Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-1995 Planning Commission minutes y ; -., ~A\?\TLNG COA~IMISSION MLNiJT~ APRIL 12, 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: Caldwell, Kaplan, Murakami, Asfour Late: None Absent: Abshire, Patrick, Siegfried City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA\TCE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR APPOINTMENT AND ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the appointment of Chair and Election of the Vice- Chair be continued to the next meeting to allow the presence of the full Commission. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CONTINUE THE SELECTION OF THE CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR TO THE NEXT MEETING TO ALLOW THE PRESENCE OF THE FULL COMMISSION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. M11'iJTES iyiarch 8, 1995 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THE MARCH 8 MINUTES TO ITS APRIL 26, 1995 MEETING TO ALLOW THE MINUTES CLERK TO INCORPORATE COMMISSIONER CALDWELL'S AMENDMENTS. March 21, 1995 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 21, 1995 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: CALDWELL, KAPLAN, ASFOUR; NOES: NONE: ABSTAIN: MURAKAMI; ABSENT: ABSHIRE, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED. ORAL CO1tiMUNICATIONS Community Development Director Curtis introduced the City's new Assistant Planner, Anne Daily. .; PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 2 - REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 7, 1995. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET No corrections were reported. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Constantin; 20855 ~ Kitti-idge Rd. & 15261 Norton Rd. , Hearing on Community Development Director's "Notice of Intention to Determine Status", the purpose of which is to consider merger of an existing lot of record and a contiguous "remnant parcel" into one lot as provided for the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance (cont. to 5/10/95 at the request of staff; application expiration N/A). Commissioner Kaplan requested that this item be pulled off the consent calendar. She asked what information the applicant was seeking that they do not already have. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that in order to merge the two properties, the applicant would need to have a geotechnical report completed before they can consider any type of design review. He indicated that there was a geotechnical report completed for the bottom parcel and that staff was trying to determine if there was enough information to have an application filed without having to complete a substantial geotechnical report. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the merger was going to take place or whether the applicant objected to the.merger? Community Development Director Curtis responded that at this point, staff was not sure if a substantial geotechnical would be required to have building site approval and that staff was still researching this issue. If no further geotechnical information was to be required, he believed that the applicant would withdraw their objection to the merger to combine the two parcels. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE MAY 10, 1995 MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SD-94-002 - Lester/Von Dorsten; 14120 Saratoga Avenue, request for Tentative DR-94-012 - Parcel Map and Design Review approval to subdivide a 1.3 acre parcel into two separate parcels and to construct a 4,122 sq. ft. two-story residence on Parcel 2 per Chapters 14 and 15 of the City Code. The maximum allowable floor area for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 would be 4,674 sq. ft. and 4,518 sq. ft. respectively. A Design Review application for . PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 3 - Parcel 1 would be submitted at a later date. The subject property is an interior parcel located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district (application expires 6/29/95). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff supported construction of the two story home on the back parcel after reviewing its setting on the property but recommended that the front parcel be limited to a single story home because it would be the most visible parcel. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the applicant has agreed to the one story limitation. Planner Walgren responded that the applicant was aware of the condition and has accepted the restriction. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was not present at the last public hearing when this item was heard but that she had reviewed the written record. She requested additional discussion as to what is meant by the second sentence contained in paragraph two located on page 4 of the staff report reads: "Successful Heritage structure preservation projects have been accomplished by working with developers on a cooperative basis. " It was her inclination to try to preserve the structure and understood that preservation of the structure would have required several variances in order to relocate the structure to the front of the property. She requested staff clarification and asked if there were any incentives that could be offered for the preservation of the structure in the resolution of approval. Planner Walgren stated that the paragraph was intending to state that the City would consider granting variances to give the applicant lots that would be substandard if the older home was retained. But absence of those variances, the applicant was no longer choosing to save the heritage home. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the City was to insist on the preservation of the house, could the City insist that the applicant apply for certain variances or could the home be moved to the front parcel in such a way that the City would not be forcing variances upon the property? Planner Walgren responded that the house could be relocated to the front of the parcel without the need for variances but that the applicant had proposed to move the house in conjunction with the construction of a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot home. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the applicant would be free to demolish the home at any time once the Commission approves the request? Planner Walgren responded that staff would want to make sure that the lots were recorded before the City allowed the house to be demolished. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the applicant would need to apply for design review for the front lot at that time. Planner Walgren responded that the front parcel would not be subject to design review. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the house straddles the property line. Planner Walgren stated that creating a new lot split would result in the new line going through the existing house and that according to the Map Act, the house would need to be removed prior to recordation of the final map. Commissioner Caldwell noted that a condition was not included that would require the City Arborist to review the landscape and irrigation plans (concern for oak trees on the property). She asked if staff would support a condition that would require the city arborist to review the landscape and irrigation plans. Planner Walgren responded that staff would support such a condition. y PLANNING COMMISS>~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Murakami stated that he was interested in the options which the City had for the older structure and whether the City was boxed into a corner. However, staff clarified that issue. Larry Fine, Heritage Preservation Commissioner, informed the Commission that he would respond to questions which it may have. Commissioner Kaplan asked if it would be costly to relocate the house to another location. Mr. Fine responded that the house would require a lot of work for restoration. He indicated that the Heritage Commission would like to have the house preserved but that the City does not have an ordinance in place to require preservation. If the house could be saved, it would be recommended that it be moved to the front lot. Whether that would be financially feasible was another question. He indicated that the Heritage Commission would like to have information on the existing house prior to any construction being undertaken. He stated that the Heritage Commission has reviewed the tentative landscaping plans. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Commission supports the construction of two, one story homes. He noted that in the last 20+ years, there have been two, two story homes on Heritage Lane both on lots that could accommodate two story homes. He stated that he would hate to see a two story home stand out. Commissioner Caldwell requested that Mr. Fine explain further the Heritage Commission's interest on having a single story home on the back lot. Mr. Fine responded that the Heritage Commission would like to maintain Heritage Lane as a gateway entrance into the City. He noted that there was a lot of history on Saratoga Avenue and that there were a lot of homes on the Heritage Inventory list. The Heritage Commission would like to control the buildings that are to be built on Heritage Lane and not have certain elements or stucco-type homes built. Commissioner Caldwell commented that it was hard to know how strongly the Heritage Commission felt about the preservation of certain structures. The Planning Commission only had verbal qualitative dialogues from the Heritage Preservation Commission. She stated that she thought that the Preservation Commission would be more concerned about retaining the heritage structure rather than worrying about whether the house to be located on the back was a one or two story home. Mr. Fine responded that the Heritage Commission was concerned about saving the house but that it did not have the authority to save the house or any other resource within the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Caldwell asked how the Planning Commission would know how strongly the Heritage Commission's desire was to retain this house versus the Oden home. Mr. Fine responded that the Heritage Commission would have loved to save the Oden home but that they were informed that the home was totally beyond repair and that it was an unsafe structure due to earthquake damage. Chairman Asfour asked if the Heritage Commission had any recommendations as to how the house could be preserved or to relocate it somewhere else. Mr. Fine stated that the Heritage Commission would like to have the house relocated to the front of the lot or to another parcel but that there would be lack of funds to do so. . PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12. 1995 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Caldwell asked staff regarding the degree of authority that the Commission had to require the preservation of the house. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the City does not have an ordinance in place that requires the preservation of a home but that the City could impose a condition that would require the documentation of the home prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Commissioner Caldwell commented that at one time it was discussed that the facade of the house be retained for its look and its aesthetic feel and yet allow the developer to add onto the house with modern architectural elements to the sides and rear of the house. She asked Mr. Fine if the Heritage Commission dealt with this issue or whether the Heritage Commission felt that it would ruin the integrity of the heritage restoration. Mr. Fine responded that it would not be financially feasible to restore the home according to the property owners representative, Rocky Garcia. He reiterated that the Heritage Commission has no authority to prevent demolishing of the home and that the Commission would need to concentrate its efforts on what is to be constructed on the lots. Community Development Director Curtis commented that special circumstances relative to the land existed to recommend variances (i.e., historic structure on the land). Even though the applicant indicated that he would require an additiona12,000 square feet to make the restoration economically viable and that staff supported the addition, in the absence of a variance request, the city had nothing to offer in exchange for retaining the house. As there is no incentive to preserve the home, the City cannot prevent demolishing of the property. Commissioner Caldwell asked if there were any incentives that the City could offer that would be of an added benefit to a developer to preserve the house because she would hate to see a heritage homes destroyed. Community Development Director Curtis responded that there were no incentives that the City could offer to require preservation. Mr. Fine stated that the Heritage Commission was supportive of saving the house but that the applicant has chosen to remove it and that there was nothing that it as a Commission can do. He was before the Planning Commission to relay the Heritage Commission's concerns with Heritage Lane issues. Commissioner Kaplan felt that an incentive could be offered to allow for the construction of a two story home in exchange for the preservation of the heritage structure. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Hank Young, MacKay and Somps Civil Engineers, representing the applicants, stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation and requested favorable action of the request before the Commission. He stated his concurrence with the one story restriction on the front lot. Chairman Asfour asked if there were any creative measures that could preserve the existing house? Mr. Young responded that Mr. Garcia has looked into the preservation of the home and that it was found to be economically unfeasible to preserve the home as the home is not in good shape and is termite ridden. It was not something that you could start from and build onto and PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 6 - make something grand as originally planned. It was original proposed to construct a guest cottage with another home but that staff did support the idea. Upon further review, he thanked staff for its foresight because it would not be economically feasible to preserve the house. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was any reason why a one story home could not be built on the rear lot as recommended by the Heritage Commission. Mr. Young responded that once you look at the configuration and the trees on the lot, it would not make sense to build a small, single story structure on the rear lot. He informed the Commission that the house would be setback approximately 150 feet from the edge of the right of way and that he had a hard time understanding how it is perceived that the two story home would stand out. Commissioner Kaplan noted that staff has recommended a condition which would require that the house be moved away from the tree's dripline. She asked if the plans have been modified to address the encroachment. Mr. Young responded that if you read the entire arborist report, it states that there should be no more than a 109 encroachment into the dripline of the tree. He did not believe that the location of the protective fence would interfere with the location of the home. The home could be moved to the west but doing so would not allow a car to access the garage. He felt that this issue can be worked out with staff. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff to review page 4, paragraph 2, under "Parcel 2". She noted that the city arborist recommends that the house be relocated no closer than 15 feet from the tree in order to minimize its impact. Planner Walgren responded that the condition contained within the resolution states that the house is to be relocated prior to issuance of building permits and that it be located no closer than 15 feet of the oak tree in question. The applicant has pointed out that there would be conflicts that staff was not aware of in terms of garage accessibility. There appears to be a solution where the house could be moved a distance away to satisfy the arborist concerns and maintain a driveway access. He recommended that Condition 6 of the design review resolution so be clarified. Curtis Ashworth, 14060 Douglas Lane, addressed his four areas of observation as follows: 1) As an immediate neighbor to this property, he was enthusiastic of a new residential development as distinct from walking or driving by what is now a defunct old farm that is reaching the limit between a heritage treasure and tobacco row. 2) He was dismayed of the unspoken premise that there is something sinful of having a two story home. He found that the comments of the Heritage Commission pertaining to a two story home objectionable. 3) The old home is an eye sore and is not an attractive building. The house may have historical value but it does not have historical value where it is sitting. 4) As much harm that can be done has already been done to Heritage Lane. Approval has been given to remove 10 to 12 feet of greenery for a parking lane on the east side of Saratoga Avenue. He felt that allowing new construction would enhance the neighborhood and recommended that the greenery be reinstalled. Chairman Asfour informed Mr. Ashworth that there was a proposal to widen the road to four lane and has since been abandoned. Cindy Francis, 1411 Douglass Lane, informed the Commission that the neighborhood residents were concerned with the variances, construction of a guest home, and that the height of the . PLANNING COMMISS# MINUTES • ' APRIL 12. 1995 PAGE - 7 - home would block the rear yards. She credited Mr. Garcia for agreeing to meet with the neighbors to address their concerns and that he provided the neighbors with plans for the flag lot. She stated her support of the proposal. Mr. Young thanked the neighbors for their support and that he was certain that Mr. Garcia would honor the commitments he made to the neighbors. Commissioner Caldwell inquired about the suggestion of landscaping and whether there was any extra asphalt in front of this property. Mr. Young responded that the curb was installed when Tract 3812 was installed and that the extra pavement is located further towards the freeway. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that there be an appropriate landscape treatment along the frontage of the property. Planner Walgren commented that a condition be added that would require installation of additional landscape in the 10 foot area located between the edge of the curb and the property line. Mr. Young indicated his support to the recommended condition. Mr. Fine informed the Commission that the Heritage Commission reviewed plans depicting two, two story homes and that he did not have an opportunity to review the current plans. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the plans that the Heritage Commission reviewed were that of the flag lot configuration with two, two story homes. That map has since been amended and that the original two story home that was proposed on the front parcel has since been relocated to the back parcel because it was more compact. He indicated that a one story home is proposed on the front lot but that staff has not seen the plan for the front lot. Mr. Fine stated that the neighbors would like to have the road narrowed down to where it used to be and requested that it be added to the condition of approval. Commissioners Caldwell/Kaplan moved to close the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Commissioner Caldwell noted that she did not see a condition that would require that the Heritage Preservation Commission review and document the heritage structure prior to its demolition and asked if there was a condition that calls for that. Community Development Director Curtis noted that it was not included as a condition. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that a meeting be scheduled with the Heritage Preservation Commission to discuss with them how there can be better communication between the two Commissions about receiving their recommendations so that the Planning Commission can know how they really feel about issues based on their expert opinion why a structure should be preserved. She felt it was hard to know how strongly the Heritage Preservation Commission really felt about these issues. She also recommended that there be discussion about the whole notion of providing incentives for the preservation of heritage structures because it troubles her to make a decision that is not in concert with the Heritage Preservation Commission. She asked how the Commission felt about providing some variation in street width should the City Engineer concur and that it does not create a traffic hazard. She felt that there was an opportunity to create something more interesting and help slow down traffic (pulling the landscaping from the front parcel out a little bit, installing landscaping and walkway). PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES i APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 8 - Chairman Asfour recommended that Commissioner Caldwell's suggestion regarding street width variation be scheduled for a study session with the Heritage Commission. Commissioner Caldwell felt that the recommendation for varying the street width was germane to the subdivision and to let the applicant know that the Commission was considering this recommendation. Chairman Asfour stated that the applicant's representative has indicated his willingness to include additional landscaping to the front parcel. Community Development Director Curtis stated his agreement with Chairman Asfour's recommendation and felt that this would be a new requirement or a new policy in dealing with heritage land. He felt that it should be discussed in a joint study session with the Heritage Commission. If the new policy is to be implemented, than it can be applied to future development. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the condition relating to variation in street width can be applied at time of design review for the front parcel should there be an agreement regarding this condition with the Heritage Preservation Commission or would this be the last opportunity to require such a condition. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the condition can be reviewed as part of a landscape plan. Planner Walgren further stated that at time of review of the house plan, staff could require that in addition to the ten feet, that an additional ten or fifteen feet be required to get a twenty to twenty-five foot landscaped green belt along the front area. But in terms of abandoning right of ways and relocating curbs and utilities, that would be something that would need to be done as part of the subdivision. This would be something that should be discussed separately and get everyone involved that would be affected by it and to understand all of the ramifications. He also state that there may be other reasons to retain the right of way other than construction of a travel lane. Commissioner Murakami stated that should a two story home be constructed to the rear lot, that height poles be placed on the lot so that its impact can be viewed from the street because it could be a critical factor in making a judgment on a two story home on the rear lot. Chairman Asfour stated that he did not have a problem with the second story on the back lot because he did not believe that the two story home would be visible from the street and that the neighbors most affected do not have a problem with it. Therefore, he could support the two story home. Commissioner Murakami stated his agreement with Chairman Asfour's comments. Mr. Fine stated that although the Heritage Commission would like to see one story homes constructed, it would accept a two story home to the rear. The Heritage Commission was very opposed to a two story home on the front lot. He stated that he has spoken to several Heritage Commissioners and several City Councilmembers regarding the narrowing of Heritage Lane in his area to be used as a bike or walking trail. . PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 9 - COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-94-002 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: CONDITION NO. 26 BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY ARBORIST: THE ADDITION OF OAK TREES TO BE PART OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PARCEL NO. 1. ; THAT SOME CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO A WIDER LANDSCAPE STRIP AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF; AND THAT PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL, THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENTER THE HOME AND DOCUMENT IT. THE COMMISSION ALSO APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-012 FOR LOT NO. 2 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-O WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 3. DR-95-004 - Maxim Investments, Inc.; 28010 Audrey Smith Ln. SD-93-001.1 - request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,747 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.19 acre hillside parcel within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The subject property is Lot 2 of the Audrey Smith subdivision. The application also includes a request to amend a Tentative Map condition of approval in order to allow home construction to occur concurrent with subdivision improvements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He noted an error on the agenda that reflects that the house size is proposed to be 5,747 square feet but that the proposal was for a 4,747 square foot house. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing at 8:44 p.m. Bill Hirschman, 1190 Saratoga Avenue, thanked staff for its assistance as well as Mr. Coate for his assistance with the trees on the site. He informed the Commission that he and Mike MacKay, architect, would answer any questions which the it may have. He indicated that there have been questions received pertaining to drainage issues. • He stated that he has met previously with some of the homeowners to discuss the drainage situation. He indicated that the drainage concerns have been addressed through the engineering of the site and that storm drainage facilities would be constructed within the next few weeks to remedy the problem. Michael MacKay, project architect, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. Chairman Asfour commented that the plans were very helpful to the Commission, especially the colored renderings. He indicated that most of the Commissioners conducted a site visit and that the Commission did have some concerns regarding water drainage. However, the measures to be used to mitigate the drainage concerns were explained to the Commission. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she wanted to make sure that the City arborist is made aware of where the drainage facility is to be installed because some surface structures can be detrimental to the trees. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City arborist did have an opportunity to review the drainage facility improvements as part of the subdivision and that he had a handle as to where the facilities would be located. . ~ PLANNING COMMISS# MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Mr. DiPietro informed the Commission that his property abuts lot 5, located on Calle Montalvo. He informed the Commission that he submitted a letter addressing his concerns for lot 2. He stated his pleasure with the renderings of the two buildings that are proposed to be built. He requested that when lots 4, 5 and 6 are developed, particularly lot 5, that the homes be placed towards Audrey Smith Lane rather than the rear property line. His prominent concern was that there be a capturing of all run off water. He indicated that he has reviewed the engineering plans for capturing water runoff and that it appears to be satisfactory. Bob Conan informed the Commission that he resides next door to Mr. DiPietro on Calle Montalvo, and that his house is located behind lot 6. He indicated that a letter was submitted on Apri15 addressed to Mr. Hirschman with a copy to Mr. Curtis. The letter requested that the drainage issue be addressed and to indicate that many neighbors have lived in the area for many years. He stated that he chose the Audrey Smith property because of its rustic appeal and natural beauty from his backyard (trees). In response to Chairman Asfour's question, he did not expect the area to remain as is forever. He requested that as much of the natural beauty of the neighborhood be retained in the landscape. Community Development Director Curtis acknowledged receipt of a copy of the letter sent to the applicant. He stated that he referred the letter to the Engineering Department to make sure that they addressed the drainage issues. As the letter was not addressed to the Planning Commission, the letter was not provided to the Commission. Mr. Hirschman stated for the record that the trees were removed because he and •the City arborist felt that the trees represented a danger to the existing homes. Commissioner Caldwell asked if there was a requirement that the landscape plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission or the City other than condition 5 located on page 71 of the staff report. Planner Walgren responded that the only condition included was that the applicant be required to provide the replacement tree(s) value of $8,619 (condition 3a -page 70). Commissioner Kaplan asked staff regarding the release of the security bond once construction has been completed. She noted that said condition has been included in past resolutions. She asked what would be the appropriate mechanism for releasing the bond and whether the City would want to wait to see what the landscaping would look like in a year or two. Planner Walgren responded that the security bond has been used for several years to ensure that the applicant was meeting tree protection measures during construction activity as listed in the arborist report. There are check points when the applicant needs to call the city and verify that the requirements have been completed. When the project is completed, the city arborist conducts a final inspection of the project, following be a release of deposit based on his recommendation. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the replacement trees located on the Oden property were not surviving very well. Planner Walgren noted that there are several transplanted trees that are surviving. He stated that transplanting of trees become more successful the smaller the trees are. _ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES , APRIL 12. 1995 PAGE - 11 - Commissioners Caldwell/Murakami moved to close the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the site visit, she noticed that there were some fairly large homes in the area. She also noted that the tree damage was caused from natural causes, therefore, necessitating their removal. She agreed with the applicant that much of the destruction of the forest was not his doing. She stated that she could support approval of both lots 2 and 3. Commissioner Murakami commended the applicant for cooperating with the city and that it was a well thought out and engineered project. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-004 WITH THE ADDITION OF A BULLET TO CONDITION NO. 3a (PAGE 70) WHICH STATES THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL EMPHASIZE NATIVE TREES AND THAT THE RESOLUTION REFLECT THE HOME SIZE AS BEING 4,725 SQUARE FEET. ALSO APPROVED WAS RESOLUTION SD-93-001.1. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 4. DR-95-005 - Maxim Investments, Inc. ; 28020 Audrey Smith Ln. , request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,725 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.11 acre hillside parcel within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. The subject property is Lot 3 of the Audrey Smith subdivision. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. As pointed out by Commissioner Kaplan, the proposed construction would be that of a 4,725 square foot two-story home. Chairman Asfour noted that a letter was received this evening from Mr. and Mrs. Johnson expressing concern regarding a proposed 5,725 square foot home but noted that it would only be a 4,725 square foot home. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. Mr. Hirschman informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. Bob Conan stated that he found the homes attractive but that he wanted to make sure that consideration be given to the neighborhood that has been there for a long time. He wanted to make sure that the beauty of the neighborhood was preserved. Commissioners Kaplan/Murakami moved to close the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the same comments that she expressed under agenda item 3 applied to this item. ~. ~ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 12 - COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 95- 005 AMENDING CONDITION 3a TO INCLUDE A THIRD BULLET THAT STATES THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL EMPHASIZE NATIVE TREES AND THAT THE RESOLUTION REFLECT THE HOME SIZE AS BEING 4,725 SQUARE FEET. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:10 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:20 P.M. 5. DR-95-007 - Inaster; 20600 Lomita Ave., request for Design Review approval to V-95-001 - construct 2,324 sq. ft. of floor area to a property which is currently developed with four (4) structures totaling 2,188 sq. ft. per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The new addition will remain one-story with a maximum roof height at 19.5 ft. A request for Variance approval is proposed to construct an entry stairway and various structural improvements to the existing residence located within the property's front yard setback. The property is 23,121 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Commission recommended that the dormer windows proposed on the existing older residence be eliminated so that the original historic integrity of the house is retained. As such, staff has included it as a condition in the of resolution of approval. He informed the Commission that the applicant would discuss this issue further. Chairman Asfour stated the he noticed that the front corner of the porch located on Lomita Avenue encroaches over the property line. He asked if the whole front would be moved back in line or whether it is to be jogged in. Planner Walgren responded that a condition of the resolution states that the porch be modified so that no portion of it is within the street right of way and that it was his belief that the applicant intends to jog the corner back and leave the majority of it in its current location. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. Rod Dipp, project architect, informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that he be allowed keep the integrity of the existing architecture. The same material and style as the existing house would be used and that the same pitch of roof was to be maintained. He informed the Commission that the dormers were added for lighting and that the addition of the dormers to the existing structure would balance the appearance of the house. As far as the front porch was concerned, it would not be jogged out but that it would be moved back one foot, removing it from the setback area. Mike Ingster, property owner, stated that he tried to maintain the heritage look and feel. He requested that the dormers be approved to allow light to the north side of the property. It was not his intent to change the look of the existing portion but to maintain its integrity. He stated PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 13 - that there were no issues with staff's recommendation with the exception of the condition supporting the removal of the dormers as recommended by the Heritage Preservation Commission. He did not believe that there would be a balance in the appearance of the house if the dormers were not installed to the existing home. Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, informed the Commission that he was not present to speak for or against the proposal because the Heritage Preservation Commission has approved the plans on a 3-2 vote. He stated that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Caldwell requested clarification on the motion made by the Heritage Preservation Commission and whether the motion was to remove the dormers across the entire elevation or was the motion to eliminate the dormers on the existing portion of the structure. Mr. Peepari responded that the intent of the motion was to remove the dormers on the original portion of the home. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Commission had a difficult time with this application because of the fact that it is designated as an important land mark. Chairman Asfour asked if Mr. Peepari felt that it would be detractive if there were dormers on the new structure and not on the old structure. Mr. Peepari responded that members of the Heritage Preservation Commission would prefer not to have dormers placed on the original structure because they felt that if the dormers were placed on the structure, they would destroy the historical character of the building. Chairman Asfour stated that from his perspective, he would prefer to see all of the dormers installed or no dormers. Mr. Peepari stated that the Heritage Preservation Commissioner commended the design because it was compatible with the type of home that should be there. As far as the dormers on the existing portion of the structure was concerned, he would support their installation. Whether dormers are installed or not makes verv little difference as far as he could see. He informed the Commission that there was some discussion by the Heritage Preservation Commission to remove the structure from a land mark status but retain it on the heritage list. He would support the dormers for continuity sake. Commissioner Kaplan acknowledged that the Heritage Preservation Commission has voted and that their viewpoint was presented by Mr. Peepari as well as his opinion. She wanted to acknowledge the fact that the Commission did not feel that it was receiving solid messages from the Heritage Commission on other issues and that a solid message was received in this case. She asked if there was a way to incorporate the gable roof instead of the dormers and to repeat the gable roof in the new section. Mr. Peepari responded that it could be done and recommended that the architect be consulted. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the lighting could be accomplished using something like the gable roof element. Mr. Dipp responded that the reason that the reason for the use of dormers was to allow light in the front area because the porch shades the area. Use of a larger gable in the , ~ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12. 1995 PAGE - 14 - new structure would not put the light equally to the front area. If you install windows, you would not be able to match the existing gables. Mr. Ingster stated that he just wanted to maintain the architectural integrity of the house. One of the options reviewed was to remove the existing structure and start from scratch but that he elected not to do that. He indicated that the vote from the Heritage Preservation Commission was that of 3-2 vote, not a 5-0 vote on the issue. Commissioner Murakami inquired as to the height of the original structure's interior ceiling. Mr. Ingster indicated that the maximum height of the new interior structure would be 13 feet. Everywhere else, the height would be below 13 feet (approximately 10 feet). Commissioners Caldwell/Kaplan moved to close the public hearing at 9:37 p.m. Chairman Asfour stated that he appreciated what the applicant was trying to do and that he would recommend the deletion of the condition requiring elimination of the dormer windows. Commissioner Murakami stated that he would agree with Chairman Asfour because at this point, it would make no sense to eliminate the dormers to the existing structure. He stated that although he appreciated the concerns of the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the aesthetic appearance with regards to the original structure, he would tend to agree with the applicant. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-007 WITH THE DELETION OF CONDITION 9a WHICH MAKES REFERENCE TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE PROPOSED WINDOW DORMERS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND RESOLUTION NO. V-95-001. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Commissioner Kaplan thanked Mr. Peepari for the Heritage Preservation Commission representation. 6. DR-94-061 - Lester; 11950 Walbrook Dr. , request for Design Review approval to construct a 468 sq. ft. second story addition and 470 sq. ft. of first level floor area to an existing 2,317 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 20,418 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-15.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she had a conversation with the immediate neighbor to the north of this property. She informed the Commission that the property owner was requesting that some improvements be made to this property and to the property next door located to the south because of their nuisance problems. The neighbor indicated that she could go either way regarding the two story structure. _-_- _ PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 15 - Chairman Asfour asked if staff had any discussion with the applicant regarding the boxy appearance (box on top of a box). Planner Walgren responded that there may have been some discussion but that he was not certain as he was not the planner assigned to this project. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Thomas Hynes, project architect, informed the Commission that the lot coverage proposed was 36% not 41 `~~ as indicated by staff in its analysis. He informed the Commission that Ms. Lester recently suffered a stroke that has left her immobile. The family contracted his services to rearrange the house to open it up making it more lighted, airy and accessible. During the process, it became apparent that Ms. Lester would be in need of in-house care. Therefore, a guest suite has been added to the house. He informed the Commission that he could not find a satisfactory first story addition; therefore, a second story addition is proposed with minimal visual impact to the adjacent neighbors. He felt that the roof lines appear to fit that of the neighborhood. He stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation for approval. He furnished the Commission with photographs of second story additions for its review. Commissioner Murakami stated that the two story effect takes over the entire structure. He asked if Mr. Hynes had given any thought to recessing the top part of the structure back a littler further to balance it somewhat. Mr. Hynes responded that it was a good suggestion. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with the second story element because the neighborhood was predominately that of single story homes. The second story appears to look like someone dropped something down from the top and plopped it on top of the garage. She stated that the house had three bedrooms and that there seems to be enough room for a widowed individual. She indicated that she could not support its approval unless there were design alternatives. Mr. Hynes responded that it was difficult to integrate an addition of this size to a house such as this. Commissioner Caldwell asked why vertical siding were chosen. Mr. Hynes responded that the vertical siding was selected because that was the element that exists on the front of the house and that it was an accent material in the back. The vertical siding vas being carried over to the addition. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the Commission usually requires horizontal elements for siding in second story structures or when a structure appears too vertical. She inquired as to the size of the small roof or over hang that protrudes above the garage in the front and south side elevation. She stated that she could appreciate whatever depth was to be provided with the second story addition. She felt that there may be more depth than what can be perceived from the drawings. Mr. Hynes explained the roof elements and indicated that the architectural feature of the house was that of an existing large beam planted onto a wooden beam to look like a post and beam type of construction. Bill Lester, son of the applicant, addressed the condition of the home at time of purchase and that he realized that remodeling would need to occur. He stated that in considering a remodel of this size, the economic value was taken into account as part of the resale value. Chairman Asfour commented that he was not opposed to a two story home in a predominately ~. _ - PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 16 - single story area if it was not obtrusive. He could not tell from the drawings provided what the home would like and that if he had to make a decision based on what he has seen tonight, he would not support the second story addition. Mr. Hynes stated that the working drawings would not appear boxy and that it would take a rendered drawing to help visualize the house appearance. Chairman Asfour recommended that the request be continued to allow for better renderings to be reviewed because he could not approve the proposal. Mr. Lester stated that photographs were submitted to depict what the two story home would not look like. Commissioner Murakami stated that the Commission could not tell from the drawings what the profile of the home would look like. y Commissioner Caldwell felt that it would be helpful to the Commission if it reviewed revised drawings, even if the architect focused on the second story portion of the home. The plans should better show what is happening to the balcony, etc. She felt that there can be an improvement made to the plans. She stated that she was interested in knowing if the applicant would consider changing the horizontal siding if that would help in reducing the visual impression of one surface moving upward (looking for depth and change in elevation rather than seeing one solid wall). A continuance would enable the architect to review the design and to make minor architectural modifications that would help the applicant achieve the City's goal in avoiding the "box on box" appearance. A continuance may result in a positive vote by the Commission if the Commission's concerns were addressed. Mr. Hynes and Mr..Lester agreed to a continuance to the May 10 meeting. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that revised plans would need to be submitted by May 1 no later than 5:00 p.m. Chairman Asfour stated that he would prefer that the two story addition be located somewhere else but that he would not object to it if it does not look like a box and that it be moved back. He indicated that he would not know if he could support the second story addition until he reviewed revised plans. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with Chairman Asfour's comments. Commissioner Murakami stated that he would support the second story addition if it was setback a little more. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not oppose the second story addition at its present location as long as there was enough depth provided in the front elevation so that it does not look like a box. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC a, -+ y ~ _ = PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 17 - HEARING TO THE MAY 10, 1995 MEETING TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 7. DR-94-056 - Yan; 13566 Deer Trail Ct., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4.911 sq. ft. tow-story residence on a vacant parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 1.05 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Asfour opened the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Joseph Yan, property owner, stated that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there was some depth or was there a portico coming out of the south elevation (page 2 of drawings). Planner Walgren responded that the area that Commissioner Kaplan was referring to was the front of the house and that the roof plan located on page 4 indicates the location of the columns and the recessions of the building and the project's west side entrance. Mr. Yan requested that condition 14 be waived and that he be allowed to install the landscaping at time of occupancy because the landscape plans were extensive. He would agree to install the trees and landscaping within six to seven months or that he be allowed to bond for the landscaping. Planner Walgren stated that the City could accept a security deposit to allow someone to receive final occupancy to move into the house. Community Development Director Curtis stated that unless there were some unusual circumstances, the City would prefer that the landscaping be installed prior to final occupancy. Sometimes the City makes an exception (i.e., if the landscaping was to be installed was scheduled to be installed in the middle of August or that the landscape material may not survive). He indicated that staff would agree to work with the applicant. Commissioner Caldwell expressed concern with the installation of the irrigation system. With a deferred landscape installation, you would loose the opportunity to have the city arborist reviewing landscaping installation per the conditions of approval. Chairman Asfour stated that he would not object to a slight modification to the condition subject to staff's discretion. Community Development Director Curtis felt that it was a reasonable request if extenuating circumstances exist. Commissioner Kaplan noted that there was a wrong selection of groundcover proposed underneath the trees. She asked if the resolution addressed this concern. Commissioner Caldwell noted that condition 7 addressed Commissioner Kaplan's concern. Planner Walgren ~: - PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 18 - stated that the city arborist has reviewed the landscape plan and made his recommendation. Staff would review the landscape plan based on his recommendation. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with her fellow Commissioners and did not see any reason to waive the condition because staff has agreed to work with the applicant should extenuating circumstances exit. Commissioners Kaplan/Caldwell moved to close the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-056 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Commissioner Caldwell commended the applicant for the material selection. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis distributed the Draft EIR for the Odd Fellows project. He informed the Commission that there would be a 45 day public review period and that the EIR would be made available to the public. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that a 65 day review period be considered for this project. Community Development Directed stated that the City would follow state law requirements. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-94-046; Bird/Cutler; 14523 Big Basin Way -Review of final architectural plans. Planner Walgren reported on this item. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Commission had an opportunity to review the plans yesterday and that they responded in writing that the plans were acceptable. He recommended that the Commission accept the plans if it had no concerns and direct staff to accept them as fulfilling the requirements of the resolution of approval. Chairman Asfour asked if staff was satisfied with the parking situation and whether extra parking had been gained. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the parking lot was in the process of being restriped and that it is certain that there will be at least two surplus parking spaces. Commissioner Murakami asked if staff was satisfied with the final architectural plans as he did not have the original plans to compare the final plans with. Planner Walgren replied that staff was satisfied with the final architectural plans. Commissioner Caldwell asked where a sign would be placed on this building. She noted that there appears to be an awful lot of roof and in this case, she recommended the use of dormers to break up the roof. Planner Walgren stated that the roof elevation was exaggerated and that :t _ ~ Y . 'rt' PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES APRIL 12, 1995 PAGE - 19 - it was not a real representation of what the building would look like. He informed the Commission that an application for an awning sign has been filed and that the awning would wrap around the front of the building and that the signage would be located on the frontage of the awning. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the proposed sign would fit with the proposed amendment to the sign program that is being proposed for the Village. Planner Walgren responded that this is the type of signage that is being encouraged in the Village Plan design guidelines. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO DIRECT STAFF TO ACCEPT THE FINAL PLANS AS THEY SATISFIED CONDITION 3(A) OF RESOLUTION NO. 94-046. 2. DR-93-021; Kwei; 21448 Tollgate Rd. -Review of modifications to approved plans. Planner Walgren reported on this item. He informed the Commission that staff has not received comments from the City arborist to determine if the horseshoe driveway was acceptable. If the horseshoe driveway was found to be unacceptable, the driveway would have to be revised to the originally approved driveway. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with grading for the driveway and its impact on the existing tree (cars would be driving into the dripline of three of the large trees). Planner Walgren informed the Commission that a set of plans have been transmitted to the City arborist. The City arborist would be making a site visit to reassess the tree, look at the field condition, and furnish staff with his recommendation. Staff would base its approval on the City arborist's recommendation. Commissioner Caldwell commented that she would hate to put pressure on the City arborist. She felt that there was going to be some damage to the trees. The problem being that it is not known whether there was going to be an impact to the tree(s) with construction of the driveway. Planner Walgren requested that the Commission review the architectural changes to the building and that the driveway issue would be acted upon following receipt of the City arborist's recommendation. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COiVIMU\TICATIONS Commissioner Caldwell provided the Commission with a press release to be released tomorrow morning and encouraged individual Planning Commissioners to release the information to whomever it believed it would be of interest to. Commissioner Kaplan informed the Commission that Mr. Conan indicated to her that he felt that there was greater emphases given by the Commission to the remodeling of homes and fewer controls to the remodeling of land. In her discussion with him, he indicated that he would like c+~, ~~ ~ `t PLANNING COMMIS,~N MINUTES . " APRIL 12, 1995 ~. _ PAGE - 20 - the Commission to give more consideration to buildings that would change existing landscaping. Commissioner Caldwell requested that a joint meeting be held with the Heritage Preservation Commission to discuss how the two Commissions can better communicate with each other and that the Planning Commission assist the Preservation Commission with the forms of recommendation that would be helpful to it. She felt that there may be an impression that the Commission does not place a lot of weight on their recommendations. She also felt that there should be discussion regarding Heritage Lane and whether there was anything that the Planning Commission could do systematically with input from the City Engineer. She recommended that a study session be used for the joint meeting. Planner Walgren recommended that there also be discussion as to how the Heritage Preservation Commission decides who would appear before the Planning Commission on its behalf. written 1. City Council Minutes - 3/10; 3/15; 3/28 2. Planning Commission Notices for 4/26/95 Oral Citv Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 26, 1995, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK it1PC041295.SAR