Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: September 10, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Guch, Pines, Callans, Tucker. Absent: Commissioner Siegfried. Approval of Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1986; the following changes were requested: Approval of the Minutes, final paragraph, Chairwoman Burger stated that she voted to approve the Minues of August 19, 1986; correction to read, "Passed 5-0, Commissioners Siegfried, Guch abstaining." On the first page, final paragraph change Item 3 to read, "The Commission requests that Item 4 be transferred to the Public Hearing." HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1986, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. Oral Communnications: None. CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. TUP-86o002 Boisseranc, request for temporary use permit to allow sale of Christmas trees at 13650 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. from November 28 to December 24, 1986. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 6-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 2. SD-86-003 Robert Bostedt, request for tentative map approval for a two lot DR-86-020 subdivision at 12890 Pierce Rd. in the R-1-12,500 zoning district. V-86-002 Also consider granting design review approval for plans to construct a new 3,578 sq. ft. one-story single family dwelling and variance approval to allow a 7 ft. side yard setback for an existing structure where 10 ft. is required at the above address, per Chapters 15 and 16 of the City Code. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR. Passed 6-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. DR-86-017 Saude, request for modification to previously approved plans to allow construction of 6762 sq. ft. home instead of 6200 sq. ft. as previously approved at 14599 Deer Springs Ct. in the NHR zoning district. Continued from August 27, 1986. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission", September 10, 1986. Staff recommend denial. A Study Session was held on Tuesday, September 2, 1986. In response to Chairwoman Burger's question, the Planning Director confamed that no additional information had been subrailed by the Applicant since the Study Session. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 7:37 P.M. Mr. Frank Saude, Applicant, stated that the Study Session did not produce any resolution to his request for an additional 562 square feet over the guideline. He stated that he did not receive any direction on how to proceed from the Commission. He reiterated the proposed changes: - lowering the roof 1 foot; reducing the height of the house by 3%. - modification of the plan to further reduce the size of the house. The Applicant noted that he can understand square footage, but cannot understand the term "perceived bulk". Any reduction will not be taken exclusively from the front of the house. - a reduction to the east side of the house is acceptable; this would result in a 6500 sq. ft. house. Initially, the proposed house was 24% over guidelines; the house was subsequently reduced to within 9%, then 5% over guidelines. These reductions were unacceptable to the Commission. The Applicant asked the Commission for a figure in square footage or a percentage of amount allowed over guidelines and stated that he would make the house conform. The Chairwoman restated guidelines given at the Study Session, namely; Conformity of the house to 6200 sq. ft. requirement Reduction of height of the roof The Commission asked that any revisions be presented to the Heating for a decision by the Planning Commission. The Applicant stated that he did not have revisions for a 6200 sq. ft. house to present at this time. In response to a second request that the Commission present the Applicant with specific square footage or a percentage, the City Attorney stated that the City cannot design the house; the Commission deals with Standards and cannot work in the abstract. The City Attorney stated that actions available are: Commission could act on the Application presented, namely, a Commission vote on the request for 6700 sq. ft.house. - Granting a Continuance to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised drawing, incorporating the 6200 sq. ft. standard and a reduction in the roof line, or - Withdrawal of the Application presented at this Hearing. The City Attorney reiterated that earlier design review approval had been granted, conditioned upon reducing the proposed house to 6200 square feet. In response to the Applicant's request for a continuance, the Chairwoman stated that the Commission expected the Applicant to respond to concerns already made known. The Applicant stated that he wished to submit revised plans for a 6500 sq. ft. house at a study session. Commissioner Pines questioned the purpose of a study session since the Applicant has approval for a 6200 sq. ft. house and does not wish to build the house at the already approved 6200 sq. ft. Revised plans in conformity with the above requirements are necessary. Commissioner Harris noted that progress was made at the study session when roof height was lowered and square footage of the house reduced; however, the Commissioner feels that the house continues to be massive looking in the front. The Applicant indicated that the front of the house could not be changed at all, and later clarified the statement saying that a little bit of the front could be removed. However, a 200 sq. ft. reduction is insufficient; if an additional 200 sq. ft. were removed,. the Commissioner would review the Application. The Applicant reaffirmed that he cannot take 500 square feet off of the front of the house, nor is he willing to ,,o to a study session with a 6200 sq. ft. house. He requested additional footage be allowed by the Commission. The Chairwoman asked the Applicant to effectively answer concerns raised by the Commission and bring revised plans if a continuance is granted. The Applicant asked that the Commission vote on the Application as presented. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 P.M. Passed 6-0 PLANN/NG COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Pines stated for the record, that the Applicant handled the site in a sensitive manner and noted that the house will not block the neighbor's view; he will vote to approve the application at the square footage requested. GUCH/HARRIS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 6762 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE, APPLICATION DR-86-017 PER STAFF REPORT. Passed 4-2, Commissioners Pines, Callans opposed. 4. GP-86-2 Duncan, request General Plan amendment from very low density C-234 residential (1.09 dwelling units per acre) to medium density residential (3.48 units per acre) and rezoning of property from R-1-40,000 to R-1-12,500 PD. Property is approximately 1.982 acres and is vacant, located at the southwest comer of Glen Una Drive and Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project indicating that there will be no adverse impacts on the environment. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission", dated September 10, 1986. Staff recommended denial of the request for General Plan Amendment and denial of the request for rezoning, which is inconsistent with the General Plan. Planner Kathryn Caldwell introduced an expanded initial Study which led to the Negative Declaration which included the Environmental Impact Questionnaire, submitted by the Applicant and the Environmental Questionnaire prepared by Staff which identifies the potential impact and discusses any necessary mitagattons. Planner Caldwell added that the Traffic Report was reviewed by the City Engineer, who agreed that the project would have no adverse effects on the environment with regard to traffic; no other environmental issues were identified. Staff recommended adoption of a Negative Declaration. In addition, two letters were submitted by the Duncans and ten letters were received from neighbors after the Commission agenda had been prepared. Chairwoman Burger read into the record the following names of individuals who sent letters of opposition to the members of the Planning Commission: Mr. and Mrs. Leo Kibby Ms. Janet McGovney Mr. David Clements Mr. David Morrison Mr. and Mrs. Wm. McLaughlin Mr. and Mrs. Emil Partak Phone calls of concern and in opposition were received from the following individuals: - Prof. Hal Hodges Ms. Rosie Flynn - Mr. and Mrs. Jas. Perazzo Mr. and Mrs. Steven Fox - Mr. Lincoln Das Mr. A1 Christian - Mr. Christian Lievestro - Mr. Stan Marshall - Mr. Harry Shannon - Ms. Mary Ellen Speed - Mr. and Mrs. Marshall - Mr. Jack Williams - Ms. Betty Thompson The Chairwoman clairified two misconceptions: 1. Anyone can make application on any proposal. If and when an application is accepted by the City of Saratoga, it must be heard. A hearing does not presuppose either approval or denial of a project. The City Attorney added that acceptance of an application by the City means only that all of the necessary documents have been submitted; once an application has been submitted with all the necessary forms completed, the City is required by law to process the application. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 2. The Application in question was first seen 2-3 months ago, at a preliminary study session. Public notice is required before the public hearing, and this was done in a timely manner. Preliminary study sessions are fact-finding and information gathering meetings only; no decisions are made and no legal action is taken. The public hearing is an opportunity for concerned citizens to make their views heard in a public forum. The Commission is not influenced in their decisions by threats of lawsuits. Commissioner Harris noted that the Applicant was advised that the Commission would take public testimony and counselled the Applicant to talk to neighbors, soliciting their support for the application. · The Public Heating was opened at 8:03 P.M. Mr. Rodger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, Inc., representative for the Applicant, stated that this proposal is for six senior citizen homes in three buildings on 1.98 acres. The site plan preserves all existing major trees and a large portion of open space for use by residents. A masonry wall is proposed along Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. and Glen Una Dr. with a control gate exiting off Glen Una Dr. He stated that this is not a condominum development; the units will be fee-title residences with ownership of the land. Off-site appearance will look like an estate, similar to surrounding homes. Proposed units cover 12,324 sq. ft.; two large homes of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. with three car garages would yield about the same square footage of ground cover as this proposal. This compares favorably to the surrounding neighborhood. The units are intended for affluent senior citizens of Saratoga who find little available in the market comparable to the quality of their current homes. The quality of the existing neighborhoed would not be lowered nor would the value of the surrounding properties be lessened. A population increase of 9-10 individuals could be expected; two large homes would produce an increase of 5-10 individuals. Less vehicles and traffic impact could be expected with senior citizens than expected with families with children. Following informal meetings with the Commission, the number of units proposed was reduced from 8 to 6 residences. One objective of the General Plan housing element is to provide suitable alternatives for senior citizens of the City; this proposal is one of those alternatives. The General Plan identifies the problem of lack of availability of affordable housing for residents wishing to remain in Saratoga, but no longer wanting to maintain their own homes. The Good Government Group found in a survey conducted in 1981, a large unmet need for retirement housing. The General Plan suggests evaluation of sites for senior citizen housing according to criteria such as the proximity to community resources; this site is situated as conveniently as the proposed Paul Masson Winery site. In response to the three issues raised in the Staff Report, the following comments were made: 1. This proposal is not premature; current study of other sites focuses on affordable housing. 2. This proposal is for upper end, senior housing, a need which has been established. 3. Change of the General Plan for this parcel would be in the public interest for six senior citizens; the estate quality of the proposed structures will not change the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Griffin requested approval of the Application and answered questions of the Commissioners. Commissioner Pines clarified that the issue at hand was the General Plan amendment change, not the design of the proposed project. He noted that approval of the General Plan amendment would not guarantee the final outcome of the design of the project. The Applicant stated that the General Plan amendment change was necessary and the applicants wished to be straightforward regarding the actual project. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Dave Clements, 15261 Bellecourt, Saratoga, reiterated statements of his letter of September 8, 1986, and stated his concerns regarding: - Dwellings per acre of the proposed project. - Lack of a sewer system in this area. If units overreach the leeching fields of the present septic tank sewer system, who will pay for the new sewer system? - Lack of proper notice. Mr. E. Floyd Kvamme, 19490 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, letter of September 2, 1986. Opposition to the proposed project for the following reasons: - Basic change in the area. - History of the application shows a lack of concern for the neighborhood. - Basic change in the scenic view of Saratoga. - Opposition of the neighborhood. - Inappropriate placement for an adult community. Dr. E. Lawrence, 15200 Fruivale Ave., Saratoga, opposes the application. He cited Section 15-70.060 of the Code, reiterated the Findings necessary in granting a Variance and stated: - There is no apparent practical difficulty imposed on the owner. - There is nothing inherently unique to this property. - The owner will not be deprived of any privileges enjoyed by surrounding owners. - The granting of a Variance would constitute special privilege inconsistant with restraints of surrounding owners. - The owner of this property has opportunity of realizing tremendous profits from high density development which may lower the value of surrounding properties. Profits realized by the Applicant would be at the expense of owners of surrounding property. No objection raised on health .and safety issues. Mr. Peter Buck, 15214 Belle Ct., Saratoga, stated that he is professionally qualified in the area of real estate and assured the Commission that if this application is approved there will be at least a 20% absolute reduction in value of the surrounding properties. Mr. David Morris, 19590 Juniper Lane, Saratoga, stated that he is opposed to rezoning of the property in question for higher density Use. He briefly reviewed the history of the former Glen Una Ranch and current zoning requirements. Mr. Morris stated that higher density use would have an adverse effect on neighborhood value and increase marketing time for the sale of property. He reviewed the statements made in his letter to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gerald Marshall, 196103 Oaks Way, Saratoga, stated that there is continuing pressure for rezoning for economic gain. He noted: - in the past, the Commission dealt with changes in the General Plan in block groups. - requirements surrounding changes in the General Plan and objected to proposed changes in his neighborhood without being noticed legally. Mr. Marvin, 19325 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, noted that proper noticing of the proposed change would have brought forth many more letters of opposition and registered very strong objections to this application. Mr. Joe Press, 19730 Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, asked the Commission to oppose the General Plan amendment, rezoning request. Mrs. Frieda MacKensy, 15311 Belle Ct., SaratOga, stated