Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-22-1994 Planning Commission Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES " NOVEMBER 22, 1994 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenrte Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. Roll Call Present: Abshirc, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Siegfried, Asfour Late: None Absent: Caldwell City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No cotmnents were offered. MINUTES November 9. 1994 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 9, 1994 MINLITES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 4, paragraph 4, line 14 to read: "...MarcosHeight approval was for an entrance element, not a care. Agate would noE be permitted because i€ it would eventually be a private road - Page 5, paragraph 8, last sentence to read: "However, he would not want to see a trend of families in Saratoga fencing themselves off to the rest of to tlie: community." - Page 11, paragraph 6, second sentence to read: "...Henoted that in the Saratoga area, single story homes of 18 feet or less would sc~ riot: be required to go through architectural review. - Page 14, last paragraph. change the word "ttndee" to ":undq". Staff is to review the tapes to determine if the word "indemnify" was the appropriate word to use in the first sentence of the last paragraph. - Page I5, paragraph 6, correct the name of the Saratoga Fire Chief to read: Ernie Kraule. TILE MOTION CARRIEi) 5-0-1 (COMMISSIONER MUI2AKAMI ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). PLANNING COMMISSION MINLTTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE-2- ORAL COJ4A4UNICATION No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTBVG AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 18, 1994. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Waleren informed the Commission that there were two minor corrections as follows: 1. Item No. 8, Page 46, condition 14 of the approval resolution, the City Arborist has revised the security deposit amount from $8,781 to $6,897. 2. item 11, page 87, under the discussion of the trees that would be necessary to be removed, the rcpon should he corrected to note that a total of 16 frees would he removed to accommodate construction. Seven trees are recommended for removal and nine trees could otherwise remain but are within the proposed building envelop. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. LL-94-002 - Chadwick & Barkas; 21152 Chadwick Ct. & 13248 reyuest for I..ot Linc V-94-015 - Padero Ct., Adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line between a 2.07 acre parcel and a 2.79 acre parcel per Chapter l4 of the City Code. A Variance is also reyuircd to allow one parcel to he under the tninimutn lot size reyuircment based on the parcel's new average site slope per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Both parcels are located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (Cont. from the 11/9/94 public hearing to adopt Resolutions of denial: application expires 4/19/95). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SiEGFRIED MOVED '1'O APPROVE CONSENT CALF.NI)AI2 i'1'HM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 2. SD-94-002 - I,cster/Von Uorsten; 14120 Saratoga Avenue, request for and UR-94-011 - Tentative Parcel Map, llesign Review Variance approvals to subdivide DR-94-012 - a 1.3 acre parcel into two (2) separate parcels and to construct two new V-94-003 - single-family residences requiring Variances to 'toning Ordinance development regulations. "1'he subject property is an interior parcel located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (Cont. to 1/11/95 at the reyuest of the applicattr application expires 3/29/95). PI.,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 3 - 3. V-94-019 - Holt; 14690 Oak Street, request for Variance approval to construct a 625 sy. ft. one-story addition 9.83 ft. from the exterior side property line where 15 ft. is the minimum distance required pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The total proposed Moor area including the existing detached garage is 2,277 sq. ft. The subject property is approximately 7,525 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zone district. (Cont. to 12/14/94 public hearing at the reyuest of the applicant due to ccmtlicts with the hearing date: application expires 3/12/95). 4. LL-94-011 - Krzich/Nystrom; 1.4801 & 14711 Gypsy Hill Rd., reyuest for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate a parcel boundary between Lots 12 and 13 of the Sobey Oaks subdivision pursuant to Section 14-SO.Ol0o1' the City Code. Both parcels arc within the 1t-1-40,000 zoning district. (Cont. from 11/9/94 to allow the applicant to make technical revisions to the plan; application expires 2/22/95). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMT MOVED "p0 APPROVE PLJBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2, 3, AND 4 BY MINU"I'E ACTTON. TIIE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMTSSTONER CALDWELL ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. SD-94-003 - Kennedy; 19900 Cox Ave., request fqr Tentative Map approval to subdivide a 2.6 acre parcel into five single-family residential building silos ranging from 13,769 to 22,650 sq. ft. in area pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property is located at 19900 Cox Ave. , on the corner of Cumberland Dr. and Cox Ave. ,and is currently developed with a single residence. All five proposed building sites would access directly onto Cumberland Drive. (Cont. from 11/9/94 to allow Traffic Engineer to respond to traffic circulation issues raised: application expires 3/1/95. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Patrick noted that driveway locations were not shown on the tentative map. She inquired if the driveways would be reviewed at time of design review. Planner Walgren responded that the Commission would review the driveway locations at time of design review. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THIS ITEM "1'O YUBI,TC I~EARING AT 7:38 P.M. Barry Barnes, Lewis llevelopment, expressed that he felt that the City Engineer has addressed the concerns of the neighbors and requested Commission approval of the tentative map. PLANNING COMMISSION MINLiTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE-4- COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:42 P.M. 1'HE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-94-003. TIIE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). 6. TUP-94-003 - Prince of Peace Lutheran Church; 12770 Saratoga Ave., request for Temporary Use pern~it approval to allow the Prince of Peace i.uthcran Church to participate in the church transitional housing program for the homeless per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The church will provide shelter, meals and employment assistance to a group of 15 transitionally homeless adults. The hours of operation will he from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a. m. beginning November 26 through December 31. 1994. Communi[y llevelopment llirector Curtis presented the staff report on [his item. Ile informed the Commission that the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church did not file for a conditional use permit last year, thus necessitating a reyucst for temporary use permit. The conditional use permit has been placed on the January calendar to ensure that it is processed. CIIAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THIS ITEM TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Marjorie Schultz, metnber of the Prince of Peace Lutheran Church congregation, informed the Commission that she was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. COMMISSIONERS SiF.,GFRiED/ML?RAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:47 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. TUP-94-003. TIIE MOTION CARRiF.D 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CATDWELL ABSENT). 7. SA4-94-UU9 - Doluca: 15043 Gypsy Hill Rd.,reyucst for Site Modification approval to allow the a>nstruclion of a swimming pool with associated decking and an exemption from the hillside fencing rcyuirement to allow the area of enclosure to exceed the permitted 4,000 sy. ft. per the Tentative Map conditions of approval. The subject property is Lot ~8 of the San Marcos Heights subdivision and is located within an R-I- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE-S- Cotmissioner Patrick noted that the square footage of the fence was 27,518 square leet, not including the pool area. She questioned if the actual area to he fenced was greater than that indicated. Planner Walgren stated that it was his belief that the total area of fence enclosure would be approximately 29,000 syuare feet. He informed the Cotmission that City Codc allows the pool area to be exempt since it is required to have a fence enclosure and that the pool area .vas approximately 1,700 syuare feet. Commissioner Patrick asked if the pool area would be the area that is surrounded by the wrought iron fence. Planner Walgren responded that the area exetnpted would he the pool and a portion of the decking (about halt of the area enclosed by the wrought iroh fence). Commissioner Kaplan inyuired if there was going to be fence post digging under the trees. She stated that at the site visit. the back of the lot did not have any trees. Planner Walgren confirmed that this lot did not contain any significant oak trees as do the upper lots 29, 30 and 31. Commissioner Kaplan inyuired how the back of the lot would be accessed to dig the post holes. Planner Walgren responded that access could be achieved from the ri<zht side of the house. CHAIRMAN ASInUR OPENED THIS ITEM TO PLiBLIC IIEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Doluca, property owner, informed the Commission that he would respond to questions which it may have. Commissioner Patrick inyuired why the entire perimeter of the property was being fenced off. Mr. Doluca responded that the primary reason for fencing the perimeter of the property was due to the open space located to the rear of the property. !~encing would prohibit access to his property. Also, the fencing would provide an enclose for his dog. Robin Atherton, landscape designer, informed the Commission that the total square footage of the fenced area included the pool area. She also informed the Commission that privacy was of concern to the property owners due to the parties being conducted within the open space area. Cc.>mmissioner Murakami questioned where the drainage tvn off of the impervious area around the pool would go to? Ms. Atherton responded that the drainage. for the entire project would be taken out of the property. Commissioner Kaplan inquired what type of surface would be used around the patio (would it be impervious material)'? Ms. Atherton responded shat llte type of tnatcrial has not been determined. COMMISSIONERS MLJRAKAMI/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC IIEARING AT 7:55 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick staled that she was opposed to fencing of the property as many individuals were requesting that their properties he fenced off. She felt that properties are PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTF..S NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE-6- supposed to be opened areas. She stated that she would not support the entire enclosure. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he could understand Commissioner Patrick's concern if the property was located on the northwest hillside. Ile stated that it was his believe that this site wits unique in the. sense that the public right-of-way easement exists that does not exist on hillside properties. The public right-of-way easement would allow individuals to come and go on this property. Because of the site's uniyueness, he felt that it was unfortunately appropriate to allow fencing. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried and would agree to support approval of the request. Commissioner Abshire commented that in previous applications, he opposed fencing. As a master of policy, he would hate to see Saratoga fenced over. However, the applicant has indicated that he wants to control his dog and maintain his privacy from the public right-of- way. He reiterated that he still hates to see fencing off of properties. Chairman Asfour stated that in general, he does not like fencing. But having been out to the site several times. he felt that the site was a unique one, backing onto a public open space easement. He stated his support to staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONERS SIEGPRIED/M(1RAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE. RF.SOI,UTION NO. SM-94-009. TIIE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 (COMM1SS1ONER I'A'1'RICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER CALDWEI.L ABSENT). 8. 1)R-94-03(1 - Patterson/Olsen; 1~195.Piedmont Rd., reyuest fur Design Review approval to construct a new Ei,174 sy. ft. two-story residence and demolish an existing residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. A swimming pool, open cabana, and a 45 sq. ft. pool accessory structure are also proposed. The subject property is approximately 3.7 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan commented that it did not appear to her that there was a predominance of two story homes in the neighborhood. She inyuired as to the preparer of the numbers of two story homes in the neighborhood. Planner Wal~~ren responded that page 10 of Exhibit "A" was prepared and submitted by the applicant. Staff has accepted the exhibit and that it was used for the basis for recotntnending a second story exception. Commissioner Kaplan noted for the record that she did not feel that homes located five blocks away should be taken into account. She did not consider that distance part of the neighborhood and that she considers a neighborhood as being those homes in the immediate vicinity. She felt that when a close decision is being made, she would not go five blocks away to determine two story predominance. However, she did not feel that it mattered in this case. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 7 - CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THIS ITEM TO PUBi,iC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Bob Patterson, applicant, commented that the house was designed to minimize any impact to the existing oak trees. Von Haws, project designer, informed the Commission that he tried to be sensitive to the neighbors, the site and the existing [recs. He noted that the design of the home was "elegant simplicity". Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern regarding the two large trees located on the site. She inquired if there would be construction occurring under the dripline of tree Jt6 (36-inch coast live oak) located adjacent to the existing driveway. She commented that following the study session that was held with the Tree Preservation Committee that it has heightened her concern regarding any activity occurring under the dripline of large oak trees. Ms. Olsen, co-applicant, commented that a condition of approval stipulates that tree no. G fie significantly trimmed. She did not believe that the home would intrude on the dripline of tree no. 6. She stated that she would not object to the fencing requirement. Planner Walgren informed the Commission [hat the City Arborist has reviewed this project and that his conditions of approval require that the end-weights that have been improperly trimmed hack previously on tree no.6 be corrected. The City arborist has also illustrated on the arborist map located on the back of the staff report where construction would be acceptable. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPi.AN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0(COMMiSSiONER CAi.DWELL ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-030, AMENDING CONllI'1'ION 14 TO REFLECT Ti-IE SECLJRITY DEPOSIT' FOR TIIE MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF "1'HE 'FREES IN THE AMOUNT OF SG,897 INSTEAD OF S8,781. THE MO'1'fON CARRIEll 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CAI,DWELL ABSENT). 9. DR-94-047 - Foster; 12516 Saratoga Ave., request for Design Review approval to reconstruct an existing low-pitched roof with a new 19 ft. tall pitched roof. The project was issued building permits and construction commenced until City building inspectors discovered that the new roofline was taller than the maximum 18 ft. permitted administratively. New structures, and additions thereto, in excess of 18 ft. in height require Planning Commission public hearing approval. The subject property is 10,000 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received and distributed to the Planning Commission from Marcia Farris PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2~, 1994 PAGE-8- acknowledging that there has been a history of code violations on this property and recommending Commission denial of the design review request. He informed the Commission that denial of the request would require that the roof line be dismantled in its entirety and be brought down the extra toot. Commissioner Kaplan inquired who was responsible tier exceeding the height limitation. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the homeowner, acting as his own contractor, was the individual ~vho built the roof line and was responsible for exceeding the 18 foot height limit. Commissioner Patrick inquired if the additional foot of roof line affects the home's second story habitability. Planner Walgren responded that the additional foot in roof height does not affect the habitability of the attic area and that restrictions are outlined in the resolution to ensure that it does not become converted into a habitable area. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED TI-IIS ITEM TO PLJBLIC IIEARING A'I' 8:12 P.M. Mr. Foster, 12516 Saratoga Avenue, applicant, informed the Commission that the roof height was exceeded by only 7 to 8 inches. He informed the Commission that he requested that his architect provide a G and 12 pitch root and that when the rafters were put up, it was noticed that they did not tit. The beams were raised by 8 inches to make the rafters fit. Chairman Asfour asked Mr. Foster if he was aware of the conditions as stated in the resolution of approval. Mr. Foster responded that he was aware of the conditions of approval. He informed the Commission that the only violation shat exists on site was the storage of his motor home. He questioned why he was the only individual in the neighborhood that was being harassed tier code violations. Commissioner Patrick inquired when Mr. Foster discovered that the roof height was too high. Mr. Foster responded that the City inspector made hitn aware of the situation. He reiterated that it was an honest mistake, one not made intentionally. He informed the Commission that he could not afford to tear down the roof and start over again. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern that the beam was raised over a toot. She inquired if Mr. Foster was aware that the beam needed to be raised by a foot to install the rafter. Mr. Foster responded that he was not aware that the height was exceeded by a foot when the City inspector came by to inspect the roof work. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if the individuals who performed the roof work were licensed contractors. Mr. Foster responded that one individual was a contractor and the others were friends of his and that the plans were misread. Commissioner Kaplan commented that the neighbor who has placed a complaint indicates that the roof was obtrusive <tnd not in harniony with that of the neighborhood. Shc agreed with the statement. She asked if the Commission could consider the architecture as it relates to the rest of the neighborhood. Planner Walgren responded that this was tt design review application and that the Commission would need to make design review findings. One of PI.ANNiNG COMMISSION MINl1TES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 9 - the findings would be that it was architecmral compatible with the existing homes along Saratoga Avenue. Commissioner Siegfried inquired as to the height of the attack space because in reviewing the plans, it did not appear to be taller than an average sized individual. Planner Walgren responded that from the top of the roof to that of the floor of the attic was about nine feet. He stated that there was a requirement that the ceiling be constructed at a horizontal member of 5.5 feet and that conversion of the attic into a habitable space would require city building permits. Mr. Foster informed the Commission that the horizontal members would be less than five feet because it would provide greater support for the roof. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he did nol have problems wish the dormers so long as they are to remain as architectural Features and that they are well designed. He recommended that staff require that the column ties be as low as reasonable possible to make sure that it does not become a habitable space. Cotnmissioner Abshire asked if the roof was being cut through with the installation of the dormers. Mr. Foster stated that the dormers would sit on top of the roof. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the dormers would he no taller than t'ive feet. COMMISSIONERS KAPI.AN/MLIRAKAMI MOVED '1'O CLOSE THE 1'IJBLIC IIEARING AT 8:25 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWEi,L ABSENT). Cotnmissioner Kaplan inquired if a licensed contractor would be required to pull permits or could anyone come into City hall for a permit to construct a roof on their home without being licensed'? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the applicant applied for a homeowners permit. The hontcowncr becomes responsible for the construction and any liability associated with construction. He informed the Commission that staff reviewed this application to determine if it was 8 inches or 12 inches and whether it was a minor deviation from City Codes and that staff is authorized to approve an 18 toot roof over the counter. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not believe that the big sloping roof was compatible with the existing neighborhood and could not support its design. Commissioner Murakami asked staff regarding the coping allowance on the roof line. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that City code would allow the project ro go up [0 26 feet maximum. To go over 18 feet and go up to 2C feet would require Planning Commission review and approval. To exceed 2fi feet would require a variance. He noted that the roof height is permitted so long as the findings can be made. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Siegfried commented that he agreed with Commissioner Kaplan shat the home does not look like the other homes in the neighborhood. however, lie felt that this rcyuest was different from other reyuests. He felt that this application could have been approved if applied for because it was within City codes where the other requests wold not be allowed by code. Commissioner Murakami commented that he had no problem with the roof height. It seemed reasonable enough to him that the applicant made a mistake. 'fo penalize him for afoot and tttake him reconstruct the whole roof seemed harsh. Ills only concern was that when the root was completed, that it be ensured that the attic space is not used for what it is not intended for. Chairman Asfour recommended that a condition be added which states that the horizontal interior members not exceed five feet. Commissioner Patrick stated that she found it incredible to believe that you have a beam installed and then sotncottc comes along and tells you its wrong, raising the beam without discussing it with the homeowner first or to ensure that it meets city codes. She noted that hillside homes would no[ be allowed the extra foot in roof height. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the applicant could have asked that the roof be approved by staff at an administrative level. Commissioner Abshire commented that Mr. Foster was making an honest attempt to improve the appearance of his home and felt that to make Mr. Foster reconstruct the roof would cause him an undue hardship. He stated that he would support this application. Commissioner Patrick inquired if the windows were going to be relocated. She noted that there was a gap between the windows and the root' line that presents an odd balance appearance. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that the relationship between the roof and the windows were accurately depicted on the elevations. The plans show an as built elevation and that there is not a current request to have the windows raised or reconfigured. Chairman Asfour concurred with Commissioner Patrick in that he did not believe that a contractor would make changes without checking with the owner. IIowever, he concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that the applicant could have requested an administrative approval of a minor roof height extension. Ilowever, he expressed concern with the existing violations on the property. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RISO[.UTION NO. DR-94-047 AS RECOMMENDING BY STAFF WITH AN ADDED CONDITION '1'O REQUIRE THAT TIIE 1NTERIOR HORI7ONTA1., COLUMN TIES BE NO GREATER THAN F[VE FEET IN I-IEIGIIT, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. TIIE MOTION CARRIED 4-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSIiIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED, ASFOUR; NOES: KAPLAN, PATRICK; ABS"PAIN: NONE; ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 11 - CALDWELL. 10. DR-94-038 - Park; 14642 Via De 114arcos; reyuest for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,838 sq. ft. residence on a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposal also includes a swimming pool with associated decking and a reyuest for an exemption from the hillside fencing requirement to allow the area of enclosure to exceed the permitted 4,000 sy. ft. per the subdivision conditions of approval. The subject property is Lot t15 of the San Marcos Heights Subdivision, approximately 44,883 sq. ft., and located within an R-1-40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan commented that considering the deep front setback, it pushes the house and the pool to an area that the City Arborist calls a sensitive area for the trees. She stated that the home was beautifully designed. However, she had a problem with the beautiful trees and the fragility of the situation. She inyuircd if staff had the opportunity to discuss with the applicant moving the home forward without the circular driveway so that the home is out from under the tree canopies. Planner Walgren responded that in the normal review process, when staff receives a plan that has a potential to impact ordinance protected trees, staff requires that a deposit be made for the arborist review. The plans are routed to the arborist to receive his initial comments and concerns. Often times, the arborist may reconmrend that the house be moved entirely out of the trees canopy or other significant changes. In this case, the arborist felt that the plans could be supported as submitted with some modifications to the pool itself. it was the arhorist's recommendation that the two small oak trees be transplanted elsewhere on the site so that the pool could be shifted away from the larger oak trees to the northwest. Commissioner Kaplan inyuircd if the applicant considered moving the home forward to preserve tree nos. 4, 5 and 6. Planner Walgren stated that he was not aware if the applicant was ever requested to move the house forward. Commissioner Patrick noted that she did not see any significant design change if the home was moved forward in order to preserve the trees. Commissioner Siegfried noted that moving the home forward would reduce the setbacks and would require a redesign. Planner Walgren responded that the home could be designed to be moved forward. However, this particular design could not be shifted forward. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PLJBLIC HEARING AT 8:48 P.M. Michael Lanc, Sts Monterey Avenue, Los Gatos, representing the Parks, addressed the Commission's concerns. He informed the Commission that he has worked with Barry Coates on several projects. He felt that if his (Mr. Coates) recommendations were adhered to, there would be no impacts to the oak trees. His goal with the design was to move the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 12 - garage to the rear of the property as much as is feasible given the terrain and topography of the lot, keeping the garage door's view from the street at a minimal impact. Moving the home closer to the street would necessitate bringing the garages to a predominant position on the properly. IIc infr~rmed the Commission that the pool design has not been finalized and that it was conceptual at this time. He informed the Commission that if the garage was to he made visible from the street, he would want to locate the garage by the carriage house. He stated that the house was sited in such a way that it would not harm the oaks. Commissioner Kaplan stated that Mr. lane designed a beautiful home and recognized the philosophy of locating the cars and the garages towards the rear, making them Icss prominent. She slated that at the site visit, there appeared to be grading on the hillside across the back Swale of the property. Ms. Park informed the Commission that a representative from the Odd Fellows requested that dirt be allowed to he stored on her site. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the entire run of the hill appeared to have had machinery run back and forth across the site. She expressed concern wish what was occurring on the site and the impact to the ordinance protected trees. Community Development Director Curtis stated that staff would investigate this issue. Mr. i.,ane informed the Commission that he was not aware nor could he respond to Commissioner Kaplan's concern regarding the grading that had occurred. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with the location of the pool. She inquired if the lap pool could he retained and altered so that it was placed vertically or perpendicular to the house instead of being placed horizontally. Mr. Lane responded that he could not answer that question not having studied the alternative. He informed [he Commission that the rotation of the switntning pool could require a retaining wall to the back of the property. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the location of the pool was of concern. Also, if the pool is to be installed in the location proposed, it would need to he installed prior to the construction of the home so that it can be accessed. Mr. Lane informed the Commission that there were several ways to access the pool. He stressed that Mr. Coate has reviewed the project and that the appliatnt would comply with his recommendation to ensure preservation of the ordinance protected trees. Commissioner Kaplan inquired what conditions could he imposed regarding the pool. Planner Walgren responded that an alternate access to the pool exists along the northeast side of the property where the furore driveway would be located. This access was discussed with Mr. Coate and that he found the access to he acceptable. He informed the Commission that there was a condition in the resolution that would require that grading underneath the dripline of the oak canopies beyond where the fencing is proposed be eliminated from the plans. A condition could he added should the Commission still have concerns. Given the fact that the pool was still at a preliminary stage, it could be separated from the house approval and return as a site modification based on the concerns that the PLANNING COMMISSION M1NLITES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 13 - Commission have raised as far as keeping the pool entirely out of the driplinc of the tree canopies. Staff's recommendation would he to approve the pool as is. but that it be shifted to the northeast once the two trees were transplanted and that grading be removed from the oak tree canopy. if the Planning Commission has concerns beyond that, then the pool should be eliminated from this approval and require a later site modification that shows a different configuration. Chairman Asfour stated that he would prefer to have the pool approved as recommended by staff. If the pool was separated from this approval, the desired affect would not be achieved. Cotmissioner Siegfried recommended approval of the hotnc subject to the plans showing the location of the.two six inch oak trees and that the applicant return with the redesign and location of the pool. Commissioner Abshire inquired as to the height of the retaining wall along the pool. Mr. Lane responded that the retaining wall is proposed to be four feet in height, parallel to the slope. John Park, co-applicant. stated that one of the reasons he purchased the lot was due to the trees on the lot. He stated that he tried to preserve t he trees and make the house blend with the trees. He stated that he would do everything possible to preserve the trees. He also informed the Commission that design alternatives have been re viewed and that it was determined that this was the best design alternative. IIc requested that the Commission approve the plans as submitted . COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE TIIE PUBLIC IIEARING AT 9:05 P.M. TLIE MOTION CARRIED 6-0). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PA'1'121CK MOVED TU APPROVE RESOLU7'IUN NU. DR-94-038 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) TRANSPLANTING THE TWO SIX-INCH OAK TREES SHOWN ON THE PLAN TO SOME OTHER LOCATION UN THE PROPERTY; 2) MOVING THE LAP POOL TO THE NORTHEAST SO TIIAT NO PORTION OF THE POOL OR POOL CONSTRUCTION IS ANYWIIERE WITHIN THE CANOPY OF THE EXISTING TREES. THOSE PLANS TO BE BROUGHT BACK "TO STAFF FOR TIIEIR APPROVAL.; AND 3) INCLUSION OF A RESTRICTION ON THE EGRESS/INGRESS OF TIIE BLiILDING SITE FOR TIIE POOI„ STIPLiLATING CONSTRUCTION OF THE POOL PRIOR "1'O CONSTRUCTION OF THE IiOLJSE. Commissioner Kaplan slated that she would want to see the pool constructed prior to the construction of the home to ensure the prescn~ation of the existing oak trees. Commissioner Patrick felt that if the resolution was conditioned to stipulate that ingress/egress access to grading and building are complied with so that no harm to the trees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 14 - occurs as outlined by Barry Coate, that it would satisfy her concerns. Shc felt that the liabilities in putting in a swimming pool before you build a house could out weigh all other considerations. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVEll TO AMEND THE MOTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: TIIE COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-94- 038SiJBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1)'1'RANSPLANTiNG THE TWO SIX-INCH OAK 'TREES SHOWN ON THE PLAN TO SOME OTHER LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY: AND 2) RELOCATION OF LAP POOL TO TIIE NORTHEAST SO TiiAT NO PORTION OF 'fHE POOL OR POOL CONSTRUCTION IS ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CANOPY Ot: THE EXISTING TREES SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. Commissioner Siegfried slated that the motion was amended because (he pool could be constructed at a later date so long as the easterly part of the property can be accessed. THE MOTION CA12121ED 5-1 WITII COMMiSSiONER ABSiIiRE VOTING NO ANll COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. it was noted for the record that Commissioner Abshire voted no because his [train concern was that of the expanse in fence enclosure as opposed to the design of the home. 11. DR-94-033 - .lacobs; 13845 Upper Hill Drive, request for Design Review approval V-94-013 - to construct a 5,542 sy. ft. two-story residence on a vacant parcel per Chapter 15 of the Cily Code. The applicant is also requesting Variance approval to locate the structure on a 40% slope where 30`/~ is the tttaxintum permitted. The property is 2.19 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He read into the record a letter received from Philip Boyce, a down slope neighbor, Boyce Lane, addressing existing site drainage concerns and concerns that the drainage problems would he intensified by the proposal. The letter further states that Mr. Boyce has met with the applicants and that they have come to an agreement to direct roughly 50`I- of the site drainage of the property back onto l.lpper Hill Court via storm drain versus letting it run off down the hill. He infonttcd the Commission that staff has followed up on this letter and reviewed the drainage plan with the City Engineer. On the original grading and drainage plan presented in the packet, it shows two stornt drains that go down the hillside and terminate in dissipaters which would distribute the down slope drainage. In order to fulfill the agreement of the this letter, one of the storm drains, the northeastern most, would be realigned and brought back thrcwgh a priv<ttc driveway to direct it onto Upper Ilill Court which would reduce the down slope drainage by approximately 50% if not more. Staff recommended that the requirement be included as a condition of approval. Cotrunissioner Kaplan inquired if the drainage would be tied to the existing storm drain in the cut-de-sac or would it run off onto the surface. Planner Walgren responded shat he was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22.1994 PAGE - 15 - not certain at this point if it would tic directly into the storm drain or would just sheet flow off the driveway on Upper Bill Court, whichever alternative was acceptable to the City Engineer. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff would not approve a design which would direct drainage onto the neighbor's property. IIc also informed the Commission that tltc City Engineer has had an opportunity to review Mr. Boyce's letter and reviewed the grading and drainage plan. The City Engineer felt that drainage mitigation could be achieved through appropriate means. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was skeptical in staff stating that the City Engineer has looked into the drainage issue and that there would need to be more to satisfy her concern. Commissioner Patrick inquired if staff knew the volume of water drainage. Planner Walgren responded that he did not have the water volume this evening. He clarified that the engineering inspectors have certain criteria that they use as far as where you can direct drainage and what volumes arc acceptable. The condition calls for an attempt to get some of the site drainage to Upper IIill Court versus having all of the drainage go down the hill onto [he lower property. Commissioner Murakami asked how long of a process staff had to go through with the applicant for the final phase of this design. Planner Walgrcn informed the Commission that this application was submitted three and a half months ago and that part of the extended review process was to receive the necessary geotechnical and arborist clearances. Commissioner Kaplan commented that if you look at the design from the level of the garage, the design appears to be that of a three story home. Planner Walgren responded that it was a two story home but that whenever you have a home that is stepping down the hillside and you look at it from a distance, you will see the elevations visually stacking up on each other. Technically, there was no portion of the home that was three stories. The Home was two stories at the highest as it seeps down the hill and that only the itncttediate neighbor that shares the driveway has the potential for the view. CHAIRMAN ASFOCJR OPENED TIIIS ITEM "l'O PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:21 P.M. "Pony Jeans, designer, :addressed the drainage and visibility issues along with the changes made to this proposal versus what was approved two years ago (i.e.,the square footage of the home and garage have been reduced). IIc stated that the garage would not he viewed by any neighbor. He felt [hat the only place that the home would be visible was from the far end of Verde Vista (you would be able to sec the top two feet of the roof of the residence). IIc addressed the use of a dark gray slate roof and that the home would be of an off white (Swiss Coffee) color and would not be seen anywhere in the valley or any front vistas. Regarding drainage, he indicated that Mr. Boyce has a problem with the existing neighbor's water runoff that has caused him problems. The applicant has agreed to install dissipaters to minimize the drainage problem. Ile stated his concurrence with what was agreed to in the letter received from Mr. Boyce. He did not believe that construction of the home would add any additional water runoff to Mr. Boyce's property and that this project would improve an existing situation that Mr. Boyce would like to make sure does not get any PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 16 - worse. He stated his agreement to the condition as outlined by staff and would agree to pay for the placement of downspouts to the back of the house, including the installation of a u- drain to the rear of the house. Commissioner Abshirc commented that the windows were at an angle and on a slope facing north. He stated that there could he a reelection from the sun if the windows faced the wrong direction. Commissioner Murakami commented that retlectivc coating can be placed on windows to mitigate the reflection concern. Mr. Jeans stated that he did not believe it (sun reflection) would be a problem because of the orientation of the home. Without an absolute calculation, he sees et very minimal chance of retlection. Cotnrnissioner Kaplan staled that she found that the house plans were different than those reviewed by the Commission within the last fifteen months. She yuestioned what the Commission could do about the design of the home and yet provide fi>r a variety in housing stock. She stated that she had no problems with the design of a contemporary house but that she felt that the drawings were so confusing that she did not know what she was looking at. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he wanted to ensure that the appropriate plans were approved to address the cvnofl' from the property. Commissioner Kaplan yuestioned if there was sufficient storm sewer capacity to capture sheet water runoff so that water run off does not drain onto the neighbors property. Mr. Jeans responded that a curb on the cut-de-sac bulb has been installed. IIe informed the Commission that he has agreed to take the existing water and diverting it to the street. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the location of the storm drain. Mr. Jeans stetted that he would not object to a condition such that the Public Works Department reviews to make sure make that there is sufficient capacity in the storm drain. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PL?BLiC HEARING AT 9:45 Y.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS. DR-94-033 AND V-94-013 WITH AN ADDEll CONllITION TO REQUIRE THA"1' "1'HE PLiBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REVIEW "1'HF; DRAINAGE AS NECESSARY. Planner Walgrcn informed the Commission that the engineering staff has reviewed this application and that they are familiar with the difficulty of this project. Engineering staff has prepared a condition to insert that they are comfortable with that addresses all the issues that have been discussed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 PAGE - 17 - THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT'). llIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission as follows: - Christmas dinner has been schedule for Friday, December 9 and that City Council and staff tttcmbers have been invited. - Appeals have been filed on Planning Commission decisions for the Chadwick/Barkas lot line atljusttncnt and the Cornelius fence. Bottt appeals are tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council al its January 4 meeting. - The League of Cities Planners Institute will be held in Monterey on March 22-24, 1995. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan informed the Commission that she and Commissioner Patrick went to the second site visit at the Odd Fellows' property on Saturday. There were a group of citizens who finally worked out a compromise on several of the issues (.i.c.,mlocation of the roadway to take it away from the neighboring residences, moving the roadway inwards, placement of the cottages hacking up to the existing neighbors, cottages to he moved down lower on the site to protect the highest point of the site). She noted that each neighborhood had a different focus and different agenda. Cotmissioner Patrick noted that the knoll would still remain as the main issue of concern to the neighbors who reside at that end of the area. For the individuals who live on the Chester Avenue side, the issue appears to be the wrap around building and for the neighbors on the other side, the issue appears to be the building on the knoll. COMMUNICATIONS Planner Walgren questioned whether the issue of the tloor area and second story exceptions should be scheduled for discussion. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the Commission's next meeting would be a work session scheduled for December 6. He recommended [hat the Commission be prepared to discuss a dale for its annual retreat. ile noted that the it has been suggested that the retreat be held in January. The retreat would help prepare a work program, among other things, which would then be presented to the Planning Comtission at its March policy development meeting. Written 1. City Council Minutes 11/2/94 , L ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 22.1994 PAGE - 18 - Oral Citv Council AD.iOURNMF,NT -There being no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 6, 1994, Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. IRMA '1'ORREZ M[NUTES CLERK