Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-1994 Planning Commission minutes1 S. • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Asfour, Commissioners Jacobs, Kaplan, Moran, and Wolfe Absent: Commissioners Caldwell and Murakami Planner Walgren informed the Commission that Commissioners Caldwell and Murakami notified staff that they would not be able to attend this meeting. He also informed the Commission that Attorney Riback would not be present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 1994 Chairman Asfour stated for the record that he had received a fax from Commissioner Caldwell requesting changes to the April 13, 1994 minutes. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/WOLFS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 13, 1994 MINUTES TO ITS MAY 11 MEETING WHERE FEWER APPLICANTS WOULD BE WAITING AND TO ALLOW INCORPORATION OF COMMISSIONER CALDWELL'S AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Carol Meyer, Greenbriar Saratoga Road Company, requested to be agendized for the Commission's May 11 meeting for an informal work session for the Paul Mason site. She stated that whatever time that the Commission could dedicate to a work session would be appreciated. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO PLACE THIS ITEM ON THE MAY 11, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS AN INFORMAL WORK SESSION AT THE END OF AGENDA. • • .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE-2- Ms. Meyer questioned whether the item would be scheduled for a public hearing and adjacent neighbors notified. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the request would be placed at the end of the agenda and that no public notification would occur for that meeting. Commissioner Moran questioned if this work session was for a presentation of information only. Planner Walgren responded to Commissioner Moran's question by stating that it was his understanding that this was to be a informal work session REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 22, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren informed the Commission of one minor correction. That correction is for item 7, Kerwin Ranch, L.P. application, page 139, first paragraph. The report indicates that two homes would be within 7 to 11 feet of the edge of the easement and should be corrected to read 8 to 9 feet of the edge of the easement. Commissioner Moran questioned page 40 of the packet. There appears to be an optometrist sign that is included in the awning. Since the optometrist sign is not being considered, she questioned if page 40 should be omitted from the packet all together. Planner Walgren concurred with Commissioner Moran's statement and recommended that page 40 be omitted from the Commission's packet. Also to be corrected is Page 44, under the "Revised Plan" section, first point should read: "The building footprint has been reduced from 62% lot coverage to 60%...." PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Asfour inquired if anyone wished to remove agenda items 1 or 2 from the Consent Calendar. No one indicated a desire to remove the items. 1. DR-90-066.2 - Tyson; 15395 Kittridge Rd., request for a second year extension V-91-003.2 - second one-year extension of time for a Design Review approval to construct a 4,267 sq. ft. two-story residence. The request also includes an extension of a Variance approval to allow the home to be constructed on a pad with an average slope in excess of 30% (46%) per Chapter 15 of the City Code. v1 • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 3 - 2. A-726.3 - Carson Estate Co.; 18774 Cox Ave., request for modification to the approved sign program for the Quito Village Shopping Center per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The modification would allow the identification sign for the Backyard Pool Center to be located on a canvas awning. The subject property is within the C-N (Commercial Neighborhood) zone district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE ITEMS 1 AND 2 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR-93-020 - Goese; 20661 Fifth St., request for Design Review approval to UP-93-004 - five residential townhomes, ranging from 2,241 to 2,610 sq. ft. in size SD-93-005 - (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. from 4/13/94 at the request of the City's Public Works Dept.; application expires 7/19/94). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated Apri127, 1994. He recommended that the Commission adopt Resolutions DR-93-020; UP-93-004; and SD-93-005 and the environmental Negative Declaration. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Ken Olcott, applicant, stated that he concurred with staffs recommendation. The Zoning Ordinance allows 80% coverage and that his project proposes 60% coverage for the site. He addressed parking for the project. He agreed to work with City staff to locate the trash enclosure in an acceptable area. He also commented that the revisions incorporated some of the comments that the Planning Commission expressed at the last meeting (e.g., use of the City parking lot by townhome residents has been stopped because a proposal to construct a river rock and wrought iron six foot fence down the front would be installed). He felt that this project was well within all city requirements and requested Commission approval. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how the applicant was able to lower the height by five feet. • • S• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE-4- Mr. Olcott responded that he was able to lower the height by five feet by utilizing dormers in the windows in the upstairs units and that the ceiling was coved to come down two feet. Chairman Asfour requested clarification of the entrance to the first unit on Fifth Street. Mr. Olcott responded that the door was located on the front and that the entrance to the porch area was located on the side. Commissioner Wolfe questioned if the front fence along the parking lot was a total of six feet in height. Mr. Olcott responded that from the parking lot side, the fence was six feet in height and three and a half feet of river rock with a three foot wrought iron fence being utilized. From the townhome side, the fence would only be three feet tall for the first three feet. Mr. Olcott further responded that the design of the wrought iron fence had not been completed. AT 7:50 P.M., COMMISSIONERS MORAN/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT)... Commissioner Moran commented that the applicant has incorporated much of what was requested such as lowering the height of the house; she hoped that the trees shown on the landscape plan were to be installed and were not computer injected; and that the parking problem has been resolved. She continued to express concern with land use. She stated that she was very much concerned about the residential invasion of the "Village". She was concerned that this project was not a commercial one and not being more of a mixed commercial/residential use. But given the fact that this is what the Council wants us to have, she felt that the applicant has done a good job in meeting the concerns that were expressed previously by the Commission. Commissioner Wolfe commented that a real display of cooperation on the part of the developer has been demonstrated. This project conforms with requirements of the residential plan and sees no reason for denying the application. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the language for condition 31 (page 51) was per the City Attorney's recommendation. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the condition was a standard condition included which stipulates that if the applicant sues the city, the applicant agrees to pay the city's legal fees. Chairman Asfour concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioners Moran and Wolfe. He commented that the plans which have been brought back to the Commission were acceptable. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS WOLFE/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS. DR- 93-020, UP-93-004, and SD-93-005 ALONG WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE APPLICATIONS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). 4. SD-94-001 - Bean; 14024 Saratoga Ave., request for Tentative Map approval to subdivide a leve13.19 acre parcel into five single-family parcels ranging in size from 23,200 to 24,00 sq. ft. Demolition of a two-story residence, which is on the City's Heritage Inventory, is also proposed. The subject property is located within an R-1-20,000 zone district and the new lots are proposed to be accessed from a new cul-de-sac located off of Saratoga Ave. An Environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for Planning Commission consideration (cont. from 4/13/94 to allow the Planning Commission to revisit the property with the City Arborist; application expires 8/17/94). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated April 13, 1994. He informed the Commission that this project was not ready for a final recommendation. Staff still had significant work to do in preparing the conditions of approval. Following public discussion of the April 13 meeting, the Planning Commission postponed the entire item to this evening in order to allow the Commission to revisit the property on Apri126 on a field visit with the City arborist in attendance to further review the trees, specifically trees 31 and 32 located on lot number 5. He informed the Commission that staff's recommendation this evening remains the same. Staff requested direction from the Commission regarding whether or not it was appropriate for tree numbers 31, 32, 46 and 48 to be removed with the understanding that an equal tree replacement value would be requested to be planted elsewhere on the property as a condition of development approval or whether the applicant should be directed to retain these trees, particularly tree numbers 31 and 32. Retention of trees 31 and 32 would eliminate lot number 5. Commissioner Jacobs commented that at the last public hearing, there was discussion as to where else the proposed cul-de-sac could be placed on the property with the applicant stating that there was no other practicable location for the cul-de-sac. He questioned staff's opinion regarding the applicant's statement. Planner Walgren stated that staff concurred with the applicant's position. He stated that in reviewing the application before presenting it to the Commission, that this was a reasonable approach without significantly reducing the configuration to a four or three lot configuration. Community Development Director Curtis commented that another alternative was suggested at the last Commission meeting. That alternative was to make lot 5 larger and the remaining lots smaller, moving the building area of the foot print of lot 5 back away from PLANNING COMMISSIO~INUTES . APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 6 - trees 31 and 32. The problem that would result would be the creation of a substandard lot under 20,000 square feet. However, this would result in keeping the subdivision basically with the same layout and street access, retaining the five lots. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that Community Development Director Curtis' alternative may still require removal of other trees on the property in order to provide building foot prints. Commissioner Moran questioned if the letter presented to the Commission from Julia Peck was the only additional letter received. Planner Walgren replied that it was the only additional letter received at this item. Commissioner Moran questioned if it would be possible to build a house of the maximum size allowable on the lot and still retain tree 48. Planner Walgren stated that he would need to calculate the building envelope. Commissioner Moran questioned if it was staff's opinion that it would not be possible to build a house on the lot which contains tree 48 without removing it. Planner Walgren stated that one thing to consider is the tree's canopy. He stated that tree 48, while the actual identification of the tree is out of the center of the building site, the tree canopy itself will remain significant. Commissioner Moran commented that the canopy of tree 48 was reasonably low. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the traffic circulation and the proximity of the cul-de-sac to Herriman. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Terry Szewczyk, Nowack and Associates, thanked the Commission for showing up at the April 26 site visit. He stated that it was his opinion that trees 32 and 31 were not able to be saved due to their structure and splitting of the tree limbs. He felt that rather than saving these two trees, there exists an opportunity to have an applicant who is willing to provide significant plantings for replacement. In acknowledgement of the Heritage Lane designation, he felt that additional plantings could be accommodated along Saratoga Avenue, with the plantings of at least three or four new 48 inch boxed oak trees. These trees would help to eventually restore the character of Saratoga Avenue in terms of the heritage lane designation. He requested that the Commission give considerable consideration to this important issue because it is the applicant's intention to move ahead with this project. Regarding the question by Commissioner Moran as to the building envelop for lot 5, he scaled it off and determined that it was approximately 70 feet deep by 130 feet long (approximately 9,100 square feet). He commented that there were some portions of the building envelop that would not be appropriate to build upon because of the tree structures. You would not want to encroach into the drip line of the larger oak tree adjacent to the cul-de-sac. He distributed to the Commission and staff a proposed floor plan for parcel 5 and addressed the building envelop location. He responded to Commissioner Moran's question by stating that tree 48 would be located within the building envelop. PLANNING COMMISSIO~NUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE-7- Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the house could be moved back on the lot within the building envelop so that tree 48 could remain and without having to remove any other trees. Mr. Szewczyk stated that he would need to plot the drip line for tree 48 and would provide Commissioner Jacobs with an answer once plotted. Commissioner Jacobs stated that it appears that if trees 32 and 31 were removed and 48 was retained, that there would be no other trees within the building envelope. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the size of the proposed home on lot five. Mr. Szewczyk responded that the size, including the garage, would be a 4,718 square feet one story structures and that the allowable square footage is 4,750. Commissioner Moran felt that perhaps truly extraordinary circumstances existed which would allow the Commission to make variance findings for moving the house outside the building envelop and increasing the setback for the lot. William Bean, applicant, informed the Commission that several conceptual sketches have been drawn for lots 1 and 5. He commented that the house has been moved back tight against the rear of the setback line for lot 5. He stated that it would be his preference to replace the tree with several specimen trees, perhaps along the frontage line of Heritage Lane where everyone could enjoy them. Barrie Coate, city arborist, commented that at the last meeting, Commissioner Caldwell questioned the value of the trees that were to be removed and that she reminded him that the City still derives some value from trees that are to be removed. He stated that he performed a more accurate calculation on the value of the seven trees slated for removal and that the value would be $25,855. The total value of all trees slated for removal would be $81.,961. Mr. Bean commented that at the site visit, one of the neighbors expressed concern with the importance of tree number 36. He commented that both arborists did not feel that it was that good of a tree. He assured the neighbor that with the City's permission and the arborist guarantee of safety, he would be happy to retain tree 36. He also stated that another neighbor felt that the 25 inch walnut tree located towards the rear of lot number 3 was in good health. He tried to assure her that if it was worth keeping, that the tree was not a hazard and not contained within the building envelop, that he would try to keep the tree. In developing the two other sketches, it appeared to him that tree numbers 22, 23, 24, 5, 12, 21 and 45 could possibly be saved. Commissioner Moran questioned if Mr. Bean reviewed Mr. Coate's report regarding the health of tree 39 and the walnut tree. Mr. Bean commented that he reviewed Mr. Coate's brief outline and that it was his intention to save as many trees as possible. Commissioner Moran questioned if Mr. Bean was prepared to install three or four extra 48 inch box oak trees along the Heritage Lane in addition to the replacement trees. Mr. Bean responded that he would be happy to cooperate and was willing to pay $51,000 for four trees (trees 31, 32, 46, and 48). But he felt that a line needed to be drawn somewhere. Mr. Bean stated that he would agree to plant two or three trees along Heritage Lane. PLANNING COMMISSIO~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE-8- Commissioner Moran clarified that from the discussion of the last meeting, it was stated that this project was located in a special location and that the integrity of the site needed to be preserved. Mr. Bean stated that he would be willing to pay for half of the replacement cost for the fence. Commissioner Wolfe questioned how rapid a 48 inch boxed tree would grow. William Friedmann, arborist for the applicant, responded to Commissioner Wolfe's question by stating that the rate of growth fora 48 inch boxed tree would depend greatly on whether it was a field grown tree that was transplanted into a box or whether it was a container grown tree. But that on average, it was his opinion that a 48 inch boxed tree was going to be 14 to 16 feet in height. He commented that the rate of tree growth would depend of the caliper and age of the tree. It was his opinion that the existing tree was approximately 20 years old. It does not mean that it is going to take a 48 inch boxed tree to get to that height because it needs to be understood that a 48 inch boxed tree should have a caliper of 4 to 5 inches (would depend on whether it was a container grown tree or a field grown specimen transplant). He commented that Mr. Bean has stated that he was willing to spend over $100,000 to pay for the maintenance and the installation of trees as well as additional trees to be placed on Heritage Lane per the Heritage Committee or neighbors. He further commented that it was important to realize that not only the placement of trees was extremely important but that the maintenance of the existing trees was as important. Kathleen Amezcua, 14110 Shadow Oaks Way, stated that she was not aware of the proposal to remove trees for this project until a few days ago. She did not feel that the public noticing was adequate as there was no mention in the noticing that the applicant was requesting the removal of trees as part of project approval. She questioned what it meant to have trees removed along Heritage Lane. She was happy to hear that new trees were to be planted, but it would be 200 years before the new trees would be anything like the trees proposed for removal. These old trees are a precious resource to the City of Saratoga. She felt that it was their responsibility as citizens and caretakers of the land to retain the trees. She questioned if the homes to be replaced would be similar to those which exist in the area. She reiterated that the existing trees are important and should be protected and that many residents in Saratoga share this concern. Lydia Mednick, 13424 Beaumont, stated that she has been a resident of Saratoga for many years and that she has seen the destruction that has occurred in her neighborhood. Trees are a precious resource which can never be replaced. She requested that the Commission think very seriously before allowing any more trees to be removed. The trees that take 200 years to grow are not replaceable. She stated that she knows many people in Saratoga would feel the same way as she does. There are many communities in this area that think twice before chopping down even a small tree. She felt that the community was fortunate to have these huge beautiful oak trees. She stated that if the trees were healthy, they should remain. Lisa Kurasch, 18665 Ravenwood Drive, reiterated her previous comments stated at the _ PLANNING COMMISSIO~INUTES i 'APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE-9- public meeting of April 13. She felt that this meeting was to consider new approaches that would look at retaining the maximum trees possible on this lot. She shared sketches of alternative design solutions she prepared. She also offered to share homeowners information pertaining to oak trees. She hoped that the whole focus was not just on three trees. She felt that a standard subdivision approach was not appropriate for this non- standard lot. The problem was that the lot contained unique characteristics that have not been taken into consideration (e.g., the location, the history, tree environment, the quality of the trees on the lot). She did not feel that you could simply replace the trees and go on. She felt that it was commendable for the developer to want to throw in planting of other trees and save other trees on the lot. However, she had to question the health and the over all importance of the trees to this development. She felt that the approach needed to relate to conditions on the site. Specifically, the central cul-de-sac would impact trees 27, 28 and 29. She did not know how the trees would be protected from the roadway grading. Compaction and grading is damaging to the tree roots. She questioned how the trees which are valued on this property were going to be retained with this type of design. Two of the designs Ms. Kurasch presented represented northern entries between 15 and 30 feet down which would provide a buffer between kids running back and forth and traffic. It would also help to keep one area in front of the lot as an open space easement or be part of a larger parcel. That easement would be undeveloped and could accommodate a larger lot size. She recommended that larger lots be looked at that have more value. It would be lucrative for the developer to maintain the integrity of the site and a noise buffer for the residents who would live there. The last proposal she presented maintained the central cul-de-sac design. It showed the street moved up approximately ten feet or so outside the dripline. She did not feel that this proposal would have as much of an impact. She also felt that tree 18 could be retained as a visual point and that there were creative approaches possible. Winifred Boyd, 14131 Shadow Oaks Way, concurred with the previous comments made. She stated that she would like to believe that Saratoga would wish to preserve their large oaks and care about the environment. She would like to see the property developed and the major trees maintained. The trees should be preserved to mitigate noise and the environment. She requested that the Commission and City Council come up with an alternative that would be good for everyone concerned. Anne Sorden, 14091 Shadow Oaks Way, thought that this meeting would be a follow-up from the last Commission meeting which would address alternatives for site development. She informed the Commission that five adjacent residents got together and conceived a potential plan for a five lot subdivision. The proposal would protect the drip line of the remaining trees. Lot 5 is proposed to be larger than the remaining 41ots with the retention of all trees. It was their belief that the trees were an asset and a legacy. Lot 5 has been made larger in order to accommodate a large house and yet, stayed away from the trees. It was their assumption that two of the homes would be approximately 3,000 square feet. One outline proposes a 4,000 square foot home. The other four lots remain the same with the exception that the large one has become slightly smaller. The line between lots 1 and 2 has been moved further west. This was done in order to accommodate the most beautiful and cherished tree #13. Plan 2 shows a five lot subdivision, however a more heritage minded approach was utilized. Lot five is now protected by the city and not for sale. While still keeping all the magnificent trees with a very short move, Mrs. Oden's home could also PLANNING COMMISSIO~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 10 - be preserved and used by some aspect of the community. Lot 1 has the advantage of complete privacy because of the shield of street front trees. Lot 4 can have all the comfort of the heritage lot (e.g., shade, privacy) without requiring extensive pruning. She noticed that no one has mentioned the tree report prepared by Able Trees, specifically regarding trees 31, 32, 46, 47 and 48. In the tree report, Mr. Mitchell mentions the infections and wounds of tree 31 and quotes the price of $2,500 to repair and recommends against removal of tree 31. She also stated that Mr. Mitchell stated that tree 32 is in poorer health and encourages the removal of several limbs which would protect the long term structure of the tree. The only condition which Mr. Mitchell recommended removal of tree 32 was if the site developed. Mr. Mitchell never states in his report that tree 31 would suffer from the loss of tree 32 should that be necessary. Commissioner Jacobs questioned who would purchase and maintain lot five and preserve it as so indicated in Ms. Sorden's plan 2 alternative. Ms. Sorden stated that she was not sure who would pay for the preservation of the house on lot 5. Ms. Sorden stated that she was looking towards the City's heritage and history. She felt that a precedent has been set in that other homes have been moved, saved and kept. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Ms. Sorden read the report by the Heritage Commission which states that the existing home could not be preserved. Ms. Sorden commented that Mr. Coate's tree report stated that he did not see a valid reason for removal of trees 31, 32 and 48. Barbara Lulu informed the Commission that she would be a new resident of Saratoga on May 11 and stated her strong opposition to the removal of the oak trees. She stated there was an ordinance in place to protect these trees. She questioned why Saratoga Avenue was called a Heritage Lane if developers were allowed to come in and tear out the oak trees which beautify the avenue. She requested that the Commission say no to the removal of oak trees. Eugene W. O'Rorke, paraphrased a report he submitted to the Commission. He added an additional concern and offered general comments on priorities and Commission procedures. The specific comment involved the topography of the site and its impact to the neighboring properties. The elevation of the only storm drain in the center of the cul de sac is about two or more feet higher than the east boundary of the site. This may result in all storm drain from impervious cover draining toward and into the adjacent properties of Whatley, Spaich, and O'Rorke. Crawl space flooding has occurred in this neighborhood in the past. He requested that mitigation of this condition be included in any approval of this tentative map. The priorities Mr. O'Rorke outlined for the Commission were as follows: 1) maintain the privacy of the adjacent properties (e.g., restricting homes to single story and not encroach on the setbacks prescribed in the zoning regulations; 2) assuring that the development is harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood; and 3) maintain the natural beauty of the City. The following three scenarios were presented: a) save the trees without planting replacements, reduce rear setbacks and permit two story homes, b) sacrifice the trees, plant replacements and maintain privacy and harmonious development, or c) divide property into four lots instead of five lots, retain the setbacks and second story restriction. Regarding Commission procedure, Mr. O'Rorke stated that at the April 13 meeting, PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 11 - Chairman Asfour advised the audience that the discussion of economics was out of place. However, the applicant has stated that it was not feasible to proceed with development with fewer than five building sites. That is an economic conclusion. During the proceedings, the Commission appeared to accept that conclusion. The Commission has accepted this statement as a fact and proceeded to explore solutions to the tree removal problem in order to preserve five lots. These variables should not be ignored nor should they be accepted by the Commission as facts. No statement has been made that this is an urgent matter. He did not believe that the Commission was under any obligation to develop this land. He made the comments on urgency and obligation because it appears that the Commission, in their comments on the Tentative Map, were proposing or offering to propose revisions to the tentative map, variances to the zoning regulations and even considering changes to the General Plan. This was of great concern to Mr. O'Rorke. This behavior reverses the normal processing where the applicant proposes and the Commissions evaluates, comments, and approves or disapproves. It converts into a process whereby the Commission is now proposing and the applicant is evaluating, agreeing or disagreeing. Secondly, when the Commission becomes involved in the problem solving and in the design process, the Commission runs the risk of losing its objectivity. He felt that through this involvement the Commission becomes a supporter and defender of a concept rather than the evaluator of the concepts based on the confines of the General Plan and the City codes. He requested that the Commission consider all variables and that it compromise only when it is consistent with the existing zoning regulations and in the long term interest of the City and those impacted. He requested that the Commission maintain its objectivity to protect and preserve Saratoga. He questioned if the city engineer has had the opportunity to evaluate the traffic impact of the cul-de-sac proposal. Chairman Asfour informed the public that at the advise of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission cannot take financial considerations into its decision making process. He stated that the Commission was trying to work with the applicant as much as possible to allow him the opportunity to enjoy the use of his land. He further stated that no decision has been made regarding this proposal. Terry Szewczyk stated that he reviewed the plans provided by Ms. Kurasch and felt that the third plan could be accommodated as far as shifting the road with a central cul de sac. You can off-set pavement within the right of way away from trees 27, 28 and 29 and remove the parking on that side of the street. What that will do is take the paving approximately to the edge of the drip line from trees 27, 28 and 29. He felt that Ms. Kurasch's proposal was a valid suggestion. As far as the central island to preserve tree 18, it is proposed to transplant tree 18. This would invert the turn-around capabilities of the fire truck within the cul-de-. sac. He did not recommend this solution. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the proposal would increase the size of lot 5. Mr. Szewczyk commented that the road could be relocated outside of the dripline of trees 27, 28 and 29 and still use the lot as designed. Mr. Szewczyk commented on the other studies which proposes entries further north of the property. He addressed the issue of the separation between Herriman and this cul de sac and the crosswalk in the area (confusion of having too many intersections in a small area). PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 12 - Regarding the drainage issue, he stated that it was the applicant's intent to contain the site drainage through the site and conduct it into a closed system. Any additional run off due to impervious conditions or loss of impervious surfaces would be contained in a closed storm drain system and each lot would be independently set up with a control drainage plan. He recommended that the drainage system be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. It was his opinion that the best location for the intersection was the middle of the property. Chairman Asfour questioned the age of trees 31, 32, 47, and 48. Mr. Freedman responded that trees 31 and 32 were planted approximately 60 years ago and that trees 47 and 43 were of the same diameter and were approximately 15-25 years old. Commissioner Moran requested that the applicant address the issues of traffic study and drainage. Specifically, Mr. O'Rorke's comments pertaining to the storm drain being two feet higher than the eastern boundary properties. Mr. Szewczyk commented that code requires that any new lot would have to retain its drainage and if there is surface runoff water due to the natural flow of the property, it would be tied into the storm drain, enhancing the neighborhood. He further commented that the General Plan allows the proposed density in this location. Regarding the concern of localized traffic pertaining to turning movement, he felt that the traffic concern was mitigated by placing the cul de sac in the center of the site. He also addressed trip generation for the project. Commissioner Wolfe requested clarification as to the canopy size. Mr. Friedmann responded that it was difficult to determine growth rate of the trees because wet and dry years affect tree growth. Mr. Coate commented that the existing trees are producing eight to twelve annual shoot growth. He guestimated that the trees were growing a total of a foot in width a year. Chairman Asfour stated for the record that trees 32 and 31 actually form one tree. If one tree was removed or retained, the other would also need to be removed or retained. Mr. Coate concurred with the statement of Chairman Asfour. Commissioner Kaplan commented that at the Commission's previous meeting she had questioned Mr. Coate regarding managing for the future and whether it would be better to take advantage of a developer's offer to provide the maximum size replacement trees as being a good trade off. She questioned if Mr. Coate still felt that replacement trees was a good trade off. Mr. Coate responded that from a practical stand point, tree 32 would not be around in 10, years no matter what was done to preserve it and that this would be an opportunity for the Commission to look towards the future. Commissioner Moran requested clarification regarding relocating tree 48. If the City was interested in inter generational quality of a tree program for Saratoga Avenue, would Mr. Coate rather try to save tree 48 or would it be a better investment in new trees. Mr. Coate stated that he would not try to move trees 48 nor 47 because he was not sure of their survival if transplanted. With good care, he felt that the trees could survive, but that should the trees not survive, the City would be left without a tree. Mr. Bean clarified the issue raised by Ms. Sorden regarding the third tree report by stating PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 13 - that early in the process, two reports were prepared, one from his arborist and from the city's arborist. He retained a third arborist to ascertain a third opinion regarding trees 31 and 32. He reiterated that what was before the Commission was the best possible solution. Chairman Asfour requested that Mr. Bean clarify which trees were to remain. He also questioned