Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1993 Planning Commission Minutes;. '+^ ~ t 4 • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 1993 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Moran. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: None City Attorney Riback was not present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of October 27, 1993 Chairperson Moran had the following corrections: Page 23, 2nd to the last paragraph, should read as follows: "Chairperson Moran inquired if review of the parking situation should be explicitlx included in Condition #5" Page 26, 3rd paragraph, should read as follows: "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 _c_ar 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 had the following corrections: Page 15, the motion, an "s" should be added to "Jacob". ~- ' • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 2 Page 21, last paragraph, first line, the words "inquired if" should be deleted and replaced with "expressed the opinion that". 2nd line of the same paragraph the word "wondered" should be inserted after the words "uses and". Further down in this paragraph, after "1) some", the word "merchants" should be inserted and in the very last line the word "mixed" should be deleted and replaced with "mixture of". Page 26, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence, "Commissioner Jacobs" should be deleted and replaced with "Community Development Director Curtis". Commissioner Kaplan had the following corrections: Page 14, the following should be inserted after the first paragraph: "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." Commissioner Asfour noted that on Page 23, 1st paragraph after the motion, the condition number was not included in the paragraph. Commissioner Asfour inquired if Director Curtis was referring to Condition 5. Director Curtis verified that it was Condition 5 to which he referred. "5" should be added after the word "Condition" in the 1st paragraph following the motion to approve UP-93-006. Commissioner Caldwell noted that she had a few spelling corrections that she would submit to the Minutes Clerk. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 27, y993 MINUTES AS CORRECTED (ABOVE). PASSED 6-0-1 (Caldwell abstained). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Gene Zambetti, 14540 Big Basin Way, representing Calli Investments and Zambetti and Associates, stated that in regard to the Planning Commission's recent approval of a use permit for a bistro on Big Basin Way and the parking issues brought up at that hearing, he (Mr. Zambetti) would like to request the formation of a committee to work with the Planning Commission for the purpose of looking at the downtown parking situation and to find additional space in the village for relief to the parking problems. He suggested that this committee study options of restriping some of the existing parking lots, purchasing additional properties through a business improvement district, or relocating certain uses for a more equitable distribution of ,_ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 3 parking needs throughout the downtown area. Mr Zambetti suggested that this committee consist of a staff member, two commissioners, two property owners and one successful merchant on Big Basin Way. Chairperson Moran thanked Mr. Zambetti for his comments and suggested that this subject be discussed toward the end of the meeting during the Commission Item segment so Community Development Director Curtis could also participate in the discussion. She stated that she was aware of the appeal filed on the use permit and that one of Mr. Zambetti's concerns was the parking issue. Mr. Zambetti stated that he anticipated that the suggested committee would only meet a few times (1-3 hours) and would come up with 3 or 4 work items which would make the Planning Commission's decision a lot easier in the future when such applications come before the Commission. Mr Zambetti stated that he would not be present at the end of the meeting, but that he would talk with the Community Development Director at a later date. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 9, 1993. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren stated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Caldwell requested that Item #2 be removed from the Consent Calendar per the request of a gentlemen in the audience. 1. DR-93-030 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 EI Camino Grande, request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,684 sq. ft. residence and demolish an existing residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 51,400 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district (cont. to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant; application expires 3/29/94). • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 3 parking needs throughout the downtown area. Mr Zambetti suggested that this committee consist of a staff member, two commissioners, two property owners and one successful merchant on Big Basin Way. Chairpe-son Moran thanked Mr. Zambetti for his comments and suggested that this subject be discussed toward the end of the meeting during the Commission Item segment so Community Development Director Curtis could also participate in the discussion. She stated that she was aware of the appeal filed on the use permit and that one of Mr. Zambetti's concerns was the parking issue. Mr. Zambetti stated that he anticipated that the suggested committee would only meet a few times (1-3 hours) and would come up with 3 or 4 work items which would make the Planning Commission's decision a lot easier in the future when such applications come before the Commission. Mr Zambetti stated that he would not be present at the end of the meeting, but that he would talk with the Community Development Director at a later date. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 9, 1993. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren stated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Caldwell requested that Item #2 be removed from the Consent Calendar per the request of a gentlemen in the audience. 1. DR-93-030 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 EI Camino Grande, request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,684 sq. ft. residence and demolish an existing residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 51,400 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district (cont. to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant; application expires 3/29/94). ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 4 CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-91-006.1 - Chadwick; 21252 Chadwick Ct., request for aone-year extension of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a new 5,416 sq. ft. residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 2.8 acres and is located in the HR zone district. Planner Walgren present the Report dated November 10, 1993, and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the amendment to the Fire Code and the new condition added to the project. He also answered general questions with regard to the project noting that there had been no design or grading changes to the application since the original approval. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Gary Schloh, architect, 213 B Avenue, Los Gatos, began to address the Commission, but was advised by Commission Moran, after she verified that he was associated with the Moley application, that the Commission had not yet gotten to his project. Ray Piontek, 21195 Chadwick Drive, pointed out that he was referred to as Ray Kent in the July 24, 1991 minutes. He spoke in opposition to the one year extension based on safety concerns. He stated that the driveway plan he had initially looked at was different than the one included on the current plans. He stated that he had concerns with regard to the driveway design and the fact that there is no retaining wall. He expressed safety concerns with regard to the driveways ability to handle the weight of emergency vehicle and the potential of erosion as a result of both driveway use and the absence of a retaining wall. He submitted a plan of the property depicting the areas which he had concerns and also showing the location of a small existing retaining wall. Planner Walgren assisted the Commission in locating Mr. Piontek's property on the map. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 5 Commissioner Jacobs inquired if it was correct that neither the applicant nor a project representative was present. Chairperson Moran stated that this was correct -neither was present. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the application be continued until the next public hearing which would allow time for the applicant to be notified of the neighbor's concerns and for the applicant and Mr. Piontek to get together, look at the plans and work out the concerns. Mr. Piontek stated that he was not qualified to work out any safety issues with regard to building a driveway. He indicated that he would be agreeable to meeting with the applicant and staff with regard to his safety concerns. Director Curtis stated that the plans had been submitted to the City Engineer and the Fire Department and were approved subject to all the staff reviews. Commissioner Jacobs inquired if this had been discussed with Mr. Piontek. Planner Walgren explained that changes to the driveway plan had been made between the July public hearing and the subsequent studysession (which was publicly noticed) on the project. He noted that the changes were then presented at another public hearing in August at which time the project was approved. Planner Walgren noted that the Planning Commission directed that application to pursue this driveway configuration versus the original configuration. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she recalled this direction, but noted that the Commission was concerned, at that time, with the issue of impervious coverage and design not retaining walls. Planner Walgren explained that there are no retaining walls on the down slope, but that there is a contour slope that is being built up to a certain degree to support the driveway. He noted that this is the plan that was approved and that if retaining walls were to be required this would be a modification to the approval and (the plan) would have to be reconsidered. In response to Commissioner Jacobs' question, Planner Walgren explained that the applicant's engineer designed the driveway in such a way as to not require retaining walls and that the plan had been reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer and Fire Department. Mr. Piontek stated that he now understands that based on staff's review that he has nothing to worry about in terms of safety and that there will not be a retaining wall. He noted that these were the clarifications he was seeking. S ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 6 Director Curtis reiterated Planner Walgren's comments that the plans have been reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer and Fire Department. He noted that to ask these departments to re-review the plan would be asking the departments if they are sure of their acceptance of the proposed plans. Commissioner Jacobs inquired if Mr. Piontek understood what Director Curtis had said - that staff had reviewed the plans and do not have any problems with the driveway plans with regard to safety and/or the absence of a retaining wall. Mr. Piontek asked again - no safety issues and no retaining wall? Commissioner Jacobs stated that this was correct. Commissioner Asfour noted that the plans have already been reviewed and approved and that these departments should not be second guessed unless some evidence is presented which shows that there findings are at fault. Mr. Piontek stated that he cannot present any evidence that their findings are at fault. He stated that he did not have full understanding of that (the review process) and stated that he was glad that he had gotten clarification that there are no safety issues and that there will be no retaining wall. Daisy Stark, 21247 Chadwick Court, stated that she shared the same concerns as Mr. Piontek and that she is satisfied with the answers given by the Commission with regard to these concerns. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/ KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. PASSED 7-0. ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-91-006.1 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Chairperson Moran stated that she feel the concern expressed by the neighbors have been resolved and addressed to their satisfaction. THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Caldwell encouraged the neighbor to call staff or contact the Commission if they have any further concerns with regard to development in this area. She noted that with all the construction going on in the area it is sometimes difficult to know if what is being done is being done properly. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 7 3. 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. from 10/27/93 at the request of the applicant; application expires 4/6/93.) Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 10, 1993, and answered question with regard to the project. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Gary Slough, project architect, gave a brief overview of the project. He stated that he and the applicant had explored different options with regard to an addition without the need for a variance, but were unsuccessful. He explained that the plan is to relocate an existing bedroom and add a bathroom. He discussed such issues as existing landscaping and the distance from the (street) pavement to the house and setbacks from the property line to the house. He spoke in favor of the application and urged to Commission to approve the variance application. Mr. Moley, applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He explained that the existing floor plan has many constraints and is difficult to add the additional space needed and still remain within the City guidelines. He stated that he did not feel that the variance would grant a special privilege. It would only allow him and his family to enjoy a larger bathroom and bedroom and more closet space just as other homeowners in the neighborhood do. He stated that he feels that the variance request is a reasonable request and does not violate the spirit of the code. There was no one else wishing to speak. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:12 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Asfour wondered if an approval of the variance would allow construction along the existing 18 foot setback. Planner Walgren stated that this was correct. • i Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Jacobs read aloud Code Section 15-70.010. He stated that he feels that the location of the structure itself dictates the floor plan and that the location of the structure has created a hardship since it is already located in the required setback. He stated that Planner Kermoyan could have stated in the finding that there are grounds to support the variance because of the location of the house already being in the setback. Planner Walgren stated that Commissioner Jacobs made a good point. He explained that one of the reasons that the City has appointed Commissions review these applications is because staff has to continually reassess and interpret findings and how they are applied. He stated that he thinks the way the findings are being applied to this application is a very literal interpretation of the Code and is consistent with the way the findings had been applied within the last several years. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not recall during the time he has sat on the Planning Commission an application in which such a literal interpretation of the Code has been applied. Planner Walgren stated that this application falls into a "gray area" of the code. He explained that past applications were allowed to maintain their nonconforming setback and that discussions took place with regard to those variances being able to be supported because the lots were constrained by their small size and/or because the addition was only a small percentage of the overall building elevation. In this case only a small portion of the existing structure is located in the setback. Commissioner Jacobs noted that only a small portion of the addition would be encroaching into the setback. Planner Walgren agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' comment. Commissioner Wolfe asked if any concerns were expressed by those property owners noticed. Planner Walgren indicated that no objections were received. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she had struggled with some of the same issue raised by Commissioner Jacobs. She recalled several similar variance applications in which the Commission saw fit to grant the variance. She stated that these approvals were based on the fact that the location of the building on the site constituted a special circumstance and that other homes in the area also encroached on the setbacks. She stated that in light of this situation it is hard to • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 9 see this application differently from those past applications. She stated that she was concerned with equity in regard to the decisions made on variance applications which are similar. CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF V-93-018 ON THE BASIS THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE SITE AND THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A GRANTING OF A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AND VICINITY THAT HAVE SIMILAR ENCROACHMENTS INTO THEIR SIDE YARD SETBACKS. Commissioner Asfour concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Caldwell and explained that typically he is not very keen on granting variances, but in this case all the variance is doing is allowing the applicant to extend his house along the existing building line. He noted that there are other places on the property to add-on, but that the applicant is restricted by the location of the house. Commissioner Asfour stated that he thought it would be unfair to ask the applicant to reconstruct the house just to add the addition. Community Development Director Curtis requested that an additional statement be made as part of the findings that the addition requested is a reasonable use of the residence and that without the variance a reasonable flow of the house could not be provided. COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ADDED TO HER DIRECTION (ABOVE) THAT STAFF DRAFT A RESOLUTION THAT THEY THINK WILL BE ADEQUATE IN SUPPORTING THIS VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR (THE SECONDER) ACCEPTED THIS ADDITIONAL DIRECTION. Chairperson Moran stated that she appreciated the applicant's efforts to maintain a one-story house. She stated that she did not think the applicant is being deprived of any privileges such as having a larger bathroom or closet. She stated that she feels these options are still open to the applicant without the variance. She stated that she was unable to make all the variance findings. She expressed concern with the Planning Commission explicitly saying or moving in the direction of considering constraining floor plans as criteria for granting a variance. She urged the Commission to think long and hard about this action. She stated that she feels the Commission should examine this line of thinking before it makes such a policy switch. She stated that she thought staff had been helpful in their • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 10 recommendations to the Commission with regard to maintaining consistency in the application of the Code. She stated that she thought that the addition was lovely and reasonable, but that she is having difficulty making the variance findings based on the fact that it (the floor plan) is a big inconvenience to the applicants. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he thinks each variance application stands on its own and needs to be considered case by case. He recalled a previous variance request in which he was initially opposed. He explained that after visiting the property it became apparent to him that the entire neighborhood had similar variances. He stated that in some areas of Saratoga greater density has its own certain charm. He voiced his opinion that each variance needs to be evaluated individually. He stated that he looked at the subject property and the neighborhood and does not feel the proposed addition will violate the purpose of the code or adversely impact the people or structures in the area. He stated that he felt the request was reasonable and if the findings can be made, he could support the variance. He stated that if this was setting some kind of new policy, his suggestion to the Commission would be to adopt this new policy. Commissioner Asfour concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Jacobs. He stated that he did not feel that the Commission is setting a new policy, but only looking at the variance requests on a case by case basis. He noted that some variance the Commission just simply cannot support. With this variance, he explained, he feels it is a reasonable request, wilt not be detrimental to the surroundings and will be reasonably screened from the street: He again stated that variances should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he feels the operable word in these discussions is "reasonable". He stated that variance applications come before the Commission one at a time and that the Commission is not the bureaucracy -the Commission is the appointed neighbors to bring sense to these things. He stated that he also feels that the request is reasonable and he can support the variance based on the findings previously stated. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she feels the Commission needs to talk about the issue of continuing an extension along an existing non-conforming setback. She noted that these situations are difficult and that many times such a variance application comes before the Commission the Commission tends to look at the request favorably. She stated that she is particularly concerned about fairness of the Commissions decisions. She suggested that this topic be discussed at a study session. She stated that she did not make the motion to support the variance based on the applicants' floor plan, but as the code states , on the basis of the location of the structure. She stated that the code cites the location of the . • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 11 structure as a basis for granting certain variances and she finds this finding acceptable. She also stated that with regard to granting the applicants a special privilege she was not convinced by the applicants argument that others in the neighborhood enjoy larger bedrooms and bathrooms. She was basing the absence of a special privilege on the fact that property owners in the same zoning district and within the same vicinity have done the same thing. Therefore, she explained, she felt the Commission would not be granting a special privilege. Commissioner Caldwell strongly urged the Commission to schedule a worksession for discussion on the issue of building along an existing non-conforming building line and coming up with a policy regarding this situation. Chairperson Moran agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's suggestion to discuss the issue at a study session. She noted that she feels that when people of the community are making drawings and designing additions they look at past decisions on these issues and design accordingly. She stated that she would be using her "No" vote on this application to signal that she feels that there is some ambiguity left in this policy and that the Commission should do some thing other than just "blanketly" change the variance rules to either include any consideration of floor plan or, without care, consider the extension of current encroachment as basis for the granting of a variance to extend along the existing building line. Commissioner Caldwell expressed her respect and appreciation for Chairperson Moran's comments. Commissioner Jacobs stated that with regard to the idea of examining the issue at a worksession it is always a good idea to bat around ideas. He stated that he thinks the Commission will find that the ultimate arbiter will be design review. It will be less a question of whether it encroaches on the setback and more of a question of "Is this a design which we really find satisfactory to the neighborhood and community." He stated that he feels that the design plays a key role in the extent of which the Commission allows encroachments. Chairperson Moran stated that she still could not make the findings to support the variance. THE MOTION PASSED 6-1 (MORAN OPPOSED). 4. DR-93-031 - Glennon; 13091 Pierce Rd., Lot B, request for V-93-021 - Design Review approval to construct a new 3,848 sq. ft. two-story residence and Variance approval to allow the second story to be located 50 ft. from the rear property line where 60 ft. is required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is a vacant, 40,075 sq. ft. parcel located within the R-1-40,000 zone district. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 12 Commissioner Jacobs excused himself from review of this item and stepped down from the Bias. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 10, 1993 and answered general questions with regard to the project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:40 P.M. BY CHAIRPERSON MORAN. William Glennon, 13091 Pierce Road, spoke in favor of the application and urged the Commission to approve both the variance and design review. Mr. Glennon stated that the tentative map depicted the location of the house and labelled it as two-story. He explained that the house was actually one-story toward the street and two-stories in back. He submitted a photo of the house and property and stated that the only reason a variance is needed is because of a technicality. He explained that the existing house is classified as a two-story house and, in his opinion, it (the house) is not atwo-story house. He stated that because the basement windows are over two feet above the grade the ordinance considers the house to be a two-story house. He also discussed the existence of an easement on the property and stated that the 75 foot flood easement cannot be included in determining the building area, but can be included for setback purposes. He explained that because of the codes the lot line of the new house would be 69 feet away. He stated that even though the house faces north and south the ordinance says that the front yard is the east side thus requiring a greater setback than if it was considered a side yard. Mr. Glennon stated that there is 69 feet from the existing house to the property line and the ordinance requires that the new house be 60 feet from that property line -this would be a total of 129 feet between the two residences. He explained that the granting of his variance request would allow him to build 119 feet from the existing house. He stated that the only way to fit a house on the lot without some sort of variance would be to eliminate the tennis court. He stated that there are 32 homes in the area and only 3, possibly 5, meet the setback requirements. He stated that if the Commission could find that the existing house was one story then there would be no need for a variance. Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Glennon if he had considered adjusting the property line so as not to need a variance. Mr. Glennon explained that because of the 75 foot easement, the classification of the house as two-story, and the setback regulations, a lot line adjustment would be very difficult. Sam Maliniak, project architect, stated that if the Commission could find that the existing residence is a one story house, the lot line could be adjusted back 50 feet and would eliminate the need for a variance. ~~ ! ! Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 13 Planner Walgren stated that he feels that there may be some confusion. He noted that there was discussion earlier of whether the existing residence is a two-story or not, and explained that the increased setback only applies to the new proposal which is a two-story house. He stated that this setback requirement has nothing to do with whether the existing house is a one story or a two-story. Planner Walgren discussed the formula use for determining the setbacks on this property and again noted that the setbacks for the new residence were not related to the number of stories of the existing house. There was no one else wishing to speak. AT 8:42 P.M., ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Wolfe expressed his appreciation for the applicant trying to maintain many of the existing trees and stated that he feels that the proposed design meets the required criteria. He stated that the existing variances of the neighboring houses create a precedent in the area. He also noted that the 75 foot easement affects the arrangement of the house on the lot. He explained that he could not support the removal of the tennis court. He stated that he feels the applicant has done everything reasonable to comply with the codes and that the variance is not major. COMMISSIONER WOLFE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had visited the site and could not make the findings to support the variance. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if the tennis court was locked in (its location) because of the trees. She stated that she had visited the site and wondered about the possibility of relocating the tennis court closer to the house. Planner Walgren explained that the tennis court is constrained to a degree by the 30 foot front yard setback requirement, the two oak trees to the north, the house to the south and also by the rear setback to the west. He stated that the only possible way the tennis court could be moved would be to the east. He stated that he did not know if there was enough room to the east with regard to moving the court that would affect the problem that is occurring. Commissioner Asfour noted that a slight rotation of the house and tennis court would eliminate the need for a variance. . • Planning Commission M s Meeting of November 1093 Page 14 Commissioner Wolfe stated that Commissioner Asfour's suggestion would require demolition of the entire tennis court which would be a tremendous expense. he stated that he would not be in favor of that suggestion. Commissioner Murakami stated that he could not make the findings to support the variance. He stated that the design was acceptable, but not the variance. Commissioner Kaplan echoed Commissioner Murakami's statement. Chairperson Moran polled the Commission as to whether to check with the applicant with regard to continuing the application to allow time for redesigning and elimination of the need for the variance. ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:58 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Mr. Glennon, applicant, stated that he had no interest in a continuation for the purposes of redesigning the house and eliminating the need for a variance. He stated that others in the area have the same variance. He explained that he has investigated other options with regard to house designs/locations, but found none possible. He stated that he felt he had addressed and met all the necessary findings for the Commission to support the variance request. He stated that he preferred to keep the variance application and the design review application together so he may pursue an appeal. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:59 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Chairperson Moran stated that she feels that it is possible to maintain the tennis court and build a lovely house even if the design changes or the size is somewhat reduced so that a variance in not needed. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Chairperson Moran. MORAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO DENY DR-93-031 AND V-93-021 PER THE STAFF REPORT. PASSED 5-1 (WOLFE OPPOSED). The meeting was recessed at 9:01 p.m and then reconvened at 9:12 p.m. Commissioner Jacobs re-joined his fellow Commissioners at the dias. 5. DR-93-015 - Miloglav; 15161 Sobey Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 4,752 sq. ft. residence and demolish an existing residence and guest house per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is approximately 43,560 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 15 Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 10, 1993. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:13 P.M. Darrel Fazekas, project architect, spoke in favor o~~~the application and discussed such issues as the condition of the trees, relocation of the driveway, existing driveway screening and rotation of the house. He also answered questions from the -t Commission with regard to the project. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:16 P.M. PASSED 7-0. CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-015 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Chairperson Moran stated that she feels the design will fit in nicely in the neighborhood and stated that she can support the application. THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. ,. 6. DR-93-028 - Lin; 14855 Baranga Ln., request for Design '~ V-93-025 - Review approval to demolish an existing 2,868 sq ft. single story residence and construct a new 6,170 sq. ft. two-story home in its place. Variance approval is also requested to allow a tennis court to be located on a slope of greater than 10 percent. The subject property is 1.6 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 10, 1993 and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. AT 9:21 P.M. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Lins -applicant, spoke in favor of the applications. She presented transparencies to assist in her presentation. She discussed such -~ issues as the slope of the property, the proposed =location of the tennis court and other locations that were explored for possible location of the tennis court. She noted that the proposed location was the only acceptable location for the tennis • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 16 court and it meets all the setbacks and preserves all but two trees. She stated that any other location of the tennis court would require removal of many trees and placement of the proposed house closer to the street. She noted that several neighbors had requested that the tennis court be lowered and that the applicants are willing to comply with this request. She noted that this would decrease the amount of fill needed. She stated that the home is not an "estate home" as referred to in the staff report. She stated that in designing the proposed residence that the City's design handbook had been used. She announced that the proposed home would be located in the same location as the old home and that as much of the existing landscaping as possible would be preserved. She stated that there would be no grading necessary for the patios and trellis. She called the design neo-classic and stated that the house would be 20 1 /2 feet tall and approximately 90 feet long - a 4-foot to 1-foot length to height ratio. She discussed design features and techniques, noted that the second- floor was half the size of the first floor, discussed window placement and size, noted the 200 foot setback from the street and explained that the existing vegetation would serve as screening to the new structure. She stated that most of the neighbors had indicated acceptance of the design. Ms. Fanelli also answered question regarding the project. Wayne Rieker, 14850 Baranga Lane, stated that he had been concerned with the tennis court and its perception of being elevated higher above the other properties. He stated that he spoke with the applicants and was assured that the tennis court would be lowered as much as possible. He stated that the design was not a California ranch and probably not something he would have designed to live in, but he feels people have the right to enjoy what they like on their property. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:36 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would like to handle the variance application and the design application separately. The Commission was agreeable. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO DENY V-93-025. Commissioner Asfour spoke in favor of the applicant designing a tennis court in a location that would not stand out as much. He stated that he could not make the findings to support the variance. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 17 Chairperson Moran stated that she also could not make the findings to support the variance application. THE MOTION PASSED 6-1. (WOLFE OPPOSED). Commissioner Caldwell stated that in her review of the design review handbook she found the design to be in violation of both Techniques 3 (use of horizontal features) and 6 (use of vertical features) -especially the entry/column feature. She asked if staff had discussed these techniques and talked to the applicant about redesigning this element. Planner Walgren stated that staff had not discussed this with the applicant because staff felt that the proposal was such a departure architecturally that there was really no effort to start making revisions to the plans. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he could not find anyway to support this design in this location and agreed with staff's recommendation. He stated that he thinks it is a beautiful house, but in looking at the required design review findings he saw nothing that indicated that 1) because the neighbors like the design and 2) because people should be able to do what ever they want on their own property constituted design review findings that could be made. He stated that he did find in the design review findings that the structure must be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he visited the site and drove all over the area and could not find anything that would make this design compatible with the area. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he feels the neighborhood is made up of neighbors who have no problem with this design. He stated that he feels that the proposed design would add diversity to the neighborhood. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not think it was an issue of whether or not Commissioners like the design. She explained that the design must comply with the design guidelines and the Planning Commission must be able to make the necessary findings. She stated that the issue is whether or not the design is compatible with the neighborhood. She stated that the design is clearly not compatible with the neighborhood and violates at least 3 of the techniques of the design handbook. She stated that she agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Jacobs and cannot make the findings to support this application. ~ ~ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 18 Commissioner Asfour stated that with regard to compatibility there is a house across the street the sits up two-stories high which has, in his opinion, a very ugly redwood deck staircase along the outside. He said the issue of compatibility can be stretched/argued any way you want. He stated that he feels the proposed design is unique and does not think that it is obtrusive from the street. He noted that the neighbors who will see it the most have spoken in support and he expressed his opinion that people should be allowed to enjoy their property as they wish. He stated that he does not think the design application is out of line and can support the request. Commissioner Murakami agreed with Commissioner Asfour and stated that he could support the application and that he feels the design would be an asset to the neighborhood. Chairperson Moran stated that she is open to the Lins having a house to their liking, but that the proposed design violates the design criteria and she cannot support the application. Commissioner Caldwell stated that compatibility does not necessarily mean the Lins have to design a California ranch style home. She said that there are many examples of compatible designs that are not California Ranch. She noted that there are many developments/subdivisions which have various styles of homes, but have been made compatible by utilizing similar materials, colors or design elements/features. She stated that with regard to this design she does not see anything remotely close to the use of such techniques. Commissioner Wolfe stated that it is a matter of variety without violating the design guidelines. He noted that the neighbors have no objection. He stated that he feels the design adds to the variety in the area. He expressed his feeling that design review approval should be granted, noted his respect of the authorship of the owners, and stated that the design would be an asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he feels it is critical to separate the concepts of compatibility from design because theoretically without the separation any design could go into any area if the Commission as a group like a design and the neighbors did not. object. He stated that compatibility has to do with the design fitting in with the neighborhood. He noted that neighbors change and it is very important to separate liking a design from whether or not it is compatible. He noted that compatibility need to be looked at first and then move on to the question of design review. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 19 Commissioner Asfour stated that the existing neighbors are what count. He explained that if potential buyers do not like the houses in a particular neighborhood then they may need to look in another neighborhood -they are not obligated to purchase home in the area which is not pleasing to them. Mr. Rieker, neighbor, indicated a desire to speak. ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. THE MOTION PASSED 4-3 (MORAN, JACOBS AND KAPLAN OPPOSED). Mr. Rieker, 14850 Baranga Lane, stated that he found the discussion regarding the neighbors interesting. He pointed out that the neighbors, in this situation, don't want to be the bad guys. He also reiterated his original comment that the proposed house is not one that he would design or would have chosen to be in that location. He stated that the existing neighbors want to be compatible with the new neighbors, but this is not the house he would have chosen to be in that spot. He agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' comment that the neighbors should not be the deciding factor. Mr. Rieker stated that the neighbors were certainly not going to put up a fuss about it. CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:51 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Virginia Fanelli indicated a desire to speak, but the public hearing was not reopened at this point. Commissioner Murakami stated that he feels this is a design decision. He stated that it does not help that the neighbors aren't commenting on the design. He noted that the neighborhood is beginning to change and that there are older homes in the area that may be remodeled in this particular style. He stated that he finds no reason at this point to deny this design. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she feels it would be a little presumptuous for the Commission to assume that this neighborhood is going to change that dramatically. She noted that the neighbor touched on a point that has always troubled her -the fact that in these situations neighbors are put in an untenable situation when a new neighbor comes along with a new design and the existing neighbors want to get along with the new neighbor, but are hesitant about expressing their opinion of the proposed design. ~' ~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 20 Commissioner Kaplan stated that she agrees with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. Commissioner Kaplan stated that this is one of the reasons there is a Planning Commission - so the neighbors don't have to be put into that position. She noted that the decision of design approval is up to the Planning Commission and she does not feel the design of this house is compatible with the location and cannot support the application. Chairperson Moran reminded the Commission that there was still a motion on the floor to direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of DR-93-0025. THE MOTION DID NOT PASS 3-4 (MORAN, CALDWELL, JACOBS AND KAPLAN OPPOSED). Virginia Fanelli asked that the public hearing be re-opened to allow her to make a clarification and ask aquestion - if there was value in asking for a continuation. Several Commissioner stated that they did not see reason to re-open the public hearing. CALDWELL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DR-93-028 TO DENY THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. Commissioner Asfour asked that the maker and seconder withdraw their motion to allow the public hearing to be re-opened for the purpose of asking the applicant if a continuance of the application for the purpose of redesign would be agreeable. CALDWELL/IKAPLAN WITHDREW THEIR MOTION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE OPTION TO CONTINUE THE APPLICATION WITH EXPLICIT DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION FOR REDESIGN. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he has concerns with regard to this option because in the past applicants have come back before the Commission with only minimal changes. He stated that he feels that major design changes are needed. Commissioner Asfour stated that the applicant has a right to request a continuance. Commissioner Jacobs replied that the Commission has a right to deny the continuance request. >' '~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 21 Chairperson Moran verified with staff that the Commission has the right to deny the application or to continue with direction to redesign. Director Curtis stated that the Commission has the right to deny the application or the continue it with direction to re-design. He stated that if the direction of the Commission is to suggest significant changes then the staff is really dealing with a whole new application and would be concerned with handling a new application by virtue of continuance. He stated that significant changes to the same application involves a great deal of time comparable to a brand new application. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a continuance with direction for specific re-design would be in essence the Commission re-designing the house. Chairperson Moran agreed and stated that she does not feel it is the responsibility of the Commission to re-design the house especially to the extent of the changes warranted. She stated that she is not in favor of continuing the application. She stated that she favors a denial of the application. ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:20 P.M. TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. PASSED 7-0. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, stated that she is hearing that the design is not compatible, but not specific direction from the Commission. She wondered what kind of house would be compatible and urged the Commission to give direction as to the kinds of changes that should be made. She said that her hope was, if not an approval, a continuance with direction for modifications to the design. ASFOUR/fKAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:05 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Asfour stated that he thinks the design will fit well in the neighborhood. He suggested that the Commission either give clear direction to the applicant with regard to design changes or deny the application so the applicant may have the opportunity to pursue an appeal. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he did not feel that minor modifications would make this design compatible. He stated that he does not believe that only a California ranch style house would be compatible with the neighborhood. He stated that there are other compatible homes in that area that are definitely not California ranch style homes. He noted the Woolworth development behind this area that has many different yet compatible styles of homes which are not .. Y Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 22 a ~ orrna ranc omes. estate tat a oes not ee t is esign is compati a an is way out of line for this location. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she feels it would be inappropriate to continue the application especially in light of staffs comment that a major design modification would utilize the same amount of staff time as a new application. CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-93-028 WITH A MODIFICATION THAT TECHNIQUE #6 BE ADDED TO THE THIRD WHEREAS (ON PAGE 70) IN THE RESOLUTION TO NOTE SPECIFICALLY THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD AVOID VERTICAL FEATURES THAT ADD TO THE PERCEPTION OF HEIGHT. PASSED 4-3 (ASFOUR, MURAKAMI AND WOLFE OPPOSED). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Curtis noted that the Bistro/Deli use permit application UP-93-006 has been appealed and will be hear by the City Council on December 1, 1993. Commissioner Caldwell and Jacobs traded meeting dates as Planning Commission representatives at the City Council meetings. Commissioner Caldwell will represent the Planning Commission meeting at the December 15th meeting and Commissioner Caldwell will attend the City Council meeting of November 17th. Community Development Director Curtis asked to be excused from the November 22nd meeting. He stated that Planner Walgren would staff the meeting Chairperson Moran stated that she also would not be present and that Commissioner Asfour would be chairing the meeting. There was discussion regarding when the Commission would receive the meeting packet for the November 22nd meeting. Director Curtis stated that the packets would be out the Thursday prior to the meeting. Several Commissioners indicated a desire to receive the packets earlier. Curtis stated that staff would try to get the packet out before Thursday, but that they definitely would be out by Thursday. The Director noted that the Land Use visits would be at 3:00 p.m. Monday November 22. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Asfour asked for consensus of the Commission to direct staff to review Chapter 15 12.160 (b) with regard to storage of materials in the required front yard (he read this section aloud). He expressed an interest for inclusion of :_ , .- ~~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 23 the entire driveway with regard to regulating storage of materials and vehicles. He reported that several situations exist in Saratoga where the driveway is being used as storage, but there is nothing that can be done about the situation because the portion of the driveway is beyond the required front yard. Commissioner Asfour stated that Sunnyvale has an ordinance that regulates such storage. There was discussion regarding this suggestion and the issues involved. Director Curtis stated that staff could look into the matter and investigate what other cities are doing in this regard. He stated that staff would come back to the Commission with a report at the December 2nd worksession and at that time the Commission could discuss staff's findings and work toward fitting this work item into the work program. Commissioner Asfour stated that with regard to Planning Commission representation at the City Council meetings he would like the Planning Commissioners to take a more proactive position especially on applications which had a unanimous Planning Commission decision. He noted that he feels the City Council does not always realize the extent of Planning Commission deliberations on certain applications. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was a built in bias on the part of the Council members to support the decisions of the Planning Commission. The other Commissioner stated that this is generally not the case. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that this issue of more proactive representation of the Commission at City Council meetings be discussed at a worksession. He also stated that he questions the propriety of Planning Commissioners speaking as individuals (and not representative of the Planning Commission) at the City Council meetings. He stated that he feels there should be a uniform policy with regard to this matter. He stated that he feels some of the Councilmembers have an attitude to follow unanimous decisions of the Planning Commission, but that they are legally not bound to follow Planning Commission decisions. Chairperson Moran agreed that this matter should be further discussed at a worksession. Director Curtis suggested that this matter be discussed at the upcoming Planning Commission retreat. The Commission agreed that this matter should be discussed at the retreat. Planning Commission Minutes v i ~ ~ ,, •` Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 24 Chairperson Moran asked for an update on the ongoing discussions regarding the downtown parking situation. Director Curtis explained that he had not yet talked with the City Manager regarding these parking discussions, but that he will do this and report back to the Commission with regard to the discussions and pending actions and options. With regard to the suggestion made by Mr. Zambetti earlier in the evening pertaining to the formation of a committee to look at parking issues and options, Chairperson Moran asked the Commission for their comments on the subject. Commissioner Asfour stated that he feels that it is the City Council's place to direct formation of such a committee. He noted that the upcoming appeal may trigger the Council to address the issue. Chairperson Moran spoke in favor of waiting until after the appeal to discuss the suggestion with the City Council. She noted that she recalled the Commission requesting that Director Curtis bring up the parking issue before the Council during this appeal. She stated that the City Council may then decide to initiate something with regard to addressing the downtown parking problems. Director Curtis noted that a separate page would be added to the report on the appealed application that would indicate that the Planning Commission in a separate motion requested that the City Council look at options with regard to addressing the parking problems in the downtown area. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 10/20/93 & 10/26/93 2. Notices for the 11 /22/93 public hearing Oral City Council =. ~:, ~ ~ ..-. !"~Y ~. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of November 10, 1993 Page 25 ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 p.m., Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m. on November 22, 1993, in the Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk