Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-1990 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING CONNISSION NINUTES DATE: December 12, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Burger, Commissioners Caldwell, Moran, and Tappan. Commissioner Tucker was absent. pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes Of NoVember 14, 1990: Commissioner Cald~ell requested'that on page 6 paragraph 3 the second sentence reading "She felt the overall bulk and density issues, which were raised in the past, have been addressed" be deleted and requested that the following be added to the end of the first sentence: "...because it demonstrates some decrease in overall bulk and density and some increase in usable open space than the earlier proposals. However, serious problems remain." In that same paragraph in the seventh line from the bottom of the paragraph before the sentence beginning "She also suggested..." she requested insertion of a sentence reading "Staff's July report states that most of the recent townhome developments approved in Saratoga are about nine units per acre. In Commissioner Caldwell's opinion, this standard is the type of density that is appropriate for the site." Commissioner Caldwell noted that on page 10 in the fifth full paragraph, in the sixth line. the word "determine" "should be "determination". On page 19, she requested that the sixth paragraph be amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell stated she personally has reservations regarding the appropriateness of the additional cut and fill that would be required for the pool." Commissioner Moran requested that the Saratoga resident referred to in the last paragraph of page 9 be identified as Richard Tyrell. Chairperson Burger noted that on page 6 in the third paragraph, eighth line, the word "budding" should be "abutting" and in the third line from the bottom of that same paragraph the word "amendable" should be "amenable". She also requested that the second paragraph on page 7 be amended to read: "Commissioner Burger commented that she felt people are parking in the lot now simply because they see an empty lot." Commissioner Tappan questioned Commissioner Caldwell's deletion of the sentence on page 6 reading: "She felt the overall bulk and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Continued density issues, which were raised in the past, have been addressed". He felt that was a substantive change to the minutes and requested a transcript to see exactly what was said. He presumed'that Commissioner Caldwell was indicating she did not say this. Commissioner Caldwell said she did not and requested that the tape be checked to see what was actually said. Approval of the minutes was postponed pending clarification of the Minutes Clerk of the paragraph in question. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 7, 1990. Technical COrrections to. Packet Material: Planner Walgren indicated that Condition No. 6 of Item 2 on the .consent calendar (SUP-90.002, Coward) should read: "No structure or paved areas shall be within 10 ft. of any oak and within any oak tree trunk." pUBLIC HEARINGS ~ONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-90-054 Sanfilippo, 21834 Via Regina, request for design review approval to construct 716 sq. ft. of additional first floor area and an 811 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 2,750 sq. ft. one-story, single family residence in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 2. SUP-90-002 Coward, 15095 Quito Rd., request for a second unit use permit to construct an 800 sq. ft. second unit on a 64,270 sq. ft. parcel located in the R-1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 3. DR-90-064 Hughes, 12322 Brookglen Dr., request for design review approval to construct a 1,035 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 2,315 sq. ft. one-story home on a 17,207 sq. ft. parcel within the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 4. DR-90-069 Benzing, 21107 Michaels Dr., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,112 sq. ft. two-story residence on a 41,153 sq. ft. parcel within the R-I-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A member of the audience requested the removal of item 3. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1, 2AND 4. Passed 4-0. 3. DR-90-064 Hughes, 12322 Brookglen Dro, request for design review approval to construct a 1,035 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 2,315 sq. ft. one-story home on a 17,207 sq. ft. parcel within the R-l-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15of the City Code. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated December 12, 1990. In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell, Mr. Walgren defined the term "viewshed", as used in the resolution, as views from other residences to a distant view. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:44 p.m. The neighbor at 18980 Greenbrook Ct.~ expressed concern regarding the privacy of his back yard. He was unclear as to how the project would impact his property. Mr. Tom Hughes, 12322 Brookglen Dr., stated that he did not believe his two story would look onto the neighbor's house at all andthere are mature trees.separating the yards. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Passed 4-0. In response to a question from Commissioner Moran, Mr. Walgren said that when he made the preliminary site visit he noted there are no windows oriented on the sides of the home but they are oriented towards the front of the property and towards the back. Since the front of the property is the street there are no concerns there. There is dense, mature vegetation at the rear of the property on both the applicant's property, the neighbor's property and the Water District property. There is some distance from the home to the rear property line. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Tappan questioned whether voting could be suspended on this item until the applicant and the neighbor had a chance to discuss the matter. Chairperson Burger held the item over until later in the meeting. Later in the meeting, Mr. Hughes indicated he discussed the matter with his neighbor and the neighbor requested that the opportunity to view the site during the daylight hours. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-064 TO JANUARY 9, 1991. Passed 4-0. pUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. 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 (continued from 11/28/90). Planning Director Emslie' reviewed the revised resolution incorporating all of the conditions that had been added to the two previous hearings as well as incorporating recommended changes from the City Engineer. Mr. Emslie noted the receipt of correspondence from an adjoining property owner emphasizing the need for undergrounding of the utility poles that the property owner spoke of at the previous. Planning Commission hearing. The letter includes a map preparedby PG&E along with a cost estimate supplied by PG&E to the neighbor. Mr. Emslie reiterated staff's previous recommendation that it would not be practicable to impose a condition on the developer for undergrounding the utilities at this time. Chairperson Burger noted receipt of a letter from Ms. Betty Morse, 18701 Kosich Drive. In response to Commissioners' questions, City Engineer Perlin stated that the proper method of dealing with the hazardous condition of the power poles would be to have PG&E correct the maintenance. problem. He did not believe it was proper to impose a condition to underground the utility system as a condition of this development. He said undergrounding of a utility system in a neighborhood requires.an extensive amount of planning, work and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued cooperation of a vast majority of the property owners. It is, therefore, impractical, in his view, to try and get one property owner to orchestrate a utility undergrounding that encompasses an entire neighborhood. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Mark Roberts, R & Z Development Company, appeared for the applicant. He said the applicant has reviewed the resolution and is in agreement with a number of the items. He expressed concern regarding the portion of Condition No. 3 of the resolution regarding payment of park and school fees prior to Final Map approval. He said the school fee is based on the square footage of the house and until such time as the building plans are available the applicant is not sure what those fees would be. He also expressed concern regarding Condition No. 21. He stated the applicant' is concerned with the safety of the power lines along one side of the property and would be more than happy to contact PG&E regarding the safety of the poles and lines and to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns. Mr. Roberts stated the applicant is in agreement with the City and did not believe it was the responsibility of this particular development to fund a substantial improvement as far as the utility lines are concerned. He also requested that the Commission reconsider the restriction of the two-story .homes mainly because of the fact that the area does have a number of two-story homes. He said the applicant would like the option of having at least one two-story home in the development. Ms. Betty Morse, 18701 Kosich Dr., said it would be acceptable to have PG&E maintain the safety of the poles and to have the poles undergrounded at some time in the future. Regarding the applicant's request for a two-story home in the neighborhood, Ms. Morse indicated that the neighbors were polled and a majority did not want two-story buildings. TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06 P.M. Passed In response to a question from Commissioner Tappan, Mr. Emslie explained the condition regarding school fees. Mr. Emslie said if the condition is left out it does not exonerate the applicant from paying the fee nor if it is left in it does not compel him to pay the fee. It is a standard condition that the City has been using over the last several years. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan said he was not sure whether he agreed with Condition No. 20. He stated that hearings would be held during the design review process and felt that was sufficient protection for the community to come forward regarding a two-story home. Commissioner Moran disagreed with Commissioner Tappan in that she believed it was a good planning decision to leave the condition in the resolution. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the neighbor's point was well regarding the sense of the neighborhood about one-story homes. Commissioner Tappan indicated that there was nothing to prevent the President of the Homeowner's Association to come before the Commission during the design review process. ~ Chairperson Burger agreed with the retention of item 20 and felt it serves to alert the developer that the Commission is looking for single-story homes and to accomplish that by limiting the height. She said it would not prevent the developer asking for approval of a different height at the time of design review. Mr. Dewey Kosich addressed the Commission regarding the issue of two-story homes. He said he has built many two-story homes in Saratoga and did not understand the necessity for the condition. Commissioner Tappan commented that the Commission has the privilege to review all design review issues and the Commission has the prerogative, when the applicant comes before it for approval, to encourage public input and decide whether this is an appropriate area for all single story or whether two story would be allowed. CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-90-006 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 3 TO READ "PAY ALL PARK AND SCHOOL FEES AS REQUIRED" AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO REQUEST PG&E TO ADDRESS THE MAINTENANCE ISSUE THATMAY EXIST WITH RESPECT TO THE UTILITY POLES.. Passed 3-1 (Tappan opposed). Chairperson Burger moved the agenda back to Item 3 (see above). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 6. SD-90-003 Peninsula Townhomes Assoco, request for tentative UP-90-003 map approval to subdivide a 2.67 acre lot into one DR-90-034 two-acre multi-family parcel and two .3 acre V-90-039 parcels for commercial use. Use permit approval is requested to allow a 26-unit multi-family residential development within a Commercial Visitor (C-V) zone district. Design review approval is requested for the entire project. Variance approval is also requested to allow the two commercial structures to encroach into rear yard setbacks per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is incorporated in this application (cont. from 11/14/90). Planner Walgren reviewed the Memorandum dated December 12, 1990 and answered Commissioners' questions. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Bill Lightner addressed the Commission. In response to his question, Mr. Emslie responded that the project is subject to Planning Commission approval this evening. The only action the Commission has taken thus far is to direct staff to prepare resolutions. Commission action on the resolutions tonight will constitute approval or denial of the project. Mr. Lightner noted on page 4 of the staff report under the heading "Development Standards" that he believed the statement reading "[t]he proposed residential development does not meet height or setback requirements" is incorrect. Mr. Walgren responded that statement was referring to the multi-family development and according to the multi-family development regulations when there are multi-family projects in a commercial district the multi-family regulations must be followed and cannot be modified without applying for a variance. He said the statement was worded' correctly. Mr. Lightner referred to page 1 of the design review resolution and discussed the third "Whereas" clause. The third line reads "that the adjacent residences are located along the north and west property lines". Mr. Lightner pointed out that the public storage facility is to the west of the property and there are no adjacent residences to the west. Mr. Lightner stated he was unclear about Condition No. 13 and stated he was agreeable to Conditions 18, 19 and 24. Regarding Condition No. 25, he said he had not discussed. the issue of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued traffic signal and did not know whether this condition was fair or unfair. He felt the applicant should pay a fair burden but did not .know whether half was a fair burden or not. He felt Condition No. 28 should be clearer as he did not know what the scope of time involved with that condition is, what the amount is or whether it is a reasonable amount. Responding to Commissioner Moran's statement regarding Condition 29b, Mr. Lightner felt it might be rational to provide that one-half of either of the commercial buildings be restricted in its use rather than one building or the other. In response to his question regarding Section 3 of the resolution, Chairperson Burger stated that the City Code provides for an extension and that section would not preclude the applicant's ability to ask for an extension. Using a slide projector, the landscape architect reviewed the landscape plan in detail and answered questions regarding the landscaping plan. Mro Lightner addressed the parking and density issues. With regard to the parking, he felt that an abundance of parking has been supplied for the residences, and there are adequate means to control the uses of the parking for the commercial area. He stated that if the Commission is concerned about density as directed at the neighbors, he believed that the neighbors' support in the past should persuade the Commission that the concern is unfounded. If the concern is about the public, he said he 'believed that the perspective shown and the staff report would hopefully convince the Commission that the density will be well shielded from the street by a combination of fine architectural elements and landscaping. He said that if the concern.was about the residents that might purchase the units, he felt that the landscape perspectives have shown that the project will be quite lovely and the buyers who choose to live there will be the best judges of whether it is a fine pro.ject or not. The density proposed is no more and perhaps less than the density of the northern most property. Mr. Lightner pointed out that density is a necessity of affordability. He said the Lightner Property Group is attempting to provide an alternative to the more affordable but less desirable stacked, flat apartments that are sold as condominiums to many young people'. His group is trying to deliver homes in the community that would sell for less than $400,000. He said his group came to the Commission within the guidelines of the Housing Element of the General Plan and proposed 14 units per acre. Over the past seven months that plan has been changed so that the proposal now before the Commission provides 26 units. Originally the land cost per unit would have been less than $100,000. By · reducing the number of units by 20%, $14,500 has been added per PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued unit in land cost alone. He noted that some Commissioners would like to see 20 units and if that were the case another $33,000 would be added beyond the $14,500 to each unit on the land. He said if there were 16 units on the land, as discussed by some Council members, that would add another $68,000 to the price of the land, and the land price per unit would be around $180,000. Every cut made to the reasonable density proposed will exclude some family from living in Saratoga and adding to the vitality of the community and will be requiring units that will not be supported by the market as evidenced by the Saratoga Villa. In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell, Mr. Lightner responded that the cottages would sell in the mid-S200,000 to possibly the low $300,000 for the largest unit and the larger townhomes would sell in the mid and higher $300,000 price range. TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Tappan stated he was in favor of the project and felt it was time to approve. it. He noted that it has been nearly a year since .the project first came before the Commission and there have been countless hearings and study sessions regarding the project. Commissioner Moran said that density has been a concern of hers, and she did not feel the project has come far enough along to provide the kind of liveability that she would like to see in the project. She expressed