Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-1995 Planning Commission minutes--x ~ -~~ P~1NING COA'II~ZISSIO\? itiINUTE~ JA\TUARY 25, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick. Siegfried, Asfour Late: None Absent: None City Attorney Riback was present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MIl\' LJTES January 11, 1995 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 11, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 4, first paragraph, fifth sentence below item 4 description to read: "He informed the Commission that the adjoining neighbor spoke to staff and expressed concern that trenching within the easement «~ould encroach into the dripline of the oak tree that is located on the st~ee~ site. - Page 8, fourth paragraph, last sentence under "Commission Items" to read: "He stated that the thing that bothered him about the Chadwick appeal was that there was no recognition or question asked about th~:.;,passibilif3j.;:of redesigning the :.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:. . .....:....:...::.:::::. Chadwick home. " THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ABSTAINING. ORAL COMMUNICATION No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting «~as properly posted on January 20, 1995. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there ~;sere two minor technical corrections to the packet as follows: . ~ - `~ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 2 - - Item 5, Page 29, LU 4.2, last sentence amended to read: "Existing non-residential zoning shall not be expanded nor new ntresidential zoning districts added. " - Item 6, page 47, to read that the required rear setback should be 36 feet and the building meets a 38 foot setback. Chairman Asfour noted for the record that a letter was received from Mr. DiManto and that he would provide staff with a copy of the letter. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-94-002 - Lester/Von Dorsten; 14120 Saratoga Avenue, request for Tentative DR-94-011 - Parcel Map, Design Review and Variance approvals to subdivide a 1.3 DR-94-012 - acre parcel into two (2) separate parcels and to construct two new V-94-003 - single-family residences requiring Variances to Zoning Ordinance development regulations. The subject property is an interior parcel located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (Cont. to 2/8/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 3/29/95). 2. DR-94-050 - Lewis; 18581 McCoy Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,788 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing 1,348 sq. ft. single story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 12,400 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. (Cont. to 2/8/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 5/4/95). COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR-94-043 - Baluni; 14983 Gypsy Hill Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,569 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant .96 acre hillside lot located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The subject property is Lot 26 of the San Marcos Heights subdivision (cont. from 12/ 14/94 to revise the plans per the Planning Commission's direction; application expires 4/10/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Dr. Alex Baluni, applicant, informed the Commission that his architect has not yet arrived and requested that this item be delayed until his arrival. . ~. ~ PLANNING COMMISSIC•MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 3 - COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER ITEM 4 AND IF THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT DOES NOT APPEAR AT THAT TIME, THE ITEM IS TO BE DEFERRED TO THE END OF THE AGENDA. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 4. 5-95-001 - Kelly/Cornish & Carey;12241 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. ,request for Site Modification approval to modify the provisions of an existing sign program in order to construct an awning identification sign per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is in the Oak Creek Shopping Center located within a Commercial Visitor (C-V) zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 7:44 p.m. S.J. Sung, architect, representing Cornish and Carey, indicated that the Council has stated its support for the business community and that it has requested that the City of Saratoga give proactive support to keep existing businesses successful and to encourage new businesses. He felt that signage was an important element to businesses. He noted that there were other awnings in the City of Saratoga. He has selected the style and colors in the design that is commonly used in neighboring communities such as Los Gatos, Cupertino, Los Altos, and Palo Alto. The awnings have been designed to be small in nature and would hang over the entryway and serve as a focal point to catch the interest of clients (low key and elegant design). He requested that the Commission be proactive and review this request as a great opportunity to support local merchants and the business community. Commissioner Murakami inquired if there has been any discussion with the owners of the property regarding doing the whole face of the building in one way instead of individual designs. He found the requested signage attractive, but if it vas approved, the signage would appear a little lopsided. Mr. Sung responded that there has not been any discussion among the owners. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he would agree to some change in sign design, but that he did not want to change the sign for one office or even for one part of one building. He would rather look at the whole area to see what would make a better sign program. Commissioner Kaplan inquired what the owner would be willing to do to upgrade the entire complex to make it more attractive and more modern while the city deals with the update of the sign ordinance. Carol Burnett, managing broker for Cornish and Carey, informed the Commission that Ivan Kelly was the owner of the building and that she has spoken with him in length about this particular application. She felt that his feeling was that there is not one building along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that is congruent with their signage. She felt that it would be an imposition to require the use of one sign style on the entire building. "' PLANNING COMMISSIC.MINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Caldwell asked staff to respond to Ms. Burnett's comments regarding the city's attempt to provide a uniform sign program that is flexible along Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road. Planner Walgren responded that there were only three or four centers along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road that are recent enough to have sign programs similar to this one. For the most part, the tenant spaces are in compliance with the sign program. The majority of the signs seen along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road are older signs on individual buildings that may predate the city's ordinance. Commissioner Siegfried commented that the center across the street had an approved uniform sign program but whether it is complied with is a different issue. He had a problem in that this site had extensive discussion sixteen years ago. He felt that the sign ordinance needed to be reviewed but that he did not believe that signage should be reviewed business by business but should follow a uniform sign program. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that he finds the proposed sign design to be more attractive than the existing sign, but could not support the size of the lettering. He also stated that he would support this type of sign if it helps the business. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would vote against the approval of the sign proposal because she would not want to review signage for each business. She stated that she would want to wait to see the results of the sign study that is currently underway and to implement it city-wide. She stated that she did not find the sign offensive and did not want to "squash" businesses in Saratoga. However, approving individual signs on a case-by-case basis would result in a mishmash of unattractive signage. Commissioner Caldwell commented that since she has been on the Commission, the trend has to encourage common aesthetics in the City that is pleasing and not so "El Camino-like" hodgepodge in signs. She stated that she would like to distinguish Saratoga from other commercial areas to demonstrate that Saratoga is different and that signs are one way to accomplish that. She felt that the sign was an attractive one and felt that the sign would be approved if it was in compliance with the sign program for the complex. She felt that it needs to be communicated to the businesses in Saratoga that they need to come before the Commission to change the sign program if they are not happy with the existing sign program. Commissioners Murakami, Siegfried and Kaplan concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's comments and agreed that the City needs to look at the entire sign program and revise it as necessary. Chairman Asfour felt that the proposed signage would approve the appearance of the building but that he was concerned that should the city approve the sign for one part of the building, that a precedent would be set and that it would accomplish piecemeal signage. He concurred that a sign program would be appropriate. :~ > PLANNING COMMISSIC~MINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would support continuing this item and have the applicant return with an overall sense of what is wanted in the shopping center within certain parameters. Chairman Asfour inquired if the applicant wished to have this item continued or to have the Commission take action this evening. Mr. Sung requested that this item be continued. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO FEBRUARY 22, 1995 WITH THE APPLICANT PROVIDING STAFF WITH ITS RESUBMITTAL BY FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1995. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 3. DR-94-043 - Baluni; 14983 Gypsy Hill Rd. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Dr. Baluni informed the Commission that the subdivision approval did not restrict, but recommended the construction of single story homes. He informed the Commission that staff did not include all the changes that were made to accommodate the Commission's objections and suggestions of the eastern, western, southern and front elevations. He requested that the Commission note the changes proposed to the eastern and front elevations. Daniel Solomon, project architect, informed the Commission that two substantial changes have been made to the building. Those changes are seen on the eastern elevation and the central portion of the continuous balcony has been eliminated and replaced with a the shed roof. He noted that the second change is to the western side of the south elevation which was formerly a flat roof. The lower shed roof has been extended to a gable in the front. There has been a change in color to that of an integral stucco color andythat the height of the roofline is to be 19 feet to a maximum height of 24 feet. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Chairman Asfour noted for the record that Dr. Baluni contacted him regarding the proposed changes but that there was no active discussion on the case. He stated that he likes the changes that have been made. However, he still has a problem with the front of the structure because it stands out. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he shared Chairman Asfour's concern of the rotunda located in the front of the building. However, he felt that the elevations helped his perception and would support the changes. .1 ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~VIINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Abshire stated that an improvement in design has occurred to take away from the massive appearance. ABSHIRE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:14 P.M. Mr. Solomon informed the Commission as to the colors proposed for the building. The colors would be close to the colors depicted on the color renderings and that the color of the roof would be an unglazed terra cotta color. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Commissioner Patrick commented that she liked the changes that have been made and that the changes responded to the Commission's concerns. However, she had one concern, that being the rotunda because it is the front, central focal point of the building and appears to be flat, non-textural and plywood like in appearance. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the front element of the structure is of concern to her because of its incompatibility. Commissioner Murakami also expressed concern with the rotunda. The house is unique, but he still had a concern with the massive design of the front entrance and that it needs to be softened. He stated his appreciation of the changes to the design that were made. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the rotunda was a concern because it appears to be a blank wood wall in comparison with the earlier drawings which had some detailing to the space. Removal of the detail gives a flat, blank, solid appearance. Chairman Asfour stated that he was appreciative of the changes made with the exception of the rotunda. He inquired if the applicant had any ideas as to how to modify the front element. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Solomon stated that he felt that the rotunda added architectural merit. He added a small detail at the top of the rotunda and that it could be made more pronounced. Alternate solutions could be to texture the rotunda or to use t~vo integral colors in the stucco so that there is a stencil pattern of the second color that would give an ornamental pattern to the rotunda. However, the cost associated with these alternatives have not been discussed with Dr. Baluni. He informed the Commission that there are other texturing techniques that may address the Commission's concern of the flat look. He requested conditional approval subject to the Commission's review. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:24 p.m. - 4 PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-43 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ROTUNDA ELEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE BE REVISED AND RETURN TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AND THAT IT BE REVISED TO BETTER INTEGRATE WITH THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE USING ANY VARIETY OF ARCHITECTURAL APPROACHES INCLUDING WINDOWS, TEXTURE, DESIGNS MAKING IT LESS OBTRUSIVE AND MAKING IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 5. GPA-94-002 Kosich; 12325 Saratoga Ave.,request for General Plan Amendment AZO-94-001 in order to redesignate approximately 3 of the 5 acres, from Medium Density Residential (M-10) to Commercial Retail (CR). The request also involves Amending the Zoning Ordinance in order to rezone the 3 acres from R-1-10,000 to Commercial Neighborhood (C-N). An Environmental Initial Study, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has been prepared for this project. Community Development Director Curtis explained the General Plan Amendment process. He informed the Commission that this item would need to be continued following receipt of public testimony unless the Commission decides that this request should not be approved or considered further. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the City has received significant opposition to the proposal from the area residents. The attached exhibit B includes over 40 individual letters and several petitions signed by area residents opposed to the rezoning from single family to commercial. He noted that the proposal is inconsistent with the City's current land use policies for this area given the policies outlined in the staff report for the "Triangle North Specific Plan" which clearly encourages the retention of existing single family zoned land as single family and discourages amending single family zoning to commercial zoning. Staff has separated the two applications to get a policy reading or direction from the Commission on the General Plan Amendment itself. He informed the Commission that the initial study has identified the potential environmental impacts associated with the zoning change including increased traffic onto Saratoga Avenue, potential increased traffic into the Kosich Drive neighborhood to the west as well as potential light, glare and noise impacts on surrounding homes as a result of commercial activity on this property. Staff does feel that these impacts could be mitigated or reduced to an acceptable level through the measures outlined in the report. The most significant of these mitigation measures would be the possible installation of a signal at the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive. The other mitigations measures are related to the development itself and would include such measures as soundwalls, landscape buffer strips, restrictions on future uses, etc. While staff does feel that these potential impacts could be mitigated, the overall proposal is still inconsistent with the City's land use policies for this property. Unless the Planning Commission can find that amending the General Plan designation and rezoning the property provides a greater benefit to the community as a whole than the current single family designation, staff would not be able to ' - k PLANNING COMMISSIO~VIINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 8 - support the amendment. Staff recommended that the Commission receive the report, open the public hearing and take public testimony on the item. If following closing of the public hearing and Commission discussion, the Planning Commission feels that the proposal warrants further review, or the Commission requests additional information before making a decision, staff would request to be directed accordingly and to continue this item to a later appropriate date. However, if the Commission does not feel that the proposal warrants further review, staff would recommend a motion to deny the application this evening, then a denial resolution would be prepared and presented at the February 8 public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried informed the public that the Commission has read every letter in the petition and that the public does not need to repeat its comments. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff randomly verified that the letters were from Saratoga residents and that they were not repeated petitions or letters. Commissioner Caldwell commented that several of the letters received addressed traffic problems that currently exist with the existing land use. She commented that it seemed to her that even if the full five acres of the property were proposed to be developed as R-1 10,000 homes, the City would still need to consider a signal at the intersection. She asked if that was a correct assumption. Planner Walgren responded that a traffic signal may be required. If the land developed as single family development it would most likely have internal circulation which would not be contributing directly onto Saratoga Avenue north of the Kosich intersection. Commissioner Caldwell asked if there were things the city could do to address or mitigate the residents concern regarding u-turns with or without development of the Kosich property. Planner Walgren responded that there could be but ho~v significant those might be vas hard to say. He stated that part of the problem with putting a left turn lane at that median strip would be the elimination of the left turn pocket that was put in for the residents of Kosich Drive to come out and wait for traffic to then enter onto Saratoga Avenue north bound. Commissioner Caldwell stated that one of CEQA guidelines available talks about what effects are normally considered significant. Normally, changes to the General Plan and changes to long standing land use polices for a city are considered significant. She asked why an Environmental Impact report was not required for this project. Community Development Director Curtis responded that once the City identifies a potentially significant impact, CEQA requires mitigation of the impact. Mitigation measures can be applied resulting in a mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report being approved. Staff felt that the impacts were limited because of the size of the property and its specific locality. The conditions to be imposed would be in compliance with CEQA. Commissioner Caldwell felt that it would be helpful to let the public know that if they are interested in addressing the Commission, that they focus on the impacts which cannot be mitigated or alleviated to an insignificant level. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he has not had an office in the vicinity within the past two years so he has no connection at all with the property. He stated that he was familiar with traffic patterns of Kosich Drive. PLANNING COMMISSIOiMINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Kosich family, informed the Commission that Carl Springer from TJKM, the traffic consultant on this project was also present. She presented a history of the land owned by the Kosich family. She informed the Commission that the Kosich family were concerned with the development of single homes along a busy major arterial for the city. The Kosich family is aware of the existing General Plan and zoning of the property. She stated that she understands the expectation of some of the residents of Saratoga Woods that this area remain single family residential. She felt that there should be a reevaluation of the adopted goals as they relate to this site. She has read all the correspondence from the neighbors and has met with the neighbors. The concerns identified by the neighbors were as follows: increased traffic at the intersection of Kosich Drive, an increase in illegal u-turns on Kosich Drive by individuals shopping at the Pier One center, noise, economic impact, and the desire of residential development on this site. She stated that the proposal would mitigate existing problems, would preserve and buffer the existing development, and would provide additional revenue to the City. She addressed the traffic and noise mitigation measures to be provided (installation of a traffic signal at Kosich Drive, the installation of a 16 foot high soundwall along the 500 foot frontage of Saratoga Avenue and the installation of extensive planting proposed around the entire project). She noted that allowing commercial development would bring additional revenue to the City where residential development would require more city services. She did not feel that commercial development would impact home values. The issue of the anticipation of the existing residents of Saratoga Woods that this site would be developed as residential vas not ignored. Carl Springer, TJKM, traffic consultant, responded to Commissioners Abshire's and Murakami's question by stating that the noise study was completed in October, before Highway 85 was opened and that no studies have been undertaken to confirm the statistics and the scenarios addressed in the study. Commissioner Caldwell asked about the four scenarios listed on page one of the report. She requested clarification of the fourth scenario. Mr. Springer clarified that the fourth scenario meant that the counts taken were existing conditions as of September 1994. "Approved" are any projects in the area that are not occupied as those projects were not contributing traffic to the traffic counts. It was estimated what the traffic counts would be once they become operational. He also noted that partially occupied development traffic counts were not included. Marcia Fariss, president of the homeowners association, addressed the nine major categories of objections to the commercial development of the site as follows: violation of the General Plan and zoning regulations; lack of need for additional commercial space; lack of compatibility with the stated vision for Saratoga; noise and traffic factors; loss of privacy to the homes immediately adjacent to the project; increased likelihood of crime; an unattractive gateway to the city; and the adverse effect on the neighborhood and the quality of life. She felt that the General Plan was adopted to preserve the residential character of Saratoga. If this property is allowed to rezone as commercial, it would be a betrayal of the General Plan, zoning regulations and the trust in the City's elected and appointed officials. She urged the . ,PLANNING COMMISSIO~'VIINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Commission to deny the rezoning of the property from R-1, 10,000 to commercial. Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, member of the Saratoga Homeowners Association, addressed the need for a traffic light at Kosich Drive and Saratoga Avenue due to traffic associated from Highway 185 and that the requirement of a signal light has nothing to do with the proposed commercial development except to exacerbate the already perilous conditions on Saratoga Avenue. He requested that the encroachment of commercial development be stopped. Ray Simpson, 12300 Radoyka Drive, concurred with the traffic safety concerns previously addressed. He supported residential development behind his property as his property backs up directly to the property in question and would not want to have commercial property that close to him. Arthur Bliss, 12430 Curry Court, Member of the Board of Directors for the Saratoga Homeowners Association, stated that it has been indicated that commercial development would be of economic benefit to the City. He requested that the City consider the economic returns in the adjacent El Paso of San Jose. It is his understanding that each and every tenant is being asked to vacate by August 1. The Planning Commission and the City Council are being asked to uphold the existing guidelines and the due process to consider variations to the General Plan. He clarified that a single, three acre parcel is being considered is an error. The map identifies three parcels and that the area in question, the 3 acres of the total five acres does impact all three parcels. He expressed concern that the Environmental Initial Study has been characterized as having no impact or median impacts and felt strongly that the impacts are such that would require an EIR. Phil Olsen, 18999 Saratoga Glen Pace, member of Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated his opposition of the rezoning of the Kosich property. Any action to rezone the property to anything other than R-1-10,000 would not be appropriate. In the earlier discussion, it was mentioned by the proponents that Saratoga needed additional commercial space. He shared his findings with his commercial inventory and the available commercial occupancy. He did not feel that there was a need for additional commercial rezoning. Laurie Inserra, 12370 Radoyka Drive, member of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, expressed concern with the effect that the rezoning would have on property values of existing homes. She stated that she investigated the surrounding zones prior to purchasing her home and found that residential zoning was designated in the area. She felt that the zone change would alter the premise of which residents invested a significant portion of ones life savings. Zoning regulations are designed to promote public health, safety and welfare of the community. She requested that the Commission deny the zone change in the overall interest of the neighborhood. Mary Jane Karas, 12752 Saratoga Creek Drive, stated that this development has been proposed because the developer does not believe that anyone would want to live along Saratoga Avenue. Currently there are 140 residents that reside along Saratoga Avenue. In • ,PLANNING COMMISSIO~v1INUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 11 - addition, 30 more residences will be constructed at the old Paul Mason property. Allowing commercial development would encourage further commercial development on Saratoga Avenue at Lawrence Expressway and Cox Avenue. The neighborhood would soon look like Saratoga Avenue between Highway 280 and Lawrence Expressway where homes have been converted to commercial buildings. She recommended that an EIR be completed on this property prior to zone change because of the significant environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of the site. She identified seven reasons that warrant an EIR as follows: conflict with the adopted environmental plans and community goals. induced substantial growth, increased traffic; substantial increase in noise levels; substantially diminishing habitat for wildlife and plans; environment review of direct or indirect substantial effects on human beings; and socio-economic effects. She felt that only if there are environmental impacts which clearly can be mitigated can the lead agency prepare a mitigated negative declaration. Marie LaForge, 19920 Westview Drive, stated her concurrence with the previous speaker. She added that the problem with noise and the idea that a soundwall could be built does not mitigate noise as has been evidenced with the soundwalls built along Highway 85. She did not agree with the concept that commercial development would be appropriate along the heavily traveled Saratoga Avenue. Robin Maybury, 12440 Curry Court, member of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated his support to Mr. Olsen's statement regarding the existing surplus commercial vacancies. He brought to the Commission's attention the vision for Saratoga, specifically Goal 10 which states: "to plan for an attractive, well maintained and well planned community" . He requested that the Commission maintain the adopted goal. He requested that the City maintain and preserve Saratoga's beauty and deny the zone change. Bob James, 12315 Obrad Drive, addressed the grief that this proposal has caused. He felt that the proposal was an intrusion in the rights of people who bought their homes based on the fact that a plan was in place. Many of the residents feel that changing the plan from residential to retail commercial would be a violation to the zoning concept. Regarding the comment made earlier that the adjacent property was zoned commercial, he noted that the property was not part of Saratoga. He also requested that the zoning proposal be denied. Morris Jones, 19472 Riesling Court, representing the Saratoga Area Homeowners Association, stated that the homeowners join with the members of the Kosich neighborhood homeowners association in opposition to this proposal. He listed the concerns of the homeowners as follows: 1) opposed to a process that changes the general plan through amendments, the general plan was developed to meet the desire of the community, the general plan should not be changed by individuals who have their own desires and needs in place; 2) concern with Saratoga Avenue because it is a major thoroughfare and for the safety of residents; and 3) the impact on the neighborhood itself. The whole Saratoga area has been impacted by the freeway. He requested that the City take a holistic view of the entire Saratoga Avenue area to ensure that it is well cared for. The homeowners association believes that there is no such thing as a zero impact commercial area. The amount of retail space requested would require significant traffic and circulation flow to make this area a successful business area. Yet there is a significant amount of vacant commercial property - a PLANNING COMMISSIO~vIINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 12 - available. There is no reason to change the general plan to create additional commercial area. He requested that this application be denied. John Lundell, 18951 Ansley Place, charter member of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated his opposition to the rezone due to traffic and noise impacts. In addition. he felt that the Kosich family was breaking faith with the nearby property owners because they built many homes near this property. The Kosich family now wants to rezone this property to increase their profits and create a negative impact to the nearby homeowners. He stated that the applicant argued that this property should not be zoned R-1 because of the impact of noise from Saratoga Avenue. He reminded the Commission that the City has approved the construction of ninety-two homes on the Paul Mason property adjacent to the new freeway. He addressed a broader concern that he and his neighbors had regarding the temptation of city officials to broaden the tax base of the city by converting the area on the other side of the freeway to an area to the other side of the railroad tracks. He does not want to see that happen and urged the Commission to deny the application and to keep faith with the residents who lived there for many years and retain the R-1 zoning designation. Bob Silverstein, 12441 Curry Court, clarified that the petition covered 340 homes of the 380 homes in Saratoga Woods. Ms. Fanelli felt that it vvas important to remember that the comments as stated by the neighboring residents have been reviewed and have been kept in mind. In land use planning, the developer must be cognitive of current situations. However, land use planners need to look to the future and what the impacts of future development would be on current development and future users or inhabitants. Her concerns are for the current problems which exist on Saratoga Avenue and Kosich Drive and for the future residents who would be backing onto Saratoga Avenue. Marcia Fariss commented that Ms. Fanelli stated that this property was at the border of San Jose and Saratoga. She clarified that this property was located in Saratoga. Ms. Fanelli has indicated that there were changes to circumstances that could possibly allow the Commission to reconsider zoning. She noted that the neighborhood has not changed at all and probably has improved since the 1950s. The installation of a traffic single at Kosich and Saratoga Avenue would back up traffic to Lawrence Expressway and would impact all traffic trying to get out the Pier One area. She supported the recommendation that the traffic study be updated to include the impacts associated with Highway 85. She did not see a logical reason to approve a rezone of the area. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:28 P. M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:42 p.m. Chairman Asfour requested that staff explain the options available to the Commission this evening. City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that it can discuss this issue further this evening to decide how it should proceed. The Commission can either 1) continue this matter and direct staff to prepare the appropriate em~ironmental review; continue this item ~ PLANNING COMMISSIOlvIINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 13 - to receive additional information (i.e.,traffic studies, etc.); or take action to recommend City Council denial of the project proposal. He informed the Commission that the action taken on the general plan and zoning amendments would be a recommendation to the City Council. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:45 P.M. Commissioner Abshire commented that he has listened to public comments. He indicated that there does not appear to be a good reason to change the zoning. The zoning vas designated for the area following thoughtful consideration many years ago. If there was a need for additional commercial zoning, he would see a reason for making a zone change. The evidence presented this evening indicates that there is an abundance of vacant commercial properties. He stated that he did not see any reason to change the zoning laws. Commissioner Patrick stated her opposition to the request. It proved to her that Saratoga was incorporated to differentiate itself from San Jose due to its lack of planning or the fact that it was turning itself to commercial. She felt that this was a border and defining line between Saratoga and San Jose. She felt that it was important to show the difference between Saratoga and San Jose and stated her support for retaining the residential zoning designation. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the applicant's representative stated that the property owner took into consideration the overall goals of the General Plan and the long range vision of Saratoga. It became clear to her after reviewing all the material going back to the General Plan, that the applicant has turned his back on the vision for Saratoga that was spelled out so clearly. Saratoga is different from San Jose and that Saratoga was fundamentally a residential community. The long range vision statements that appear in the General Plan, in particular for this area, is one that the applicant wants to change. She felt that there were a number of negative impacts associated with the proposal that the applicant has made including serious public safety issues, vandalism and crime, traffic hazards, serious public and private nuisance issues, noise. odors, and health issues associated with trash and the parking lot. These were dismissed as being ones that can be mitigated. In viewing other commercial areas adjacent to residential areas indicates that the City cannot enforce rules, hours of operation, etc. ,that would work to the residents' benefit. She felt that the residents spoke eloquently about city vision and how the community should finish building out the community. She agreed that there was an over abundance of commercial vacancies in Saratoga and beyond Saratoga's border in the immediate area. She agreed that property values would decrease if this property is converted to commercial and that it was important to uphold the policies that have been set forth in the General Plan that states that we need to make the gateways to the city indicative of what the city is and what it is all about, a community of residents. Ms. Fanelli stated that the request needs to be looked at purely from a planning stand point. Commissioner Caldwell felt that Ms. Fanelli has done that, but that she has forgotten the human element involved. She recommended that the proposal be rejected. ~ PLANNING COMMISSIO~vIINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 14 - Commissioner Murakami stated that he appreciated that the speakers were organized in the manner that the material was submitted to the Commission for its review and consideration. The discussion was not repetitive and found that the speakers had various reasons to voice their disapproval for the project. He did not see a need for additional commercial zoning. He stated that he has noticed that Highway 85 already has changed traffic patterns and future traffic patterns would be worse than seen now. He did not believe that the noise study addressed the impact of Highway 85. He recommended that a study be conducted to improve the Kosich area to improve the existing problems. He concurred with Commissioner Caldwell's recommendation for denial of the requests. Commissioner Siegfried commented that when he heard that this request was coming before the Commission that it would be a difficult matter, but it turned out to be a simple matter. He indicated that he has served on the Planning Commission off and on since 1978. He was the Chairman of the General Plan Citizens Committee who put together the City'slast major revision to the General Plan. For a chance to occur. you would have to find that there have been changes in the circumstances. He did not believe that anything has changed to warrant a change to commercial. The General Plan was adopted which designates this area as residential. He did not want to open the gate to extend commercial all the way down Saratoga Avenue to the freeway. He stated his opposition to the request. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She thanked the homeowners for the decorum and the focus of the presentation. Chairman Asfour congratulated the public for not repeating what was previously stated. He stated that he did not see a clear and present need to change the general plan to accommodate the applicant's request for commercial designation for that lot. He supported rejection of the plan. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Community Development Director Curtis informed the public that a resolution recommending City Council denial would be scheduled as a consent item for the Commission's February 8 meeting. The item would then be scheduled for City Council public hearing at a future date and would be advertised for public hearing. 6. DR-94-051 - Bean; Heritage Oak, request for Design Review approval to construct DR-94-052 - five one-story single family residences ranging in size from 4,497 to DR-94-053 - 4,542 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject DR-94-054 - parcels are located within the Oden Subdivision which will be accessed DR-94-055 - from a new cul-de-sac off Saratoga Ave. and are within the R-1-20,000 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~~ PLANNING COMMISSIO~/IIINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 15 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Siegfried noted that it appears that the applicant has done an exceptional job in terms of protecting the trees. Commissioner Abshire commented that he has known this property since 1946 and for that reason, he has a possible conflict of interest and that he would be abstaining on this item. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she thought that the City had an ordinance in place that prohibited the use of "oak" as part of a street name. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that it was an ordinance but that it was a policy of the Public Works Director because of safety concerns. However, the name was chosen in cooperation with the applicant and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 10:01 p.m. William Bean, applicant, stated that he has worked closely with staff, the city arborist and his arborist, public works and that he tried to follow all guidelines and rules. Chairman Asfour requested that staff take pictures of the fencing used to protect the trees to show to future developers a good example of how to protect trees. Commissioner Kaplan asked about driveways 1 and 5 having paving and the other three homes located in the middle having concrete driveways. Mr. Bean responded that the City arborist required that lots 1 and 5 use paving to allow some of the moisture and oxygen to get through to protect the trees and that the other lots did not have a need for the requirement. Commissioner Murakami complimented the applicant for the design of the homes, for his cooperation in the design review process and stated his support for the applications. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:05 P.M. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-051, 052, 053, 054 AND 055. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSTAINING. 7. V-94-024 - Vine~°ards of Saratoga Homeowners Assoc.; Saratoga Ave. at Hwy. 85, request for Variance approval to allow an 8 ft. tall soundwall along the Saratoga Ave. frontage of the Vineyards of Saratoga townhomes. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Saratoga Ave. and Hwy. 85 and is within a Residential Multiple-Family zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that there were two other issues that may be subjective that it may want to consider. Those ~~ PLANNING COMMISSIO~IINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 16 - being the guard house element and having the Vineyard identification sign being located on the front wall directly visible from Saratoga Avenue. Chairman Asfour opened this item to public hearing at 10:09 p.m. Michael Lorimer, project architect, representing the Vineyards of Saratoga Homeowners Association, informed the Commission that the walls are proposed to be completely covered with vegetation to mitigate sound. He wanted to divorce the complex from Highway 85 and its walls. He explained the reason for the request for the guard house and the signs. He stated that this particular section of Saratoga Avenue at its intersection with Highway 85 has been a difficult and awkward situation. He noted that it was difficult to maneuver to get into the complex from south bound Saratoga Avenue. The reasons for locating the signs as proposed was to give advance notification of the complex entrance. Also, if you are coming northbound, exiting Highway 85, you do not have time to get over several lanes to turn into the complex. The reason for the signs and the guard house was to send a message that this was not a through street and to deter travelers from using the complex as a shortcut. Chairman Asfour inquired if it would be less expensive and easier to install a sign indicating that the complex was not a through street but an entrance instead of installing a guard house? Mr. Lorimer responded that the guard house provided an added security. Chairman Asfour's suggestion would address traffic concerns but not the security issues. Commissioner Abshire asked if the two signs would be placed on a plaster wall. Mr. Lorimer responded that the signs would be placed on a plaster wall and that the sign letters would be 18 inches in height. Chairman Asfour asked Mr. Lorimer where he would locate the sign should only one sign be approved. Mr. Lorimer responded that it would be difficult to select a location because no matter what side the sign was placed, the other side would still have a problem. Chris Favero, 19549 Vineyard Lane, member of the Homeowners Association Board of Directors, informed the Commission that the homeowners association has been concerned with safety and security in the complex since the freeway opened. The freeway off ramp is located close to their homes. The guard house has been incorporated into the design due to the concern for security. She indicated that this was not an imaginary issue but a realistic issue and cited examples of strangers from the freeway who request use of phones and gasoline, and individuals asking for money. These instances can start as early as 6 a.m. There is a need for a front wall to offer some protection from traffic, noise, fumes as well as providing security for the homeowners and protection of property. The guard house would help to send a message that this is private property, that it is not a through street and not a public area. In the future, it may be necessary for the homeowners to hire private security to help maintain safety and quality of life. The population of the Vineyards is composed of a number of senior citizens and single females. She requested Commission approval and noted that there has been no financial support from the City, the Traffic Authority nor CalTrans for this project. ~> ~' PLANNING COMMISSIO~/IINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 17 - George Detre, 19818 Vineyard Lane, member of the Vineyard's Homeowners Board of Directors, informed the Commission that the Board receives complaints from the members of the association. Identification for the complex is required to identify that this is a private community. He requested Commission approval so that the complex can maintain its security and privacy. Commissioner Murakami inquired if the guard house would be lit all night long. Mr. Detre responded that the guard house would be lit all night. Chairman Asfour expressed concern that if it is figured out that the guard house was not manned, it may result in vandalism and graffiti. James Turke, 19908 Vineyard Lane, emphasized that the guard house was well designed to provide a sense of security. The complex's proximity to Highway 85 necessitates a need for a wall, signage and guard house. Commissioner Kaplan inquired as to the size of the guardhouse. Mr. Lorimer responded that the guard house is proposed to be 6' x 6' or 6' x 8' in size and would be seven feet in height. Commissioner Caldwell commented that due to the problems that have been experienced in the Vineyards and leads her to believe that this may be an appropriate location for a gate. Mr. Lorimer responded that there was not enough depth for a gate. Commissioner Patrick asked if the problems started to occur with the installation of the traffic light. She was not sure that the solutions would mitigate the residents' concerns. Ms. Favero responded to Commissioner Siegfried's question as to whether the guard house would be manned on a regular bases if this proposal does not work by stating that the guard house would be converted and manned by a guard, if necessary. Commissioner Caldwell asked whether the incidents that have been reported have been relayed to the Sheriff's Department and city staff. She recommended that staff relay to the Sheriff's Department what was learned tonight. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:37 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the guard house would require a use permit to be manned. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there is nothing within the zoning ordinance that covers this type of use and that staff would review the guard house as it would any other accessory buildings and that it would conform in amulti-family district in terms of an accessory structure. Commissioner Abshire asked staff if the sign restriction of sixteen square feet located on page 62 of the resolution, item 2. a. ,was similar to the one approved for Greenbriar located '= ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIO~/IINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 18 - across the street. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that a sign has been approved for the Greenbriar project but that the same restrictions would apply. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern regarding the presence of the guard house and that when ordinary people try to do police work or security work, it is not effective and may be dangerous. Also of concern to her was that the lighted structure may become a target in some way and that she was not sure that it was a visual structure that she would want to see. Commissioner Murakami felt that a unique situation exists. Especially with senior residents residing near the freeway. If the structure provides a sense of security, he would not object to it. He stated that the architect has addressed his concern with having two signs. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a problem with the use of two signs because it was a unique situation. Planner Walgren pointed out that should the Commission move to approve both signs, variance findings would need to be made for both the signage and the wall setbacks. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioners Murakami and Siegfried. She stated that she understands the need for the two signs. She felt that evidence has been presented for the need for security and that the guard structure could be removed or manned to address Commissioner Kaplan's concern. She felt that the following variance findings could apply: the location of the neighborhood, its proximity to the freeway, security, and safety issues. Commissioner Siegfried further noted that the variance findings could include the fact that the facility is an existing one with such a narrow, short entrance gate, there is not a chance to redesign the entrance. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSAL WHICH INCLUDES APPROVAL OF THE TWO SIGNS AND THE GUARD HOUSE, MAKING THE VARIANCE FINDINGS THAT DUE TO THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE LOCATION AND PROXIMITY TO THE FREEWAY, THE SAFETY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND THE NATURE OF THE ENTRYWAY. THE SIGN TO BE REDUCED TO COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING CODE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Communit}~ Development Director Curtis reported on the following: - He requested an indication from the Commission as to who would not be attending the Planning Commissioners Institute to be held on March 22-24 in Monterey. Chairman Asfour and Commissioner Siegfried indicated that they would not be attending the workshop and Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she may not be able °~- ~ , '~ PLANNING COMMISSIO~rIINUTES JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 19 - to attend the last day due to a conflict in schedule. - He informed the Commission that it is scheduled to meet on March 22. He inquired if the Commission would be willing to reschedule that meeting to Tuesday, March 21 so that there would not be a conflict with the Planning Commissioners Institute workshop. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RESCHEDULE ITS MARCH 22 MEETING TO TUESDAY. MARCH 21. - He informed the Commission that he would be out of town on February 8 and that he would not be in attendance at the scheduled February 8 meeting. C01'IMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Murakami stated that Commissioner Kaplan notified him that they have both been reappointed and asked if he would be sworn into office again. Community Development Director Curtis informed Commissioners Kaplan and Murakami that the Deputy City Clerk would be notifying them as to the date that they are to be sworn in. Chairman Asfour indicated that he has rescheduled his meeting with the Mayor and that he would be meeting with her tomorrow at noon and requested that the Commission provide him with any topics that it would like to be addressed. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not sure how many Commissioners have seen the 25 acre Peach Hill site that was referenced in the letter received by the Commission by Mr. DiManto. He felt that the site would be worth looking at because the individual has raised valid concerns. Chairman Asfour requested that the Peach Hill site be scheduled for the next land use site visit. Commissioner Caldwell noted that Kerwin Ranch is using chain link fencing to protect the trees and noted that right down the road at the intersection, material is being piled up against the trees. She felt that the same protection measures should apply. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the contractors for the Kerwin Ranch were previously notified of the need to protect the trees. Because of all the rain, equipment cannot be brought onsite to remove the material, but will be done as soon as possible. Commissioner Kaplan asked what topics were scheduled for the study session scheduled for February. Community Development Director Curtis responded that review of the tree ordinance and an update of the parking and sign studies would be scheduled. Commissioner Kaplan requested that the DiManto letter also be scheduled for discussion. COM;ViUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 12/13/94,1/4 & 1/7/95 r. ~ PLANNING COMMISSIO~/IINUTES • JANUARY 25, 1995 PAGE - 20 - 2. Notices for the 2/8/95 Planning Commission Oral Citv Council ADJOURI`'1-TENT -There being no further business, the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 7, 199, Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave. ,Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK