Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-1991 Planning Commission minutes;" ~~~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: February 27, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Bogosian, Caldwell, Durket, Forbes and Moran. Commissioner Tappan arrived as noted below. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 2/13/91 minutes will be available at the 3/13/91 Planning Commission meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 22, 1991. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. HP-19 City of Saratoga, consider the proposal to designate the section of Saratoga Ave. between Fruitvale Ave. and 14301 Saratoga Ave. as a Heritage Lane. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the application and recommends approval of the designation pursuant to Article 13-15 of the City, Code (cont. to 4/10/91). -------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 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 3/5/91 study session and 3/13/91 public hearing). -------------------------------------------------------------- 3. V-90-040 Bennett, 21131 Canyon View Dr., request for variance approval to reduce an interior side yard setback from 20 ft. to 15 ft. in order to allow a 110 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,631 sq. ft. home in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 3/13/91). -------------------------------------------------------------- :. r~ i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 4. SM-90-008 Freiman, 14870 Three Oaks Way, request for site modification approval to construct a pool/spa, three (3) accessory structures, and hardscape to a recently constructed one-story, 6,114 sq. ft. home in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 4. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC BEARINGS ~- SD-90-004 Pache, 14555 Big Basin Way, resolutions approving ~-.1.,_UP-90-00~ tentative approval for a two parcel subdivision; ~DR-90-039 for a use permit to allow residential development ~V-90-031 in a commercial zoning district; for design review '` -~-J 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. (public hearing closed 2/13/90). Planning Director Emslie presented a staff update and suggested the following corrections to the resolutions: In Resolution No. DR-90-039 staff, suggested that Condition No. 12 be altered to read: "Applicable School Development fees shall be paid to the appropriate agency prior to permit issuance." The City Engineer suggested a change to Resolution No. SD-90-004 that was a product of a discussion he had with the applicant's architect. He suggested deletion, of Condition No. 9 as worded in the resolution with replacement; of the condition as follows: "Prior to final map approval the applicant shall reimburse the City for the cost of installing the sidewalk on Fourth Street along the San Jose Water Company's property., The reimbursement amount shall be determined by the City Engineer based on his estimate of the cost of installing the sidewalk and shall also include the cost of modification to the water company's building to accommodate the sidewalk." In Resolution No. V-90-031 on the first page in the third "Whereas" clause in the paragraph beginning "Exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances..." the last sentence should be amended to '~'r - .,, : -,- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued read: "To match the existing floor elevations a height variance is required. Due to the sloping topography the height variance is necessary." CALDWELL/DURKET MOVEDfTO APPROVE V-90-031 WITH THE CORRECTIONS - g_ ---------------- INDICATED BY STAFF.--Passed 6- CALDWELL/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO~APPROVE DR-90-03~ WITH THE CORRECTIONS INDICATED BY STAFF. Passed 6-0._( CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO ~APPROVE~UP-90-006 1 Passed 6-0~ S ---- - - -~ CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO ~APPROVE~.SD-9-0-004 WITH THE CORRECTIONS INDICATED BY STAFF. Passed 6-0_.~ The applicant. requested clarification of Condition No. 9 to Resolution No. SD-90-004. Mr. Emslie responded that it was his understanding that the change suggested by the City Engineer addressed the concerns raised by the applicant. The applicant is not being held responsible for constructing the sidewalk. The City is only asking for the applicant's proportionate share of the cost since future residents of the project will be using the project side of the street for pedestrian purposes, and the City Engineer feels that there is a direct connection between the project and the improvement. Therefore, it was recommended that be made part of the resolution. Mr. Pache also requested clarification of Condition No. 10 of Resolution No. SD-90-004. He requested that the condition be worded that he is only to be held responsible for Big Basin Way and Fourth Street strictly on what is adjacent to his property. Mr. Emslie responded that the intent is only to consider frontage improvements and that could be made clear on the record or the Planning Commission could add language to make certain that it is for frontage improvements only. 6. DR-90-057 Gault, 22068 Villa Oaks Ln., 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 2/13/91). -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Emslie mentioned that this afternoon the applicant informed staff that neither they nor their representatives would be unable to attend the meeting and requested a continuance to March 13. ~ "_ '~ PLANNING. COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-057 TO MARCH 13, 1991. In response to Commissioners' questions, Planner Walgren stated he spoke to the applicant's architect this afternoon and apparently the applicant was under the impression that his representative had formally requested a continuance a week ago. The applicant's representative is out of town, and the applicant was unaware until he received a copy of the report that the application was scheduled for this hearing. Staff did not ,receive a request in the mail or verbally for a continuance, but neither the applicant's representative, the applicant nor the architect were available for this meeting. Mr. Emslie noted that the application was accepted as complete on September 17; therefore, the six-month deadline would be March 17. There is a provision for a 90-day extension.. The applicant has requested one previous continuance; the last continuance was Planning Commission initiated. The applicant can request as many continuances as he wants, but the Code does allow for the assessment of a fee for second continuances. The motion carried on a 6-0 vote. Commissioners Caldwell and Durket stepped down on the following item because the project is in their immediate neighborhood. Commissioner Tappan arrived during discussion of the following item; he stated that he would vote on the item because he had attended some of the public meetings and has reviewed the notes and minutes of recent meetings. 7. 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 2/13/91). Mr. Walgren reviewed the staff memorandum dated February 27, 1991. Mr. Ron Jones of Perry and Jones Development addressed the Commission regarding a letter submitted to staff on February 22. He stated that. the conditions spelled out in the resolution by staff serve the best purpose of compatibility and, therefore, he can accept those conditions. 'e.L; i.L • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms.•Roberta Corson, 13831 Ravenwood Dr., distributed and discussed a list of the neighbor's concerns. She requested that the homes be limited to 16 feet and expressed concern regarding the care of the trees. Mr. Jones addressed the neighbors.' concerns. Since there appears to be continual comparison that there be some compatibility to the houses across the street, Mr. Jones pointed out that Lot A is the only house that is the same setback as the houses across the street. If the applicant is to be held to a standard of comparison, it needs to be uniform throughout. He did not believe, with the setbacks, and the style of homes, 18 feet versus 16 feet is significant and he did not believe the difference would be noticeable. He said the setback for Lot A is mandated because of where the trees are. MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:12 P.M. Passed 5-0. MORAN/TAPPAN MOVED APPROVAL OF SD-90-007. Commissioner Forbes noted that he made a request. at. the prior pu-blic hearing that the applicant submit a two-lot plan and questioned why that was not done. Mr . Walgren responded that the two-lot option was reviewed at a study session. He acknowledged that Commissioner Forbes mentioned the two-lot plan, but there was never a motion made by the Commission or a consensus reached;to direct the applicant to bring the two-lot configuration back for Commission review. Commissioner Forbes stated he did not believe it was right for a developer to buy a piece of property and put in a subdivision which is opposed by every resident that has taken the opportunity to write to the Commission. Therefore, he was not in favor a three- lot configuration. He also indicated that it is his policy to allow only one continuance for any reason whatsoever. He did not believe it was fair to the neighbors to have to attend several meetings. Chairperson Tucker suggested that the Commission discuss the latter issue at a later time. Commissioner Bogosian expressed concern that the development will end up being estate-type buildings rather than ranch-style type buildings which would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. He did not feel a 16-foot height limitation would unreasonably hamper the architect in deciding what kind of . • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Page 6 buildings to put on the lots and it would be more in character with the rest of the neighborhood and allow easier construction of ranch-style homes. He suggested modification of Condition No. 19 to read that the height of the houses be limited to 16 feet. He also suggested the addition of a condition to the resolution that the buildings that will be put on the lots be ranch-style houses with materials that are consistent with ranch-style development. He requested that the original Condition No. 23 be reinserted to say that the driveways would not exceed 16 feet. Commissioner Bogosian also indicated that he would like to see the tree preservation measures taken care of before the grading permit is issued. He said he would also like to see a condition inserted that the developer take steps to maintain the trees immediately. Commissioner Tappan pointed out that what was before the Commission was a subdivision not a design review. He said there is adequate protection for the Commission in the design review process to ensure that all of Commissioner Bogosian's will be addressed. Chairperson Tucker stated the issue with the subdivision appears to be compatibility and understood the neighbors' concerns. She felt the Commission should distinguish between compatibility and identical twins. She believed it was unfair for the developer to limit a subdivision and make it more restrictive for the new subdivision and place demands on that subdivision that are not placed on the surrounding neighborhood. In particular, she referred to item 19 which limit's the height to 18 feet. She requested clarification from staff regarding the height limitations for the R-1-10,000 zone. Mr. Walgren responded that the height limitation is 26 feet. Chairperson Tucker said she could not say that she would necessarily approve a 26-foot home in that neighborhood but if someone requested to do so she would review it for compatibility. She indicated she would not have any difficulty conditioning the homes to a height restriction, but to have that restriction go with the lay of the land when the neighbors could request a remodel was not, in her opinion, fair. She also had difficulty with the fact that someone who purchases one of the homes would have to go through a design review again for a remodel such as a 100 sq. ft. bathroom. She pointed out that the neighbors are not asked to do that. She was in agreement with the neighbors that the subdivision be compatible with the surrounding homes in the area. She agreed with Commissioner Tappan that the Commission has gone beyond giving a tentative map approval. .- • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Forbes supported Commissioner Bogosian's comments regarding the trees and stated that the trees are essential to the mood of the neighborhood and should be protected. Commissioner Tappan agreed with Commissioner Forbes regarding the trees. and said he could not imagine the developer destroying the trees because they are part of the appeal of the neighborhood. Commissioner Forbes requested that be incorporated into the resolution. Mr. Walgren reviewed the tree preservation conditions and answered Commissioners' questions. ' Commissioner Bogosian stated he would be unable to vote in favor of the application unless something is done along the lines of what he previously suggested. Commissioner Tappan pointed out that Condition- No. 24 provides tremendous protection for the trees. BOGOSIAN/FORBES AMENDED THE MOTION TO CONDITION THE PROPOSAL TO MODIFY CONDITION NO. 19 TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS TO 16 FEET; THAT A CONDITION BE ADDED THAT THE HOUSES BE RANCH-STYLE IN CONSTRUCTION AND THAT MATERIALS BE IN CONFORMITY WITH EXISTING RESIDENCES; THAT CONDITION NO. 21 BE MODIFIED TO SAY THAT THE SETBACK IS 45 FEET ON LOT A; THAT CONDITION NO. 23 BE MODIFIED TO READ THAT DRIVEWAYS SHALL NOT EXCEED 16 FEET IN WIDTH; THAT A CONDITION BE ADDED THAT NO GRADING PERMIT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES ARE CONFIRMED TO BE IN PLACE BY THE CITY ARBORIST; THAT TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES BE ENFORCED IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS ANY DELAY IN APPROVAL OF THE MAP. Commissioner .Moran stated she agreed with the staff report regarding the proposed 16 foot height limit. The Commission is looking for homes that are compatible with the neighborhood but is also willing to look at homes that are not exact replicas of the neighbors' homes., She did not disagree with the portion of the motion regarding the ranch-style construction and materials compatible with the existing residences and would be willing to put that into the agreement but felt those issues could be dealt with at the design review stage. Regarding the 45-foot setback, she expressed concern that the trees in the back of the lot would be done a disservice. She said she would be willing to go back to the 16-foot driveway if the Commission feels that would be more compatible with the neighborhood. However, she would like to see the driveway be as wide as the garage . Regarding the condition that no grading permit be issued until tree preservation measures • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued are in place, she said she did not disagree with that but that is something that is normally handled during the design review process. The amendment failed on a 2-3 vote (Commissioners Moran, Tappan and Tucker opposed). BOGOSIAN/MORAN AMENDED THE MOTION TO ADD A CONDITION THAT THE BUILDINGS BE RANCH-STYLE WITH CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN CONFORMITY WITH EXISTING RESIDENCES; THAT CONDITION NO. 23 BE MODIFIED TO READ "DRIVEWAY APPROACHES SHALL NOT EXCEED 16 FEET IN WIDTH"; AND THAT CONDITION NO. 24 BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT NO GRADING PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED UNTIL THE TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES ARE CONFIRMED TO BE IN PLACE BY THE CITY ARBORIST. Following Commissioners' comments, Mr. Emslie stated that the last amendment suggested by Commissioner Bogosian is implicit in the conditions and if the Planning Commission wanted to be overt and add that suggested language, it would in no way change the City's procedures or the meeting of the conditions of the tree preservation plan except for the fact that it would state very directly that no permits, grading or otherwise, will be issued before tree preservation. Commissioner Tappan stated that he had no trouble amending Condition No. 24 even though he 'felt the amendment was implicit already in that condition because he was concerned about the trees . He did not agree with the modification to Condition No. 23 and the other amendment because that is an issue that will be before the Commission during the design review process. Commissioner Bogosian felt that inclusion of the conditions would streamline the process in the future. He reiterated that he was unable to vote in favor of the original resolution. Regarding Commissioner Moran's questions concerning the driveway, Mr. Walgren stated the revision was made with the feeling that it would not have significant negative impacts one way or the other whether it is 16 feet or 20 feet. In response to Commissioner Tappan's question regarding whether the Commission would be subverting the planning process by including design review issues at the subdivision stage, City Attorney Faubion responded that the Commission would not be subverting the process but has run into some of the gray areas of the planning law as it should be applied. When the Commission is deciding upon a subdivision, implicit in the decision is whether the Commission feels the lots can reasonably be built on in a manner consistent :~ _ :~." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 19,91 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued with subsequent planning principles. To some extent review of a subdivision can implicate design review considerations such as grading. She pointed out that the one thing to remember on a subdivision is that there is a piece of property and one ownership to the extent that some common action is needed rather than dealing with individual landowners. Commissioner Tappan questioned whether the City has sufficient protection if the Commission approves the subdivision and requires certain specifications as to design review. Ms. Faubion responded that there is sufficient protection. These issues will come back through the design review process .and the question becomes how much of all of those issues does the Commission want to face with each separate landowner. She said the proposed amendments were not clearly over the line but obviously do foreclose some options for future landowners. To the extent that the Commission wants development of that property limited that way then that would be its decision if the amendments are voted on. The amendment failed on a 2-3 vote (Commissioners Moran, Tappan and Tucker opposed). MORAN/TAPPAN AMENDED THE MOTION TO INDICATE THAT THE RESTRICTION ON THE HEIGHT ON THE HOUSES BE FOR THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION ONLY SO THAT ALL NEIGHBORS WOULD BE EQUITABLY TREATED AFTER THE HOUSES ARE BUILT. Chairperson Tucker indicated that she was not comfortable with restricting the applicant to 3,000 sq. ft. because it will tie the applicant's hands. The amendment carried on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Bogosian and Forbes opposed). TUCKER/TAPPAN AMENDED THE MOTION TO AMEND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT OF CONDITION NO. 19 TO AT LEAST 3,200 SQUARE FEET. Commissioner Bogosian mentioned the neighbor's concerns about excessive bulk and height on the buildings and the possibility of having a building that is not in conformity with the rest of the neighborhood. He did not believe that 3,000 sq. ft. was unreasonable and stated it still gave the building a tremendous amount of flexibility. The amendment carried on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Bogosian and Forbes opposed). v~.. :•i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 • Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Faubion clarified that the original motion was to approve the tentative map with the findings and conditions and the amendment to Condition No. 19 of the resolution; Commissioner Moran clarified that was the motion.. The original motion carried on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Bogosian and Forbes opposed). Commissioners Caldwell and Durket were reseated on the Commission. Break 9:10 p.m. - 9:25 p.m. 8. V-90-034 Duncan, 19489 Rue De Glen variance approval to legalize high fence located in the R-1-4 per Chapter 15 ~of the City 2/13/91). ------------------------------------------- Mr. Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. Una, request for an existing 7 ft. 0,000 zone district Code (cont. from ------------------- February 27, 1991. Mr. Paul Duncan, 19489 Rue De Glen Una, addressed the Commission regarding his application. He did not believe it was fair to call the fence a 7-foot fence because it is a step design and is an average height of about 6.5 ft. With final filling and landscaping, the average would be about 6 ft. 3 in. He also indicated and that the elevation of his garage parking area is about 4 ft. above the neighbors and headlights from cars at night would shine right into the neighbor's living room so the maximum height of fence is needed. Mr. Mike' McConnell, Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., addressed _the Commission in support of the variance. He said he intends to apply for a sound wall later this year, at which point the applicant's fence would be totally nonvisible to the public. FORBES/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:35 P.M. Passed 7-0. DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DENY V-90-034. Commissioner Forbes stated he did not see any sensible reason to deny the variance at this time. He stated he felt the fence is an attractive structure and did not see any reason to tear it down. Commissioner Bogosian indicated he was bothered by the fact that the variance was requested after the fact and could not make the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued second finding listed in the resolution regarding the granting of a special privilege. Commissioner Durket said he made the motion because he could not make the findings. Commissioner Moran stated she understood the applicant's frustration and believed that if the variance had come before the Commission prior to construction of the fence she would not have been able to find that the variance would not constitute a grant of a special privilege. There are limitations on other properties in the vicinity, and this fence is not in conformity with those limitations. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioners Moran and Durket. The motion carried on a 6-1-1 vote (Commissioner Forbes was opposed; Commissioner Tappan abstained). 9. 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. ft. residence within the R-1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 2/13/91). Commissioner Caldwell reported on the land use visit. Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 13, 1991. He stated he spoke today with the applicant's representative who had concerns about wording of one of the conditions (Condition No. 5) that the tent structure, the inoperative vehicles and the debris on the property be removed from site prior to zone clearance. The applicant's representative requested that the condition be amended to have these items be removed from the site prior to final occupancy since there will be debris on the site during construction of the renovation. The public hearing was opened at 9:45 p.m. Mr. Scott Cunningham, 14375 Saratoga Ave., addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant regarding the project. FORBES/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. Passed 7-0. v` :.1, ~ ~ ~ ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-083 WITH A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO. 5 THAT ALL TENT STRUCTURES, STORED VEHICLES, ETC. , BE REMOVED PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY. Commissioners Durket and Bogosian stated that they read and reviewed the record regarding this item and are prepared to vote on it. Commissioner Bogosian stated that, in addition, he visited the site and believed this is a tasteful design and will be an immense improvement to the area and is prepared to vote in favor it. Commissioner Durket indicated that he, too, visited the site and agreed with Commissioner Bogosian's comments. Chairperson Tucker said she had. no concern over the remodeling of the home but expressed concern with the existing shed in the back yard that, if looked at as an accessory structure, would cause the project to be over the allowable limit even though the shed is not defined by the City Code as an accessory structure. She felt that the perception of excessive bulk would be maximized if the applicant were not asked to remove that structure. Mr. Cunningham responded that the applicant complied with all City requirements in order to put the shed in and by the City Code definition it is not counted as floor area. Chairperson Tucker stated that to her the structure is an accessory structure and felt the Commission should consider how it wanted to view such structures in the future and have the Code reflect those views. She said she would be amenable to voting in favor of the application with an amendment to the condition that states that the shed will not be used as a second unit or guest house. TUCKER/DURKET AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT THE SHED ON THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE USED AS A SECOND UNIT OR GUEST HOUSE. The amendment carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained). The motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained). Commissioner Tappan indicated that he abstained on this item and the previous item and would abstain on the remaining items because he was not prepared to vote on the items. • . l • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING , February 27, 1991 Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 10. AZO-90-009 City of Saratoga, a draft ordinance to establish regulations concerning the placement of, real estate signs in all zone districts within the City of Saratoga (cont. from 1/9/91). Mr. Emslie reviewed the staff memorandum dated February 27, 1991. The public hearing was opened at 10:05 p.m. Mr. Eric Morley, Legislative Advocate for the Los Gatos-Saratoga Board of Realtors, addressed the Commission regarding the proposal. He expressed concern regarding the provision that there should not be more than two open house signs at any intersection because it would be difficult to identify who placed the additional signs. Mr. Emslie responded that if there were more than two signs at an intersection all signs would be ,considered noncomplying and the Code Enforcement Officer would remove all of them. Mr. Morley suggested as an alternative proposal to the provision that there should be no more than one sign per direction per intersection. That would maximize the use of each sign and would allow for more than two signs per intersection in some cases but would be a fair way to assess an issue from a Code Enforcement Officer's position. This could be done by increased cooperation within the real estate community. Mr. Bill Murphy, 12150 Saraglen Dr., addressed the Commission regarding the above-mentioned provision. Mr. Morley also discussed the staff recommendation regarding the issue of A-frame signs versus stake signs. He said that because of the drought, it is difficult to drive stakes into the ground. He stated that many communities discourage stake signs because of safety .reasons. Mr. Morley indicated that those who are violating the sign ordinance should be penalized and not those who are attempting to comply. The Board is concerned about the administration process of having an annual encroachment fee and the enforcement of that because of liability and financial issues. Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, addressed the Commission and suggested that numbers be placed on the open house signs in order to identify the agents to whom they belong. ,... ::. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued DURKET/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:28 P.M. Passed 7-0. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE~NO.. 71. Commissioner Caldwell stated she seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Emslie discussed the suggestion regarding one sign in an intersection for each direction and indicated that worked very well in a community in which he worked in the past with the use of generic signs. . Commissioner Bogosian said he was inclined to agree with several of the considerations regarding A-frame signs and was in favor of a numbering system for identification of the signs as was suggested. Commissioner Moran felt that persuasive reasons were offered and she could support the use of A-frames. She also was agreeable to an amendment to restriction No. 8 to include independent as well as real estate company people and would include affiliates as well as employees although she was not in favor of including homeowners in that provision. Commissioner Tappan commented that he believed homeowners were, in some cases, more abusive than some of the realtors with regard to placing signs. CALDWELL/DURKET MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO AMEND SECTION 1(A)(1) TO PROVIDE THAT THERE BE ONE SIGN PER DIRECTION PER INTERSECTION; THAT SECTION 1(A)(2) BE AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR A-FRAME STYLE SIGNS; THAT SECTION 1(A)(8) BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS FOR EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENTS AND AFFILIATES; THAT SECTION B BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR A CITATION PROCESS WHERE THERE IS DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS VIOLATED THE ORDINANCE AND ALSO TO ALLOW FOR THE SIGNS TO BE SOLD BACK TO THE REAL ESTATE COMPANIES, THEIR EMPLOYEES, INDEPENDENTS OR AFFILIATES. In response to Chairperson Tucker's question regarding how. the Commission could provide for review of whether the A-frame signs are working, Mr. Emslie responded that the Commission could provide direction to staff to review the provision one year after the effective date of the ordinance. The motion on the amendment carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained). • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The motion on the original motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained). Mr. Murphy requested that the Commission also consider an amendment to extend closing time of open houses to sundown. CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 71 TO AMEND THE LAST PHRASE OF SECTION 1(A)(9) TO READ "AND NO LATER THAN SUNDOWN." The motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained). 11. V-91-001 Park; 14800 Masson Ct., request for variance approval to allow a 5 ft. tall ornamental iron fence with 6 ft. brick columns to be located within a required front setback. An exception request is also part of the application to allow a greater than 4,000 sq. ft. area of enclosure within the Saratoga Heights subdivision and NHR district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- Using an overhead projector, Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1991. The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m. Mr. Maurice Camargo, the architect for the project, addressed the Commission and described the project. He said the purpose of the fence was to secure the front area of the house for the family. Mr. Joseph Park, applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the project and pointed out that the primary reason for construction of , the fence is a safety issue as he 'has 'a small child. He distributed a copy of a petition signed by the neighbors in support of the fence. Ms. Marie Rose Gaspar, 14754 Pierce Road, addressed the Commission in support of the proposal. FORBES/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:03 P.M. Passed 7-0. FORBES/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE .THE ENCLOSURE WITH THE OPEN WIRE FENCE AND DEFER THE REST OF THE FENCING PROPOSAL TO A STUDY SESSION. Commissioner Caldwell indicated. she seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Caldwell stated she could not make the variance findings but could make the area of enclosure findings and still address the safety issue referred to by the applicant. She suggested taking a fence across the east property line behind the existing oak grove and running the fence straight up to the end of the house. That would allow the area to be enclosed so a child could not exit the area and would eliminate the visibility problem addressed by staff. , Commissioner Bogosian concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's proposal. He said he could not make the variance findings. Commissioner Moran agreed with the previous discussion. She indicated she was not prepared to vote in favor of the motion on the floor. She did not believe it was necessary to have a study session on the variance. Commissioner Durket agreed with Commissioner Moran and was agreeable to Commissioner Caldwell's proposal. Commissioner Forbes stated he would be in favor of Commissioner Caldwell's proposal and withdrew his motion. MORAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO DENY V-91-001 PER THE STAFF REPORT. The motion carried on a 5-1-1: vote (Commissioner Forbes was opposed; Commissioner Tappan abstained). BOGOSIAN/DURKET MOVED TO ACCEPT: THE ENCLOSURE PORTION OF THE APPLICATION PER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. A discussion ensued wherein Mr. Emslie suggested the Commission vote on the staff recommendation plus the additional fencing previously discussed with the condition that if there is any disagreement between staff and the applicant, the applicant can come back to the Commission for clarification. That would enable the applicant to review the specific location of the additional fencing. with staff. CALDWELL/DURKET MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO PERMIT ENCLOSURE OF THE BACK YARD AREA AND FENCE ALONG THE OAK GROVE AREA ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE EXTENDING AT THE END OF THE OAK GROVE AREA TO THE END OF THE HOUSE. The motion on the amendment carried on a 5-1-1 vote (Commissioner Moran was opposed; Commissioner Tappan abstained). ..: - ;i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . February 27, 1991 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The original motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained). Due to the lateness of the hour, the following items were continued. 13. DR-91-005 Lazares, 19209 Panorama Dr., request for design review approval for a 427 sq. ft. first floor addition and a 1,272 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing 4,565 sq. ft. single-story residence in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- 14. V-91-002 Bullock, 12901 Pierce Rd., request for variance approval to allow a 404 sq. ft. room addition to ,encroach 10 ft. into a 20 ft. required side yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The addition follows the existing nonconforming wall line of the house. The subject property is within the R-1-40,000 zone. -------------------------------------------------------------- CALDWELL/DURKET MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS 13 AND 14 TO MARCH 13, 1991. 12. UP-90-012 Couch, 18859 Dundee Ave., request for use permit approval to allow a 500 sq. ft. detached garage to be located .within a rear yard setback to exceed the allowable height limitation by 4'6" in the R- 1-10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1991. The public hearing was opened at 11:31 p.m. Mrs. Sheila Couch, applicant, addressed the Commission regarding the proposal and had no objection to the staff recommendation. Mr. Mike Couch also addressed the Commission regarding the proposal. DURKET/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:35 P.M. Passed 7-0. N~ + PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued CALDWELL/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE UP-90-012 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Durket addressed Mr. Couch's comments and stated he did not believe variance findings could be made in the situation and was comfortable approving the proposal recommended. Commissioner Moran pointed out that the applicant was free to file an application for a variance on the setback at any time. Chairperson Tucker asked if the Commission would entertain condition to prevent using the garage as a second unit or guest house because of its location and potential future impacts. TUCKER/MORAN AMENDED THE MOTION TO ADD A CONDITION THAT THE GARAGE WILL NOT BE USED AS A SECOND UNIT OR GUEST HOUSE BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AND POTENTIAL FUTURE IMPACTS. The amendment to the motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained. The motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Tappan abstained. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Committee-of-the Whole Report 2/19/91 2. Heritage Preservation Minutes 11/7/90 and 12/5/90 3. Mr. Emslie reported that the California League of Cities Planning Commissioner Institute is scheduled for March 20-22 in Monterey. He requested that the Commissioners notify staff as soon as possible if they wish to attend. 4. Mr. Emslie announced that the tentative date for the Planning Commission's retreat is the weekend of April 20. He requested that Commissioners inform him if the date is acceptable. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS 1. Commissioner Forbes mentioned the concerns he discussed earlier in the meeting regarding the continuation of .agenda items. He said he felt that the continuation of agenda items time after time is a denial of the right of the neighbors to be heard, is putting undue effort on the Commission and is a waste of time in general. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 r~ Page 19 COMMUNICATIONS Continued Commissioner Durket agreed with Commissioner Forbes and proposed that the Commission handle such requests with more consideration as opposed to granting a continuance routinely. He felt continuances should be granted in the same manner a court would grant a continuance, and consideration should be given as to whether the reason for the continuance is valid. Mr. Emslie stated that one continuance or grace period is allowed for in the Code. The second continuance should be discussed as an action of equal weight to that of the project approval. He said that when a request for a continuance is made of staff, staff never gives any assurance that the Commission will grant the request. He suggested that there be a written policy regarding continuances and also suggested that the Commission take a general overview of all Commission procedures at the March 19 study session. Chairperson Tucker requested that be the only item on the study session agenda in order to allow the Commission to focus on the issues that need to be ironed out. Commissioner Moran requested that a discussion be included regarding the Commission's policy relative to the period of time between Commission direction to staff to prepare a. resolution and the approval of a resolution. Chairperson Tucker stated that the procedures need to be discussed and put in writing so they are clear cut. Commissioner Durket questioned whether there is anything that can be done about people in the public hearings repeating what is written in their letters. Chairperson Tucker responded that the public hearing is an opportunity for the applicant to be heard, and applicants may feel they want to emphasize a particular point in their letters, and she felt they have a right to do that. Commissioner Tappan pointed out that the process is one of letting people air their views and vent their emotions. Commissioner Bogosian stated he understood Commissioner Durket's concerns but felt it should be made clear that this is not a court proceeding but a more informal proceeding. Commissioner Tappan said he viewed his role of a Commissioner as a balancing act and stated it is necessary to give both the .~.~,~ .~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 27, 1991 Page 20 applicant and the neighbors every opportunity to air their views. Commissioner Caldwell requested that the issue of ex parte communications be placed on the study session agenda. She felt it would be a good topic for the Commission to discuss because the Commission is a quasi-judicial body, there is plenty of opportunity for ex parte contacts, and the process is served by the Commissioners being as open as possible about ex parte contacts. Commissioner Moran suggested that the Commission also discuss the idea of trying to make motions to keep the meeting focused and moving along. 2. Commissioner Caldwell requested that election of Vice Chairperson be placed on the agenda. Mr. Emslie responded that since Chairperson Tucker's term is about to expire a Vice Chairperson would be elected when a new Chairperson is elected. Written 1. City Council Minutes Oral City Council Commissioner h~ioran reported on the City Council meeting. AD.TOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned ~~ 11:55 p,m. Rebecca Cuffman r l.. ~ f>1 ` Verbatim Excerpt f~ 2/27/91 Planning Commis:~~ minutes. Commissioner Caldwell: "I have another item for that meeting. If we could please discuss ex parte communications and any policy we would like to adopt with respect to them." Commissioner Tappan: "What the hell is an ex parte communica- tion?" Commissioner Durket: "Meeting with an applicant outside of this forum. In Latin it means without a party." Commissioner Tappan: "Tell me again Meg, run that by me again, you want to open that up for discussion, and you think there have been some abuses there or what?" Commissioner Caldwell: "Did I say that?" Commissioner Tappan: "No I just want to know what the motivation is for placing it on the future agenda for discussion." Commissioner Caldwell: "I thought it would be a good item for us to discuss. We are a quasi-judicial body and there is certainly plenty of opportunity for ex parte contacts, and I think the process is only served by our being as open as possible about the ex party contacts." Commissioner Tappan: "Ok." Chairperson Tucker: "So, and this includes like telephone calls with an applicant or someone, then you just say I'm sorry I cannot......" Commissioner Durket: "No, you can actually say in a public hearing, okay, I just want to let people know I'm prepared to rule on this, but I had a discussion with the developer, I have had discussion with the resident, I have had lunch with the owner of the property. It is not something that excludes you from voting, it is just you have to say it so people know you are being open, just and fair and that they can question you on that. Chairperson Tucker: " Ok, put it on." 1