Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-1984 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, January 11, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATI'ON Roll Call Present: Commissioner's Crowther, Hlava, McGoldrick, Nell|s, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the 'reading of the minutes of DeC'ember 14, 1983 and approve as distributed. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which wa's carried, wi'th Commissi'oner Nellis abstaining since he was not present at the meeting. Annual Reorganization Commissioner Siegfried stated that' (1) he wonders why the annual reorgani- zation is |held at the first meeting in January, when new Commission members come on at the second meeting or later, and (2) there has been a long-stand- ing unwritten policy that neither' the Chair or Vice Chair would serve dur- ing the year in which 'she' or he chose to be a candidate for office. He suggested, be.cause 'of the change in election from April to June in 1982, that the reorganization be in April rather than January. After further discussion he moved to postpone the reorganization of the Planning Commis- sion until the first meeting in April, with the present Chair and Vice Chair continuing to serve until that time. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Commissioners Nellis and Schaefer dissenting. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissione'r Crowther removed Items 1, 2 and 3 for discussion. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the balance of the items listed below. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 4. SDR-1480.- K. D. Daniel, Pierce Road, Request for One-Year Extension of Contract for Improvement Agreement 5. V-601 - G. McLaUghlin (Brown), 20264 Ljepava, Request for One-Year Extension Discussion followed on Items 1, 2 and 3, the Requests for One-Year Extensions for SD-13S5, SD-1356 and SD-1368. Commissioner Crowther asked the City Attorney if the tentative maps are consistent with the General Plan. The City Attorney answered that the tentative maps are the original tentative maps that were in place and all three of them are now a subject of litigation. He explained tha't the City Council, after adoption of the Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance, also passed a resolution indicating that if conditions of any pre-existing tentative map were satisfied under court decisions, an appl..~cant might be entitled to a final map, but that does not necessarily give them the right to a building permit. He commented that discussions with all of these developers are underway and in his view it is necessary for the 'tentative map to be continued, as other tentative maps in similar situations have been continued. He explained that the approval of the exten- sion is a procedure under the Subdivision Map Act and the City ordinance which specifies the expiration date. He added that the maps are not con- sistent with the General Plan as it now exists, in that they would call for a density |higher than wha. t would be authorized under the present Specific Plan. However, ther'e is a litigation issue involved in these maps which is being dealt with. He stated that if Commissioner Crowther is talking about strict compliance with the Specific Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for t'he NHR district, the compliance must be at the time the building permit is issued. Therefore, the extension of an expiration date on a tentative map, or for that matter if the' applicant simply went ahead and filed the final map, Pl°~ning Commission Page 2 Me~ting Minutes 1/11/84 SD-1355, SD-1356 and SD-1368 (cont.) does not necessarily guarantee the issuance of a building permit unless there is some other agreement with the City, which there is not!at the moment. Commissioner Crowther commented that·he thought there is a section of the Government Code which requires that the City not approve any tentative· map which is inconsistent with the General Plan. The City Attorney ·explained that that would relate to the initial approval. He stated that he does not view this continuation as an apprOVal and, in fact, it should be clear on the record that the .~'eH~i.~'Of't'H~"e~piration dates of the tentati've maps does not constitute any new or additional approval by the City. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve Items 1, 2 and 3 listed below. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowth'er commented that he would vote against this, since he can not believe that i't is in the City's best interest to extend these maps, and he also believes ~it might be in violation of part of the Government Code. The motion was carried 6-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissenting. 1. SD-1355 - Heber Teerlink (Lambert), Mt. Eden Road, Tentative. Subdivision Approval, 25 Lots, Request for a One-Year Extension 2. .SD~1356 - Anthony Cocciardi, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivis.ion Approval, 23 Lots, Request for One-Year Extension 3. SD-1368 -· Anthony Cocciardi and Alan Chadwick, Mt. Eden Road·, Tentative Subdivision' A~proval, 11 Lots, Request for One-Year Extension PUBLIC HEARINGS .6. V-541 - Joseph Brozda (B~lla~MZ~a.'~')'~, Request for Continuance~of Variance Approval from r~uir~d parking for a restaurant use at 14503 Big Basin Way, in a C-C zOning'district; continued from December 14, 1983) 7a. V-627 - Joseph Brozda, Request for Variance Approval to allow the creation 7b. A-926 - of 15 parking spaces that do not comply with City Parking Space Design Standards and would provide fewer spaces thanirequired by ordinance (at least 20 spaces would be required) andsRequest for Design Review Approval of parking deck and exterior ~odificat~on to barn at northwest corner of Third Street and Big Basin Way; continued from December 14, 1983 Since the public hearing had been closed on this matter and there were people present to speak on·it, Commissioner Siegfried moved to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously. · The public hearing was reopened at 7:40 p.m. Staff commented that they had determined that no new windows on the rear elevation and the'side elevation facing Third Street would.b~'p'e~mitted"'."~-~. under the Uniform Building Code, and suggested that a condition be add·ea'··'to that effect under the DeSign Review. Doug Adams, attorney representing the Brozdas, introduced John Mallen, the attorney representing the tenant. Mr. Adams indicated that they are in agree- ment and are trying to work out a solution through Option #1, i.e., giving up the studio apartment and working out the other five spaces within the restaurant through Mr. Mallen's suggestions. Mr. Mallen described the present dining area at the Bella Mia Restaurant. He proposed an accordian type of dining, with no outdoor dining in the months of No.Vember, December, January and February, and that there be· nO dining at all in the interior dining room whenever the outside dining area·is full. The enforcement of this suggestion was discussed. Mr. Mallen gave the history of the restaurant, stating that he felt it was a real credit to the Village. Bruce Nicholson, consultant, submitted a picture showing the development of the'back end of the barn and discussion followed on this. Wayne Faree, geotechnical consultant from Terratech, addressed the geological part of the project, indicating that he did not feel. there was a~problem. - 2 - Planning Commission ~ Page 3 ~Me~ting Minutes 1/11/84 ..... V~541,'V-627 and A-926 (cont.) He discussed the slope and the proposed piers. He commented that the project will decrease the slope and will greatly enhance the stability and strength of it. He added that he sees no difficulty in strengthening the structure. 'Staff discussed the parking ratios for dining and the enforcement of Mr. Mallen's proposal for dining. At Commissioner McGoldrick's request, Don Eagleston, representing the Village Merchants Association, di'scussed their reaction to. the var~ance.~ He stated that Bella Mia's and outdoor dining has been very well accepted bY the Village. He indicated that he understands the need for complying wi'th ordinances and the extremeness of this situation and the unusual circumstances. He commented that both the Brozdas and Bella Mia's appear to be willing to sacrifice and deintensify their use. Mr. Eagleston added that the parking deck has been accepted by everone. He stated that when Parking District #1 went in they failed to put any access to the Village, so the proposal to put in the parking ramp is also alleviating that parking problem and would be the applicant's donation to the City for the exchange of the variance. He indicated that they had no problem with the new size of the parking spaces, and he feels that other people in the Village will be coming in for the smaller parking stall sizes. He added, however, that he feels that, in legal limitations, they are entitled to ask for that also. Commissioner Peterson. commented that there would be only a 6" difference on either side and he sees that as no significant issue. Commissioner Hlava indicated that she would be perfectly willing to look~'at'.~hat size as a standard for the whole Village. Commissioner Crowther commented that he probably could not grantZthe variance if it were not for the stairway. However, he thinks the Commission is not setting a precedent because the applicant is giving the stairway down to Parking District #1 in return for the granting of the variance. Mr. Eagleston commented that granting a variance 'in an unusual situation of this type does not set a precedent for other people in the Village in other situations. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the= public hearing. CommisSioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick commented that, if the accordian dining room area is the wish of the entire Planning Commission, she would like to.see some sort of permanent sign to that effect inside 'the restaurant, which would ensure less policing and people would be awa're of the policy. CommissiOner Schaefer asked about policing and possible fines.' The City Attorney noted that there soon will be a Code Enforcement Officer and the City will be adopting an ordinance 'for enforcement through citations. He stated that the Commission can certainly condition the variance so that if the."poli~y .