Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-1994 Planning Commission MinutesY ` _ - ~ANNING COMMISSION iV11NU'. OCTOBER 26, 1994 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruilvale Avenue Regular Meeting -- Chairman Asfour informed the public that the meeting would be delayed for a few minutes to allow the Commission the opportunity to review the correspondence submitted. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.nt. by Chairman Asfour. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Asfour Late: None Absent: Sieefried City Attorney Faubion was present this evening. YLEUGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAi. COl`1MUNICATIONS No comments were offered. M111NLJ'1'ES October l2, 1994 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED'1'O APPROVE TI-IE OC'i'OBF,R ]2, 1994 MINUTES VVI"I"H TI-IE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 4, paragraph 5 to read: "...was that she did not believe that the site was an appropriate one for a hvo story structure:z lives at 24 feet:: slie felt that it was a prominent site...The Site was visible from the different streets of the Parker Ranch su twsum and felt that the proposed home itt c~~hitrinaliiiri w;istlt.:;the,'ritliei';existing ain>ciure5;al;ong:.C'iiiti~eiitaf:.Circle would create the impression of having a large structure on the ridgclinc...but that she did not believe that this was an appropriate site for a Thai house...." - Page 5, paragraph 1, line S, replace "approved" with the word "proposed". - Page ~, paragraph S to read: "Chairman Asfour stated that he had a problem with the house because it stands-Ex+t can:easil~•=:he sezn from the valley...." Page (i, paragraph ~, line ~ to read: "...Creek to development and flie erosion problems ftiitYiccurreil iii:.;tYic past...Erosion control has been mitig.rtcd on the back sides of the homes with the use of fi}r-ral'~ rijirap walls staggered in intervals to slow down the water going down stream and also the use of ri}~-r-att i'ilirtp...." PLANNING COMMIS~N MINliTES • OCTOBER 26, 1))4 PAGE-2- - Page 7, paragraph 2, line 2 to read: "...She recommended that the applicant *•a . desiga:t}e.:::].driiiscapc iti iivi~i~lilhe ,... need; fot a large amount of watering...." - Page 3, paragraph 5, line 3 to read: "...The oak trees and that i~rily a drip irrigation system is to he used under the oak trees...." - Page 9, paragraph J, line 3 to read: "...accoutrements of a this house development rn, ~• the::size:!:i('.;il~efence:.area::seetis:ap:pcopiia(e." - Page 1l, last paragraph to read: "Commissioner Murakami commented that it would be helpful so see some of. the arcfiiYectiraliiesigri work done by Bill Yotrngwhep the Criitintssitrn;.takzs. tiri;:"Orchids:; dtld'Onicrits" :ficl.d:trip. - Page 12, paragraph ?, correct spelling of Martha Ue[mer THE MOTION CARRIED (i-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). ORAL CO(`7MUN'I(:ATION No comments were offered. REPORT OF POST'IN'G AGF,NDA Pursuant to Government Code J4954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 21. 1994. TECHNICAL. CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there was one minor correction to agenda item 5, Resolution llR-)4-Olti, page 101, paragraph 1 to read: "WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review approval to construct a new single story .-~-~Na 5;~9(J sy. ft. single family residene;e....: CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CAI.ENllAR 1. SD-94-002 - Lester/Von Dorsten; 14120 Sar:~toga Avenue, request for Tent;ttivc DR-94-O11 - Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 1.3 acre parcel into two (2) DR-94-012 - separate parcels per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Parcel 't would be V-94-003 - 2,,373 sq. ft. and Parcel 2 would be 20,002 sq. ft. ~hhe remaining gross site area will be dedicated as street right-of-w;ty. 'I~he subject properq~ is an interior parcel located within an R-I ?0,00(1 •roning district. PLANNING COtMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-3- The proposal also involves Design Review approval to construct a 3,738 sy. ft. two-story residence on Parcel I and a 4,]72 sy. ft. residence on Parcel 2 per Chapter 15 of tltc City Cude. In order to accommodate construction on Parcel 1, an existing Heritage Resource Inventory structure is proposed to be relocated towards the front of the parcel. Variance approval is also requested to; a) allow the proposed lot widths for each parcel to be less than the minimum standard; b) relocate the existing Heritage Resource Inventory structure approximately 30 ft. from the front property line on parcel 1 where 48 ft. is required; c) allow the height of this structure (proposed as a "guest house" since a new two-story home is also proposed) to exceed the maximum height for accessory structures by approximately 8.S ft.; d) allow the floor area of both structures on Parcel 1 to exceed the m~iximum allowahle floor area by approximately 363 sy. ft. (with an exception to the height reduction regulation) and by 898 sy. ft. (without an exception «, the height reduction regulation); and e) locate a 55 ft. tall wrought iron/wood fence on both parcels' front property line where 3 ft. is the maximum permitted per Chapter l5 of the City Code. Planner Walgren presented the report on this item. Ile informed the Commission that he distributed illustrations of two proposed alternatives as described in the staff report. Alternative A would retain the existing lot split proposal and eliminate the second proposed home and relocate the heritage resource structure onto the parcel. This alternative would eliminate all of the proposed variances with the exception of the lot width variance. Staff felt that the lot width variance could be supported it it resulted in retaining the heritage resource structure on the parcel. Alternative B may eliminate the need for a variance from the lot width and would allow a flag lot configuration which would put the heritage resource building on parcel 1 towards the front and the new two story home on parcel 2 «>wards the back. He informed the Commission that the two alternatives have been discussed with the applicant and that to date, the applicant has not pursued either of these alternatives. Staff recommended that should the Planning Commission concur with staffs recommendation, that it direct the applicant to pursue either one of these proposals. If the applicant is not interested in either of the proposals, staff would reconuncnd denial of the entire application this evening and denial resolutions would be prepared fur the Commission's November 9 public hearing. He noted for the record that hvo letters were received from Mr. anct Mrs. Stutzman, 14]61 Douglass Lane and Mr. and Mrs. Metcalf, 14150 Douglass Lane, stating their opposition to the proposal primarily based on the variances and the application as submitted. Commissioner Abshire commented that he met with Mr. Garcia to familiarize himself with the proposal. PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1914 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Caldwell noted that the Heritage Commission has recommended that there be no gate installed. She asked if the recommended condition was an omission in the Planning staff report. Planner Walgren responded that the omission of the condition may have been an oversight or that it may have been lumped together with the Heritage Commission's recommendation not to approve the five foot fencing within the front yard setback. Commissioner Caldwell requested that at some point during the hearing that the representative from the Heritage Commission address the Planning Commission to explain their decision and to bring the Commission up to date on this issue. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:Si p.m. Rocky Garcia, l~ West Fifth Street, Morgan Hill, thanked staff and the Heritage Commission for their assistance with this proposal. Ile requested [o defer his comments following the presentation by the Feritage Commission. Elizabeth Ansnes, Heritage Preservation Commissioner, informed the Planning Commission that this project was referred to the Heritage Preservation Commission for two different reasons. The structure on the property is listed as one of the resources on the Heritage Resources Inventory. In addition, the site of the resource house wxs located on Ieritage Lane. The Heritage Preservation Commission approached the review of the proposal from two points of consideration. That being of its compatibility to I-Ieritage lane and the process of developing the property itself to save the structure. She informed the Commission that the I Iistoric Commission did not review [he various applications associated with the structure. The Heritage Preservation Commission's primary concern was to save heritage resources. She informed the Commission that when [he subdivision application came before the Heritage Preservation Commission, they supported the application. The Heritage Commission did not review any details that were not in its purview (i.e., heights of building, setbacks, etc.). She indicated that the Heritage Preservation Commission had three primary concerns regarding the fence. The Commission felt that the fence design was incompatible with the llerita~e Lane fencing regulations with the use of a large wrought iron gate in association +vith a stucco fencing. Several Commissioners also expressed concern with safety with people coming out of the area with the gate open. Another concern that the Heritage Commission had was with the detail of some of the landscape proposal. The Commission felt strongly that more emphasis should be placed on native vegetation, particularly with the use of oak trees. Chairman Asfour noted that the front of the home required a variance from front yard setbacks. He inquired if it was Ms. Ansnes's opinion, from a heritage point of view, that the house could he moved back. Ms. Ansnes responded that the location of the house on the property does not make much difference. Visually, it would be more of an impact if the house was located closer to the front of the lot. She indicated that the Heritage Preservation Commission's overwhelming concern was to preserve the existing structure. Lf there was another configuration that could accomplish the preservation of the structure, the Heritage Preservation Commission would support it. PLANNING