, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Ms. Jeanne Johnston, 14210 Douglass Ln., Saratoga, cited the letter previously submitted on
this matter and noted the time period already. allowed to the Applicant. Neighbors were
required to look at this property at which there was no maintenance.
Mr. Bolander responded that work required on the property could not be seen by neighbors.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:53 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Burger noted that this Application was scheduled for review since January 14,
1987, and was not convinced that there had been any real effort by the Applicant to accomplish
the minor tasks required. Commissioner Siegfried stated he would make a motion to extend
this Application to one more Meeting of the Planning Commission and noted that items to be
corrected were interior and minor; Commissioner Callans concurred.
SIEGFRIED/CALLANS MOVED TO CONTINUE SUP-12 TO MAY 27,1987. Failed 2-3-1,
Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Burger opposed. Commissioner Clay abstaining.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO REVOKE SECOND UNIT USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 14231 DOUGLASS LN. Passed 3-2-1, Commissioners Siegfried, Callans
opposed, Commissioner Clay abstaining.
15. DR-87-029 Rosenberg, 14134 Dorene Ct., request for design review approval of a
SM-87-003 new 6,165 sq. ft. two-story home in the NHR zoning district per Chapter
15 of the City Code. Also consider granting site modification approval of
the proposed pool location per Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use x)isit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, May 13, 1987.
Chairwoman Harris called attention to the Minutes of the Site Review Committee of September
25, 1985, and to the plans approved at that Heating.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:07 P.M.
Mr. Jerry Rosenberg, Applicant, noted his desire to build the proposed house; every effort had
been made to be in compliance with requirements. He expressed surprise at Staff recom-
mendations and addressed what he considered t6 be distortions and inaccuracies in the Report:
Views: he presented photographs demonstrating that neighbors views would not be
obstructed and that natural vegetation (trees) would screen their property. Proposed
landscaping plans and a rendering of the property were also presented.
Bulk: he felt that this concept was subjective and elusive; he questioned Staff calculations,
noting a 1400 sq. ft.. difference between the first and second stories, reviewed relief
patterns on the structure and compared the approved house with the proposed structure.
Mr. Paul Freudenthal, Architect, addressed the following issues:
Height of two-story houses: there is no added square footage from an attic and did not see
height as a problem.
Bulk: he reviewed the patterns and designs Used to break up any perception of bulk.
BURGER/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:28 P.M.
Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Burger noted that the rear of the house would be the most impactful; Mr.
Rosenberg added that 60% of the rear yard would be landscaped. Chairwoman Harris noted
her concern that detail on the house would not be observable from Heber Way and Damon Ct.
Planner Caldwell stated that Staff viewed this. property as a transition area; Commissioner
Siegfried disagreed and noted the differences between Dividend properties and this property.
He considered the proposal under consideration' as considerably less impactful than the design
already approved. He noted the placement of the driveway.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . c Page
MAY 13, 1987
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Burger concurred on the improvement in placement of driveway and the
footprint of the current proposal. Chairwoman noted that the house formerly approved would
not stand out so prominently due to the amou'nt of roof which was usually dark in color.
Commissioner Guch felt that relief patterns would not be visible to homes in the valley; she
questioned the mitigation that landscaping would provide. Commissioner Clay commented that
the issue was the perceived bulk and compatibility with the area. Consensus reached that this
Application be continued to a Study Session.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-87-029 AND SM-87-003 TO JUNE 10,
1987, WITH A STUDY SESSION ON MAY 19, 1987. Passed 6-0.
MISCELLANEOUS:
16. Discussion of changing November 1987 Planning Commission Meeting dates.
Planning Commission Meeting to be held Tuesdhy, November 17, 1987.
17. Resolution commending Commissioner David Pines.
SIEGFRIED/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION COMMENDING
COMMISSIONER DAVID PINES. Passed 6-0.
COMMUNICATIONS; '
Written:
1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of April 15, 1987, - Noted and filed.
2. Minutes of the Committee-of-the-Whole of April 28, 1987, - Noted and filed.
Oral by Commission:
Commissioner Callans reported on the City Council Meeting of May 6, 1987.
ADJOURNMENT;
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was ad' ourned at 10:53 P.M.
Carol A. Probst-Caugh;;~~'7