Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-1994 Planning Commission Minutes. - ~ JULY 13, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. City ouncil Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale : e. Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Asfour Late: None Absent: None City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE JUNE 22, 1994 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 1, correction to June 8, 1994 minutes, Page 13, should be corrected to read: .:.::. "•I'lic f'it~~ C:c-tincil I'clt that the language left too much to interpretation. ±t~z~~ty I)cvclnlnzient Director (`nrtis informed the Commission that staff made the appropriate changes. Community Development Director Curtis felt that the new ^'''~'o~ language was policy oriented...." - Page 3, paragraph 5 amended to read: "Chairman Asfour stated his disagreement with the arborist's recommendation retarding! the uuk tr~c~...." - Page 5, Paragraph 2 amended to correct the spelling of Mr. Coate, the City arborist. - Page 5, paragraph 9 amended to read: "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 ~ r determined to be primarily single story...." - Page 6, paragraph 1 amended to read: "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 recommendation...." THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: CALDWELL, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, ASFOUR; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • JULY 13, 1994 PAGE - 2 - 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 July 8, 1994. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR-93-009 - Sarkosh; southeast corner of Sobey Rd. and Old Wood Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,342 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves an exception to the allowable floor area rule. The site is a vacant 40,816 sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-40,000 zone district (cont. from 6/8/94 at the request of the applicant; application expires 11/12/94). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldwell questioned if the city's arborist (Mr. Coate) had the opportunity to review the landscaping plan to ensure that none of the ordinance protected trees were going to be adversely impacted by the proposed irrigation. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that Mr. Coate had the opportunity to review the landscape plans as of yet. The Commission could have Mr. Coate review the plans, or a condition could be added to read as follows: "No high water intensive plants should be planted within the oak trees canopy per adopted standards." Commissioner Kaplan commented that one of the issues that came up at the site visit was how height impact were determined. She requested that the Commission be provided with height poles, if possible, in the future as a standard procedure when there are slope issues. She questioned the height of the proposed entry statements and wall. She stated that she was under the impression that there was a three foot maximum to front fencing. Planner Walgren responded that fences and walls are limited to a maximum of three feet within the front setback which vary from 25% to 20% of the depth of the parcel, depending on the district. He further stated that homeowners are permitted to have columns, pilasters or decorative type vertical features not to exceed that height by two feet, allowing for a five foot height maximum. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:39 P.M. PLANNING COMMISS~f MINUTES JULY 13, 1994 PAGE-3- Jim Strump, architect, stated that he did not have any issues nor concerns which needed to be addressed at this time and would agree to answer questions which the Commission may have. He responded to Commissioner Caldwell's question regarding landscaping proposed under the drip line of ordinance protected oaks by stating that landscaping is proposed at this time under tree number 1. If it is determined that there would be too much irrigation for the oak tree, the landscaping would be pulled back. Pat McCarthy, 18560 Sobey Road, requested that the home be setback further to the other side of the lot. Mr. Strump responded to Mr. McCarthy's concern by stating that a 20 foot side setback on the anterior side lot is required by code and that a 40 feet side yard setback is proposed. The plans indicated a greater side yard setback because of tree number 1. The majority of the impact of the two story home is going to be located on the opposite side of the home. Also, the home was setback as far back on the site as possible so that the tree area would remain in tact (trying to make the impact of the home as minimal as possible). Commissioner Murakami commented that he stood on top of the lot, more towards the other house and that it appeared to him that the roof line of this structure was fairly low as far as the impact on the views to the neighbors, specifically the one directly above this home. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0). Commissioner Kaplan commented that the first issue at hand was to determine whether the neighborhood was predominantly two stories. In looking at staff's report, she calculated that the immediate homes around the site to be 15 homes in the immediate vicinity, of which 9 were two story homes. However, if you took all of the sites which staff has placed on the map defining the neighborhood, she came up with 42 homes, of which 17 were two story homes (not making the area a two story predominance). Commissioner Caldwell stated that she based her conclusion on her land use visit of the site. She also felt that the neighborhood was unique and the homes were positioned in such a way that it was difficult to see from many of the public roads and the very heterogeneous nature of it. As a result, her determination was based on the homes that were immediately visible near the site. It was her opinion that the neighborhood was a predominantly two story neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan concurred from her site visit with Commissioner Caldwell's conclusion. But as a matter of policy, the Commission has to figure out what a neighborhood is if staff provides it with a broader picture. Is the Commission to consider the broader picture or can it say that it only wants to see the immediate adjacent streets? Commissioner Caldwell felt that staff was placed in a difficult position in determining predominance. Even if the provisions of the ordinance were discussed as it has been PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES • JULY 13, 1994 PAGE-4- implemented over time, she did not believe that any one expected the Commission to adhere to any strict numbers (analysis). She felt that the purpose of a policy was one that each of the Commissioners would need to determine what a neighborhood is. She sees this as predominantly two-story. Chairman Asfour commented that it was difficult to determine predominance by looking at the drawing unless a site visit has been conducted. He stated that he had no problem in accepting the area as a predominantly two story neighborhood. Commissioner Caldwell commented that she was saddened to see that part of the existing vineyard was going to be removed. Particularly because she thought that the vineyard served as a nice buffer to the huge home(s). She expressed concerned that the view from the school was going to be one of large homes. Another concern to her was that of another white colored home. She questioned whether condition 10 could be amended to mitigate her concern regarding the protection of the oak trees as follows: 1) the city arborist is to review the landscape plans and if the arborist has any recommendations, the applicant be required to comply with the recommendation regarding planting and irrigation around the oak tree, or 2) that it is stipulated that no water intensive plants, irrigation or trenching to be located within the drip line of the oak tree. Planner Walgren supported the second alternative. Commissioner Murakami stated that he felt that staff s chart was very helpful and that in his site visit of the neighborhood, he did not have a problem with a second story construction. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-93-009, AMENDING CONDITION 10 TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING VERBIAGE: "NO WATER INTENSIVE PLANTS, IRRIGATION OR TRENCHING TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DRIPLINES OF THE ORDINANCE PROTECTED OAK TREES ON THE PROPERTY". THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0). 2. V-94-005 - Martin; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Ln., request for Variance approval to allow a 397 sq. ft. single-story addition to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. two- story residence. The maximum allowable floor area for the parcel is 2,720 sq. ft. The existing structure is considered legal non-conforming in that it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 1,151 sq. ft. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted floor area per Chapter 15 of the City code. The subject property is approximately 19,285 gross sq. ft. (7,800 net sq. ft.) and is located within an R-1-12,500 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that staff could not support the request because staff was unable to specify specific circumstances or hardship that apply to this lot that would not apply to other parcels in general. PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • JULY 13, 1994 PAGE-S- Chairman Asfour questioned if this request could be separated into two issues, one to cover the area that is underneath the deck and the other for the continued expansion. Planner Walgren responded that the request was for a variance and that no design review would be required because it is a single story addition. However, the Planning Commission could separate the two issues in terms of applying the variance findings to one part of the addition rather than the other. However, they were both covered under the same variance. Commissioner Murakami questioned if staff had knowledge if there were any other exceptions made in this area for this type of square footage addition. Planner Walgren responded that he could not recall a recent approval of a variance from the maximum floor area. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Dave Martin, applicant, informed the Commission that he has lived in his home for the past 25 years. The addition would allow the home to be updated from the stand point of how people live their lives today. The basis for consideration of the variance request were as follows: 1) the extraordinary creek bed and associated flood control district easement impacts the slope calculation, (the lot is basically a flat lot and the actual slope from the front to the rear is under one percent but because of the creek, it ends up calculating to a rigorous formula of 16 percent, pushing numbers out of wac); 2) the proposed modifications were not visible to anyone; 3) he felt strongly that the addition was an important quality (will spend most of family time in the addition and will have more value to potential buyers in the future); and 4) increased tax ramification to the City. The basis for the request stems from the 1% versus 16% slope variance. Oscar Sohns, architect, utilized plans which assisted him in explaining the slope variance problem/calculation. He did not feel that the original intent of the 1987 slope calculation formula covered this situation. He felt that the site was a 1% slope not the 16% slope as identified by staff. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the approximate distance of the planned addition to the creek bed. Mr. Sohns responded that the planned addition was approximately 35 feet away from the creek bed. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the protrusion for the kitchen was added, would there be an increase in impervious coverage. Mr. Sohns responded that there would not be an increase of impervious coverage (building over the brick that currently exists). Chairman Asfour questioned staff's view regarding Mr. Sohns' slope calculation. Planner Walgren addressed the slope calculation formula (basic requirement is to take the gross site area, deduct from gross site area any water district easements, landslides, or road right of ways, leaving you with a net, put this figure into a table in the Zoning Ordinance which deducts further for the average slope). What the applicant has done was a series of variations where either the Water District easement was not deducted from the gross site area or the slope was not deducted or the combination of the two. The formula adopted PLANNING COMMISS~T MINUTES JULY 13, 1994 PAGE-6- in 1987 does take into account lots that have flat pads and then a steep incline to the back or a creek exists on the property (the average of the overall parcel), bringing the slope up relatively high. If the creek was not on the parcel and the slope of the lot were similar to the top red line of the plans provided by Mr. Sohns, slopes of less than 10% would not apply as a deduction. Chairman Asfour questioned if the slope or the creek with an easement did not exist, would the applicant be able to expand as requested. Planner Walgren responded that the applicant would be allowed to expand if the slope and creek easement did not exist and that the floor area would be closer to 4,440 square feet. Commissioner Caldwell stated that although the Commission was not around in 1987 when the slope calculation was implemented, she felt that there was a sense of policy reasons behind some of the provisions. She requested staff's rendition of the policy reasoning for deducting Santa Clara Valley Water District easements from the site. Planner Walgren responded that the Water District easement was similar to the landslide easement which the City has identified in the Geotechnical Terrain Map. These areas were not suitable for development and would be deemed appropriate to eliminate them from the net site area calculation. Community Development Director Curtis stated that topographic features are also taken into account, specifically the creek. If you take a floor area calculation on the entire site, you could get a vary large home on a small building pad. He felt that it would be disproportionate to the area that is buildable. With the calculation formula, you try to fit a reasonably sized house on a reasonably sized building area. If you remove the creek from the calculation, then you have to apply the removal of the creek to others. Commissioner Murakami questioned if the basic deduction was for safety purposes (e.g., flooding or erosion of the land). Community Development Director Curtis responded that he did not believe that the floor area dedication was for safety purposes because setback would mitigate safety issues. Mr. Sohns informed the Commission that the applicant proposed to build a bridge and a gazebo by the creek and that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has previously granted its approval of the request. However, it may be precluded with this addition. He felt that this request was a unique one and requested Commission consideration. Chairman Asfour commented that if the Commission was not able to make the legal findings for granting a variance, it could not approve one. COMMISSIONERS KAPLA.N/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINC7 AT 8:23 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0). Commissioner Kaplan questioned staff regarding their statement that the proposed addition would not increase the amount of coverage. She questioned if the kitchen extension increased the coverage of the lot. Planner Walgren responded that the increase in lot PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES • JULY 13, 1994 PAGE-7- coverage would include hard surface area (e.g., decks, brick patios), so that the actual lot coverage would not exceed current coverage (coverage on top of coverage). The overall hard surface percentage would not be affected by the addition. Chairman Asfour stated that there were two issues at hand, one being the actual coverage underneath the existing deck and the kitchen expansion. For the purpose of discussion, he requested that they be considered separately. He could make the findings for the enclosure under the deck because enclosure of the deck would not have an impact but was having a hard time making the findings for the kitchen extension. Commissioner Murakami supported the comments as stated by Chairman Asfour. However, he would be inclined to support the kitchen addition. If he were to allow the expansion to occur in its entirety, it would cause a precedence in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the Commission does not have the authority to undo the calculation that staff has made utilizing the slope calculation formula. Commissioner Murakami supported the comments as stated by Chairman Asfour. However, he would be inclined to support the kitchen addition. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the City has always respected the creek areas and the easements drawn up by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. She did not know how the Commission could deviate. Chairman Asfour questioned if findings could be made for the addition over the deck area. Planner Walgren responded that findings could be drafted for the underfloor area and that special circumstance may be that of configuration of the existing house itself (that portion of the addition is merely filling in what is already there in envelop and would not necessarily relate to variance finding to the city slope or net site area requirements). If the Planning Commission was inclined to support a portion or all of the variance, he recommended that it be done on that basis rather than tieing the variance to site conditions. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-94-005 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCE APPLY ONLY TO THE COVERED AREA AND NOT THE KITCHEN EXPANSION WITH THE FINDING THAT THERE EXISTS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PUT OVER THE PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY THE EXISTING CLOSED STRUCTURE WHICH WILL HOUSE THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE AREA. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff reviewed the variance in several ways and that staff was not able to make findings. The problem staff has with the use was that of infill because it could get out of hand with a precedent being established. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI AMENDED THEIR MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ITS JULY 27, 1994 MEETING AND DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH. A RESOLUTION PLANNING COMMISS~I MINUTES • JULY 13, 1994 PAGE-8- INCORPORATING THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE COVERED AREA ONLY, EXCLUDING THE KITCHEN EXPANSION WITH THE FINDING AS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0). 3. AZO-94-001 - City of Saratoga; An ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Section 15-30 by amending the Code of the City of. Saratoga relating to the size, location, quantity and duration of Temporary Merchant Signs. Community Development Director Curtis reported on this item. He recommended that an added specification be included to read as follows: "Signs are to be attached to the building or building face and shall not project above the roof line." He informed the Commission that staff faxed and mailed a copy of the report to the Chamber of Commerce. He informed the Commission that he received a phone call from a Village property owner who stated that he did not have a problem with the exclusion of the Village from the temporary trial period (the only correspondence received on this issue). Since this was essentially a Chamber proposal that the city was trying to expedite through, he was not comfortable in sending this sign ordinance amendment forward unless some Chamber input was received, especially on the sign location aspect. However, he was comfortable with the proposal with the inclusion of the location of the temporary signs. Commissioner Caldwell questioned how staff derived the $71 fee associated with the temporary sign or banner request. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the fee is contained within the City's Fee Schedule adopted by City Council Resolution. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. Mary Jane Karas, 12752 Saratoga Creek Drive, informed the Commission that she has attended several hearings where this issue was under discussion and one thing that she has noticed lately was that several of the businesses along Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road have vans with movable signs parked in front of businesses. She questioned if this issue could be addressed through this amendment process. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0). Community Development Director Curtis commented that when you have a sign on a vehicle that is parked in a legal parking space there really is not much you can do to enforce the Code. What he has experienced in other cities is regulation of vehicle signs by requiring them to be permanently affixed to vehicles. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE FORMATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDINANCE THAT COVERS THE ITEMS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE LOCATION PLANNING COMMISS~1 MINUTES • JULY 13, 1994 PAGE-9- PROVISION DISCUSSED THIS EVENING REGARDING SIGNS BEING ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING AND NOT PROJECTING ABOVE THE ROOF LINE - NO FREESTANDING SIGNS TO BE ALLOWED. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis distributed the Commission's assignment. If there were any conflicts or the Commission trades assignments, he requested that the Commission notify the City Clerk. Community Development Director Curtis requested that the Commission select a member of the Planning Commission to act as a member of the screening committee to select the EIR consultant for the Odd Fellows Project. Commissioner Caldwell stated the she would be willing to serve on the screening committee. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION APPOINTED COMMISSIONER CALDWELL TO SERVE ON THE SCREENING COMMITTEE. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-92-034; 14706 Sixth St. - Salera (nee Kinnier) Review of Proposed Plan Modification Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the request was a proposed modification to an approved 1993 application. The request was fora 1,750 square foot home which was approved under a constrained 3,000 square foot parcel located on Sixth Street. The applicant has submitted for building permit anal has worked with her architect to come up with this modification. The request is below grade basement in the back half of the resident. Because of the amount of neighborhood involvement, a notice was sent to all the adjoining residents and property owners notifying these individuals to review the plans and comment on them. One correspondence was received from Mr. Covell who owns the residence above this site, stating his opposition to any modifications. Staff was bringing this proposed plan modification to the Commission's attention and requested Commission recommendation pertaining to staff's administrative approval of the plan modification or whether the Commission finds that there is significant change to require the applicant to make a formal application for design review modification. Chairman Asfour commented that the basement was to be underground and not going to be more than two feet above grade and does not increasing the floor area. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO CONTINUE ITS REVIEW AND APPROVAL ADMINISTRATIVELY. _ - ' ~ PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES JULY 13, 1994 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Kaplan requested staff clarification regarding traffic counts. Chairman Asfour responded that he spoke to Larry Perlin, City Engineer, who informed him that traffic counts stopped when school ended and would resume when school begins. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that traffic counts were prepared in May and would be taken up again to complete what has not been completed or will commence once the freeway opens. Additional counts would be taken after school opens. Commissioner Kaplan commented that the point of the traffic count was to assist the Commission in its consideration of the Circulation Element plan and to measure the impact or the effect of the freeway opening. Unless the Commission has a base count, it does not have anything to compare it with. Community Development Director Curtis responded that a number of traffic counts were taken in May and could be used as a basis for comparison if no further counts were taken until the freeway is opened. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the June 15 City Council minutes states that a full Commission would not be present for the month of July, and that the Planning Commission may cancel the second meeting in July. She requested that the City Council minutes be corrected so that the Council knows that the Commission will be conducting its meetings as scheduled in July. Chairman Asfour noted for the record that he would not be present at the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if staff. knew when. the City Council was planning to appoint the new Commissioners. Her concern was that there may be a meeting where there would not be a quorum. Community Development Director Curtis responded that he believed that the Council would be conducting interviews and appointing Commissioners on August 3, (unofficial date). Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the Commission notify staff if they are unable to attend a meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 6/1/94, 6/8/94, 6/15/94 & 6/28/94 2. Public Notices for the 7/27/94 Planning Commission Meeting Oral City Council • - PLANNING COMMISS~T MINUTES JULY 13, 1.994 PAGE-11- ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:07 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., July 27, 1994, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA. IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK