Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-1995 Planning Commission minutes-` __ ; PL~NII~TG COMMISSION MINUTES ~~ MAY 10, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting vas called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Vice-chairwoman Kaplan. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried Late: Caldwell Absent: Murakami City Attorney Riback «-as not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES March 8, 1995 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 8, 199 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT. April 26, 1995 ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE APRIL 26. 199 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: Page 7, paragraph 4 amended to read as follows: "Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had a problem with the trellis over the pool'' '' 'a +'' '' +'' + +'~""" in~cvrrirm~~r6rriv6~~r-iii~6~ire--p El E3rcE3i-7~iir~~E3`~'1~~FEji~3-~~ ~1I~ ~V4aS :i:~k~ ccn~~•inc~cl ih.u there «~as~~~iprivacy ~s5ue bc:cacse the Co~n.rri,issi.oncrs had ~°~cv4ed tlc`~site starti.nt; lxarn ~ih.4~.;h.i~hest ~oi:nti along t11~.:.adjaeeiit .roadway and f'rom'°thc~.: fra~it Porch of the 1~oUSe above ancl~~t1ere.~.~~as no paint I~om.:which ilie`~~pot~l,.:was°~~vi~irlc. She stated that . ~..:. .: she could not support the use of a trellis...." Page 9, first paragraph under "COMMISSIOI~T ITEMS" amended to read: "Commissioner Kaplan stated that she and Chairman Murakami toured the Village with Clt€u C~r~wrfi~rd...." Page 9, paragraph 4 amended to read: Commissioner Asfour commented that he also walked the Village Center on Saturday. He stated that as a result of the last study, the Village representative indicated that he had plans for the Village. m. -'"~~mm"~a°a ('un~miistiicn~icr :\sliiur:as~ that the representative from the Village bring a plan to the Commission for its review. I~as:.l~.uer ~i~~harc:nt ih~al nc- hl~xn existed. . ' ,PLANNING COMMISSION~IUTES ~' MAY 10. 199 PAGE - 2 - THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND CHAIRA~IAN MURAKAMI ABSEI`TT. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code ~49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 5; 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren reported that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALEND Commissioner Asfour requested that Item i~To. 1 be removed from the consent calendar. 2. DR-94-061 - Lester; 11950 VValbrook Dr., request for Design Review approval to construct 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 1 ~ of the City Code. The property is 20;418 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-15;000 zoning district (cont. to 6/14/95 at the request of the applicants; application expires 9/1/90. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. DR-95-014 - Suciu; 20420 Montalvo Heights Dr., request for Design Review approval to construct a x,614 sq. ft. tw•o-story residence on a currently vacant 40;075 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. to 5/24/95 at the request of the applicants in order to make "last-minute" changes to the plans; application expires 10/15/95). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2 AND 3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COMMISSIOI`TER CALDWELL AND CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT. 1. Constantin; 20855 Kittridge 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 PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES • ~' MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - 3 - record and a contiguous "remnant parcel" into one lot as provided for the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance (cont. indefinitely at the request of the applicant: application expiration N/A). Commissioner Caldwell entered and was seated. Commissioner Asfour asked if the continuance w-as at the request of the applicant. He stated that it was his understanding that the reason for the continuance «-as because if the site was approved, the applicant would not object to the merger of the lots. He asked if the City approved a building site, could the approval be conditioned that a merger takes place? Community Development Director Curtis responded that site approval can be so conditioned and that the reason for the continuance vas to allow the applicant to return with a building site for approval. He further stated that the city would proceed with a merger irrespective of whether the applicant received building site approval by the Commission. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR~PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE COI`TSENT ITEM 1 Il`TDEFINITELY. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT. PtiBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-9~-008 - Kim; 20472 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., request for Design Review V-9~-002 - approval to develop a currently vacant 11,998 sq. ft. lot with a 3,620 sq. ft. single-story dry cleaning and one-hour photo building. Variance approval is also necessary to allow a 14 stall parking lot in lieu of the 18 spaces required pursuant to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance. The property is located at the northwest corner of Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. and Oak St. within aCommercial-Historic zoning district: formerly the site of a Chevron gas station. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that staff could not find any hardships relative to the physical aspects of this property to support the variance. In keeping consistent with the City's requirements and to make the property available for any other future retail use, staff did not recommend approval of the parking variance. He informed the Commission that staff has discussed the parking variance and design changes with the applicant. To date, the applicant has not been willing to make the recommended changes and ~.vould prefer to present their case to the Planning Commission. Staff recommended that this item be discussed with the applicant and that the item be continued to allow for the necessary changes. If the applicant vas not willing to make the recommended modifications, staff recommend denial of the application in its entirety and that staff would return with resolutions of denial at the Commission's May 24 public hearing. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was a traffic reason why the parking is proposed to be located in the front rather than the rear of the building site. Planner Walgren responded that the parking location was a design choice that w•as pursued by the applicant. . ~ PLANNING COMMISSION~~TUTES • ' MAY 10, 199 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Caldwell stated that it occurred to her that this was a perfect site for the Business Development Committee to deal with and asked staff if the Committee has taken this site up and discussed it. She also asked if the Committee focused its activities with the "Village" or whether their focus would be City-wide. Community Development Director Curtis responded that this site vvas not undertaken as part of the Committee's discussion. Commissioner Caldwell noted that on page 7 of the staff report, staff took two paragraphs to address the «-aste discharge problems associated with the dry cleaning establishment. She noted that photo labs also have very significant waste discharge problems/issues and did not v~-ant to have that overlooked as a potential issue. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked staff if they knew ~.vho regulated waste discharge. Planner VValQren informed the Commission that the County Health Department, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Water Quality Board regulate waste discharge and that waste discharge permits would be required. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Eddy Shen. LRS Associates, project architect, informed the Commission that the applicant v~~as present with an interpreter should the Commission have questions for him. He informed the Commission that the owner would be running both the dry cleaning and photo shop. Also, ne«~ equipment ~-ould be purchased and installed for the cleaning shop and that all hazardous materials ~~°ould be controlled. He noted that both businesses would require less than the required parking standard for a shopping center. The business ~~~ould produce stop and go/short term parking versus the normal shopping center requirements. He informed the Commission that the applicant vas building the structures for long term use. He requested that the Commission approve the variance. He indicated that another reason that there was a shortage of parking vas because the owner would be accommodating the amenities that were requested by staff (i.e., center walkway). Commissioner Patrick asked Mr. Shen why the building was sited as proposed. Mr. Shen responded that there was an existing clean-up operations located at the corner (gas station clean- up) and the second reason «-as because of the difference in grade at the corner. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had a problem with the solid wall of the magnitude proposed on the south side elevation (Oak Street side) and noted that it «~as located close to the sidewalk. He stated that he had no problem with the frontage of the building nor the location of the parking lot. He indicated that he could not support the application if the wall is to remain as proposed. Mr. Shen responded that he would agree to provide the wall with some sort of treatment. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would like to see the solid wall provided with some sort of treatment or that it be setback. Commissioner Abshire asked how many employees are proposed by the owner for each of the businesses. Mr. Shen responded that there would be a total of five to six employees proposed. Commissioner Patrick commented that she noticed that in the design of the proposal that the windows are to be set in aluminum frames. She stated that the building does not appear to be in the character of the area and that it was going to be in a prominent location, being located next PLANNING COMMISSION•1~1UTES • MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - ~ - to a historical building. She felt that the building would appear to be too "aluminum" and that it vas not "v~•oodsy" enough for the neighborhood. She asked if the window frames could be changed to make it appear less metallic and less strip-mall looking? Mr. Shen responded that the building itself was all wood frame and wood siding. He did not object to the use of wood frame windows or doors. Commissioner Abshire asked if both the dry cleaning and photo development processing would be conducted on site. Mr. Shen responded that they would. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan commented that she visited the site and that in looking at the drawings, she was uncomfortable with the long blank wall located on the west elevation. She asked if Mr. Shen would be w°illing to accept staffs recommended treatment of the west wall. Mr. Shen responded that he w°ould agree to make some accommodations as to the design of the facade but requested that the same square footage be retained. After consulating «=ith his client, Mr. Shen indicated that the applicant has indicated his willingness to make the changes as proposed by staff. Commissioner Asfour stated that he was not comfortable in making a decision without first seeing those changes. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan noted that a letter w-as received from Mr. Don Whetstone objecting to the parking situation. Mark Ebner; 14494 Oak Place, Saratoga; requested that the Commission deny the parking variance request for the following reasons: 1) The parking variance for the 3,620 square foot building requires 26 spaces, the proposed site is asking for special privilege for 14 parking spaces (six employees are proposed, five spaces would be lost to employees). He asked where the customers would park? 2) The proposed building site is in a commercial historic zone. 3) Traffic impact to the already congested Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. 4) Waste discharge (concern with the chemicals used in dry cleaners and photo drive-up establishments). He recommended that the Commission conduct a study in cooperation with the City of Cupertino to find out the traffic impact associated with the existing photo drive-up located on Highway 9. He also recommended that the statistics associated with traffic impacts to Oak Street be reviewed. He did not believe that the neighbors on Oak Street would want to see people making u-turns; parking on the street or blocking their driveways. Dianna Espinosa, 14~ 10 Oak Street, Saratoga, informed the Commission that Oak Street is located near the do«mtov~-n area and that it has to put up with traffic from Big Basin Way. Regarding the t~vo businesses proposed, she expressed concern with the stop and go, quick and non-long term parking. It vas her opinion that long term parking would be more desirable because it would not have the traffic impact associated with businesses that have stop and go/in and out type parking. She informed the Commission that Oak Street vas a narrow road with parking allowed only on side only. The school brings a tremendous amount of traffic and that v~~ith these businesses, it would add to the traffic in the residential area. She noted that it was difficult to get out of driveways at times with the amount of traffic that comes onto Oak Street. She recommended that the Commission deny the variance request. ;PLANNING COMMISSIOI~T~~TUTES • ~' MAY 10, 1995 PAGE-6- Gary Espinosa; 14~ 10 Oak Street, Saratoga, noted that Oak Street has parking on one side of the street and that guests have to park several blocks away. He indicated that it was difficult for the residents who live on Oak Street to have what little parking that is left. He felt that if there is to be a business at the corner that parking would be abused. He recommended that the Commission go to the site on a summer day to see the fumes that comes from the existing lot. Also of concern were the fumes/smell that would be associated from the dry cleaners and photo operations. He stated that his main concern ~~°as that he believed that there would be a lot of traffic coming in and out of the proposed businesses. He did not believe that 14 stalls would be adequate for the proposed uses. Edwin Kennedy, 2926 Leonard Road; Saratoga, informed the Commission that he is a 2~ year property o«ner in Saratoga. He asked «-here the applicant's employees are proposed to park? He noted that the parking district was limited. Parking that is not accommodated on site would overflow into the crowded parking district. He asked staff as to the width of Oak Street. As far as the left hand and right hand turn lanes are concerned, he felt that turns are at a risk from a safety stand point and he suggested that the business owner seriously consider another location for his general piece of mind. Kung Soo Kian, 20472 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, translating for Mr. Kim, the applicant, by stated that Mr. Kim appreciated the comments as expressed by the neighbors because they were important issues. Regarding the concerns expressed regarding the pollution and smells from the dry cleaning and photo shop, by stating that Mr. Kim follows the regulations as defined by state and the local pollution laws. These concerns are regulated by the Air Quality Control Board as well as the Water Control Board. He did not believe that he was harming anyone's health based on the regulations imposed by the regulating agencies. Also, Mr. Kim would be installing brand ne~v, latest equipment monitoring devices for the dry cleaners and one hour photo shop. He did not believe that the chemicals to be used «-ould be of hazard to individuals. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan stated that the Commission was not concerned with the business itself but that it was concerned with the comments as expressed by the neighbors regarding traffic impacts and the design of the building. She requested that Mr. Kim address those issues. Mr. Kian informed the Commission that a few individuals would stop at the same time to use the businesses and stated that Mr. Kim would try to operate under the local regulating codes as best that he could. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:12 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not concerned «°ith the nature of the business. However, he vas concerned that parking would not be adequate and felt that the buildings could be redesigned in a more appropriate fashion. He stated that he did not see a reason to grant a variance from the parking standards. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not inclined to grant either the design review nor the variance for rivo reasons. Regrading the design review; she did not like the way that the building PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES ' MAY 10, 199 PAGE - 7 - looked, she did not believe that it was an appropriate style building, and that she did not like the ~~•ay the building uv~as sited on the parcel. She stated that it was her impression that Saratoga vas a "Village" and that a Village meant walking; walking meant that you put the building up to the sidewalks and the parking is put behind the building. This «-ould buffer it from the neighbors and make traffic flow a lot easier. She stated that she was not too concerned about the flow of traffic relative to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. However, she did not believe that parking was adequate. Commissioner Asfour stated that as the application stands today, he could not support it. His main concern being the building itself. The traffic flow going in and out of the site would not be any more intensive than the previous gas station use. Therefore, he did not have a problem with the traffic flow. He did however have a problem with the variance, with his biggest concern being that of the building itself. Unless the building «-as modified to meet the Village image, he could not approve it. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments. She indicated that she drives Oak Street daily and stated that the intersection was extremely dangerous; noticing a number of near misses. She felt that the traffic was of concern. In addition. all other comments stated were appropriate. She felt that there were uses for this property that would be less parking and traffic intensive that would be more pedestrian oriented (i.e., attorneys office, office or professional use). Commissioner Abshire felt that the building should be compatible with the buildings in the Village area and that the parking should also be compatible. He indicated that with the evidence presented this evening, he could not support the variance for the parking. It vas his belief that the building itself should be more in line with the architecture of the Village and that he felt that some improvement could be made. He stated that he had no objection to the businesses that were proposed and that the Village could use these types of businesses. Vice-chairv<~oman Kaplan stated that she did not feel that the design was compatible with the tone and the nature of buildings that the City «-ould like to see in the Village. She stated that she had concern with traffic. Regarding the nature of the businesses; she indicated that the Commission has no control of those issues. She stated that she could not support the variance nor the design review. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:19 P.M. Mr. Shen requested that the applications be continued to allow him time to re-study the issues. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JUNE 14, 199 WITH REVISED PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF BY FRIDAY. JUNE 2, 199 FOR APPLICATIONS DR-9~-008 AND V-95-002. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT). PLANNIi`TG COMMISSION~TUTES MAY 10. 1995 PAGE - 8 - ~. SM-9~-002 - Rolize, Inc./Fini; 1 X070 Sperry Ln., request for Site Modification approval to construct a s«°imming pool and associated grading on a 29 percent average slope pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The parcel is 1.19 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Joe Quilici, Hoskins Engineers, civil structural engineer, informed the Commission that the applicant was out of the country and that he would answer any questions that it may have. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:24 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SM- 9~-002 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRlUTAN MURAKAMI ABSEi~TT). 6. DR-94-036 - Niu; 20894 Verde Vista Ln., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,281 sq. ft. tvvo-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. An existing 3,040 sq. ft. tvvo-story residence would be demolished. The parcel is 1.02 acres and is located within an R-1-40;000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldv~°ell asked as to the height of the current structure? Planner Walgren responded that the structure was within the 24-26 foot range with the new structure being a couple of feet taller. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan commented that it appeared that there was a lot of slippage at the site visit and asked it if the site vas considered stable. Planner Walgren responded that the site was reviewed by the applicant's consultants and their review has been confirmed by the City geologist. He informed the Commission that the large retaining wall directly below the residence vas built much later than the residence and that it vas an attempt to correct the sliding concerns that were occurring. The retaining wall «-as built under current codes and was acceptable in its configuration. A lot of the cracking that is being seen in the decking was apparently from loose soils and that v~~hen the decking is taken out and the ground recompacted properly, it should alleviate any slippage in the future. Commissioner Abshire asked if the house ~i°ould be visible from any other homes nearby. Planner Walgren responded that the home would be visible from the rear yards from of homes located below. PLANNING COMMISSIOl'~INUTES • MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - 8 - 5. SM-95-002 - Rolize, Inc./Fini; 15070 Sperry Ln., request for Site Modification approval to construct a swimming pool and associated grading on a 29 percent average slope pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 1.19 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Joe Quilici, Hoskins Engineers, civil structural engineer, informed the Commission that the applicant was out of the country and that he would answer any questions that it may have. COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:24 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SM- 95-002 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT). 6. DR-94-036 - Niu; 20894 Verde Vista Ln., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,281 sq. ft. two-story residence pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. An existing 3,040 sq. ft. two-story residence would be demolished. The parcel is 1.02 acres and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Caldwell asked as to the height of the current structure? Planner Walgren responded that the structure was within the 24-26 foot range with the new structure being a couple of feet taller. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan commented that it appeared that there was a lot of slippage at the site visit and asked it if the site was considered stable. Planner Walgren responded that the site was reviewed by the applicant's consultants and their review has been confirmed by the City geologist. He informed the Commission that the large retaining wall directly below the residence was built much later than the residence and that it was an attempt to correct the sliding concerns that were occurring. The retaining wall was built under current codes and was acceptable in its configuration. A lot of the cracking that is being seen in the decking was apparently from loose soils and that when the decking is taken out and the ground recompacted properly, it should alleviate any slippage in the future. Commissioner Abshire asked if the house would be visible from any other homes nearby. Planner Walgren responded that the home would be visible from the rear yards from of homes located below. . • PLANNING COMMISSIONi•NUTES • MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Asfour asked if the swimming pool was not proposed for removal, ho~v would the soil be compacted around the area without affecting or damaging the pool? Planner Walgren responded that the pool is to remain, the decking would be taken out and the soil would be recompacted around it with small equipment and new decking poured. The pool may need to be structurally checked once the compaction was completed and repaired if necessary. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Sergio Ramirez, 17671 Foster Road, Los Gatos, project architect, informed the Commission that he w°as representing the applicant. He informed the Commission that he tried not to exceed the existing size and shape of the house and that the design was consistent with the existing house. Commissioner Abshire asked if any other design other than Mediterranean style was considered. Mr. Ramirez responded that the applicant requested a Mediterranean style home design. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not believe that Mediterranean homes were compatible with the hillside because they are too big and would provide a high profile. He felt that the hillside deserves a low profile home. Mr. Ramirez responded that the new home was not a high profile home and that it would follow- the lines of the existing home. He tried to do everything that he could to make the news home less obtrusive than the existing home. Mr. Abshire stated that he did not agree with Mr. Ramirez and felt that the present two story home's profile was more subdued than what is being proposed. Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Ramirez if there was a possibility to have the same design with a lower height at 24 feet rather than 26 feet? Mr. Ramirez responded that an~rthing was possible within certain limits. He noted that the roof line of the house was getting to a point where the peak that was designed for the window located at the entry was close to the ridgeline of the house. If the ridgeline was to be cut down, then that area would need to be made square, requiring a redesign of the house. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not have a problem with the Mediterranean style home but that he did have a problem with the height of the home, even though it is within the approved limits. Visually, Commissioner Asfour felt that it was too high and he recommended that it be lowered. He had no problem with the design itself other than minimizing the perception of bulk. Mr. Ramirez informed the Commission that the applicant would agree to work with the City. Jim Roach, 2 ] 118 Sarahills Drive, owner of the property directly behind this proposal, requested reassurance that the height would not be increased over that of the present home and that the trees are to remain in tact as not to change his view or not create an obstruction. Commissioner Siegfried stated it w-as his understanding that the proposed home could be as much as tw-o feet higher than the existing home but that the trees are to remain. Mr. Ramirez stated that he has tried to keep the height of the house to the limits as that of the existing house. He felt that the ne~v home would be one and a half to tw•o feet higher than the present home, that the trees to be removed are the ones located in the front of the home, and that PLANNING COMMISSION•NUTES i MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - 10 - the trees that screen this home from that of Mr. Roach are to remain. Landscape plans have been submitted that will attempt to ensure privacy for Mr. Roach as well as the applicant. COMMISSIOI`TERS PATRICK/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:36 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he has no problem with the design as it stands but that the only question he had was that of height. He did not «-ant to see the height exceed that of the existing home even though it is allowed to exceed the existing height by a couple of feet. He stated that he would have liked to see the use of a height pole so that the Commission could visually tell how the height was relative to the existing structure. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan commented that if the proposed home vas within the codes, she asked if the Commission could require that the architect remove two feet or v~~ould the City end up with another Mediterranean home with a chopped off roof. Commissioner Caldwell stated that this is a site that the Commission needs to be careful «~ith because it is a visible hillside parcel. Normally. height poles are required to be used but she stated that she understood ~vhy staff felt that height poles were not necessary in this ease. but that staff v~-as not thinking about the finer issue of height difference between the existing structure and the one proposed. She did not feel that it would hurt to have the height poles erected to resolve the height question. She indicated that the height of the home vvas her main concern. Commissioner Abshire stated that he recognizes that the owner would like a particular style of house, but that he would like to be sure that the visibility ~~ould not be impeded. He recommended the use of height poles and the use of another choice of colors for the Commission to review. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had no problem with the proposed colors. However, he did have a problem going back and requesting the use of height poles. He felt that what the City would end up with would be a house that is a foot or a foot and a half lower in height but worse looking when all is said and done (resulting in the same house but with a flatter roof). Commissioner Patrick felt that changing the roof line would ruin the look of the house and its design and turn out to look funny. She stated that she would prefer to vie~~° height poles if possible to get a visual idea how high the roof line «~ould be. She would prefer to see the house stay as it is and would like to see the use of darker earth tone colors. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK iViOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Mr. Ramirez echoed the comments as expressed by Commissioners Patrick and Siegfried. He did not feel that a reduction in height ~~°ould enhance the appearance of the house. The design of the home took into account whose views ~~=ould be impacted. He tried to come up with a design that addresses each and everyone of the concerns that could be envisioned from each of the neighbors, including the height. He did not believe that anyone above the home would have PLANNING COMMISSIOl'~INUTES • MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - 10 - the trees that screen this home from that of Mr. Roach aze to remain. Landscape plans have been submitted that will attempt to ensure privacy for Mr. Roach as well as the applicant. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:36 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he has no problem with the design as it stands but that the only question he had was that of height. He did not want to see the height exceed that of the existing home even though it is allowed to exceed the existing height by a couple of feet. He stated that he would have liked to see the use of a height pole so that the Commission could visually tell how the height was relative to the existing structure. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan commented that if the proposed home was within the codes, she asked if the Commission could require that the azchitect remove two feet or would the City end up with another Mediterranean home with a chopped off roof. Commissioner Caldwell stated that this is a site that the Commission needs to be careful with because it is a visible hillside pazcel. Normally, height poles aze required to be used but she stated that she understood why staff felt that height poles were not necessary in this case, but that staff was not thinking about the finer issue of height difference between the existing structure and the one proposed. She did not feel that it would hurt to have the height poles erected to resolve the height question. She indicated that the height of the home was her main concern. Commissioner Abshire stated that he recognizes that the owner would like a particulaz style of house, but that he would like to be sure that the visibility would not be impeded. He recommended the use of height poles and the use of another choice of colors for the Commission to review. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had no problem with the proposed colors. However, he did have a problem going back and requesting the use of height poles. He felt that what the City would end up with would be a house that is a foot or a foot and a half lower in height but worse looking when all is said and done (resulting in the same house but with a flatter roof). Commissioner Patrick felt that changing the roof line would ruin the look of the house and its design and turn out to look funny. She stated that she would prefer to view height poles if possible to get a visual idea how high the roof line would be. She would prefer to see the house stay as it is and would like to see the use of darker earth tone colors. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Mr. Ramirez echoed the comments as expressed by Commissioners Patrick and Siegfried. He did not feel that a reduction in height would enhance the appearance of the house. The design of the home took into account whose views would be impacted. He tried to come up with a design that addresses each and everyone of the concerns that could be envisioned from each of the neighbors, including the height. He did not believe that anyone above the home would have _ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES • MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - 11 - their views blocked. The roof would not be an imposing structure because there would be trees in between the line of sight of the neighbors and the roof. Commissioner Asfour stated that he w-as not so much concerned for the neighbors located behind the proposed project because of the trees. He was more concerned with the view of the neighbors located below. He requested that this item be continued for two weeks so that height poles can be viewed by the Commission. Mr. Ramirez stated that he did not believe that the owner would object to the installation of height poles and that he would be more than willing to do so. He indicated that landscape plans have been submitted that have been carefully considered in order to mitigate the views that anyone may have from the valley. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if Mr. Ramirez would be amenable to darkening the tone of colors. Mr. Ramirez informed the Commission that he would consult the owner regarding the use of colors and felt that the owner would be amenable to entertain suggestions from the Commission. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 24. 1995 TO ALLOW MR. RAMIREZ THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH THE APPLICANT TO DETERMII~TE IF THE APPLICANT VVAS AMENABLE TO CHANGING THE COLORS AND ALLOWING THE COMMISSION TO REVISIT THE SITE TO VIEW HEIGHT POLES (TO BE INSTALLED BY MAY 23). Commissioner Abshire requested that the height poles be left up until May 24 because he would not be able to make a site visit until that time. Commissioner Caldwell pointed out that it was a standard procedure to require the use of height pole but that the only reason height poles were not required was because of the existing home. Any other hillside or visible parcels would be required to use height poles. She informed Mr. Ramirez that staff has guidelines for height pole installation. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSE1~iT). THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:42 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:51 P.M. 7. DR-95-010 - Toung; 19501 Glen Una Dr., request for Design Review approval to construct a news 5,423 sq. ft. two-story residence, a pool and a tennis court pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 40,521 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter has been received from an adjoining propem~ owner expressing concern with the location of the tennis court being in proximity to their master bedroom. Staff has also noted that the tennis court does not meet minimum the 20 foot side setback. He indicated that staff supports PLANNING COMMISSION~IVUTES • MAY 10, 1995 PAGE - 12 - the project with the conditions contained within the resolution including the suggestion that the swimming pool and tennis court be converted in their location w°ithin the rear yard setback to alleviate the neighbor's concerns as well as the setback compliance issue. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:~3 p.m. Richard Augustine. project designer, provided the Commission with a brief history of the project design. Because of the preponderance of one stor~° homes in the neighborhood, he had to reduce the maximum height of the building and square footage of the building to comply ~;-ith city ordinance, resulting in a ~,000~ square foot building. He redesigned a home that was more in line with what his clients preferred. He mediated the difference in design of the house between his clients and planning staff, resulting in the proposed Mediterranean style, two story home design. He addressed the location of the tennis court and the concern of the adjacent neighbor's privacy associated with the tennis court. He stated that the only place that the tennis court could be located would be at the side of the property as indicated in the site plans and that the owners would be willing to mitigate the problem by reducing the size of the court, making it more of a sports court, screening the court and by restricting the use of the court to daylight hours in order to keep the tennis court in the location shown. Commissioner Siegfried stated that in looking at the plans, it appeared that the size of the court to be that of a sports court and not that of a tennis court because a tennis court would be twice the size as indicated in the plans. Planner ~Valgren stated that a tennis court would be 7,200 square feet in size. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan inquired if the tennis court «-as to be a full-sized regulation court. Mr. Augustine responded that it would not be a full-sized regulation tennis court and that the size of the tennis court «~ould be 37' x 78' in size which included a tennis playing area but not the sidewalk surrounding it. He informed the Commission that a regulation tennis court starts at a size of 47' x 108'. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the tennis court would need to meet minimum setbacks. Therefore, the tennis court could not be built as was explained by Mr. Ramirez because the entire envelope of the tennis court does not meet minimum setbacks. Commissioner Patrick asked if there were to be walkways around the tennis court. Mr. Augustine responded that he did not draw- the walkways around the tennis court and that he did not intend to have a walkway around the tennis court because the owners have indicated that the tennis court would be used as a practice court for the family and was not going to be used by their guests. He further explained that what is seen on the plans as a practice court w-as all that w-as to be built. Commissioner Caldwell asked how wide the walkways were that are in addition to the dimensions shown on the plans. Mr. Augustine responded that from the back court, behind the servers area, there is a 12 foot area on either side and that the sidewalks are five feet each, for an additional 10 feet added onto the width and an additional 24 feet added to the depth. PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES • MAY 10. 1995 PAGE - 13 - In response to Vice-chairwoman Kaplan's question, Planner Walgren indicated that the tennis court would be too close to the adjacent property and the additional depth and width as explained by Mr. Ramirez would further violate the setback requirements. Commissioner Asfour inquired about the suggestion made by staff of reversing the swimming pool and tennis court. Mr. Augustine responded that he tried several layouts and that by reversing the sw°immin~ pool and tennis court, it would eliminate the rear yard. Commissioner Siegfried commented that in reviewing the plans, he understands why the tennis court could not be reversed because the tennis court would come right up against the house if it ~i=as moved. If it w-as an actual sports court, it could be moved. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked Mr. Augustine if the applicants had a choice of having the application denied or reversing the tennis court with the swimming pool, which would be preferred. Mr. Augustine responded that the applicants have expressed a concern that if they do not have tennis court approval, they would like to relocate the house so that it is placed on the center of the lot to give them more side yard on either side. He indicated that the applicants would request that the tennis court approved. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/CALDWELL MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:0~ P.M. Commissioner Caldwell pointed out that an east/west tennis court does not work very well (sun problem). She felt that there may be too much development proposed and that maybe something has to be given up or that a true sports court may need to be considered. Commissioner Asfour stated that he felt that a homeowner should be entitled to enjoy their property the best that they can but that there are some things that may have to be given up. He indicated that the had a problem w=ith the full sized tennis court. Commissioner Patrick stated that it w-as unfortunate that the lot was purchased with the easements and the way the site was set up. She did not believe that you could build more than the lot can support and that the building appears to be a busy plan as proposed. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not hear anything this evening that would support approval of a variance. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the Commission did not object to the design of the building and that she had no objections to the design. She asked if the Commission could make a motion to delete the tennis court if the applicant was not willing to relocate it. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the condition currently reads to relocate the tennis court to a code conforming location or eliminate the tennis court. He clarified the discussion of the tennis court by stating that the plans that were provided to staff indicates a 37' x 78' (2800 square foot) court. Where the additional 24 feet of w~alkw-ay is going to go and wThy they were not indicated on the plans vas not clear to staff. ' PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES • MAY 10, 199 PAGE - 14 - Commissioner Asfour stated that he would prefer to see the tennis court deleted because it would not fit on the site. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that the condition, as recommended by staff,- would give the applicant the option to either relocate the court to a code conforming location or to eliminate the court. Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff be vigilant in its review of the plans that show the court's relocation to make sure that the size of the court is clear. COMMISSIONERS CALD~VELL/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-010 AS RECOMMEI`?DED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis commented that the Commission has indicated that it would like to meet with the Heritage Preservation Commission and that the Heritage Preservation Commission has also indicated that it would like to meet with the Planning Commission. He recommended that the Commission consider another date other than the July 4 work session date. He suggested that the ~~°ork session be scheduled for July 18 with the firstr hour to be scheduled to meet with the Heritage Preservation Commission and the second hour to conduct regular work items. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED WORK SESSION SCHEDULE. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-94-049 - Voisinet; 14100 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. -Modification to original Design Revie«~ application Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that staff was presenting the changes per Conunission policy and that should the Commission have no concerns, staff would approve the changes administratively. Commissioner Asfour stated that at his site visit, he was disturbed with what has happened to the existing trees. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan commented that the demolition permit allowed removal of the protective fences from the t«-o trees that backed up to the rear of the property. There was a question as to whether the protective fence was to be reinstalled to protect the trees from further encroachment. Planner Walgren responded that in researching the file, there were two phases of fencing. The original house that «°as demolished backed up to the trees. He informed the Commission that fencing ~~°as allowed to be close to the tree trunks. The house has been demolished, the site is vacant and that before construction can commence, the property owner - 'PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES • MAY 10. 199 PAGE - 15 - would need to have the fencing relocated and to call staff for an inspection to make sure that the fencing is located in the right place. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if there ~~°as a trench located in the back of the property? Planner Walgren responded that the equipment trenching occurred on the adjacent lot. Staff ~~°as concerned that the trenching may have gone too far into the canopy of the oak tree. Staff contacted the City arborist and that he believed that the arborist event to the site this afternoon to investigate the trenching. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan indicated that one of the concerns of the Commission vas that there has already been an encroachment under the old oak tree on the neighboring property where the easement is located and that it was the Commission's understanding that encroachment was to stop at the canopy of the tree. It appeared to the Commission at its site visit that encroachment has occurred under the canopy and that there appears to be loose roots. She v~-anted direction from the Planning Commission to state that if the applicant has violated the conditions of approval, that the project would be stopped to investigate the problem. Commissioner Caldwell noted that the frontage area of the Kerwin Ranch had some trenching done under the driplines of the oak trees. It vas her recollection that the trenching v~-as to be conducted by hand and it wasn't. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff visited the Kerwin Ranch last week with the City arborist to discuss with the foreman how the trenching needed to occur. Further, the City arborist is scheduled to visit the site on a weekly basis to monitor the project. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the City arborist has indicted that if the trenching is done adjacent to the new paved sidewalk area. that would be acceptable and that the Citv arborist's concern «-as the use of equipment going underneath the dripline unless it w°as directly adjacent to the paved areas. He did not believe that trenching has occurred in the parkway median area yet. Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff investigate the issue. Mr. Voisinet informed the Commission that he .vas t~;~o feet over the dripline. He further indicated that digging was being conducted 20 feet a~~-ay from the oak tree. He did not believe that it was a gross violation and that the tree was not harmed. He indicated that the roots that are being seen v~-ere from the pepper trees. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the roots that were seen by the Commission were from an oak tree located on the neighboring site. IT WAS THE COI`TSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. Commissioner Caldwell commented that anordinance-sized oak tree was removed from the median in front of the Greenbriar development to accommodate access to a manhole. She noted that it apparently was a utility issue that should have been foreseen and that the City Engineer knew about its removal but that the planning staff member in charge of tree removals was not aware of its removal. She wished that there vas some other mechanism internal to City Hall - ~ 'PLANNING COMMISSIOi~T~1UTES • MAY 10. 1995 PAGE - 16 - because there may have been something that planning staff could have suggested that would have been sensible (i.e., transplanting). Planner Walgren agreed that the tree removal should have been brought to the Planning Commission's attention as a courtesy. However, it was a tree within a public median and that the se~~er vas being connected from the Greenbriar development. The manhole happened to be within this public median and that there was no way to connect the sewer without removal of the tree. Planning staff vas not made aware of the tree's removal until after the fact. He felt that there vas an effort to save the tree and that there was an equal value replacement being required for the oak tree. Commissioner Abshire informed the Commission that he listened to the CEQA tapes dealing with environmental laws and conditions. He felt that Community Development Director Curtis did a good presentation as to the importance of findings and noted that Saratoga «°as careful in making findings. He suggested that the Commission listen to the tapes. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Design Review Committee would be meeting Friday, May 12. He stated that he was encouraged with this committee and would be interested as to what comes out of this Committee. He also noted that application UP-X74.3, the Brookside Club of Saratoga, requesting to amend the existing use permit to allo~~~ for amplified sound system and change in hours, was scheduled for the next meeting. He requested that Commissioners who have friends involved with Brookside make sure that they have done their home~~ork with the neighborhood because this «~as a volatile issue when it came up four to six years ago. He noted that the neighbors were opposed to what ever was going on at the time and that the Commission was able to resolve the issue but not without a lot of time and effort being expended. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan commented that a couple of items from the April 1 1, 199 City Council minutes caught her attention, one being the Mountain Winery. She asked if the Commission ~~~ould be getting involved in some informal specific plan issues. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the Council has determined that a formal specific plan would not be conducted for the Mountain `Vinery. Instead, an informal process would be conducted whereby it is to be discussed at an informal work session to be conducted in June or July between the Planning Commission and City Council. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if there would be representatives from the other governmental agencies who have the major portion of the land in its jurisdiction (i.e., County) at the work session. Community Development Director Curtis responded that County staff could be invited to sit in and participate in the work session with the primary purpose to discuss what kinds of uses would be appropriate or not appropriate. Commissioner Patrick asked if May 24 was the scheduled date for the review of the Ascension Church project. Planner ~Valgren informed the Commission that the Ascension Church project was scheduled for June 14. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan noted that the April 11 City Council Minutes indicated discussion of north Saratoga Avenue and that staff was to propose a white paper. She asked staff as to what is meant by a white paper. Community Development Director Curtis responded that a white paper ~~~as a background report that identifies issues, talks about alternatives, and makes sure that •, .: _PLANNING COMMISSIOI~T~IUTES MAY 10. 1995 PAGE - 17 - there is a project to pursue. However, he informed the Commission that north Saratoga Avenue has been deemed a priority two project under the work program and that it would not be reviewed for at least a year and a half. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan noted that the newspaper reported that the Williamson Act contract would be abrogated for 1~Telson Gardens. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the City Council has approved tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on the land. He informed the Commission that the tentative cancellation was a procedural step so that the applicants can pursue review of development applications. He indicated that development applications have been filed with the city but that they have not been scheduled for public hearing because there is some geotechnical work that needs to be completed. Approval of the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract does not approve anything. All it does is indicate that the applicant can proceed with public hearings for development applications. He informed the Commission that public hearings would be scheduled for the Commission's June 14 meeting. Commissioner Patrick stated that she thought that there was an agreement reached in exchange for the Williamson Act cancellation. Community Development Director Curtis responded that in November or December; the City Council and the Community Foundation of Santa Clara entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) ~~°hich stated that if development occurs, that contribution of $67,000 per lot would be paid in addition to the normal park fee should a project be approved. He indicated that there are procedural steps to consider that. The first being the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act because you cannot approve a project if you are still under the Williamson Act. The second step would be for the applications to come forward to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearings. The property o~~ners have filed development applications with the City and that should those development applications be approved, then the conditions of the MOU ~i-ould be fulfilled. If the project, as proposed, which consists of a general plan amendment, zoning change and subdivision, is found to be unacceptable, nothing would happen. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he spoke to the City Council at its April 11 meeting. He stated that he sees a moral problem here because it is very clear that this property should not have been placed under the Williamson Act in the first place. It appeared to him that it vas used as a gimmick to postpone or avoid paying taxes. He felt that the City of Saratoga was helping the property o~ner in getting out of the Williamson Act. He ~i~ould hate to see this start as an example for other individuals to do the same thing. He felt that the Williamson Act was there for a good purpose, to protect agricultural land and not to be used for delaying payment of taxes. Communit}~ Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that if a property comes out of the Williamson Act early, they still have to pay back taxes. Commissioner Asfour stated that he has a problem with the Williamson Act contract because it has been an abuse of the planning process in the City and that he would make his case when this issue comes before the Commission. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan felt that the Memorandum of Understanding left the City in the position of having to approve nine lots. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the ,r:: PLANNING COMMISSION~TUTES ~ MAY 10. 199 PAGE - 18 - MOU states that if development is approved, it outlines what is going to happen. The MOU does not indicate when or ghat development is to occur. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan stated that if the property was released from the Williamson Act, and the property is permitted to develop, it appears to her that there is no longer an option as to how much development would go up there as nine lots have already been indicated. Community Development Director Curtis responded that if the Commission felt that five lots should be the maximum number of lots allow°ed for development, that recommendation «~ould be forwarded to the City Council with the Council making the decision. He indicated that the Commission was not locked in as to the number of lots that are to be developed. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the MOU states that a maximum of 10 lots could be approved. Planner VValgren recollected that the MOU was based on 10 lots which is what the engineer thought the propem~ could yield. In staff s review of the site, it w°as determined that the site would only yield 9 lots because of density requirements. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the attachment to the MOU w-as changed which addressed the size of the homes. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the City Council has directed staff on tentative maps to state what the maximum size home that would be allowed on each lot. Commissioner Asfour indicated for the record that he would not be attending the next meeting as he would be out of the country. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 4/11; 4/19; 4/2~ 2. Planning Commission Notices for ~!24/9~ Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., «~ednesday, May 24, 199, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRIVIA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK it`PC05109 ~. S:~R