~.s violated, in addition to other remedies that may be available to the City, including review and possible revocation of the variance, the applicant would be subject to a citation wi'th a monetary fine involved. Commissioner Hlava commented that Mr. Eagleston was very persuasive. She stated that she had not thought about the stairway down to Parking Lot #1 as part of a tradeoff situation, and she can see that that might be somewhat beneficial. She added that she still cannot make the findings for the excep- tion to the Subdivision Ordinance, for what is essentially an intensification of use. She commented that she thinks that it is important to realize that the Brozdas, because of some of the uses on their property predating some of the current ordinances, already have more intense use on their p~operty than would today be allowed with the amount of parking available. Commissioner NelliS indicated that he has had an opportunity to listen to public testimony, study carefully the Staff~eport, visit the'~i't'e, and read the minutes of the last meeting. He stated that he agrees with the sentiments expressed by Commissioners Crowther and Siegfried at the last me~ting and contained in the minutes of December 14, 1983. He moved to approve V-627, per Exhibits "B" and "B-I", making the findings for the exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, with the stipulation that the applicant use the property so that no more than 15 parking spaces are required by ordinance.~ In addition, the applicant shall provide a stairway, in addition to the fire exit stair- way proposed, which will connect the subject property with Parking District #1. The location of the stairway shall be submitted for Staff review and - 3 - ~Pl~ning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 1/11/84 V-541, V-627 and A-926 (cont.) ~ approval, and if there 'are any violations determined by Staff, these viola- tions shall be reported to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. At Commissioner' Crowther's suggestion, Commissioner Nellis amended his motion to indicate that it be 'a well lighted stairway, and that both the location and design of the stairway shall be submitted to Staff. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. The City Attorney discussed the procedure for the issuance of citations for violations. He suggested that a condition be added to the variance, stating "The property shall be used so that no combination of uses will require more than 15 parking spaces. Any violation of this condition would be deemed a violation of the Zoning Ordinance"of a kind that would enable the Community Services Officer to issue 'a citation." Commissioners Nellis and Peterson accepted that amendment. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that th'er'e is an equity problem here, in terms of other merchants in the Village. 'She stated that the 'City has firmly stuck to requirements for existing merchants and existing commercial development, and even minor intensification of the'i'r use has resulted in their having to go out and find parking spaces. ~t"C0mM~Si0ner's Siegfried request, Staff clarified that the same method of counting and coming up to the requirement for 15 spaces would~be used anywhere else in the Village in the same situation, and would not be setting a precedent. Commissioner Nellis commented that up until now the applicant has not provided the required parking places, and when this deck is built they will meet that requirement. The City Attorney clarified to Commissioner Peterson that, in the future if there is an In Lieu Ordinance, at that time the applicant can come 'back with a request for parking if they want to do something with the barn!and studio, and it would be within the discretion of the Commission to approve it or not. Commissioner McGoldrick stated that she had previously voted no on this matter because she could not make the findings for the exception to theZSubdivision Ordinance. She explained that she feels that the geologist and Mr. Eagleston have solved her problems with that so sh.e can make the findings, and will be voting for the application. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels.very strongly against this project because she does not feel that the parking deck as proposed would be safe in a tremor. She added that people.wHo=shOp du.~ing'the. day downtown using large wagons have told her they would not go in there to park. She stated that Staff has recommended against it and she would be voting against the applica- tion. ~ The vote'was taken to approve V-629. The motion w~s carried 5-2', with Commissioners Schaefer and Hlava dissenting. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-926, per the Staff Report dated December 5, 1983 and Exhibits "C" and "D", adding a condition that there be no new wall openings on the rear elevation and. the elevation facing Third Street. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 5-2, with Commissioners Hlava and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she still feels very strongly in favor of the restaurant por- tion of Bella Mia's continuing; it was the rest of the way that the problem was solved that she does not agree with. There was a consensus that, instead of having a sign in the restaurant regarding the seating, the restaurant can come back to Staff with a proposal as to how they are going to notify the public. It was noted that V-541 has been r~placed by the new variance application V-629. 8. A-910 S. Tyler and G. Kocher (Duke of Wellington), Request. for Design · Review Approval to enclose an existing dining patio at 14572 Big Basin Way; continued from December 14, 1983 = It was directed that this be continued to January 25, 1984, at the request of the applicants. No one appeared to address the Commission. ~She added that she a~so' has 'a concern about the accuracy of the scale of the drawings for the' landscaping that is.",going to cover the decking in the back and the general safety of the deck. Pi.~nning Commission ~. Page 5· Meeting Minutes 1/11/84 ... '9. A-924 - Mr. and Mrs. Barr, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two-story single family residence on the Southeast corner of Allendale Avenue and Camino Barco, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district; continued from December 14, 1983 = Chairman Schaefer noted that she had received a phone call from !Mr. Barco, stating that he felt the. residence was too large and not in keeping with the general neighborhood. She also noted a letter from Mr. Wilson in opposition and one from E. A. Maus in favor of the proposal. ~ Staff 'described the proposal and the site. They commented that they cannot make all of the necessary findings and are recommending denial. Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the lot. He indicated that the Barrs had said they would be prepared.to mo~e the home .back so the frontyard setback would be 10 ft. greater, in order to widen the viewshed- area from the Wilson home across the street. He commented that.the basic issue is .the size of the home, and there are no two-story houses. immediately around the site. Commissioner McGoldrick added that the house will not ob- struct the majority of the ~Vilsons"'~iew. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p~m. Mr. Barr gave a presentation on the project, stating that Mr. Kosich, the .owner of the lot, had indicated that there would be no problem with a two- story house. He explained that they had canvassed the neighborhood and submitted signatures of the neighbors in favor. Mr. Barr indicated that they had decided to move the house back 10 ft. after talking to Mr. Wilson and would give him the chance to approve any type of landscaping on the side. The size of the'other homes in the area was discussed. CommissiOner Schaefer inquired about the' possible conversion of the storage area. Both Mr.. Barr 'and Marty Oakley, the designer, commented that there was no intention to develop the area.over the garage. Mr. Graham wilson, Allendale Avenue,. across from the proposed residence, referenced his letter in opposition to the proposal. He commented that he was opposed to t. he size and feels it will change the character of the whole neighborhood He clarified that'he feels that a two-story structure .~o~id,~'~-'/, compliment the surrounding houses, even.though mitigating measures were done, i.e., lowering the house or moving it back. Commissioner'Nellis moved to close the public hearing. CommissiOner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was c~rried unanimously. ~ Commissioner Siegfried. stated that he was inclined to vote' for the applica- tion. He indicated that he shares Mr. Wilson's concern about th~ size and questionsthe appropriateness of the two-story.. However, he thinks that in the.reality of today and the kind of homes that are being built on 40,000 sq. ft. lots, a home of 4500 sq. ft.' that was a single story would have just as much, if not a greater impact on the neighborhood because it would appear 'much larger in terms of the property it took up. ~ Commissioner Crowther commented that he agrees with the Staff Report's comments relating to findings 3 and 4, and he will vote against the appli- cation. He added that if it were moved back 10 ft. or made slightly lower it would ~o'~ '~ak'~ a= jdiffere~ce-.. = Commissioner Nellis agre~'d with Commissioner Crowther and Staff.. He stated that he might feel differently if there were a hillside lot and it was tucked away somewhere. HoweVer, this is a highly visible corner lot on:Allendale and he believes the home will change the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-924, on the condition that the home be moved back 10 ft. so that the front yard setback would be 67 ft. instead of 57 ft. He stated that he can make the findings on the basis of looking at the totality.of the homes on Camino ~arco. FIe commented that~ while it i's one of the very few two-story homes, they are basically pretty large homes. He added that the ho'mes across the street are by no means as large; however, he believes it'is always the problem of whe're you draw the final.line. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Commissioner' McGoldrick 'st'~'~d" ~hat' she would vote no on ti~iS, ~ " 0~'gi~..' .... .... . .. . e~en th she does not see a proble~ to Mr. Wilson and feels"that a single .story house is going to take up far much more room and make people far more Unhappy. She added .that if it were wi'thi'n the 'standards she would vote for it.~=,,-j' ""_ ...... - 5 - Planning Commission ' Page 6 Meeting Minutes 1/11/84 I.. · A-924 (cont.) Commissioner Peterson commented that he feels eliminating. 500 ft. probably is not going to make that much difference, so he will vote in favor of the application. The vote was taken to approve A-924. The motion failed 4-3, with Commissioners Nellis, Crowther, McGoldrick and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Schaefer commented that she agrees with Commissioner MCGoldrick. She stated that the standard guideline was reached after much turmoil, and if that were met, the house moved back 10 ft., and also lowered 4 ft., then she would be in agreement with the motion. She added that she feels that the two-story is definitely something that makes a lot of sense today, even though many of the neighborho'ods are single story. She noted that the style of this home has a lot of potentially usable extra space, and whether the applicant uses it or not, someone i.n the' future will use it for resale value, if for nothing else. Discussion followed on the applicant bringing a new proposal to a study session, showing the house 'to be no higher than 26 ft., within the 6200 sq. ft. guideline, and moved back 10 ft. The applicant commented that the pad is now 4 ft. from Mr. Wilson's lot, but 'it is not 4 ft. from the street level. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the elevation should be considered from the street level, and clarified that the bulk of the appearance should be reduced. It was explained to the applicant that he can either bring in a modified plan-~'o'the"Commis'si6n .l~'y Monday, for their consideration on January 17th, or they can appeal to the City Council. The City Attorney explained that the motion was to approve and it failed; it is clearly a denial. He stated that if the applicant wants to preserve the right for an appeal he would suggest that they file the appeal and then continue it at the City Coun- cil level if they wish to engage in further dialogue with the Commission. He added that the Planning Commission can always reconsider the action taken tonight. He commented that the applicant can send a letter tO thi~.effect, and if the' Commission approves the design as modified the appeal can be with~ drawn. 10. A-927 Wilson Development, Inc., Request for Design Review Approval to construct nine (9) single family residences at the terminus of Tricia Way (east side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, 150 ft. south of Blauer Drive), in an R-1-12,500 zoning district Staff explained the application, recommending approval. The fencing was dis- cussed. Dave Wilson, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He addressed Condition #2, regarding the sound barrier. He explained that the consultant's report was done in 1981 and was done on a different subdivision than this one. He explained the difference in the two subdivisions and requested that the Commission allow Staff to review and determine how far back the soundwall should go. Regarding Condition #6, he stated that he has no objection to the requirement for a Landscape Agreement with the City, but objects to both Conditions #6 and #7, requiring him to participate in the formation of a Landscape and Lighting Assessment District. Regarding #10, concerning the requirement for 30% of the homes to have curved driveways with garages facing. the side, Mr. Wilson stated that he believes that the ordinance speaks to subdivisions of a different character. He explained that they have no corners and discussed the'proposed designs. He pointed out that this condition would automatically drastically increase the amount of impervious coverage..."~fter"" '.ais.dussi'on of this requirement there was a consensus to remove Condition #10. Staff explained the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District. After dis- cussion of Condition #7 it was determined that this condition would supersede the requirement for a Homeowners Association to maintain the landscaping. Further discussion followed on Condition #2 regarding the sound barrier. It was the consensus that the wall should go all the way along Lot ~6.. The triangle of landscaping on the outside on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road w~s_.diS7 cussed, and ~r. Wilson indicated that the map did not show i-t,'bUt .riley'have offered to do this. The landscaping was discussed, and Staff was requested to review it, specifically the eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Nellis moved to'close the public hearing. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the mot~,on, which was carried unanimously. 6 - P~anning Commission Page 7 Meeting Minutes 1/11/8 A-927 (cont.) ' Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-927, per the Staff Report dated January 5, 1984 and Exhibits "B" through "T", with Condition #2 remaining · as written, requiring the wall to go all the'Way along the northern property line of Lot 6, allowing for the' triangle of landscaping to be on the out- side on Saratoga-Sunnyvale 'Road, deleting Condition #10, and adding to Condition #7 that the requirement for the applicant to enter into an agree- ment to participate in the formation of a Landscape and Lighting Assessment District will supersed'e any Homeowners Association requirement to maintain the landscaping. .Commissioner McGoldrick 'se'conded.the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 11. A-928 - Dwayne Richards, Request for DeSign Review Approval to construct a split level single family residence at 14012 Palamino Way, in the NHR z'o'n'ing d'i'strict Staff noted' that this item should be continued to allow more geological work to.be done. The"public hearing was opened at 9:14 .p.m. Mrs. YVonne Ching, Mt. Eden Court, next door to this site, questioned build- ing a house on this lot in. view of the massive landslide in that area a few years ago.. She addressed the drainage problem, stating that Mr. Richards! water would h~ve to be drained down to Mt. ,Eden Court, which is a private road. She indicated that t~ey have spent considerable money just to maintain that road and put it b~ck in. Mrs. Ching was requested to discuss the application and plans with.Staff,~and Staff is to give Mrs. Ching a copy of the report from the City GeologiSt when' it is completed. It was directed that this matter be Continued to the meeting of February 22, 1984. Break 9:20 ='9:35 p.m. 1.2~'.'~.~929 Richard Merwin, Request for Design Review Approval and Build- SDR-1558 - ing Site Approval to construct a single story residence at- 14466 Sobey Road, in an R-I-40,000 zoning district It was directed that this matter be continued to January 25, 1984, to allow for renoticing of new plans by the applicant.. 13. A-931 - Phillip Bray, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story addition to an.existing two-story, single family dwelling at 21459 Saratoga Hills Road, in the R-I-40,000 zoning ~ district Staff described the proposal, recommending approval. Commissioner Siegfried gave a Land Use Committee Report, stating that there was no impact on any neighbors and it will be quite an improvement to the appearance of'.the home. The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m. Warren Heid, architect, submitted a letter from Chief Kraule, indicating .that he would a~'roV~ a 24 ft. radius. Discussion followed on this con- dition, ConditioH'#~4,'.and also on Condition #3 concerning the driveway. Commissioner Crowther moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve~A-931, subject to the Staff Report dated.December 22, 1984 and Exhibits "B", "C" and "D", amending Condition #3 to read" Construct the new driveway.14 feet minimum width, plus one foot Shoulders using double seal coat O & S or better on 6" Aggregate Base from access road to proposed dwelling, s'Ubject to Fire District a~proval.", and modifying Conditi'on #4 ~o read 24 ft. instead o'f 42 ft.,'a~d ~d'ding'~'that'_this ~hal'!"~'o~piy ~.th~the.~Onditions listed in Chief Kraule's letter of January ~1, 1984. Commissioner Nellis' seconded the motion, which was carried unani- mously 7-0. 14. SD-1557 - Pinn .Brother's Const. Co., RequeSt for Tentative Subdivision Approval to crea'te 15 lots on the 5.72 acre parcel on the north side 'of Verde Vista Lane 'across from TanwOrth 'Ave. (Horticul- t'ural"Fo'u'n'd'ation prop'er'ty)'- and Negative' Declaration Staff explained the application. They commented that the cul-de-sac exceeds 7 P'~anning commission Page 8 Meeting Minutes '1/11/ SD- 1.557 (cont.) the SO0 ft. maximum length.; how. ever, there is no other' practical way to develop the property. Discussion,followed on a possible 'condition for one- story homes only and the elevation of' the 'pads for Lots #9 and #10. It was the consensus not ~to Conditionth.eBuilding Site' Approval for one-story homes. The public hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m. Levon Gulesserian, 20646 Sevilla Lane, asked about the height of the house on Lot #8. Mr. Pinn, the applicant, discussed the height of it, indicating that the 'roof line will be 6 feet bel'ow Mr. Gulesser'ian's home. After further' discussion it was 'the consensus that the house on Lot #8 shall be no higher than 19 ft. Lucy