Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-1992 Planning Commission Minutes • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 10, 1992 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Caldwell, Commissioners Tucker, Bogosian, Moran, Durket (arrived 7:33 p.m.), Favero, Forbes (arrived 7:33 p.m.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Minutes of May 13, 1992 Chr. Caldwell made the following change: Page 9, last paragraph add the words "upcoming revision of the tree ordinance" before "regarding". MORAN/TUCKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1992, AS AMENDED ABOVE. PASSED 4-0-1 (Favero abstain, Durket, Forbes absent) Minutes May 27, 1992 Com. Moran made the following change: Page 6, 6th Paragraph, should reflect what was said at the meeting. Com. Tucker made the following changes: Page 6, Paragraph 6, the words "for safety reasons" should be added after "...Tentative Map" Paragraph 7, the words "for reasons sited by the applicant and neighbors" should be added after the words "...of the orchard..." Chr. Caldwell made the following changes: Page 2, item 2, expiration date should be 7/21/92. Throughout the document continue to refer to "Revised Map "A" (2 cul-de-sac plan)" Page 4, Gunther Mackie made mention of a petition and this should be recorded in the minutes. Last item on the page, item 3. should read "Tentative Map Conditions". • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 2 Page 5, 1st paragraph, last comment should be "...with the exception of Conditions 1 and 3. Com. Durket noted that this was his intent. Same Page, Com Moran's comments should read "a wider landscape buffer" Page 6, Chr. Caldwell's comments, requested reviewing the tape for comments regarding no gateway of signage; same page "a thicker buffer..." should read "a wider buffer..." Chr. Caldwell also noted she would like a summary of comments made by the Chairperson after this item to be recorded in the minutes. Page 9 add the words "to retain compatibility of the one story neighborhood" after the words "...a one-story addition..." Com. Moran made the following changes: Page 5, 5th paragraph should read "...reconfiguring..." as opposed to "...combining...". Com. Bogosian made the following change: Page 3, 3rd paragraph should read "Commissioner Forbes..." MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 27, 1992, A$ AMENDED ABOVE. PASSED 6-0 (Favero abstain). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 8, 1992. Technical Corrections to Packet Planning Director Curtis stated the corrections will be made as each item is addressed. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SUP-91-005 - McCullough, 14985 & 14981 Quito Rd., request for second-unit use permit approval to allow two existing second dwelling units, located on contiguous separate parcels, to be legalized • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 3 pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject parcels are 1.1 and 1.2 acres in size (cont. to 6/24/92 to allow staff to re-notice the item as variance request for an additional fifth unit; application expires 11/20/92). ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. LL-92-002 - Tappan, 19391 & 19371 Valle Vista Drive, request for lot line adjustment approval to exchange an equal amount of area (128 s.f.) between the two 1-acre subject parcels pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3. DR-92-016 - Gannaway, 13990 Pike Rd., request to allow a rear deck to exceed the maximum allowed 5 ft. underfloor area by approximately 2 ft. 7 inches pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 1.9 acres in area and is located in the NHR zone district. TUCKER/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-92-011 - Cooper-Hart, 20576 Third St., request to allow a rear deck to exceed the maximum allowed 5 ft. underfloor area by approximately 3 ft. , 10 inches pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 4,250 s.f. in area and is located within the R-M-3,000 zone district. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated June 10, 1992, and answered questions of the Commission. He noted there have been no concerns or objections from the neighbors. Com. Moran suggested planting trees to break up the mass of the house when driving up Oak Street. Chr. Caldwell opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Ms. Kim Cooper-Hart stated she would answer any questions of the Commission. In response to Com. Moran's question regarding planting of trees, Ms. Cooper-Hart feels there is not enough sun for trees. Com. Moran stated she would like to see the side of the house, as addressed earlier, landscaped to alleviate the mass to the house. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 4 DURRET/FAVERO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0. FAVERO/DURRET MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR-92-011. Com. Favero stated this is a single family application within a multi-family neighborhood and the area is being improved and hopes that at a later date the applicant would consider adding trees to mitigate the mass. Com. Bogosian stated he would support the motion, but expressed concern about the findings. He noted the lack of the neighbors objections have no relevance to the findings and should not be included in the design review process. All the Commissioners agreed. THE ABOVE MOTION WAS CARRIED 7-0. 5. DR-91-063 - Evans, 21225 Comer Dr., request for design review approval to construct a new, 8,024 sq. ft., two-story residence and to allow two rear yard decks to exceed the minimum allowed 5 foot underfloor clearance area, pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The lower deck is proposed at a height of 6.9 feet with the upper level deck approximately 8.4 feet beyond that. The parcel is approximately 5 acres in size and is; located within the NHR zone district. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated June 10, 1992 and answered questions of the Commission regarding the application. He noted amendments to the resolution. In response to Chr. Caldwell's question, Mr. Walgren stated the brick veneer will go across the entire rear elevation of the under floor balcony. Com. Forbes asked if a landscape plan was submitted. In response to Com. Moran's question, Mr. Walgren stated the brick veneer ends where the two-story facade begins. In response to Com. Forbes' question regarding the landscape plan, Mr. Walgren outlined the applicants intent regarding this and noted a landscape plan was not submitted. Com. Favero stated he would like to see a landscape plan submitted for new homes on vacant lots. Com. Favero also addressed the Geotechnical Study. He noted that the City's geologist as well as • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 5 the applicant's geologist should do tests. Planner Walgren stated this project has gone through extensive geotechnical review with the City's consulting geologist. He noted the applicant is responsible for hiring a geotechnical engineer to prepare a soils report and submit it to the City. Planning Director Curtis stated the City Engineer has final review of all the engineering projects. Com. Favero stated that recent geological studies regarding the consequence of recent earthquakes and suggested that the City look into these risks when reviewing the hillsides. Chr. Caldwell opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Mr. John Terborg, 22345 Cedar Blvd., Newark, addressed the geotechnical issue raised by Com. Favero. He noted a complete landscape plan will be submitted. He noted the brick veneer in the rear will be on the lower elevation. Com. Favero stated the facade in the rear elevation seems out of character. DURRET/FAVERO MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0. The City Attorney requested that the location of the brick veneer be sketched on the map for clarification. Planner Walgren stated if the Commissioners wish the veneer to wrap around the structure, the condition can be amended. Chr. Caldwell stated she would prefer the brick veneer to wrap around the tower. Com. Durket stated he would not support the application at this time because of mass and bulk. He also noted this home is visible from the valley floor and he is not satisfied with the analysis of the geotechnical studies. He noted that planting 24 inch box trees is not the answer to the screening problems. Com. Durket stated this structure should be less bulky and is not compatible with the neighborhood. Com. Bogosian stated he is not in favor of the application at this time and concurs with Com. Durket. He noted that he is satisfied with the geotechnical studies, but concerned regarding the bulk of the building. He also noted that the oak trees are not the answer to the screening. Com. Bogosian also noted the veneer does not mitigate the mass of the rear elevation. He expressed concern • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 6 about the tower element, noting it increased the perceived bulk and the columns lined up add to the mass. Com. Tucker stated she can make the findings to approve with the condition that the brick veneer go around the tower to eliminate the mass. She stated there are other homes of similar size in the area. She stated the proposed tree will soften the effect of the mass. She noted she has no concerns with geotechnical studies and would leave that to the experts. Com. Forbes noted he concurs's with Com. Bogosian and would oppose this. He expressed concern about the delay in the review process as well as the geotechnical studies. Chr. Caldwell noted one of the recommendations from the Citizens Committee regarding Cocciardi matter was to have full contemplation of the mitigation measures required when reviewing the project. She noted this policy was adopted by the City Council. Chr. Caldwell noted they do not have all the information needed to approve the application at this time. Planner Walgren stated the City is aware of the policy and the application has gone through studies with the City's engineer who allowed the project to continue, but the approval will be suspended if further construction is required for the road and the applicant must come back to the Planning Commission for consideration of that aspect. There shall be no construction until all the information is in. Chr. Caldwell addressed the policy adopted and noted the entire project should be presented to the Planning Commission for review. Planning Director Curtis stated there has been extensive geotechnical studies done as it would not have gone to the Planning Commission if they had not. He noted any substantial changes will have to come back before the Planning Commission for review. Com. Favero stated the geotechnical studies took place a year ago and expressed concern about earthquake acceleration. He feels the Planning Commission is looking at material that is obsolete and does not have enough information to make a decision. Planner Walgren stated that the application has been undergoing geotechnical review over the year, noting it is an on-going process. Com. Moran expressed concern about the mass and bulk of the rear elevation. She stated the design problems should not be hidden with landscaping, although landscaping will help. She suggested • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 7 portions of the 2nd floor be pulled back to have a less boxy appearance and then she would support the application. In response to Com. Favero's question, the City Attorney noted that the City can not be held liable for a land use decision. She went on to explain other liabilities. Com. Favero reiterated the two concerns of the Commission, those being mass and bulk, and geotechnical studies. He requested that the City Engineer give a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding the studies. Chr. Caldwell stated her concern is not having the full project in front of them for review. She noted that more work and analysis has to be done before a decision can be made. Planning Director Curtis suggested continuing the application until the geotechnical studies can be completed. The Commissioners discussed the time period for the application and the extension period. The City Attorney noted the applicant is only allowed one 90 day extension Planner Walgren stated the application is deemed complete December 17, 1991 and expires June 17, 1992 noting the applicant can apply for a 90 day extension. He does not think the geotechnical review can be complete by September. Chr. Caldwell stated it would be her preference to seek an application for extension from the applicant to finish the geotechnical review so the entire project can be reviewed at one time. She also expressed concern about the elevation as addressed by Com. Moran. She noted the degree of destruction on the site is a major concern. Com. Bogosian suggested giving the applicant clear direction on the design review. He suggested that the applicant redesign the second story element to reduce the bulky appearance of the building and he would be willing to move forward on the project. Com. Tucker asked what the Planning Commission's options are and what is available to the applicant? Chr. Caldwell outlined the options: approve the project; deny the project; ask the applicant to continue for the purpose of completing the analysis under condition 16; continue to determine how long the analysis would take. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 8 The City Attorney suggested continuing this to the next hearing and have the City Engineer attend to give a presentation. Com. Favero stated he would also request that the applicant's consultant give a presentation. Chr. Caldwell reopened the public hearing. Planning Director Curtis stated staff needs an extension from the applicant to continue this. The applicant agreed to an extension. FORBES/FAVERO MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO JUNE 24, 1992. Chr. Caldwell noted the purpose of the continuance is to explore the geotechnical concerns expressed by the Commissioners and also to address the bulk of the home. THE ABOVE MOTION WAS CARRIED 7-0. 6. UP-92-004 - Richardson, 13267 McCulloch Ave., request for use permit approval to allow a detached 400 sq. ft. two-car garage to be located within a required rear yard setback 6 ft. and 8 ft. from the rear and side property lines respectively, on a 10,000 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated June 10, 1992 and noted amendments to the resolution. He answered questions regarding the project. Chr. Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. DURRET/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0 DURRET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION UP-92-004. Com. Tucker requested that the motion be amended to consider extending the area for planting to shield the neighbors. Coms. Bogosian and Durket stated they would accept the amendment. Com. Moran addressed the storage shed on the property. Planner Walgren stated the approval of the Use Permit for the detached garage does not take into consideration the legality of the existing storage shed. He stated staff's field visits indicate • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 9 that the shed is approximately 12 ft. in height, but this has not been verified. He noted this can be placed as a condition of approval. Com. Durket agreed with the condition of approval as discussed by Planner Walgren. In response to Com. Bogosian's question, Planner Walgren stated if the condition was placed in the Use Permit the shed would have to be brought into conformance or be removed from the property. Com. Bogosian was amenable to the condition of approval. Com. Forbes addressed impervious coverage. Planner Walgren stated a temporary accessory structure is not included in the allowed floor area for the property. Com. Forbes stated he cannot support this project unless the green house is removed and the shed moved back to the green house area. Com. Bogosian stated this is a fenced in yard and is not adversely affecting any neighbors and feels uncomfortable about enforcing more requirements. Chr. Caldwell noted the amendments to the motion are to add additional language to condition 6 regarding landscaping and an additional condition regarding the storage shed. THE ABOVE MOTION, WITH THE AMENDMENTS, WAS CARRIED 7-0. 7. DR-92-010 - Sobey Oaks Associates, 14701 Sobey Oaks Ct., Lot #18, request for design review approval to construct a new, 4,088 sq. ft. one-story residence within the Sobey Oaks/Gypsy Hills subdivision pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 53,921 sq. ft. in area and is located in the R-1-40,000 zone district. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated June 10, 1992 and noted amendments to the resolution. He also answered questions of the Commission regarding this project. Chr. Caldwell opened the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. Mr. Jerry Lohr stated he has worked with staff and has no problems. He noted several trees are recommended for removal which are in good health and the owners have no desire to remove these. He noted this is a small house for the lot and expressed concern regarding the Tentative Map which requires a step down pad. He • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 10 requested that the floor be completely level. MORAN/DURRET MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0. In response to Com. Durket's question regarding Condition 3, Planner Walgren stated that if the condition is modified to 19 ft. height, the applicant must come back before the Planning Commission, with any changes, for approval. Mr. Walgren also explained the terrace pads, noting there is no need for the step down. Com. Durket stated he does like the design of the home, but would like to amend condition 3 to 19 ft. Also the tree removal should be left as a recommendation. Com. Bogosian stated he did visit. the site and concurred that the tree removal should be left as a recommendation. He commended the applicant for a good design. Com. Tucker stated condition 3 is acceptable to her and asked what the reason for the change is. Com. Durket stated he likes the design of the home and would like to review any changes in the height. Com. Bogosian stated the site is a hilltop site and height is an issue, therefore concurs with Com. Durket. Com. Moran stated she would be in favor of 19 ft. DURRET/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR-92-010 WITH THE CHANGE TO CONDITION 3 TO 19 FT. AND THAT THE TREE REMOVAL SHOULD REMAIN AS A RECOMMENDATION ONLY. PASSED 7-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Planning Director Curtis presented the Director's items. 1. The work session scheduled for June 30, 1992 has been canceled because of the City Council Swearing In. 2. Planning Commission retreat for June 27th, it is his recommendation that this be held in September or October. There was a consensus of the Commission. 3. He noted that all the Geotechnical information is now due prior to project being complete. 4. He noted if the Planning Commission wish a department head to • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 11 come before them, the Planning Director relays the request to the City Manager and he then directs staff. COMMISSION ITEMS Chr. Caldwell noted she would like staff to look into the slide on Diamond Oaks Court. She concurred with Com. Forbes that landscape plans should be submitted to the Planning Commission for review with the project. ' Planning Director Curtis stated landscape plans are required, but they were not available for the application at this hearing. All of the Commissioners concurred that the landscape plans should be submitted with the project. - Chr. Caldwell addressed plan checks. Planner Walgren stated the plans are checked for accuracy, but they don't put emphasis on garden structures if they do not interfere with the application. Com. Bogosian expressed concern about using the Planning process as a code enforcement, he feels this ,is a matter for the City Manager. Com. Moran noted if plans are not accurate it affects her analysis of an application. Com. Moran requested that a copy of the next agenda be placed in the Commissioners packets. Com. Forbes expressed concern about the issue of application of Ordinances and questioned why the new ordinance did not apply to the Evans application. The City Attorney explained the legality of the conditions noting that jurisdictions are split on the process to follow. She noted when a project is reviewed before the new ordinance takes effect, it is then approved under the old ordinance. Com. Forbes noted he would like a study session regarding this matter. Com. Caldwell noted the Commission would like to reduce the number of study sessions. Com. Moran stated that the Commission has a policy for two study sessions a month, and should adhere to this. ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 12 1. Giberson/Birenbaum correspondence per Commissioner Forbes request. The Commissioners discussed the Giberson/Birenbaum correspondence. Com. Forbes noted that he requested this be placed on the agenda and expressed concern about the response to the Giberson's. In response to Com. Forbes' question, Planner Walgren stated the City Manager was not invited to attend this hearing, noting that this was under Commissioners Items and not a public hearing. Com. Durket stated this matter should be before the City Council. Com. Favero stated this issue .was raised a year ago and he expressed concern at that time about grading and lack of supervision. He feels the management of the project is poor and would like the City Engineer to report on what the City is doing. Com. Bogosian stated this is not the Planning Commission's jurisdiction, but the City Manager's and he reports to the City Council. Chr. Caldwell noted a copy of the letter was sent to the Planning Commission and feels it is appropriate to respond to correspondence received. Chr. Caldwell noted the two issues are weekend work and noise. She requested information on the City policy regarding weekend work. Planner Walgren stated construction work is allowed Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He noted he did talk to the Assistant to the City Manager who stated that the Sheriff's Department has been out to the site on two occasions and have not be able to record any violations. Chr. Caldwell stated the Planning Commission is an advisory commission to the City Council and should raise issues of concern. Com. Durket stated this should be referred to the Planning Director and go through the correct process. Com. Tucker stated this should be at the Council level. Planning Director Curtis stated this was placed on the agenda at the request of Com. Forbes as a Commissioners Item. He noted public notice is not given at the request from an individual commissioner. He stated the process is the Planning Commission must give direction as a body, before public notice is given. s • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of June 10, 1992 Page 13 Com. Favero stated that any Commissioner has the responsibility to place an item on the agenda which raises concern. Com. Bogosian stated he had not taken part in any debate, and if there is a question about the enforcement it should go to the City Council. Chr. Caldwell noted they will discuss the issue of noticing in a study session. Written 1. City Council Minutes - 5/20, 5/26 & 5/28/92 Oral None City Council None ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 p.m., Chairperson Caldwell adjourned the meeting.