Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-1994 Planning Commission MinutesJUNE 22, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. City ouncil Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale ve. Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Asfour, Commissioners Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Moran, Murakami and Wolfe Late: None Absent: None City Attorney Riback was not present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE JUNE 8,1994 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 4, paragraph 6 amended to read: Chairman Asfour questioned the assessment value of the trees. Mr. Coats responded that he did not have the amendi assessment value but would provide that value. ~~~ - Page 13, under Director's Items, first paragraph amended to read: Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it has considered this item once and directed staff to forward its recommendation to the Community I)evelopnierit~a~i:re:etar. The City Council felt that the language left too much to interpretation...He felt that the new ~~~ language was policy oriented...." THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, JACOBS, MORAN MURAKAMI, WOLFE: NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: CALDWELL, KAPLAN; ABSENT: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 17, 1994. Technical Corrections to Packet Planning Commission Mi~s June 22, 1994 Page - 2 - Planner Walgren noted correction to the following items: - Agenda Item 2, page 24, under the subheading "Design Review", the reference to the first story addition ratio should be changed from 65% to 75%. - Agenda Item 3, page 43, to be corrected to state that the applicant proposes internally illuminated canister signs (not externally illuminated). CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 1. V-94-004 - Barry; 19281 San Marcos Rd., request for Variance approval to allow an existing carport to be removed and three-car attached garage to be built in its place. The Variance is necessary to allow the new garage to be located 3 ft. from the side and 5 ft. from the rear property line; the Zoning Ordinance requires 30 ft. and 20 ft. setbacks respectively. The property is 1.4 acres in size and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/25/94 to have the City Arborist review the proposal and provide his assessment of the health of the trees in question; application expires 10/29/94). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the arborist report stipulates that the replacement value for the pine trees as being equivalent to one, twenty-four inch box and one fifteen gallon tree. Having received that information from the arborist, she questioned if staff was still comfortable in asking for two, twenty-four inch box replacement trees. Planner Walgren responded that the recommendation was based on the fact that the two trees were currently healthy and that the two, twenty-four inch box replacement trees were a reasonable requirement. Commissioner Caldwell informed the Commission that Planner Kermoyan, staff representative to the Tree Committee, called her this morning and that she questioned him as to how many tree permits he issues per month. He (Kermoyan) informed her that he issues approximately 21.5 permits per month for ordinance size trees. She then questioned how many were ordinance pine trees. Planner Kermoyan informed her that between 65% to 70% of those permits were obtained for pine trees. She also questioned how staff determines whether or not it is appropriate to have a pine tree removed. Planner Kermoyan responded that two city maintenance staff. members inspect the trees to determine if the trees were emitting sap or pitch or if beetles were present. Then they report back to Planner Kermoyan with their determination as to the appropriateness of removing the pine trees (current practice for non-development associated tree removal). Planning Commission Mi~s June 22, 1994 Page - 3 - Chairman Asfour questioned if staff had the opportunity to speak with the applicant regarding the possibility of moving the garage forward since the last meeting. Planner Walgren responded that the applicant has not pursued this alternative and that they (applicants) were hoping to receive the outcome of the arborist report which would indicate that the oak tree could be retained and then to see what direction was to be given this evening. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. Dr. Cynthia Barry, applicant, presented the Commission with two letters from adjacent neighbors stating their support for her request. She also informed the Commission that her architect, Edith Jacobson, was present. She thanked staff for its recommendation. She commented that the previous recommendation and present recommendation from staff were both positive (recommending removal of the two pine trees and protection of the oak trees). She indicated that the City's arborist recommends that the property owner replace the Monterey Pine trees due to their limited life span and that they were not indigenous to the area. She agreed to provide proper screening and to provide replacement trees elsewhere on the property. She shared with the Commission a book which gives firescape landscaping to reduce fire hazards prepared by the East Bay Municipal Utility District following the Oakland Hills fire. She noted that the book states that Monterey Pines are a fire hazard due to their pine needles and that oak trees were listed as a fire retardant tree. She commented that because of the constraints of the lot, the carport was a "bare minimum" three car garage replacement. The covered walkway was important to her because there were no other entrances to the house to protect them from rain and would provide lighting (expressed concern for her mother's safety). She agreed to the conditions as presented by staff and requested Commission approval. Edith Jacobson, 225 South Carrillo, Half Moon Bay, licensed architect, informed the Commission that the second story remodel was twelve years old and that at time of the second story remodel, no plans were proposed for the maintenance of the carport. The property owner now wants to replace the existing carport which is inadequate due to the severe drainage problem on the flooring and its small size. The two car portion of the addition is the minimum garage size required by code (20' x 20'). She addressed the trees on site. She informed the Commission that retention of the three trees were considered as part of the design process. She recommended removal of the two pine trees due to their health and fire hazard. The arborist anticipates a two year life span on the pines. The oak tree would be protected with the addition.. Chairman Asfour stated his disagreement with the arborist's recommendation regarding the oak tree because if the garage is constructed as proposed, the oak tree would not survive. He wanted to be convinced that the garage could not be moved forward two feet. Ms. Jacobson stated that light and ventilation are required by code and are minimal with this design (existing window inadequate and would be replaced with French doors). Chairman Asfour referred to Sheet A-3 of the plans and questioned if the garage was moved forward two feet, would there still remain enough room for the door. Ms. Jacobson stated Planning Commission Mi~s June 22, 1994 Page - 4 - that if that was done, that would place the French doors under the garage overhang, blocking light and that the current proposal would provide minimal lighting (just above code). Chairman Asfour commented that the existing concrete just encroaches on the new system and the dripline of the oak tree and expressed concern with further encroachment. Dr. Barry responded that she did not feel that there would be an adverse impact on the root system of the oak tree. Ms. Jacobson addressed the design of the foundation and that back filling would occur up to the base of the oak. Chairman Asfour questioned if the proposed foundation for the garage would allow airing and drainage of the roots or whether it would be solid concrete. Ms. Jacobson responded that solid concrete for the garage slab is proposed. Commissioner Caldwell clarified that the distance from the trunk of the oak tree to the foundation of the new car garage would be four feet, two inches. She pointed out that it was not a good idea to backfill up to the root system, particularly when a tree has matured in the conditions which exist. The problem that is seen with trees that exist in these conditions where grade changes are made produces a negative result on the tree. She recommended that the environment of the tree be left as is and that a bridge foundation be built to minimize the impact on the oak tree. Commissioner Moran questioned staff regarding administrative approval for new construction and whether there were any rules of thumb regarding the distance from an oak tree trunk to a structure. Planner Walgren responded that City code requires a minimum of 10 feet of setback from ordinance protected oak trees unless the city arborist reviews the project and recommends or supports otherwise. If an applicant wishes to encroach into the 10 foot setback, it would be referred to the city arborist for his recommendation. Keith Miller, adjacent neighbor, stated his support of Dr. Barry's proposal and read a letter from Herbert Albrecht, neighbor located on the other side from where he resides, stating his support of the request due to the turn-around problem which exists on San Marcos Road and that approval would improve the appearance of San Marcos Road. Dr. Barry commented that if the garage was approved, cars would be parked in the garage and improve traffic circulation. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Chairman Asfour stated for the record that this application was for variance approval. The fact that neighbors support or oppose an issue does not, by itself, constitute approval of a variance. Approval of a variance is based on the Commission's ability to make legal findings. Commissioner Caldwell commented that she appreciated the fact that the Commission referred this item back to the city arborist for review. In looking at his (arborist) review of Planning Commission Mi~s • June 22, 1994 Page-S- the issue, the potential life span of the pine trees and the survival of the oak tree if the appropriate bridging construction in foundation is utilized, she could support approval of the request. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. V-94-004. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he had concern regarding the pine trees but would support the motion based on the arborist report. Commissioner Moran questioned what type of bridge foundation would be required to protect the oak tree. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that Mr. Coate felt that the oak tree would survive construction with the typical garage slab construction. Commissioner Kaplan stated that an arborist report was requested and received. She would need to go along with the city arborist's recommendation. Chairman Asfour commented that with this approval, the oak tree was condemned and that he would reluctantly approve this variance. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 2. DR-94-009 - Don; 15150 Park Dr., request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,188 sq. ft. second story addition and 231 sq. ft. of first floor area to an existing 3,379 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant is also requesting an exception to the floor area/height reduction regulation in order to permit additional floor area up to the maximum prescribed in the City Code. The property is 28,490 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-20,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Wolfe questioned if the addition would cast a shadow to the adjoining properties in anyway. Planner Walgren responded that to a degree it may cast some shadow. Commissioner Jacobs requested clarification if what was before the Commission was that of the exception to code for floor area. Planner Walgren responded that the exception was that of floor area and that the exception to the requirement of floor area applies only to neighborhoods that are determined to be primarily single story. Commissioner Jacobs requested further clarification regarding prohibition of second story additions. Planner Walgren commented that if the applicant reduced the floor area by 100 square feet, the applicant could propose the same application without the need for an exception, with the two story as proposed. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Planning Commission Mi~s • June 22, 1994 Page - 6 - Keith Miller, general contractor, Saratoga, informed the Commission that he assisted the applicant with the design of the home. He commented that the design was in keeping with the neighborhood which seems to be a predominantly two story neighborhood. He tried to keep the profile of the home to a minimum and yet accommodate a two bedroom addition. The window area on the second story has been kept to a minimum to allow privacy for the adjacent neighbors. Chairman Asfour questioned if Mr. Miller was familiar with the arborist report. Mr. Miller responded that he and his client have reviewed the report and have no problems with the report nor its recommendations. Mr. Miller also responded to Chairman Asfour's question regarding the design of the home being similar to the one directly behind it. The addition was designed to complement the adjacent homes and that the two story addition was centrally located on the property. Commissioner Murakami commented that the roof was designed to go straight up and did not blend with the existing structure and recommended that a more dimensional drawing be submitted for visual purposes. Mr. Miller addressed the odd angle of the home to the street and stated that it was difficult to achieve that angle on the plan. Fran Franklin, 15177 Park Drive, resides across the street, addressed the notice of hearing description. The notice states that the second story was to be a 1,075 square foot addition and that a 680 square foot first floor addition was also proposed. Tonight's agenda states that the second story is to be 1,188 square feet and the first floor is to be 231 square foot addition. She requested clarification. She requested Commission denial of the exception and requested that the City enforce its existing codes. She refuted the comment that the neighborhood consisted of one-third, two story homes. She felt that most of the homes were single story. She stated that she did not oppose two story structures so long as proper engineering was given and that no exceptions were required. Commissioner Moran commented that in order to grant the variance, the Commission must make the finding that there is a predominance of two story structures in the neighborhood. She questioned if Mrs. Franklin disagreed with the required finding. Mrs. Franklin responded that she did not feel that there was a predominance of two story structures in the neighborhood. Chairman Asfour clarified that the request before the Commission was not that of a variance but that of an exception. He provided Mrs. Franklin with a layout of single story and two story structures in the neighborhood. Planner Walgren informed the Commission and the public that the proposed second story addition would be 1,188 square feet and that the new square foot addition to the first floor would be 231 square feet (net increase). He would need to investigate why there was a discrepancy in the notice. He felt that the 608 square foot number may have included areas that were being remodeled. Planning Commission Mi~s • June 22, 1994 Page - 7 - David Franklin, 15177 Park Drive, reviewed the map provided to his wife showing the one story and two story homes. It appeared to him that there were 14, one story homes and 9, two story homes on Park Drive. He questioned how it could be stated that the neighborhood was predominately two story. He noted that the minority of the two story homes in the neighborhood were substantially setback in comparison to this proposal. Commissioner Jacobs commented that the question at hand was how one defined "neighborhood". Mr. Miller commented that the adjacent home was a two story structure and that additions of two story structures have been allowed in the neighborhood (e.g., Pepper Lane). COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:38 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Planner Walgren commented that the floor area would need to be reduced to 270 square feet to not require the exception request. Community Development Director Curtis explained the discrepancy in notice to that listed on the agenda. The numbers were relatively close and that the purpose of the public hearing was to give the neighbors the opportunity to find out what was happening to adjacent properties. He felt that the notice was accurate, adequate and sufficient. At times, the city will have applicants change their project before appearing before the Commission. However, staff endeavors to accurately reflect what is being proposed. Commissioner Moran commented that the city strives for accuracy in noticing and felt that by in large, noticings were accurate and that this noticing was not a wide departure. She stated that she was having second thoughts on this issue due to the second story homes in the neighborhood. The question was whether there was a two story feel to it or was it a one story neighborhood. She noted that when you look at the house, it has a one story look to it, with a section being a two story one. The issue regarding the exception would need to be reviewed. Commissioner Kaplan commented that she did not have a problem in terms of the privacy issues and did not feel that the adjacent home's view would be impacted by this proposed modest, two story addition. She questioned how the neighborhood would be defined in terms of predominance of one or two story structures. Commissioner Moran commented that the addition had a one story feel to it and felt that this proposal was in keeping with the neighborhood. Commissioner Jacobs commented that the more two story structures there are, the more you encourage expansion by granting exceptions. He felt that it was ironic because someone could come to the city and state that a neighborhood was predominantly a two story neighborhood, and now requests an exception that others could not get. However, the rule is in place and the city will need to enforce it. He drove through the neighborhood and did Planning Commission Mi~s • June 22, 1994 Page - 8 - not get a strong feeling that this was a predominately two story neighborhood. Therefore, he did not feel that this request meets the exception rule. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the purpose behind the exception rule was mainly to address one story neighborhoods. She concurred that it could not be determined whether the area was predominately a one or two story neighborhood. Chairman Asfour stated his support of the request before the Commission. Commissioner Wolfe commented that having inspected the area, it was his observation that there were a substantial number of two story homes to grant the request. Commissioner Murakami concurred with Commissioner Wolfe's observation. However, he was not happy with the exception being requested, but based on what he has seen, he would not oppose the two story addition. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the problem was not the issue of the two story addition but that of making the finding to grant the exception. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS MORAN/KA.PLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-009, APPROVING THE DESIGN WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FLOOR AREA BE REDUCED BY 273 SQUARE FEET FROM ANY PORTION OF THE HOME. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she could not make the finding that there was a predominance of two story homes in this neighborhood. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1 WITH CHAIRMAN ASFOUR VOTING NO. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:55 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:08 P.M. 3. 5-94-003 - Cunningham; 14401 Big Basin Way, request for Sign approval to allow the placement of two internally illuminated identification signs. The subject property is located within the CH zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the applicant has agreed to eliminate the 24 hour banking sign. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:12 P.M. Earl Gibbons, agent for the bank as far as the signage was concerned, informed the Commission that the request was for an internally illuminated cabinet sign because that was in keeping with the bank's national sign program. He has spoken to the bank, and while they would accept staff's recommendation, he would like to have anon-illuminated cabinet sign instead of the recommended sand blasted sign. Planning Commission Mi~s • June 22, 1994 Page-9- Chairman Asfour informed Mr. Giggons that the concern was not solely that of the illuminated sign but that of maintaining the "Village" appearance. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:15 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-009 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. Commissioner Wolfe commented that what was being approved was different from the other banks in the vicinity (Wells Fargo and Bank of America). He recommended that these banks be requested to change their signage to maintain the "Village" appearance. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 4. SDR-1136.1 - Chen; Burgundy Way & Fruitvale Ave., request for modification V-94-007 - for modification to a previously approved Tentative Map to provide a common turnaround for emergency vehicles pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. A Variance is also required to allow the net site area of each parcel to be less than 40,000 sq. ft. and to establish a 30 foot front yard setback on Parcel C pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 3.75 acres, consists of 4 separate parcels, and is within the R-1-40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He recommended amendment to the variance resolution because there was no reference in the findings to the variance for the 30 foot setback for parcel C. He recommended that finding A be modified to add the following language: "Development constraints exist and that an intermittent creek runs along the back of the parcel which includes the dense riparian vegetation corridor which constrains development of this site from an environmental protection stand point." Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the amended finding A addressed bridging the Swale. Her concern was that in granting a variance at this time and not addressing the building envelop, that the City may be in a bind when the project reappears for design review. Planner Walgren commented that the issue of culverting the creek is going to be a major concern as staff reviews parcel D. However, the variance was for parcel C so that any condition imposed on the variance would be related to parcel C. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if staff suggested anything that would communicate to the applicant that the City wants to ensure that there is avoidance of the creek as much as possible. Planner Walgren recommended that the following language be included to condition C to address Commissioner Caldwell's concern: "Parcel C shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to ensure that the intermittent creek at the back of the parcel is protected and .its associated riparian habitat." Planning Commission Mi~s • June 22, 1994 Page - 10 - CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:28 P.M. Jim Chen, civil engineer, agent for the four owners, informed the Commission that he would answer questions which it may have. Chairman Asfour questioned if Mr. Chen understood the discussion regarding the creek and its protection. Mr. Chen responded that he understood the concern for the creek's protection. David Krulee, building designer for parcel B and C, informed the Commission that the only proposal that his clients have made at this time was to place a Japanese foot bridge to cross the creek so that they could have access directly behind the two parcels in the future. He stated his support of maintaining a distance of the home from the creek. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the foot bridge information be shared with the City's arborist for his consideration in reviewing that piece of property. She also questioned if the Santa Clara Valley Water District had some jurisdiction over the creek. Planner Walgren commented that the Water District did not have jurisdiction over this creek based on the water flow through the creek. Commissioner Caldwell questioned how far the home of lot C was proposed from the creek bank. Mr. Krulee responded that it would be setback 42 feet from the creek bank. She (Caldwell) questioned if Mr. Krulee had sufficient information on the foot bridge configuration to provide to staff to forward to the City arborist. Mr. Krulee informed the Commission that he was currently working on the plans and would forward the plans to staff. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:31 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Chairman Asfour questioned if the Commission, at one time, discussed setbacks from riparian habitat. Planner Walgren responded that the City had required riparian setbacks on several subdivisions reviewed in the past couple of years. New subdivisions, pending tentative maps, were required to be setback 60 foot from the centerline. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS MORAN/MURAKAMI, THE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. V-94-007 and SDR-1136.1 INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO FINDING A AND CONDITION C. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis polled the Commission for attendance at the July 5 work session. Commissioners Kaplan, Murakami, Caldwell and Chairman Asfour indicated that they would be in attendance at said work session. Planning Commission Mi~s June 22, 1994 Page - 11 - COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Caldwell commented that she read in the paper today that the City Council was approached by individuals expressing concern regarding traffic impacts and that the paper indicated that the city would not worry about the impact until the freeway was opened. Community Development Director Curtis commented that traffic counts were underway throughout the City and that there were no major construction activities nor change in street routes proposed. At the Council meeting, it was pointed out that Miller Avenue may be one of several streets which needs to be addressed and that a better handle on traffic counts would be required after the freeway is opened because some of the thru traffic on Miller Avenue may disappear when the freeway is opened. The Council was not ready to provide monies for special studies at this time. Commissioner Kaplan commented that Planning Commissioners from surrounding communities would like to meet to discuss common problems of concern. The meeting has been deferred to September due to schedule conflicts. Chairman Asfour commented that the Land Use Committee is subject to the Brown Act and is properly noticed. Commissioner Wolfe commented that it was an honor to serve with the Commission and thanked staff for its great work and services and that as a newly elected Councilmember, he would continue to work as a colleague. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 6/1/94 & 6/8/94 Oral City Council AD,TOUItNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., July 5, 1994, Senior Adult Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK