Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-1995 Planning Commission minutes .A\TNING COMMISSION MINUTi APRIL 26, 1995 Cite Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular ivleeting 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: \Tone Absent: None Cite Attorney Riback was not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PLAl~'NING COMMISSION CHAIR APPOINTME\TT AND ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR COMMISSIONERS CALD~~'ELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THERE BEING NO OTHER NOiIiI\TATIO\TS, COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDV~TELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE \TO1~iINATIONS FOR CHAIR. COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI ~'~'AS APPOINTED TO SERVE AS CHAIR~~iAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNA\TIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIO\TERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO >\TOMI\TATE COMMISSIONER KAPLAN AS VICE-CHAIR. THERE BEIl~TG NO FURTHER NOMINATIONS. COMMISSIO\TERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE-CHAIR. COMMISSIONER KAPLAI~T A'L'AS ELECTED TO SERVE AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLA\TNING COMMISSION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Commissioner Asfour thanked Community Development Director Curtis and the Planning staff for their assistance in making his job as Chairman easy. Chairman Murakami, on behalf of the Planning Commission, thanked and congratulated Commissioner Asfour for all of his hard work and his dedication as Chairman of the Planning Commission. MI\TU TES April 11, 1995 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/CALDVVELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL l 1. 199 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 1, relocate the Pledge of Allegiance prior to the Planning Commission Chair Appointment and Election of Vice-Chair. PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES i APRIL 26, 1995 PAGE - 2 - - Page 1, under the March 8, 1995 Minutes, amend the second sentence to read: "...~ °~~g ............. . i~zutes to its April 26, 199 meeting...." ..:....... ...... ......... ....... .................. - Page 2, under Public Hearing Consent Calendar item 1, line 12 amended to read: "...required. he believed that the applicant would withdra~~° their objection to the merger to combine the two parcels. - Page 3, paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell stated that she was not present at the last public hearing ~~-hen this item w-as heard but that she had revie«°ed the ~~~ritten record. She requested additional discussion as to ~~~hat is meant by the second sentence contained in paragraph two located on page ~ of the staff report ~~-hich reads: 'Successful 1-Ieritage structure preservation. p.rtijects 13ave. ~e~*n accomplishe~i~ by ~ti~c~:rk#t~ with devclopc:rs c~rz a cvoperati~~c~ b~~sis',..." - Page 16, paragraph 7, line 4 amended to read: "...improvement made to the plans. She stated that she vas r~~~restecl in knowing.... ...............:..: - Page 19, last paragraph. line 3 amended to read: "...whomever it believed ~t would be of interest to." THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR. CALDWELL. KAPLAN. ~1URAKAMI; I~'OES: NONE; ABSTAIN: ABSHIRE. PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; ABSENT: i`TONE. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the minutes for the March 8, 199 minutes ~~°ould be included in the May 10 Planning Commission packet. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS \TO comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI\TG AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 21. 1995. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Planner Walgren informed the Commission that a request ~~-as received yesterday afternoon from the applicant requesting that Item 4 be continued indefinitely. He therefore recommended that Item 4 be removed from the consent calendar and that it be continued to a date uncertain. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • APRIL 26, 199 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Kaplan requested that Public Hearing Consent Item 3 be removed from the Public Hearing Consent Calendar. At the request of staff, Item 4 was removed from the Public Hearing Consent Calendar. 1. DR-93-019 Liu/Chen; 21409 Tollgate Road, request for Design Review approval to construct a new x,218 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The property is a 1.7 acre vacant hillside parcel located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (Continued to May 24 at the request of the applicant; application expires 9/8/95). 2. DR-90-036.3 GerlaiHomecraft Builders: 22188 Villa Oaks Ln., request for a third and final one year extension to a previously approved Design Review application to construct a new 6.649 sq. ft. two story residence per Chapter 1~ of the City Code. The property is a vacant 2.~4 acre hillside parcel located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE COI~TSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 3. DR-90-066.3 Tyson; 1 ~39~ Kittridge Road, request for a third and final one-~°ear 3J 91-003.3 extension to a previously approved Design Revie«- application to construct a near- 4.267 sq. ft. t«-o-story residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The property is a vacant 1.02 acre hillside parcel located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Chairman Murakami stepped do~~•n from discussion of agenda item 3. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEM NO. 3. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 WITH CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSTAINING. 4. LL-9~-003 Stella Investment Co. and Burke; 22665 Garrod Rd. and 1348 Villa Oaks Lane, request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing lot line between a 14.95 acre parcel and a 5.4 acre parcel per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Both parcels are located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE CONSENT ITEM 4 INDEFINITELY. THE MOTIO\T CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). PLTBLIC HEARINGS ~. DR-9~-012 Ho; 20180 Cherry Lane, request for Design Revie~~j approval to construct a 1.062 sq. ft. one and two-stor}• addition to an existing 2,005 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The parcel is PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • APRIL 26, 1995 PAGE-4- approximately 10,084 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Planner VValgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan asked how much weight staff gives to existing vegetation as specified in the resolution of approval. She inquired if this was a standard requirement for privacy concerns. Planner ~~%algren responded that in this particular ease, this ~i~asn't a criteria that staff used as a consideration in terms of supporting the application or not. The finding in the resolution noted that in addition to being able to support the design, vegetation exists along the property line. He further stated that if vegetation did not exist, staff «-ould consider requiring additional landscaping to soften the elevation but that it was not a consideration at this time. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Thomas Lew, architect, stated that he was happy with the «~orking relationship he had with planning staff and its assistance with the design of the project. He stated that he tried to achieve a one/two story compatible design with that of the existing neighborhood. He requested Commission approval of this project. COMMISSIOI~TERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would vote in favor of the request but expressed concern that the two story design was not in the best interest of the community in that area. He did not believe that the design was sensitive enough. Commissioner Abshire noted that the neighborhood consisted of low profile homes while this home was a high profile home. He felt that staff did a great job in working with the applicant to improve the original submittal. He suggested that in the future. that the architect consider lo~~=er profiles in a neighborhood similar to this. Commissioner Kaplan asked why the Commission was supporting the approval of this application if it has expressed concerns with the design. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would vote in support of the project because it appeared to be compatible with the neighborhood. especially with the remodelling that has occurred in the neighborhood. y Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would vote in favor of the project because it was in conformance with existing codes. Ho«•ever, he stated that he was not sure that he would like to see this design in the future. Commissioner Asfour commented that this was a welcomed relief from a "box on a box" design in a second story addition. PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES APRIL 26. 1995 PAGE - S - Chairman Murakami pointed out that the house across the street had been extensively remodeled. The applicant of that home was required to return to the Commission to soften the design. He felt that this design was pleasingly enough for the neighborhood and would vote in support of the request. Commissioner Caldw°ell noted that the home across the street as mentioned by Chairman Murakami was one that the Commission worked hard on. The applicant was requested that he redesign the submittal and that the end result w-as a much better design. one that the property owner w-as happy with. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-9~-012 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 6. DR-9~-006 Cocciardi; 13341 Old Oak ~Vay, request for Design Review- approval to construct a new 4.492 sq. ft. tw-o-story residence on a vacant x.24 acre hillside parcel within the Chadwick Place subdivision (Lot 2, Tract 7770). The subject property is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the City arborist, Barrie Coate has reviewed the application and that his report states that the development can proceed «-ithout being a detriment to the existing trees as long as the conditions in the resolution are maintained. Commissioner Patrick asked about the condition of the trees located on the lower portion of the lot and inquired as to their maintenance. Planner Walgren responded that the applicant posted a maintenance bond with the City and that the trees were planted last year. Staff reviewed the condition of the trees and have notified the property owner that the trees would need to be replaced and that the replacement of the trees should occur shortly. Commissioner Abshire stated that he hoped that some method of irrigation vas being providing with the replacement of the trees. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that irrigation has been provided but that the trees that were not surviving were trees that were damaged at the time that they were transported to the site. In response to Chairman Murakami's question as to w=hether the trees planted were all live oak, he noted that the trees planted were coast live oaks. cedar trees and some maple-type trees. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:~9 p.m. Troy Habib, 21 ~ 1 Park Avenue, Saratoga. informed the Commission that he would respond to any questions which it may have. Commissioner Asfour stated that he appreciated that the applicant worked towards blending the design of the home with the terrain. PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • APRIL 26. 1995 PAGE-6- Commissioner Abshire stated that he appreciated the use of the height poles to give the Commission an idea as to how the house ~~~ould be sited on the lot. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it was a well designed house. Commissioner Abshire concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's statement. Planner Walgren noted that condition 10 of the resolution of approval accepted the material scheme but asked for a darker color and required that the roof the proposal return to the Community Development Director for his review prior to the issuance of a zoning clearance because the stucco based color «~as a little tivhite for a ridgeline. COMMISSIO\TERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION i~TO. DR-95- 006 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 7. DR-94-058- Yang; 13983 Pike Road. request for Design Review approval to con- V-95-003 - struct a 1;071 sq. ft. second story addition and 47 sq. tt. of first level floor area to an existing 3,533 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves Variance approval to construct a new front porch entrance. an open trellis. fencing, and a carport within the required front yard setback. The property is approximately 1 acre and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff indicated that it was supporting the variances requested based on the fact that the development was built under different zoning regulations. Staff did not believe that the variances ~i-ould be increasing the non-conformity. Commissioner Asfour noted that the variance ~~~as multi-faceted and that he had a problem with one of the variances being requested. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the variances can be approved with the finding that one of the variances could not be approved. The resolution would return to the Commission incorporating the action taken this evening. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Thomas Le~r•, project architect, stated that this was a difficult site to work with. Because of the existing easement, some of the setbacks could not be met. He indicated that privacy vas an issue to Mr. Yang, the applicant, especially the swimming pool privacy. He requested approval of the variance because all efforts were attempted to prevent the need for variances and that the design of the home could not be achieved without the variances. Chairman Murakami asked about the trellis over the pool and stated that he understood the need for privacy from the upper road. Some of the Commissioners, at the site visit, felt that there v~-ould be proper screening of the outer fence instead of a structure over the s~i°imming pool. Mr. Lew informed the Commission that the o~i~ner currenth~ experiences a maintenance problem with PLANI~TING COMMISSI• MINUTES • APRIL 26, 199 PAGE - 7 - the pool and that he did not want to add to the maintenance with the installation of trees to screen the swimming pool. Chairman Murakami recommended screening by means of vegetation (i.e., shrubs and!or trees). Mr. Lee requested that the Commission approve an open trellis over the pool. Commissioner Patrick asked if the trellis over the pool was going to have vegetation. Mr. Lew responded that the applicant does not propose any sort of vegetation on the trellis over the pool at this time. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had a problem with the trellis over the pool. She was not convinced that there ~~~as a privacy issue because the Commissioners had viewed the site starting from the highest point along the adjacent roadway and from the front porch of the house above and there ryas no point from which the pool was visible. She stated that she could not support the use of a trellis. If the applicant ryas going to install vegetation, then the new fence should be installed ~yith landscaping planted along the fence because the trellis «-ould stick out. Commissioner Asfour concurred «-ith Commissioner Kaplan's comments and stated that he could not make the findings to support the trellis. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Lev vas amenable to changing the color of the house because the stucco vas a-hite in color and would be visible from other areas. She recommended that the resolution be modified to allow staff to approve and select a darker stucco color. Mr. Lev stated that he ~yould agree to the condition. COMMISSIO\TERS SIEGFRIED!ASFOURMQVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:1 ~ P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that other than the concern ~yith the trellis and the stucco color. he could support the request. Commissioners Asfour and Kaplan concurred «=ith Commissioner Siegfried's comments. Commissioner Abshire stated that he would hate to see a lovely, logy lying house being turned into a "castle" and that this was not the ~yay he «-ould like to see Saratoga go. However, he noted that there are other second story homes in the neighborhood, so he could not object seriously to this request. Chairman Murakami stated that he felt that the addition would be an improvement over the e~cisting structure. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff look at the do~vnslope side of the house as the concrete seemed to have sagged a little and that there may be some soil movement. Community De~•elopment Director Curtis recommended that this item be continued and that staff be directed to return ~~°ith a resolution reflecting the Commission's action, to be placed on the Commission's consent calendar. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the resolution be approved tonight incorporating its PLANNING COMit'IISSI• MINUTES • APRIL 26. 199 PAGE - 8 - modifications so that the project is not delayed for two weeks. Community Development Director Curtis noted that it has been a procedure to continue items to the next meeting to allow staff to incorporate the Commission's modifications. He recommended that should the Commission wish to approve the resolution this evening, the motion should indicate that the Commission could not make the findings on the trellis and that findings can be made for the remaining variances. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/CALD`VELL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS. DR- 94-0~8 AND V-95-003 WITH T~VO MODIFICATIONS AS FOLLO`~%S: I) STAFF TO APPROVE A DARKER COLOR FOR THE STUCCO: AND 2) SINCE THE COMMISSION COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS FOR THE TRELLIS PORTION OF THE VARIANCE. THAT PORTION IS DE\IED. THE MOTION CARRIED LTA\TIMOUSLY (7-0). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded Commissioners Siegfried and Kaplan about the Design Review Task Force meeting scheduled for Friday at 8:30 a.m. Planner Walgren asked that the Commission consider under "Director's Items" an item that was not included in the agenda. He informed the Commission that last year, the City approved a design review and a variance to renovate an old Heritage Inventory structure at 14690 Oak Street. He noted that variances -ere approved for the front and side setback and that it had the support of the Heritage Preservation Commission as it was retaining the older residence and that it supported the design. This ~yeek, when the foundation sticks ~~~ere set up in the field, it ryas noticed that one of the interim setbacks that was not subject to a variance «-as roughly one foot closer to the interior property line than ryas approved. Pursuant to Planning Commission policy on field changes to plans, any change in footprint over five inches ~yould need to be considered by the Commission. Given that this .vas relativeh~ minor and since the project is under construction, staff wanted to present this issue to the Commission this evening. Staff has taken a look at the plans and felt that it does not significantly change any of the earlier approvals and should not cause any additional impact to any adjoining properties. In response to Chairman Murakami's question as to the cause of the mix-up, Planner VValgren believed that an error «=as made in the plans and that once it was staked in the field, it was noted. BY CONSENSUS. THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan stated that she and Chairman Murakami toured the "Village" «-ith Otto Cranford. There were individuals who have been in business and involved in the "Village" and its design for many years and that these individuals «°ere witnessing a change. New merchants are coming into the Village ~yho have no historic perspective and who may not care whether the Village was a Village or not. They were there to make a living and that they want their stores to show their merchandise and signs anyway they want. One such property owner at the bicycle PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • APRIL 26. 199 PAGE-9- store stepped out of his store as they were standing looking at the confused, busy window displays. She noted that the ~~-indows were virtually covered with "stuff'. She stated that she asked him if he had ever had anyone present him with the Village Design Guidelines. His response ~~•as less than friendly and that he was hostile and angry that she raised the issue. She felt that there was a dichotomy of people ~~ho are there to make a living and don't care and that there are people who are there because they have been there for a long time. She felt that the dichotomy would color whatever happens with the sign program for the Village and with whatever else the City does for the Village. She also noted that because it was dusk, many of the street lights in the maintenance district were not working. She did not feel that the merchants were getting their money's worth under their electric maintenance agreement. She also noted that there w-as no lighting on signage that states "parking". She informed staff that there was a tree falling do«rn and that the lady from the international coffee place ~~°as perturbed that the tree «~as allowed to fall down. She suggested that lighting and signage be incorporated if the City wants people to park in the district. y Commissioner Siegfried stated that he walked through the Village center from front to back and that there appears to be a different view than ~~-hat was presented to the Commission and that concerns may not have been as bad as were indicated. He noted that the liquor store was the ~~-orst in town because paper hangs all over the windo«-s. He felt that the Commission needed to be careful and that it may be walking into something that it would get hit hard upon. He stated that he identified 4-6 troublesome neon signs in the windows and that during the daytime. the paper signs were troublesome. Commissioner Asfour commented that he also walked the Village center on Saturday. He stated that as a result of the last study session, the Village representative indicated that he had plans for the Village. Commissioner Asfour asked that representatives from the Village bring a plan to the Commission for its revie~ir. It was later apparent that no plan existed. Chairman Murakami stated that the Village vas falling apart and recommended that the merchants police themselves. Commissioner Cald~~-e11 stated that she got an ear full from one merchant who was hostile. She did not feel that the Commission should have to deal ~i-ith the hostility. She stated that she ;anted to get the other merchants perspective of the Village Plan. She stated that merchants did not know about the Village Guidelines and did not really have a particular regard for the guidelines with the exception of the old merchants who really want to preserve the Village aesthetics. She also noted the degree of disagreement among the merchants and that there ~~~as a lack of leadership. She concluded that there «-as not a particular solution to the issue. She suggested that this issue be included with the City Council's review of business development because this issue was related to that and that the City Council grapple with the whole issue (i.e., Village identity, what the}~ want to be, ho~v they see that they can generate business and maintain as much of the aesthetics of the Village working «-ithin the guidelines). She did not know if the Commission should step into this because it is a complicated issue. She also recommended that the Design Review Task force review this issue. Commissioner Caldwell noted that there was a lot going on here and when the issue of signs are PLANS"ING COMMISSI• MINliTES S APRIL 26. 199 PAGE - 10 - brought up, other emotions surface. She had one person indicate to her ho~v unfair the parking district was and that until some of these other issues are resolved. she did not know how you could get the merchants together. r Community Development Director Curtis stated that the City has consistently received complaints about the window signage in the Village as well as other places. Staff has proposed some limitations to window sins. He informed the Commission that he had a meeting in April with 20-30 Village merchants and that half of them have indicated that they would like to maintain the Village image and half did not. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the public «-as not complaining about the Village but merchants complaining about other merchants. Commissioner Kaplan asked how the Commission can forward the issue of the Village Merchants to the City Council and its Business Development Task Force as part of next Tuesday's study session. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the Commission could request that he formally request that the City Council address this issue. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the whole question of interior signs ~yere not ignored because the Planning Commission and the City Council did not want staff to regulate what kind of paper sign could be put up for three days and that the merchants should try to do that themselves. Commissioner Caldwell reminded the Commission that the Tree Workshop is scheduled for Saturday morning at 9 a.m. in the Library. Commissioner Asfour noted that State Senator Tom Campbell would also be speaking at 10 a.m. on Saturday morning. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Bike Committee has met and that it will be proposing to extend the bike path along the lover part of Saratoga Avenue from Quito to Cox and that public input would be taken. Chairman Murakami informed the Commission that he would be absent from the Mav_ 10 meetinu because he would be out of the country. y COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 4/5/9 2. Planning Commission Notices for ~/10/9~ Oral City Council PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES APRIL 26, 199 PAGE - 11 - ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 2, 199, Senior Adult Day Center, 196» Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IR.NIA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK it PC0~2695. SAR