Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-1994 Planning Commission minutes ~~' CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ,: S ~ .~ _ ~ MINUTES DATE: March 8, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Commissioners Present: Wolfe, Caldwell, Asfour, Murakami, Jacobs, Kaplan, Chr. Moran Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 2/1/94 & 2/23/94 RAPLAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 2/1/94, AS PRESENTED. . PASSED 6-0-1 (Asfour abstain). CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MINUTES OF 2/23/94 TO THE NEXT MEETING. PASSED 7-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 4, 1994. Technical Corrections to Packet - None CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS ** 1. PD-94-001 - BA Properties, Inc./Greenbriar Homes; 13150 Saratoga Ave., request for a Planned Development-Conceptual Plan approval to construct 95 single family detached residences at the 24 acre former Paul Masson Winery site. The subject property is located on Saratoga Ave. north of Route 85 and is zoned Multiple Use-Planned Development (MU-PD). ------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated March 8, 1994. He stated five major areas to be discussed at this hearing are as follows: 1. The amount of common open land incorporated into the project. 2. The public safety and/or aesthetic implications of the originally proposed 26 ft. wide roadways. 3. Could higher density "affordable" housing be included? Planning Commission Minutes ~ Page ~ 2 3/8/94 4. Should the City the development impact fees? consider requiring some public parkland within in lieu of the anticipated park maintenance 5. Concern about large homes on relatively small parcels. Mr. Walgren reviewed staff's responses to each of the above, as outlined in the staff report. Planning Director Curtis stated he attended the March 7th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, who felt that the layout of the project including the linear pathway system and the open space was an acceptable use of the property. However, they did feel that the park requirement should be implemented by the City and fees should be collected in lieu of a park. He stated a specific suggestion was made at this meeting regarding a pedestrian access onto McFarland Ave. Com. Caldwell stated she attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and reiterated changes that were made to the minutes of the February 28th meeting. She noted that three of the six commissioners present specifically mentioned a preference for turning the four southeast lots into a concentrated open space. She stated they felt that the open space provided for the pathway was a nice design feature, but an unusable space. Com. Caldwell added, at the February 28th meeting five commissioners spoke in favor of converting the park fee into a park on this site. Planning Director Curtis stated there is a distinction between park space and open space and if a park site was to be required on site, that would take away the possibility of receiving in-lieu fees. Mr. Curtis reviewed the concentrated open space proposed and noted it is in keeping with the specific plan, but not to be substituted for a public park. He stated the 4.78 acres would not be counted as park dedication credit that is required as part of the subdivision. Com. Jacobs stated that the 4.7 acres required open space is a minimum and the Commission can require for more. Mr. Curtis stated the 4.7 acres is a design feature that will off- set, narrow streets, small lots, density, etc. He stated the park fees collected from this project will be added to the park fund and used for park services and improvements. Com. Caldwell stated at the February 28 Parks and Rec. meeting, Greenbriar presented earlier plans which showed concentrated open space and other Commissioners have not seen these plans. Com. Caldwell asked the City Attorney about Com. Wolfe's involvement in this project because of his employment with the Building Industry Association. City Attorney Riback stated that he did speak to Com. Wolfe and provided him with a written opinion to the affect that there is no conflict of interest. He noted there are approximately 1200 memberships in this trade association and Com. Wolfe's position with the Trade Association, will not benefit him financially from this project, therefore there is no conflict of interest. Planning Commission Minutes ~ Page ~ 3 3/8/94 Mr. Mark Pierce, Chr., Parks and Recreation Commission, stated they do not have any money in the park funds but actually minus $125,000. He stated as a result of the last meeting, the plan with the modifications for the McFarland access and additional open space would be acceptable to the extent that they would also be entitled approximately $700,000 in park dedication fees. He stated soccer and baseball fields are needed in the community and this could not be accomplished in this area, but with the use of the park dedication fees this may be possible in other areas of the City. Mr. Pierce stated the Commission did not pursue the idea of a neighborhood park at the southeast corner, as addressed by Com. Caldwell. Com. Murakami asked Mr. Pierce to expand on Com. Clark's comments regarding a considerable large portion of the open space pathways being unusable. Mr. Pierce stated Com. Clark's concern was that some of the open space provided is not traditional open