Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-1991 Planning Commission minutes. ~ ~> ~,.- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: April 10, 1991 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Bogosian, Caldwell, Durket, Forbes, and Tucker. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 3/27/91 Minutes will be available at the 4/24/91 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS' Col. E. T. Barco addressed the Commission regarding the Peninsula tours he arranged for the Commissioners in the past. He indicated he would no longer be conducting the tours. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 5, 1991. Technical Corrections to Packet Material: None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR:' 1. 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 the annexation of the property to the NHR zone district which included a review of the golf course expansion. The relocation of an underground gas storage tank to a new above ground location is also part of this application (cont. to 3/24/91 at request of applicant). -------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 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 .. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 2. ROS Zone lot sizes, setbacks, permitted and conditionally (cont'd) 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 4/16 Study Session and ------------ 4/24/91 public hearing). -----------------=------------------ 3. SD-87-008.1 -------------- Serena Investments (Sung), 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., request to extend a tentative map approval for a ------------ four-lot subdivision (cont. to 4/24/91). -------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS• 4. DR-90-070 Namimatsu, 14510 Sobey Rd. (Singing Hill Ct.), request for design review approval to demolish an existing home and construct a new one-story, 6,808 sq. ft. residence within the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. from 3/13/91). The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Don Snider, the applicant's architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the accessory structure was redesigned and relocated to enhance the view from the residence; he was able to save the mature landscaping; and was able to save a substantial amount of grading. He questioned Condition No. 20 of the Resolution. Planner Walgren responded that Condition No. 20 was included at the request of the Central Fire District to provide a fire hydrant at the terminus of Singing Hill Court. The applicant objected to the expense of installing. the fire hydrant and believed that if a hydrant is necessary it should have been installed when the subdivision was approved in 1979. After further discussion and clarification with the Central Fire District and the City Attorney, Condition No. 20 was modified. In lieu of requiring the fire hydrant, the Central Fire District proposed language that the applicant shall be required to install automatic sprinklers throughout the entire residence including attic areas to the Central Fire District's satisfaction prior to the issuance of final occupancy. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Snider responded that the site was approved by the Fire Protection District when it was built in 1979. The approved plans placed the hydrants at 640 feet from the property and no other agreement existed. The hydrant has served the property since that time. He referred to Section 14.15-020a of the ordinance which states: "No building site approval under this chapter shall be required in any of the following cases: (a) Where the identical site is shown on a lot on a final approved subdivision map recorded within 15 years prior to the date of application for a building permit. Since the site was subdivided 11-1/2 years ago, the applicant believes there should have been an exception to site approval. Mr.. Snider said the condition as originally written was acceptable to the applicant but the applicant only received the revised condition several hours ago. Therefore, he requested that the Commission grant approval based on the April 10 report or grant a continuance to further study the new condition. CALDWELL/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:46 P.M. Passed 6-0. ' Mr. Walgren stated that since the memo was sent out he met with the Central Fire District and City Attorney and both concurred that the City has authority to require adequate fire protection under design review. Staff agrees the project is exempt from building site approval because it is within a subdivision approved within the past 15 years. However, why this parcel was not provided with adequate fire protection 12 years ago is not clear to staff or the Central Fire District. The Fire District is now trying to ensure that there is adequate fire protection for the future. The automatic sprinklers were an attempt to compromise with the applicant in lieu of providing a hydrant. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, Mr. Walgren responded that the hydrant would also serve other homes in the subdivision. Commissioner Tucker also questioned if the. other neighbors that would be benefitting from the hydrant could be assessed for the cost. Mr. Walgren responded that he did not know if there were other homes that needed to have a hydrant closer because if they are within 500 feet they could prove they are adequately served by existing hydrants. In response to Commissioner Caldwell's question, Mr. Walgren responded that the intent of Condition No. 10 was that landscaping be installed prior to final occupancy, and it should be amended to indicate that. ' ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued CALDWELL/TUCKER MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-070 TO APRIL 24, 1991 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW CONDITION NO. 20 AS MODIFIED; THAT CONDITION NO. 10 BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY; THAT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ON PAGE 3 BE CORRECTED TO CHANGE THE WORD "REASONABLE" TO "REASONABLY"; AND THAT CONDITION NO. 4 BE CLARIFIED TO INDICATE THAT THE PROTECTIVE FENCING SHOULD BE PLACED AROUND THE TREES AT THE DRIP LINES. Commissioner Tucker requested that the Commission discuss whether any Commissioner had any problem with the remainder of the application. She indicated she had no problems with the application. Commissioner Bogosian stated he was satisfied with the design of the house. Commissioner Durket said he was prepared to approve the application with the sprinkler modification. The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. Chairperson Moran stepped down on the following item because she owns property within 500 feet of the proposed project. 5.' DR-91-008 Stirm, 19700 Farwell Ave., request for design review approval to remodel an existing one-story residence and to increase the roof height from approximately 14 ft. to 20 ft. 6 in. in the R-1- 40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- Vice Chairperson Caldwell indicated that with respect to the land use visit there was nothing to add to the staff report. Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated April 10, 1991. He proposed that~an additional condition be added as No. 7 requiring that the applicant .either remove the existing nonconforming satellite dish or bring the antenna into conformance with current City Code requirements to the Planning Director's satisfaction prior to zone clearance. The present Condition No. 7 would then be renumbered to No. 8. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:01 p.m. Mr. Greg Kahune, 347 E. Campbell Ave., appeared for the applicant. He reviewed the proposal and answered questions from Commissioners regarding the proposal. -. `~' '. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued FORBES/BO.GOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Passed 5-0. TUCKER/DURKET MOVED .TO APPROVE DR-91-008 ADDING CONDITION NO. 7 TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT EITHER REMOVE THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SATELLITE DISH OR BRING THE ANTENNA INTO CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S SATISFACTION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE ZONE CLEARANCE AND AMENDING CONDITION NO. 6 TO ADD DRIP LINE FENCING FOR PROTECTION OF TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION. FORBES AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE CLAY POTS ON THE ROOF. Commissioner Tucker stated she :felt the home is attractively designed and fits into the neighborhood. She was in favor of leaving the clay pots as they did not exceed the height limit. Commissioner Durket agreed with Commissioner Tucker and said he could support the proposal. Commissioner Bogosian concurred with Commissioner Durket. He felt the project was compatible and he could vote in favor of it. Vice Chairperson Caldwell said she would prefer to not have the stone veneer on the structure and would prefer brick. She also expressed concern regarding the copper window awning and would prefer that not be part of the approval. Commissioner Tucker felt the stone veneer did not adversely impact the neighborhood. She said she did not feel comfortable making conditions that may not be necessary and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. She also felt the applicant has a right to have a home as long as it is not impactful in the neighborhood, and she was not opposed to the stone veneer. Commissioner Durket agreed with Commissioner Tucker. Commissioner Forbes withdrew his amendment to the motion. Vice Chairperson Caldwell said that it was the increased front yard setback that enabled her to make the first finding. The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. Chairperson Moran was reseated on the Commission. <. .+ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued 6. 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 (cont. from 9/12/90). Planner Adar reviewed the staff memorandum dated April 3, 1991 and answered Commissioners'. questions regarding the proposal. The Public Hearing was opened.at 8:27 p.m. Mr. Larry Fine, 14075 Saratoga Ave., expressed his support for the proposal. He indicated he was the petitioner on the application for the proposal. He said it was not his intention to prevent all trucks from traveling on Saratoga Ave. but it was his intention to stop through traffic of trucks. The problems he had with trucks is that they hit the trees, the high speed at which they travel and the difficulty in stopping them. Mr. Bill Burns,. 