Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-1993 Planning Commission Minutes.:~•. ,z ~' -" ~S .~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 1993 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Moran. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Jacobs; Kaplan, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: Commissioner Caldwell Community Development Director Curtis noted the absence of City Attorney Riback. Director Curtis explained that he and the attorney had previously discussed the agenda and did not feel any legal issues would arise. Chairperson Moran stated that if legal questions did arise the questions would have to be relayed to the City Attorney for his opinion. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Chairperson Moran inquired if staff had received Commissioner Caldwell's corrections to the minutes or if Commissioner Caldwell had requested that the minutes be held over until she could be present. Planner Walgren explained that Commissioner Caldwell had given her corrections to him and he would read these into the record. Minutes of the meeting of October 13, 1993 Commissioner Asfour had the following corrections: Page 8, 10th paragraph, last sentence should read :" He stated that he would be in favor of a conditional use permit in order to eliminate the yearly a~glication." Page 12, 1st paragraph, 2nd line the word "feel" should be changed to "felt". In the same paragraph, the last line, the words "very clear but was" should be inserted after the words "direction was". ~- :. `' Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 2 Commissioner Kaplan had the following corrections: Page 6, 4th paragraph from the bottom -she stated that she had difficultly understanding the paragraph. Planner Walgren noted that Commissioner Caldwell had submitted the following re-wording to correct this paragraph; "Commissioner Caldwell, for clarity's sake, explained that to her this is really a vote of conscience (voting against this as a vote of conscience): She explained that the City Council adopted a Specific Plan which the Commission reviewed in light of the Planning Commission's concerns and its continuing motivation to protect the community's health, safety and general welfare." Page 6, last paragraph, the words "In response" should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph to indicate that Chairperson Moran and Commissioner Caldwell and Asfour's explanation was in reply to Commissioner Kaplan's.question from the previous paragraph. Commissioner Jacobs had the following corrections: Page 5, last bold print sentence (motion), an "s" should be added to "Jacob". Page 10, #1 under Director's Items, last line, the date should be changed to October 25, 1993. Planner Walgren read the following corrections that were submitted by Commissioner Caldwell: Page 2, 3rd paragraph (beginning "Page 20..") 4th line, the words "expo facto" should be deleted and replaced with "after the fact". Page 5, 3rd paragraph, 2nd and 2nd to the last line, the word "developer" should be deleted and replaced with "contractor". Page 5, last paragraph, 2nd to last line, the word "strengthen" should be "strengthened" Page 9, bottom of the page, Condition 8 should read as follows: "8. Prior to the temporary use permit becoming effective, the applicant shall post at the church (on the church grounds) the names and telephone numbers of the program contact people." `' ._ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 3 Planner Walgren explained that Commissioner Caldwell's last correction occurred on Page 10 under Director's Item regarding the conversation about the events leading to Commissioner Caldwell's service on the Bicycle Committee. Planner Walgren stated that the corrected wording for this section would be handled administratively. There was general discussion and it was decided to leave the minutes as they stand. Chairperson Moran had the following correction: Page 12, 4th paragraph, "Terry Shovachek" (representing Nowack and Associates) should be corrected to "Terry Szewczvk" this correction should replace "Terry" in the 6th, 8th and 10th paragraphs on Page 12 and the 3rd paragraph on Page 13. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 13, 1993 MINUTES AS CORRECTED (ABOVE). PASSED 6-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 22, 1993. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren had the following technical correction to the packet: Item #4 - DR-88-057.1 - LIN - Page 67, 3rd paragraph, 5th line, the word "public" as it refers to the open space parcels should be stricken. Planner Walgren explained that the parcel is a private open space parcel that has public access easements which cross through it. 1 i Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V-93-018 - Moley; 19910 Robin Way, request for Variance approval to construct 428 sq. ft. of first floor area to an existing 3,916 sq. ft. one-story residence which will be located 18 ft. from an exterior side yard setback where 25 ft. is required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is approximately 39,073 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-40,000 zone district (cont. to 11/10/93 at the request of the applicant; application expires 4/6/93.) 2. DR-91-023.1 - Sinsley; 12496 Parker Ranch Ct., request for a one year extension of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a 4,651 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is approximately 50,442 sq. ft. and is located within the HR zone district. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR-93-012 - Pancholy; 21215 Chadwick Ct., request for V-93-006 -Design Review approval to construct a new 6,429 square foot two- , story residence on a 3.7 acre vacant parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves Variance approval to construct 5 foot tall retaining walls within the property's front yard setback where 3 feet is the maximum allowed. The parcel is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zone district (cont. from 9/22/93; application expires 2/17/94). Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 27, 1993. CHAIRPERSON MORAN BEGAN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 5 Jerry Cates, 276 Arbor Valley Drive, San Jose, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He outlined modifications such as relocation and elimination of interior spaces, elimination of one entire level resulting in a 4-level design opposed to the original 5 level, decrease in height, and the tapering of a portion of the retaining wall. Mr. Cates submitted a revised color board and noted that the exterior house color had been revised and would now be darker than the originally proposed color. He also pointed out on the color board the sample of the stone veneer to be used on the retaining wall. Mr. Cates stated that the house is large, but fits very well on the site and with the context of the sites below the subject parcel. He stated that the site is below the ridge line and sits back approximately 79 feet. He also noted that the closest any other house would be in relation to this house would be at least 200 - 300 feet. Chairperson Moran inquired about the location of the retaining wall relative to the street. Mr. Cates explained that the top of the retaining wall would be approximately 10 feet below the street level. Commissioner Wolfe inquired if the overall height of the house had changed and, if so, how much. Mr. Cates stated that the structure was still under the 26 foot height limit. He explained that the upper and lower levels have been eliminated and moved into the - -- house which resulted in the back side of the house being pulled up the hill thus maintaining the actual (and original) 26 foot height, b.ut visually reducing the overall appearance of height. Commissioner Kaplan asked if additional excavation (from what has already been done) would be necessary and if so, how much. Mr. Cates stated that there would need to be some additional excavation to accommodate the driveway. He stated that the majority of the house will not effect the topography of the site. He stated that the amount of grading has not changed from the original application review. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/ KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. PASSED 6-0. ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 6 Commissioner Kaplan stated that Page A1.1 was illegible and inquired why the quality was so poor. Planner Walgren explained that the page to which she referred was actually a reduction of the full size plans and that occasionally the reduced copies do not turn out as clear as expected. Commissioner Kaplan asked if staff would try to check the plans for legibility as they are submitted. Planner Walgren indicated that staff would do so. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he could not support the application as presented at the last public hearing. He explained that at the last review he had not visited the site, but has since then been out to the site. He explained that at the last public hearing he had expressed interest in seeing a model or some kind of topographic display of the proposed house since it was represented by the applicants that the drawings gave a deceptive view of the appearance of the proposed residence. He stated that since those models had not been presented, he once again has to depend on the drawings. He stated that he still has the same concerns. He stated that he particularly has a problem with the north elevation and can not make the design review findings with regard to bulk. He stated that the design looks somewhat like a hotel and is not in keeping with the design standards. Commissioner Wolfe stated that down the street from the subject site is a house under construction, which was approved by the Planning Commission and seems to be about the same size and configuration as the proposed house. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he has visited the site, reviewed the application and plans, and feels that the proposed structure meets all the necessary criteria and, therefore, he can support the application. Commissioner Murakami stated that he was a little perplexed by the design and personally thinks that the house is more suitable for flat land. He stated that if the house were to be on the ridge line he would be opposed to it. He explained that since the house will be below the ridge, he is inclined to go along with approval of the application. Commissioner Asfour stated that he could not approve the project at the last review, but in light of the modifications made to the design he can now support approval of the application. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had visited the site and based on the location of the poles and the configuration of the site she can support the application. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 7 Chairperson Moran stated that she appreciated the placement of the poles on the site. She stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Murakami's comment that the house would be better suited on flat land. She noted that there is a stepping down element in the interior, but no stepping down element to the roof line. She stated that she appreciated the applicant's efforts to address the previous concerns, but that she still could not make the findings necessary for design approval. WOLFE/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-012 AND V-93-006 PER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THE MOTION PASSED 4-2 (MORAN AND JACOBS OPPOSED). 4. DR-88-057.1 - Lin; 12532 Parker Ranch Ct., request to amend a Design Review condition of approval requiring an improved equestrian trail along the property frontage. The subject 1.3 acre property is developed with a new single family residence and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 27, 1993. Planner Walgren noted that Marian Swan had come into the City and suggested that the Planning Commission consider utilizing the money that the property owners posted with the City for improvements on other trails in the City. Director Curtis clarified that Ms. Swan, in making this suggestion, was not representing the Parks and Recreation Commission and that this suggestion was a personal recommendation. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a reason why the City is not currently enforcing the easement and requiring people to remove any structures that are encroaching into the easement. Planner Walgren stated that with regard to this particular case, that (enforcing the easement and requiring structure removal) is precisely the issue before the Planning Commission. He explained that in this subdivision, and a few others, where easements exists, subsequent property owners move to the site and build structures on the trial easement either because the trails are under utilized and/or because the owners are not aware of the trail easements. He noted that the City is currently discussing programs which would go in and improve these trails on a subdivision-wide level. Commissioner Jacobs inquired again if there was a reason why or a City policy which discourages actively requiring the removal of encroachments on easements. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 8 Planner Walgren stated that the City currently requires removal of encroachments as "a matter of course". He stated that each time a home is approved there is a standard condition of approval which ensures that the trail easement is unobstructed and remains clear. He explained that the City has been doing this with the Parker Ranch subdivision. He noted that at this point this is the last house to come in along the trail system and the applicants are asking for relief,from this standard requirement and from what has historically taken place in this subdivision. Commissioner Jacobs stated that the applicants claim that other owners within the subdivision have erected structures which encroach into the easement, but have not been required to remove the structures. Director Curtis stated that this report from the property owners is correct. However, the encroachment on the subject property was noticed by the City prior to final inspection and was requested by the City to be removed. Director Curtis concurred with the comment made by Planner Walgren that the City needs to address situations where easement encroaching structures were put up after occupancy of the house. He also explained that the City is currently working on a program to go back and have these encroaching structures removed. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the City retaining the $1000 bond: She asked if the owners would be forfeiting the money and if this action had been cleared with the City Attorney. Director Curtis explained that this option had been found agreeable to the City Attorney. He further explained that the bond would be held in lieu of requiring immediate removal of the posts. He stated that the $1000 was the estimate given by the Maintenance Director as the cost to remove the posts. He noted that the holding of a bond is commonly used when a condition has for some reason not yet been met. The bond provides a form of leverage for condition compliance when the appropriate time comes. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the City taking the bond, applying the money in some other way and the applicant/property owner saying at a later date that the City used the money and therefore they (the property owner) no longer should be responsible for or required to the remove the posts. Director Curtis explained that the $1000 would be used now in lieu of requiring immediate removal of the post. However, when and if, the improvements to the trails begin, all encroaching structures would need to be removed at the property owner's expense. i • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Kaplan stated the she understood Director Curtis' explanation to mean that when and if the trail in that subdivision is improved that the entire trail would be included in this improvement and all property owners would be required at that time to remove any encroaching structures. She further stated that she understood that the trail improvements would not be done on a partial or piece by piece basis. Director Curtis stated that Commissioner Kaplan's understanding was correct. Commissioner Asfour inquired as to why the Commission doesn't start requiring removal of the encroaching structures at this time and pursue a program to clear easements of any other encroaching structures that exist. Director Curtis explained that the post are not in an improved portion of the trail system and that it (the trail) may not be improved for a while. He explained that it may not be beneficial to work in a piecemeal fashion with regard to requiring encroachments to be removed. Planner Walgren explained that over the past 15 years as homes have come in one at a time it has been a standard condition prior to final occupancy that they (property owners) have their trail improved -leveled from side to side within that easement. He noted that each of these homes have had a trail along its frontage at one point. He explained that this is now the last home and none of those other trail improvements exist anymore. He explained that the property owners have an obligation to maintain those trails, but none of the owners have and that this issue needs to be looked at by the City. Commissioner Murakami noted the existence of "No Trespassing" signs and asked if the City has the authority to have these signs removed. Director Curtis explained that the City could look at the trail system and have these signs and any other impediments removed. Planner Walgren noted that this issue of the signs has been turned over to the Parks and Recreation Director and he will be looking into removing the signs if they are improper. Commissioner Asfour asked that the Commission be kept up-to-date with regard to the status of these signs and their removal. Planner Walgren acknowledged Commissioner Asfour's request. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 10 Chairperson Moran noted that about 15 other homes appear to have these trail easements. She inquired if any other homes have been offered a deferred improvement agreement with the City or permission place things or leave things in the trail easement. Planner Walgren stated that this was the first such case primarily because the improvements (structure/posts) were put up prior to the house being finalled. Also, in response to Chairperson Moran's inquiry, Planner Walgren stated that this trail easement is included in the property title documents. Chairperson Moran asked if there were any plans by the City to abandon the trail easements. She also inquired if the City does plan to improve the trails. Planner Walgren stated that the City plans to retain the trail easements and the Parks and Recreation Commission continues to look into the improvement of the trail system. Planner Walgren, in response to Chairperson Moran, stated that to his knowledge the City has not given permission in the past for construction of structures and etc in trail easements. Commissioner Wolfe pointed out the existence of metal rails and retaining walls in the trail easements. He inquired about the cost to remove all the things that currently exist within the trail easement. He stated that he did not feel that the development of an equestrian trail along that road would come about any time soon. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Lin, applicant, 12532 Parker Ranch Court, reported many encroachments in the trail easement. He stated that even the cable company has encroachments into the easement. Mr. Lin stated that he is willing to comply with the City requirements as along is the City has a plan to improve the trails and the pole and retaining wall are removed from his property. He stated that the existence of these encroachments (pole and retaining wall) do not help the situation. He stated that~he believes that he is the first property owner that has been caught in this situation. Rose Lin, applicant, 12532 Parker Ranch Court, inquired if they were the only owners to sign an agreement with the City that is recorded against their property and if they were the only ones required to post a bond with the City. She stated that she and her husband are just asking for fair and equal treatment. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 11 Planner Walgren noted that the issue with regard to forfeiture of the bond may not be familiar to the applicants and that the Commission may want to discuss that option with the applicants. Chairperson Moran acknowledged Planner Walgren's suggestion. Ronnie LaCroute, 12832 Star Ridge Ct, explained that she was Secretary of the Board of the Parker Ranch Home Owner's Association from November 1987 -November 1990. She explained that the homes were built at a tremendous rate and that no one at that time was aware of the equestrian easements. She noted that during that time landscaping, structures, guard rails, utility boxes and cables were placed in the easement. She explained that in 1990 a meeting with Castle Rock Horseman's Association revealed that there was an equestrian easement through the property. After finding this out, the Home Owners Association had a meeting with Dan Trinidad the City Maintenance Director where it was agreed that since the properties had been developed, the City would maintain the equestrian trials through the open space and the equestrians could use the open space part of the trail. She stated that the Horseman's Association was agreeable to this. She reported on a situation where a home was built on the proposed location for the horse trail and the trail had to be relocated around the house. She again stated that people were unaware of the trail easement when they built their houses. Bernard LaCroute, 12832 Star Ridge Ct, expressed concern with regard to the situation. He stated that many people were unaware of the easement at the time of the construction of their house. He reported that the equestrian easement exists along 5 lots on Parker Ranch, 3 lots on Continental Circle, and 5 lots on Diamond Oaks Circle. He stated that one of these lots is currently under construction and has columns. He inquired if the owner of this lot had been notified by the City with regard to the equestrian easement or if the City was going to wait until construction completion to notify the property owner. He pointed out that there are retaining walls, utility boxes, mailboxes and street signs within this easement. He stated that he thought it was a waste of time to request residents to remove encroaching structures. Mr. LaCroute stated that if the City was going to be fair it should require all encroaching structures to be removed and the lot under construction should be checked for easement encroachments. He stated that there are very few horses in Parker Ranch. He inquired if the City planned to remove the guard rails which are in the easement. Mr. La Croute stated that the City is now trying to establish a trail system approximately 10 years too late. He stated that he does not feel the City maintains the existing trails which he called deteriorating. He noted that he did not think the City had the money to begin improving the subject trail easement. He asked why the City was targeting the Lins or if it was targeting the Parker Ranch Subdivision. He suggested that the City focus it's energy on something more useful. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 12 Jennifer Crotty, Parks and Recreation Commissioner, read the minutes from the May Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.in which the Commission unanimously denied the Lin's request to remove Conditions # 5 which prohibited structures in the scenic, public service and pedestrian/equestrian easements and Condition #16 which requires prior to final inspection the grading of the equestrian trail to a comparatively level path from side to side, a minimum of 8 feet wide with additional land if necessary to go around obstructions. She stated that the Commission stands firm that this part of the trail is a very important link in the trail system. She noted that the equestrian community was represented at that meeting and indicated that trails in this area have been used for many years. Ms. Crotty noted that some of the comments in the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes inquired as to how the columns could have been overlooked and noted that there must be a breakdown in the system. She also pointed out that a Parks and Recreation Commissioner had noted that these easements are clearly marked in the title papers. Ms. Crotty discussed other comments which were made at the May meeting with regard to the issue of encroachments in the easements. Jennifer Crotty, speaking as an individual (not in representation of the Parks and Recreation Commission) stated that she liked to think of the trail system as a puzzle and that each portion is a piece. She explained that if each piece of the trail system were to be improved (thus meeting the conditions of final occupancy), the pieces would fall into place and make up the trail system. She stated that she thought that tonight's decision of the Planning Commission would be precedent setting. She stated that she was in favor of requiring the Lin's to remove the encroaching portions of the structure and (the City) implementing a program to have other such encroachments removed. Ms. Crotty stated that she feels that the City has failed with regard to implementing the trail system. Albert A'Neals, 901 Las Lomas Drive, Milpitas, stated that the comments made by the Parks and Recreation Commissioner implies that a viable trail exists along the road. He stated that this is untrue. He asked what precedent would be set if the City allows the Lins to temporarily retain the posts until other such encroachments are required to be removed. He pointed out that to require removal of the post at this time would accomplish nothing. He stated that the City should take a firm stand on removing the encroachments when this removal will accomplish something. He stated that it is not an issue of does the City want to preserve its trail system, but is this the way the City wants to preserve its trail system. He stated that he feels the Lins' have been singled out and that requiring the removal of the columns/post would accomplish nothing. He urged the Commission to allow the Lins' posts to remain until the City is ready to improve the trail system. There was no one else wishing to speak. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 13 JACOBS/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Jacobs stated that it is clear that the scope of the problem is large. He stated that he feels it would be appropriate, before requiring the Lins' to remove the posts, to recommend that the City Council discuss when and if they want to improve the trail system. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not see any harm in the City allowing the Lins' columns to stand until the City is ready to develop the trail system. Commissioner Jacobs stated that, separately from this application, he hoped that the City would take some aggressive posture with regard to the trail system. He stated that he feels the trail system should be developed to the extent possible regardless of the encroachments that presently exists. He stated that he would be concerned if the Council or the City Attorney found that there could be potential liability for the City allowing the easement to remain in its present condition. He expressed concern should someone be injured on the street and claim that if the trail had been developed and could have been used, the injuries may not have occurred. He stated that he also has this same concern with injuries that could be sustain from the use of private property instead of the public trail. He stated that he thought the City should put together a plan to aggressively pursue enforcement of the easements. Commissioner Wolfe stated that based on the cost, the development of the equestrian trail may not take place for a while and/or may be financially impossible. He stated that the City may want to consider developing trails along the road side -even for equestrian purposes. If this (trails along the roadside) is the answer, the City should not jeopardize or put in peril the titles of properties. Commissioner Wolfe spoke in favor of initiation of a study to deal with the entire issue of the trail system, easements, encroachments and etc. Commissioner Asfour stated that there are many issues involved with regard to the application before the Commission. He stated there is a matter of law involved whereas the easement was recorded on the title and the fact that some people have encroached onto the easement does not give others the right to do the same. He stated that his inclination was to vote against the application thus requiring immediate removal of the encroaching structure. However, Commissioner Asfour explained, that he is willing to go along with the proposal (recommended in the staff report) if the City puts together a plan either to clean up the trail and make certain everyone is observing the easement or if the City changes or creates another easement. He stated that unless there is some indication from the City with regard to enforcing the easement, he is still inclined to vote against the proposal, thus requiring removal of the structure. s • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 14 Commissioner Murakami stated that it appears to him as if the non-enforcement of the easement has snowballed into this situation. He stated that the situation is almost a joke. He stated that he feels that the City needs to make a definite decision and adhere to a policy -either to pursue development of the trail or let the plan fall by the wayside. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the easements are shown on the property title documents and she feels that the Planning Commission should not be asked to grant variances or exceptions to these easements just because the property owners state that they were unaware of the easement. Chairperson Moran spoke in favor of the recommendation made in the staff report. She stated that she is not in favor of foregoing the trail plan. She spoke in favor denying the request to modify Condition #16 and in favor of the applicants entering into a deferred maintenance agreement with the City so that when the City does decide to move ahead with the development of the trail system the property owners must remove any obstructions on the trail easement. She stated that she did not favor the use of the security deposit for final occupancy because she feels that option has not been fully investigated. Chairperson Moran spoke in favor of the bond being returned to the Lins. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not understand staff's recommendation to be in favor of returning the bond, but that the recommendation was to retain the bond. Planner Walgren stated that it is staff's recommendation that the bond be returned to the Lins .and that a deferred improvement agreement be entered into since it can be recorded against the property. Commissioner Asfour mentioned the option of continuing the item until the City Council can decide on a policy with regard to this issue. Chairperson Moran stated that this option did have merit, but that this particular application has been around since May and the applicants are probably anxious to get the matter resolved. There was discussion among the Commission and staff with regard to the Commission's desire to clearly communicate their endorsement of the trail system, the fact that the trail system needs to be improved, and their recognition that development of the trails is tied to finances. Director Curtis stated that the Commission's comments and their decision. to maintain condition #16 confirms the Planning Commission's position that the trail system should be required, but at the same time gives the Lin's some relief with regard to the removal of the posts. Director Curtis suggested that the Commission include language in the conditions which require that the deferred agreement be filed with the County recorder within 30 days. Director Curtis stated that • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 15 t is action wi put a c osure on t e ins situation an wi a so a ow t e ity an t e Parks and Recreation Commission to further study the issues surrounding the trail system. Commissioner Wolfe inquired if it would be appropriate to include a condition with this application that the City conduct a study of the trail system with regard to the many issues discussed. Director Curtis explained that it would not be appropriate to tie a condition for such a study to this application. There was further discussion and consensus that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council conduct a study of the practical trail applications within this vicinity and the issues relative to the trail easements, enforcement and development. Commissioner Kaplan inquired as to the responsible party for making certain that agreements such as the Lin's agreement with the City is recorded. Director Curtis stated that the City Clerk's office checks on the recording of such agreements. He stated that the Planning staff would also make certain that the agreement is recorded. Chairperson Moran suggested that the Lins' name be removed from Condition 1, Section 1 (Page 69) and be replaced with the words "homeowner or subject property owner". She also suggested that the second line of this condition be made more general and read as follows "...that when the City informs the property owner that now is the time to put in the improvements, the property owner shall be responsible for removing any and all obstructions pursuant..." ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-057.1 PER THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE ABOVE NOTED MODIFICATIONS. THE MOTION PASSED 6- 0. Commissioner Asfour and Chairperson Moran requested that staff reiterate the motion. Following a brief discussion for clarification of the motion and the appropriate wording Director Curtis reiterated the following motion: ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED APPROVAL OF DR-88-057.1 PER THE STAFF REPORT WITH CONDITION 1 MODIFIED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "THE APPLICANTS SHALL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, TO BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ACCEPTANCE OF THIS APPROVAL, STATING THAT WHEN THE CITY SO REQUESTS, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL REMOVE ANY AND ALL OBSTRUCTIONS PURSUANT TO CONDITION NO. 16 OF DR-88-057." Chairperson Moran recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 16 5. DR-93-036 - Bean; 14747 Via De Marcos, request for Design Review approval to construct a single story 5,332 sq. ft. residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a vacant 1.2 acre parcel located in the San Marcos Heights subdivision and within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 27, 1993 and answered general questions with regard to the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 9:20 P.M. BY CHAIRPERSON MORAN. William Bean, applicant and designer, spoke in favor of the application and explained he had worked with staff to meet City regulations. He offered to answer any questions of the Commission and noted that the most challenging portion of this design was in meeting the 20 foot height restriction. He stated that he feels the colors proposed are dark and he would not be in favor of a darker color. Planner Walgren submitted the color board. There was no one else wishing to speak. AT 9:20 P.M., ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had visited ,the site and found the neighborhood to consist of a variety of house colors and designs. She stated that she could support the application. Commissioner Murakami stated that he found the design to be attractive and could support the application. Commissioner Asfour inquired about the 2 different roof material selections on the color/material board. Planner Walgren explained that the applicant has requested the flexibility to use either roofing material and this request has been accepted by staff. JACOBS//MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-036 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Asfour pointed out that one of the roof material selections was fire rated "Class A" and the other "Class B". He asked if the Planning Commission could require that "Class A" materials be used. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 17 Planner Walgren stated that the requirements for roofing materials will apply regardless when the plans are submitted for building permit inspection. He noted that the material board is primarily for aesthetics. Planner Walgren stated that he thought that either of those selections could be upgraded to "Class A". THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 6. UP-93-006 - Stark; 14480 Big Basin Way, request for Use Permit approval to allow the establishment of a deli/bistro and the sale of beer and wine per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The restaurant/bar is proposed within an existing commercial space in the Saratoga Village and zoned Commercial-Historic (CH-1) Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 27, 1993 and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the existing parking, the standard parking formula, the established parking districts, the formula used for the assessments to parking district participants, the limited types of business that could utilize the subject space and meet the parking standard, previous occupants of the subject space, the number of businesses in the village area that meet current parking regulations, the responsible party for meeting use permit conditions, and the body governing the alcohol beverage license. Chairperson Moran noted the receipt of letters from Mr. Tyler, Mr. Van Den Hoogen, Dr. and Mrs Smith, Steve Cali, Carolyn Holm, Gene Zambetti, Mr. and Mrs. Crawford, and Mr. Tomaino. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Dan Stark, applicant, stated that he has been in contact with the building owner, but is not his appointed representative. Mr. Stark spoke in favor of the use permit application. He explained that discussions regarding the opening of the proposed business began in May. He stated that through these discussions with the City, the City had indicated that the restrooms would need to be brought up to Code. He explained that the building owner has been cooperative through out the process and has agreed to bring the bathrooms up to code. With regard to the parking issues brought up in the letters, Mr. Stark stated that the lack of sufficient parking in the area is an existing condition. He noted that he would be willing to work with the City to try to mitigate the problem, but that there may be little anyone can do. He stated that with regard to a comment made in the letter from Carolyn Holm stating that there is no legal access to the parking lot behind the building at 14480 Big Basin Way he does not believe this comment is true. In response to Commissioner Jacobs's question of whether Mr. Stark knew if the building owner • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 18 would be willing to contribute to the parking district, Mr. Stark stated that he did not know if the owner would be willing to contribute. Mr. Stark noted that a contribution by the building owner to the parking district may involve a renegotiation of the tenant leases in the building. Leonard Sullivan, 14421 Big Basin Way, owner of The Bank, spoke in opposition to the application because of the insufficient parking in the area. He stated that the businesses on the north side of the street have contributed to the parking districts and are assessed annually for parking. He stated that the businesses on the south side of the street do not participate in the parking districts and are not assessed a charge, but they benefit by their customers' use of the parking areas. He stated that he felt this practice was unfair. He stated that the businesses that contribute to the parking districts are losing business because their customers have no where to park. He stated that the City should not allow ause%business in the subject site that would generate a lot of vehicles needing parking. He stated that the space should be utilized by a business with minimal parking needs. Commissioner Jacobs stated that it is not beneficial to the City nor the existing merchants to have an empty space in the village area. Commissioner Wolfe asked if Mr. Sullivan had any suggestions for a solution to the parking problem. Mr. Sullivan stated that he has already brought the issue up to the City Council and has suggested that the businesses on the south side be assessed for parking. Tom Van Den Hoogen, 14490 Big Basin Way, Little Amsterdam Restaurant, expressed concern with the use of and damage to the parking lot by garbage and delivery trucks for the proposed business. He noted that there are only 8 parking spaces in this parking lot. Mr. Van Den Hoogen stated that his landlord and owner of the parking lot should be entitled to some compensation if the proposed business is going to use the parking lot. Commissioner Wolfe asked if Mr. Van Den Hoogen had any suggestions for a solution other than compensation with regard to the reported parking problems and the use of the parking lot. Mr. Van Den Hoogen stated that he felt that there were other types of businesses requiring less parking that could go into the subject space. Saeed Sanjroeh, owner of the Vienna Woods Restaurant, 14567 Big Basin Way, expressed concern with the lack of available parking in the area. He stated that he has lost customers because of the existing parking situation. He noted that eating • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 19 places have a concentrated service during limited hours and the parking situation just gets worse during these hours. He suggested that another use which would require less parking be considered for this space. He stated that the village area does not need another eating place that brings business during the eating hours, but needs a business to bring people during the other hours of the day. He stated that this business would only aggravate the current parking situation. In response to Commissioner Wolfe's inquiry for a solution to the parking, should the use permit be granted, Mr. Sanjroeh explained that rearranging the employee parking may possibly help. Betty Crawford, 14429 Big Basin Way, stated that a restaurant requires a good amount of parking. She noted that many of the other businesses in the village area are paying for parking and inquired why this business would be given a "free ride" since it will not be contributing to the parking districts. Harry Lulla, 19099 Austin Way, owner of Saratoga Wine And Spirits, stated that this proposed business does not meet the business. plan for the village in that. it would not provide a new service to the area. He noted that the Village area already has a bar and a deli. He stated that the business would be anon-conforming business and would probably not survive - it will only take business away from the already established businesses. He stated that the business plan calls for a mix of businesses and not a concentration of the same types of businesses. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the Business Plan referenced by Mr. Lulla. Planner Walgren handed Commissioner Kaplan a copy of the Business Plan. Mr. Lulla reiterated his concern that the proposed business would not survive and that it was not in keeping with the goals of the business plan. Gene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, stated that his business contributed to parking district #4. He pointed out that his letters expressed no problem with the proposed use. He stated that the parking situation is the problem. Mr. Zambetti explained to the Commission that his business contributes to the parking district and also pays a lighting assessment. He expressed concern with the use of some of the parking spaces his business is paying for by the customers and/or employees of the new business. Mr. Zambetti explained that his business pays a fee for the parking, spaces. and then the business is assessed an amount (lighting assessment) for maintenance of the parking lots. He discussed the annual amounts paid by his business for parking. Mr. Zambetti suggested that the new business pay their fair share of the lighting assessment and parking assessment/bond or those businesses paying these fees should be compensated or their assessment decreased appropriately. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 20 Mr. Zambetti also answered general questions with regard to the parking situation and the fees/assessments paid by the merchants for the parking districts. In response to Commissioner Wolfe's question regarding a solution, Mr. Zambetti suggested that the new business be required to post a cash bond for the purpose of contributing toward a fund toward the purchase of land and the construction of another parking facility. Mr. Zambetti also discussed the possibility of forming a Business Improvement District where the merchants could vote on an assessment formula and whether or not to participate in~ a parking district. Mr. Zambetti stated that he is not in favor of an empty space in the village. Chairperson Moran inquired if Mr. Zambetti knew of other merchants on the south side of the road that were contributing to the parking district and/or the lighting assessment. Mr. Zambetti stated that he was unsure who paid into the lighting assessment or the parking district. Mr. Zambetti clarified that the Parking bond was for the purchase of parking spaces and that the lighting assessments were for maintenance of the parking areas. Joseph Masek, 14467 Big Basin Way, welcomed the new venture. He expressed concern with regard to the parking situation. He noted that the 2 hour parking spaces are used by vehicles that park all day long. He stated that he had reported this to the City, but that the 2 hour limit is still not enforced. He stated that enforcement of the 2 hour limit may help with some of the parking problems. Mr. Masek expressed frustration with the fact that he contributes to the parking, but doesn't seem to get anything for his money. Mr. Masek also provided the Commission with an occupancy history of the subject space. In response to Commissioner Wolfe's invitation for an equitable solution to the parking situation, Mr. Masek suggested that the 2 hour parking restriction be enforce. He also suggested the construction of a parking deck over district 3 and the installation of parking meters to regulate parking (deter all day parking by commuters who park in the area and ride to work with someone else) and to help generate money toward additional parking facilities. Mr. Crawford, 14429 Big Basin Way, reiterated many of the comments made by the previous speakers. Mr. Crawford suggested that the City look at a parking permit program. He stated that he, as a property owner in the downtown area, resents having to pay for parking while other businesses' employees and customers use the parking with no charge at all. He stated that he felt that the proposed use was too intensive for the location and that there is insufficient parking to support such a business. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 21 Mr. Stark, applicant, explained that he has a similar establishment in Aptos. He reported that this business tends to have customers through out the day. He stated that a significant amount of the space is retail and the business would carry approximately 200 regional wines. He noted that the only beers that would be offered are premium ales and beer from micro breweries. With regard to the reported parking problem, Mr. Stark stated that there is not much he can do about the situation, but expressed his willingness to work with the City in this regard. He noted that he did not think that the rear parking lot was properly striped and that re-striping may help. He stated that the proposed business is expected to.be an integral part of the community. In response to Commissioner Wolfe's inquiry regarding any suggestions toward a solution to the parking situation, Mr. Stark stated that the employee parking could be designated in a location so as not to add to the current parking dilemma. He also suggested that the back lot be re-striped and the garbage bin relocated so it would take up less room and perhaps open a space for parking. There was no one else wishing to speak. KAPLAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:39 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Murakami asked if the business plan specifically calls out certain uses and if limits are placed on how many or what percentage of certain types of businesses can exist in the area. Planner Walgren explained that the business plan calls for a mix of pedestrian friendly businesses, but it does not limit the number or percentage of a certain type of business that can exist in the area. He further explained that this use is in conformance with both the Specific Business Plan and the Design Plan. Commissioner Jacobs expressed the opinion that the Commission could limit the number of similar uses and at what point is there no longer an adequate mix of uses. He stated that if every time an application is reviewed the Commission takes the position that they cannot limit the (type of) use, theoretically the downtown area could be filled with all the same use. He stated that he thinks the Code has some provisions with regard to expanded uses and wondered what should and should not be done. He stated that the parking situation downtown is critical in two respects - 1) some merchants have to pay quite a bit and some pay nothing; and 2) there is not enough parking.. Even if everyone paid, Commissioner Jacobs explained, there would still not be enough parking. He stated that when the Commission talks about mixes, it needs to discuss mixes not only in terms of types of businesses/uses, but also in terms of operation times and parking needs. He stated this that categorization will not only provide a mixture of uses, but will also ameliorate the parking situation. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 22 Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was not ready to pass this request without further solutions to the parking situation. He stated that the City needs to solve the parking problem before it allows intensification of the use of this particular parcel. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she felt that the issue of competition is one factor that played into the comments made. She stated that with regard to Commissioner Jacobs' position, this option would leave a space in the downtown area and not generating income which is not a solution to the parking problem. She stated that the City does need to deal with the parking problem and find a solution. She stated that she is willing to support the application and allow the business to take its chances for either failure or success as long as this type of business is not prohibited by the zoning regulations. Commissioner Kaplan stated that why one side of the street did not join the parking district 20 years ago is not the issue tonight. She spoke in favor of a vehicle to bring these businesses into a parking district or the creation of a new parking district. She encouraged the Commission not to delay the proposed business and/or the applicant. Commissioner Asfour stated that many issues have arisen as a result of this application. He stated that some of these issues can not be dealt with by the Planning Commission. He noted that almost any business that moves into the subject space will face the same parking situation. Therefore, he stated, the Planning Commission should not hold the applicant hostage because of the existing parking situation. Commissioner Asfour stated that it is not the job of the Commission to call out the type of tenant for the space. He stated that he would be voting in favor of the use permit. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Asfour. He stated that there is no clear solution to the parking problem and that applicant should not be denied occupancy based on the type of business proposed. Commissioner Murakami stated that he would be voting in favor of the use permit and he expressed his desire for the City to move on finding a solution to the parking problem in the downtown area. Commissioner Wolfe asked if there was anything the Planning Commission could do to put a vehicle in motion with regard to finding a solution to the reported parking problems. Community Development Director Curtis explained that as Mr. Sullivan mentioned earlier, the City Council had been informed of the problems and discussions are taking place with regard to exploration of parking solutions. Director Curtis stated that he would inquire about the progress of these discussions and report back to the Commission. J, ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 23 Commissioner Jacobs stated that the proposed use does not comply with the City Code. Director Curtis explained that the use is considered a permitted use (a legal use) and the requirement for a use permit is only to provide the City an opportunity to impose certain conditions to mitigate any potential impacts. He stated that the use is in compliance with the zoning code. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he does not feel that the issue of insufficient parking has been addressed. Commissioner Asfour stated that he feels the proposed business is of a unique nature. He pointed out that it is not really a deli or restaurant. He stated that he likes the idea of being able to taste a certain wine before purchasing it. He noted that there is no where else in the village that this can be done. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he feels that the discussion regarding the parking situation clearly points out the need for a parking solution and hopes that this message is received and appropriate action is taken. Chairperson Moran stated that she feels the proposed use is unique and will generate business for other establishments in the area. She stated that she finds the application to be in compliance with the Specific Business Plan as it will be a pedestrian friendly use. She stated that she hopes that the City will move toward a solution to the reported parking problems. KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE UP-93-006 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Community Development Director Curtis suggested that the language in Condition #5 be modified and that the condition read as follows: 5. The applicant shall apply for review of this Use Permit within one year from the date of approval to the Community Development Director. The permit will be reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine if the approved hours of operation continue to be appropriate and to address any other complaints or problems which may arise associated with the business operation. Chairperson Moran inquired if review of the parking situation should be explicitly included in Condition #5 Several of the Commissioners indicated that they were not in favor of including parking issues in with Condition #5. Director Curtis agreed that it would not be appropriate to include parking issues in Condition #5. ,. e ~ ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 24 Chairperson Moran asked if a condition which requires the installation of a garbage bin, re-striping of the parking lot and restricting and enforcing employee parking to a designated area should be added. Director Curtis stated that installation of a garbage bin and re-striping of the parking lot to maximize parking can easily be added as Condition #8. but the enforcement of restricting employee parking may be difficult. THE MODIFICATIONS (AS NOTED ABOVE) WERE ACCEPTED BY BOTH THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION AND THE MOTION PASSED 5-1 (JACOBS OPPOSED). 7. UP-93-005 - Valiancy; 12580 Paseo Cerro, request for Use V-93-016 - Permit approval to convert an existing 740 sq. ft. carport that is within the required rear yard into a fully enclosed garage and shop and change the flat roof to a pitched roof per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant is also requesting Variance approval since the structure is located within the required side yard. The subject property is approximately 10,720 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zone district (cont. from 9/22/93; application expires 1 /20/94). ---------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated October 27, 1993 and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project and with regard to the City regulations regarding second living units. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had visited the site and concluded that its intended use may have been as a second living unit. She stated that she would be in favor of requiring that the bathroom be removed. Commissioner Asfour inquired if the planning Commission could require removal of the bathroom. Planner Walgren explained that the Commission could base approval of the project on the removal of the bathroom. AT 11;:07 P.M. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Scott Cunningham, 14375 Saratoga Avenue, explained that the structure was an existing structure and submitted before and after photos of the structure depicting the various modifications the applicant has made to the structure. Mr. Cunningham also submitted photos of similar structures on neighboring properties. Mr. Cunningham explained that the City had been contacted by the applicant and his brother with regard to the regulations. He further explained that the owner's ~: `` • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 25 were unaware that the modification required a permit from the City, began work without a permit, and was subsequently issued a stop work order. Mr. Cunningham stated that the intent was to use the structure only as a work shop which included a bathroom since the house has only one bathroom. Mr. Cunningham stated that the owner has no intentions of using the structure as living quarters and that the plumbing the applicant desires to install in the structure is not in violation of the code. Commissioner Murakami stated that he is concerned with the intended use of the structure. Mr. Cunningham again assured the Commission that the structure would only be used as a garage, workshop and bathroom, not a dwelling unit. Mr. Cunningham answered general questions from the Commission with regard to the project. Mark Vallancy, applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He explained that he travels frequently and was unaware of the requirement to obtain a building permit for the modifications to the building. Mr. Vallancy stated that the flat roof leaked and was in need of repair. Mr. Vallancy explained that he and his brother are co-owners of the property and that his brother, who is doing the work, understood that as long as the work was within the footprint of the existing structure no permit was required. Mr. Vallancy stated that he would like to have a bathroom and shower in the building and would be using the bathroom primarily as a dark room. In response to Commissioner Asfour's question Mr. Vallancy stated that he preferred a bathroom instead of a regular darkroom because his home has only one bathroom and the additional bathroom would be more convenient to him and the tenants who rent a room in his house. He stated that he has no intention of renting out the subject structure and is only planning on using it for his personal storage and etc. Chairperson Moran inquired if the City had received any complaints from the neighbors or if any of the neighbors had contacted the City with regard to the application. Planner Walgren stated that no complaints were received,but that several of the neighbors did come into look at the plans. He stated, that to his knowledge, no one had expressed opposition to the project. Scot Cunningham, questioned the condition requiring installation of fire sprinklers. Planner Walgren explained that the Fire Department reviewed the plans and determined that fire sprinklers shall be required. There was no one else wishing to speak. b r, ` ~ ~~ :` • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of October 27, 1993 Page 26 AT 11:29 P.M., ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0. There were several other questions from the Commissioner with regard to the City's restrictions on second living units. Planner Walgren explained the City regulations with regard to second living units. Commissioner Asfour stated that he was concerned that the structure could be used as a second living unit. He stated that he would be in favor of adding very strong language to the conditions which prohibited the structure's use as a second living unit. Chairperson Moran stated that she had concerns with the extent of the encroachment into the required setback given the fact that the structure is as large as a one car garage and the neighborhood is one of small lot sizes. She stated that she is not in support of the application and favored denying the permit request. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was not concerned with the structure. He favored approving the application with language prohibiting the structure's use as a second living unit. Community Development Director Curtis then noted that such a condition is already incorporated in the resolution. Commissioner Murakami stated that he feels the applicant received bad advice with regard to the project not needing a permit. He spoke in favor of removal of the back windows and language that specifically prohibits the structure from being used as a second living unit. He stated that he could support the application. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he has no problem with supporting the application. JACOBS/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE UP-93-005 AND V-93-016 PER THE .RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. Planner Walgren stated that he feels that there may have been a misunderstanding when the Fire Department reviewed the plans. Planner Walgren reported that the requirement for installation of fire sprinklers should only apply to new construction, or 50% physical expansion and since the structure is existing, the sprinklers may not be required. He suggested that the Commission amend the motion so that Condition # 6 of UP-93-005 read as follows: "Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage as required by the Uniform Fire Code." THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-2 (MORAN AND KAPLAN OPPOSED).