space, such as the driveways. He stated there is a distinction between the open space and the front yard space. Com. Caldwell stated, based on the approvals granted by the Planning Commission, if all the permits were taken out, the park development fee would be augmented by approximately $1.5 million. She urged the Parks Commission to find out more about this figure. Mr. Curtis stated when the Parks and Recreation budget was anticipated, this development as well as Kerwin Ranch was included in the budget. He stated these two projects would be a major portion of the figure discussed by Com. Caldwell. Regarding the open space, Planner Walgren stated the 4.32 acres is common open space which is available to the occupants of this development. There are also 2.72 acres, which includes the front yards and the individual parcels. He noted staff did not use this figure in their assessments. Mr. Walgren reviewed the setbacks required for this project, as well as the typical setbacks required. Com. Caldwell stated at the February 28, Parks and Recreation meeting, they did develop a consensus opinion that all the Commissioners wanted to maximize the open space and asked if this is still how the Commission felt regardless of whether the ~g go forward with additional purchase of land for a park? Mr. Pierce stated the Parks Commission wants to maximize the open space on this property. He noted one of the advantages the Parks Commission seen from this project was the local landscaping and lighting district proposed. He stated this is an advantage to the City, but would still like to have as much concentrated open space as possible. Com. Caldwell stated if the Commission concluded that it was inappropriate to have the pathway area slotted for publicly owned land, but more appropriately slotted for private open space, would this property be counted as part of the 4.78 acres? P'lanninq Commission Minutes ~ Page • 4 3/8/94 Planner Walgren stated the linear green belt and the common open space proposed is a requirement of the MUPD zoning specific plan regardless whether it's private common space or dedicated for public use. He stated it would be beneficial to have the entire right-of-way dedicated for public access. Mr. Walgren noted the Fire District is satisfied with the plan as proposed with the primary access onto Saratoga Avenue with the secondary restrictive emergency access at Afton Ave. He stated they are not pursuing an additional access. Mr. Curtis stated the Afton Ave. access is for pedestrian access only, but dedicated for emergency access. He stated there are many points to consider with this project: common space - private/public; landscape and lighting maintenance district proposed; the open space required; Parks and Recreation Commission would like to see the money dedicated into a parks fund. He stated this is basically a mixed-use planned development specific plan and there is a lot of flexibility. He stated all the attractive features are trade-offs for smaller lots and larger homes. Com. Asfour asked how large the section of open space against the sound wall is? Planner Walgren stated he would calculate this. Com. Asfour asked who owns this property? Planner Walgren stated the applicant did present at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting that they had an opportunity to acquire additional land, which is on the project side of highway 85 soundwall, it is surplus land at this point. He stated this property is approximately .5 acres and the applicant is confident they can purchase or receive encroachment for landscaping purposes. He noted the project is being considered with the expectation that this property will be included. Com. Kaplan asked how much ownership must this developer have of this open space for the City to be able count on continuous control over the .5 acres? City Attorney Riback stated the developer, at the very least, would have to obtain an easement over the property for the purpose of providing the greenbelt. He stated if they dedicated it to the City they would have to own it outright. Chr. Moran opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Ms. Carol Meyer, representing Greenbriar, stated they have been building in the valley since mid 1970. She noted they have a reputation for quality and have recently built two award winning projects. She noted when the proposed plans were discussed at the work session five key concepts emerged. They are as follows: use; density; internal roadway; open space; and house size. She noted they have taken the recommendations from the work session and the Central Fire Department as well as the Parks and Recreation Commission, and are here to present the revised plan. ~lanninq Commission Minutes ~ Page ! 5 3/8/94 USE - Ms. Meyer noted they are proposing a residential use and the project consists of 95 detached houses, the use is consistent with the low density option and the first choice of the community, when the specific plan was adopted. Ms. Meyer addressed affordable housing and stated it would not be appropriate for this property. DENSITY - Ms. Meyer stated lots proposed are approximately 7800 sq. ft., in addition they are proposing to provide 2000 sq. ft. of open space per home to be landscaped and dedicated as a public park. She stated they are providing just under 10, 000 sq. ft. of land per home. She added the public space will be maintained by the property owners. She stated the open space provided meets the letter of the MUPD zoning and the spirit of the specific plan. She stated it will allow the developer to build a beautiful and unique community. ROADWAY - Ms. Meyer stated the width of the roadway has increased and is acceptable to Central Fire and Public Works. She noted there will be two full lanes in and out of the community and a left turn lane. She added emergency access will be provided onto Afton Ave. OPEN SPACE - Ms. Meyer stated they are saving the City approximately $30,000 per year on the maintenance. Mr. Paul Lateri explained how more open space was obtained and noted they tightened up the plan. He stated he would like to have the driveways minimized and pointed out that only 37 houses front the open space. He believes most of the open space is useable. Mr. Lateri pointed out that the widest point of the open space is 75 to 80 feet. He also noted they are proposing to plant 600 new trees and they will look at the pedestrian access onto McFarland. He reviewed the setbacks proposed, as outlined in the plans. He stated the walls proposed will be covered with vines. Com. Wolfe asked if traditionally, a linear park in a metropolitan area, by definition, is one that has access by the public, but would be bisected by some form of ingress/egress? Mr. Lateri stated the linear park is a different concept and noted the idea of the driveways going across the open space can be dealt with. Com. Murakami stated he visited a Greenbriar development in Cupertino and the roads are 33 ft. wide. Mr. Lateri stated the roads have parking on both sides of the street and this project allows for parking on one side of the street only. Com. Murakami asked if any consideration was given to 10,000 sq. ft. lots? Mr. Lateri stated this is not a specific criteria, because it is not the zoning that the site is governed by. Com. Murakami stated the project in Cupertino, the houses are set very close to each other. Planning Commission Minutes • Page • 6 3/8/94 Mr. Lateri stated that project does not have the open space concept included in this project. Regarding the parking, Com. Asfour asked if it practical to ask a , resident not to park in front of their home? Mr. Lateri stated there is sufficient parking provided and does not believe this will be an issue. Com. Asfour asked the target retail price for the homes, Ms. Meyer stated between $500,000 and $600,000. Chr. Moran asked about the lot size. Mr. Lateri stated the average lot size, plus the open space is approximately 9800 sq. ft. Com. Jacobs questioned how the open space was increased from the original proposal, when there are still 95 lots and the width of the street has increased? He noted in the plans received by the Commission in February, the average lot size was 7200 sq. ft. and its now almost 7800 sq. ft. Mr. Lateri stated the typical lot size was 7200 sq. ft. on the original plans, but the average lot size was not calculated. He noted they have tightened up the plan and added .56 acres to the site from the Cal-Trans property. Chr. Moran asked who many lots would be allowed if the average lot size was 10,000 sq. ft. Com. Murakami stated there would be approximately 75 homes allowed if lots were a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. Mr. Lateri stated that the lots vary in size some are almost 12,000 sq. ft. and others are 6300 sq. ft., but the majority of the lots are 7200 sq. ft. Mr. Goodwin Steinberg stated this project is good for the community and the homes are designed well. He reviewed the basic features of the homes and spoke in support of the project. He stated there is 10 ft. between the houses and privacy was addressed by placing the main windows at the front and back. Mr. Gary Lang, 13127 Montrose, spoke in favor of the revised plan and noted his neighbors are in support of total residential. He stated this is not an appropriate site for commercial as the neighborhood will be impacted by highway 85 and any commercial will bring additional traffic. He stated the plan proposed is attractive and innovative and spoke in support of the linear park and curving streets. Mr. Lang stated the curving streets will slow down traffic and give children an opportunity to play on the streets. He also spoke in favor of the landscape plan and does not feel there is any need to decrease the density. He stated this is the only remaining large parcel in Saratoga and the use of this property for affordable housing is not acceptable to the neighbors. Com. Caldwell stated she was approached by a neighbor of Mr. Lang who addressed a newspaper article regarding this property being used for an ethnic grocery market, she noted the neighbor indicated Planning Commission Minutes • Page • 7 3/8/94 there was much uproar about this. neighborhood feel about this? She asked Mr. Lang how the Mr. Lang stated if this were to become a commercial development traffic would be impacted. He stated the newspaper article was upsetting to many neighbors. He spoke in support of the plan proposed. Com. Kaplan stated there is a lack of housing for seniors, and asked had this been considered for this site? Mr. Lang stated his neighbors have discussed many options for this property and the previous developer had proposed senior housing and the density was much higher. He stated they are not against senior housing, but are against "affordable housing". He stated he would favor 10,000 sq. ft. lots, but