Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-1991 Planning Commission minutes_ ~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: February 13, 1991 _ 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Senior Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Bogosian, Caldwell, Durket, Forbes and Moran. Commissioner Tappan was absent. Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes of January 9, 1991: Commissioner Caldwell requested that on page 4 the ninth line in the second paragraph be amended to read: "She also believed the original staff recommendations.:." On page 7 in the second paragraph the second line should make reference to Policy 1 of the Design Review Handbook and the next line should refer to Policy 4. On page 10 in the fourth paragraph from the bottom it should be noted that Ms. Linda Stuckey addressed the Commission regarding her family's concerns. On page 12 in the second line of the fifth paragraph the word "an" should be "a." She requested clarification of Mr. Emslie's comment in the last paragraph of page 12. Mr. Emslie suggested amending the third line to read "is the lead agency because it must issue a .permit." Commissioner Caldwell requested that the last line in that paragraph be amended to read "prepared and the City has every avenue open to it..." On page 15 in the fourth paragraph the last line should read: "if the home were to be moved outside of the. minimum protected zones of the trees." MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF'THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 1991 WITH THE CORRECTIONS. Passed 6-0. Apt~roval of Minutes of Januarv 23, 1991: Commissioner Durket noted that the third sentence of the third paragraph on page 5 should read "He agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's concerns although he did not feel the chimney caps would be a problem to chanae." Commissioner Caldwell requested that on page 5 the second line from the bottom of the first paragraph should be amended to read: "would like to see some redesign work of the chimney caps to produce better conformity". On page 10 in the last paragraph the last word of the f first line should be "his . " On page 12 in the second paragraph of item 8 in the last line the word "neighbor" • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 2 Approval of Minutes continued should be "neighborhood." On page 13 in the fourth paragraph the third line the word "is" should be omitted. MORAN/FORBES MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 , 1991 WITH THE CORRECTIONS. Passed 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tucker abstained). Approval of Minutes of December 12, 199.0: Commissioner Caldwell requested that the third paragraph be amended to read: "well taken, and the President of the homeowner's association has stated the neighborhood's position about limiting further development to one-story homes." The rest of the sentence should be omitted. On page 9 in the second paragraph from the bottom the second line should read: "and she was in favor of the pavement treatment selected." The fourth line from the bottom should read "she stated that she was now less concerned about the parking than she was before if we have confidence that the proposed restrictions will stick." The next line should read: "she indicated she reviewed the variance for the zero lot line between the commercial and residential portions of the site and felt that the variance drafted by staff seems to make sense. She made further comments that she agreed with Commissioner Moran's statements regarding the liveability of the project and that the slide show demonstrated that the feeling of open space achieved in the development immediatel,x to the north will not be present in this project particularly in the townhome portion of the project." On page 10 in the motion for DR-90-034 it should be noted. that she seconded that motion for the purpose of discussion. On page 12 in the fourth paragraph from the bottom the last line should read: "decision will be made by the developer as to which parcel will be restricted." On page 14 in the paragraph after the motion for UP-90-003, the last line of the next paragraph should indicate that "Commissioner Caldwell agreed that the site was appropriate for a multi-family development." On page 17 in the third paragraph "Commissioner Caldwell agreed with Commissioner Moran regarding the setbacks . " On page 18 in the third paragraph in the third line "she stated one of the major concerns she had..." Two paragraphs after that should read "concern with visibility of the house and she stated that the site is similar to the Bilkeys. Two paragraphs after that she requested that a statement by Commissioner Burger that it is the Planning Commission's job to preserve the integrity of the hillsides be included. In the next paragraph Commissioner Caldwell requested that the third :sentence be amended to read "the interest is in the preservation of the hillsides and sensitivity to prominent sites." In the next sentence "she said that some people believe that development constraints should be made clear at the subdivision stage and the Commission is attempting to be more • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 3 Approval of Minutes continued sensitive and is trying to foresee the problems that may come up at the design review stage by conditioning development at that point." On page 19 in the third paragraph from the bottom, the end of the paragraph should read "presented by the applicant." Commissioner Moran requested that the paragraph following the one previously mentioned on page 19 be amended to read "regarding the colors and sugaested that the color be changed to more natural earth tones to be approved at staff level. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 1990 WITH THE CORRECTIONS. Passed 2-0-4 (Commissioners Bogosian, Durket, Forbes and Tucker abstained). ORAL COMI~IiINICATIONS' Colonel Barco addressed the Commission. He said he made a survey about a year ago on all communities on the west side of the Peninsula up to San Francisco to see if any community had found a good solution to the hillside problem of houses "sticking out like sore thumbs." He found that one community had a good solution and he invited all Planning Commissioners to look at it with him so they could get the benefit of what that community had discovered. He extended the same invitation to the new Commissioners and the Planning Director. . REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 8, 1991. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: Planner Walgren noted that the applicant for Item 12 (DR-90-083, Sievert/Ball) has requested continuance to the February 27 Public Hearing. Planner Walgren also requested that Item 5 (DR-90-073, Sieber) and Item 6 (DR-90-080, Dutro) be removed from the Public Hearings Consent Calendar for staff reports and revisions to the resolutions. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-91-002 Albanese, 19006 Brookhaven Dr., request for design review approval to construct a 621 sq. ft. first floor addition to an existing one-story home for a total of 3,100 sq. ft. in the R-1-10,000 zone per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 3/27/91 at ------- the request of applicant). ----- 2. V-90-003 -------------------------------------------------- Hill, 20842 Ashley Way, request for variance approval to exceed the allowable floor area by 854 sq. ft. on a 1.05 acre parcel in the R-1-40, 000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (withdrawn by applicant). 