concern about the appearance and overall visibility of the project. She stated that her concerns about parking remain, and she did not want to see parking problems created in the commercial area. Commissioner Caldwell felt that the landscape plans were excellent, and she was in favor of the pavement treatment. She said she would still like to see the density come down to closer to nine units per acre. She stated she was now less concerned about the parking than she was before if the proposed restrictions will stick. She indicated she reviewed the variance and felt the variance drafted by staff seems to make sense. Chairperson Burger agreed with Commissioner Tappan's comments. Regarding the issue of density, she pointed out that the.Commission should remember where the location of the site is and what the surrounding uses are. In an attempt to provide affordable housing in Saratoga, this is an excellent final product which meets all of her concerns. She felt it was a good project and to reduce the density of the project any further would result in "back door PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS .Continued elitism" because reducing the density any further would literally price people out of an affordable housing market in Saratoga. Chairperson Burger suggested that the Commission comment on the concerns raised about the conditions. Commissioner Tappan noted that the developer has a fixed priced for his land and gave the' ratios. He pointed out that every square foot trimmed from the project represents a dollar number that is added to land cost. He stated that if the project is cut down to nine units per acre there will be no development there. TAPPAN/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-90-034. Chairperson Burger called for a discussion on the conditions which were previously questioned. Regarding Condition No. 13, Mr. Emslie stated it was his understanding that the applicant was concerned as to whether or not the condition as worded requires change or modification to the design of the project. He said the City Engineer reviewed the improvements proposed by the applicant and the subdivision as currently designed would be compatible with dedications, sidewalks, etc. Mr. Perlin noted that the 42 ft. wide half street is a standard condition placed along that section of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. He believed that with this particular property there is an incremental widening that needs to be done there to make the alignment of the curb consistent to the north and to the south but that would fall into place anyway when the curb and gutter in front of the property would be replaced, which is another condition on the resolution. Mr. Perlin stated that the reason Condition No. 25 was changed was a misunderstanding on his part. Initially it was his understanding that what was done in the past is the entire cost of traffic signal improvements along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road was assigned to the development. He has since learned that what was done in the past was the cost was shared with the developer. The City is now saying it expects this developer to contribute 50% of the cost of the signal, and the City would contribute the remaining 50%. As a caveat to that, there could be some sort of a reimbursement agreement so that future commercial development could reimburse this developer for the portion that the developer would be paying. Chairperson Burger recalled that the Commission previously felt that the cost of the traffic light ought to be a shared cost. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Perlin indicated that the assessment district being proposed for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road north of the railroad tracks would only cover the curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscape improvements along the frontage of all of the properties. Because this particular developer would be installing those improvements, he would no longer be required to participate in that assessment district~ The assessment district is not proposed to cover the cost of the median improvements or the traffic signal. City Attorney Toppel stated some care should be exercised in identifying the specific properties on which the burden for reimbursement would be placed. Theoretically, for any property that develops up and down the street an argument could be made that they are using the traffic signal therefore they have an obligation· to reimburse some percentage of the cost. Mro Perlin suggested including all the commercial zoned properties north of the railroad tracks. In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell regarding the issue of refundability if the traffic signal ends up costing less, Mr. Perlin responded that if the traffic signal ends up costing less, the difference would be refunded to the developer. The $65,000 is the upper limit of the developer's contribution. Commissioner Moran suggested that the refund policy should be reflected in Condition No. 25. Mr. Toppel noted that the typical time frame is about ten years. Regarding Condition No. 28, Mr. Emslie responded that is a standard condition for a project that exceeds the deposit a developer puts up for geologic fees and is an indication that the developer must settle his account with the City so that there is no outstanding balance. He believed Mr. Lightner was concerned that this might be some sort of blank check that might be extended into the future and that is unfounded because the City does not proceed with any geotechnical work unless authorized by the property owner. Chairperson Burger noted, regarding Condition 29b, that the applicant· requested it read one building or one-half of each building. Commissioner Moran said that made sense to her and requested staff's comments. Mr. Toppel suggested that it read "50% of the total square footage"o PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran questioned if that was something Parcel A owner and Parcel B owner were to work out between the two of them or if that would be set up in advance. Mr. Toppel stated that raises an interesting questions in terms of what the intention of the developer is with respect to ownership. He was under the assumption that both buildings are under common ownership. If they are not, the condition would be almost impossible to administer. Chairperson Burger noted that they could conceivably be owned by the same individual but they are two separate lots. Mr. Toppel suggested asking the applicant what he has in mind regarding these lots. He said this has been done before and there has been a problem. Mr. Emslie said that staff agrees with the City Attorney's analysis and that is why the condition is limited to buildings only. In response to Chairperson Burger's question, Mr. Lightner said he had hoped for the flexibility of dealing with two separate owners for the parcels. Commissioner Tappan indicated that he heard no one say the design is. faulty or unsightly. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it would be the best course of action to leave Condition No. 29b as it is because at some point a decision will be made as to which parcel will be restricted. Commissioner Tappan said that a restriction could be put on both to restrict half of each parcel.. He said if the condition is left as it is and the parcelsare owned by two separate owners it would put a burden on one of the owners. Mr. Toppel said that if a 50-50 condition is imposed, there would be a severe impact.on how the properties are marketed. He said there is a significant difference between the two in terms of the types of retail uses. The .extensive use is a fairly narrow category. The applicant would be the best judge of how that would work. The Commission's objectives are clear, and Mr. Toppel suggested that maybe a post-approval process could be set up but he could envision administrative problems. He said more problems might be created with a mandated mixture. Commissioner Tappan stated that from an economic viewpoint he could see one of the structures vacant and one occupied the way the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued condition is now written. He said that maybe allowing the applicant to request a variance on setbacks to add additional parking would solve the problem. Mr'. Toppel said there is a variance requested and as a condition the Commission could say that an agreement shall be recorded .that requires an administrative use permit for every occupant of the property coupled with the overall requirement about less than 50% of the total retail space of the two parcels combined shall be the extensive use. Each owner would go in knowing the situation. He suggested it could be approved administratively at the staff level. Mr. Emslie stated that what the City Attorney suggested is a review process that requires future tenants to submit their plans to City Hall. He said that is not now required because this is a commercial district and these uses are permitted by right. Commissioner Caldwell reiterated her belief that the way the condition is now written makes more sense in terms of being achievable. Mr. Emslie suggested the possibility of having both buildings on the same lot and not approving the lot split. Commissioner Moran noted her understanding that one of the design features of the project is the front street aspect of it and if there are separate owners several years from now it will not look the same. She felt the Commission should be aware that the similarity of the two parcels may be put in jeopardy. Commissioner Tappan agreed that the solution may be not to divide the parcels. He stated that the Commission may be making it more difficult for the applicant in the future in the viability of these projects in leasing them and finding tenants. He said he thought he was doing the project a favor in providing the option to divide the parcel. Mr. Toppel stated that there would not be a problem if the same owner owned both parcels. Chairperson Burger tabled the motion on the floor and requested a motion on the SD. TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE SD-90-003 WITH A CONDITION THAT ONLY ONE COMMERCIAL PARCEL WILL BE CREATED IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. Passed 3-1 (Commissioner Moran was opposed). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Moran stated she would be voting against all of the items in this package. She said she was not comfortable with the density and the commercial parking restrictions. Chairperson Burger requested a vote on the previously tabled motion for DR-90-034. Commissioner Moran noted that third "Whereas" clause was to be amended to indicate there is not an adjacent residence on the west. Commissionjr Tappan clarified that Condition No. 29b now refers to only one parcel and that 50% of the square footage will be restricted. The vote on DR-90-034 was split 2:2 (Commissioners Caldwell and Moran opposed). TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF UP-90-003. Commissioner Moran said she was.in favor of the use for multi- family residences but is not voting in favor of this project; Commissioner Caldwell agreed. There was a vote of 2:2 on the motion (Commissioners Caldwell and Moran opposed). TAPPAN/BURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF V-90-039. There was a vote of 2:2 on the motion (Commissioners Caldwell and Moran opposed). Mr. Toppel noted that under the provisions of the City Code when there is a split vote and a Commissioner is absent the applicant can choose to have the item come back automatically to the next meeting for another vote. If there is another split vote, that is deemed to be a denial and can be taken up on appeal to the City Council. Alternatively, the applicant may choose to treat the split vote tonight as constituting a denial and proceed immediately on appeal to the City Council. He said the decision did not have to be made tonight. Break 9:45 p.m. - 9:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 7. 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-90-031 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. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 28, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Lou Dorsich, 1999 South Bascom Ave., architect for the applicant, addressed the Commission and reviewed the project in detail. Mr. Pache, the applicant addressed the Commission regarding the proposal. He pointed out that there is no addition .to the restaurant proposed. He said he has had numerous calls from Saratoga residents who are looking forward to the opportunity to move to the Village. Mr. John DiManto addressed the' Commission in support of the project. TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:14 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Caldwell said she would be interested in looking at a four-unit alternative. She agreed with staff regardinglowering of the parking structure and said she would like to look at an alternative for the structure. She agreed with the Staff Report regarding the compatibility of the design with the Village guidelines. She said she had no problem with the variance request. Commissioner Moran questioned residential development on the site and also questioned the realistic long-term planning goals for the Village regarding the mix of commercial and residential uses. She was in favor of continuing the item in order to discuss the project further. She agreed with many of the comments in the Staff Report. Commissioner Tappan said he would not rule out the possibility of a five-unit project. He was in favor of a study session. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Burger stated she was.having a problem visualizing the project from the architectural renderings in the packets. She also said she was not ruling out five units. She requested that the applicant prepare a model that would allow the Commission to see what the buildings would look like.on the site. She also felt that the .addition to the restaurant the should match the current restaurant. THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO A STUDY SESSION ON JANUARY 15, 1991. The following two items were considered together: 8. 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-l-15,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9'. 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° Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated November 28, 1990. Mr. Walgren noted that a cover memo to the original staff report was distributed which provides background as to how the drainage conditions were resolved. The.Public Hearing was opened at 10:25 p.m. The applicant addressed the Commission, reviewed the proposal in detail and answered questions regarding the proposal. Mr. William Ellis, 19160 Oahu Ln., addressed the Commission. He said he was pleased that the property was to be developed, He did not believe it was necessary for the new houses to look exactly like the other houses in the area but would feel more comfortable. if they were reasonably compatible. Mr. Vincent, 13617 Westover Dr., addressed the Commission. He said he had no problem with Lot A. Regarding Lot B, he was in support of the staff recommendation that the side setbacks on the lot be enlarged and retained rather than encroached upon as proposed. He thought that could be accomplished by either reducing the size of the house or changing its location on the existing lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued TAPPAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:40 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Tappan said he knows the area well and was sensitive to the first neighbor that spoke concerning the design of Parcel A. Commissioner Moran agreed with the staff report and with Mr. Ellis' comments and said she was sensitive to the problems that can be created with flag lots and would like to stick with the original plan for the setback. Commissioner Caldwell agreed with Commissioner Moran. Chairperson Burger said she also agreed that the setbacks should be retained. In response to a question from Chairperson Burger, Mr. Emslie recommended that the Commission provide direction regarding the exterior changes to both parcels understanding the seclusion of Parcel B and that the item be continued to a public hearing at which time revised plans could be submitted, after staff's review and analysis, to the Commission. THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO JANUARY 9, 1991. 10. DR-90-057 Gault, 22068 Villa Oaks Lno, request for design review approval to construct a 5,963 sq. ft. two- story single family residence on a 1.4 acre site in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 11/14/90). Chairperson Burger reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated December 12, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:45 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli represented the applicant. Using an overhead projector, Ms. Fanelli reviewed the project in detail. The designer of the house reviewed the design in detail. He felt sure he could keep the integrity of the house and do some minor redesign modifications to eliminate the strong vertical elements. He explained is proposal for the redesign of the house. Ms. Fanelli noted receipt of letters from Mr. and Mrs. Daly and Mr. and MrS. Riley in support of the project. PLANNING. COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS. Continued TAPPAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:00 P.M. Passed 4-0. In response to a question from Commissioner Caldwell, Ms. Fanelli indicated the applicant is willing to give an easement across his property to the Dalys for access to the equestrian trail provided they have proper insurance. Commissioner Caldwell said she wouldlike to see some redesign work along the. lines indicated by the architect and along the lines indicated bythe staff report. She stated one of the concerns she had with the Bilkey property and that she has with this property is the prominence of the site in the whole region and the visibility of the site across the valley. She was unsure whether the 22 ft. warped plane concept would address that issue. In response to a question from Commissioner Moran, Ms. Fanelli responded that the house was designed as it was presented to the Commission. The applicant is attempting to satisfy. the 22 ft. guideline and has shown that with a slight modification to the roof. the house is only 22 ft. off the natural plane. She said the Bilkey house is sitting at natural grade and it is 22 ft. above. The applicant is not asking for any more than that. Commissioner Moran