14014 June Way, addressed the Commission. He supported the measure of the Heritage Lane and said if it is lost the character of Saratoga Ave. and the Village will be changed. Mr. Bill Wright, 14901 Fruitvale, addressed the Commission and requested that the Commission give consideration not only to the traffic pattern on. Saratoga but to the adjacent streets. Mr. Willis Peck, 14275 Saratoga Ave., addressed the Commission on behalf of the Heritage Preservation Commission in support of the proposal. Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Peck if the street could be widened without further proceedings if it is designated a Heritage Lane and if it .is necessary to widen what would be involved in the process. Mr. Peck responded that has not been contemplated in the ordinance and perhaps it could be done by a sunset clause or by including a mechanism whereby it could be rescinded by a percentage of property owners. The feeling of the Heritage Preservation Commission was that it could not stand in the way of such an occurrence but it would be worthwhile to get this in place while there is still time. Commissioner Tucker questioned how many homes are currently officially designated historical .structures. Ms. Adar responded she would provide the answer to that question later in the meeting. Mr. Henry Pastor, 14230 Douglas, addressed the Commission regarding his concern that failure to designate this area as a Heritage Lane • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued • Page 7 would result in widening of Saratoga Ave. and thereby cause removal of the trees on Saratoga Ave. He also pointed out that some of the trees are in need of care. Mr. Gene Zambetti, 20812 Fourth St., indicated that the Heritage Lane is a designation and the traffic and circulation patterns in the City would not be changed. The designation would still allow for the 90 foot plan line required by the City Engineering Department, allows for assessment districts to help the oak trees, and allows a fencing ordinance. The resident of 19931 Durham Ct. addressed the Commission in support of the designation. DURKET/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Commission received letters this evening from Mr. and Mrs. Sasso and from Alan Thorpe expressing their concerns regarding the proposal. Commissioner Tucker stated she was not prepared to vote in favor of the application because she still had some concerns that had not been addressed. She did not feel the Commission had all the information it needed in order to make a good planning decision. She said she was interested in the number of heritage homes and what the designation actually means. She did not feel it was a prudent planning decision in light of the fact that the traffic situation was unknown. She stated that while she agreed with the comments made this evening regarding Saratoga Ave. and its beauty there are other streets in the' area with the same sort of loveliness such as Fruitvale and Quito. Commissioner Durket said he would like to know what the designation does. He pointed out that the area is a major area where children travel to school and should be considered as a neighborhood. He stated he would be in favor of designating the Heritage Lane. Commissioner Bogosian felt the issue was more comprehensive than just Saratoga Ave. and suggested there were other areas that could also be designated. He also felt the City Council should consider recommending to the Sheriff's Department that they study the speed of traffic on Saratoga. He expressed concern regarding the care of the trees not only on Saratoga but in other areas of the City. He requested further clarification from staff regarding what the designation would mean and suggested that might be some restriction of fencing and other types of ornamentation on buildings along the street. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In response to Commissioner Caldwell's question, Planning Director Emslie stated that from a regulatory standpoint the designation does nothing to prevent the City from taking any action in terms of land use or the City's circulation system. However, if this is designated as a Heritage Lane, if Saratoga Ave. is ever widened to four lanes the designation would be nullified. Mr. Emslie answered further questions from the Commission regarding the designation. Commissioner Caldwell said she was encouraged by the application for designation of Saratoga Ave. but felt very strongly that the consideration of the designation should happen comprehensively as a Master Plan. She suggested that the Commission consider designation of Saratoga Ave. and some planning with respect to other potential Heritage Lanes at the time the Commission discusses the circulation element. She referred to pages 37 and 38 of the Engineers Report regarding the official plan line and an overall improvement plan and suggested these items could be incorporated into the circulation element analysis and evaluation. She further suggested the Commission take action on items 3, 5, 6 and 7 at this time and offer recommendations to the City Council for pursuing these items. Regarding item 4, she was interested in recommending that the City Arborist be requested to undertake a tree survey as a precursor to this item, which discusses establishment of a landscape and lighting district along Saratoga Ave. to ensure preservation and protection of the trees. Additionally, she suggested moving forward with the draft fence ordinance that staff prepared even though she had some problems with the maximum height limit and the design of potential fences. Commissioner Caldwell further suggested recommending to the City Council that the Planning Commission be permitted to have the Heritage Preservation Commission review proposals for development along Saratoga Ave. so the Planning Commission would have the benefit of the Heritage Preservation Commission's comments on those items. Commissioner Tucker suggested waiting until the Planning Commission has a chance to take a look at all items to be designated as Heritage Lanes.' She said Commissioner Durket's point was well taken regarding children along Saratoga Ave. If the Commission were to save one street at the expense of others it became a fairness issue with her. She suggested postponing this item until the Commission reviews the Circulation Element. She said she was leery of dividing the items and voting on a portion of them tonight since the City Council has provided direction that items be kept together. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Emslie pointed out that the Commission is responsible for reviewing the capital improvements program of the City annually. The Heritage designation is tied into the General Plan. It is the policy of the General Plan to preserve heritage resources. That could present a problem because although there is nothing precluding the Commission there is a tie-in with the General Plan that would have to be resolved if a capital project to widen Saratoga Ave. came before the Commission and the Commission would have to be able to determine that the project was consistent with the General Plan. In response to Commissioner Caldwell's comments, Mr. Emslie responded that he agreed that the Commission is under policy direction to keep items together but in this case the Commission is dealing with items of a broad enough nature that some of the issues could be separated to ask for Council direction. Chairperson Moran spoke in favor of a comprehensive approach to this issue rather than a piecemeal approach. She felt the Commission should consider other arterials as well as other streets that could be as important when considering the designation. TUCKER/CALDWELL MOVED FOR CONTINUANCE OF HP-19 UNTIL THE COMMISSION HAS A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT. Commissioner Caldwell seconded the motion for purpose of discussion. She felt the Commission had a substantial body of information in front of it regarding Saratoga Ave. and the point she wanted to make with respect to developing a comprehensive approach was that the Commission should be looking at the City as a whole and that there are a number of other potential historic lanes within the City that should be considered at the same time. She said she would be in favor of a continuance for the purpose of evaluating the application in conjunction with the potential application of Heritage Lane designation on other streets within the City while developing the Circulation Element. She said she would also be in favor of moving forward on a few of the items now because some of the things could be done now that are separate from the designation. Commissioner Bogosian said he would be unable tonight to advise the Council to declare this street a Heritage Lane. However, he would like to see the Council move forward on tree maintenance and protection and issues involving designs such as fencing, etc. Commissioner Durket said he would. be in favor of the designation tonight but questioned the Heritage Preservation Commission's mandate if that was not done. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Caldwell responded that the motive for that is as an interim measure. She said whether or not Saratoga Ave. is designated a Heritage Lane, the Heritage Preservation Commission has indicated a very strong desire to preserve the character of Saratoga Ave. and the City would benefit from its review and comment on development proposals for that area. Commissioner Tucker stated that in the past when there have been homes of heritage character that the Heritage Commission would review an application if asked.. Commissioner Durket said he felt it would be appropriate to act on the designation tonight. Commissioner Tucker stated her concern is that it is important that as planners the Commission look at the whole picture and decide what it will be getting because the Commission has an obligation to the citizens of Saratoga .to make sure they can get to and from their homes safely and that traffic flows at a safe pace. CALDWELL/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT ASK THE CITY ARBORIST TO UNDERTAKE A TREE SURVEY FOR THE TREES ALONG SARATOGA AVENUE AS RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Passed 6-0. CALDWELL/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT THE COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FENCE ORDINANCE FOR THIS PORTION OF SARATOGA AVENUE. Passed 6-0. CALDWELL/BOGOSIP;N MOVED TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT PLACE AS AN INTERIM MEASURE A PROCEDURE WHEREBY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ALONG SARATOGA AVENUE ARE WIfI'HIN THE BOUNDARY UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THOSE PROPOSALS BE REVIEWED BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ON A REVIEW AND COMMENT BASIS. Chairperson Moran was in favor of the amendment because it would be helpful for the Commission to have comments and review on proposals. The motion carried on a 5:1 vote (Tucker opposed). Commissioner Tucker said she was opposed because she did not feel it was proper at this time. Regarding the original motion, Mr. Emslie suggested that the Commission continue the item indefinitely and when it came back it would be renoticed as a Public Hearing item. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Chairperson Moran reiterated a previous question from a member of the audience regarding the traffic impact of the designation on Fruitvale and other streets and requested an expanded staff analysis on that point when this is considered again. The motion for continuance carried on a 4-2 vote (Durket and Forbes opposed). In response to Commissioner Caldwell's question regarding the fence ordinance, Mr. Emslie responded that has not been listed or advertised and suggested that the Commission set a date for that to come back. Break 9:25 p.m. - 9:40 p.m. Chairperson Moran moved the agenda to item 9. 9. SM-91-001 Thakur, 21537 Saratoga Heights Dr., request for site modification to previously approved plans in order to construct a pool, decking and associated yard improvements to a partially constructed two- story residence on a 3.2 acre parcel located within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- Chairperson Moran indicated the applicant has requested a continuance. Mr. Emslie stated that staff is also requesting continuance in order to modify the design to bring it into conformance with the compatibility of the neighborhood. TUCKER/DURKET MOVED TO CONTINUE SM-91-001 TO MAY 8, 1991 WITH A STUDY SESSION ON APRIL 30. Commissioner Tucker noted that when on the land use visit she noticed some areas of the property, had already been mapped out with stakes and appeared ready for cement to be poured. She cautioned that the applicant not go forward with the plans until the issue is resolved by the Commission. The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued r~ Page 12 7. 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 3/13/91 Planning Commission and 4/2/91 study session). -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Walgren presented a staff update on this item and reviewed the staff memorandum dated April 10, 1991. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:48 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli appeared for the applicant. She reiterated the previous record on this matter. Using an overhead projector, Mr. Kahune presented the modifications made to the front and rear of the home. Commissioner Tucker asked if there was any change in square footage with the new configuration. . Ms. Fanelli responded that the square footage would be reduced by about 45 feet. Mr. Kahune answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposal. 0 DURKET/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:02 P.M. Passed 6-0. TUCKER/FORBES MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF DR-90-057 WITH THE ELEVATIONS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THIS MEETING. Commissioner Caldwell disagreed with the slide which showed the applicant's view of the site's visibility throughout the Mt. Eden Valley. She felt there were a number of portions of Mt. Eden Valley from which the site is quite visible and that was a major concern of hers. She also felt that the slide presented showing the applicant's home next to the Bilkey home shows the bulk and mass problems that she has with the applicant's house in that it builds in style and relates to her concern about the height of the home. She said she would be willing to vote in favor of this proposal if the height were reduced to 22 feet. Furthermore, she proposed that Condition No. 21 of .the resolution include an amendment that the retaining walls be either the crib style or keystone type of retaining wall that would enable landscaping of the wall. She also proposed that the copper element of the roof be removed. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 • Page 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Durl~et stated that the new plans were helpful and felt some changes were made in the right direction. However, he agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's comments as they reflected his concerns. He also expressed concern regarding the exterior stone work in that in this structure it fits in with the style of the home but the home is massive and. bulky and the stone veneer adds to the mass and bulk. He indicated he would vote to approve the application at the 22 foot height. He felt the conical shape of the semi-turret makes the bulk of the house the focal point. He stated he would not be able to approve the application as is. Commissioner Bogosian said he visited the site again and looked at the site in terms of the elevations and considered what the house would look like from other points of view. He said the slide illustrating the comparison with the Bilkey house indicates the massive qualities of the building. He indicated he would like to see a revised proposal at 22 feet: He concurred with the comments of Commissioner Caldwell and Durket. Commissioner Tucker stated she voted in favor of this proposal and will continue to vote in favor of it because she felt that the applicant has done a good job. The applicant has 1.4 acres of land and the house is not extraordinarily long. If the Commission is going to require that 60% of the roof be lowered to the 22 foot height when the rest of the roof is at 22 feet, she did not feel that it would significantly alter the look of the structure. She noted the structure has a front setback of 72 feet when only 30 feet is required which helps to soften the effect of the structure; there are a number of trees that will help to soften the effect of the structure; and there is a rear setback of 114 feet where 60 feet is required. She did not feel that the turret was adversely impactful considering the setbacks. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that the Commission consider requiring site modification for and pool or additional development on the site. Commissioner Forbes stated he did not like the chimney pot and felt it might obstruct the view. DURKET/FORBES MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND CONDITION NO. 3 TO INDICATE THAT HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 22 FEET; THAT THE SEMI-TURRET BE ELIMINATED; THAT THE COPPER TOP BE DELETED; AND THAT THE CHIMNEY CAPS BE ELIMINATED. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 • Page 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Fanelli indicated that the applicant does not wish to remove the turret and cannot live with a house that is less than 24 feet. She pointed out that the 22 foot section is over the stairway. Commissioner Durket withdrew his motion because it appeared to be futile. CALDWELL/TUCKER AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A CONDITION TO REQUIRE SITE MODIFICATION FOR THE POOL AND TO ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT THE RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE DRIVEWAY BE CRIB WALLS. Passed 5:0:1 (Forbes abstained). In response to Commissioner Durket's question, Mr. Emslie responded that if the Commission approves something that the applicant does not want to proceed with he would have the right to appeal the decision or any condition contained in that decision to the City Council. Commissioner Durket stated that,~in that case, he would renew his previous amendment to the motion. DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND CONDITION NO. 3 TO INDICATE THAT HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 22 FEET; THAT THE SEMI-TURRET BE ELIMINATED; THAT THE COPPER TOP BE DELETED; THAT THE CHIMNEY CAPS BE ELIMINATED; AND THAT THE CHANGES BE RETURNED TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR APPROVAL. Ms. Fanelli indicated that the turret was important to the applicant for personal reasonsand he could not live without it. She felt the Commission was .doing a disservice to the applicant. Chairperson Moran stated that if a height reduction is considered the Commission should look at it but she was not convinced that would resolve the issue of mass of the house. She did not feel 22 feet would make a big difference. Commissioner Forbes pointed out that some structures look better when they are compressed and others look worse. He said he was willing to take professional advice on that issue. The motion failed on a 2:4 vote (Caldwell, Forbes, Moran and Tucker opposed). CALDWELL MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE TO 22 FEET; THAT THE CHANGE BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND IF HE HAS A CONCERN A SUBSEQUENT DESIGN SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION; AND THAT THE COPPER CAP BE DELETED. • ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued The motion died for lack of a second. Page 15 The vote on the original motion was 2:3:1 (Bogosian, Caldwell and Durket opposed; Forbes abstained). Mr. Emslie pointed out that the Commission must make a motion to take some action. DURKET/CALDWELL MOVED TO DENY DR-90-057 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The vote was 3:3 (Forbes, Moran and Tucker opposed). Mr. Emslie stated that subject to City of Saratoga procedures if the Planning Commission vote ends in a deadlock the applicant has a right to request one subsequent revote at the immediately following meeting. The applicant also has the right to accept the denial and appeal the decision to the City Council. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, City Attorney Meyers responded that there has to be some final action upon which an appeal can be predicated. There was neither a motion in favor or a motion to deny passed on this issue this evening. FORBES/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-057 WITH A CONDITION TO REQUIRE SITE MODIFICATION FOR THE POOL AND A REQUIREMENT THAT THE RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE DRIVEWAY BE CRIB WALLS. The vote was 3:3 (Bogosian, Caldwell and Durket opposed). In response to Commissioner Durket's question, Mr. Meyers responded that a member of a deliberative body can abstain from any vote he or she wishes to abstain from and that does not disqualify that individual from either voting or ,abstaining again at a later time unless the abstention is for conflict of interest. Mr. Meyers suggested that the Chair accept a motion for reconsideration in his matter. and. then act upon a reconsidered vote of the subject matter. Commissioner Forbes withdrew his motion. FORBES MOVED TO RECONSIDER DR-90-057. In response to Commissioner Tucker's question, Mr. Meyers .stated that the proper person to make-the motion for reconsideration would be a member of the Commission who voted in favor of the denial. CALDWELL/TUCKER MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE DENIAL OF DR-90-057. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 16 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Meyers indicated that an affirmative vote on the motion for reconsideration merely puts everything back on the table for consideration. The motion carried 6:0. FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-057 WITH THE MODIFICATIONS FOR THE RETAINING WALL AND SITE MODIFICATION FOR THE POOL. The vote was 3:3 (Bogosian, Caldwell, Durket opposed). In response to Ms. Fanelli's question, Mr. the applicant has a right to appeal the Planning Commission within 15 days of this appeal before the Planning Commission's ac meeting on April 24 it will be automatically Commission revote. Emslie clarified that deadlock vote of the date. If they do not Benda at its following scheduled for Planning 8. DR-90-082 Williams, 21272 Chiquita Way, request for design review approval to construct a new two-story, 7,440 sq. ft. residence on.a 10-acre parcel within the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is Lot #3 of the Chadwick Place subdivision (Tract #7770) (cont. from 3/13/91 Planning Commission and 4/2/91 study session). -------------------------------------------------------------- Using an overhead projector, Mr. Emslie presented a staff update on this item and reviewed the staff memorandum dated April 10, 1991. Mr. Emslie answered Commissioners' questions regarding the proposal. Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern that, given the precise wording of the settlement which basically says that it relies on compliance with all applicable provisions of the City Zoning and other ordinances except for the density and setback provisions of NHR zoning regulations in the specific plan. Mr. Meyers responded that there seems to be an intimate relationship between the settlement agreement and the entitlements which the Commission is asked to approve for this project. He expressed concern about adequately advising the Commission about that relationship and having the Commission make an informed decision because of that relationship. In light of that, he suggested that the Commission consider continuing this matter until the City Attorney could more definitively advise the Commission regarding this issue. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:51 p.m. ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Phil Williams, 12161 Parker Ranch Road, addressed the Commission regarding the revised plans for the proposal. DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:56 P.M. Passed 6:0. CALDWELL/DURKET MOVED FOR CONTINUANCE OF DR-90-082 TO APRIL 24, 1991 IN ORDER TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A MEMO TO THE. CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON THE RIDGE LINE STANDARDS AND THEIR APPLICATION IN THI5 INSTANCE. Commissioner Durket said he was unclear as to the City Council's direction. Commissioner Boqosian stated he would like a memorandum addressed to the Planning Commission on this issue. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that her preference would be that the Commission's communication to the City Council seeking direction be in written form as well. The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. The applicant requested that this be handled expeditiously. 10. DR-90-006 Tyson, 15395 Kittridge Rd., request for design V-91-003 review approval to construct a new 4,267 sq. ft. two-story residence within the R-1-40,000 zone district. Variance approval is also requested to allow the home to be constructed on a pad with an average slope in excess of 30$ per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Walgren presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated April 10, 1991. The Public Hearing was. opened at 11:07 p.m. Mr. Leonard Tyson, 102 Bella Vista Court, Los Gatos, reviewed the proposal in detail and answered Commissioners' questions. Commissioner Tucker briefly left the meeting. FORBES/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLO5E THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:20 P.M. Passed 5-0. Commissioner Tucker returned. ~; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued BOGOSIAN MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF V-91-003. Mr. Emslie clarified that staff is seeking direction regarding which site the Planning Commission would like to pursue. If the Commission considers the applicant's site to be the best, the motion staff would recommend would be to direct staff to prepare the resolutions. Commissioner Bogosian withdrew his motion. Commissioner Bogosian stated he visited the site and felt that of the possibilities on the site the area proposed by the applicant would have the least effect on the primary concern of his which was the access in and out of Montalvo in trying to keep that as rural as possible. Commissioner Forbes agreed with Commissioner Bogosian. He said he would like to see some sort of a waiver signed by the applicant protecting. the City in the event of a slide because of the increased slope. Commissioner Tucker concurred with the proposed position. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it should be the Commission's responsibility to work diligently toward avoiding interference with the 30% standard for the variance :wherever possible. She proposed a site closer to Norton Road that would require a variance for the front yard setback. The reason she raised this was to meet the spirit of the standard and to look at the findings the Commission has to make to grant a variance. She felt that other sites that meet the spirit of the standard should be considered. Commissioner Tucker said she visited the site with Commissioner Caldwell and indicated that Commissioner Caldwell makes a good point for that site. Commissioner. Tucker said she was leaning more towards the applicant as she was not sure she could approve the home that close to Norton Road. She also expressed concern that the Commission must make light and air findings and there are a lot of trees that might hamper those aspects of the house if it is moved which might necessitate removal of the trees. Commissioner Bogosian indicated. his concern was access into Montalvo and he would not like to see one house within the minimum setbacks from the front because that would impose on the atmosphere going into the park. • ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Durket said he visited the site and had a difficult time imagining the home on the top site. He agreed with Commissioner Caldwell that it was his thinking at first to put the home on a flat an area as possible. He felt the site closer to Norton Road should be explored further. In response to a question from Commissioner Tucker, Mr. Emslie responded that the City Geologist visited the site, inspected the site conditions and prepared a report. In the report he basically concluded that the building site selected by the applicant is stable and would be able to withstand normal seismic events. Commissioner Durket expressed concern regarding the prominence of the roof as someone would be traveling down Kittridge. Mr. Tyson pointed out that 3/8 of the home will be surrounded by trees . ~ . Commissioner Bogosian stated his concern was that gray slate may be a little bright as a roof and suggested a shade of brown. The applicant indicated he was agreeable to whatever staff recommends regarding the colors. Commissioner Caldwell said she would be amenable to the proposed site in light. of the deliberations of the Commission tonight but preferred a dark brown color. Chairperson Moran stated she was having trouble with the design review findings in terms of the mass of the house because of the sharp drop-off in the back. DURKET MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION THAT APPROVES DR-90-066 AND V-91-003 IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MATERIALS BOARD THAT HAS DARKER BROWNS. Commissioner Caldwell stated her preference far a crib wall. Chairperson Moran requested further clarification of the decking that will be included in the application. Commissioner Tucker pointed out that the road improvements as a condition of approval need to be included. Chairperson Moran clarified that the Commission action is not an approval nor it is a denial but is a continuance. III PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 10, 1991 Page 20 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-066 AND V-91-003 TO APRIL 24, 1991. Passed 6:0. The Commission discussed continuance of the following items due to the lateness of the hour. DURKET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-91-012 AND DR-91-001 TO APRIL 24, 1991. Passed 6:0. 11. DR-91-012 Bac, 13990 Alta Vista Ave., request for design review approval to construct a new 4,200 sq. ft. two-story single family residence in the R-1- 12,500 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- 12. DR-91-001 Yan, 13566 Cocciardi Ct., request for design review approval to construct a new 5,784 sq. ft. two-story single family residence on a 1.05 acre parcel in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. -------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Committee-of-the-Whole Report - 4/2/91 2. Mr. Emslie reported that the Planning Commission retreat will be on June 14 and 15. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes Oral City Council Commissioner Caldwell reported on her attendance at the City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Rebecca Cuffman