3. UP-90-006 Peninsula Recreation, Inc., 21990 Prospect Rd., request for use permit approval to expand the Saratoga Country Club golf course with new fairways, a driving range and a manmade lake. The property proposed for expansion has recently been annexed to Saratoga and a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and adopted by LAFCO for both the annexation of the property to the.NHR zone district and the expansion of the golf course. Relocation of an underground gas storage tank to a new above ground location is also part of this application (cont. to 3/13/91 at request of applicant). 4. ROS Zone --------------------------------------------------- City of Saratoga., consideration of recommending the creation of new zone district relative to addressing the unique topography typical to the unincorporated hillsides northwest of the City limits. The Planning Commission will consider creating a new zone district which will establish lot sizes, setbacks, permitted and conditionally permitted uses and requirements for the dedication of open space for the topographically constrained .hillsides currently under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. 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. to 2/19/91 Study Session and 3/13/91 Planning Commission meeting). --------------------------------------------------- • i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 5 ~~ 5. DR-90-073 Sieber, 13505 Myren Dr., request to convert a 720 sq. ft. nonhabitable attic area into habitable living area onto an existing 2,202 sq. ft. single- family residence .in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- 6. DR-90-080 Dutro, 20820 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval to construct a 2,632 sq. ft. two- story structure within the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Staff requested removal of Items 5 and 6. 5. DR-90-073 Sieber, 13505 Myren Dr., request to convert a 720 sq. ft. nonhabitable attic area into habitable living area onto an existing 2,202 sq. ft. single- family residence in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 13, 1991. Staff recommended approval of the application with an additional condition to the resolution that the applicant shall apply for a second unit use permit or remove the second unit to the Planning Director's satisfaction within 90 days of adoption of the resolution. The resolution was distributed to the Commission. The Public Hearing was opened a 7:55 p.m. Mr. Al Seiber, 13505 Myren Dr., addressed the Commission regarding the application. Chairperson Tucker indicated that when the current addition was put onto the house she expressed concern about it when she saw it because it struck her as being a two-story addition versus a one- story addition. Mr. Dan Deets, 13513 Myren Dr., requested an opportunity to view the drawings for the proposal. He was concerned that a deck and windows may be added. After viewing the drawings, Mr. Deets said he had no concerns regarding the proposal. The resident at 13531 Myren Dr., addressed the Commission and expressed concern regarding the neighborhood becoming a two-story neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Mr. Clyde Stanley, 13491 Myren Dr., addressed the Commission. He said the proposal would have no adverse impact on his property and he had no objection to it. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 P.M. Passed 6-0. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-90-073 WITH THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED IN THE NEW RESOLUTION WITH A CHANGE IN CONDITION NO. 7 TO CHANGE "APPLY FOR" TO "OBTAIN" AND THAT CONDITION NO. 5 BE MODIFIED TO INCREASE PRIVACY TO THE NEARBY NEIGHBORS OF THE TWO-STORY WINDOWS. Commissioner Bogosian stated he had a problem with Condition No. 5 and would like it to be more specific and to say something to the effect that the windows be upper level windows or high windows. Commissioner Moran was agreeable to the amendment to her motion. Chairperson Tucker expressed concern that the applicant initially came in for a single-story home and, as she recalled, was making plans for a two-story home. She felt that the application should be looked at as not having been done and questioned whether the Commission would approve the application as a two-story home in a single-story neighborhood. She said that instead of coming in and having it done where the Commission would have design review control now there is none. She indicated this is obviously being used as a second unit. She said she would not be voting in favor of the application. Commissioner Moran said she appreciated Commissioner Tucker's point and would look at this differently it were not there and would not view it as a reason why another neighbor should have a second story on their house. The fact that it is there influences her and as does the fact that it is quite far back from the street. She felt the dormers would improve the appearance of the current structure. Chairperson Tucker said she felt that citizens need to come forward with what they want in the first :place and work with the City to get better designs. This is a sensitive neighborhood with minimum side yard lots and she was concerned about setting a precedent. Planning Director Emslie mentioned that part of the reason that the applicant is able to come in and ask for conversion of this now had to do with an inherent flaw in the way the code was structured at the time he was allowed to build. At that time the code defined a single story as a structure less than 22 feet in height. It is • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued known from practice that it is very easy to put two stories in 22 feet of vertical height. The code has since been changed and revised so that now 18 feet is the definition of a single-story structure which makes it virtually impossible to convert livable attic area. Commissioner Caldwell agreed with Commissioner Moran's statements, particularly the one that this design will actually improve the appearance of the structure dramatically. She said she would like to be able to exercise control. now because it will be a net improvement for the neighborhood but agreed that the neighbor has a good point because she can anticipate someone interested in a second story in this neighborhood appealing to the Commission on the basis that there now is one if this project is approved. Chairperson Tucker said she would like the condition changed to have the second unit cooking facility removed if the addition would not be a second unit. Commissioner Bogosian's amendment was seconded by Commissioner Caldwell. Passed 5-1 (Chairperson Tucker opposed). The original motion carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Tucker opposed). 6. DR-90-080 Dutro, 20820 Big Basin Way, request for design review approval to construct a 2,632 sq. ft. two- story structure within the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Forbes reported on the land use visit. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 13, 1991. A revised resolution was distributed to the Commission, and Condition No. 11 was amended to include measures for protection of a large oak tree located along the east property line which would need to be performed to the City Arborist's satisfaction prior to the. issuance of final occupancy. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, architect for, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated that the oak tree referred to is off the property but is on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dutro. He said the applicant intends to preserve the tree. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued In response to a question from Commissioner Forbes,. Mr. Heid replied that screening on Big Basin is necessary for the applicants also and there will be adequate screening provided. A landscaping plan will be submitted to the Planning Director in the near future. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Passed 6-0. MORAN/FORBES MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-90-080. Commissioner Caldwell offered an amendment to the motion that Condition No. 9 be amended to indicate that the landscaping would be subject to the Planning Director's approval. Commissioner Moran pointed out that was included in Condition 10. Commissioner Caldwell withdrew her amendment. Commissioner Bogosian commented that he visited the site and his impression is that the house will be visible as one enters Saratoga on Big Basin Way. He believed that relying on landscaping during the current drought situation is difficult for him to envision if residents were limited in a worst-case scenario to 300 gallons of water per household per day. He suggested that a condition be inserted similar to No. 8 only dealing with the color of the house so the Commission could be reasonably assured that it would not be a bright color that would stand out in the absence of vegetation. He was agreeable to a condition that staff and the applicant select an appropriate color to blend with the environment. Commissioner Durket suggested adding to Condition No. 8 that roof material and color of the house shall be medium to dark earthtones . Planner Walgren circulated a color. board for the Commission's view. Commissioner Moran stated she was happy with the colors the applicant has selected. Commissioners Bogosian and Durket both withdrew their suggested amendments. The motion carried on a 6-0 vote. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS' 7. DR-90-036 Gerla, 22188 Villa Oaks Ln., request for design review approval to construct a new 6,659 sq. ft., two-story, single family residence on a 2.54 ,acre parcel in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 1/9/91). Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie reviewed the staff Memorandum dated February 13, 1991. The architect for the project addressed the Commission. He presented a model of the project .for the Commission's review and reviewed the project in detail. He circulated. photographs of existing homes within the Mount Eden Estates area. Using an overhead projector, he presented photographs taken of the area from various directions with story poles present on the property. MORAN/DURKET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:48 P.M. Passed 6-0. CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-036 FOR THE APPLICANT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AND TO REDUCE THE OVERALL LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE. Commissioner Durket stated that he reviewed the record and is prepared to vote on the item. He said he appreciated the presentation but agreed with staff that the roof height should be lowered because on the first overlay it could be seen that because of the additional roof height it cut off the skyline behind it. He felt that from the south angle the poles were prominent from all directions. He felt the applicant did a good job in reducing the mass in the design but maybe some reduction in the size pursuant to staff's suggestion would be helpful. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that during the site visit the plan was reviewed and the possibility .of reorienting the home on the property was looked at. She felt that suggestion might be helpful in terms of reducing the perceived mass of the structure, especially the south exposure. The other thought that was raised was making more of a U-shaped structure. Her primary concern was that this is a prominent site and is visible from across the Mount Eden Valley and the full length of the home will be visible across the valley. It is critical to get the length down to reduce the visibility of the home. She felt that staff's suggestions regarding addressing some of the vertical elements is a good one. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 10 Commissioner Bogosian stated he reviewed the record and visited the site and felt qualified to vote on this matter. He concurred with Commissioner Durket's comments pertaining to the height and the view toward the hillside. Chairperson Tucker suggested that the Commission be more specific regarding the reduction of height. Commissioner Caldwell said she would like to see the height around 22 feet. Commissioner Durket was agreeable to 22 feet. He also said he would like to see a visual orientation from the south side. Commissioner Moran expressed concern regarding the application because of the prominence of the site. She expressed concern regarding the length of the house and felt making it shorter or lower at the garage end or making.it more of a U-shape might help. She felt that reorienting the design of the house on the parcel may also solve some of the visibility problems. Commissioner Durket disagreed with the U-shape because it appeared cluttered but did not mind the Z-shape as much. Chairperson Tucker said she visited the site and expressed concern about the height of the home particularly from the southern portion. She felt that could be addressed by lowering the height of the house. She questioned whether a study sess-ion would be appropriate. The architect for the applicant stated the idea of changing the orientation of the house is not very appropriate. Going to a U- shape would deny views from an entire portion of the house because of the hill behind it. The architect was agreeable to a study session. Commissioner Caldwell noted that one way of resolving the height issue with respect to the home without altering the style may be to reduce the square footage. Commissioner Caldwell amended her motion to continue DR-90-036 to a study session on February 19 and a public hearing on February 27. The motion carried on a 6-0 vote. Break 9:05 p.m. - 9:15 p.m. Planning Director Emslie reported that during the break the applicants for Item 9 (SD-90-007, Perry and Jones) and Item 11 • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 J Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued (V-90-034, Duncan) requested that their items be continued to the February 27 meeting. Chairperson Tucker requested motions for continuance of Items 9, 11 and 12. 12. DR-90-083 Sievert/Ball, 18549 Paseo Tierra, request for design review approval for an 874 sq. ft. first floor addition and a 632 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 1,473 sq. f•t. residence within the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-083 TO FEBRUARY 27, 1991. Passed 6-0. 