if the density was reduced the price of homes would increase. He stated it is the neighbors consensus that this is the best use for the land and something that can be done in a short period of time. He noted time is an issue for the neighbors. Com. Kaplan addressed the City's requirement from the State to meet their housing requirement and the possibility of being sued for not meeting the housing requirement. Com. Jacobs asked was any consideration given to the possibility of varying densities throughout the project? Mr. Lang stated the neighbors looked at many options for this property, but are in favor of the plan proposed. Ms. Wanda Henry, Fee Management Co., stated she manages Quito Shopping Center and noted there is 11,000 sq ft. of vacant space in this center. She believes residential in this area will help the center and noted there are not enough tenants to support more commercial on this site. She stated she is very impressed with the development and it will be an asset to the Community. She stated the pedestrian access onto McFarland would be an advantage. Mr. Ed Vincent, 13617 Westover Dr., spoke in favor of the plan proposed and noted this is more favorable than any high density multi housing or commercial. He stated his only objection is to the substandard lots and the street size. He believes the developer bought the property knowing the codes of the City regarding lot and street size. He does not believe the codes should be amended for economic reasons. Ms. Rose Marie Culpan, 19213 Vineyard Ln., spoke in support of the development and stated this is much better than anything presented previously. She stated she is opposed to commercial and likes the concept of the trees and the project will look good when developed. Ms. Chris Favero, 19549 Vineyard Ln., stated she strongly supports the plan as proposed and believes it is consistent with the character of Saratoga. She noted they are opposed to commercial development. Planning Commission Minutes ~ Page ~ 8 3/8/94 Mr. George Vetre, Vineyard Ln., spoke in support of the proposed plan and stated it will help increase property values of surrounding neighborhoods. He noted there are affordable housing units throughout Saratoga. In response to Com. Wolfe's question, Mr. Vetre stated he does not believe parking will be a problem. Further, Mr. Vetre responded that his condo complex has 165 units. Ms. Sandra Lane, 13712 Montrose, spoke in favor of the plan proposed and believes it is the appropriate use for the site, and the neighborhood is also in support. She stated the neighbors are happy with the sidewalk and linear park proposed. Ms. Lane stated the Planning Commission should listen to the neighbors who will be most impacted by this development. She noted they are opposed to any commercial on this property. She stated the applicant has addressed the size of the units and come back with a size which is compatible with the neighboring homes. She spoke in support of the open space and is opposed to high density or commercial. Com. Caldwell asked Ms. Lane, how the neighborhood would feel if the Commission asked the developer to develop the four lots on the southeast corner as open space? Ms. Lane stated more open space would be great, but they would oppose this if cost was an issue and the developer could not develop at all, because of this requirement. Mr. Art Liss, representing homeowners in Saratoga Woods, noted he reviewed the plan proposed and believes these are much needed homes in an established neighborhood. Mr. Peter Lesley, 15100 Saratoga Ave., stated he concurs with the previous speakers. He added all the neighbors are in favor of this project and would like to see it go forward. He is opposed to higher density or commercial development. Mr. Martin Chainey, Afton Ave., stated recently their biggest concern has been highway 85 and the state of the Paul Masson property. He stated the neighbors on Afton Ave. are unanimous in their support for this project. He believes this development is compatible with the neighborhood and issues of the neighborhood, such as noise, air quality, traffic, have been addressed by the proposed plan. He stated he and his neighbors do not support commercial development and would like to see the plans proposed expedited. Ms. Rebecca Chainey, 18859 Afton Ave., stated any use of affordable housing on this property will require higher density. She expressed concern about traffic if the density was higher or developed as commercial. She stated if there is a large park on this property it will bring people from other parts of the City and this will bring more traffic. She also expressed concern about air quality. She spoke in support of the plans as proposed. Ms. Mira Chainey, 18859 Afton Ave., stated she is speaking for the neighborhood children. She stated there are no sidewalks in her neighborhood and this project will give a safe place for children and would like the plan approved. ,Planning Commission Minutes • Page • 9 3/8/94 Mr. Greg Horn, Montrose St., spoke in support of the plan and noted he is looking forward to riding his bike on the sidewalks proposed. Mr. Dean Echie, resident, stated he is impressed with the proposed plan and is concerned about more changes to the plan. He urged the Planning Commission to approve this plan so the developer can start construction while highway 85 is being constructed. Mr. Norm Matteoni, 1740 Technology Dr., San Jose, BA Properties, reviewed the adoption of the specific plan and noted this plan was based on the City's requirement to get input from the people who have spoke. He stated there was a plan of action to bring development that would be acceptable to the community, and this has been heard at this hearing. He noted the proposed plan speaks well of the specific plan and is less dense than the MUPD zoning. Ms. Carol Meyer stated what Greenbriar is proposing is real and if the City requires more opens space, it won't pencil out. If the number of units are reduced, it won't pencil out. If the lot sizes are increased, it won't pencil out. If the house sizes are reduced, it won't pencil out. She asked that the plans proposed be approved and looks forward to working with the Commission for the final plans. She stated they need to seek approval to go forward and would like to get the roads in before the winter. Com. Jacobs questioned what Greenbriar builds. Ms. Meyer stated Greenbriar Homes Co. builds single family homes, an affiliate of Greenbriar builds apartments. Com. Jacobs addressed an article in the Business Journal, dated February 14, which did not differentiate between Greenbriar and it's affiliate. Ms. Meyer stated the article is incorrect. Com. Wolfe noted that Mr. Steinberg is noted as an award winning architect and asked how this project would compare to other award winning projects and how it could be modified slightly to make it a better project? Mr. Steinberg stated when designing this property they were thinking more in terms of finding a solution to the problem as opposed to an award winning project. He believes this project is good for the community and fits in well. ASFOUR/MURARAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0. Chr. Moran stated the houses proposed are very close to each other and asked are they compatible with the neighborhood? Planner Walgren stated the neighborhood have a 6 to 10 ft. setback per parcel. He noted the development adjacent to the east was developed under County regulations and it is possible that there could be less than a 10 ft. setback minimum. Chr. Moran stated Ms. Meyer had said that the project would not pencil out if any changes at all were made to the plan. Chair Moran asked the City Attorney how issues of economics would this fit into their calculations? Planning Commission Minutes 3/8/94 Page ~ 10 City Attorney Riback stated the Planning Commission has been advised in the past not to take economics into consideration when making land use decisions. Com. Kaplan asked staff about the applicant's request to reduce the width of the driveways or be used by multiple homes. Planner Walgren stated the applicant's request is to consider a less than code requirement for a single family driveway. He noted this can be modified, particularly in cases were there are residents so close to a public street. He stated if the applicant propose a 8 to 12 ft. driveway and central fire can accept this, then staff believes it is acceptable, as long as the Planning Commission feels there is still sufficient apron parking on the actual property. Com. Wolfe stated affordable housing is always a consideration, but at this point in time and the specific plan, it is difficult to see how this could be configured into this plan. He noted affordable housing should be addressed in the future. Com. Asfour stated, from a land use perspective, he was pleased that no commercial use was proposed on this site and would prefer all residential. He stated has no problem with the conceptual design with some modifications. Com. Caldwell stated that all residential is the appropriate land use for this property. Com. Murakami spoke in favor of all residential, as did Com. Jacobs and Kaplan. Chr. Moran also spoke in support of all residential and stated this helps the Commission address many issues raised during the specific plan. Chr. Moran stated to the public that the Commission is in favor of all residential as opposed to commercial. Com. Kaplan thanked Planner Walgren for a well planned land use trip. She stated she did visit a number of other communities, measured streets and compared, and would accept a 28 ft. street with parking on one side. She expressed concerned about how this could be controlled. She noted the houses are very large on small lots, and believes the houses being so close together does not reflect the suburban semi-rural character of Saratoga. Com. Asfour stated the design aspect is very good and the overall concept is good, but he cannot support the density proposed. He stated the Commission cannot consider economics as addressed by Ms. Meyer. He expressed concern about the house size on sub-standard lots. He added he would like to see less units and more useable open space. Com. Caldwell stated she has heard a sense of urgency from the public and the applicant to move forward on this project. She noted it has been difficult and frustrating, as a Planning Commissioner, watching the whole progress with this site and realizes it has been a problem for the neighbors with regards to noise and air pollution. She noted the neighbors have spoke out of Planning Commission Minutes • 3/8/94 Page • 11 frustration and the Commission is sensitive to this. She stated the internal street plan is acceptable and believes the narrow streets will help slow down traffic. She noted the pathway proposed is a good design feature, but does not consider it open space in terms of the guidelines set out in the specific plan. Com. Caldwell stated she would like to maximize the useable open space which is concentrated. She noted more open space, using the four southeast lots, would be an improvement to the plan. She noted one suggestion would be attached housing along Saratoga Avenue, and this may be an opportunity to provide less expensive housing. She expressed concern about large homes on small lots, and stated it is essential to request the pedestrian access onto McFarland to allow access to a community park and shopping center. Com. Caldwell addressed the 10 ft. between structures and noted this is very small given the size and height of the structures. She added compatibility is an aspect the Planning Commission have always paid close attention to, and it is important that this development fit in with the existing neighborhood. To summarize, Com. Caldwell stated the plan is close, the applicant should consider consolidating and augmenting the open space, and put some parameters on the setbacks. She stated she is not opposed to 95 homes if the applicant can deal with the setback and open space issues. She stated the neighborhood needs some public open space in this area and the Parks and Recreation Commission report a heavy demand for open space. Com. Jacobs stated he has found the whole process difficult. He noted what the neighbors have to say is very important and Planning Commissioners do share some of their concerns. He noted the Planning Commission is not in favor of commercial on this site. He expressed concern about traffic and noted the freeway will have an impact on the neighborhood. He believes the neighbors are talking from fear and frustration, and noted these are great motivators, but it is the Planning Commission's job to make decisions based on rules which include the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan. He stated when the Commission considered multiple use for the property last year, they did not envision all single family homes. He stated 95 homes on small lots is a first for Saratoga, but stated the Planning Commission was willing to go with single family homes entirely, if this plan complied with the R1-10,000 zoning, and this plan does not. He stated all single family homes would be acceptable, but noted the density proposed is too great and the plan is not acceptable to him. He stated at a hearing in February he indicated that there was too much house on too little land and suggested less than 95 lots. Also the plan proposed does not meet the minimum required open space. Com. Murakami stated the overall plan is good and believes the linear open space could be sacrificed for a dedicated park, but spoke in support of the overall design. He also expressed concern about too much house on small lots. He believes the lots should be increased to 10,000 sq. ft. and the project would still be marketable. He stated he would like this project to move forward as addressed by the neighbors. Com. Wolfe stated he shares the concerns of other Commissioners regarding open space, but they have heard from the neighbors that this is a good plan. He stated if the density was reduced, then Planning Commission Minutes ~ Page • 12 3/8/94 house prices increase. He noted the street plan is acceptable and believes there are similar projects in Saratoga. He does not believe this project will cause traffic problems and stated the plan is workable. Com. Wolfe noted that in response to a previous statement that, "This high density would be a first for Saratoga." To recall the testimony of Mr. George Vetre who lives in the condo complex on Vineyard Lane just across Saratoga Avenue from the Paul Masson property, Mr. Vetre stated that there are 165 units, where he lives, all of which are two stories high, on a site much smaller than the Paul Masson property. He does not believe this project will cause any traffic problems. Further, Com. Wolfe said in reference to another previous remark that the proposed homes "would be very, very expensive" that it would be helpful to use as a perspective the fact that in 1993 about 30 homes were built in Saratoga all valued at near or over $1,000,000 each and that in 1992 - 27 homes were built in Saratoga all of which exceeded a million dollars in value. The proposed development appears to be half those costs. Com. Kaplan asked what the setback is for R1-10,000 lots? Planner Walgren stated the minimum setback between two homes is 20 ft., unless it is a substandard parcel, then it becomes 10% of the lot width. Planner Walgren stated there are only setback requirements for rear yards in Multiple Use Planner Development Zoning District, other setbacks are up to the discretion of the Planning Commission based on what the developer proposes and shows as reasonable. Com. Kaplan stated the applicant will have benefit of the multiple use zoning even though they are proposing all residential. Planning Director Curtis stated the MPD zone is a flexible zoning district and the surrounding area is taken into consideration and leaves it open as to what the Planning Commission believe is appropriate for the site. He stated if the Planning Commission wish to consider single family homes which need to meet R1-10,000 zoning district, the MUPD is no longer necessary and the zoning needs to be changed and start all over again. He stated this is a flexible zoning district and R1-10,000 standards cannot be applied. Chr. Moran stated she would like to see the City act expeditiously to allow and encourage development on this property. She noted the zoning designation provides flexibility in design and density, in order to encourage development that is creative and innovative. She stated a specific plan was developed to compliment and expand on the MUPD zoning to reflect what the City and neighbors want. She noted the proposal is for 95 large homes on small lots, she stated residential use is appropriate but would prefer to see a mix of houses with a wider price range. She is willing to entertain this proposal as it seems to be what the neighbors want. She noted if single family homes are going to be developed here, they should be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood and believes the plan proposed is close. She spoke in support of the access to McFarland. She noted her main concern is the size of the lots and density. She added she would be interested in an average lot of 10,000 sq. ft. as stated in the Specific Plan. She believes Planning Commission Minutes • Page • 13 3/8/94 this is a workable plan and they should work with the developer to obtain a plan which is acceptable to all. Planning Director Curtis stated the Planning Commission should re- open the public hearing and ask the applicant if he is willing to modify the plan or proceed with the plan as proposed. Chr. Moran stated she is not sensing a no from the Commission, but a plan that needs to modified. Com. Asfour stated the Commissioners all agree that the plan is good, but the major concern is the house size on small lots. Chr. Moran re-opened the public hearing and asked the applicant would they like a continuance at this time or for the Commission to take a vote. Mr. Tom de Regt, BA Properties, stated the zoning on the property is MUPD zoning and the specific plan was adopted by the Planning Commission and the reason. they will ask for a decision at this hearing is because they feel they have brought a plan to the Commission which is consistent with the specific plan adopted, and this is the lower density alternative. He stated they have listened to the neighbors, been consistent with the specific plan and would like a decision at this hearing. ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0. Com. Wolfe moved for approval of PD-94-001 with the provision that there be public pedestrian ingress/egress of appropriate width to McFarland Avenue. Com. Asfour seconded for purposed of discussion. , Com. Caldwell stated she would like to see the McFarland pedestrian access, more concentrated open space, dealing with the overbuilt qualities of the development which have been addressed by Commissioners, augmenting and consolidating open space. She stated all residential is acceptable as is the street design. She stated this area is a high density area and is lacking in open space. THE ABOVE MOTION FAILED 1-6 (Caldwell, Asfour, Moran, Murakami, Jacobs, Kaplan No). ASFOUR/RAPLAN MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION PD-94-001 SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS MADE BY COMMISSIONERS AT THIS HEARING. PASSED 6-1 (Wolfe No) . The City Attorney was excused at this time. 2. DR-93-043 - Brook; 15043 Gypsy Hill Rd. (Lot #28), request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,305 sq. ft. two-story residence within the San Marcos Heights Subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 43,278 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1- 40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated March 8, 1994. Planning Commission Minutes , Paqe ~ 14 3/8/94 Chr. Moran expressed concern about the amount of grading. Planner Walgren explained the grading required and noted most of it is for the horseshoe driveway. He added the grading for the house is typical. Chr. Moran opened the public hearing at 10:55 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli stated the parallel walls were an alternate suggestion as a way to mitigate some grading, but decided recontouring would take away the necessity for the walls. She noted the house is set at an angle, facing south. Chr. Moran questioned the lack of design features to the side of the house on the north elevation. Ms. Fanelli stated this part of the house backs onto private open space and does not believe design features are necessary. In response to Com. Murakami's question she stated the location of the house is a result of the slope and the way the pad is situated. She stated the driveway will be asphalt and once contoured, part of it will be hidden. Com. Caldwell addressed the street trees. Planner Walgren stated they did investigate the street trees that are within the public open space and this has been forwarded to the Public Works department and has been put into their work program. He stated the developer had responsibility for these trees for two years. JACOBS/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0. ASFOUR/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR-93-047 SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND SUBCONCLUSIONS OF THE HEARING. Com. Caldwell thanked staff for a thorough staff report. THE ABOVE MOTION PASSED 7-0. 3. SM-93-010 - Lawson; 12375 Farr Ranch Rd., Planning FE-98-001.1 - Commission consideration of the following: V-93-031 - DR-93-046 - 1. Site Modification approval to construct a pool and associated decking and landscaping pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 2. Modification of a fencing plan approved for the Parker Ranch Homeowners to allow an exception to a condition that requires all fencing to be setback 20 feet from the side property lines. The proposed fence is a five foot high open style (4" x 4" steel gauge) fence and is located approximately five feet from the north side property line and immediately adjacent to the south side property line. The fence will not enclose more than 50 percent of the site area. 3. Variance approval to exceed the site's maximum allowable floor area of 5,610 sq. ft. by 531 sq. ft. to allow the Planning Commission Minutes • Page i 15 3/8/94 construction of a 706 sq. ft. pool house. A second ' Variance is requested to allow the pool house to be built on an average slope of 39 percent where 30 percent is the maximum permitted. 4. Design Review approval is also necessary to allow the site's gross floor area to exceed 6,000 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within an HR zone district. -------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated March 8, 1994. Chr. Moran questioned the removal of the olive trees which provide screening. Planner Walgren stated they do provide screening but are not ordinance protected and the applicant has proposed to replace these with landscaping which, overtime, will provide screening. Com. Caldwell commended staff for a thorough report. Chr. Moran opened the public hearing. Mr. Tim Holglen, Landscape Architect, stated the most important issue is the variance for the pool house and noted the guidelines they are working with are guidelines and should be treated as such. He noted the pool house will have no negative impact and he sees no solid reason why this project should not be approved. He stated he worked with staff throughout this process. Com. Jacobs stated other that the natural topography of the lot, is there any existing structures that would cause a hardship, in terms of the pool house? He stated he is struggling to find an exception. Ms. Marcia Wells Lawson stated the reason for the fence is for her children and because of a lime disease problem. She stated she does not want the deer creating a path were her children play. Planner Walgren reviewed the proposed fence as outlined on the plans. Chr. Moran read a letter into the record from John E. Greenleaf and Carol Greenleaf, at 12391 Farr Ave., dated March 3, 1994. Chr. Moran stated she talked to Mr. Greenleaf and it is her understanding that he would like to talk to the Lawsons. Mr. Lawson stated if his neighbor is in objection to this project he would like a continuance to discuss this with him. Mrs Lawson stated the main reason for the pool house is because they need a large room for gatherings and believes the design proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. She noted the formula used in 1983, when the house was built would have allowed the pool house. Planning Commission Minutes • Page ~ 16 3/8/94 Com. Jacobs asked was there any consideration given to expanding the family room by 200 ft., as opposed to building a separate structure? Mrs. Lawson stated this is a possibility. Com. Jacobs stated the Planning Commission have rules to follow and he is having problems making the findings to grant the variance. Com. Asfour stated he has no problem with the site modification, but cannot make the findings to grant the variance request. He stated that approving a Variance would be a grant of special privilege. Com. Kaplan stated she did visit the site and still cannot make the findings to grant the variance. Com. Murakami questioned the wine cellar. Mr. Lawson stated this was his personal design and would be convenient when having large parties to use as a large refrigerator. Com. Wolfe stated he is impressed with the staff report and would support staff's recommendations. Com. Caldwell spoke in favor of the continuance. She stated the applicant should obtain a list of the variance findings and the Greenleaf's letter. Mr. Tim Holglen stated the olive trees are in poor health and what they propose will provide better screening. He expressed concern about delays in receiving information from staff. CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS APPLICATION TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1994. PASSED 7-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Planning Director Curtis stated he received a letter from the applicant of the 5th street development who requests a continuance to the first meeting in April. He noted the Commission will have to continue this at the March 23, 1994 meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS Com. Jacobs passed out an article regarding Greenbriar. Com. Asfour stated he will be out of the Country for the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Grace United Methodist Church re: Noise Complaints The Commission agreed to ask the Pastor of Grace United Methodist Church to address the Commission. Mr. Curtis stated he will inform the neighbors of this request. Planning Commission Minutes • Page , 17 3/8/94 2. City Council Minutes - 2/16 & 2/22/94 3. Planning Commission Notices for 3/23/94 oral City Council ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on March 23, 1994, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Respectfully submitted Catherine M. Robillard.