if Mr. Bean reviewed the alternative plans presented this evening which is stipulated to save additional trees. Mr. Bean responded that there was not enough time to analyze the plans. Mr. Bean stated that several alternatives have been studied and that the plan before the Commission was the one with the least impact. If the trees were a hazard or diseased, he offered the opportunity to have the trees replaced. AT 9:19 P.M., COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:20 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:32 P.M. Commissioner Moran questioned if staff felt that the neighbors' plan A and Ms. Kurasch's plan look similar and questioned if staff had the opportunity to review the plans. Planner Walgren responded that the plans were a variation of a submitted application. He felt that it would be possible to consider narrowing the road width beyond the minimum standards prescribed in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances or curving it slightly to further stay away from the trunk of the trees. Commissioner Wolfe stated that he appreciated the deep and real concerns expressed for the trees along Heritage Lane by the speakers. The trees are very dear to him. On site inspection, trees 31 and 32 appeared to be in such condition that one would be at risk when walking under them. He questioned who would be liable if the tree limbs fell and hurt someone. He expressed concern with the safety of the children who would live in this residential subdivision. The willingness of the developer to install 48 inch boxed trees along Heritage Lane frontage was a plus. Reconfiguration of the design would result in removal of other trees. He stated that the developer was willing to plant a number of replacement trees and that he could not see another way to redesign this development. Commissioner Moran commented that she was impressed with the commitment of so many individuals to this concern. She has never seen so many neighbors get together to work on alternative plans. She concurred with Mrs. Mednick that if the trees were healthy that they should remain. Her concern were trees 31 and 32. She did not feel that trees 31 and 32 were trees that should be kept. She agreed with Mr. Coate that given the condition of those trees, that the city was better off creating an inter generational group of oak trees with the proceeds to be obtained from the value of the trees. She stated her reluctance to part with tree 48 and would like to find a solution to keep it. However, she has been persuaded by Mr. Coate's view point that replacement of the tree with a substantial sized tree was warranted. She was impressed with Mr. Bean and associates willingness to work with the city to consider the needs and desires of the neighbors. The applicant has volunteered, in addition to the replacement value of the trees, to put three or four 48 inch boxed oak trees J ~ PLANNING COMMISSI, INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 ~~ ~ ~`~ PAGE - 14 - along heritage lane. She hoped that the City takes the applicant up on this offer. She was concerned with the following factors: removal of very large oaks trees, placement of non- heritage looking houses, installation of soundwall so that the people can't appreciate the beauty of the place when they pass by and the removal of an old house. Unfortunately, the Commission was presented with a unique set of circumstances where not all of these goals can be achieved. The trees that form the beautiful 100 foot canopy were in very bad shape and should be replaced. She was not supportive of the soundwall. She thanked everyone who was involved and further commented that the Planning Commission was trying to do the best possible job for the trees and for this area. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was adamant at the last meeting regarding a continuance of this item to this date to allow him the opportunity to examine all alternatives. He was glad he had been given the opportunity to further study this issue. It was his conclusion that it was not possible to save trees 31, 32 and 48. It needed to be recognized that an individual could be restricted in the development of ones property to a certain extent. Beyond that extent becomes a taking of land. If land is taken, the City would need to pay for the taking. He did not feel that the city was in a position to pay for the land. To permit development of the property would require removal of some of the trees. He felt that the Commission had the unpleasant task of deciding which trees were going to be allowed to be removed. He placed emphases on what Mr. Coate had to say because he is the city's arborist and was the most neutral in regard towards the interest of the trees. The longevity of tree 32 was not very good. He felt that if 32 was removed, the value to the community of tree 31 was limited. He was impressed by the canopy size for trees 31 and 32, he did not feel that the impact of the loss of trees 31 and 32 along Heritage Lane would be as great as the impact of the loss of other trees closer to Saratoga Ave.. Regarding the statement that the City has a right to make no decision and prevent development here, he did not think the City has that right. The City is required by law to move at a reasonable pace on an application that is made. For the reasons stated and for the tradeoffs that were presented, he would be willing to agree to the removal of trees 31, 32 and 48 and provide the community with long term better canopy trees. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments stated by her fellow Commissioners. Contrary to the belief of the audience, she did not believe that a preconceived decision has been made without input from the public. She felt that the public has spoken clearly. She felt that the City's arborist has provided the Commission with very valuable advise. Chairman Asfour stated that having been to the site twice, he concurred with the removal of tree 32 and if tree 32 is removed, than tree 31 would also need to be removed. He recommended that as many trees be retained as possible. A great opportunity exists to replace trees with an equal amount of replacement monies by the developer for future generations. He was in favor of allowing the developer to move forward. He informed the public that the decision tonight was not for approval of the subdivision but to derive a consensus of the Commission as to whether the developer has a green light to proceed with the five lot subdivision. Commissioner Moran commented that some of the neighbors present may have the misconception that the sole issue was that of trees. However, that was not the case. She PLANNING COMMISSI~iNUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Jacobs stated that he continues to be troubled by what he perceived as a neighborhood of being distinctive one story homes. He felt that a policy decision was being made with this home because if it was approved, others may come in requesting a two story addition. Commissioner Moran stated that she was not enthusiastic about a design which basically puts a room over a garage that covers pretty much the entire footprint of the garage. She felt that Mrs. Stewart's concern regarding a "box on box" design was an important one. She would want to see a design that is integrated into the house before a two story addition was approved. Commissioner Wolfe commented that this is the first request appearing before the Commission in that area and that it may be several years before it sees another request for a two story addition. He shared Commissioner's Moran and Mrs. Stewart's concern regarding a "box on box" design. It was his sense that this addition does not violate the integrity of the neighborhood and that the second story of this house was pleasing to the eye and that the redesign makes the proposal acceptable to him. Chairman Asfour concurred with Commissioner Jacobs' statement regarding a precedent being established in this area if the two story addition is approved. He did not support the look of a box. He expressed problems with this proposal for two reasons as follows: 1) the establishment of a precedent in this neighborhood and 2) the design of the addition does not blend well in this neighborhood. Therefore, he could not support the request. COMMISSIONER WOLFS MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-94-001. THE MOTION DIED FOR THE LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Kaplan noted that at the last meeting the applicant was given an opportunity to redesign the addition to address the Commission's concerns. COMMISSIONERS WOLFS/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). Nancy Finnigan spoke on behalf of the applicant. She questioned that should she agree to a continuance to redesign the addition, would the issue still remain that of the second story addition. She felt that if it was an issue, that concern should have been made months ago. , Commissioner Jacobs commented that the second story addition was an issue to him. He felt that a single story addition would be appropriate for the neighborhood and approval of a second story addition would establish a precedent. Commissioner Moran stated that she would not object to the two story addition. However, this area was predominantly a one story neighborhood. If a second story was to be approved, it should be well integrated into the home. She did not want to see a "box on box" design and would consider an alternative design. PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES M APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 18 - Mrs. Finnigan requested Commission direction. Commissioner Kaplan commented that she was not necessarily opposed to two story additions. However, she stated her concurrence with Commissioners Jacobs' and Moran's statements that the two story addition does not blend with the surrounding neighborhood. She would support review of a redesign that makes the second story addition a "palatable" one. Chairman Asfour stated that it was his personal preference to have a one story addition. However, it a one story addition was not possible, he would not oppose a two story addition so long as it does not give the appearance of a two story addition. Commissioner Wolfe commented that the second story addition was not in the corner and that the applicant took the trouble to create dormers to break the lines. Also, the addition was setback from the garage. Commissioner Jacobs commented that if the design was well integrated, he may consider the proposal so long as a "boxy" look was avoided. He wanted to ensure that the integrity of the neighborhood was preserved. Mr. Rasp stated that a new design would be attempted. He indicated that layout of the lot and the house does not lend itself to a single story addition. He would attempt to make the roof line above the garage more consistent and homogenous with the garage. He requested clarification regarding the issue of a "box on top of a box" issue. Chairman Asfour questioned how much time would be needed for redesign. The designer stated that the Finnigans would not be available for the May 11 meeting. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the May 25 meeting would be acceptable with revised plans due to staff by May 13. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM TO ITS MAY 25 MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Moran recommended that the designer speak with staff and obtain its assistance. 6. DR-93-043 - Jahanian;14482 Emerald Hill Ct., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,785 sq. ft. two-story residence on an undeveloped 1.09 acre hillside parcel. The subject property is located at the end of a private cul-de-sac and is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated April 27, 1994. He informed the Commission as to the receipt of a letter from the adjacent neighbor requesting that the garage and guest parking be relocated to the left of the house so that they are not located adjacent to their parcel. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the letter from the adjacent neighbors has been forwarded to the applicant and that the applicant has PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 19 - indicated that at this point, he has not made that modification to the plan. Commissioner Jacobs expressed concern regarding the drainage of the uphill slope. He questioned if this issue has been investigated and whether there was any potential for land movement or drainage problem. Planner Walgren responded that this parcel has not gone through significant geotechnical review. The City's geologist has stated that the proposal as submitted, indicates that there is significant sheet flow of the site because of the slope. With the 3:1 restriction and vegetation that should be unchanged. Commissioner Moran questioned if there was a retaining wall located on the uphill side of the patio and if there was another retaining wall further up the hill. She questioned the height of the two walls (grading plan -sight sections). Planner Walgren responded that the wall height varied 2 to 4 feet. He informed the Commission that a significant amount of grading would take place in order to set the house into the hill. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the house was to be set into the hill, was the proposal to level off the hill above the house. Planner Walgren responded that it was not to level off the hill but to allow the rear yard the minimal terrace area behind the residence and the minimal play yard area. The slope needs to be steepened in order to make up for having a level pad behind he house. Chairman Asfour commented that the lot above this one has a tree that appears to have the roots exposed. He questioned if the adjoining property owner was aware of the stability of the tree and whether the Commission should require that the property owner who owned the tree to do something about the tree. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:36 P.M. James Taylor Stroup, architect for the project, addressed the architectural style of the home and its vertical look. He felt that the home proposed was similar in style to the home located next door. He tried to minimize impact to the neighborhood by pushing the bulk of the home to the rear. The home was designed to step down to the street. As one approaches the site, you see the end of the property. His clients have agreed to add a dozen or so 24 inch boxed trees to screen the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Stroup indicated that the concerns and impact to the neighborhood have been addressed by stepping the home vertically and back away from the street. He addressed minimizing the grading by designing a wall that goes along with the contour of the hillside. The driveway was allowed to rise along the slope of the land, minimizing cut and fill. Also decreased was the area between the rear wall of the house and the first retaining wall by only twenty-feet at its widest point and only 14 feet at the narrowest point. The terrace is proposed to be a shallow terrace wall. Originally, a 2:1 slope was proposed under this zoning district. However, a geologist report was prepared for the site and that the recommendation of the geologist was to reduce the potential for erosion, it was recommended that the proposed cut slope be constructed and an inclination at no greater than 2.5:1. The design was changed from a one, three foot high retaining wall to two, three foot high retaining walls with a five foot separation. He felt that stafps recommendation to go to 3:1 slope would be unnecessary. Recalculation of the grading with the 2.5:1 indicates that only 13 cubic yards of grading would occur. The PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 20 - entire grading area is located behind the house so that it could be screened easily from the street. As many of the 24 inch boxed trees as staff feels necessary can be planted along the side of the house facing the ten acres and along the drive facing the neighbors who don't want to see the parking. He informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting installation of a small level play area behind the garage for the children. This would be the only level vegetated yard that the property owners will have. The third concern addressed by Mr. Stroup was that of the view of the garage door from an apron parking area from the adjacent neighbors. The property owners have agreed to screen the garage apron area. He reiterated that he did not feel that the 3:1 versus the 2.5:1 slope would reduce the grading cubic yards and would significantly raise the retaining wall from three feet deep to five feet maximum which may necessitate a third retaining wall. Commissioner Moran questioned if staff had an opportunity to investigate Mr. Stroups' view of the grading. She expressed concern that the net result would be three, five foot high retaining walls. Planner Walgren responded that at a maximum, two retaining walls spread out at a distance between two walls may not need to be five feet high. However, it may be necessary. He offered an alternative which would narrow the terrace so that it was not as large and pull it closer to the house, thereby, lessening the degree of slope and the distance that it needs to be cut. Chairman Asfour questioned what would be gained as far as minimizing the cut? Planner Walgren responded that it was not so much the cubic yards but that the architect noted that by digging for the deeper retaining walls, the offset and the reduced grading was not that great. He stated that staff was looking more to preventing any further stepping of the hillside above the home and to maintain the existing contours. AT 10:59 P.M., COMMISSIONERS MORAN/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Kaplan commented that she was troubled with the grading of the hill behind homes. She questioned what avenues the Commission needed to take so that grading is minimized. Planner Walgren responded that an option would be to allow the applicant to grade to the rear terraces rather than debating the 2:1, 2:5, or 3:1 slope. If retaining walls becomes unreasonably high, maybe the issue is that of whether the project could be supported as submitted with 1,200 cubic yards of cut off the back of the hillside. Or, should it be amended to eliminate the terrace and the yard area and have the back of the home be the retaining wall. Chairman Asfour stated his preference of seeing two walls versus three retaining walls. He did not have a problem with the request per say but expressed concern with the 3:1 slope and the necessitation of an additional retaining wall. Commissioner Jacobs noted that the plans as submitted show one sheet with one retaining wall and another sheet indicating two retaining walls. Planner Walgren clarified that the single retaining wall was an earlier submittal, but that two retaining walls are proposed PLANNING COMMISSI~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 21 - Chairman Asfour questioned staff if a 3:1 slope was approved, would a third retaining wall be required. Planner Walgren responded that he believed that taller walls or additional walls may be necessary but that it was not certain. Chairman Asfour stated that it would be his preference to see as few walls and low walls as possible. If it meant that a 2.5:1 slope would achieve that, then he could support that solution. Planner Walgren felt that a 3:1 slope could be accomplished without requiring three retaining walls. There may be several engineering alternatives and that it would be hard to say that a third retaining wall would be necessary. Commissioner Jacobs commented that he had no problem with approving one or two retaining walls. He agreed that the design review policy of the City is to minimize the height and the number of walls. He felt that the Commission should try to limit them. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-043 AMENDING CONDITION 8A TO REQUIRE THAT NO MORE THAN TWO RETAINING WALLS BE APPROVED WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE FEET AND THAT EVERY EFFORT TO REDUCE THE GRADING BE MADE GIVEN THOSE CONSTRAINTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). 7. DR-94-002 - Kerwin Ranch, L.P.; 13616 Fruitvale Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct Phase I of the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. Phase I consists of eight one-story single family residences ranging from 4,182 to 4,769 sq. ft. in size. These eight lots are accessed via an extension of Ronnie Way, which will terminate in a cul-de-sac. The lots range from 20,283 to 29,516 sq. ft. in size and are located within an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated Apri127, 1994. He recommended that this application be continued to allow the applicant time to revise the homes on lot numbers 4 and S per the staff report. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:00 P.M. Linda Davis, Saratoga, stated that the design review proposal for Phase I of the Kerwin Ranch subdivision represents the result of the design team. She commented that a great deal of consideration has been given to the size, style and placement of the homes with regards to the neighborhood compatibility and neighbors concerns. She felt that the architect has created a design that she believed were efficient, traditional, and conservative and incorporated the design standards for homes of the 90's. The proposed homes met all of the City requirements for height, size, and setbacks. She addressed two issues listed in the staff report. Those two issues being the compatibility of the homes with the existing neighborhood and the proximity of the homes of lots 4 and 5 to the Fruitvale Avenue easement. She appreciated the importance of these issues and felt that they have been addressed all along in the design review process. Regarding the issue of compatibility, she felt that it was a subjective concept. She felt that the architect was keeping with current design standard and that the homes compliment and enhance the existing neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSI~INUTES M APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 22 - She informed the Commission that the adjacent neighbors have supported the design as being complimentary and felt that they would be compatible with the future vision that they have for their neighborhood. Regarding the second issue of proximity of lots 4 and 5 to Fruitvale Avenue, she stated several points in support of the position that the homes on lots 4 and 5 are reasonably located in relationship to the Fruitvale Avenue easement. The homes on lots 4 and 5 meet all technical and legal setbacks as set forth by the City ordinance. The position of the homes were of concern to the neighbors. She felt that the setbacks provide ample distance required by the tentative map between the home and foot traffic. The landscape plan requires installation of dense vegetation on the Fruitvale side of the fence. She did not believe that a change would benefit the public nor the homeowners and would in fact jeopardize a desirable front and side relationship of the home to the cul de sac and to the pedestrian access path. She stated that over two acres of land have been dedicated for public right of way and has agreed to provide intersection alignment and extensive landscaped open space walkway and driveway along Fruitvale Avenue. Considerable thought has been given to the overall configuration of the finished neighborhood. She felt that for the reasons stated, that additional requirements or further analysis of the public easement was an undue and unnecessary restriction. Marty Oakley, Saratoga, commented that Ms. Davis explained the purpose of the project. He informed the Commission that a letter and two sets of plans were furnished to the Commission that address the concerns of lots 4 and 5. The smallest homes were placed on the smallest lots and the larger homes on the larger lots. He informed the Commission that the frontage of lots 4 and 5 were the most minimal of all the lots. Commissioner Jacobs commented that lot 4 could meet setbacks if the square footage of the home was reduced. He questioned what the size of the home would need to be to meet staff's recommended setbacks? Mr. Oakley responded that the same size house could be placed on the lot depending on staff's recommended setback. If staff was requesting a 30 foot setback requirement, that would restrict the building envelop. Mr. Oakley commented that is was his interpretation that staff was requiring the legal 15 foot setback measured from the easement line and not the property line. To meet staff's recommended setback would not jeopardize the square footage of the house but would jeopardize the shape of the house and its positioning in the new building envelop. The building envelop would be reduced by 15 feet along the rear or side potion of that particular lot and would make it very difficult to get a home and three car garage to fit within that envelop. Commissioner Jacobs questioned Mr. Oakley if it would be beneficial for him to meet with staff so that he could be clear about what staff was proposing. Mr. Oakley responded that he would be willing to meet with staff if needed but that he understands what staff was seeking. Taking everything into consideration, he felt that the best layout for lots 4 and 5 was what was before the Commission this evening. Commissioner Moran questioned the architectural compatibility of the proposed homes with those on Lisa Marie Court or was this project to be internally compatible among themselves. Mr. Oakley responded that he was trying to create the best design possible. Planner Walgren commented that the conflict of the setbacks goes with the original tentative PLANNING COMMISS~IINUTES M APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 23 - approval stage related to the city's efforts to get as wide of public greenbelt and walkway and aesthetic amenities along Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues. The end result is attached as exhibit "B" which shows half of the greenbelt as public domain and half as public easement on private property. This was the agreement between the City and the developer in order to provide the significant greenbelt buffer on the perimeter of the site. He stated that the attached exhibit "C" was the approved site development plan reviewed when the tentative map was approved and shows potential building envelopes for lots 4 and 5 which meet minimum setbacks from the easement, not the property line. It was acknowledged that the Zoning Ordinance only requires setbacks to be measured from property lines. Chairman Asfour requested clarification regarding approval of the tentative map. Did the approval include conceptual building envelops? Planner Walgren confirmed that the building envelops were approved along with the tentative map. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that at time of subdivision approval, it was anticipated that 20 or 18 foot setbacks would be proposed and that the applicant was now proposing 8 to 9 feet setbacks. James Sisk, DeAnza Properties, 920 West Fremont, Sunnyvale, felt that setback requirements should have been established as conditions of approval. When the homes were designed, the Zoning Ordinance was used for setback guidance. He did have discussion with staff regarding building envelops and their relationship with the easement. He felt that the proposal before the Commission was the best approach to address the homes on the lot. Community Development Director Curtis commented that the issue was that of design. Staff felt that the setbacks needed to be increased because of the easement. Commissioner Moran questioned if the Commission was empowered to exceed minimum setback requirements established by ordinance. Community Development Director Curtis stated that it was within the Commission's purview to exceed the minimum setback requirements and that he would support a 15 foot setback compromise. Mr. Oakley stated that it was difficult to determine setbacks. He stated that if he was allowed to shift the house to the right towards the pedestrian easement, and take the front portion of the home and pull it to the front setback five feet, he could gain 4 or 5 feet from the rear corner. He felt that no matter what home was placed on the lot, it would still be close to the fence line along the landscaping. Commissioner Moran commented that another concern to her were the colors of the homes. She requested that some consideration be given to changing the colors for the homes of plans D and B so that earth tone colors are achieved (concern being that colors of B and D were going to appear as pink and blue). Mr. Oakley would agree to provide color samples of homes painted with the same colors. AT 11:28 P.M., COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 24 - Commissioner Jacobs stated that he had no problems with the plans presented with the exception of the condition of setbacks. He did not see how Mr. Oakley could state that increasing the setbacks could not be achieved without building a decent sized home. If the home was reduced in square footage on lot 4, it could meet setbacks as recommended by staff. He further stated that he had no problems with the colors proposed nor the design. COMMISSIONER MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE APPLICATION DR-94-002 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT REVISED PLANS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5 PER STAFF'S REPORT DISCUSSION AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION. Commissioner Jacobs questioned whether the public hearing should be reopened to inquire if the applicant concurred with the continuance. COMMISSIONER MORAN WITHDREW HER MOTION. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MORAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). Mr. Oakley stated his agreement to the recommended continuance. Commissioner Wolfe felt that a reasonable proposal was being presented and that undue conditions were being proposed, especially when a green belt has been dedicated. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:38 P.M. (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS MORAN/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-94-002 TO ITS MAY 25 MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE THE PLANS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5 PER STAFFF'S REPORT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN TO THE COMMISSION WITH A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). 8. DR-94-006 - Ciffone; 14553 Via de Marcos, Lot #21, request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,201 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposal also includes a swimming pool and a request for an exemption from the hillside fencing requirement to allow the area of enclosure to exceed the permitted 4,000 sq. ft. per the Subdivision conditions of approval. The subject property is approximately 42,225 sq. ft. and is within an R-1-40,000 zone district. IT WAS CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO ITS POLICY AND RECEIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AFTER 11:30 M R PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES M APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 25 - P.M. COMMISSIONERS MORAN AND KAPLAN STATED THEIR OBJECTIONS TO MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO A COMMISSION ADOPTED POLICY. Planner Walgren presented the staff report dated 4-27-94. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:35 P.M. Joy Ciffone, applicant, stated that the proposed design was compatible with the homes located in the area and that the colors and texture were selected which would blend with the natural environment. Marty Oakley informed the Commission that he would respond to any questions which it may have. AT 11:40 P.M., COMMISSIONERS JACOBS/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS WOLFE/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 94-006 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Tree Replacement Policy Community Development Director Curtis requested that this item be continued to allow staff to review language change. Community Development Director Curtis provided the Commission with handouts of the Revised Workbook Program. He also provided the Commission with copies of the section of the handouts from the Planning Institute regarding CEQA which may be of use to the Commission for its Tuesday night scoping session for the Odd Fellows EIR. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that at last night's City Council/Chamber of Commerce joint work session, the Council considered a proposed sign ordinance amendment that included temporary signs (e.g, grand openings, special events, etc.) as well as several changes which dealt primarily with the size of the sign in different zoning districts. The City Council has directed staff to proceed and conduct a work program. The City Council has suggested that staff consider code amendments which would allow temporary signs while the City is in the processing of reviewing the Sign Ordinance. This would require public hearings before the Planning Commission on May 25 and before the City Council at its meeting of June 15 or 18. He informed the Commission that normally, this item would be scheduled before the Planning Commission as a work session item. However, there was not time to schedule a work session. The proposed ordinance PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES ~, `'~ ~ APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 26 - language for temporary signs would include a sunset clause. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if there was an alternative date other than the May 25 due to the size of the agenda. Community Development Curtis stated that the Council directed staff to proceed with the ordinance amendment pertaining to the temporary signs as soon ' as possible. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Review of Kerwin Ranch Construction Traffic Schedule Planner Walgren reported on this item. He commented that it was a requirement of approval that the construction schedule be reviewed by the Commission prior to receiving final map. The Community Development and Public Works Departments have reviewed the construction schedule and finds that the schedule is consistent with the conditions of subdivision approval and the intent of the requirement and satisfies their concerns. Staff recommended that the Commission accept the construction schedule. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVETHE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). Commissioner Moran recommended that the Commission stick to its 11:30 p.m. public hearing deadline. She stated that the purpose of the cut off rule was intended to ensure that the Commission does not give cursory review of items after 11:30 p.m. Chairman Asfour stated that he did intend to make the 11:30 p.m. public hearing cut off time a rule. Chairman Asfour reported on the City Council meeting held last night and informed his fellow Commissioners that the Council approved a Resolution restricting the Commission from addressing them. Commissioner Jacobs commented that it was his interpretation that any item which comes before the Council on appeal prohibits the Commissions' participation in the public hearing process. Commissioner Asfour requested that the Commission retain the staff reports for the three items which were continued this evening. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 4/6/94 & 4/12/94 2. Public Notices for the 5/3/94 & 5/11/94 Planning Commission Meeting '. PLANNING COMMISS~INUTES ,; ''~ APRIL 27, 1994 PAGE - 27 - Oral City Council AD TOURNMENT At 11:50 p.m., Chairman Asfour adjourned the meeting to May 3, 1994, 7:30 p.m. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk PC042794