stated that her concern is the visibility of the house. Chairperson Burger felt that some architectural redesign is appropriate as indicated this evening by the architect. She said she would like to see the roof height brought down in the architectural redesign if possible. Mr. Gault addressed the Commission and indicated his frustration with the process. He said he felt that the issue of the height of the home on the lot should have been addressed at the time the subdivision map was approved. Commissioner Caldwell noted 'that some of the comments of the Commissioners are based upon their consultation of the Design. Review Handbook and the General Plan. The interest is in preservation of the hillsides and sensitivity of prominent sites. She said the Commission is attempting to be more sensitive as to what may be built on subdivision lots and are trying to foresee the problems that may come up at the design review stage. Many people believe those issues can be dealt. with at the design review stage, and the Commission would not be precluded at that stage to ask the applicant to deal with sensitive sites in a sensitive way. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-057 TO JANUARY 9, 1991. Passed 4-0. 11. DR-90-035 Yamauichi, 21439 Continental C,ircle, request for design review approval to construct a new two.- story single family residence in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated December 12, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:15 p.m~ The designer of the project addressed the Commission. The owners indicated they have no problem with modifying windows at the rear elevation to conform with the rest of the windows at the rear of the house. The owner did not feel the colors were inappropriate and from a distance would not make the house stand out but will change the colors if the Commission insists. CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:21 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Tappan said he had no problem with the colors. Commissioner Caldwell stated she was happy that the applicant would alter the design of the rear window. She agreed with staff that earth tone colors are appropriate and could not approve the colors presented. Commissioner Moran agreed with Commissioner Tappan regarding the colors. Chairperson Burger said she would like to see some change in the colors. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-90-035 WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE REAR WINDOWS BE CHANGED, THAT THE LANDSCAPING RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BE INCLUDED AND THAT THE COLOR BE CHANGED TO A MORE NATURAL EARTH TONE COLOR TO BE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. Passed 4-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 20 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 12. DR-90-033 Leposavic, 15134 Sperry Ln., request for design V-90-019 review approval to construct a new 7,309 sq. ft. single family dwelling on a 1.35 acre parcel and a request for variance to exceed the allowable floor area in the R-I-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated October 24, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:25 p.m. Mr. Wayne Leposavic, 15070 Sperry Lane, addressed the Commission and made reference to his letter which was included in the Commissioners' packets. Mr. Lon Curtis, 15127 Sperry Ln., addressed the Commission. He requested that the Commission deny the proposed project. He expressed concern that there may be two residences on the lot and at some point the pool house could be turned into a rental or some other type of residence. Mr. Adams, representing the Estate of Katherine Dutton, made reference to a letter he sent to the Commission and said he was still objecting to the project on the same bases as outlined in the letter. He distributed a letter dated October 23, 1990 from Dr. and Mrs. Falls objecting to the proposal. Mr. Adams made reference to the applicant's letter in which Mr. Leposavic indicated there was an agreement between the applicant and the late Mrs. Dutton. Mr. Adams stated he knew of no such agreement. He requested the Commission deny the application. Mr. Walt Hoeffler, 15122 Sperry Ln., supported the staff recommendation for denial of the application. Mr. Leposavic addressed the Commission in response to the neighbors' comments. CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:36 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Tappan said he objected to the proposal because he felt it was a poor design, and he could not approve a variance allowing an additional 1,000 square feet. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 21 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioners Caldwell, Moran and Burger all indicated they agreed with the staff report. CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED FOR ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF DR-90-033. Passed 4-0. CALDWELL/TAPPANMOVED FOR ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF V-90-019. Passed 4-0. 13. SD-90-005 Shuffle, 20811 Norada Ct.,.request 'for tentative map approval to allow the subdivision of a 45,870 sq. ft. lot into two (2) separate parcels in the R-1-12,500 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal per the CEQA guidelines. Chairperson Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report .to the Planning Commission dated December 12, 1990. Mr. Emslie made reference to a letter received from Mr. and Mrs. John E. Cameron, 12192 Beauchamps Lane, objecting to the subdivision. The Public Hearing was opened at 11:47 p.m. The engineer for the applicant addressed the Commission. She pointed out that both of the lots being created by the subdivision are greater than the surrounding neighborhood and will both be in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. She did not believe that the creation of a flag lot would jeopardize anyone's privacy. Mr. Shuffle said he did not understand the easement concerns and requested clarification regarding the easement concerns. He said he would probably be agreeable to whatever conditions would be necessary to alleviate the neighbors' concerns. Mr. John Cameron, 12192 Beauchamps, addressed the Commission and made reference to his letter. Mr. Emslie made reference to a letter received from the neighbors at 12122 Beauchamps Ln., objecting to the proposed lot split. In response to a question from Commissioner Moran regarding his concern about the slope of the land, Mr. Cameron said his property PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 22 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued is about six feet above the proposed lot and his house would look directly down onto any building there. CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:58 P.M. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff clarify whether there is a moratorium on the creation of flag lots. Mr. Emslie responded that there is not. Chairperson Burger requested that staff address Mr. Shuffle's concerns regarding the easements. Mr. Emslie stated that division of property is not a .right but a privilege and that in order to grant the privilege of subdividing property the Planning Commission must determine whether the lot is suitable for development. It is staff's feeling that the presence of easements that are used in a way that environmentally affects the property lead staff to conclude that this site is not buildable because of the environmental effects that result from the use of those easements. Mr. Toppel stated there are situations where there is property left over from a subdivision that by design and appearance was really contemplated for future subdivision. In this instance the remainder parcels were not intended as future development from the start. Commissioner Moran did not believe the Commission would be creating a suitable building area for future development and problems would be created for people who purchased the land and who try to build on it. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION DENYING SD-90-005 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PASSED 4-0. DIRE.CTOR'S ITEMS 1. Committee-of-the Whole Report 12/4/90 COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written oral PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 23 COMMUNICATIONS Continued City CoUncil Chairperson Burger reported on the City Council meeting. She noted that resolutions were presented to former Commissioners Kolstad and siegfried. She suggested that the Commission consider resolutions from the Planning Commission commending them for their contributions. There was Commission consensus to direct staff to prepare resolutions of commendation for Mr. Kolstad and Mr. Siegfried. Commissioner Tappan indicated he was also in attendance at the Council meeting. Regarding the Birenbaum application, he noted that Mayor Stutzman took exception to the geological report.· He felt the Council should be made aware that such reports are prepared by professionals whose credentials have been screened and those professionals are chosen from a list provided to the · applicant by staff° Mr. Toppel reported that his services as City Attorney will end of December 31. He said it has been a pleasure and privilege working with the Commission. Chairperson Burger stated that Mr. Toppel will be sorely missed. Commissioner Moran presented a resolution she prepared thanking Mr. Toppel for his knowledge, cooperation and for saving the Commission with his creative solutions and for his patience, attentiveness and for his good humor. She said it was a delight and a pleasure to work with him. ADJOURMMRNT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Rebecca Cuffman CIWY OF SAI~WOGA PLANNING CONNISSION NINUTES DATE: December 12, 1990 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Burger, Commissioners Caldwell, Moran, and Tappano Commissioner Tucker was absent. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes of NOvember 14, 1990: Commissioner Caldwell requested that on page 6 paragraph 3 the second sentence reading "She' felt the overall bulk and density issues, which were raised in the past, have been addressed" be deleted and requested that the following be addedto the end of the first sentence: "...because it demonstrates some decrease in overall bulk and density and some increase in usable open space than the earlier proposals. However, serious problems remain." In that same paragraph in the seventh line from the bottom of the paragraph before the sentence beginning "She also suggested..." she requested insertion of a sentence reading "Staff's July report states that most of the recent townhome developments approved in Saratoga are about nine units per acre., In Commissioner Caldwell's opinion, this standard is the type of density that is appropriate for the site." Commissioner Caldwell noted that on page 10 in the fifth full paragraph, in the sixth line the word "determine" should be "determination". On page 19,. she requested that the sixth paragraph be amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell stated she personally has reservations regarding the appropriateness of the additional cut and fill that Would be required for the pool." Commissioner Moran requested that the Saratoga resident referred to in the last paragraph of page 9 be identified as Richard Tyrello Chairperson Burger noted that on page 6 in the third paragraph, eighth line, the word "budding" should be "abutting" and in the third line from the bottom of that same paragraph the word ."amendable" should be "amenable~'''. She also requested that the second paragraph on page 7 be amended to read: "Commissioner Burger commented that she felt people are parking in the lot now simply because they see an empty lot." Commissioner Tappan questioned Commissioner Caldwell's deletion of the sentence on page 6 reading: "She felt the overall bulk and -% PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 12, 1990 Page 2 density issues, which were raised in the past, have been addressed". He felt that was a substantive change to the minutes and requested a transcript to see exactly what was said. He presumed that Commissioner Caldwell was indicating she did not say this. Commissioner Caldwell said she did not and requested that the tape be checked to see what was actually said. Approval of the minutes was postponed pending clarification of the Minutes Clerk of the paragraph in question.