Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-1994 Planning Commission minutes.~, ~. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 9, 1994 - 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, Wolfe and Caldwell (arrived at 9:00 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Murakami City Attorney Riback was present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 26, 1994, MINUTES. PASSED 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no one wishing to speak. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 4, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren noted one technical correction to Page 99 of Item #4. Under the heading "Hours of Operation", second line, the operation times should be changed to 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Planner Walgren also noted the receipt of a letter from Mr. J.R. Harris regarding Item #1 expressing concerns regarding soil stability in the area and a private easement agreement between Mr. Harris and Mr. Ruelhle, the applicant. Planner Walgren suggested these issues be discussed during the application review. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR-91-026 - Ruehle; 21097 Comer Dr., request for cone-year extension of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a new 5,221 sq. ft. residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is currently vacant, approximately 1.9 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Commissioner Jacobs excused himself from the item and stepped down from the dias. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 9, 1994. Planner Walgren explained that the concerns raised in the letter submitted by Mr. Harris had been extensively researched and addressed during the original review process. He noted that if the Commission so desired, additional conditions could be added to the resolution which would specifically refer to the Harris letter of February 9, 1994. Planner Walgren answered questions from the Commission regarding the application and the concerns raised in the Harris letter. Planner Walgren, in response to the concerns expressed in the letter, explained that the issues raised were extensively addressed (during the original review process) and that the project had to receive a preliminary geotechnical clearance with regard to soil stability before the application could be brought to the original public hearing. He noted that there were also extensive conditions of approval placed on this project relative to the drainage and run off in this area. He announced that there were conditions placed on this project that were beyond what would normally be conditioned to address drainage and runoff. He stated that the issues had been extensively reviewed and addressed, but that staff had language the Planning Commission could add to the design review extension approval if they were so inclined. Commissioner Kaplan stated that since this item was listed as an extension of time only and since it was not included in the land use, she was concerned with the arrival of the letter on the evening of the meeting and indicated that she would like an opportunity to visit the site. Chairperson Moran inquired as to the reason for adding additional language (which would refer to the concerns mentioned in the letter) to the conditions if the issues had already been addressed. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 3 Planner Walgren again explained that the issues raised had been reviewed and addressed previously, but the additional language would show the City's acknowledgement and attempt to address the issues raised in the Harris letter. Commission Wolfe inquired as to how a continuance of the application would affect the expiration date. Planner Walgren stated that the original expiration date (month and day) would stay in tact, but if and when the extension request was approved, the application expiration date would be one year from the original expiration date. AT 7:45 P.M., CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicants, concurred with the recommendation made in the staff report. She addressed the issues raised in Mr. Harris' letter and explained that the drainage had been reviewed and addressed during the original review process. With regard to the issue of erecting a retaining wall (mentioned in Mr. Harris' letter), she stated that she did not feel a requirement for a retaining wall was warranted at this time and requested that determination of whether a retaining wall was needed be made when the building plans are submitted to the City. With regard to the easement mentioned in Mr. Harris' letter, Ms Fanelli stated that a title search had been ordered and that the easement had been recorded and was present on the title. She urged approval of the extension request and offered to answer any questions from the Commission relating to the project. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. PASSED 4-0. Commissioner Kaplan spoke in favor of continuing the item to. allow the Commission an opportunity to visit the site. Commissioner Asfour stated that he felt that the issues raised by Mr. Harris in his letter had been adequately addressed during the initial review process. He expressed his support for adding a condition that would allow latitude with regard to requiring a retaining wall until that time that plans are submitted and the City has had the opportunity to further study them to determine whether a retaining wall is needed or not. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Wolfe stated that he felt comfortable with the studies that had been previously conducted with regard to the various issues. He stated that at the time of plan submittal for the building and grading permits, the project and the issue of the retaining wall would be further evaluated. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION REQUEST WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION WHICH ADDRESSES AND REFERS TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE HARRIS LETTER OF FEBRUARY 9, 1994. City Attorney Riback advised that only the relevant issues of the Harris letter be referenced in the extension approval. Chairperson Moran stated that she felt that the issue of whether a retaining wall is needed would be addressed when the building plans are submitted for the building and grading permits. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 (COMMISSIONER JACOBS ABSTAINED). Commissioner Jacobs re-joined the Commission at the dias. 2. DR-93-045 - Westbrook; 20611 Lomita Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct a 581 sq. ft. main level and a 506 sq. ft. lower level addition to an existing 2,077 sq. ft. single-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 9,281 sq. ft. and is in an R-1-10,000 zone district (cont. from 1 /26/94 at the request of the applicant; application expires 6/2/94). ----------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 9, 1994. AT 7:58 P.M. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mr. Westbrook, applicant, spoke in favor of the application and urged the Commission to approve the request. He explained that he had recently learned that the property was located in a high fire area and therefore changes in the roof materials (for the entire house) and installation of an early warning fire alarm system were required. He expressed concern and confusion with regard to these conditions and noted that a recently built home down the street was not required to use Class A roofing materials. r • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 5 Planner Walgren explained that the Hazardous Fire Boundary had recently been amended and the house referred to by Mr. Westbrook most likely had received approval prior to the boundary change. Therefore, that house may not have been required to use the fire resistant materials which were required of Mr. Westbrook's project. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:03 P.M. PASSED 5-0. Commissioner Wolfe inquired about the Early Warning Fire Alarm System required. Planner Walgren explained the code section and the circumstances which warrant installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System. Commissioner Kaplan stated that there was clearly a preponderance of 2-story homes in the area. She asked about the extent of the underfloor clearance exception. Planner Walgren explained that the area that exceeded the underfloor clearance allowance was minimal. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she could support approval of the application and grant the requested exceptions. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-045 AS RECOMMENDED IN THE FEBRUARY 9, 1994, STAFF REPORT. PASSED 5-0. 3. DR-93-030 - Goese; 20661 Fifth St., request for Design Review UP-93-004 - approval to construct five residential SD-93-005 - townhomes, ranging from 2,241 to 2,610 sq. ft. in size (including below grade garages), on an 8,468 sq. ft. parcel located within the Saratoga Village. Use Permit approval is also necessary to permit the construction of residential dwellings having street frontage within the Village and Subdivision approval is necessary to allow the parcelization of the future units. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 9, 1994. He explained that some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors with regard to this project were • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 6 a desire for demarkation of the property line between the project and the adjacent apartment building, height of the project, impacts on the view, impacts on the existing trees, privacy concerns (specifically with regard to the second story windows), and objections to the removal of Tree # 18. He also noted the design concerns of staff as outlined in the Staff Report (Page 85) and the significant anticipated conditions of approval (outlined on Page 86). He discussed the proposal's impact on the existing trees and noted that due to scheduling conflicts the City Arborist could not be present, but extensive discussions had taken place between the staff and the Arborist and that staff would try to answer any questions from the Commission with regard to the trees. Commissioner Asfour inquired as to how the proposal would mix with the Village Plan and whether the Plan called for commercial uses on Fifth Street. Planner Walgren explained that the Village Plan did call for commercial/pedestrian oriented commercial uses particularly on Big Basin frontage, but on the other hand, allowed for and encouraged residential uses if located either above or behind a commercial use. He further explained that the Historical Commercial zoning ordinance encouraged a mix of uses -specialty shops, restaurants and residences through-out the Saratoga Village area. He stated that in this particular case, even though the project fronted on Fifth Street, staff saw this project similar to a project located behind a commercial development as it was separated from Big Basin Way by a parking lot and a commercial building and was located off of the main pedestrian corridor. Chairperson Moran asked where in the Plan did it specifically state that non- commercial, first floor uses on Fifth Street were acceptable. She noted that the plan called for undergrounding of utilities in the area and also mentioned other efforts outlined in the Plan designed to make the subject area mesh with the downtown Village area. She again asked if there was a provision in the Plan that emphasized commercial uses only on Big Basin Way and thus indicated acceptance of residential uses on Fifth Street. Planner Walgren explained that the Village Plan and the Historical Commercial ordinance encouraged location of commercial and retail uses on street frontage and at ground level and further allowed and encouraged residential uses as long as they were above or behind commercial uses. He stated that this proposal appeared to be along that line of thinking and allowed for a mix of uses, both commercial and residential, in the area. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was any discussion with the applicant with regard to decreasing the density of the project from 5 units to 4 units. He noted that the decrease in density might eliminate the parking and tree issues. He also • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 7 inquired if lowering the proposed building was feasible (without further extensive grading) and noted that this also might help eliminate some of the concerns. Planner Walgren and Director Curtis explained that the applicant had not specifically been directed to reduce the density, but was advised that the plan for 5 units would be tight. With regard to lowering the building, Planner Walgren stated that it might be possible by utilizing lower ceilings and/or a flat roof design. Commissioner Wolfe asked if, in light of the downtown parking issues, whether the Village merchants had considered purchasing the parcel for the purpose of creating additional parking areas. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he had not heard of any interest on the part of the merchants to purchase the property. He noted that notices had been sent out throughout the area, but why there were no responses from the merchants was a mystery to him. Planner Walgren and Director Curtis explained that the notice was sent to the Village property owners within a 500-foot-radius of the site. Chairperson Moran asked if the notice was sent to Village tenants, restaurant association and other various merchant associations in the Village area. Director Curtis stated that he thought that only the property owners were noticed and that he would need to check the notification list to see specifically who had been sent notices. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the upslope land owner was in favor of the property line demarkation between the subject site and his/her property. Planner Walgren stated that the property owner was agreeable to the boundary demarkation. Chairperson Moran inquired about the request for demarkation of the property boundaries and specifically the reasons for demarkation/fencing between the subject site and the public parking plaza. Planner Walgren explained that this would separate the parking lot from the front of the units and their parking spaces. Commissioner Asfour stated that with regard to the demarkation of the property line between the parcel and the public parking lot, he felt that this idea had merit and he would be in support of such a condition when it came time to vote on the project. He stated that if no separation was erected between the parcels, the residents of the units and/or their guests may end up using the public parking spaces. • ~ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Kaplan inquired if the project was within a parking district and, if not, if it could be incorporated so as to contribute to the parking district. Planner Walgren stated that the parcel was not within a parking district. He explained that the project met the minimum private parking requirements and noted that the parking district was design for commercial/public use of the parking lots. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that 50% of the parking proposed for the project was compact where the City's ordinance provided for only 25% of the parking to be compact. He, therefore, stated that the project technically does not comply with the City regulations. He stated that should standard parking spaces be required the project could not meet the requirement. Commissioner Wolfe inquired if the parking district had been noticed of the project. Director Curtis explained that there was no formalized organization of the parking district and an address did not exist. Therefore, there was no way to notice a "Parking District Association". AT 8:25 P.M., CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Ken Olcott, applicant, designer, and also representing the Goeses, co-applicants, spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that the project would fit in well with the Village area. He discussed building materials and the architectural style of the building. With regard to the parking issue, he explained that Saratoga was one of the few cities which required 2.5 spaces per unit where typically (in other cities) only 2 spaces per unit were required. He discussed the design of the proposed garages and stated that the garages would be compact spaces for only half of their depth. He addressed the issue of privacy and noted that the second story windows could be tinted to help mitigate privacy concerns. Mr. Olcott noted that with regard to the trash enclosure and its location, the project did not plan to use the commercial trash enclosure. He stated that he agreed with the recommendations made by the Arborist and offered to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Jacobs inquired, with regard to the parking space in the garages, if the residents of the units would need to .own compact cars in order to utilize the garage. Mr. Olcott stated that standard size cars would be able to use the spaces. He also noted the trend in downsizing of cars. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Jacobs asked about a letter in which the applicant stated that the project would provide 5 additional public parking spaces. Mr. Olcott stated that this letter (to which Commissioner Jacobs referred) was an outdated letter and that the project would now provide for only one additional public parking space. Mary Holbrook, 14649 Oak Street, Apt. 5, stated that she was along-time resident of the building next to the site. She expressed concerns with regard to the amount of land to be covered by the proposed project, the potential loss of the existing view, the proposed building materials (for the back elevation), the removal of the existing trees, and the project's impact on traffic and parking in the area. Ben Christian, 14649 Oak Street, Apt. 3, expressed the same concerns as the previous speaker. He also questioned the feasibility of the project with regard to its proposed location. He stated that he felt that the impacts to the Village as a result of the project would out weight the benefits it (the project) may provide to the area. He suggested a reduction in both the density and the proposed height of the building. He also asked that a landscape buffer be installed between the apartment building and the proposed building. Carol Binair, 14649 Oak Street, Apt. 4, expressed concern regarding privacy impacts and the proposed building height. Bon Poon, 12591 Saratoga Creek Drive, owner of the building at 14649 Oak Street, explained that he sent a letter to the Council outlining his concerns relative to the building height, privacy impacts, the landscape plans and the possibility of a portion of his property being included in the landscape plan and appearing to be a part of the new project's property. He requested a requirement that the property lines be clearly marked. He also inquired about the possibility of a power pole being relocated onto his property. Ken Olcott, addressed the concerns raised by the public. He stated that with regard to the appearance of the back of the building, the materials could be changed to something more aesthetically pleasing to the residents of the apartment building. He spoke to the issue of reducing the density and commented that a reduction in the number of units would call for an increase in the size of the 4 remaining units in order to make the project financially feasible and marketable. With regard to the issue of the power pole (mentioned by Bon Poon), Mr. Olcott stated that that plan had been eliminated. He also discussed such issues as reduction of the overall building height, the submerged garage feature, the existing retaining wall, and reduction of the roof pitch. He announced that with regard to clearly marking the property lines, a boundary fence could easily be incorporated into the plans. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 10 Commissioner Caldwell arrived during Mr. Olcott's address (above), 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan inquired about the legal issues surrounding the removal of the existing retaining wall and who could remove it if it was found to be on the property line and belonged to both property owners. City Attorney Riback explained that the Planning Commission had the authority to require removal of the existing retaining wall and also authority to require construction of a new retaining wall. With regard to learning the actual owner of the retaining wall, the Attorney stated that the history of the wall would need to be researched. Chairperson Moran stated that she felt that the proposal was a departure from the Village Plan and that she would like to make certain that the downtown merchants, properryowners and tenants are aware of the proposal specifically that it is a residential project and not proposed for commercial use. Director Curtis explained that because of the way the public hearing and project was noticed, the item would need to be continued to the next Planning Commission public hearing. He stated that since this was the case, there was ample time to notice merchants, owners and tenants in the area. He further explained that with regard to Chairperson Moran's comment, this zoning does allow the use permit process precisely for this type of use -residential. He commented that he felt the Commission, in reviewing the project, should be certain that such aproject -non-commercial- is unique in a way which would lend itself to the character of the Village area. Commissioner Jacobs commented that with regard to the earlier discussion of the downtown parking situation and the possibility of the site being used for parking purposes, he (Commissioner Jacobs) had been contacted by Gene Zambetti, a local merchant, who indicated that there may be an interest in purchasing the property for parking uses. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she felt that the issue with this application was one of "use" (land use). She commented that she thought it would be remiss of the Planning Commission to read in between the lines as to why none of the village merchants were present for the review of this project. She stated that there may be some concern as to what direction the Village area was headed with regard to consideration of a residential project in the downtown area. She endorsed the scheduling of a special meeting with the downtown merchants and tenants to discuss the Village plan and long range goals for the Village area. ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 11 Commissioner Wolfe agreed with Commissioner Caldwell and noted that such a project as the one proposed would be a definite statement. He agreed that input from the merchants would be beneficial and that a special meeting for that purpose would be appropriate. He concluded by explaining that a special meeting would give the downtown business people another chance to speak in regard to the issue. Commissioner Asfour suggested that the Planning Commission proceed as recommended by the staff -continue the application to the next public hearing. He explained that this action would allow the project to stay on track and at the same time would allow staff time to send additional notices to the groups previously discussed. He stated that if, at the next public hearing, it was apparent that there was a need for a special meeting then, at that time, one could be scheduled. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Commissioner Asfour's suggestion. Chairperson Moran inquired if a special note could be written and sent out to the merchants explaining the proposal and how it may effect the Village area. City Attorney Riback confirmed that Chairperson Moran's suggestion was acceptable from a legal standpoint. Commissioner Jacobs commented that it was his opinion that just because the merchants did not attend or if they do not attend the next meeting it will not necessarily mean that the problems/issues have been solved. Commissioner Caldwell agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' comment. Community Development Director Curtis explained to the Commission that the proposed project was consistent with the Village plan. He stated that the use permit process was a mechanism in which to consider and allow a residential use in that particular area. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that the Planning Commission was not against a residential project in the Village, but that the .Commission wanted to carefully review the proposal. ASFOUR/WOLFE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DR-93-020, UP-93-004, & SD-93-005 TO THE FEBRUARY 23, 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND DIRECTED STAFF TO NOTICE THE VILLAGE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 500-FOOT RADIUS AND ANY OTHERS STAFF DEEM APPROPRIATE. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 12 Director Curtis clarified that the Planning Commission was not giving any direction (at the February 9, 1994 meeting) to the applicant and that the purpose of the February 23rd meeting was to take additional testimony, allow staff to send out additional notices of the meeting and to look at the land issue among other issues associated with the project. The Commission confirmed Director Curtis' understanding of their intentions for the next public hearing. At 9:28 p.m., the meeting was recessed. The meeting was reconvened at 9:40 p.m. 4. UP-93-007 - Rock 'N Tacos; 18762 Prospect Rd., request for Use Permit approval to allow the establishment of a restaurant and the sale of beer and wine per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposed restaurant will be within an existing tenant space at the Westgate Corners Shopping Center located at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Prospect Rd. and is (ocated in a C-N zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 9, 1994. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED BY CHAIRPERSON MORAN AT 9:41 P.M. Ed Routhier, General Partner of the Parent Company of Rock N Tacos, applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the proposed location provided ample parking for the proposed use. He stated that he agreed with the staff report and the recommendations contained in it. He discussed other locations of the business and stated that he felt the proposed location would be ideal for the business. Brent Barton, agent for new owners of Westgate Corners Shopping Center, reiterated the comments made by the previous speaker. He added that he felt that the business was compatible with the area and would be a good tax dollar generator for the City. John Love,leasing agent for Westgate Corners Shopping Center, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he felt there would be ample parking for the patrons of the business and explained that a large real estate company with approximately 36 employees had once occupied a space in the center. He further explained that after the real estate company left the space was leased by a small • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 13 go sop wit on y emp oyees. a pomte out t o e-mtensi ication o t e s oppmg center and again stated that there would be ample parking for the proposed restaurant. Since there was no one else wishing to speak, ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. PASSED 6-0. CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE UP-93-007 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION PASSED 6- 0. 5. V-94-001 - Breitenbach; 20130 Bonnie Brae Way, request for Variance approval to allow the improvement of an existing unimproved attic area to living area in an existing two-story single family residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. This proposed improvement constitutes an intensification of the site's existing 5,725 sq. ft. of floor area which exceeds the City's current maximum allowable floor area standards of 4,518 sq. ft. The subject property is approximately 20,920 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 9, 1994. AT 9:51 P.M., CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mary Breitenbach, applicant, explained that the subject residence suffered fire damage and that the requested improvements to the attic area were required by the insurance company. She urged the Commission to approve the application and offered to answer any questions with regard to the application. There was no one else wishing to speak. KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:53 P.M. PASSED 6-0. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE V-94-001 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Wolfe inquired as to why this application was not required to install the Early Warning Fire Alarm System. Commissioner Walgren explained that technically the net floor area was not being increased and, therefore, the alarm system was not required. ~.~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 14 Commissioner Wolfe asked if it was within the realm of the Planning Commission's authority to require installation of a fire alarm system. Planner Walgren explained that the Commission could not require installation of a fire alarm. He further explained that the installation of fire alarm systems were governed by the fire code and that the Commission could not call for such a requirement without the existence of a policy or code requirement. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he would encourage such a code change which would require installation of fire alarms in smaller residential projects. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 6. V-93-030 - Tam; 21463 Continental Circle, request for SM-93-009 - Variance approval to construct two parallel retaining walls totalling 15 ft. in height where 10 ft. is the maximum permitted per Chapter e. 15 of the City Code. Site modifi- cation approval is also required to allow grading and the construction of a third garage on a visible hillside parcel. The site is approximately 2.4 acres and is located within the HR zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated February 9, 1994, and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project and the code governing retaining wall heights and separations. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:58 P.M. Steve Borlick, representing Tams, the applicants, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that the subject home was one of four of the 68 homes in the area limited to a two-car garage. He explained that the applicant would like an additional bay in the garage in order to allow for additional off-street parking. He pointed out that the existing drive way was narrow due to the placement of a fire hydrant and noted that the pie-shaped lot had a very narrow frontage. He reported that the proposed project would improve the property both architecturally and aesthetically. Mr Borlick indicated that the existing redwood decking would be removed to accommodate the addition. He stated that this (the deck removal) would result in an elimination of some of the house's appearance of mass and bulk. With regard to the height of the proposed walls, Mr. Borlick explained that the walls would overlap and therefore would be only 12 feet in overall height. He submitted pictures of the area and existing retaining walls. He also answered general questions from the Commission with regard to the project. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 15 Eugenia Tam, applicant, spoke in favor of the application and explained that the additional parking space in the garage was needed to help eliminate the amount of on- street parking in the area. She explained that with two teenage drivers in the family there was often many visitors and much traffic to and from the house. Miriam Tam, applicant, spoke in favor of the application. She discussed difficulties presented by the current driveway and the lack of off-street parking. She also discussed safety issues, the location of the fire hydrant in proximity to the driveway, the difficult slope of the existing driveway and the lack of turnaround space on the existing driveway. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Commissioner Asfour stated that he felt the proposed project would enhance the appearance of the property. He stated that he was in support of the application, but was having difficulty making the necessary findings. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she too was having difficulty making the findings. She also expressed concern with regard to the wall heights shown on the picture board submitted by the applicants' representative. The ordinance for the parallel walls -was passed to prevent the kind of visual mess which the photographs show at other locations. There was discussion among staff and the Commission for the purpose of clarifying the need for the retaining walls. Commissioner Caldwell stated that with regard to the comment that the proposed changes would enhance the appearance of the house, she expressed her opinion that the house could be redesigned and/or the exterior materials changed to enhance its appearance without the need for a variance. She pointed out that there was some possibility to widen the driveway and provide for a turnaround area, and thus eliminating the need for a variance. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he felt that there may be some safety issues involved with the existing driveway. He stated that he felt that the driveway did need to be widened for safer ingress/egress. Commissioner Jacobs stated that the changes proposed were tied to the addition to the garage. He stated that he would like to see the changes take place, thus • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 16 en ancing t o appearance o t e property. estate tat e e t t e m mgs cou e made to support the variance request. He noted that the proposed walls would be placed in the least visible location and that the existing landscaping would help screen the walls. Chairperson Moran stated that this proposal was the most sensible solution to help decrease the amount of on street parking in the area. She said that for this reason, the variance may be in order. She stated that she could support the request and would be in favor of directing staff to draft a resolution approving the variance request. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not see how the addition of another bay to the garage would eliminate the safety concerns presented by the existing driveway. She suggested that other alternatives (which would not require a variance) be looked into. She suggested the construction of a hammerhead driveway to allow for adequate space for vehicular turnaround. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was more concerned with the aesthetics of the property than the reported safety concerns of the existing driveway. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was in agreement with Commissioner Kaplan's previous comment which expressed concern regarding the number of troubling retaining walls in the area. She stated that she felt that if there was a way to pursue the project without a variance, the Planning Commission should go with the alternative plan which would not require a variance. Per Chairperson Moran's request, Planner Walgren reviewed the findings for denial and elaborated on staff's position in recommending denial. KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO DENY V-93-030 AND SM-93-009 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt the findings could be made to support the applications. He stated that he would be voting in support of the project. He stated that he felt that the special circumstances such as an inadequate driveway and inadequate on-site parking, along with the fact that strict enforcement of the regulations would deny the applicants the opportunity to enjoy their property in the same way others in the area are allowed to enjoy and utilize their property would be sufficient findings to grant the variance and approve the project. Commissioner Caldwell recalled a case (Velinsky) where a variance was granted and subsequently appealed by the neighbors. She explained that the case was taken to court and the court found that there were other alternatives available that would have eliminated the need for a variance. The court therefore found that the City . ~ ~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 20, 1994 Page 17 should not have granted the variance. She asked City Attorney Riback if he recalled this case. City Attorney Riback stated that he was not very familiar with the case, but believed that Commissioner Caldwell's recollection was correct. He advised the Planning Commission to make specific findings relative to the physical constraints of the lot if they were inclined to grant the variance request. Commissioner Jacobs reiterated that he felt that to deny the application would be denying the property owners something that other owners in the area are allowed to have. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she felt that the issue with this application really had to do with the garage. She pointed out that the street on which the property was located was not very busy. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt this application was really a trading of equities regarding the variance improvements and the aesthetics of the property. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN AND THE MOTION FAILED 2-4 (MORAN, ASFOUR, JACOBS AND WOLFE VOTING NO). ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 23, 1994, MEETING TO ALLOW TIME FOR STAFF TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF V-93-030 AND SM-93-009 BASED ON THE FINDINGS EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-2 (CALDWELL AND KAPLAN VOTED NO). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis explained that the shopping center in which the Rock N Tacos restaurant would be moving into had an old restriction prohibiting restaurants from occupying any of the spaces. He advised the Commission that the 1989 Code amendment which allows for use permits for restaurants in the area superseded the shopping center's older restriction. He announced that staff would be contacting the new owners of the shopping center to modify the original use permit for the shopping center to allow for restaurant occupancy. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 18 Director Curtis also discussed the issue of the placement of a "For Lease" banner on the permanent identification/address sign of Mr. Whetstone's office building on Saratoga Road. He asked the Commission for direction as to whether the "For Lease" banner should be considered temporary and allowed to remain across the permanent sign for a short period while the space is being marketed. There was brief discussion regarding the sign. City Attorney Riback explained to the Commission that the sign ordinance did not address such temporary signs. The Commission agreed that the "For Lease" banner should be considered a temporary sign and should be allowed to remain for a reasonable amount of time. With regard to the Planning Commission's future tour of past successful and unsuccessful projects, Director Curtis announced that scheduling would take place soon. He inquired if the Commission would prefer to hold this tour along with a regularly scheduled land use tour. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he would prefer that this tour be scheduled separate from the regular land use tours in order for the Commission to concentrate on the relevant issues. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Review of Revised Landscape Plan DR-89-074; WU - 14451 Emerald Hill Ct. Planner Walgren outlined the proposed changes to the approved landscape plan. James Coleman, landscape architect, addressed the Commission and explained that the site already had several large oaks and because the site was located at a higher elevation than the public street, the property owner would like to install shrubbery. He explained that the approved landscape plan was no longer appropriate for the site and that lower bush-like plantings would better screen the property and at the same time preserve the view. Mr. Coleman submitted photos of the site and claimed that the proposed landscaping would grow to approximately 10 - 12 feet tall, but would not block the light to the property down-slope from the subject site. Commissioner Asfour stated that his main concern was visibility/screening of the tennis court. •* • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 19 Mr. Coleman reassured the Commission that the proposed landscape plan would provide better screening than the originally approved landscape plan. Planner Walgren noted that the proposed landscape plan was consistent with the City's guidelines. There was consensus among the Commission to accept the proposed landscape plan. Chairperson Moran stated that she recalled the screening of the tennis court to be of great concern during the original review. She stated that she was convinced that the proposed landscape plan would provide the desired screening. Commissioner Kaplan reported on the actions taken at the last City Council meeting specifically with regard to the Ebrahimini project (DR-93-030 & V-93-026). She noted that some Councilmembers relied on the Glennon variance to support approval of the Ebrahimoun project. She also mentioned that Director Curtis implemented the suggestions made at the retreat and was effective in advocating the Planning Commission's position. Commissioner Wolfe inquired if the Planning Commission could take some action to initiate or encourage a study for more stringent requirements for installation of Early Warning Fire Alarms in smaller residential projects. Planner Walgren explained that this issue was within the Fire Marshal's realm of authority. He further explained that he (Planner Walgren) thought that the Fire Marshal may already be investigating the issue. With regard to the Whetstone sign issue discussed earlier, Commission Caldwell stated that she had been informed that a letter had been sent to Mr. Whetstone asking him to remove the sign within a certain time period in order to avoid being fined for non-compliance. She inquired into the City's policy with regard to Code Enforcement and noted that she thought it was the City's policy to try to mitigate such situations in anon-adversary way prior to using the threat of assessing a fine. Community Development Director Curtis explained that it was the City's policy to try to mitigate such situations, but the case to which Commissioner Caldwell referred was completely different from the situation discussed earlier in the evening (above). He stated that with regard to this situation (referred to by Commissioner Caldwell) he had attempted voluntary compliance, but was unsuccessful and was forced to turn the issue over to the Community Services Officer. Planner Walgren announced that he had received a request for the Planning Commission to review modifications to some previously approved plans. He noted L. `" ; ~, • r~ Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of February 9, 1994 Page 20 t at t is item i not appear on t o agen a an as e i t e anning ommission would be in favor of reviewing the modifications at this time (February 9th). Due to the late hour, the Commission directed Planner Walgren to place the item on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 1 /19/94 & 1 /25/94 2. Planning Commission Notices for 2/23/94 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT At 11:25 p.m., Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk