Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-28-1990 Planning Commission Minutes~ ::&- .. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES ~'~ DATE: November 28, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Burger', Caldwell, Moran, and Tappan. Pledge of Allegiance ApproVal Of Minutes of October 24. 1990: Commissioner Caldwell requested that on page 6, paragraph 4, the word "along" be removed from the third line. On page 9 in the fourth -paragraph beginning with Mr. McCrea she noted that Mr. McCrea also stated that the design of the home was incompatible with the neighborhood. On page 11 the first line of the second paragraph should read "Commissioner Caldwell stated that she visited the school on a Weekday morning..." On page 21 the second line should read "application as approved, would be dark brick to match the house..." Commissioner Moran requested that on page 5 in the sixth line after the word "decision" the words "in writing" be inserted. Commissioner Moran requested inclusion of the following sentence on page 21 for item 16: "If Saratoga Avenue is to be considered a historic lane then the fence would not be appropriate if the Commission is not moving in the direction of establishing Saratoga Avenue as a historic lane then the fence is in order." Chairperson Tucker requested that the last sentence of the third full paragraph on page 19 be amended to read: "She said in the Harleigh Drive cited she was one of the Commissioners who dissented on that because she felt it was important tO maintain the setbacks in order to preserve the feeling of open space." Commissioner Moran also requested that the sentence in the first full paragraph of page 19 read "...using those 10 feet to redefine the location of the structure." MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 1990 AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0. ORAL COMMIINICATIONS: Mr. Richard Tyrell, 12336 Obrad Drive, addressed the Commission. He said he was a member of the Heritage Commission several years PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Continued ago and felt the Commission was moving into the land use issues he was interested in from a heritage standpoint. He asked the Commission if the Commission meets with the City Council to. express objectives regarding the vision of where the City is going. Commissioner Tappan responded that the Commission has met with the Council to discuss concerns such the appropriateness of two-story additions in certain neighborhoods, the inappropriateness of those additions in other neighborhoods and open space. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the Commission and Council have agreed to meet on a quarterly basis. Commissioner Tappan suggested that Mr. Tyrell and any other interested citizen attend some of the sessions the Council holds for interviewing Planning Commissioners in order to get a sense of what the process is and what the general positions of the people interviewing with the Council are. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 21, 1990. Technical Corrections tO Packet Material: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SD-88-005.1 DiManto, Peach Hill/Madrone Hill Roads, request to extend Tentative Map approval for a one-year period, per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 28, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Bill Heiss, engineer for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He said the site has been thoroughly studied over the past several years and has had two tentative maps. Hestated that there were. outside influences that have kept the applicant from going to a final map, none of which have been the fault of the applicant. In one instance there was a problem with an adjacent owner over which an access easement for the project traverses. After the original tentative map was approved, it was determined that the water quantity in the area was inadequate to provide the ~' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued required fire flowo Over the years that requirement has changed. He said the question of visibility was thoroughly discussed at previous hearings and it was concluded that only Lot 3 had any potential impact and that would be to the Peach Hill Road area. Because of that, a condition was placed in the subdivision to mitigate that visibility problem. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the geotechnical review of the property and noted that many of the surrounding homes have suffered significant damage since the earthquake. She questioned the suitability of the area for development. Mr. Heiss responded that there were no particular problems with the property itself with the land stability, but it was found that some of the retaining walls did suffer some distress. The walls were put in about 50 years ago and were put in with unreinforced material. He said the Berrocal fault does go through the property, but there is no sign of any activation of that particular fault. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:01 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Moran said her concern was whether anything could be done to avoid future arguments about the aesthetic, visual and noise impacts and wondered if there was a way to get a study done now that would put future owners in a more secure position when they move forward with their development plans. She would like to have assurance that the site is buildable, that the site has been approved and it is recognized that whatever visual, privacy or aesthetic impacts anticipated are acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Tappan noted he was part of the previous approval and agreed that it was Lot 3 which was the reason for Condition No. 43. He said he walked the site twice and when looking at the plot map felt that every site plotted out is appropriate for dwelling and agreed with Condition No. 43. He did not see any conflict with the plan and the general topography with respect to the five lots. Commissioner Moran expressed concern regarding Condition No. 42. Commissioner Tappan said he felt that was further protection for Commissioner Moran's concerns that in design review each lot will be looked at individually visa vis the plan that is brought forward. Commissioner Burger stated she did not see how the Commission can determine what the scenic impact of a home will be until a plan for a home is before the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran felt the generic question could be asked if a house were there is it plausible to believe that a sensitive design with enough mitigation measures could alleviate potential concern for privacy and visual impacts. Mr. Emslie pointed out that view impacts were not ignored but were identified and the Planning Commission attached conditions to them. He felt the state of the art in terms of Saratoga's expectations for development may have changed. Today building sites are looked at in terms of a more critical analysis. Commissioner Tappan reviewed Condition No. 42 for the benefit of the audience. Commissioner Burger notedthat the Commission is dealing with five lots, the smallest of which is 2.78 acres and the largest of which is 5.88 acres and is dealing with a relatively low density development. She said she was not particularly distressed at this point in time about conditioning the design for the square footage or height of a home that may come before the Commission to sit on one of those five lots. She noted the Commission retains the right to criticize and deny a home it finds inappropriate 'for any site and did not feel the Commission has lost any control over the design aspects of whatever is presented on the five lots by the extension of the tentative map. Chairperson Tucker said she feltcomfortable with the extension and did not have any problems with it. Commissioner Caldwell had a suggestion with respect to the tree preservation issue. She said she discussed the issue with the City Attorney and City Engineer and they came up with the idea to integrate the City Arborist's recommendations for tree preservation without having to reopen the tentative map. That would be to.have the Planning Commission direct the City Engineer to consult with the City Arborist and to incorporate to the extent possible the City Arborist's tree preservation recommendation in the course of reviewing and approving the improvement plans. Once the project reaches the design review stage that issue can be revisited with respect to the homes themselves. Commissioner Burger was agreeable to Commissioner Caldwell's suggestion. City Attorney Toppel clarified that Commissioner Caldwell was not talking about a new condition but was talking about making sure the improvement plans do not result in any unnecessary removal of trees and as a construction specification making sure that it PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued has sufficient safeguards directed toward the contractor providing for appropriate measures to be taken to make sure no trees are damaged that are supposed to be preserved. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED FOR APPROVAL~ OF SD-88-005.1 MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DIRECTIVE REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION. Passed 5-0. 2. AZO-90-010 City of Saratoga, Revised Draft Noise Ordinance, Planning Commission review of a revised draft of the amended Noise Ordinance, Article 7-30 of the City Code (cont. from 11/14/90. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the revised ordinance in detail. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:18 p.m. Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, representing Mr. DelMonaco and Mr. Cali who are in the process of attempting to obtain a permit for enclosures in their restaurant, addressed the Commission. He said he hoped a Code Enforcement Officer would not close the restaurant down after the ordinance is approved and after the enclosures are installed. He was hopeful that the enclosures will tone down the exhaust fans. He expressed concern that when the ordinance is imposed and working the person operating the noise meter is familiar with how to operate a meter. He mentioned that as a member of Parking District No o 4, the Parking District is cleaned by the City on occasion and when it is a gas blower is used. Gas blowers are used by all City maintenance people and he suggested the City check to see what it would cost to clean all parks and parking districts if a broom and a rake are to be used. Mr. Dick Tyrell, 12336 Obrad Drive, addressed the Commission. He felt the residents of Saratoga did not really understand the ordinance. He did not know what the impacts of the ordinance on various locales would be and did not know how the residents would deal fairly on impacts of business. MORAN/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Tappan noted that the neighbor brought up a good point that the citizens may not understand the impacts of the ordinance. Commissioner Burger stated that the practical impact to most citizens in Saratoga will be relatively nil because the overall ambience and noise level in the City is such that most people will not automatically find themselves in violation with the approval of the new noise ordinance. The ordinance, in her understanding, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued is an attempt to respond to some of the concerns that have been raised in the past few years regarding some new and more obtrusive noise sources. Did not feel the ordinance is intended to address the noise from the freeway. She noted that it is her feeling that the testimony and concern received from the public is that they are not in favor of gasoline powered leaf blowers. Mr. Toppel noted that the underlined language in the draft ordinance represents the changes from the preceding draft. He said so far there has not been a deluge of protests regarding leaf 'blowers. He tried to incorporate the modification Mr. Peacock discussed at the last meeting. That change is between Section 7-30.040 and 050. The earlier draft, when dealing with a single event noise, was expressed in terms of a certain amount of dBA, either 6 or 8 over the ambient that was established for the District and was dealing with a predetermined number. Section 050 has been revised to eliminate the cross reference that used to be there to the preceding section. .That means 040 will now become somewhat like construction standards and when new projects are coming before the Commission, the Commission will look to see whether the construction will result in Structures that will provide 45 dBA or 35 dBA or whatever. He said he was bothered somewhat by 050 in the sense that it becomes a moving target. From an enforcement point of view there are now going to be two measurements that will have to'be taken. First, whoever is doing the measurement is going to have to figure out what the local ambient is and then a separate calculation will have to determine the increment of a single-event noise above that ambient. He saw a problem in that there is no ceiling. Mr. Emslie said his personal experience with this type of a noise ordinance is that it works and it is possible to do ambient levels on a periodic basis on neighbors. CSOs can keep records of what an ambient is in a particular region so they can respond and all they have to do is measure the incremental increase over the ambient. He stated he felt it was the most reasonable way to deal with a community like Saratoga. In response to a question from Commissioner Burger, Mr. Emslie stated that staff intends to take random samples of noise levels and the CSOs have already started to work on that. He stated that it is required that the CSOs undergo training and receive a certificate in order to read noise levels. BURGER/CALDWELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVALTO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AZO-90-O10. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 3. AZO-90-004 City of Saratoga Residential Open Space Zone, consideration of recommending the creation of a new zone district relative to addressing the unincorporated hillsides northwest to the City limits. The Planning Commission will consider adding text to the existing zone ordinance. The application of this zone to specific property will require separate and subsequent action by the Planning Commission and City .Council (cont. from 11/14/90 Planning Commission meeting). Planning Director Emslie reviewed the revised ordinance for establishment of residential open space zoning district. In response to a question from Commissioner Tappan, Mr. Toppel responded that the ordinance would have no regulatory effect on any property outside of the City limits until it actually becomes part of the City through annexation. The annexation process is done through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) which deals with jurisdictional matters. The normal requirement of LAFCO before property is brought into a city is that the city prezone the property so that both LAFCO and the property owners know what kind of zoning classification will go on the property. The zoning does not become effective until the annexation is complete. Once complete it automatically acquires that zoning classification. In terms of the process, the prezoning as well as the legislative act would first come before the Planning Commission and the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council on the particular manner in which the property should be prezoned. The final decision maker on this matter would be the City Council based upon preliminary recommendation from the Planning Commission. Essentially a new district is being created but it is not actually being applied it to any particular property but is intended for the sphere of influence areas. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:48 p.m. Mr..William Brooks, 20330 Merrick Drive, addressed the Commission. He indicated he is a horse owner and boards several horses at a commercial stable in the Mount Eden Valley and is the parent of two members of the Saratoga Pony Club. He supported the concept of the ordinance since the ordinance aims at the preservation of scenic and recreational values in the areas adjoining the City. He expressed concerns regarding whether the ordinance as written will accomplish these purposes. The initial concern about the ordinance is the area covered. He said that upon questioning staff he discovered the map has not yet been prepared. He assumed the ordinance covers the Mount Eden Valley from Stevens Creek Park to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space and Paul Masson area. He said that area is one of primary interest because of the work on the equestrian trails. In this area of the County are a number of commercial stables which are the support base of the equestrian community. He felt the way the ordinance is currently drafted will sound a death knell to commercial stables in Saratoga. Presumably the stables in operation will be grandfathered in. He suspected that most of the existing stables will be nonconforming uses and therefore unable to expand or upgrade and possibly even unable to maintain their facilities. He requested that the. Commission refer the ordinance to the consultant hired for open space review. Secondly he requested that the City tell what land is involved. It would seem to be a matter of simple fairness that those concerned and involved with the ordinance be notified and have an opportunity to review it and express their concerns. He requested that other communities be studied to determine what they have done and what decisions they reached regarding the equestrian carrying capacity of land rather than to arbitrarily say it must be 20 acres. He requested it be made clear that nothing in the purposes or in the implementation of this ordinance is intended to endanger the survival of commercial stables. Commissioner Tappan commented that he felt the purpose of the residential open space zoning coincides with equestrian uses. Ms. Hope Schurr, 22200 Mt. Eden Road, addressed the Commission° She said she runs a small commercial stable geared toward a family oriented place for children to learn and ride. She believed the latest proposal would force her and others out of business. Ms. JoAnne Robinson, District Commissioner of Saratoga Pony Club, addressed the Commission in support of Mr. Brooks' comments. Another representative of the equestrian community addressed the Commission and supported the concept of the proposed ordinance but expressed concerns regarding the equestrian uses. A resident of 22490 Mt. Eden Road addressed the Commission. He said his situation is such that if his ranch is annexed into the City he will be unable to run his stable° Mr. Bill Heiss addressed the Commission° He expressed concern regarding the manner in which the ordinance will be applied to properties and was concerned that it could be a heavy-handed approach to land use and be unfair. Mr. Vince Garrod, Mr. Eden Road, addressed the Commission regarding his concerns. He expressed concern that the ordinance does not PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued detail where it is going to be or what it will do. He expressed his personal concerns regarding the value of his property and the financial aspects of the ordinance as it would apply to his property. Mr. Clayton Thomas addressed the Commission regarding his concerns relative to the ordinance. He felt his property would be devalued by at least half. Mr. Dick Tyrell addressed the Commission and agreed with Mr. Garrod's comments. Mr. Gene Zambetti addressed the Commission and noted that the procedure for prezoning is the same as for zoning within the City except that the published notice should be in a newspaper circulated in the area to be prezoned. He recommended that the next notice of the public hearing'be in the San Jose Mercury News with an exhibit of the area within Santa Clara County that may be annexed. BURGER/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Passed 5-0. Chairperson Tucker asked staff if they recommended this be referred to the consultant to come back with suggestions. Mr. Emslie responded that the consultant is preparing the City's master plan of parks and was not hired as a planning consultant for the City to review these kinds of ordinances. His input would be valued but he did not believe that was within his current scope of work. The consultant is aware of the City's intentions for developing regulations dealing with the sphere of influence and is aware of how that fits into his thinking in making recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Commission. In response to Commissioner Tappan's question, Mr. Emslie responded the public hearing was noticed in the Saratoga News which is the City's designated newspaper for public noticing. Commissioner Tappan pointed out that the problem is that the property in question is not Saratoga property but County property. Mr. Emslie explained that the City does not currently have prezoning for any area outside of the City limits. It is the City's intention to rezone all the properties within its proposed sphere of influence. The range of zones that are available to do that do not exist. If the Planning Commission would like to explore the possible boundaries of this, it is within its purview PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued and it could direct staff to do that. Staff has not recommended that because it is important to analyze the requirements in a general sense and not get involved in specific issues of individual proposals for development. In response to a question from Commissioner Moran, Mr. Emslie responded that staff agrees that the purpose of the zone is very complementary to equestrian uses. Commercial stable facilities are conditionally permitted uses and no one would be zoned out of existence. There is always an avenue open for an operator to have any number of horses. The primary concerns would be corral locations from a safety aspect. That could be accomplished as minimum lot size but also could be accomplished by defining a slope area that corrals could be kept on. Mr. Toppel stated that one option the Commission has would be to grandfather all existing commercial stables. He noted that in dealing with the number of horses per acre, particularly on page 3 under the listing of permitted uses, it is discussing stables and corrals for keeping of horses for private use. The commercial boarding and stable are separately listed as conditional uses in the next section, and there is no particular number of horses per acre specified. The number of horses that may be allowed on a commercial stable would be determined=by the use permit process. He did not see this ordinance would put any existing commercial stable out of business and emphasized to those who addressed the issue this evening that was not the intent. To the extent there is any concern about that, it could be clarified either through a grandfathering clause or other language. Commissioner Burger stated she was not comfortable with the wording of the ordinance and asked that staff find out the physical location of certain areas discussed this evening and the size of the smallest commercial stable operation. In terms of what specific areas are covered and whether maps should be drawn, she said she would like to have time to give the matter some serious thought. In terms of the ordinance itself, she said the concept is a good one and she had no argument with it. She expressed concern that some of the specifics written into the ordinance now are extreme. She said that one of the concerns that would have to be addressed to her