her concern that she had only informal notice of this application and requested a change in public noticing. She objects to the application in question. Mr. Bernard Alter, 19511 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that both he and his wife are strongly opposed to this application. The area has thrived on current zoning procedures and they see no reason for a change. A letter to this effect was sent to the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Dr. Thiem stated that both he and his wife are opposed to the application in question. He noted that the Commission has done an outstanding job of providing housing for senior citizens and questioned the use of senior citizens as part of the application presented by the Applicant; there is no quarantee that this housing will be sold to senior citizens. In addition, the proposed location is hazardous for senior citizens. Mr. Walter Andms, 19431 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that both he and his wife are very much opposed to the rezoning of the property in question. They purchased their property to live in an area zonned low density; they expect that zoning laws will not be changed. Of the 18 home owners he interviewed, all were opposed to rezoning the area. Mr. Elton Christian, 15 100 Park Dr., Saratoga, stated that the application is completely inconsistent with the intent of the area and firmly recommended that the Commission reject the application. Mr. Sid Cauffman, 19677 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that he and his wife are opposed to the proposed project. He challenged the statement that six relatively affluent Saratogans would leave a neighborhood unscathed and stated his concern that interests of long term residents are being subordinated to the betterment of 12 recent residents. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Dr., Saratoga, read a prepared letter and submitted the letter to the Commission. Dr. John Herman, 15621 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that he and his wife oppose this application. Zoning protects the beautiful lots that residents have; rezoning the property will errode the purpose of having protective zoning. Mr. Duane Walker, 19733 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated for the record that he is strongly opposed to the proposal to modify the General Plan and allow increased density. He opposes the land Use proposed for this property. Mr. Lee Statler, 15055 Park Dr., Saratoga, encouraged the Planning Commission to exercise their responsibility to observe the nature of Saratoga and refuse the application for a General Plan amendment. Mr. John Rankin, 19518 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that he and his wife are definitely opposed to the drastic zoning changes on the Duncan property which will depreciate the value of their property tremendously. In addition, traffic will be a hazard to anyone travelling Glen Una Drive. Ms. Marsha Hail, 19525 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that both she and her husband oppose the proposed rezoning. Mr. Michael Dillon, 19661 Saratoga°Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stressed that approval of the application will serve as a precedent for other applications. Dr. John Rawlings, 19625 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, and his wife registered opposition to the proposal. Mr. Thompson, 19632 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, and his wife voiced their objection to the rezoning of this property. Mr. Bill Sleu, 19605 Glen Una Dr., Saratoga, stated that he and his family moved into an area of low density zoning; thus they are strongly opposed to any change in the zoning. Mr. Griffin responded to the above testimony, stating that to develop the property in question, the sewer would have to be brought into the property. There has not been a lack of concern on the part of the owner of the property. Mr. Griffin refuted several statements made in the above testimony. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. Passed 6-0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Chairwoman asked that Noticing Requirements for the City of Saratoga be discussed by the Commission at a Study Session. The City Attorney responded that the City already notices beyond what is required by State Law; zoning changes applied to individual properties are noticed 500 feet from the property. General Zoning changes are published in the paper. City Attorney Toppel advised the Commission not to dwell on the noticing with respect to this Application. Commissioner Harris stated that she was unable to add to the comments already made; she expressed great concern when this application was first reviewed. During recent General Plan procedures there was no consideration of rezoning the parcel of property in question. She concurred with Dr. Herman's statement that zoning protects residents of the City and stated that she is not in favor of spot zoning. Commissioner Tucker concurred. Commissioner Guch stated that the character of the neighborhood would be changed by granting the request; approval of the application could be precedent setting. She does not support a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Pines stated that discussions of this application at the study session were adequate and residents have made their opinions clear. He will not support a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Callans concurred. Chairwoman Burger concurred with the other Commissioners; she commended the architect on the design. However, the area proposed for this project is inappropriate and she is not in favor of spot zoning,nor is she favorable to a General Han Amendment. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0 HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY GP-86-2 AND C-234. Passed 6-0. Planner Caldwell stated that the recommendation of the Commission and all information pertaining to this application will be submitted for a public hearing at the City Council, which will make the final determination on this application. The Chairwoman recessed the Meeting from 8:55 - 9:06 P.M. 5. SDR-1630 Andrew Carter, request for building site approval and design review DR-86-021 approval for a new single family residence on a 1.18 acre lot located on Pierce Rd., approximately 900 ft. south of Houston Ct. in the R-I-40,000 zoning district. Continued from August 13, 1986 Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission" dated September 10, 1986 and stated that Staff recommended approval. He introduced a letter of protest from Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Morocco, an adjoining neighbor. The letter was read. Commissioner Harris reported on the site visit. Planner Caldwell requested the following changes in the Staff Report: On page 77, Conditions of Approval, 6, add the words "to the Planning Director for approval" to read "...the applicant shall submit landscaping plans to the Planning Director for approval..." On page 80, Staff Analysis, 2, delete nine percent to read, "reducing the total floor area by approximately fifteen percent (15%) The Chairwoman requested a change on page 80, paragraph beginning "In addition, the applicant has submitted a letter requesting modification to Condition 5..", change 5 to 6. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Kathy Dolan, Applicant, explained that the proposed house was shaped and oriented in a way that is a compromise for all concerned. A map with view angles was presented to the Commission. Ms. Dolan stated that the house was sited to maximize the view of the city lights, the valley and the mountains and to provide privacy for all concerned. The house is a slip block design so that the northern wing (a bedroom wing) specifically eclipses the view from the living room wing and the master bedroom wing; this design prevents privacy intxuiion between the Morocan's and the applicant's property. Proposed landscape sccening was presented. The Applicant noted the 60 ft. distance between the Morocco's property line and the Applicant's closest window and an excess of 85 ft. between the Morocco's window and the Applicant's window. Further rotation of the house to the east would result in a more direct view of the Selan house and would inteffer with the passive solar design of the house. In addition, there would be a problem in placement of the garage. The Applicant stated that was designed to preserve the privacy of neighbors and theft own privacy. Commissioner Pines requested clarification of the solar energy design, noting that there were windows on all sides of the house; Mr. Garter, Applicant, stated that rather than having windows on any side of the house that face directly north, east, south or west, the house will be placed oblique to any one direction. In addition, the slipped block plan shades the bigger windows. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Passed 6-0. In response to Chairwoman Burger's question, Planner Caldwell stated that the City Engineer was on vacation. Staff suggested on Exhibit A, 6, be modified to read "...or as approved by the City Engineer." Commissioner Pines stated that the house could be rotated a little more; however, he has no objections to the angle proposed. Chairwoman Burger stated that the way the house is sited now is the best compromise for both the Morocans and the Selans. Consensus reached by the Commission that in Exhibit C, Conditions of Approval, 6, add west to read in both sentences, "northwest property line" In response to requiting a review of landscaping on the property, Planner Caldwell stated that every condition placed on a resolution, requires Staff review. After the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, Staff can no longer intervene. Decision reached that only landscape screening will be conditioned on this application. Consensus reached that Exhibit A. Conditions of ApprOval, 6, to read "Construct access road 14 ft. wide plus 2 ft. unpaved soft shoulders..."; eliminate the phrase "or as approved by the City Engineer." HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE SDR-1530, EXHIBIT A, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1-5; CONDITION 6 TO READ, "CONSTRUCT ACCESS ROAD 14 FT. WIDE PLUS 2 FT. UNPAVED SOFT SHOULDERS USING DOUBLE SEAL COAT OIL AND SCREENINGS OR BETTER OF 6-INCH AGGREGATE BASE FROM PIERCE ROAD TO SOUTH EDGE OF PANHANDLE PORTION OF THE LOT."; CONDITIONS 7-15. Passed 6-0. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-021, EXHIBIT C, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1-5; CONDITION 6 TO READ, "PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT LANDSCAPING PLANS TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR APPROVAL SHOWING THE TYPE AND LOCATION OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINE. LANDSCAPING FOR SCREENING ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 6. SD-86-001 Goni, request for building site and design review approval for DR-86-00 construction of a new, two story single family dwelling at 14080 V-86-004 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance approval for a carport to be located 9 ft. from the front property line where 25 ft. is the required setback at the above address per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission" dated September 10, 1986 and stated that Staff was unable to make the required findings; Staff recommends approval of a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Harris reported on the Site Visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:35 P.M. Mr. Dick Powell, Architect, stated that originally the house was to be remodeled; however, a decision was made to demolish the present house and build a new house on the property. The existing residence is 900 sq. ft; there is no garage at present. Further reduction of the proposed house will make the house inadequate for the Applicant and his family. The Staff recommendation of 1785 sq ft.:maximum, minus space for a two car garage results in a 1384 sq. ft. house; this would be inadequate. The lot, which is exceptionally small, is located in the R-l-10,000 zoning district; efforts were made to place the structure back from both the front and the rear yard. The plan was originally submitted with a one car garage; Staff encouraged the Applicant to submit the application with the two car garage. In Exhibit A, Design Review Findings; 1., second paragraph, Mr. Powell questioned the 6 ft side setback requirement. He'stated that to the north side of this property, there is a preschool which is on a double lot; the play area is adjacent to the Goni property. The garage is located on the south side, to the rear of the property. On 4., Compatible bulk and height, second paragraph, he noted, as stated above, that there is no building close to the proposed su'ucture. There is no intrusion into the privacy of either property; all second floor windows are to the front or the rear of the house with the execption of one bathroom window on the north side of the house. Mr. Powell submitted that the Goni's need the requested space for a growing family and requested approval of this application. He offered to work with Staff to eliminate the carport if necessary. Commissioner Guch noted that the applicant indicated at land use review, a willingness to move the house back on the lot. This was due to the incorrect fig-ure of 25 ft rear setback; since only 20 ft. setback is required, the house could be moved back 5 ft. PINES/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 9:43 P.M. Passed 6-0 Commissioner Harris noted that the design was well executed and would be an improvement of the present home. She expressed concern regarding 5100 sq. ft. lot with a 2900 sq. ft. house. Commissioner Pines suggested that the bedrooms could be reduced slighly; he noted, however, that it is a difficult site and consideration should be given for this factor. Commissioner Guch concurred, stating that she observed that the size of the lot constrains the proposed house. The lot is well screened to the rear and there is a pre-schood to one side; however, some reduction in size of the proposed house could be accomplished, bringing the house more into conformity with requirements. She repeated her concern that the lot may be overbuilt. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris proposed review of the application in study session if the applicant felt that the size of the house could be reduced; Chairwoman Burger concurred. Mr. Powell stated that of the 289~ sq. ft., 176;..- sq. ft. is carport; within the building portion, including the garages, is 2718 sq. ft. In response to Commissioner Pines' question, Planner Caldwell stated that a carport is required parking and is therefore counted in the square footage. Chairwoman Burger summed up the consensus reached by the Commission, namely, that a study session was desirable to come to an agreement on a reduction of the square footage of the house and moving the house back 5 feet on the lot. This Item will be continued to the Study Session of October 14, 1986 and will be heard at the Public Hearing of October 22, 1986. 7. DR-86-015 James Gregory, request for design review approval of plans to allow the V~86-005 construction of a second story addition to an existing single family residence at 14684 Oak Street in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Also consider granting variance approval to allow a 3 ft. side yard setback for a detached garage where 6 ft. is required at the above address per Chapters 15 and 16 of the City Code. Planning Director Hsia read "Report to Planning Commission", dated September 10, 1986, and stated that Staff was unable to make the required Variance Findings. Commissioner Harris reported on the Site Visit. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:53 P.M. Mr. James Gregory, Applicant~ stated that this application is a request for a major remodeling of the house to compliment the environment. The applicants have tried to achieve a single story appearance for the house; this explains the high pitch roof. He questioned the following Conditions of Approval: - On Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval, DR-86-015, 4. The existing garage, with a 3 ft. setback from the property line, is being torn down due to termite damage. The rebuilding of the garage will make it a two car garage and place the structure further in and back on the lot. The current 3 ft. setback was not intended to be changed. Pictures were presented to demonstrate a neighbor's garage that has the 3 ft. setback. The Applicant asked that the Variance be approved allowing the 3 ft. side yard setback. Mr. Gregory questioned comments made in the Staff Report and stated that from the point of view of attractiveness, the garage is better placed closer to the fence, rather then 6 feet removed. Neighbors on adjacent properties have no objection to the 3 ft. side setback. On 9, the Applicant questioned whether this condition is required on all new houses; he restated the fact that this application is for a remodeling of an existing house. While he has no objection to this Condition, he does not wish to be the exception to the rule. On Technical Information and Staff Analysis, Materials and Colors Proposed, the Applicant requested that cedar shake roofing be allowed on the house and the garage. Most of the homes which have not been remodeled, have asphalt shingles. Examples of homes with cedar roofing in adjacent areas were cited. Cedar roofing is more attractive and will enhance the house; according to a real estate agent an asphalt roof detracts from the aesthetic and financial value of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to the above, The Chairwoman clarified for the Applicant that Condition 9 was due to the fact that the remodeling involved over 50% of the house. This was continned by the City Attorney. Commissioner Harris stated that on the land use visit, it was noted that the garage is being increased in size to the side and to the back. There is space available to allow for the additional 3 ft. bringing the side yard setback up to the 6 ft. requirement. Commissioner Guch noted that a 6 ft. side yard setback may make the turning radius in the driveway difficult to negotiate; the applicant concurred. The mature plantings on this property were noted. PINES/CALLANS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00 P.M. Passed 6-0 Planner Caldwell stated that in regard to the turn into the garage, the City Engineering Department was consulted; the additional 3 ft. will not made a significant difference. The garage can be located in conformity with Code Requirements and still be accessible. In regard to roofing materials, a photograph was presented to show asphalt shingles; the neighborhood, with the exception of recent condominiums, have asphalt shingles. In order to be compatible with the neighborhood, Staff feels that asphalt shingles be used as a design feature; the use of cedar shingles is out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Pines complimented the Applicant on a beautifully designed remodeling of a house; he will accept the 3 ft. side yard setback of the garage and the use of cedar shingles on the roof. Commissioner Guch will also accept the 3 ft. side yard setback and questioned the purpose of the 6 ft. setback requirement. However, the Commissioner agrees with Staff recommendation on the materials to be used on the roof and stated that asphalt siding is in character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Harris noted that the Commission had the opportunity to require the setback standard in the zoning district; the buffer zone created by the setback is for fire protection and emergency access. Commissioner Callans concurred and urged the Commission to require the 6 ft. setback. Chairwoman Burger stated that she will accept the proposed square footage; she favors the roofing material as recommended by Staff. The Chairwoman will accept the consunsus of the Commission in regard to the side yard setback; she noted that the use of the 6 ft. setback of the garage will off set the aesthetic view of the house. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. PINES/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-015, EXHIBIT A, CONDITIONS 1-3; CONDITION 3 TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN A 3 b'T. SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE; CONDITIONS 4-11. Failed 3-3, Commissioners Harris, Callans, Tucker opposed. HARRIS/CALLANS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-86-015, EXHIBIT A AS WRIT'FEN; Passed 4-0, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. HARRIS/TUCKER MOVED TO DENY V-86-005 AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Passed 4-2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed. 8. SDR-1629 Protiva, request for site and design review approvals and a lot line DR-86-004 adjustment to allow the construction of a two story single family home at LL-86-001 14458 Oak PI., in the R-l-10,000 zoning district as per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. Continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, 1986, at the request of the Applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Letter from Lynn Belanger, representing Richard Rivoir, requesting withdrawal. Action: Note and File 2. Memo from Planning Director re: Residential Development Review Process. Action: Information only. Oral by Commission: 1. City Council Report: Commissioner Pines repored on the Action of the City Council and the September 3, 1986 Meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.to September 24, 1986. Respectfully submitted,