Applebaum, SeVilla Lane, indicated' that she "lives behind Lot #10. She asked about the fill and adressed the drainage problem in that area. Staff commented that, with the installation of the street and storm drain improve- ments, a great quantity of the storm water will be collected and put in an underground system. They' noted that they will be reviewing the area to try to minimize the drainage e~en further. Mrs. Applebaum discussed an overhead utility pole 'that she had been told would previously be moved. It was noted that this pole is covered in Condition II-D-3. Marvin Kirkeby, civil engineer, discussed the fill and drainage on Lots #9 and #10. Commissioner Peterson asked about new .fences on Lots #8, #9 and #10. It was noted that there is no condition requiring this. However, Mr. Pinn commented that if the property owners will take out their old fence, he usually puts new ones up. Mr. Kirkeby commented that from a drainage standpoint, the existing wall that is on th.e'.'Se'villa Lane side of the fence will have to 'go in order to ~'O improvements. He added that they will make the grading conform and ~ill need the cooperation of the neighbors. Earl Johnson, Verde Vista Lane, asked if a traffic study ]Lad b'een done on Verde Vista. Staff indicated that one ]Lad been submitted with the application, which shows that there will be no significant impact. Commissioner Hlava moved to close' the public hearing. 'Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, wh'ich was carried unanimously. Commissioner. Siegfried moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SD-1557. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. .Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SD-1557, per the Staff Report dated January S, 1984 and Exhibit "B-i", adding to Condition VIII-C that "the residence on Lot 8 shall be a-maximum of 19 ft. in height." Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 7-0. 15. S. DR-1559 Mrs. K. Pittman, Request for Tentative Map Approval for three (3) lots (two new dwellings) at 14545 Fruitvale Avenue, in the R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff' described the project, recommending approval. They noted that the following modifications should be made to the Staff Report: Condition II-E-2 should read R-36 instead of V-24, under Condition II-E-4, add "as required by the Undergrounding Ordinance of the City", and add to Condition III-C-2 that "A berm or other drainage system along the north side of the property shall be required to prevent surface runoff from crossing onto the Frye property. This is to be approved by the Director of Community Development." The public hearing was opened at 10:53 p.m. Bill Heiss, engineer, addressed the conditions of the Staff Report. He discussed Condition II-E, and noted that there is an existing pole that goes down Fruitvale Avenue which has not been undergrounded' by anyone. He stated that it seems inappropriate to require it to be undergrounded in this parti- cular case. He commented that, regarding Condition II-E-1, he reads it as "" widening Fruitvale Avenue to be '20 ft. beyond existing center line. He explained that presently the existing center line in front of this residence is 20 ft. from the proper'ty line. 't-I~ ~.Stated that ther'e are t|~r_ce' .poles'.". - 8 - 'Planning Commissio~ Page 9 ~eting J~inutes 1/11/8 SDR- 1559 (cont.) just behind the existing pavement which would then have to be moved. He questioned if it'-"is"appropriate to widen thi's road additionally. Discussion followed on the 'requirement for' widening Fruitvale.' Staff noted that there are 60 KV lines running down Fruitvale Avenue. They state'd that those are not required to be undergrounded by anyone, even if the pole have to be moved. However, in the~past'where 'there is a combination of 60 KV lines which are not distribution' lines 'to the fronting properti'es', and also 12 KV lines on the same 'poles', the City has required'that those '12 KV lines be undergrounded'. After'further discussion it was the 'consensus to leave the conditi'on in the"Staff Report as written. Mr. Heiss asked for consider'ation of h~ving to underground the existing overhead utility line 'that cr'oss'es Fruitvale Avenue 'and serves properties on the easter'n side of Fruitvale. After' further discussion it was the con- sensus of the 'Planning Commission that the 'applicant did not need to under- ground that particular overhead line. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to approve SDR-1559, per the Staff Report dated December 29, 1983 and Exhibit "B-I", with the proposed changes in Conditions II-E-2 and III-C-2. The motion was carried 6-1, with Commis- sioner Schaefer dissenting. She commented that she was in favor of the proposal but is against widening Fruitvale..' 16. V-629 - Ralph Renna, Request for Design Review Approval for a second A-920 - story addition to a single family residence and Variance Approval for balconies which do not maintain the required sideyard setback at 15041 Sobey Road in an R-i-40,000 zoning district Staff explained the applications. They indicated that they could not make the findings for the variance and recommends denial. They commented that they can make the findings for the Design Review with the elimination of the balconies. Commissioner McGoldrick referenced the letter from Mr. Hess and asked for clarification of the role of the inspector. The City Attorney commented that'they have addressed this subject in prior correspondence to Mr. Renna's counsel. He stated that, as far as he ~s concerned, it is not the duty or ~bligation of the inspector to look for areas in which someone may have modified the approval plans with. out benefit of obtaining approval by the City for the modifications. He ~ta'~.ed-t~a~'-..~..ji Rich Harison, the Senior Inspector, has ~'ndicated that there may in faC~ ~e some question as to whether the inspector was back out there after the initial framing inspection was done.. He added that it has also been dis- covered that there has not been a final signoff on the drywall. If that argument is accepted at face value, the effect would be that an inspector, by not noticing .some unauthorized change, in effect amends our Zoning Ordi- nance. Whether the inspector saw it or not seems to be in some dispute; whether he was out there or not is something that has not been determined, but he would take the position even further and say that even if he was, that doesn't legitimate an unauthorized change in the plan. FIe added that as far as he is concerned, the argument does not excuse the modification of the plan, and his recommendation would be to ignore it and treat the vari- ance on its merits. He commented that he is not saying that the Commission should not grant the variance; he is saying that the variance should not be granted based solely on that argument. He stated that the Commission should handle this like any other variance and an independent decision should be made on it. Rich Harison, Senior Iespector, gave the history of the project and the inspections. He stated that it was the recollection of the inspector, when he did the frame inspection, that the balconies and French doors were not installed at that time. Patric Kelly, attorney for the applicant, discussed the findings in the Staff Report. He reference letters from Mr. and Mrs. Janovich and Mr. and Mrs. Inman, in support of the project. He described the balconies and stated that Mr. Gaub of the..Central Fire District had commented that he was in favor of the balconies' being there for the question of safety and 'getting out of the second story in the 'event of a fire. ~4r. Kelly stated planning Commission Page 10 ~eting Minutes 1/11/84 V-629 and A-920 (cont.) that Mr. Gaub had also indicated that a stairway in the 'rear area of the home would be sufficient and a turnaround would not be necessary. Chairman Schafer noted that the applicant should get this in writing. Mr. Eugene Francis,' the 'adjacent neighb'or, spoke against the applications. He commented that the' applicant h~s been denied permits in the past for all of the things that he has gone ahead and constructed. He questioned the granting of' the variance 'at this 'time. The City Attorney commented that the 'six items on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report are 'not be'fore the Commission under the Design Review app.l.ica- tion. He indicated that these had been discovered as modifications~when' S~a~f :W~'.~e~:~jh'g~'~H~ '.d~'ng in connection with the variance. He stated that they are listed in order' to advise the Commission, as w611 as the applicant, of further modifications :'that we're 'made that would require further approvals unless they are addressed now in some fashion. He added that it would appear from 'comments made by the applicant's attorney that many of these things can be resolved. He stated that he wanted to emphasize that if the Commission gives an approval now 'and these other things are taken care of, the Commission is only approving those items that are the subject of the Design Review. He added that he does not want the Commission's approval of a drawing to constitute"approval of anything other than the subject of the Design Review. He indicated that if there is anything else on the' drawing that is not specifically addressed in this particular application. it is not being approved, and the Commission.is assuming it is previously approved. He added that if there is some modification that has not been caught, the Commission is not approving that either. It was directed that this matter' be continued to an Adjourned Regular Meet- ing at 7:00 on January 17, 1984.. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Mr. Nobriga dated December 20, 1983, concerning the development of Lira Drive. 2. Letter' from Mr. J. Rosenfeld, dated December 26, 1983, re Parking District #3.' ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on January 17, 1984. The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting ended at 11:35 p.m. i~lly s bmitt Secretary RSS:cd