satisfaction before she could feel comfortable with the ordinance is that it would be made very clear that any land annexed into Saratoga would 'be intended for possible application to that land not automatic application of the zoning district. She was unable to find in the preamble anything specifically indicating this would be for possible application and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued needs to see a specific direct statement that makes it very clear that this is not an automatic application of the zoning district to land that would be annexed. Commissioner Caldwell stated she wished to go through the ordinance section by section. Commissioner Burger noted that her comments are general to the point of view that they dwell on certain aspects that she picked out at the ordinance level itself but they refer to three or four general concerns. Mr. Emslie suggested that if the. Commission feels it is ready to enter into a level of intense review and Commissioners have specific comments that they would bring to a study session, a study session could be scheduled with a specific goal of going over the ordinance section by section. There. was Commission consensus for a study session. Chairperson Tucker requested that a notice be published in the San Jose Mercury News. Mr. Emslie requested direction as to whether the Commission wants staff to begin to do districting for prezoning. Commissioner Tappan thought it would be wise to do that. Commissioner Caldwell disagreed° She said that everyone understands this is another zoning district and when property is annexed to the City all zoning districts available will be studied and at that time a recommendation will be made on what the appropriate one is. She felt it would be premature to identify properties in the sphere of influence and beyond until they come before the Commission on an annexation basis. Commissioner Moran felt it would make sense to be more firm regarding the ordinance before trying to have some indication of where specifically it would be applied. Commissioner. Burger agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. She said she understood Commissioner Tappan's concerns but felt the Commission would be putting the cart before the horse° CALDWELL/BURGER MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-90-004 TO A STUDY SESSION ON JANUARY 8, 1991. Passed 5-0. Break 9:45 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. ? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Tucker noted that because of the late hour it was unlikely the Commission would be able to complete the agenda. She suggested continuing the following items: 6. DR-90-052 Saratoga Estates, 19171 Oahu Lane, request for approval to construct a 3,624 sq. ft. one-story single family residence on a 16,738 sq. ft. parcel in the R-1-15,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 7. DR-90-053 Saratoga Estates, 19151 Oahu Lane, request for SD-89-018.1 construct a 3',429 sq. ft. one-story single family residence on a 26,365 sq. ft. parcel in the R-1- 15,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves amending the subdivision conditions to allow for a decrease in setback requirements. 8. SD-90'004 Pache, 14555 Big Basin Way, request for tentative UP-90-006 map approval for a two parcel subdivision; for a DR-90-039 use permit to allow residential development in a V-90-03i commercial zoning district; for design review to construct five (5) new attached single family dwellings and underground parking and for variance to exceed the allowable height limit in the C-H zone district per Chapter 14 and Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared per the CEQA guidelines. TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS 6, 7 AND 8 TO DECEMBER 12, 1990. Passed 5-0° Chairperson Tucker moved the agenda to item 4. 4. SD-90-006 Kosich, Radoyka Dr. & 12325 Saratoga Ave., resolution approving tentative map to allow the subdivision of a 2.85 acre parcel into four (4) separate parcels in the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal per the CEQA guidelines (public hearing closed 11/14/90). Planning Director Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated November 28, 1990. Chairperson Tucker said she felt there were a considerable number of changes from the initial resolution which were not distributed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued in the Commissioners' packets. She stated she was not prepared to vote on the matter because she did not have sufficient time to compare the modifications and deletions to the resolution. Mr. Emslie stated the changes stemmed from the City Engineer's concern about the standard conditions, and he has tailored them to reflect his objectives in terms of clarity and enforceability. Mr. Emslie said that in his view the substantive change relates to the overhead requirement. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:10 p.m. Mr. Mark Roberts appeared for the applicant and stated the applicant was in agreement with the clarifications. Mr. Emslie indicated he received a phone call from A1 and Lorraine Murdon, 18780 Kosich Dr., who indicated to Mr. Emslie that they are supportive of undergrounding of the utilities at this point in time. Ms. Betty Morrison, 18701 Kosich Dr., addressed the Commission in support of the undergrounding of the utilities at this time. She stated the utility poles are not safe at the present time. Mr. Emslie explained the process for undergrounding of utilities. He said it is difficult to underground one or two poles in relation to a development project because in this case they cross private property and streets. The poles in Mrs. Morrison's back yard serve other individuals. According to the City Engineer, the location of the conduits under the streets would not be where PG&E would put the lines if they were doing it on a comprehensive basis. He also pointed out that Mrs. Morrison's back yard would have to be trenched and a line put in and she would have to pay for conversion of her service. The resident at 18681 Kosich Drive addressed the Commission and requested further clarification on undergrounding of utilities. She cited the dangers of the poles and indicated she had a petition from the neighbors. agreeing to pay the extra costs of the undergrounding. Mr. Emslie suggested the creation of a benefit assessment district in which the development would participate and would include the homes surrounding the project in order to hasten the undergrounding of this neighborhood. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10.:30 P.M. Passed 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Burger said that staff has reviewed the conditions to her satisfaction and she felt comfortable with them. She felt the concept of a benefit assessment district is one that should be considered. She said she would like to make sure that the undergrounding that does occur covers a sufficient area. Commissioner Moran expressed concern regarding the cost of undergrounding. Mr. Toppel indicated that the Commission would not be initiating the formation of an underground assessment district because that would be something the City Council would have to deal with. What the Commission would be saying tonight is when and if the district is formed the developer would have to participate and pay his proportionate share and waive protest. In response to a question from Commissioner Burger, Mr. Toppel indicated the Commission could impose a condition that the applicant shall sign an agreement to participate in the district if it is formed and pay his proportional share. He said the Commission could also, as a separate matter, send a letter to the Council or City staff requesting the matter be looked into. Chairperson Tucker reiterated that she would not be able to vote in favor of this item this evening because there were 12 changes made to an 18 point resolution and she did not feel comfortable with voting on it until she studies it further. Commissioner Burger noted that she could not find the condition that limits the height.of the homes to a single story. Mr. Emslie said it was his understanding that condition was incorporated into the motion and staff recommended that one-story homes be 18 feet in height. Commissioner Burger stated she would like to see that as a condition. MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-90-006 TO DECEMBER 12, 1990 IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE RESOLUTION. Mr. Emslie suggested that the Planning Commission could approve this at its study session the following Tuesday. Commissioner Tappan suggested the item be passed this evening and the conditions referenced and the additional conditions be worked out between the applicant and staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Tucker indicated that she would like additional time to review and compare the resolutions. CALDWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-90-006 TO DECEMBER 4, 1990 AND THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTION FOR PRESENTATION. Commissioner Moran said she was opposed to continuing the item to the study session because she was in favor of the Commission taking its official meeting actions every two weeks. Commissioner Burger agreed with Commissioner Moran. Upon voting on Commissioner Caldwell's motion, Commissioners Burger, Moran and Tucker were opposed. BURGER/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-90-006 TO DECEMBER 12, 1990 AND THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTION FOR PRESENTATION. Passed 4-1 (Tappan opposed). Commissioner Caldwell stepped down on, the following item because she lives in the immediate neighborhood of the proposed project. 5. SD-90-007 Perry/Jones, 13820 Ravenwood Dr., request for tentative map approval to subdivide a 1.34 acre parcel into four new parcels ranging from 11,508 to 13,383 sq. ft. in area within the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The proposed subdivision would be accessed by a cul- de-sac. An environmental Negative Declaration assessment has been prepared per the CEQA guidelines. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie addressed the general plan and its applicability to this subdivision; Planner Walgren discussed the specific application of the subdivision standards in the City Code and the zoning ordinance. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:50 pom. Mr. Ron Jones, 105 Limestone Lane, Santa Cruz, addressed the Commission. He said that after taking the character of the neighborhood into consideration and looking at the size of the lots in that neighborhood he felt that density-wise and layout-wise the lots as proposed make more sense than two or three lots. He said some of the neighbors were concerned that he intended to build massive, bulky two-story houses but that was never his intention. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued ~ He felt the misunderstanding stemmed from the fact that the engineer put on the map what the'maximum allowable square footage could be in relationship to the total square footage of the lot. He said no'design work has yet been done. He stated that. the applicant bought the property based on a four-lot configuration and based on the zoning and needs to get four lots to make the project work. If the configurations that staff suggested are used, there will be difficulties with the size of houses that would have to be built to make the project economically feasible. Mr. Emslie noted that he received phone calls from three neighbors who could not attend the meeting who indicated their support for a two lot configuration with no cul-de-sac and preservation of the mature landscaping. Mr. Matt Durket,.13891 Raven Court, distributed an outline and list of neighbors who would'speak on this matter. Mr. Durket noted that the Environmental Impact Report for this project is significantly different than the one filed for the Montpere Development. He reviewed and commented on portions of the EIR. Mr. Dale Drumm, 18395 Montpere Way, addressed the Commission and stated his opposition to the project as proposed. Ms. Durket, 13891 Raven Court, addressed the Commission regarding her concerns relative to the proposed cul-de-sac. She expressed concern regarding added traffic congestion, increased noise, the entry to the cul-de-sac turns into a turnaround area, the effect on mature trees, the loss of open space feeling and safety concerns for the children in the neighborhood. Ms. Roberta Corson, 13831 Ravenwood Drive, addressed the Commission regarding her concerns for the trees and landscaping. She requested that there be a short-termpreservation plan and felt the trees needed immediate care. She recommended that before the site plan is considered the developer follow the recommendations and timeline of the City Arberist. Mr. Phil Jensen, 13821 Ravenwood Drive, addressed the Commission regarding his opposition to the cul-de-sac and the four lot subdivision. Dr. James Crotty, 13861 Raven Court, cited legal cases from the U. S. and California Constitutions and the Government Code. Mr. Richard Corson, 13831 Ravenwood Drive, expressed his concerns that the development will change the character of the neighborhood and will set a precedent for future development. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Allan Strong, 18407 Montpere Way, requested assurances from the developer that the height of the homes will be limited to 18 foot single-story structures. He requested a footprint of the homes on a tentative map and that sufficient front and side setbacks be provided. He believed a 75-foot front setback and 45-foot side setback would be sufficient and reasonable. He requested that the developer maintain a reasonable house size and requested a limit of 3,500 square feet or less. Ms. Jennifer Crotty, 13861 Raven Court, addressed the Commission regarding the General Plan requirements. She requested that the Commission either deny the application or direct the developer to submit a revised map which includes a plan for two lots with appropriate front and side setbacks. Mr. Robert Williams, 13906 Ravenwood Drive, summarized the comments of the neighbors. Mr. John Kolstad, 13600 Westover Drive, addressed the Commission. He said he lived near the neighborhood and did not feel there was a circulation problem. He felt it was a popularity contest and that the neighbors did not want the development in their back yard. He did not feel it was an open space issue or a wildlife issue. He also felt that the suggestions regarding limits of height, size, etc., were premature. He believed the proposal was fair, legal and conforming and stated that four homes would be more compatible with the neighborhood than two larger homes. Ms. Gina Briody, 1537 Elmwood Drive, expressed concern regarding the visual impact of the project on her property. She believed the project would set a precedent for development of the area. Mr. Jones addressed the comments of the neighbors. He said the only trees that would be removed are old walnut trees that the City Arborist has said have little value. Even if the lot is subdivided into two lots, the trees would still have to be removed. He suggested a study session to discuss the proposal in detail. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:41 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Burger agreed with staff that the cul-de-sac and four lot alternative is incorrect for the neighborhood. She estimated that if there were a two-lot subdivision, the lots would average approximately 29,000 square feet each. If there were a three-lot subdivision fronting onto RavenwOod, the lots would each be approximately 19,500 square feet. The lots would be much larger than the neighborhood zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Walgren responded that most of the parcels west of Ravenwood range between 8,000 to 11,000 square feet. The parcels on the east side of Ravenwood range from 8,000 to 21,000 square feet. Commissioner Burger felt a three lot subdivision would not be inappropriate. She also indicated that if it is the consensus of the Commission to opt for a two lot subdivision she would have a problem with that. She felt that 75-foot front yard and 45-foot side yard and open space dedication were not needed. Commissioner Tappan stated that he sympathized with the developer. In every case the developer has exceeded code requirements. He was not in favor of the cul-de-sac. .He agreed with the City Arborist regarding the trees. He was supportive of a three lot subdivision. Commissioner Moran said she was not in favor of a four lot subdivision or a cul-de-sac. She was in favor of going to a study session and asking the developer to bring in some thoughts about going to a three lot subdivision. She was not in favor of the proposed large setback and would rather see the new houses look compatible with the neighborhood and be closer to the street as are the other houses in the neighborhood. Chairperson Tucker concurred'with the other Commissioners and felt a three lot subdivision is appropriate for the neighborhood. BURGER/TAPPAN MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-90-007 TO A STUDY SESSION ON DECEMBER 18, 1990AND REQUESTED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE SKETCHES FOR BOTH A TWO LOT AND A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AND THAT CONCEPTUAL FOOTPRINTS BE SHOWN WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Caldwell was reseated on the Commission. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Future Agenda Items COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral City COunci~ Commissioner Burger reported on the City Council meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 28, 1990 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m. Rebecca Cuffman