11. V-90-034 Duncan, 19489 Rue De Glen Una, request for variance approval to legalize an existing 7 ft. high fence located in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------=--------------------------------------------- MORAN/FORBES• MOVED TO CONTINUE V-90-034 TO FEBRUARY 27, 1991. Passed 5-1• (Commissioner Durket opposed). Commissioners Caldwell and Durket stepped down on Item No. 9 because the project is in their immediate neighborhood. 9. SD-90-007 Perry & Jones, 13820 Ravenwood Dr., request for tentative map approval to subdivide a 1.34 acre parcel into three new parcels of approximately 19,000 sq. ft. each within the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code (cont. from 1/23/91). -------------------------------------------------------------- MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-90-007 TO FEBRUARY 27 ,. 1991. Passed 4-0. Commissioner Caldwell requested that she be allowed to address the Commission as a resident regarding Item No. 9. She requested that the Commission accept public testimony on this item due to the fact that a number of people were present regarding the item. There was no objection to the Commission taking testimony on Item No. 9, SD-90-007. However, Commissioner Bogosian requested that Chairperson Tucker make a time constraint on the parties. • -- • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Tucker requested that the neighbors present on the item choose a spokesperson to address the Commission regarding the item. She indicated that the Commission would only take testimony that has not been previously heard. Chairperson Tucker moved the agenda to Item No. 8 in order to allow those present for Item 9 time to .choose a spokesperson. Commissioners Caldwell and Durket were reseated on the Commission. 8. DR-90-057 Gault, 22068 Villa Oaks Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 5,943 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 1/23/91). -------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren reviewed the staff Memorandum dated February 13, 1991. The applicant was present and did not wish to address the Commission. MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-057. Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether it is within the Commission's authority to ask that the easement run with the land and remain in place. as long as the adjacent or beneficiary property is used for horse keeping. Commissioner Caldwell also questioned whether the plans call for any copper in the roofing material for the turret. The applicant responded that a copper cap is included and is an ornament piece. He said if it was a problem the material could be changed to roofing material. Commissioner Caldwell questioned whether any of the landscaping or grading is proposed within the scenic easement. Planner Walgren responded that since the last public hearing the plans were revised to eliminate the pad grading and to remove all of the ornamental landscaping from the easement. Commissioner Caldwell also questioned the total length of the home. Chairperson Tucker stated she did not know why that was pertinent because the matter was already voted on at the last meeting. In response to Commissioner Caldwell's first question, City Attorney Faubion indicated that the equestrian easement is a • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued u Page 13 private arrangement between-the Dalys and the Gaults and did not feel it was appropriate for the easement to run with the land. In response to Commissioner Moran's question regarding whether the Commission had the ability to ask that the easement be five feet wide, that it be usable by horse's and have a nominal cost, City Attorney Faubion responded that the Commission could not require that. For anything the Commission requires, it must have some jurisdictional grounds allowing it to do that and in this case it does not. The Commission could only suggest what it thought would be a good idea. Commissioner Moran reiterated her: previous motion for approval. Commissioner Forbes requested discussion. Chairperson Tucker responded that the item was not open for discussion because the approval was for the resolution. She questioned the City Attorney whether the item was open for discussion. In response to City Attorney Faubion~s question, Chairperson Tucker responded that the motion was to approve the resolution. City Attorney Faubion replied that it basically is approving the project and she believed there was no problem with discussion of the motion. Chairperson Tucker stated that she did not see the purpose of the discussion because the Commission already moved approval prior to this and directed staff to come back with the resolution. City Attorney Faubion questioned whether there was clarity that the approval has already been given. Planning Director Emslie responded that at the time when the Planning Commission took action it did not have in front of it conditions of approval nor the findings to grant that approval. It has been the position of the Planning Commission in the past that the action is considered final when the resolution is adopted. That is a procedure that should be examined by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has expressed rules for its conduct in dealing with subsequent adoption of resolutions but the Planning Commission did not have that at this point and his conference with the City Attorney indicated that the project is_not approved until the resolution is adopted and the appeal period has started and that has not transpired. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Tucker stated she had a problem with that because the applicant felt that they received approval. She also expressed concern that half of the Commission is new and has not sat in on the deliberations. Commissioner Durket indicated this situation was no different than any other in which the Commission had moved approval on in that the record is available and he has read it and is ready to rule on it. Chairperson Tucker responded that the primary difference is that this applicant left the Commission meeting thinking they had approval. She had no problem with Robert's Rules of Order and if somebody who was on the prevailing side cared to make a motion for reconsideration that would be agreeable. City Attorney Faubion said she did not have her notes from the last meeting but her recollection of the motion was for staff to draw up a resolution in accordance with the comments that the Commission made and did not recall an express approval or something akin to an approval. She recalled that the direction was not explicit at the last hearing. Her recollection was not that there was an approval but the approval was before the Commission at this meeting upon consideration of the resolution. She said the tapes could be reviewed to see precisely what the motion was. Commissioner Moran stated that her recollection was that it was basically an approval and the only loose end was the horse trail easement question and that the vote was taken on that package. That was left as a loose end because of the question as to whether the Commission had any authority to say what the situation should be with the easement. City Attorney Faubion responded that it is the resolution that embodies the approval. If somebody questions whether they have been approved, they are given a resolution and in this case it does not exist because it has not been voted on. Chairperson Tucker noted that in the past the Commission has always had resolutions come back on the consent calendar and approval has always been a formality. She concurred with Commissioner Moran that she thought that she was voting approval of that item. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, the applicant's representative, addressed the Commission. She had the tape with her and stated the tape very clearly closes the public hearing and clearly makes a motion to approve the design review application and then instructs the staff to return with a resolution with the question of the equestrian trail and the landscaping included in that. She said Mr. Emslie • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued heard that portion of the tape with her and there was no question in her mind that appropriate action tonight is to vote on the resolution. The applicant left with no indication that there were any loose ends to be tied up and believed that the public hearing was closed and the people to vote~on the resolution are those that attended the public hearing and voted on the motion. Chairperson Tucker said she. felt confident that the Commission did do what was indicated by Ms. Fanelli but if the City Attorney feels it would be in the best interest of the Commission to have her review it she was open to that. Commissioner Moran stated that if there was some ambiguity the Commission would value the advice of the City Attorney. The Commission wants to deal as fairly as it can with the applicant and the people who came and testified but at the same time she was not in favor of denying anybody on the Planning Commission their views on the matter. There should be some determination by the City Attorney as to what lines demarcate this project. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that her sense was that this was not very different from the Ebner case. Chairperson Tucker pointed out that Ebner was a reconsideration not a change. City Attorney Faubion questioned whether there was a concern that only those who voted for the apparent approval should then vote on whether the resolution conforms to that. Chairperson Tucker responded in the affirmative. Her other concern was that there might be a reconsideration and she did not think that a reconsideration was appropriate unless there were two people on the prevailing side, one making the motion and the other seconding it. There were three Commissioners present that were present during the last vote. She voted in favor of the proposal and was not willing to change her vote. City Attorney Faubion stated that under the Municipal Code the motion to reconsider must be made by one of the prevailing people, the second could come from anyone. Chairperson Tucker said that the main concern was to protect the City and questioned the City Attorney as~to her suggestion. City Attorney Faubion responded she did not have a ready answer and requested a recess.. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued • Page 16 Commissioner Moran stated she, too, was not willing to make a motion for reconsideration. In response to Commissioner Moran's question regarding the grading for the pool, Mr. Walgren responded that the concerns of the original resolution have been addressed since this item was last scheduled for a public hearing. When the plans were revised, the resolution was revised to remove those conditions. The staff memo discusses that the pool, the spa and the decking are now part of the application and can be approved. The condition in the resolution would be that the entire project be constructed. City Attorney Faubion and Planning Director Emslie left the meeting to confer on this item. Chairperson Tucker moved the agenda back to item 9. Item 9, SD-90-007 (Perry & Jones - continued from above Chairperson Tucker called for public testimony regarding this matter. Commissioners Caldwell and Durket stepped down. Planner Walgren reviewed the staff Memorandum dated February 13, 1991 and answered Commissioners' questions regarding the project. Mr. Richard Corson, 13831 Ravenwood Dr., addressed the Commission on behalf of the neighbors. He thanked .the staff for its consideration of the proposed modifications. He questioned how long continuances can go on and expressed concern that while plans are being developed the trees are suffering for lack of care. He distributed a list of additional modifications and technical corrections to the resolution proposed by the neighbors. Mr. Allen Stratten, 18407 Montpere Way, addressed the Commission and stated the reason for the driveway being thin is to get around the oak tree to prevent asphalt from being under the drip area. Commissioners Caldwell and Durket were reseated on the Commission. Chairperson Tucker moved the agenda back to item 8. Item 8, DR-90-057 (Gault - continued from above City Attorney Faubion assumed for purposes of this discussion that Mr. Emslie listened to the tape with the applicant and that the motion was to approve DR-90-057. She read from the zoning code on • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued design review findings which states: "The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the following findings:" Findings A through E are then listed. She indicated that without the resolution in front of the Commission it could not have made those findings except verbally. If there was an approval, her opinion was that it was an invalid approval because it was not accompanied by the required findings. If that was an approval, then the 15-day appeal period has been running during this time and people that might be interested in the project do not know the grounds for the action that was taken. City Attorney Faubion said she would be happy to work with the Commission and staff in drawing up some very detailed procedures to make sure that something like this does not come up again. She said her advice would be that it was not a valid approval and that is assuming that the tape is as the applicant and the Commissioners' recollection assumes. Chairperson Tucker said she is aware of what the findings are that need to be made for an application so when she votes for approval she knows those are the findings that she has to make otherwise she is voting for denial. She had difficulty with saying that if the Commission does not have the resolution either for denial or approval written out in front of them they cannot vote on a matter that night and it would extend the procedure. City Attorney Faubion responded that the Commission could make verbal findings and those could have been reviewed at the hearing and then request staff to draw up a resolution .that includes the findings discussed. Chairperson Tucker agreed that a written procedure should be available. However, the City has been working under the other system for years. She felt it would be fine to draw up a procedure but if the City were to run into a.legal problem with this case she felt it would run into it with all the other applications approved in the past. She expressed concern about fairness to the applicant. Commissioner Moran stated she was. also concerned about previous decisions that were made without a resolution in hand and questioned how those decisions would be affected. Mr. Emslie stated he has pointed out to the Commission numerous times that the action to be taken on a particular application is to direct staff to prepare a resolution and said that in this case he should have done it because that would have been the correct action because the Commission needs to have the findings and conditions before it before making a valid action. • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Faubion stated that it did not appear to her from the circumstances that the Commission has yet taken a final action. Chairperson Tucker questioned whether, if the Commission were to vote on the matter tonight, all Commissioners were eligible to vote even though they have not sat in on the previous proceedings. Ms. Faubion responded, that if a Commissioner is absent or is a new Commissioner they could qualify themselves and state for the record that they have reviewed the record and vote on the"matter. Chairperson Tucker stated that since there was nothing concrete as to how to proceed in this situation and since it has been done in the past, she was willing to let it be. Ms. Fanelli agreed that this process has been the one followed by the City for years. She read her notes taken from listening to the tape. She said she was not trying to exclude the new Commissioners from participating but felt it was an inappropriate process in this particular case. The applicant left the last meeting with no warning that this issue was unresolved. She suggested that if the Commission was following Robert's Rules of Order then a reconsideration would be appropriate. She stated that in farness to the applicant the process should be worked out. Commissioner Moran pointed out that she remarked at the last meeting that she was not at all enthusiastic about this application but her position is based on what she felt was the procedural and process issue. She did not believe the public hearing should be reopened and pointed out that the matter could be appealed or the City Council could call the matter up and reconsider it. In response to Commissioner Moran's question regarding the appeal period, Ms. Faubion responded that if the Commission was interpreting that the action taken previously was an approval the appeal period would have begun at that time. Commissioner Moran stated, and Chairperson Tucker agreed, that in the past the appeal period began when the resolution was signed. Chairperson Tucker called for a vote on the motion for approval of the resolution. Commissioner Durket stated that he read and reviewed the minutes and the application and is prepared to vote. He felt the home is still bulky and did not believe there was a lot of change between the first plan and the second plan especially with respect to the bulk. It seemed like the vertical elements were still profound. He agreed with staff's comments relative to limiting the height. •' • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Tucker pointed out that the motion under consideration was for approval of the resolution. City Attorney Faubion suggested amending the motion to approve the resolution as accurately presenting the Commission's approval of the project. Commissioner Durket questioned whether it would be possible to have a legal opinion on this issue. Ms. Faubion said an opinion could be provided and suggested a continuance until such an opinion could be provided. Commissioner Moran withdrew her motion for approval of the resolution. BOGOSIAN/DURKET MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-057 TO FEBRUARY 27 IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A LEGAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Moran requested clarification as to when the appeal period started if in fact there was an approval on this project. Chairperson Tucker reiterated her concerns as to whether all previous approvals would be invalidated. Commissioner Caldwell stated that since she has been on the Commission it has not been her experience that this is how the Commission has proceeded. It has always been her understanding that when a resolution comes before the Commission, the Commission is looking at .the whole project and is looking at the resolution and how it reflects the Commission's view of the project. Chairperson Tucker moved the agenda to item 10. 10. 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 new attached single family dwellings and underground parking and for variance to exceed the allowable height limit in the C-H zoning district per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. A Negative Declaration has been prepared per the CEQA guidelines. Mr. Walgren reviewed the staff Memorandum dated February 13, 1991. :~ i • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 20 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The Public Hearing was opened at 10:17 p.m. Mr. Lou Dorsich, architect for the project, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the background of the project. The applicant, Mr. Pache, addressed the Commission regarding the project. Mr. John DiManto, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission in support of the application. DURKET/MORAN MOVED THE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:31 P.M. Passed 6-0. DURKET/FORBES MOVED TO DIRECT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO PREPARE RESOLUTIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SD-90-004, UP-90-006, DR-90-039 AND V-90-031. Commissioner Durket said he visited the site and agreed with the speakers that one unit will not make a difference in the appearance of the project. Commissioner Moran stated her concern about the bulk of the project and the visibility of the project and agreed with the staff report on the mass of the project. She suggested that the Commission consider the possibility of reducing the overall size of the project but did not object to. having five condominiums. Commissioner Bogosian indicated he was impressed with the fact that the project will not be that noticeable from Big Basin Way. Commissioner Caldwell said she was inclined to support the project. Chairperson Tucker stated she visited the site, felt it was a good application and was willing to vote in favor of it. Commissioners Bogosian and Durket reported that they read and reviewed the application and were prepared to rule on it. Mr. Emslie restated the motion and added that all of the resolutions will include reference to adoption of the Negative Declaration which the Planning Commission reviewed at its previous hearing which concluded that the project as proposed will not have a significant impact on the environment. Commissioner Durket agreed that the motion as restated by Mr. Emslie was correct. The motion carried on a 6-0 vote. .• PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 21 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Bogosian stepped down on Item No. 13 because the project is in his immediate neighborhood. 13. DR-90-076 Shepherd, 10665 Lomita Ave., request for design review approval for a one and two-story addition to an existing one-story, single family residence in the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Chairperson Tucker noted receipt of a letter from Philip M. Adelson regarding the application and expressing concern regarding potential view impacts of a two-story home. Planner Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 13, 1991. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:43~p.m. The applicant addressed the Commission and stated his willingness to work with the neighbors regarding the project. MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:45 P.M. Passed 5-0. MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-076 TO MARCH 13, 1991 PER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Commissioner Moran stated she agreed with the staff report and requested that the cedar tree next to the garage be saved if possible. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Moran. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Commissioner Bogosian was reseated on the Commission. 14. SD-87-008.1 Sung (formerly Harbor Builders), 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., request to extend a tentative approval for a four-lot subdivision and a request to delete conditions requiring the construction of portions of the SW/NE Road which serves as access to the four-lot subdivision. ' Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 22 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated February 13, 1991 and answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposal. In response to Commissioner Moran's question regarding whether the Commission is required to make specific findings as to whether or not the applicant has good reasons for asking for an extension, Planning Director Emslie stated that the Planning Commission should not treat the granting of an extension lightly. The Commission has to state that there are specific changes or policy changes that have fundamentally affected the project and has to be very clear in stating that those are reasons for continuing the life of a project. City Attorney Faubion stated that the course of the map requires that the developer make progress in completing the conditions of the map. On the other hand, there is the context of time marching on and circumstances possibly changing. The Commission is permitted to add conditions if it wishes to do so if it makes findings of public health, safety and welfare. If the applicant and City are agreeable and there are no public health, safety and welfare concerns conditions can be deleted. She pointed out that a time extension is a discretionary decision and can be approved or denied. If the Commission has concerns about the project or the circumstances under which the project is being carried out, the Commission ought to consider denying the time extension and should be very specific about what the changes are. The public hearing was opened at 11:15 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant and reviewed the proposal in detail. She indicated that some of the requirements of the map have taken more than the anticipated time to complete as they require review and approval by outside agencies. These include the documents forming the new water district, the County is still reviewing the need for an encroachment permit, and the geologic review is currently being responded to. All of the other conditions of the map are ready to be finalized and the above-mentioned conditions have been resolved. Ms. Lucy Lofrumento, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the standard of review in circumstances such as this. She disagreed with Mr. Emslie's statement that at this point in time .the Commission has an opportunity based on the request for an extension to revisit the policy. She did not believe that was an accurate reflection of the law and stated her belief that under established cases in the law the Commission can make changes only if it affects the public health, safety and • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 23 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued welfare and that those have to be supported by specific findings. With respect to imposition of the additional cost on the road that has been proposed, Ms. Lofrumento noted the discussion that was held regarding waiting to see what the City does in terms of seeing what will happen with the road under the General Plan. She disagreed and said it has already been established by the Planning Commission that there is no direct link or nexus between this specific project and the need for such a wide road and it has already been established that it.does not meet the first test of nexus which is that it has to be relative to the burden imposed by the project and even if it were relative to this particular project that the cost is still out of line with what is reasonably imposed upon one owner. Mr. Jeff Schwartz, a resident of San Marcos Road, addressed the Commission. He spoke to two issues which he felt come up with the project. He requested that the Commission not do automatic extensions of tentative maps and the expectation should be that an extension not be granted unless there is strong reason to do so. He felt it did not serve the City to have situations where those extensions are expected and automatic. He also spoke to the settlement agreement in that for a number of years the settlement agreement has been invoked and then driven some bad decisions in the City. He felt that since the tentative map was approved for this project per the settlement agreement and since the development was not completed and the conditions were not met in time for final approval during the City's normal time limits the City could take the position that the City complied with the settlement agreement and the development simply did not come in during that time. Therefore, that would leave the Planning Commission free to consider the project on its merits rather than something that has to happen no matter what goes on at the public hearing because of the settlement agreement. Mr. Schwartz stated he had no case either way as far as approval or disapproval of the project or the specifics of it. In response to Commissioner Durket's question regarding a letter received with respect to the ownership of the property, Mr. Emslie noted that the letter. is part of the record. Ms. Dorrie Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, addressed the Commission and questioned whether the City is absolutely bound to the completion of this project by the terms of the settlement agreement. DURKET/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:25 P.M. Passed 6-0. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 24 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Caldwell requested that the City Attorney respond to. Ms. Lofrumento's assertion that the Commission can only make changes that affect the public health, safety and welfare and cannot reopen the process for policy reasons. She also requested a response.. as to the issues raised by Mr. Schwartz and Ms. Grens regarding the settlement agreement and the City's position with respect to the settlement agreement. City Attorney Faubion responded that with regard to the first question regarding the time extension for the tentative map, Ms. Lofrumento's statement is correct as far as adding conditions. If the Commission wishes to add a condition, it must make a finding that it is in the interest of public health, safety and welfare. It does not reopen the entire map and the Commission cannot reconsider everything that it considered on the first approval on the merits. All of that presupposes that there are going to be some circumstances where the public's health, safety and welfare might come into play. When there are general policy changes over time and land use theory and the application is too general, the policy considerations need to be tied down to very specific factors that would cause the Commission to have concerns about whether this is a safe, healthy land division for the Commission to be approving. She felt Mr. Schwartz' comment that time extensions should not be routinely approved was valid. On the other hand, they are clearly allowed in the Map Act and clearly do not merit the same amount of attention as the original approval does. Ms. Faubion stated that if there .are policies that the Commission is concerned about, they need to be tied to very specific public health, safety and welfare concerns in order for the Commission to revisit those particular concerns on the time extension. Regarding the questions on the settlement agreement, City Attorney Faubion responded that to some extent it relates back to the first comments on time extension. Irrespective of what the settlement agreement says; any approved land division is entitled to request a time extension under the Map, Act and other the City's own subdivision regulations. Therefore, even if there were no settlement agreement the request could be considered and approved or not approved. She stated .there may be a greater question as to the ongoing validity of the agreement and if the Commission wishes to direct the City Attorney to look into that, she would be glad to do so. She noted that the settlement agreement does not address everything and there are certain aspects of the case that are statutory. :a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 25 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Caldwell wondered if it would not be beneficial to have more input from staff in order to fully understand whether there are public health, safety and welfare issues at stake here and to fully understand whether or not the conditions set out in the settlement agreement, other than those set out in Condition~No. 7, have been met so that the applicant is entitled to tentative map extension. Planning Director Emslie responded that staff is stating a viable option for the Commission to take is that it does not need to make the decision tonight, that it can indicate its questions and request staff to look into a more detailed analysis in order to determine more specifically what conditions there may or may not be that warrant reevaluation of subdivision conditions of approval itself. Commissioner Durket stated he did not see how the Commission could vote on the approval or denial of the extension without the input from staff . Planning Director Emslie requested that the Commission direct staff to review the issues discussed and that such a discussion take place at study session. CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND ISSUES: (1) THE ONGOING VALIDITY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF WHICH BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE SUBDIVISION; (2) THE ISSUE OF .CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT WHICH WOULD LEGALLY APPLY TO THIS SUBDIVISION; AND (3) THE LAW, POLICY AND PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS SUBDIVISION IN ORDER FOR THE COMMISSION TO EVALUATE WHETHER THERE ARE PUBLIC. HEALTH OR SAFETY PROBLEMS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO REOPEN THE TENTATIVE MAP TO ADDRESS AND THAT THE MATTER BE CONTINUED TO A STUDY SESSION ON MARCH 5,.1991. MORAN/CALDWELL AMENDED THE MOTION TO REQUEST THAT ONCE IT IS DECIDED WHAT THE QUESTIONS MIGHT BE THEY BE LOOKED INTO. Commissioner Moran requested amendment of the motion and expressed concern about the Swine Road and questioned if it is premature to delete the Swine provisions at this time regardless of what the outcome may be since the Commission is about to look at the circulation element and questioned whether the Commission is "putting the cart before the horse" to take an action that makes a statement about Swine Road that may affect its future. She felt that the Commission should leave .its options more open in order to make a better planning decision. ..- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 26 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Durket felt that it was a clear-cut issue and felt that would require a separate motion; Commissioner Moran withdrew the amendment. The amendment carried on a 6-0 vote. The original motion carried on a 6-0 vote. DURKET/FORBES MOVED TO DELETE THE CONDITION REGARDING THE SW-NE ROAD. Commissioner Durket stated the issue is clear cut and was well addressed in the staff report. Chairperson Tucker agreed with Commissioner Moran that the General Plan and circulation element should be examined. Commissioner Caldwell suggesting putting off any further consideration of Swine Road until the circulation element has been dealt with. City Manager.Peacock stated he would be concerned about the Commission acting on this tonight .because there are implications to the decision on the road that tie into other conditions and it would be premature for the Commission to make a judgment on that without examining what the impacts are on some of the other conditions of the tentative map. He suggested that the Commission continue the entire matter to its study session. Commissioner Durket withdrew his motion. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS City Manager Peacock introduced Mr. Wayne Holland, architect. Messrs . Peacock and Holland reviewed the plans for the Civic Center in detail. Chairperson Tucker stated she was not prepared to make a decision tonight and suggested that the Commission be given the opportunity to study the plans. There was Commission consensus to discuss the matter at the study session on February 19, 1991. 1. Memo re: Village Noise Committee The Commission discussed the seven applications for the six positions on the Village Noise Committee. There was Commission consensus to expand the Committee to include seven members and to accept all seven applications. Mr. Peacock suggested that _. ~ ~, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 13, 1991 Page 27 DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Continued the Commission consider using a professional facilitator to get the Committee going. The Commission directed staff to prepare a letter ~to the City Council regarding the use of such a facilitator provided the Council has no objection to doing so. Chairperson Tucker indicated she would be willing to represent the Planning Commission on th'e Committee; Commissioner Durket said he would be the alternate. 2. Committee-of-the-Whole Report 1/29/91 3. Heritage Preservation Commission minutes 9/19/90 and 10/3/90 COMMISSION ITEMS Written 1. City Council Minutes Oral Commissioner Caldwell requested that election of a Vice Chairperson be agendized. Mr. Walgren noted that the final publication of the Village Design Guidelines was distributed. C~t~ Council Mr. Peacock reported on the City Council meeting. ADO '~IENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Rebecca Cuffman