Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-1994 Planning Commission minutes • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 23, 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 Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: Commissioner Asfour City Attorney Riback was present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Minutes of February 23, 1994. Community Development Director had the following correction: Page 11, 1st paragraph under Director's Items, last sentence, the word "pervious" should be corrected to "previous" Commissioner Caldwell had the following corrections: Page 3, 4th paragraph, 4th sentence should read "He added there is no specific plan in the proposal with regard to the garbage bins." Page 4, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence, the word "who" should be changed to "which", and the words "but were converted into owner or renter occupied units" should be added to the end of the sentence. Commissioner Caldwell also noted that there were several instances at the meeting of February 23, 1994, that the Commission had asked staff to check into the noticing of a couple of items on the agenda. Chairperson Moran concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's recollection and stated that the status report on the noticing could be given later in the meeting under the segment of "Director's Items". There were no other corrections. `~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 2 CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. With regard to the Minutes of March 8, 1994, the Commission began to make corrections and concluded that there were a number of corrections needed. Several Commissioners voiced concern with the absence of detail and pertinent comments. Chairperson Moran suggested that the minutes of March 8 be moved to the end of the meeting so further discussion could take place. Commissioner Wolfe noted that he had asked at the March 8th meeting that staff check on the density of the 165 unit condominium complex across the street. Commissioner Wolfe reported that the density was 14.5 acres which is approximately 11 dwelling unit per acre. He also commented that this project (Greenbriar) would serve as three years (housing) production for Saratoga. He noted that the 3 to 5 year delay of development of this site may be one of the reasons why the Parks and Recreation Department is $135,000 under funded at this time. Commissioner Wolfe offered this information as follow up to the item reviewed at the March 8, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO TABLE THE MINUTES UNTIL THE END OF THE MEETING WHERE THE MINUTES COULD BE FURTHER DISCUSSED. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 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 March 15, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Stanchina noted one technical correction to Page 15 of Item #2. Under the heading "Average Lot Slope", 15% should be deleted and 22% should be inserted. Commissioner Wolfe pointed out that Item #3 DR-94-005 - 20300 Orchard Drive should be corrected to 20300 Orchard Place. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ~' • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 3 Chairperson Moran inquired if anyone wished to remove Item #1 (the only item) from the Consent Calendar. No one indicated a desire to remove the item. 1. DR-93-020 - Goese; 20661 Fifth St., request for Design UP-93-004 - Review 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. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared (cont. to 4/13/94 at the request of the applicant; application expires 7/19/94). -------------------------------------------------------------- CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SM-93-010 - Lawson; 12375 Farr Ranch Rd., Planning FE-90-001.1 - 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 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. .> ~` • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 4 The subject property is approximately 1.2 acres and is located within an HR zone district (cont. from 3/8/94 at the request of the applicants to discuss the project with an objecting neighbor; application expires 7/13/94). Planner Stanchina presented the Report dated March 23, 1994, and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the applications, the project and Resolution FE-90-001.1. Chairperson Moran explained that she had been contacted by telephone by the next door neighbor (who also submitted a letter at the last meeting) and requested that she (Chairperson Moran) deliver their comments on the issue. Chairperson Moran inquired of City Attorney Riback as to the appropriateness of this and at what point during the meeting should she deliver these comments. City Attorney Riback explained that Chairperson Moran was under no obligation to reiterate the comments unless she believed the comments were pertinent and provided new information that should be given to the Commission. He stated that if she wished to deliver these comments that she could do so at this point in the meeting. Chairperson Moran stated that the neighbors requested that she explain that they (the neighbors) were delighted to have the Lawsons as neighbors and want the Lawsons to be able to develop their land, but would, however, like the CC&Rs of the subdivision and the regulations of the City to be followed. She stated that the neighbors expressed concern with the proposed fence setbacks and would like the 20' (City) fence setback regulations followed. In terms of landscaping, the neighbors expressed a preference for the installation of mature landscaping to help mitigate privacy impacts as a result of the new pool and play area. Chairperson Moran stated that the neighbors also requested that the landscaping not be install right on the property line, but back 5 or 6 feet so as to allow it to grow without encroaching across the property line or interfering with the drain. Chairperson Moran reported that the neighbors requested the proposed pool be located farther (to the north) away from their house. Chairperson Moran referred to their letter expressing opposition to the pool house entirely. With regard to the installation of the drainage for the new structure, the neighbors asked that the City inspect the drainage and the installation to ensure that the drainage would adequately serve its purpose. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 5 Marcia Lawson, applicant introduced the project's landscape architect. Tim Hoagland, Landscape architect, clarified issues mentioned in the letter from the neighbors. Mr. Hoagland assured the Commission that the landscaping referred to in the letter and which is slated for removal is located on the applicant's property. Mr. Hoagland explained that if the proposed southwestern property line fence is constructed in a way as to point back in toward the house, the fence would be more visible than it would be if built as proposed. Mr. Hoagland presented a plan of the site which depicted improvements (steps and etc.) made on the Lawson's property by the Greenleafs', the neighbors. He stated that the applicant's proposal may impact these improvements and this may contribute to the neighbor's opposition to the applicant's project. Mr. Hoagland also discussed the issue of the drainage and noted that currently the Greenleaf's property drains onto the Lawson's property and that the project would not reverse this process. With regard to the pool location, Mr. Hoagland commented that the pool is located as close to the house as possible. Commissioner Jacobs inquired, if allowed (by the City), if there would be a problem with moving the pool even closer to the pool house thus rotating the pool upwards and cutting into the slope somewhat so as to move the fence in to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Hoagland explained that the reason the applicant is asking for an exception to the setback regulations has to do with other reasons pertaining to the construction of the pool and providing a safe play area for the family children. He stated that the applicant, at this point, was not looking at that option. Commissioner Jacobs reiterated his question of whether the pool location could be slightly shifted to allow the fence to closer meet the City regulations. Mr. Hoagland stated that the suggestion could be possible, however, moving the pool in this manner would cause the pool to be a greater visual impact to the Greenleafs. Marcia Lawson, applicant, addressed the question/suggestion posed by Commissioner Jacobs and explained that moving the pool would make it virtually impossible to screen (the pool) for privacy. In response to Commissioner Jacobs question regarding the distance between the fence and the street, Planner Stanchina noted that the fence is at least 60 feet from the street. "` 1, • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Hoagland, Landscape architect, explained that extensive landscape screening is planned for the site. Marcia Lawson, applicant, expressed surprise at the neighbor's concern with regard to the shrubbery. She stated that the fact that the Greenleaf's were required to install landscaping during their construction should have no bearing on her proposal. She stated that she feels her property is in need of additional landscaping and would like to be able to install the landscaping according to her plan. Ms. Lawson explained that her property poses a hardship in the way that the house is placed on the lot. She explained that the house is sited far back on the lot and strictly limits the possibility of additional construction within the City regulations. She noted that her family is in need of additional recreational space and that the pool house would provide the space needed as well as serve as a retainer for the hillside. She pointed out the existence of other similar pool houses and pools in the area and commented that these were built prior to the implementation of the regulations. She noted that if the pool and pool house had been built simultaneously with the main structure there would be no issue. Terry Martin, project architect, offered to answer any questions the Commission might have with regard to the project. There was no one else wishing to speak. CALDWELL/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Chairperson Moran outlined the issues of the project and asked the Commission to commence discussion. Commissioner Murakami stated that he could not make the findings to support the variance and design review. Commissioner Caldwell expressed her appreciation for the applicant's attempt to meet the required findings, however, she stated, that the placement of the house on the lot does not warrant the square foot variance for a pool house. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was in agreement with the staff report and could not support the variance. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the statements made by Commissioner Caldwell and the recommendations made in the staff report. • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 7 n Commissioner Jacobs explained that he had a problem with the project exceeding the allowable square footage for the lot. He pondered the possibility of the slope of the lot constituting a variance thus setting precedent for variances on other similarly sloped lots. He stated that he could not find the legal basis to support the variance. Commissioner Wolfe stated that the unfortunate location of the house on the site severely restricts the construction possibilities, but did not constitute the need for a variance. He stated that he could not make the necessary findings to support the variance. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he felt that the location of the house was not the problem. He stated that he had a problem with the fact that the pool house would exceed the allowable square footage for the lot. CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUEST BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION V-93-031 & DR-93-046. PASSED 6-0. With regard to the fence plan modification, Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would like to see the pool moved in order to allow the fence to meet the setback requirements. She stated that she would have difficulty approving a modification to the fence plan if there was a way to relocate the pool and the meet the fence setback requirements. Commissioner Caldwell asked staff if it was their position that the pool and the fence, placed according to staff's recommendation, could co-exist. Planner Stanchina confirmed that staff was of the opinion that the pool and the fence placed according to their (staff's) recommendation could co-exist. Chairperson Moran asked if there was a City requirement as to how far or close a pool enclosure fence could be placed from the pool. Planner Stanchina stated that there was no regulation governing the placement of a pool fence. Chairperson Moran inquired if the fence could be brought in closer to the pool if the plan was somewhat modified. Planner Stanchina noted that any modification to the plan that would shift the pool would require modifications to the grading and retaining wall design. • a Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Caldwell inquired if Chairperson Moran was interested in asking the applicants if they were agreeable to shifting the pool. Chairperson Moran pointed out that if the applicants agreed to shift the pool, the application would need to be continued to allow the applicants to make the necessary modifications to the plans. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that moving the pool would essentially eliminate the side yard. Commissioner Kaplan expressed confusion with regard to the proposed fence location and the existing fence location. Planner Stanchina presented photos to assist Commissioner Kaplan. She also explained the applicant's proposed location of the fence, the existing location of the fence, and staff's recommendation for the location of the fence. Planner Stanchina explained the basis of staff's recommended fence location. She explained that staff recognized the site limited usable yard area and that this warranted an exception to the 20 foot setback rule. She noted that unless the neighboring properties applied for an exception to the fence setback requirements, there would be a minimum 25 foot corridor on the left side and a 30 foot corridor on the right side. She stated that staff felt these corridors would be adequate to serve as wildlife corridors. She further explained that if exceptions were granted to the neighbors a 10 foot wide wildlife corridor in this particular case would be acceptable. CALDWELL/WOLFE MOVED APPROVAL OF FE-90-001.1. Commissioner Caldwell stated that based on the comments made by staff, the site visit, and the unique circumstance of the lot, she was convinced that the fence location would still allow adequate passage/space for the wildlife corridor. Commissioner Wolfe and Murakami agreed with Commissioner Caldwell's comments. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had nothing further to add. Commissioners Jacobs expressed support for the motion. Chairperson Moran stated that she was troubled by what the action may mean to other properties in the area. She stated that she could not support the motion. _' • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 9 THE MOTION PASSED 4-2 (CHAIRPERSON MORAN AND COMMISSIONER KAPLAN OPPOSED). CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE SM-93-010 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Chairperson Moran stated that she had no problem with the pool, but that she would prefer the fencing be at the standards set by the Parker Ranch Homeowners. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. The meeting was recessed at 8:57 p.m. and then reconvened at 9:07 p.m. 3. DR-94-005 - Denari; 20300 Orchard Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 600 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 2,189 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 7,850 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zone district. Planner Stanchina presented the Staff Report dated March 23, 1994. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:10 P.M. Michael Davis, project designer, spoke in favor of the application. He explained that the proposed design was sensitive to the neighbors and their privacy. He also discussed the height of the proposed structure and the existing landscaping on the site. There was no one else wishing to speak. AT 9:11 P.M., CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0 KAPLAN/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE DR-94-005 PER THE STAFF REPORT. Chairperson Moran stated that she thought the project was designed nicely and thanked the designer for his efforts to design a nice addition which was not only compatible, but also sensitive to the neighbors. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 10 ' Commissioner Murakami explained that he had visited the site and concluded that the proposed addition would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he also visited the site and commented that he thought the addition was well designed and would not be intrusive. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments made by the other Commissioners. She said the project was lovely. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. 4. DR-94-001 - Finnigan; 12308 Titus Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct a 500 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 2,347 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. the property is 10,008 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zone district. Planner Stanchina presented the Report dated March 23, 1994. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if any discussion had taken place with the applicant with regard to moving the second story addition so as not to sit so squarely on the house. Planner Stanchina explained that she was not the planner on this particular project and did not know if this had been suggested to the applicant. Commissioner Jacobs inquired whether the staff had discussed with the applicant the issues involved when applying for a second story addition in what appears to be a predominantly one-story neighborhood. Planner Stanchina explained that there are several two-story homes across the street and that staff had looked at the entire area, not just the lots contained in the Country Squire Estates Subdivision. She explained that in light of the fact that two-story homes existed across the street, staff felt atwo-story home would not be incompatible. Chairperson Moran inquired whether Planner Stanchina knew if the option of constructing aone-story addition instead of a two-story addition had been discussed with the applicant. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 11 Planner Stanchina stated that the option of constructing aone-story addition had not been discussed. She pointed out that the lot was rather restricted and that may be the reason the applicant opted for atwo-story addition. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the addition's appearance of mass and bulk. Chairperson Moran asked who had designed the addition. Planner Stanchina stated that the homeowner had designed the addition. Chairperson Moran inquired if staff had encouraged the applicant to work with a professional designer. Planner Stanchina explained that staff typically does encourage applicants to use professional designers or architects. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 9:20 P.M. Mrs. Finnigan, applicant, was asked to address the Commission. Mrs Finnigan explained that her husband had been taking care of the City process for the addition, but was out of town and could not attend the Planning Commission meeting. She explained that her husband had designed the addition and that a neighbor, who is a professional architect, had given them a few tips. She noted that if directed by the Planning Commission, they, Mr. and Mrs Finnigan, the applicants, would consult an architect for his/her assistance on the project. Mrs. Finnigan answered questions from the Commission, but reiterated that with regard to discussions between the City staff and her husband she had not been present and could not speak to some issues. There was no one else wishing to speak. WOLFE/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. PASSED 6-0. WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-94-001. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was troubled by whether atwo-story home was appropriate in this location. He stated that this was a public policy issue. He noted that he was not satisfied with the design and commented that the design may not meet the design review standards. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 12 Commissioner Murakami stated that he did not feel that the design was compatible with or blended with the existing house. He stated that he did not have an issue with a two-story addition, but that this design was not compatible. Commissioner Kaplan commended the applicant for the sensitive placement of the windows in order to protect the privacy of the neighbors, however, she stated that she was troubled by the design. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was not as concerned with the two story element as she was with the particular design. She stated that she felt the design needed some minor modification to help it blend more with the existing house and the character of the neighborhood. She recommended, if agreeable to the applicant, that the application be continued to allow the applicant time to consult with a professional architect or designer to assist with the design. Mrs. Finnigan stated that continuing the application was acceptable. After discussing with the applicant the amount of time needed to consult with a professional designer and to have plans revised and submitted, CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE DR-94-001 TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1994, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TIME TO CONSULT WITH A PROFESSIONAL DESIGNER/APPLICANT TO ASSIST IN MODIFYING THE ADDITION TO BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING HOUSE AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis explained that there were people in the audience who wanted to speak on the second Director's Item -the Odd Fellows Property. He suggested that the Commission begin discussion on the second item first so as not to further delay some members of the audience. 2. Review of RFP to prepare an EIR for the Odd Fellows Master Plan Community Development Director Curtis presented the memorandum dated March 23, 1994. He stated that a scoping session had been tentatively scheduled for April 13, 1994, and explained to the Commissioners the general process for requesting proposals for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Community Development Director Curtis answered questions from the Commission with regard to ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 13 the upcoming process, the memorandum presented and the scoping session. Some of the Commissioners pointed out that the recommendation in staff's memo was to receive comments from the initial study this evening. Director Curtis explained that at this time staff was not looking for comments from the Commission on the draft initial study. After Director Curtis' explanation that typically the RFPs are sent out and then the scoping session is held, Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was in favor of holding off on sending out the RFPs until after the scoping session has been held. She explained that additional issues may be discovered during the scoping session and that these issues may have an impact on the RFPs. Commissioner Caldwell suggested that a notice be sent to potential consultants informing them of the forthcoming RFP and the scheduled scoping session on the subject. There was further discussion regarding the purpose of an initial study, the circumstances which warrant and Environmental Impact Report, the types of consultant qualified to prepare and Environmental Impact Report, and the City's policy on choosing and paying for the consultant services. At this point in the meeting the floor was opened for comments from members of the audience. Bill Chastain, 14484 Chester Avenue, stated that he was representing 14 homes in the area and thanked the Commission for their time and dedication to serving on a City Commission. He stated that he had many comments with regard to the Odd Fellows property and the draft initial study. He stated that he was appalled at anyone's effort to streamline the process (referring to the Streamlining Act mention by Director Curtis earlier) for a development on the Odd Fellow's property. He urged the Commission to continue their careful review of the plans for this property and stated that he felt many issues had been overlooked with regard to the initial study. He expressed frustration with the continuation of plans to develop the property and explained that the neighborhood had endured various meetings, processes and reviews with regard to this property. He pointed out that the neighborhood has been bombarded with institutional uses which greatly impacted the area. He urged the Commission, in their review of development plans for the site, to be extremely sensitive to the potential impacts on the existing residential neighborhood. He stated that he thought this application should be put to rest as soon as possible. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, expressed confusion as to why the property had not developed as originally planned. He explained that there had originally been a plan for development which would take place in 3 phases. He reported difficulties he • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 14 encountered when he asked to review the original resolution pertaining to the development of this property. He explained that the neighborhood had been through many meetings, reviews, and public hearings with regard to this property and inquired how the original plan could have changed without neighborhood notification. Don Richusco, 19303 Schubert Court, concurred with the comments from the previous speakers. He questioned the initial study and felt that many issues had been missed. He reported that the neighbors would like to examine all the issues pertaining to development of this property. He asked if a report could be made on the effort and consideration given to the initial study. He encouraged the Planning Commission to carefully consider all the issues and look at every aspect of the proposed project. He also inquired as to how 9 lots became 1 lot. Chairperson Moran stated that she would like the comments and questions voiced by the public to be addressed at the scoping session of April 13, 1994. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was appreciative of the comments made by the public and their encouragement to carefully review all the relative issues. He mentioned a recent application and stated that he had wished there had been as much public comment/participation during that process as there had been with this particular project. Chairperson .Moran asked about the Streamlining Act referred to by the 1st speaker. City Attorney Riback explained that the Streamlining Act had to do with the amount of time the City has to act on a particular application. He explained that if the City did not act on an application within the allotted time frame (1 year) an applicant could take the position that the project had been approved. He explained that the 1 year time allotment would begin once the City received the completed application materials. City Attorney Riback reported that an application had been filed with the City, but the City sent a letter to the applicant (The Odd Fellows) indicating that additional materials must be submitted in order to deem the application complete. Community Development Director explained that a geotechnical report was one of the items required and absent from the application submittal. He explained that the geotechnical study/report could take up to a year to complete. He also further discussed the application and the review process of such a project. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 15 Following the above discussion, there was consensus among the Commission that notices be sent out to perspective consultants informing them of the forthcoming RFP and also informing them and inviting them to attend the scoping session. Mr. Chastain, 14484 Chester Avenue, inquired as to why the scoping session was scheduled so soon if the 1 year time line would not begin until all application materials are received especially if it may be another year until the application is deemed complete. He urged the Commission to hold off on the scoping session until closer to completion of the application. He stated that he felt this meeting was to take place too soon and would not give the neighbors adequate time to review the issues. Community Development Director Curtis explained that the policy of the City is to start work on an application as soon as possible. He explained that there are several processes involved with this project and the that was the reason the scoping session was scheduled on the next available meeting date. Mr. Richusco, stated that he understood that a General Plan amendment may need to take place with regard to this project. He asked at what point in the process would the General Plan amendment take place. Community Development Director Curtis explained that a General Plan amendment would be required by this application and that application for the amendment had not yet been filed. He explained that the General Plan amendment application would also need to be filed along with the geotechnical report for the application to be deemed complete. Chairperson Moran and Director Curtis outlined the scoping session date of April 13th, the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to hold off on sending out RFPs until after the scoping session, but to send notices to potential consultants informing them of the forth coming RFP and the scoping session. Director Curtis noted that the scoping session purpose is to identify potential environmental impacts and not to discuss the merits of project. Commissioner Kaplan asked that the purpose of the April 13th meeting be made clear in the notices. Director Curtis stated that the purpose will be made as clear as possible on the notices. There was discussion regarding the number of items on the April 13th meeting. It was determined that approximately 6 items were scheduled on the April 13, 1994. agenda. Several Commissioners expressed concern for the number of items on this agenda and if their would be ample time for all the items. There was discussion on the r~ U • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 16 anticipated amount of public comment that might take place at this meeting. Director Curtis announced that City Attorney Riback reminded him (Curtis) that the scoping session did not have to be in the form of a public hearing. He explained that the initial study could be prepared and the RFPs could be sent out, an EIR prepared and then the public hearing could be held, but a public hearing during the scoping session would allow public input at the earliest stage. He explained that whether or not the scoping session is held as a public input session is up to the discretion of the Commission. Mr. Chastain again addressed the Commission and strongly urged them to delay the scoping session until a time closer to application completion. He stated that he felt the April 13th date was too soon. He also stated that he thought to hold a closed scoping session would be absurd. In response to Commissioner Caldwell's question as to why April 13th had been chosen for the scoping session, Director Curtis again explained that City policy is to process applications a quickly as possible and April 13th was the first available meeting date. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she preferred an individual work session on the item and not to review this item during a regular meeting along with other applications. Commissioner Jacobs concurred with Commissioner Caldwell. He stated that he didn't have a problem with the date, but was concerned with the number of other items scheduled for the same meeting. Director Curtis stated that the item could be moved to another date. Planner Stanchina reviewed the upcoming available dates. Commissioner Kaplan offered Mr. Chastain a booklet called "The Citizens Guide to California Environmental Quality Act". She stated that he may find the information useful. 1. Review of Public Notice for GPA-94-001 -Northwest Hillside Specific Plan Director Curtis presented the notice and the Commission indicated that the notice and scheduled meeting date was acceptable. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of March 23, 1994 Page 17 Commissioner Caldwell suggested that the Civic Theater be used for the meeting. She explained that the room offered all the necessary amenities. Director Curtis indicated that he would look into the room's availability. Planner Stanchina reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule and available meeting date for the Scoping session for the Odd Fellows Master Plan and its related initial study. There was agreement to hold the meeting on May 3, 1994. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Noise Complaints at Grace United Methodist Church ~rese~e~1 Director Curtis rzse~e~ the memorandum dated March 23, 1994, and gave an oral report on the efforts to work with both the neighbors and the church to address the reported noise problems. Commissioner Caldwell announced that she had to leave (10:30 p.m.) and commented that she felt that there was a noise problem at the Grace United Methodist Church. She also commented for the record that with regard to the Greenbriar application, if there was new information presented at the upcoming Council meeting, she felt that the City Council should send the application back to the Planning Commission for their review of the new information. With regard to the Noise issue at Grace United Methodist Church, the Commission asked Pastor Carter to address the Commission. Pastor Carter stated that his position was clearly explained in his letter. In response to Commissioner Jacobs' inquiry as to actions the Pastor was taking to ensure that the noise concerns of Mr. Rozner would not re-occur, the Pastor explained that he would continue to work with the people to help address the noise problems. He stated that the Church does not believe the noise problem is as severe as reported. He commented that the church try to use the property in as reasonable manner as can be expected. Mr. Roznar, 19831 View ridge Drive, stated that he felt that it was the church's responsibility to control the activities that take place on their property. He cited Planning Commission tes • Meeting of March 23, 1 4 Page 18 various past incidents/activities on the church property that caused noise disturbances. He explained that he had contacted the sheriff numerous times and was inform by the sheriff that the church property was private property and the church officials would need to contact the sheriff to report trespassing or misuse/unauthorized use of the property. Mr. Roznar also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the issue. Mr. Mostyn, 19845 Viewridge Drive, concurred with the comments made by Mr. Roznar and expressed concern with regard to the parking lot hosting vagrants, burglars and abandoned cars. Mr. Mostyn also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the issue. Pastor Carter addressed the comments made by Mr. Roznar and Mr. Mostyn. He explained that he had contacted the police and was currently working with them to eliminate unauthorized use of the church property. He also explained that groups who use the church facilities are given a check list which outlines acceptable behavior and use of the property. The Pastor assured the Commission that he would continue to communicate to the people of the church and those who use the church the importance of keeping noise to a minimum. With regard to the suggestion that the parking lot be chained off at night, the pastor said that this solution was unacceptable because there would need to be a person who would regularly unlock the chain in the morning and re-lock it at night and currently the church does not have someone to regularly do this. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she felt that the Pastor could only continue to remind the people of the noise concerns and ask the church users to be considerate of the neighbors after and during use of the facilities. Director Curtis explained that he continues to work with both the Pastor and the neighbors with regard to reporting and tracking noise complaints. He stated that he thought the key to the problem would be consistent reminders to the facility users of the noise concerns. Chairperson Moran directed staff to continue working with the church and the neighbors with regard to the noise issue and report back to the Commission in 3 months as to the situation. She also suggested that the posting of a sign asking the people to vacate the premises by 10:00 p.m. might be helpful. Pastor Carter explained that the use of the church had not increased over the years, in fact, he stated that membership was down. He agreed to continually remind the church users of the noise concerns, but stated that posting a sign such as the one suggested by Chairperson Moran was against his nature. He stated that he did not feel that a sign would help. Commissioner Wolfe suggested getting the sheriff involved. He urged the Pastor to meet with the sheriff and explain the noise concerns and request his office's .: Planning Commission tes • Meeting of March 23, 1 4 Page 19 assistance with regard to unauthorized use of the property. Commissioner Murakami encouraged Mr. Roznar to continue monitoring and reporting to the City the noise disturbances. He also suggested that the City staff contact the sheriff's office with regard to the noise problems. Chairperson Moran concluded this issue with direction to staff to continue working with the church and the neighbors, and she encouraged the Pastor to regularly remind the church users of the noise concerns. She requested that staff report back to the Commission in 3 months with an update on the issue. City Attorney Riback excused himself from the meeting at 11:05 p.m. 2. City Council Minutes - 3/2/94 & 3/8/94 Commissioner Kaplan reported on the actions taken at the March 2, 1994 City Council meeting -Commissioner Kaplan announced that she and Commissioner Asfour had traded meeting dates with regard to representing the Planning Commission at the City Council meeting. She noted that Commissioner Asfour would be filling in for her at a City Council meeting in September. Commissioner Kaplan also reported on her trip to the California League of Cities Planning Institute and submitted a report (attached) outlining some of the pertinent things she learned at the conference. She noted that the memo addressed to the Planning Commission dated April 5, 1994 pertaining to the Institute was not attached to the March 23, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes. Community Development Director Curtis announced the resignation of the Planning Commission Minutes Clerk. MINUTES Minutes of March 8, 1994. Community Development Director suggested that with regard to the minutes of March 8, 1994, the Commission could hold over the draft minutes to allow the minutes clerk to re-listen to the tapes of the meeting and to incorporate any information and/or comments that were left out. He suggested that the Planning Commission request the clerk to provide more detail and clarity. He explained that the clerk was a substitute clerk and that the meeting contained complex issues. He stated that staff would work with the clerk on the minutes and forward the new draft minutes to the Commission at their worksession of April 5, 1994. He noted that staff could also forward a draft to the Council (along with a memo indicating that the minutes are a draft and will be updated on April 6, 1994) and if there are any changes to the draft minutes made by the Commission on April 5th, those changes could be presented to the Council on April 6th. This suggestion was acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Wolfe submitted his written corrections to the Director. , . Planning Commission~ tes • Meeting of March 23, 1984 Page 20 KAPLAN/JACOBS MOVED TO HOLD OVER THE MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 1994, TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1994 TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE MINUTES CLERK TO RE-LISTEN TO THE TAPES OF THE MEETING AND TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL DETAIL AND ALSO TO ALLOW TIME FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE CLERK TOWARD AN ACCEPTABLE DRAFT OF THE MINUTES. PASSED 5-0. Director Curtis announced that at the April 13, 1994, Planning Commission meeting the Election of Officers would be agendized. He also noted that with regard to the Planning Institute discussed earlier by Commissioner Kaplan, he (Curtis) purchased two tapes, "Livable Cities" and "Commission, Council, and Media Relations", which he offered to lend to any Commissioner who might be interested in listening to them. Director Curtis announced that the Greenbriar application had been appealed and would be heard at the City Council meeting of April 6th. He explained that he was in the process of preparing the report reflecting the Planning Commission action on the item. He noted that in his report he recommended that if there was any new material or information submitted that the application be sent back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the Council for final action. He stated that the staff report would probably be much more expanded than the typical report presented to the Council. He confirmed with the Commission that one of their main concerns with the project was that they felt the houses were too large for the size of lots proposed. Commissioners Murakami and Kaplan stated that they were not in favor of the small lots at all. They preferred to see lots with the area of at least 10,000 square feet. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was concerned with the representation of the numbers relative to the lot sizes, the open space and etc. Discussion commenced with regard to the project. Director Curtis pointed out that the plan was supposed to be, at this point, only a conceptual plan. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he had a problem with the house sizes and the fact that two-story homes were being proposed on substandard lots. He stated that he preferred smaller houses and a mix of one and two-story homes -possibly even a mixed use project. Commissioner Murakami stated that he would like to see a dedicated park on the site and lots of at least 10,000 square feet. Chairperson Moran noted that Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she could not attend the April 6, 1994, Council meeting and would need a Commissioner to fill in for her at that meeting. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would be present at the City Council meeting of April 6, 1994. .i °' ~ :: Planning Commission ~tes • Meeting of March 23, 19~J4 . - Page 21 The Commission further discussed some of their concerns with regard to the proposal. Director Curtis suggested that a draft of the report be sent to the Planning Commission for their review to ensure that all their concerns had been identified for the Council. This suggestion was acceptable to the Commission and Director Curtis stated that he would forward a draft to the Commissioners. Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT At 11:30 p.m., Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m. on April 5, 1994, Senior Adult Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk . ; .. Planning Commission tes • Meeting of March 23, 1~ Page 22 Commissioner Caldwell had the following correction: Page 8, 6th paragraph from the bottom, should reflect the question asked by Chairperson Moran. the paragraph should read: "In response to Chairperson Moran's question regarding Ms. Meyer's remark that changes to the project won't pencil out. City Attorney Riback..." Commissioner Wolfe had the following corrections: Page 1st paragraph, 4th line from the top, after the word "acceptable" the following should be added: "and preferable to the Parks and Recreation Commission". Page 6, 2nd to the last paragraph, the following sentence should be added at the end of the paragraph: "Further, Mr. Vetre responded that his condominium complex has 165 units." Page 10, 1st paragraph, the following should be added to the end of the paragraph: "Commissioner Wolfe noted that in response to a previous statement that this high density would be a first for Saratoga. He recalled the testimony of Mr. Vetre who lives in the condo complex just across Saratoga Avenue from the Paul Masson site, and noted that this condo complex has 165 two-story units built on a site smaller than the Paul Masson site. Further, Commissioner Wolfe stated in reference to another previous remark, that the proposed homes would be very expensive and that it would be helpful to use as a perspective the fact that in 1993 about 30 homes were built in Saratoga all valued a or near one million dollars each and 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." Page 10, last line (motion) should read: "WOLFE MOVE APPROVAL OF PD-94- 001 WITH THE PROVISION THAT THERE BE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS OF APPROPRIATE WIDTH TO MCFARLAND AVENUE. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR SECONDED THE MOTION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION." Commissioner Wolfe explained in response to the other Commissioner's questions regarding the detail of Commissioner Wolfe's corrections, that he had made these corrections based on his notes taken during the meeting of March 8, 1994. Commissioner Wolfe noted that he had asked at the March 8th meeting that staff check on the density of the 165 unit condominium complex across the street. Commissioner Wolfe reported that the density was 14.5 acres which is approximately 11 dwelling unit per acre. He also commented that this project (Greenbrier) would _, • Planning Commission rtes • Meeting of March 23, 19y4 Page 23 serve as three years (housing) production for Saratoga. He noted that the 3 to 5 year delay of development of this site may be one of the reasons why the Parks and Recreation Department is $135,000 under funded at this time. Commissioner Wolfe offered this information as follow up to the item reviewed at the March 8, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Jacobs had the following corrections: Page 5, 6th paragraph from the bottom, should read: "Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that in the materials given to the Planning Commission in February, the average lot size was indicated as 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how it was possible for the average lot size, street width and open space to increase when there are still 95 lots. Mr Lateri stated that the materials distributed in February were incorrect and should have said "typical" rather than "average". Page 6, 5th paragraph, the word "was" should be deleted and the word "if" inserted. Page 9, second paragraph from the bottom, 2nd sentence the word "that" should be inserted prior to the words "Planning Commission". 4th sentence the word "in" should be inserted between the words "included" and "the City's General Plan..." 5th sentence, after the number "95", "single-family, two-story detached" should be inserted. 6th sentence the words "at a hearing" should be deleted and replaced with "at the hearing". Last sentence, the word "even" should be inserted between "meet" and "the". With regard to Page 10, paragraph 3, Commissioner Jacobs questioned whether the paragraph accurately reflected the statement made by Director Curtis. There was discussion regarding the paragraph particularly the last sentence. In conclusion, there was consensus to change the word "cannot" to "need not" in the last sentence to more accurately reflect the Director's statement. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the draft minutes. She explained that she felt that there had been important points left out of the minutes. Several other Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Kaplan regarding the minutes. She refereed to page 6 and commented that she felt there was something missing from several of the paragraphs. Discussion commenced regarding the minutes of the March 8, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. Several Commissioners voiced concern with the absence of detail and pertinent comments. Chairperson Moran suggested that the minutes of March 8 be moved to the end of the meeting so further discussion could take place. 1 ~ p t- • ,~ r.' • May 9, 1994 Mr. Mitchell Duryea DURYEA & ASSOCIATES 2863 Armstrong Court San Jose, CA 95121 Re: LL-94-004; Smith/Vokac & Baba 13531/13553 Old Oak Way Dear Mr. Duryea: This letter serves as notice that the above referenced application has been deemed incomplete. I will need the following items to keep the application on track for the June 8th public hearing: • A returned Site Modification application (for the garage and retaining wall construction) and a $950 application fee. • A signed and returned authorization form for the City Arborist's consulting services. A deposit of $1,040 will also need to be submitted to pay for his services; I would expect that the majority of this deposit will be returned based on the relatively few ordinance protected trees in question. • A breakdown of the existing versus proposed square footage of the residence and garage for Parcel 2. • Verification that the existing versus proposed net site area calculations do not include the 60 ft. Quarry Road right-of- way. • Verification that the new lot line maintains a minimum 20 ft. side yard setback from all structures, including decks. Once these issues have been addressed, please indicate the proposed new lot line (with setbacks from structures) on the Preliminary Grading Plan and submit 13 reduced (11"x17") and one full size set of plans. My public notices for the June 8th meeting need to be prepared by May 18th for mailing. The application will need to be complete by ~- , • • .~. MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION. FROM: Marcia O. Kaplan RE: TRIP TO SAN DIEGO - Planning Institute DATE: March 23, 1994 I. CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF LITTLE CITIES. Although all cities have similar responsibilities and are governed by the same laws, I felt that Saratoga°s situation differed from cities with large industrial parks, housing authorities, airports, ports and so on. What I wanted was to connect with people from places closer to us in terms of situation and geography. The latter was accomplished on the last morning at regional breakfast round tables. I met my counterparts from Los Gatos, Los Altos, Cupertino, and Milpitas. The consensus was to form an informal group probably at lunch to discuss the common problems. II. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AS A RESOURCE. I was struck with dramatically different perception of planning commissioners than I had based upon the way things are done in Saratoga, where the commission is generally regarded as a first step towards a seat on the city council. I met individuals who have been serving as planning commissioners upwards of 8 years. Some for even 16 years. For these people and their cities, serving. on the commission is long term commitment so that the commissioner becomes a resource. From what I could tell, a person with commissioner Caldwell's expertise in land use would fit that model. It seemed to me that the position of planning commissioner is not political in many cities, but rather dependent upon job performance. III. SELECTED TOPICS A. Economic issues seemed to be included in many other city planning processes. Battles between cities for placement of regional shopping centers and malls result in land grabbing so that the winner can capture the sales tax revenue. These commercial projects also represent jobs for the citizens. B. Joint power agreements is a vehicle for working out tax revenue sharing since the city in which the mall sits may need the cooperation of the next-door neighbor for traffic problems. Preservation of open space was another subject for joint powers agreements. 1 ~ • C. Affordable housing projects are often doomed by middle- class economic presumptions such as the requirement that every unit have parking for 3 cars. The housing element is the most contentious element in the general plan. A suggestion was made by one speaker that the city should adopt a plan based upon the local policies and have the city attorney accept it as a defensible project. D. The Planning Director from the City of Brisbane gave an interesting talk about the process the city used to update its general plan, including a questionnaire to every registered voter; followed by a publication of the responses and a day-long town meeting with child care and lunch. 2