HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-24-1988 Planning Commission Minutes .:
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
::
DATE: February 24, 1988 - 7:30 P.M.
PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting ,
Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Harris, Commissioners Guch, Burger, Tucker, Clay, Kolstad Absent: Commissioner Siegfried
Approval of Minutes: None.
Deletions to the Agenda: None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Jerry Bevans, Springer Ave., Saratoga, noted concern that modification of structures
and design changes significantly affected projects; it came to his attention once that both the
contractor and the builder were involved. He asked that such situations be addressed.
REPORT OF CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA;
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on
February 19, 1988.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR;
1. DR-87-160 Reiman, 12480 Crayside Ln., request for design review and variance
V-87-003 approval of plans to construct a new 5,758 sq. ft. one-story single family
residence where 4,800 sq. ft. is the floor area standard in the NHR
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to March 23,
1988, at the request of the Applicant.
2. DR-87-156 Chen, 12805 Picea Ct., request for design review and variance approvals
V-87-030 of plans to construct a new 4,884 sq. ft. two-story home on a lot with an
average natural slope at the building site of 35% where 30% is the
maximum allowed in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City
Cede. Continued to March .23, 1888
3. DR-87-155 Stepner, 12553 Parker Ranch Road, request for design review and
V-87-027 variance approval of plans to construct a new 5,170 sq. ft. two-story
residence on a 2.61 acre lot.which has a 45% average natural slope at the
building site where 30% is the maximum allowed in the NHR zoning dis-
trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued to February 24, 1988.
4. DR-87-083 Parnas Corp., 21750 Vintage Lane, request for design review approval of
plans to construct a new 5,776 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the
NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from
February 10, 1988.
5. UP-87-020 Bowman, 19337 Lisa Made Court, request for use permit approval of
plans to legalize an existing 12.5 ft. high gazebo with is setback 13.5 ft.
from the right side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required in the
R-I-20,000 zoning district.
6. SD-87-023 Duncan, 19560 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, request for tentative map
approval for a two-lot subdivision of a 2.03 acre lot in the R-1-40,000
zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative
Declaration for the project has been prepared.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 "
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
7. DR-86-033.2 Fenyo, 20408 Sea Gull W/ay, request for modification to a previously
approved design of the home. When completed, the new home will be a
2,941 sq. ft. single story home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district, medium
density General Plan designation.
8. DR-87-090.1 Jordan, 14220 Paul Ave., request for modification to a previously
approved design review approval to reduce the size of the garage and
shorten the left side to meet the 23 ft. front setback requirement. Property
located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district, medium density General Plan
designation.
9. DR-87-163 Simon, 12665 Star Ridge Court, request for design review approval of a
new 4,384 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede.
10. DR-87-100 Krevanko, 14171 Teerlink Way, request for design review approval of a
new 5,545 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Cede.
11. DR-87-158 Brower, 14475 Oak Place, request for design review approval to
construct a 380 sq. ft. attached garage onto an existing two-story single
family home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district as required by resolution of
the Planning Commission, V-87-012
12. A-913 Masters, 21764 Congress Hall Lane, request for modification to exterior
materials on left and rear elevations and elimination of double doors and
windows on a portion of the left elevation.
Chairwoman Harris noted that Consent Calendar Items 1 and 2 were being continued.
Commissioner Clay asked that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 3 be removed.
Commissioner Tucker asked that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 5 be removed.
Commissioner Burger asked that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 9 be removed.
Commissioner Guch asked that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 10 be removed.
Commissioner Clay asked that Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 12 be removed.
GUCHfFUCKER MOVED APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEMS 4, 6, 7, 8, 12. Passed 6-0.
3. DR-87-155 Stepner, 12553 Parker Ranch Road, request for design review and
V-87-027 variance approval of plans to construct a new 5,170 sq. ft. two-story
residence on a 2.61 acre lot.which has a 45% average natural slope at the
building site where 30% is the maximum allowed in the NHR zoning dis-
trict per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued from February 24, 1988
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Commission, dated February 24, 1988.
Commissioner Clay noted the 45% slope of the lot and felt that proposed colors were too light.
The City Attorney advised that Variance Findings would have to be made together with
Subdivision Ordinance Findings that there was no other, feasible location.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 P.M.
Mr. Ray Murdock, Representing the Applicant, stated that proposed construction was typical
for the area; he added that the roof would be charcoal grey slate roof with a lighter grey stucco.
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 P.M. Passed 6-0
Commissioner Guch noted her initial concern; however, she cited the variety in design, i.e.,
roof line, windows, texture and contrast. Commissioners Burger, Kolstad concurred.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-155 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6-0.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-87-027 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION.
Passed 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
5. UP-87-020 Bowman, 19337 Lisa Marie Court, request for use permit approval of
plans to legalize an existing 12.5 ft. high gazebo with is setback 13.5 ft.
from the tight side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required in the
R-i-20,000 zoning district.',
Commissioner Tucker felt that the structure in question should be built to Code.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Dave Bowman, Applicant, stated that the ~gazebo was lower in height than his home;
landscaping had been placed around the gazebo and did not obstruct other's view.
BURGER/CLAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Tucker stated for the record that she objected structures that were built illegally;
Chairwoman Harris added that if this Item were a Variance, the Findings could not be made.
Commissioner Clay noted that no reason had been given as to why the structure was not
located within the proper setback; Commissioner Burger concurred.
TUCKER/CLAY MOVED TO DENY UP-87-020, ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO
REASON WAS ASCERTAINED AS TO WHY THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT TO CODE REQUIREMENTS. Passed 6-0.
9. DR-87-163 Simon, 12665 Star Ridge Court, request for design review approval of a
new 4,384 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Burger noted concerns regarding the rear elevation and asked that a Condition
be added requiring landscaping across the entire rear elevation; Commissioner Guch concurred.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
The' Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M.
Mr. Walter Chapman, Designer, stated that Applicants did not object to a Condition requiting
landscaping along the rear elevation of the proposed house; however, this house would only be
visible to the Saratoga Cormtry Club, which was 'several hundred feet way. Furthermore, there
was ample vegetation screening this very steep slope.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. Passed 6-0.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-163 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
ADDING A CONDITION 22, TO READ, "LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED ALONG
THE ENTIRE REAR ELEVATION AND SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL." Passed 6-0.
10. DR-87-100 Krevanko, 14171 Teerlink Way, request for design review approval of a
new 5,545 sq. ft. two-story single family home in the NHR zoning
district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Commissioner Guch questioned Exhibit "B", 5. Grading and Erosion Control Standards;
Planner Caldwell responded that the statement should read, "The plan does incorporate .... "
The Public Hearing was opened 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Krevanko, Applicant, had no additional comment to make.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:01 P.M. Passed 6-0.
GUCH/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-100, EXHIBIT "B" 5., AMENDED AS
STATED. Passed 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued
11. DR-87-158 Brower, 14475 Oak Place, request for design review approval to
construct a 380 sq. ft. attached garage onto an existing two-story single
family home in the R-l-10,000 zoning district as required by resolution of
the Planning Commission, V-87-012
Commissioner Clay noted concern regarding congestion in the area and impacts to light and air;
Commissioner Burger questioned the placement of windows on the west elevation.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report to the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:05 P.M.
Mr. Joseph Waller, Applicant, confirmed that windows on a west elevation would be removed.
BURGER/CLAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06 P.M. Passed 6-0.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-87-158 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION,
ADDING A CONDITION 8 STATING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO WINDOWS ON
THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE. Passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
13. AZO-87-004 City of Saratoga, consideration of an ordinance amending various pro-
visions in Chapter 15 of the City Code concerning structure height, site
coverage, fences, parking requirements, home occupations, tree removal
permits and variance findings. A Negative Declaration has been prepared
for the project. Continued from January 13 and February 20, 1988.
The City Attorney reviewed the revised Ordinance amending various provisions of Chapter 15.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M.
Mr. Jack Christian, 19022 Brookhaven Dr., Saratoga, cited the example of the Second Unit
Ordinance and noted citizen's frustration over the commercialization of Saratoga; proposed
language changes in the Ordinance Amendment, Article 15-40, Home Occupations, namely,
parking requirements and accessory structures, would accomplish such. He asked that Staff be
directed that any moves to commercialize Saratoga would be opposed.
Commissioner Burger responded, objecting to the above comments; she noted that Ordinance
amendments had been previously discussed and were now presented for public hearing.
Col. E. T. Barco, 19101 Camino Barco, Saratoga, addressed the following issues: .,.
- Home Occupations: Ordinance was not in force since there was no teeth in the Ordinance,
there was no follow up by City Administration and neighbors of violators did not wish to
initiate action. Exhibits showing three violations were presented.
Procedures being used to change them. He asked that no more than one major Ordinance
change be addressed at any one Public Hearing.
Mr. Frank Cage, Good Government Group, commented on Article 15-40, Home Occupations:
Subtle wording changes in which the Ordinance appeared to depart from its original intent:
N Substituting "enclosed structures" for "dwellings" which allowed home occupations to
be located in accessory structures and not in the home itself
- Requirement that the home occupation be conducted by the occupant had disappeared;
15-40.010 (g) "No person other than a resident of the site..."
- 15-40.010 (b) wording implied that a commercial structure could be erected anywhere in
the City, regardless of zoning and operate a business legally--or have someone else
operate a business in the structure, provided that the resident of the site was employed in
some capacity
- Recommended that the Commission further review the wording changes; changes did not
represent the intent of the Ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
City Attorney responded that wording was not amended to alter intent of the Ordinance; the
term, "occupant" was removed since an accessory structure was referenced-- which did not
have an occupant; it was not intended to allow someone else to come onto the property and
conduct a commercial operation. Issue was addressed in other provisions, i.e., 15.40-010 (g)
which prohibited employees; the requirement had not been changed.
Ms. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, Saratoga, commented as follows on Section 15-40.010 (b)
which allowed home occupations in enclosed (accessory) structures:
Cited General Plan Land Use 4.2 which addressed limitations of non-residential uses and
prohibited new non-residential zoning; such should direct the Section under consideration
Expanding home occupations into "accessory structures" would open a Pandora's box;
impacts of such operations would not be considered by the Commission unless appealed
Safety factors: use of accessory structures would eliminate the proper use of garages
Questioned whether large businesses were desired in the residential sections of the City
City of Sunnyvale, February 8, 1988, newspaper article cited
Importance of a community attitude protecting the residential character of neighborhoods; if
a business could not be operated within the home, the City should not be encouraging
accessory structures to contain them
- Asked that these structures be viewed in terms of the long term impacts
- Questioned the monitoring of such structures and uses
- Asked that this Section be left as it presently stood
With respect to Section 15-35.030 Schedule of Off-street parking spaces, she presented a hand
out showing changes to this section; she was dis. appointed that parking spaces for employees
were being eliminated; impacts cited. She asked that additional study be done on the above
issues and that the public be further notified of hearings on this item.
Chairwoman Harris noted that one of the problems of including employees in parking counts
was the difficulty of estimating the number of s~ch; she suggested consideration of using the
amount of square footage as the determining factor in allowing for employee parking.
The City Attorney added that comparisons of parking regulations in other cities showed that
standards contained in the Ordinance amendment were comparable, if not more stringent.
Elimination of employee parking was due to the following:
- Problem of enforcement of such
- Parking requirements varied with the individual business
- Attempt made to quantify the standards; employee parking to be based on the physical
characteristics of the building (square footage) and use (for example, retail)
Imposition of such requirements during the permit approval process when the application
was not brought before the Commission for a hearing
In situations where the Planning Commission retained continuing jurisdiction, there was a
mechanism to permit the Commission to review the situation if problems arose
Mr. Miles Rankin, Big Basin Way, Saratoga, questioned whether use permits or business
licenses were required for home occupations; such would allow monitoring of these situations.
The City Attorney responded that under the present Ordinance a use permit was not required;
however, business licenses were required.
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Chairwoman Harris noted ramifications of the language change, "accessory structure" as stated
by the public; such would encourage use of structures designed for other purposes (garages) as
well as the building of additional structures.
Commissioner Guch concurred. She did not object to wording in 15-40.010 (g), although she
suggested consideration of additional language; Commissioner Burger agreed, noting that the
intent was that only residents of the home could engage in a home occupation. Suggestion
made that wording be amended to read, "No person other than a resident of the home .... "
The City Attorney had no objection to the above language; he suggested consideration of
deleting "employed" to read, "No person other than a resident of the home shall be engaged..."
With respect to the term "accessory structures," revised wording recognized that home
occupations already were being conducted in accessory structures; however, if the Commission
and the public were concemed, the Section could remain as previously worded.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner' Guch was favorable to such. Commissioner Clay stated that the Commission's
intent was not to increase the use; thus, he favored the original version of this Section.
Consensus reached to delete Sections 6 and 7.
With respect to Section 15-35.030 Schedule of off-street parking spaces:
Commissioner Guch did not feel that amended wording seemed less restrictive than previous
wording. The City Attorney reviewed the rationale for changing to a calculation by square
footage in determining parking for various uses.
Commissioner Tucker commented as follows:
Was unfavorable to the proposed amendments on Parking
Cities used as a comparison (Los Gatos, Cuperfino) were not suitable comparisons
Nor did Saratoga wish to create similar parking problems
On site visits to continuing care homes in other communities, there was insufficient parking
which impacted adjacent private residences
Favored strict requirements to insure adequate parking; if a problem arose, a particular
situation could be investigated
Commissioner Guch was willing to consider a change in (j) Nursing Homes; however, she
was not favorable to a complete rewrite of the Section.
Chairwoman Harris concurred that parking requirements were becoming more lenient; not to
require specific parking for employees, would: be, in effect, to require less parking spaces.
Planner Caldwell responded that especially in situations where more intensive uses would
result, there was no way to regulate parking since only a business license was required.
Staff suggested in (m) Intensive retail service establishments, striking the phrase "excluding
floor area used exclusively for storage or loading" in order to require maximum amount of
parking for building size, regardless of the percentage of retail to storage use. Such allowed
the occupant maximum flexibility in use and gave the City a way of determining the number of
spaces required for intensive retail use. Such was not less restrictive than presently required; in
fact, this would be more restrictive and prevent the problem of counting employees or second
guessing future uses.
The City Attomey suggested that rather than figuring number of employees there may/may not
be on a particular premises, the inquiry should be, is the square footage appropriate? Figures
suggested by the Planning Staff were made on the basis of their experience that numbers given
would be adequate fbr both employees and customers. Elimination of a reference to employee
parking was not intended to create a parking shortage; rather, it was an assumption that the
square footage figure was adequate to cover both employee and customer parking.
Commissioner Tucker would accept the above with the phrase added "or whichever is greater."
Commissioner Clay stated that if a parking shortage existed, the added wording would allow a
recalculation by number of employees.
Commissioner Guch 'reiterated that making a :determination on number of employees still
eluded the Commission. She favored the calculation by square footage and felt that such was
much more restrictive. The standard set in (j) Nursing homes, was fairly easy, i.e., "One
space for each three beds;" determining parking for other uses was more difficult.
Chairwoman Harris suggested consideration of areas where parking problems currently existed
and the uses which were generating such problems; for example, restaurants in the Village.
The City Attorney noted that eliminating areas of food preparation in this category, one could
argue that the Ordinance was now more restrictive. When application for a business license
was made, would they be informed that there was a limit to the employees permitted? Such
would indicate faulty standards since an individual would not be allowed to conduct their
business in such a way that they could add employees. The focus should be square footage;
this standard was a more common approach among cities. The intent of such was to include
the average, anticipated number of both customers and employees.
GUCH/CLAY MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-87-004 TO APRIL 13, 1988. Passed 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Break: 9:15 - 9:27 P.M.
14. GPA-88-01 GPA-88-01, City of Saratoga, General Plan Amendment to adopt the
Saratoga Village Plan. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
application.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Memorandum, dated February 24, 1988 and reviewed the
Memorandum of the City Manager, dated February 23, 1988.
Planner Young confirmed that few changes had been made in either intent or content of the text
The Public Hearing was opened at 9:38 P.M.
Mr. Bill Carlson, President, Saratoga Village Association, commented as follows:
- Favored the CH-1 zoning the entire length of Big Basin Way
- Favored reinstating the proposed Parking Dis .trict 6
- Supported a turn around area on Big Basin Way
- On Map 7, favored four ingresses/egress to Parking District 3
- Favored a traffic study to assess a possible right turn only restriction
- Street Lighting: one style of lighting fixture for the Village, i.e., carriage lights
- Elimination or prohibition of ingress/egress leading to private parking areas over sidewalks
- Prohibition of all neon lighting
- Installation of traffic lights on Big Basin Way and 4th Ave.
- In Parking District 3, consideration of a bike/pedestrian path with installation of a bridge
- Consideration of public rest rooms in the Village area
- Village Task Force in which the Village Merchants Association could participate
Mr. Miles Rankin asked that consideration be given to the existing zoning division in the
Village; it was vital to the economic health of the Village to include the wider commercial area
presently zoned C-V. More commercial use was essential.
Mr. Alden Bloxham, Representing Chabre property, noted concern that there may not be a
clear understanding regarding property designated for a Parking District with respect to cun'ent
ownership of the property; it would not simply be donated with no transfer of funds. He
confumed that such was private property and was not for sale.
Consensus reached to Continue the Application. :The Public Hearing remained open.
TUCKER/CLAY MOVED TO CONTINUE GPA-88-01 TO MARCH 23, 1988, WITH A
STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD MARCH 15,' 1988. Passed 6-0.
15. DR-87-159 Saffarian, 21657 Vintage Ln., request for design review approval of
plans to construct a new 6,192 sq. ft. two-story home on a 3.01 acre lot
in the NHR zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Continued
to February 24, 1988 at the'request of the Applicant.
Commissioner Burger reported on the land use Visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report of the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:15 P.M.
Mr. Malik, Architect, presented a sketch and commented as follows:
- Applicants worked to mitigate Staff concems~ the recommendation for denial surprised them
- Attempts were made to delineate shapes and shadows on the rear elevation of the house
- A balcony was added to recess the lower portion of the house
- Windows and breakfast nook were also added
- Landscaping and trees would be installed in the rear yard to further mitigate impacts
- The house would not be fully visible from Toll Gate Rd. or Saratoga Heights
- Proposed square footage was well below that:allowed and in excess of setback requirements
Ms. Rose Gaspare, Vintage Ln., Saratoga, stated that she did not intend to build on Lot C as
long as she owned the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
BURGER/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:29 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Commissioner Burger noted the sweeping view that would be enjoyed from this property; the
proposed house would be on the "top portion" of the lot, closest to Vintage Ln.
Commissioner Guch expressed concern regarding the 7 ft. exposed under floor area.
Commissioner Kolstad felt that landscaping would not adequately address such.
Mr. Malik provided additional information on height of the structure.
Mr. Saffarian, Applicant, reviewed discussions with Staff.
Commissioner Clay stated that the length of the front elevation created a perception of bulk.
Commissioner Guch commented as follows:
While Lot C. would be impacted by elevations of this house, the fact that this lot was
considerably higher would mitigate some impacts
Front elevation appeared as a one-story element
Such would not be very visible either from Vintage Ln. or Lot C.
Rear elevation was of concern despite mitigations proposed by the Applicant
Colors of a red tile roof and bone structure would be very visible
Asked that the profile be lowered as well as lowering the 26 ft. height
Noted the visibility of the 7 ft. under floor area from lower view points
Commissioner Kolstad concurred that the house was very visible from across the Valley; he
favored the design proposed and felt that such would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Burger summarized comments regarding a change in colors; such would
address the length of the structure; she reiterated concern regarding the under floor area.
Commissioner Kolstad added that under floor areas were not complimentary to the design.
Chairwoman Harris concurred regarding the long expanse of roof line.
Mr. Malik presented design alternatives for considei'ation. Applicants were invited to bring
plans to the Study Session.
TUCKER/GUCH MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-87-159 TO APRIL 13, 1988, WITH A
STUDY SESSION TO BE HELD MARCH 1, 1.988. Passed 6-0.
16. DR-87-154 Araki, 14045 Quito Road, request for design review approval of plans to
construct a new 4,183 sq. ft. two-story home on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot in
the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code.
Continued to February 24, 1988.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use x~isit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report of the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
Planner Caldwell noted that in Exhibit B Findings 4. to read, "The project will not interfere..."
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:49 P.M.
Mr. Arthur Cody, Applicant's Representative, presented two plot plans and commented:
House was a classical Mediterranean design
If the design was perceived as bulky, he did not see how it was possible to change such;
Cuffing the upper floor space would make the house another style
Had difficulty understanding the idea of perceived bulk
This was a flag lot with many overgrown trees; in addition, there were Ordinance trees
The proposed house would not be out of keeping with the lot or the area
He did not feel that privacy impacts would result to the front house (his) or neighbors
GUCH/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:57 P.M. Passed 6-0.
Mr. Cody responded to questions and provided additional information of the site.
Commissioner Burger thought the design was lovely; however, a home that would blend in
with this eclectic neighborhood was needed. The 27 1/2 height of the house was inappropriate.
She would not vote in favor of this Application and stated that a project redesign was required.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued
Commissioner Kolstad noted concern regarding future development to the rear of the site; such
would have privacy and visual impacts from this house. While the height and style were
acceptable, he would not approve the Application due to impacts cited above.
Commissioners Clay concurred that the house was not compatible with the neighborhood; such
was suitable in another location. Commissioner Tucker concurred and noted that plans
suggested a much larger lot; she noted impacts to neighbors to the north due to the height.
Chairwoman Harris stated that a 27 1/2 ft. high structure on an infill lot was excessive; in
addition, the lot was substandard in size. The design was lovely but required a larger lot. She
stated that usually the Applicant was allowed an opportunity to attend a Study Session.
Mr. Cody responded that it was his understanding that the Commission did not like the design
proposed on the lot in question; square footage was under that allowed. A single story house
would occupy more of the land; he was opposed to such in order to save the trees and
vegetation on-site. The other alternative was to reduce the size of the house; such would not be
economically feasible. Financial constraints were noted.
Mr. Cody confirmed that a Mediterranean style could not accommodate the design alternatives
suggested by the Commission. He added that the second story could not be seen due to the
flag lot and trees; adjacent houses were two story.
Chairwoman Harris and the City Attorney advised Mr. Cody of options available.
Mr. Cody felt that the design proposed could not be modified; he stated he would be happy to
present another design if necessary. He was agreeable to a vote being taken without a
continuance to a Study Session.
GUCH/CLAY MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DR-87-154. Passed 6-0.
17. DR-87-149.2 Nivas, 12106 Beauchamps Ln., request to remove the condition on the
design review resolution requiring the applicant to install an early warning
fire alarm system. Property located in the NHR zoning district.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report of the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
The Public Hearing was opened at 11:12 P.M. '
Mr. Nivas, Applicant, requested approval of the Application for the following reasons: The gross floor area was 4,516 sq. ft., including garages and porches
According to Code 14-10, attic space was not floor space and not part of gross floor area
According to the Fire District Code, this lot was not in the fire district area
Additional fuel potential from the attic space: such was difficult to comprehend
The approved Application was a modification of a previously approved plan in 1987; at that
time, the attic space was not included in the floor area
Original approval did not include the early warning fire system
He suggested that an. error may have occurred :and cited examples of adjacent homes
Offered to install a smoke detection system with installation of sprinklers in the garage
The City Attorney advised the Commission as he had already advised the Applicant, there was
no provision in the Zoning Ordinance of the City Code for a waiver of this requirement; the
only circumstance under which the requirement could be removed was a determination by the
Commission that the house was under 5,000 sq. ft. He answered questions addressed.
Chairwoman Harris noted that the Commission did not have the authority to grant the request
was made and questioned why this Application was before the Commission for consideration.
The City Attorney suggested that the determination of the Commission was that there was no
evidence presented showing that the regulations did not apply.
Mr. Nivas stated that his Application preceded Code requirements.
BURGER/CLAY MOVED TO DENY DR-87-149.2. Passed 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ~
18. V-87-028 Lawrence, 21823 Via Regina, request for variance approval to allow the [
expansion of an existing detached garage within the required front yard, ~.
17 ft. from the front propetty line in lieu of 30 ft. required in the NHR .:.
zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. .'~
Application V-87-028 Continued to March 23, 1988. ...;.
19. V-87-035 Huebner, 14511 Chester Ave., request for a variance to allow the
construction of a fence 5 ft. in height within the required front yard in lieu
of 3 ft. height allowed in the R-I-40,000 zoning district per Chapter 15 of
the City Code.
Commissioner Tucker reported on the land use visit.
Planning Director Hsia presented the Report of the Planning Commission, February 24, 1988.
The Public Heating was opened at 11:29 P.M.
Mr. Huebner, Applicant, presented drawings of the various fence heights, site photographs of
the neighborhood and commented:
Aesthetics: Application was consistent with existing landscaping treatment in the area; there
were no fences in the area 3 ft. by 8 ft. Site dimensions were discussed.
Security: cited instances of vandalism; they also wished their property secure from animals
Property value: cited efforts to improve the property with landscaping and the proposed
fence. A 3 ft. fence could be dewimental to his property value
BURGER/GUCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:37 P.M. Passed 6-0
Commissioner Kolstad noted sympathy for the, Applicant; however, he could not make the
necessary Finding of physical circumstance. Commissioners Burger concurred that
exceptional physical circumstance did not exist. Commissioners Tucker and Clay concurred.
KOLSTAD/CLAY MOVED TO DENY V-87-035 PER EXHIBIT B. Passed 6-0.
20. DR-87-114 Westbrook, 20601 Lomita Ave., request for design review approval for a
new 968 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing home in the
R- 1 - 10,000.
Application DR-87-114 Continued to March 23, 1988, per request of the Applicant. :.'
MISCELLANEOUS;
21. Discussion of agenda items for Planning Commission/City Council joint meeting March ":'
22, 1988.
Members of the Commission provided the Planning Director with a list of topics.
22. Oral Report on findings re: Mexican Restaurant at Quito Shopping Center.
Planner Caldwell reviewed the findings regarding the history of this site.
COMMUNICATIONS;
Written:
1. Minutes of Heritage Preservation Commission of February 3, 1988, - Noted and filed.
2. Minutes of the Committee-of-the-Whole of February 3, 1988, - Noted and filed.
3. Letter from Fay Mongraw dated January 16, 1988
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 'l 'l
FEBRUARY 24, 1988
COMMUNICATIONS Continued
4. Letter from Mrs. Joan Philbrick dated March 16, 1988, Re: Olsen property. - Noted and
filed.
5. Letter from Vincent Philbrick et al dated February 16, 1988, Re: Olsen property. -
Noted and filed.
Oral by Commission:
Commissioner Kolstad resported on the City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT;
The Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:01 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
yf'''5/',,
Caro ProlSst ~he;~'~