COMMiS,N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-S- Commissioner Caldwell commented that this site was close to the Oden property which contained a heritage structure and that the Heritage Commission was not as concerned with the preservation of that structure. She requested that Ms. Msnes distinguish t)etween the two structures (why \vas the stricture under discussion recommended for preservation while the Oden structure was not). Ms. Ansnes responded that it was not accurate to state that the Heritage Commission was not concerned with the preservation of the Oden Home. The Heritage Commission was not presented with a proposal that would have saved the house. The Commission do not initiate suggestions to individuals wishing to develop their property. The Commission react to proposals that come before it. The only proposal that was submitted with the Oden property included destroying of the structure. Commissioner Caldwell commented that staff has provided the Planning Commission with alternative solutions towards the development of this property and that both alternatives involved preservation of. the heritage Dome ttnd maintaining it as a primary residence. She questioned whether the Fleritage Commission would contemplate the expansion of the heritage structure and whether the Commission viewed adding onro a heritage residence as an acceptable thing to do? Ms. Ansnes responded that it would be the preference of the Heritage Commission to restore the structure according to the true preservation restoration guidelines. However, she noted that there have been many successful proposals for remodels and additions. Commissioner Patrick questioned if it would be preferable to have a home such as the one propose(1 close to Iieritage L,ane`? Ms. Ansnes responded that she did not believe that it was too significantly important to have this home close to the street. She commented that there were a lot of components to Heritage Lane, including the landscaping and fencing. She noted that there were three very large stucco sound walls, one right after the other, south of Sacred Heart Church on Saratoga Avenue. She felt that the fences were incompatible with the character of Heritage L.;tne. Also, the use of landscaping was intended to preserve the feeling of the late 19th l'emllCV small tU\V^ atnlOtiphere. 'I.17C Fleritage Commission recommends keeping it compatible with that feeling. Commissioner Abshire questioned it the Heritage Commission studied the proposal presented this evening. Ms. Msncs responded that she has nol seen the proposal as recommended this evening. Larry Fine, Heritage Preservation Commissioner, informed the Planning Commission that the Fleritage Commission was provided with a civil engineers report stating that the interior of the Oden borne needed to be destroyed. He felt that the f leritage Commission learned that when it had an opportunity to tour the home at a later, it found that the home \vas not in the shape that was depicted by the applicant, but ut that point, it was too late to do anything about it. Fle felt that it was an unfortunate situation that a heritage structure \vas lost in the process. He reiterated Ms. Ansnes conuncnts that the Heritage Commission does not review variances because they are not in its purview. He recommended that the home be retained. He informed the Planning Commission that in addition to being a Heritage Commissioner, he helped the Saratoga Avenue he designated as a Heritage Lane and resides across the street from the property. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Commission reviewed the proposal from a safety stand point and that it felt that the PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-6- installation of a gate would increase traffic. Steven Arnold, 1671 The Alameda, San Jose, structural engineer, informed the Commission that he conducted an underfloor inspection of the house and made a foundation evaluation of the structure. His findings were that there was extensive dry rot in the roof, that the floor supports were barely adequate, and that the siding needs extensive repair. He felt that[ the home was a neat home but that it would reyuire a lot of. money to bring it up to current living standards. Commissioner Murakami questioned whether it would be cheaper to bring the home up to living standards versus the construction of a new home. Mr. Arnold responded than bringing the home up to current standards may not be cheaper than constructing a new home. Mr. Garcia provided the Commission with background information of the parcel. He recognized that the home was a distinctive one. He stated that he contacted Mr. Blair Barry, architect, to see how this heritage home could be incorporated into a project that would work both for the City and the property owner. His approach was to survey the houses along Saratoga Avenue along Ilcritage Lane amd take the typical setback. It was the conclusion that the setbacks, as proposed, were consistent with the existing setbacks of the heritage Lane homes and yet were setback far enough to give it character. He stated that the size of the existing home was ].,,0(1 square feet. I lc did not feel that the size of the home was in keeping with the original home built because a laundry room and front porch have been added. In keeping with what was done to the original home, he would be removing the laundry home quid front porch, reducing the size of the home. The variances revolve around the preservation of the historical Specifically, the variance to the front setback would he in keeping with those of Heritage Lane. He informed the Conunission that the architect wanted to isolate the heritage house to stand alone and to be used as an office. The height of the heritage home caused a reduction in size of the structure. He noted that he would he well under the size requirements permitted under the existing zoning district. Ile discussed the second house to be placed on the parcel to the right. He felt that the home would be compatible with the existing home. The architect proposes to incorporate the exterior elevations of the heritage hums to both of the homes so that they are compatible to each other. He commented that each of the proposed parcels have the same width as the subdivision that original was approved. However, due to its rectangular nature, the lot widths become :approximately 84 feet at the building setback line and the front setback is the same as that of the existing neighborhood. He informed the Commission that he would be in agreement with the heritage Commission regarding the planting of the oak tree and would agree to eliminate fencing, if it was necessary. Commissioner Calchvcll commented that the Heritage Commission requested that the heritage structure be conditioned to reyuire the relocation and restoration of the structure prior to final map approval. She asked if Mr. Garcia concurred with the condition. Mr. Garcia requested that the heritage stnacnuc be relocated and restored prior to the issuance of a building permit, not at time of final map approval I-Ie stated that doing the work prior to obtaining a loan would create a difficulty. A loan would be secured for the one lot, to be used for both structures. PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-7- Mr. Fine requested to address the Commission as a neighbor who resides across the street from this site. Chairman Asfour informed Mr. Fine that it was a City policy that a Commissioner could not address another Commission or City Council when items that have or may come before us as a Commission. Johathan Kaplan, 14051 Saratoga Avenue, informed the Commission that he resides across the street from this project. Ile stated that he moved to the area because he enjoyed the openness, friendless and neighborly feeling of Heritage Lane. He stated his opposition to the fence and gate proposal. The proposed 5.5 foot fence did not strike him as being open, friendly, neighborly nor consistent with the Heritage Lane atrttosphere. He felt that the stucco fence that is located adjacent to the Sacred Heart Church property on Saratoga Avenue was a good indication as to why a ~.5 foot fence would not be appropriate on Heritage Lane. He expressed concern with the safety and increased traffic on Saratoga Avenue since the opening of. Highway S5. also of concern caas the wait that individuate would have with the opening of the gate and their safety. Michael Miller, 14101 Douglass Lane, informed the Commission that the back of his property backs up to the side yard of the proposed project. He stated his objection to the accessory/guest home. He felt that the structure appears to be a two story structure. He stated that the proposal was to move the home to within 15 feet of his backyard which has a pool. He felt that the issue was that of privacy. Also, the home would block his view of the mountain and would block the sun from shining into his backyard and his rooms, creating a shadow. He noted that the home was to be converted into a guest home which may end up xs rental If that is the case, that would place three homes on one acre. He requested that the home be scaled back in terms of size and square footage and that the structure not be a two story structures. Ile also requested that his side yard be considered more as a backyard setback. He stated his support for a flag lot arrangement so that the homes would be more on the median line versus being so close to his back property. Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Miller was stating his support to alternative B which would place the heritage home in the middle of the lot, but setback further. Mr. Miller responded that was a correct interpretation of his request. Commissioner Caldwell inquired as to the restrictions or conditions that could be imposed to accessory structures. Planner Walgrcn recomnrendcd that the new two story home not be built on parcel 1 so that it clues not becorne an issue of monitoring the use of the guest house in the future. The Commission could place a restriction on the resolution that could be recorded against the parcel stipulating that the guest home could not be rented as an independent residence. He stated that it would not be legal to have two single family dwellings on one parcel and that it would be difficult to monitor whether the second dwelling was being rented out. I-le explained that the guest Itonte could not be rented out because the parcel size would have to be 1.G times the requirement fur the district and that these lots were at 20,000 square feet. He informed the Commission that a variance could not be granted for second units and that a second unit could not be created on these lots legally. PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 8 - Cynthia Frances, 14113 Douglass Lane, stated that her backyard runs parallel to plan B. She informed the Commission that her lot was anon-conforming lot. She felt that if the home was built at the proposed setback that it would infringe on her privacy. She expressed concern that the height of. the structure wcwld block the sun. She felt that the proposed home would be bulky and incompatible with those of the neighborhood. She also expressed concern that the heritage home was to Be removed and be replaced with two large stucco structures, surrounded by fencing. Yoka Koch, 14170 Douglass Lanc, expressed concern with the setbacks and two story structure. She noted that the homes on Heritage Lane were that of. single story homes. She stated that her main concern was that the proposed home would take up the entire width of her neighbors backyard. Veronica Reed Miller, 14101 Douglass Lane, stated her opposition to the proposal for the reasons expressed By her husband. She felt that design review should he denied because the two story structures that are proposed are not compatible in bulk and height with surrounding structures. She objected to the accessory house being so close to her back yard. She stated that she preferred the proposed flag lot plan that was presented this evening. Mr. Garcia responded to the question regarding the front gate and the front entry stucco wall at 5.5 feet proposed by the architect. [le stated for the record that he would be willing to go along with the recommendation of the Ileritage Commission to eliminate the wall and front gate from the proposal. With regard to the neighbors to the east of this property, he felt that it was unfortunate that those particular homes were on nwch smaller lots than these lots would he. He also noted that their side yards were less than l feet. He stated that he was not asking for a variance from that particular item. He requested a continuance to allow him the opportunity to meet with the neighbors to alleviate some of their concerns in regard to the placement of the accessory structure and the home on that particular lot. He indicated that the total square footage of the first parcel was exceeded Because of the calculations that were necessary with what is currently being built. The proposal would be for a single story structure at approximately 1,?00 square feet which would not require a variance. Another issue is that the house would be raised by apprt~ximatcly 18 inches because it does not have a foundation. Ile also indicated that the adjacent homes were i0 percent two story structures and 50 percent single story structures. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Garcia had the opportunity to review the alternatives as presented by staff, and if so, what were his feelings reg:trcling the alternatives. Mr. Garcia responded that alternative B was discarded by him. The reasons that alternative B was not considered was because of the traffic on Saratoga Avenue and the two curt cuts proposed on Saratoga Avenue. He felt that you would still be able to sec homes one behind the other regardless of how close to the street you were if you have an "L" shaped Ylag lot. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Alternative A would be a viable alternative because you could place one common driveway in there and still have one curb cut. Mr. Garcia responded that alternative A consisted of what he is proposing. PLANNING CUMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, ]994 PAGE-9- Commissioner Kaplan stated that sltc did not have a problem with the height of the heritage home if that was the only remaining structure nn the lot. Chairman Asfour yuestioned if it was not feasible to have a Flag lot with one curb cut located on the front residence with access to the back lot'? Mr. Garcia responded that doing so would turn that particular home to face the driveway, turning your back on Saratoga. He stated that he had great confidence with the floor plans that have been presented. Chairman Asfour advised that certainly the house can he turned around in that case. Commissioner Caldwell commented that staff has noted that the side elevations of the homes lack some of the articulation that the City typically requires, especially when the homes will be visible from a number of points of view. She inquired if Mr. Garcia would be willing to work with the design and provide some articulation to the elevations. Mr. Garcia informed the Commission that his architect would be present at the next meeting to address Commissioner Caldwell's recommendation. Commissioner Patrick commented that the neighbors have expressed concern regarding the use of stucco on the back and the sides of the homes. She asked if there was some way to alleviate or mitigate, to some extent, the neighbors concerns. Commissioner Kaplan asked the City Attorney what authority does the City have to require the preservation of historic homes? Community Development Director Curtis responded by stating that there currently does not exist an ordinance that prohibits demolition of heritage homes. Commissioner Murakami commented that he was glad that it has been recommended that this item be continued because he could not support the variances requested if the proposal had to be acted upon tonight. He concurred with the neighbors' concerns. H agreed with Commissioner Caldwell in that some of the rear elevations need to be looked at because they appear too bulky and were not very creative. Ile felt that the existing structure could be remodeled and enlarged at a reasonable cost. He supported the two alternatives as recommended by staff. Commissioner Calchvell thanked the applicant fur requesting the continuance to deal with the various stake holders fur this application. She suucd that given the information presented this evening, her ovenvhclming concern was that of the preservation of the integrity of the property and the heritage structures on it. Among the alternatives presented either by the applicant or staff, she felt that the flag lot configuration made the most sense. given the testimony received this evening. It would preserve the heritage residence, it allows for a joint driveway and it n><~tximizes the privacy in setbacks to the surrounding neighbors. It also gives the heritage structure a front row center seat on the property. She felt that the applicant's conceding of the fence and gate was an excellent offer. She noted that the stucco walls by Sacred Heart Church have been a source frustration to those individuals in Saratoga who have been working on I leritage Lana Regarding the variances and some of the observations made by staff, she felt that the applicant needed to work at little further un the elevations whether it he l:tlan A or plan B to preserve the heritage residence on one lot. PLANNING COMMI~N M1NU'I'ES •' OCTOBER 2G, 1994 PAGE-10- She knew that the preservation of the structure could be accomplished if a home was built that was marketable that retained the heritage aspect of the structure. Whether or not the applicant does that, she felt that the applicant needed to work on the size, bulk and mass. The use of materials suggested could dramatically change the appearance of the structures. She stated that she was not in a position this evening to look towards granting a variance for exceeding the code. She stated that she did not have a problem with having a heritage structure being located closer to the front thtm the Conunission would ordinarily allow because a lot of the heritage structures along that portion of the lane were close to the street. She felt that particular variance was in keeping with the character and with the spirit of the heritage lane. She stated that she was not enthusiastic about having two structures on the same lot. She stated her agreement with the staff report and the comments as stated by Commissioner Murakami. Regarding the safety of the gate, she indicated that it was not the vehicular traffic that she was worried about, but that the concern was for those individuals who use the trails. Commissioner Patrick stated her concurrence with comments that have been made. She indicated that she preferred having the heritage structure located closer to the street because it would make it mute visible and keeps the aunusphere of the Heritage Lane. She did not believe that the use of stucco was in keeping with the preservation of the area. She indicated that it did not appear that there would he a way to get three structures on A parcel that meets the compatibility test of the neighborhood. She stated that she would support the project if it was for hvo structures and that she preferred the side line configuration because it was the more sensible way to approach the situation. Commissioner Abshire concurred with the comments as stated by Commissioners Caldwell and Patrick. He stated his appreciation with what the petitioner was trying to do in the preservation of the heritage structure. He stated that he would be willing to forego the variance to assist in the goal of preserving the heritage structure. Chairman Asfour stated that he would not have a problem with locating the home closer to the street to maintain the same look for the area. llowever, he stated that he had a problem with the total floor area un that lot and of the size of the new home. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission has determined that there WAS a preponderance of two story homes in the area. She stated that she would make the finding that the neighborhood was that of a single story neighborhood. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the whole issue of there being a preponderance of two story homes in the neighborhood related to the square footage, and does not relate to whether or not the structure should be one story or two story. They both Would need to he separated. Planner Walgren clarified staffs recommendation in the report. •1'hc recommendation whether alternative A or R is pursued still requires that the historic residence be relocated prior to final map approval. That was the only means through which the City would have assurance that the house is going w be relocated, reconstructed, and rehabilitated. PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Caldwell inyuired if it would be possible to require some means to assure that the home was to be restored? Plattner Walgren responded that bonding could be required for the improvements. In this case there was a possibility that once the final map is recorded that a structural engineer could return stating that the home could nut he rehabilitated or that it could be so significantly rehabilitated that it does not resemble the original house. Community Development Director Curtis commented that the purpose of this process was to retain the home from the City's perspective. Frctm the developers perspective there was no incentive to retain the home unless he is given two lots instead of one lot. If there was not restrictions against or no prohibitions for the demolition of the house, the applicant would be allowed one house to be built. The incentive would be to grant a variance and grant a two lot split to preserve the heritage house. lie stated that staff would be willing to work with the developer to ensure that the heritage home be retained, followed by the recordation of the map to ensure that the city does not loses a heritage structure. Planner Walgren further clarified that staff would only be willing to support alternative A, requiring the width variance contingent on preserving the house. Ms. Ansnes stated that the Heritage Commission's bottom line was the preservation of the house. It did not appear that there was a wxy to do that except to approve this subdivision contingent on preserving the home. She was not sure what legal means the city had to ensure that the preservation of the hotnc occurs. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that this item be continued to the Commission's November 22 meeting to allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors. If there were to he any changes to the plans, staff would need time to review the revised plans. Mr. Garcia stated that the November 22 date was acceptable to him if the neighbors concurred. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE/CALDWELL MUVEll "1'U CONTINUE THE PUBL-(.: HEARING FOR THESE, APPI_iCATIONS TO TUESDAY, NOVEMBF..R 22, 1994. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRiF_D ABSF..NT). Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the neighbors he infonncd as to what date u letter is to be submitted for inclusion in the Commission's packet for its review. Community Development Director Curtis commented that any written correspondence would need to he delivered to staff by the Thursday preceding the November ?? meeting date to ensure that the letters are included in the Commission's packet. THE COMMISSION RECESSED A'1' 9:00 P.M. THE COMMISSION RI?CONVENED AT 9:14 P.M. PLANNING COMM1~)N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 12 - 2. DR-94-031 - Constantin; 20ASS Kittredge Rd., reyucst ftrr Design Review approval V-94-016 - to construct a new 4,390 sy. ft. two-story residence on a vacant hillside LL-94-012 - parcel with an average slope of 73%•. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to be built on a slope of 85%. and to allow the residence to encroach into a reyuired front yard setback. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also necessary to meet minimum City lot depth reyuiretnents. The subject property is 1.18 acres itt size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the report on this item. Accepting that the lot was a legal lot of record, staff has identified rivo alternative recommendations for the Commission's consideration this evening. The first was to approve the project as is with a detailed resolution with mitigation measures as conditions. The second would be to continue the application to address specific design, building, or other features of the building which the Planning Commission may deem appropriate to minimize the impact of the structure on this particular site. Commissioner Caldwell conunented that it was difficult to interpret what the Public Works Director was stating in his report. She stated that staff has indicated that the lot was a legal lot of record and she yuestioncd if that was all the Public Works Directors memorandum was intending to convey. Planner Walgren responded that the Public Works Director was summarizing a very extensive title research process. Commissioner Caldwell recalled that a fairly extensive discussion took place when the application came before the Commission a couple of years ago. The discussion involved Commission members and with the City Attorney during the public hearing regarding this piece of property. Discussed were the parameters that would guide the Commission in its analyses of the application and looking at the various uses that cotdd be matte of the property. Case law was discussed as to what a land owner could do with such a piece of property, even if it was at 3i percent slope. She requested that staff elaborate on this issue for the benefit of the new Commissioners. City Attorney Faubion commented that the threshold concern that the City had the last time this item was reviewed was whether the property was a legally created lot because of its shape, size and contour. She indicated that Mr. Perlin's memorandum and months of research culminated in the recordation of a conditional Certificate of Compliance. She explained that normally, lots are created anti subtlividcd in accortlancc with the Subdivision Map Act and the local subdivision regulations which implement the Map Act. She stated that there were lots that were not crcatetl in conformance with the Map Act before the Map Act was implemented or before there w•as a local subdivision ordinance. She informed the Commission that the Certificate of Compliance was a way of dealing with those kinds of lots. Recordation of a Certificate of Compliance or a conditional Certificate of Compliance basically states that the lot was legally created according to the Subdivision Map Act with whatever the provisions were at the time. It can also stipulate that the lot was nut created exactly the way it should have been. If conditions were needed, the applicant would be reyuired to complete the conditions that would have been reyuired at the time. The Certificate of Compliance was a way of trying to bring things up to speed after the fact. It PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1194 PAGE-13- was determined after months of research and going back to countless deeds and working with the applicant's representative that the property was eligible for a conditional Certificate of Compliance and that was what was recorded. The Certificate states that the property was legally created if it met the conditions. The Certificate does riot state what can be built o developed on a parcel. It just states that the lot .vas legally created. She indicated that normally, the presumption was that once a lot was created as a lot of record, that the property owner could do whatever the zoning ordinance stipulates. Once you have a Certificate of Compliance that has been recorded and the conditions have been met, the yuestion of. what one can do with the property wxs a function of the City's development ordinances. The City would need to review the Zoning Ordinance to determine what uses are permitted and if the applicant can demonstrate compliance with those uses, those uses can be approved for the property. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the Commission may find that the applicant may appear before it and state that he/she has a constitutional right to build a home on the lot. She questioned what the City Attorney's response to the request would be. City Attorney Faubion responded that case law states that a property owner has a constitutional right to have an economic viable use of the property. It was a question of judgment as to what is an economical viable use of the property. She stated that if you have a Zoning Code which states that the one and only perrniued use on the property was that of a single family home, then, if you denied that home, it would raise the issue as to whether ones right has been fringed upon to have an economical viable use. If the zoning ordinance allows for a range of uses, then it becomes a cloudier issue. She noted that whatever use is allowed under the zoning codes, the City does not need to guarantee a profit but that there has to be a reasonable economic viable use of the property. Commissioner Caldwell inquired what USeti WCre allowed under the City codes. Planner Walgren responded that there was a short list of permitted uses which include single family residences, accessory structures related to the single family (i.e., swimming pools, guest house, etc., and the raising of fruit and nuts and other orchard type uses. Ile indicated that the zoning further allows conditional permitted uses through the granting of a conditional use permit such as schools, fire stations, and health care facilities. Commissioner Caldwell commented that a copy of a fro was received from .LC.Y. She indicated that the fax did not appear to br a completed document because it did not contain a signature block. She asked if the one page fax was all that was received. Planner Walgren responded that only a one page fax was received from J.C.P. this evening. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the applicant's engineer has developed a range of corrective measures to address the unstable soil conditions and that engineer states that the property would be enhanced by house being built on it. It occurred to her that there has to be other ways to deal with drainage and stability issues that do not involve building a house. Planner Walgren clarified that he did mean to imply that the geologist thought that the house would enhance the site or was positive in that sense. The geologist was asked to review the plans to determine if the site could safely be built upon. It was their determination that through this corrective measures, the house could be built in a safe PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-14- manner. As a result of the corrective measures, several of the adjacent landslides would also be repaired. Planner Walgren further commented that the landslides could he repaired regardless of whether the house was built or not. The same process could occur if one wanted to repair the landslide by removing the unstable soils, recompacting it, and revegetating the site. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the bottom of the Certificate of Compliance states that "the property shall he brought into compliance with the applicable standards that were in effect in February 1970." She inyuired as to the meaning of that statement. City Attorney Faubion responded that the Subdivision Map Act states that when you issue a conditional Certificate of Compliance, you have sumo decisions to make as to what conditions would be applicable. In this case, the conditions that the Commission would apply would he those in affect at the time that the applicants took title of the property. Reviewing the deeds indicated that title transfer occurred in 1972. The Commission would need to go back to review the codes to determine what conditions applied at that time. Planner Walgren responded that the zoning regulations in place in 1972 were fairly minimal compared to those that exist today. All that was required to record a lot to be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance was that the lot be 40,000 square feet in size (the zoning in place at the time was R-1 (40,000) zoning district where today it is Hillside residential with two acre minimum) and based on 85 percent slope, you would go up from there to probably 10 acres with a minimum depth and width of ISU feet with certain frontage requirements. 1Ie indicated that the applicant's parcel meets all of the requirements with the exception of the 150 foot depth. He noted that part of. the application this evening was for a lot adjustment request to adjust the down slope property line further to the northeast to gain the 150 feet. 'fhe lot line adjustment is being made with the adjacent parcel which the Constantins' own to make the lot conform and meet the conditions of the Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission was required to approve the lot line at this time or is the Commission empowered u> deny the lot line adjustrent. Therefore the lot could not be built upon. City Attorney Faubion responded that the first question was that of the lot line adjustment. She stated that it was not very broad and that the Commission did not have the discretion to deny the tut line adjusunent if it was consistent with development codes and that the lot line adjustments were exempt from environmental review. Commissioner Kaplan inyuired if the Commission was to apply todav's lot line adjustment requirement or whether the conditions in effect in 1972 would apply? City Attorney Faubion responded that the Conuuission would need to apply today's conditions because the application for lot line adjustment was being requested today. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if one of the issues that the Commissioners would look at in its consideration of the lot line were tltosc of health and safety? City Attorney Faubion responded that the language of the statute states that "shall not impose conditions or exactions on its approval except to conform to local zoning and building ordinances". This basically means that if the zoning ordinance calls for 200 feet, you could not approve a lot line adjustment fora 100 feet. However, a variance could be applied for. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if the resulting two lots world be conforming lots'? Planner Walgren responded that the two lots would be conforming lots. lie noted that the PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 15 - lower parcel was also vacant and conforms to the minimum lot size requirements of depth and width. Both parcels would then he conforming with the applicable reyuirernents. Commissioner Kaplan noted that Section 15.70.G0(c) and 15.70.02061 addresses part of the yuestiun of whether putting the h(Ime on this lot would be detrimental to public safety. Shc commented that in reading these sections, there was some question as to whether public safety issues were addressed. City Attorney Faubion noted that section li.7U.G0(c) recited by Commissioner Kaplan was a section located under "variances". So that finding would have to deal only with the sideyard variance not for the entire project. She inyuired about section 17.70.020 b] which states that "no variances for setback distance between structures, fences, walls and I)edges shall be required fur :t new, main, an(1 accessory structures proposed to built on existed grading pads." She inyuired if there was an existing graded pad on this lot. Planner Walgren responded that the section of the code as quoted by Commissioner Kaplan was a provision that references another section of the code when you are establishing setback requirements and that it was not a section of the code that was relative to this proposal. Chairman Asfour noted for the record that a letter was received this evening from Mr. Bober. He then opened this item to public hearing at 9:40 p.n). Virginia Fanelli, representing the Constantine, commented that this was a difficult site, evidenced by the applicant's efforts to obtain sewer over the past '12 years. She informed the Commission that William Colton, geologist, reviewed the property prior to the placement of a line being shown on a piece of paper. In ]938, the City assured the property owner that since the lot was a legally created lot, that the City's position was that development of a single family home could occur. As the designed progressed, there were meetings with staff. Staff reaffirmed the City`s position of a legally created lot and that the owner had a right to develop on that lot. it is evidenced that any development un this lot would require a minimum of one variance to the slope. It w•as also evident to staff at the time that a variance to the setbacks from the property was the must appropriate. 'Che variance request is being mule so that it would eliminate adChllOnal cuts to the hillside. Keeping the house closer to the road pnroidcs a much safer and acceptable grade on the driveway according to the fire department. After two years of design work, and arborist review, and four additional geological studies, this application was ready for hearing in 1991. She stated that she was astonished during those hearings to have the yuestiun of the legality of this lot raised. This led to a long expensive investigation involving engineers and attorneys. Two years later, it was determined by the City Engineer that this lot was a legal lot. The request tonight was to request Planning Comrission approval of the application. "Che lot line adjustment would bring this lot into conformance and meet the conditions of the conditional use permit as directed by the City Engineer. She indicated that the three variance request were as follows: I) slope, Z) front setback, an(1 3) rear setback. Shc informed the Conunission that the design of the home has taken into account the recommendation of the arborist. The geologist has suggested soil removal for the construction area. The lower level of the house is shielded from view by heave tree cover and the upper portion of the home would be visible Irom the road. The house was well articulated to reduce any perception of bulk. "Che design was created to physically addresses the geologist's recommendation for giving added stability to the site. "I'he house is 12G feet PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTF_S • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-16- long, curving around the site of the hill and is only 34 feet wide. She informed the Commission that she had the second page of the fax from Mr. Cotton's office should the Commission wish a copy of it. She stated that it was determined that deeply drilling of the foundation would add stability as well as correct geological conditions and water runoff. She stated that she had a report dated July 1994 from Barry Coats which states that the developer be doing the City a favor to remove all of the eucalyptus trees from the site. The only trees Mr. Coats recommended be saved were the five oaks located down the side and down hill from the proposed home. She felt that with the removal of the eucalyptus trees and with the use of stratum and the materials to be used in the exterior would be in keeping with the findings of the latest fires which occurred in Oakland and Laguna Hills. She indicated that she has received letters in support from several of the neighbors. She understands that there arc a lot of neighbors who would like to see this lot kept in its natural state. She felt that it was her client's right to have the use of the property such that the use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety ur welfare. In fact, this property was reviewed by experts who indicated that this development would improve the water runoff problem and would improve the geologic conditions. Shc requested Commission approval of this application. Shc has worked very had to met every requirement as put forward by staff. Commissioner Caldwell commented that Ms. Fanelli hats stated that she received a recommendation from staff that the owner has a right to develop un the lot. She stated that she did not recall having that statement reported to the Commission previously with this application. It was her understanding that development wits :t privilege and not a right. Community Development llirector Curtis responded that the City Attorney has indicated that there needs to be some reasonable use of the property available to the owner. It may not necessarily be this house or a smaller house. Yuu would need w review the land use that is permitted in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. However, construction of homes and accessory structures may be Difficult to do un a slope of this size and magnitude. The City Attorney has stated that the Commission could review a reasonable alternative land use. He statcct that it was staft's position that the Commission look at it from a legal standpoint, that the applicant has a right to use the property because a conditional Certificate of Compliance has been recorded. The issue hefore the Commission was that of determining what was the best use for the property. Ms. Fanelli commented that this proposal was nut prepared blindly. Many meetings have been conducted with staff. She felt that it was important ur understand that people, Commission and staff go through changes. She felt that the applicants tried to comply with what was put before them. She felt that it was imperative for people to be able to put faith into what they are told and directed to do. City Attorney Faubion clarified for the record that a conditional Certificate of Compliance was recorded for property that was not legally created. The Certificate of Compliance and tells you how to obtain legal status fur that property. The City's fear that the property was not legally created was in fact realized and resulted in a Certificate of Compliance being issued and recorded. PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 17 - Chairman Asfour asked if the lot line was approved, would it create legal lots. City Attorney Faubion responded that the lot line adjustment would meet a condition of the Certificate of Compliance. Jim Bober 15325 Norton Road, stated his opposition to three variances because the construction of the home was not in compliance with City Code Section 15-13.010 which indicates such things as preservation of natural landscaping, preservatiat of soil conservation, fencing based on steepness of slope, tto disturbances of natural terrain, and minimizing hazards. He felt that the home would somehow violate all points. He also felt that the home would violate his right to privacy. He would have a 126 foot lung structure looking down his pool area. fle also felt that approval of the home would violate the hillside with a home of excessive bulk that does not fit into the surrounding buildings and neighborhood. He yuestioned if there were any studies completed that identified the long term effect of having a 4,200 square foot houxe supported at an 8i percent slope, forcing the structure into his property if some catastrophe happens (earth quake or landslide). He noted that there was continuous sliding in the area. He expressed concern for his family's safety with a landslide. He yuestioned what measures would he undertaking during construction of the home to ensure land stability. He also yuestioned if bonding could he required to ensure that the project is completed and to ensure that land stability is accomplished? Chairman Asfour asked what Mr. Bober would like to sec developed on this property. Mr. Bober responded that he would like to see agricultural uses be allowed on the site. lIe felt that the property owners bought the site knowing its constraints. Noreen Vamaoka, 2(164 Sigal Drive, informed the Conunission that her residence suffered severe damage from the October 1989 earthquake and that it took three years to repair the damages. She stated that she had extensive geologic survey performed. She felt that this area was precarious and very sensitive. She recommended that further longitudinal and geologic studies be required for the area. She indicated that the area is prone to flooding during rainstorms and is located near an earthquake zone and fault line. The damage sustained to residents can be severe and she hoped that other residents du nut experience the damages that she has sustained because the area is unstable. Commissioner Patrick commented that the applicant was proposing to undertake the measures which Ms. Vamaoka stated that she has completed. She inquired if Ms. Vamaoka has reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant. Ms. Vamaoka responded that she has not reviewed the plans. Beverly Phipps informed the Commission that he resides on the property directly below the site under discussion. He requested that the Commission deny the slope variance. Ile provided the Commission wish a diagram showing an 8~4'c and 734'n (average) slope. Although the home has a hvo story roof line, it appears as a three story home with a very large frontage. H.e felt that the very steep slope forces the design of a linear structure. It provides every room with a view of. the whole valley. Conversely, the whole valley will have a view of the home. iie stated that it has been indicated that Inndslides can be mitigated. i PLANNING COMMI~JN MINUTES OCTOBER 2(i, 1994 PAGE - 18 - He did not feel that with the construction of the home, it would allow for natural vegetation to occur. He felt that the existing vegetation would be significantly interrupted by the heavy eyuipment to be utilized. He requested that the City Attorney review the following: 1) would the City indemnify the citizens who live below the site from the possible consequences that could occur? 2) that the adjacent residents be provided with a written account of the condition under which the conditional Certificate of Compliance was granted and what the conditions mean? 3) he offered the alternative solution of condemnation for consideration because the site was not suitable to build a home upon, one that could be paid for by the collective response of the citizens who see the hillside. He questioned if it was public record that;staff has mislead the Constantine to believe that they had permission to build on the site. !He felt that a terrible precedent would be set if the home was allowed to he built upon. He felt that the variances should he denied so that privacy and views are protected for individuals who live above and below the site and for the valley residents. Commissioner Patrick questioned if any damage has been sustained from the landslides to date. Mr. Phipps ;responded that he has not experienced any significant damage to date from landslides. Murry Farrow, 20860 Kittridge Road ,expressed concern with the structural integrity of Kittridge Road and damage to the hillside. He noted that the geologist reports rules out the possibility of stability of Kittridge Road. He felt that by granting the variances to allow this project to continue, that the applicant be required to incur the responsibility for the maintenance of lii~ttridge Road or that assurance be provided to the residents that should the geologist repcirt be proven wrong, that the property owner would repair any road damage. i i Thomas Gross, 20877 Kittridge Road, stated that he did not believe that there were any adjacent reeidentsi that would support this massive structure on the vertical cliff. He informed the Commission that the existing road was a private road, maintained by the homeowners. He stated that the homeowners spent over $20,000 trying to stabilize the road. He felt that the road was very unstable and that the tree of massive eyuipment to build the home would add to its instability. Gail Cheeseman, ?0800 Kittridge Road, stated that she felt that this development would undermine the building codes. Ms. Fanelli reiterated that the Costantins were not experts in geolo~ry or engineering. She felt that it was important to remember that they were required to make the studies by the City that lead to these findings. She also noted that this proposal has been cleared by the specialists. Commissioner Abshire commented that the staff report mentioned that about four eucalyptus trees were to he removed. At his site visit, he noticed that the eucalyptus trees were the most prominent growth on the site. Under schedule B, the applicant indicates that six c:ucalypucs treeti are to be removed for the house and grounds and l0 for slide repairs. He yuestionetl which number was more accurate. Ms. Fanelli responded that Mr. Coats has PLAI`'NING COMMlON MINUTES • OCTOBER ?6, 1994 PAGE - 19 - suggested that all the Eucalyptus trees be removed per his report dated July 19, 1994. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the arhorist report referred to by Ms. Fanelli was not included in the Commission's packet but that it would he furnished to the Commission at its next meeting. Commissioner Patrick inquired what plans, if any, do the owners have to post a bond to do whatever is required to mitigate any liability should anything occur with construction problems and the like. She commented that the site was a very steep slope and bringing a tractor to the site would be difficult to do. Ms. Fanelli responded that the Building Department requires that prior to issuance of building permits that a bond for all improvements be posted along with an indemnification bond to ensure the successful completion of the property. Commissioner Patrick questioned if the owners were willing to pay for the repair of the roadway should it collapse? Ms. Fanelli responded that the issue has not come until this evening so she could not answer the question. She stated that Mr. Gross built his home a few years ago and that she presumed that heavy equipment went ttp the road to build the house. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED 1'O CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 1028 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Chairman Asfour asked the Citv Attornev what the Citv`s liability would be should the Commission approve development on the site and should something happen at a later date. Ciry Attorney Faubion responded that cities are not liable for their discretionary action absence of gross negligence. If the Commission approved a project given information that the project would not fly, then their would he a yttestion of liability down the litre. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Commission could be pragmatic in its discussion with what recently happened with the Bass subdivision on the Eden Road area wit}[ the road collapsing with serious damage to several homes and landslides all around the subdivision. She noted that the roads involved were private and that the City declined dedication of ttte roads because it had real concerns about the stability of the whole area. The City ended up providing a solution for the situation and incurred some cost. Pragmatically, the City ends up being the source of the solution when the citizens have no where else to turn. Attorney Faubion stated that the issue of liability was extremely complicated. She requested that the Commission keep in mind that there are Ieg:tl and practical questions. Legally, she felt that the liability may be limited, but as a practical matter, the Ciry has to deal with the citizens of the community. The City may take on [Wore liability than it is legally obligated to because of its citizenry, She gave the opinion that the legal status stops at a certain point and then practicality takes over. Commissioner Kaplan inquired what liability do the individual Commissioners have with this application? Citv Attorney Faubion responded that ,o long as the Commission acts as an agent for the City, and if its decisions were made taking into account all information to make a sound decision, it would he exempt from liability to the extent that the City is. PLANNING COMM~iON' MINUTES • OCTOBER 2(, 1994 PAGE - 20 - Chairman Asfour stated that it was his opinion that the owners were entitled to use the lot whether it be this house, a smaller house, or something else. The yuestion ends up being not whether there is to be development on this lot, but what can be built on it. Commissioner Caldwell commented that it appeared to her that any structure(s) to he developed on this property would require a variance to the slope. Commissioner Mtrrakami commented that Mr. Phipps raised a yuestion regarding setting a precedent for the lot as far as degree, steepness, and the severe constraints of this type of property. He inquired if staff was aware of other lots similar to this one that could be developed in the future if this proposal was approved. Community Development Director Curtis responded that there were no another lots in the City in the extreme situation as this lot was that he was aware of. Commissioner Kaplan read the "Purposes of Article" from the Hillside Residential district (HR 15-13.010), that took affect on December 1993. Commissioner Abshire commented shat this was a difficult application. He felt tlt;tt the site was a hazard and that in some point in time, an accident would occur. For that reason, he stated that he could not see a home built on the site. He felt that development would be changing a wooded hillside to something that would look like a major structure. He felt that construction of the home would give the appearance of a hotel, changing Saratoga. Commissioner Patrick commented that at looking at the site, she could not imagine anyone purchasing this lot with the intention of building a home that they would reside in. She could not see a home being built in an unstable area. She felt that a home built on the hill would be seen by everyone. Sltc did nut feel that the home would fit in the hillside and would stand out from the hillside. She stated that she could not support the home and that she did not know what she could approve on the site. She felt that whatever was approved, would need to be much smaller and more sensitive and configured with the hillside. Commissioner Caldwell stated her concurrence with Commissioner Patrick's comments. She indicated that she reviewed the design review findings and that she could not find anv common ground between the purpose of the zoning district and the design review findings that need to he made to approve construction on the site. Shc felt that every finding was at odd with what the Commission is being asked to review. She could not state that no structure would be appropriate for this site, but that she had to admit that she finds it hard even imagining a structure that would be appropriate for it. She believed that the site was not appropriate for a home. She felt that the property was zoned appropriately for development in association with vegetation, orchards, or vineyards. She worried that even with that type of development that any machinery that was brought in to the site would pose a safety hazard to those ~vho live below the site. She clid not believe that this issue has been adequately addressed. She felt that it would probably be possible to develop the site for agricultural uses as permitted by the zoning district without using the type of machines that would be necessary to build a home on the site. PLANNING COMMl~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 21 - Commissioner Murakami stated that when he originally looked at the site and looking at all the variances, he felt that the applicant had a right to build something on the lot. The main concern to him was that of liability. [ie felt that the land was unstable. Therefore, he could not apprcrve the home because of these factors. Commissioner Kaplan stated that in order to grant a variance, the Commission would need to make a finding that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the properties in the vicinity. She felt that this was a good ground for the Commission to deny the variance because of the potential impact to the public healthy, safety and welfare. She stated that she could not approve this house and that the agricultural use could be approved if it was a permitted use. Chairman Asfour commented that the question was what the owner could build on the lot. He stated that he could not support the application as proposed because it was too large for the hill and that it would stand out. He inquired if the applicant would want a vote tonight. Ms. Fanelli requested that a vote be taken on each separate item (design review, lot line adjustment and variance). Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it would be staffs recommendation to have the Commission act on each item separately and then direct staff to prepare resolutions on the requested actions. The items would then be continued to allow staff to return with resolutions incorporating the Commission' action. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the Citv Attornev felt that the Commission should act on the applications as a group or whether the Commission could act on the lot line separately? City Attorney Faubion responded that she would suggest that the Commission keep the three applications as a group until such time that the Commission takes final action on all three applications. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MADE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION REFLECTING TI-IF, COMMISSION'S INTENT TO APPROVE APPLICATION LL-94-008. Commissioner Abshire asked why the Commission was acting on the lot line adjustment before the variance. Community Development Director Curtis responded that action could be taken on the adjustment so long as it does not increase the intensity of the land use. Fur example, there currently exist two lots and that there would still remain two lots with the net result of no significant changes. THE COMMISSION RECESSED FOR A FEW MINUTES AT THE REQUEST OF'l'HE CITY ATTORNEY TO ALLOW I~ER THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITII THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED FOLLOWING DISCUSSION Wl1'H THE CITY A"ITORNEY. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI WITHDREW THEIR MOTIONS. PLANNING COMMI~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-22- City Attorney Faubion provided a brief description of the discussion that was conducted. She commented that there were complicated issues. The decision that the Commission would need to make is permeated with difficult questions. There were comments regarding options available. It seemed to her that given the risk, the number, the diversity and the difficulty of the issues necessary to decide on the set of applications, she suggested that the Commission direct staff to lay out the options available to the Commission and include appropriate actions (i.e., draft resolution of approval, draft resolution for something smaller nature). She noted that there were a number of questions regarding of liability. She stated that she would like to have answered as much of those questions as possible before the Commission moves towards any kind of direction. She suggested that the Commission request that staff lay out the various options that it has for its next meeting. Chairman Asfour recommended that the public hearing be reopened and that staff he asked, having heard the Commission's concern regarding size and other issues raised, to return with appropriate recommendations. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAICAMI MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC AT 11:02 P.M. Ms. Fanelli stated that she did not understand why action could not be taken nn the lot line adjustment and why it needed to return to the Commission. Community Development Director responded that when there arc multiple :tpplic:ttiotts similar to this request, staff would like to keep all the applications together so that there are not different approval dates. Staff would recommend that all applications be continued, irrespective of how simple one may seem. City Attorney Faubion clarified that keeping the applications together does not imply nor suggest that the same action has to occur nn all three applications. She felt that it would be difficult to have the three parts of the application somehow split up. Ms. Fanelli informed the Commission that it was the original intent to apply for a lot line adjustment separately but that it was suggested by staff that the three applications should be considered together. Commissioner Caldwell responded that she did not see any difference in the comments that were made by Ms. Fanelli than what action the Commission would be taken this evening (i.e., keeping the three applications together). The continuance would give staff the opportunity to draft resolutions for the Commission's review in addition to providing additional analysis. Chairman Asfour clarified that the action to be taken tonight on the lot line was not to approve it, but to request that staff return with a resolution. Ms. Fanelli commented that she wanted to proceed with the lot line adjustment because she wanted to get one of the applications out of the process so that action could be taken on the rest of the applications. PLANNING COMMiS•N MINIJTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - ?3 - COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PA-CRICK MOVED TO CON'T'INUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS DR-94-031. LL-94-008 & V-94-012 TO THF.. COMMISSION'S MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 1994. 7'HE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIEll ABSENT). 3. llR-94-026 - House; Lots 10 & 11, Tract 7770, Old Oak Way, request for Design V-94-017 - Review approval to construct a new (1,950 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant hillside parcel. Variance approval is also requested to allow the proposed front yard fencing to exceed 3 ft. in height. The subject property is 5.4 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the report nn this item Commissioner Kaplan asked if the site met geologic standards. Planner Walgren responded that the project had been reviewed by William Cotton's office and that the plans have been granted a clearance for grading, drainage and construction for this property. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 11:12 p.m. Goodwin Steinberg, architect, San Jose, informed the Commission that the applications, Mr. and Mrs. David House were present should the Commission have any questions for them. He informed the Commission that the variance request for a fence. The house was a one story home with existing trees well above the roof line. He provided the Commission with a model and described the design of the proposed home along with picture samples of homes that he has built that show coloring, details and quality of the architecture. Commissioner Kaplan stated that if it were not for the tact that the applicant wished to have a swimming pool on the same building pad, she questioned it the house cuuld be moved off the steep side of the hill (pushing the home back)? Mr. Steinberg responded that the rooms were worked into the sculpture of the hill and that he did nut feel that [hero was room to change the structure without changing the building. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, he indicated that the design of the home was that of a contemporary, California Ranch design. Planner Walgren noted fnr the record that letter were distributed to the Commission from Andy Carter and Kathy Dolan, .[3194 Pierce Road. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the location of the fence that required the variance. Mr. Steinberg responded that the fence was proposed quite a distance from the home. He indicated that the fence was proposed for security reasons and that the design of the fence was a very open, six foot wrought iron fence. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the reason for the use of metal fencing material. Mr. Steinberg responded that the wrought iron fence was transparent, light and would allow one to see tluough the landscaping. The metal fence would not disturb the look and would be more durable than wood (maintenance). PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-24- COMMiSS1ONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVEI.) "I'O CLOSE THE PUBLIC: HEARING AT 11:29 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern regarding the design review because the structure violates Design Review Policy No. 1 (i.e., avoids exposure, exposed underfloor areas, and avoid excessive soil removal and fill). She felt that the overhang and the excessive columns violates those policies. Chairman Asfour commented that it would be his preference to have the structure moved up the hill to accommodate the two story building. "hhe applicant was trying to minimize the height of the structure by moving it down and cutting it into the hill. Commissioner Caldwell stated her support of the design. She felt that if there was an extent to which it violates the design review policy, it would be an insignificant amount. She recollected discussion from the last Planning Commission meeting and discussion of design in the joint session with the City Council talking about the difficulty of fostering designs that are sensitive to the hillside by the use of natural materials that conform to the vast majority of. the City's zoning regulations. She felt that this proposal was as close as she has seen for a hillside home of this size. Commissioner Murakami stated that based on the problems of this ridge, that this was one of the best hillside home design he has seen since he has been a Commissioner. He indicated that he did not have any problems with any atspect of the proposal. Commissioner Patrick commented that this house was as good a hillside home that the Commission would see. She stated that her only concern was that of the use of metal fencing. She would prefer the use of a different type of fencing for this house and for the hillside. She encouraged the use of fences as seen on some hillsides that utilize metal mesh in between wooden posts. !Tanner Walgren noted that it is a hillside requirement that fencing be opened, with a four inch opening. He felt that the met fencing would comply with the hillside requirement. Commissioner Abshire concurred with the comments made by his fellow Commissioners. He felt that this was the finest hillside home that the Commission has reviewed. He stated his preference of a fence three feet in height because it would be more attractive in his viewpoint. Chairman Asfour indicated that he did not have a problem with the proposal. COMM1SSlONERS MURAKAMI/CALDWELL h1OVED TO APPROVE F21:SOI_UTION NOS. DR-94-026 AND V-94-U'I7. "1~1-IE MO"LION C.'ARRII;D 6-0 (COMMISSIONP.R SIEGI,~121EI)A.IISEN'I'). Commissioner Calchvcll commented that in her review of the next two items, she was nut sure that they could be handled quickly. PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 25 - Chairman Asfour informed the public as to the policy that no new public hearings would he considered after 11:30 p.m. and that the Commission has indicated that it is its intent to continue items 4, > and ti but that they would be the first items of discussion at the Commission's November 9 meeting. 4. Sb1-94-008 - Chang/Tsai; Burgundy Way/Fruitvale Avenue, request for Site Modi- V-94-023 - fication approval to allow the installation of an entry gate across a private road that accesses four lots pursuant to Chapter l5 of the City Code. The applicants are also requesting Variance approval to allow an eight foot high masonry wall along the Fruitvale Ave. frontage of Parcels C and D where six ft. is the maximum permitted. The subject property includes four separate parcels which are approximately 40,000 sy. ft. each and are located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. 5. DR-94-016 - Chang; 19486 Burgundy ~Vay (Parcel D), request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,890 sy. ft. single story residence on a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter IS of the City Code. A swimming pool and 100 sy. ft. pool accessory structure are also proposed. The subject property is approximately 42,410 sy. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. 6. LL-94-00(- Cornelius/Moure; W 199 & 14321 Short Hill Ct., request for I.cx Linc V-94-018 - Adjustrnent to relocate a side property line between nvu parcels pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Parcel 397-14-023, Lands of Cornelius, is also requesting Variance approval to construct a five foot high wrought iron fence and entry gate within the required front yard setback where three feet is the maximum height permitted. The subject properties are approximately 40,000 sy. ft. and are located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS YA'1'RICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR AGENDA ITEMS 4, i AND 6 '1'O NOVEMBER 9. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COlV1A1[SSIONER SIEGFRIED AKSEN'1'). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of this Saturday morning's EIR scoping session to be held at the Odd Fellow's site. It is a meeting being conducted by staff. and the EiR consultant. The meeting would be an adjourned meeting and pubic notices have been sent to properties within 500 feet of the site. 7~he visit would be similar to that of a land use visit. He informed the Commission that the EIR Wati anticipated to be distributed by December 1, 1994 for public review. Ile encouraged all Planning Cornmissioners to attend the scoping session. ,1 :. PLANNING COMMIS•N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE-2C- COMMISSION ITEMS Chairman Asfour commented that when the Oden property came before the Planning Commission, he was under the impression that the Heritage Commission had reviewed that property because it was presented to the Planning Commission that the heritage Commission had reviewed the Oden property and had given its approval. Fie wanted to make sure that in the future that the staff verifies that the Heritage Commission has reviewed the issues prior to the item being considered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the minutes from the last meeting reflects that she asked a question about lot lines and the role of the Planning Conunissioners. She was told that lot line adjustments had to come before the Planning Commission and that previously she was told that they didn't have to come before the Commission. Community Dcvclupment Director Curtis stated that the City has an option of raluiring a public hearing for lot line adjustments and that the Commission approves them. Planner Walgren further clarified that discussion was that of the difference between the Map Act requirements versus the Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Map Act does nut require the Planning Commission to approve lut line adjustments. The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission take action on lot line adjustments. Commissioner Kaplan felt that may be something that could he revisited if the Committee was constituted as was discussed at a Council meeting, as to what kinds of things can be introduced into the Planning process to speed the process or take up less time on staff and the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the Council's "Cornrnunication Policy" stifles debate and discussion. She requested that the City Council hold a meeting with all Conunissions to find out if the policy could be adjusted in any way. She informed the Commission that Commissioner Siegfried agreed with her recommendation. Chairman Asfour stated that he opposed the policy and felt that it was unconstitutional. Ile felt that the policy needed to be addressed. Ile requested that staff schedule a meeting with the Council and all the Commissions to address this issue. Community Development Director informed the Commission that he would inform the City Council of the Commission's request. Chairman Asfour noted for the record that he would not he present at the November 1, 1994 meeting. COMM1IUNICA'1'IONS Written 1. City Council Mintrtcs - 10/~ & Ill/I I/94 2. Notices for the 11/9/93 Planning Commission ~4eeting Oral City Council ~- ~ :. PLANNTNG COMMIS~N MINUTES • OCTOBER 26, 1994 PAGE - 27 - AI).TOURNMENT -There being no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., November 1, 1994, Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allcnclale Ave., Saratoga, CA. IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK it\Y(:IU2(~}I.ti:\R