Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-1995 Planning Commission Minutes-- .s~ - ~ ~ •ANNING COMMISSION i\TI\TUT• ~" ~s JUNTE 28, 1995 Cite Council Chambers, 13777 Fruit~-ale A~~enue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Murakami Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Cald~yell, Kaplan, Patrick. Siegfried, Murakami Late: None Absent: None City Attorney Riback and Community Development Director Curtis were not present this evening. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA\CE Chairman Murakami presented Commissioner Asfour ~a-ith a gavel and plaque and thanked him for a job yell done as the outgoing Chairman. MTNT TTF.C BY COI~TSENSUS. THE COi~1MISSIOI~T DEFERRED THE APPROVAL OF THE MAY 24 AND JUNE 14. 199 i\~1INUTES TO THE L-\TD OF THL- AGE\TDA DUE TO THE I~TUMBER OF ITEMS SCHEDULED THIS EVENII~TG. ORAL C01~IMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI`TG AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code ~49>4.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 23. 199. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner VValgren informed the Commission that there ~yere no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING COI~TSENT CALE\TDAR 1. AZO-95-003 - CITY OF SARATOGA Consideration of a draft Ordinance amending Chapter 1 ~-.i0 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to standards for the placement of temporary signs in Commercial Zoning Districts and consideration of a draft ordinance establishing interim standards for temporary signs in Commercial Zoning Districts (cont. to the 7/12/95 public hearin; meeting at the recommendation of staff). ._ PLANNING COiv1YIISSI~~~II\UTES JUtiTE 28, 199 PAGE-2- 2. AZO-95-004 - CITY OF SARATOGA Consideration of a draft Ordinance amending Chapter 15-30 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to the prohibition of certain signs within the Public Right-of-~'~%ay (cont. to the 7/12!9 public hearing meeting at the recommendation of staff). COMMISSIONERS CALD`VELL<''ASFOUR ~10VED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR-9~-015 - ABDULLAH; 14755 ALOHA AVE. Request for Design Review approval to construct an 874 sq. ft. second story addition and 1,197 sq. ft. of first level floor area to an existing 1,29 sq. ft. one-story residence. The parcel is approximately 13,60 sq. ft. (net) and is located «~ithin an R-1-1 x,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/24/95 at the direction of the Planning Commission; application expires 11/4/90. Planner VValgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that additional correspondence was received from the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Abdullah, summarizing their revision process and from Mr. Roy Crawford, 14711 Aloha Avenue addressing concern with a t~vo story home in this particular neighborhood. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that she received a letter from a neighbor and that she would read the letter into the record prior to the close of the public hearing as the neighbor could not be present this evening. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Mr. Abdullah, applicant, informed the Commission that his architect was running late and requested that the Commission delay this item until after the fourth item on the agenda to allow his architect time to arrive. COMMISSIONERS CALD~?~%ELL!PATRICK MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF AGENDA ITEl1 4. TI-IE 1~10TION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 4. DR-95-014 - StiCIU; 20420 itIONTALVO HEIGHTS DR. Request for Design Review approval to construct a x,716 sq. ft. two-story residence on a currently vacant 39.988 sq. ft. parcel pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The property is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. from x/24%9~ at the request of the applicants; application expires 10/18!90. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner V~'algren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:4~ p.m. Paul Suciu, applicant, thanked staff for its guidance and the neighbors for their input and PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES i JUNE 28, 1995 PAGE - 3 - patience. He felt that the proposed design was in compliance with City regulations and that it met the requirements of the neighbors. ~~ai:€~ir informed the Commission that he resides in the home that directly adjoins the Suciu home. ~~He indicated that he worked with the applicants to ensure that the design of the home would fit in with the neighborhood and to protect the neighbors' investments. He felt that Mr. Suciu tried to accommodate all of the concerns that the neighbors had to the best of his ability. He informed the Commission that the neighbors still have the following concerns: 1) the design of the house has a lazge appeazance, feel, and was not consistent with the homes in the neighborhood); 2) concern with the height of the house (requested that the house be situated as low on the property as possible); and 3) that there is an agreement to build a 5-6 foot high good neighbor wall/fence to minimize some of the activities. Bill McDonald, 15201 Montalvo Road, informed the Commission that his house is located directly behind this proposal. He indicated that his concern was that of the height of the home and requested that the roofline be lowered. Commissioners Asfour/Kaplan moved to close the public heazing at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that at the site visit, she noticed the size of all the homes in the azea. She did not believe that the size of this proposal was any different to those in the neighborhood. She felt that the applicant has selected a site that conformed with the contours of the street so that the house wraps azound the cul-de-sac. She indicated that she would vote in support of the proposal. Commissioner Asfour indicated that at the site visit, he felt that Mr. Suciu had been extremely accommodating to the neighbors. He stated that he had no problems with the proposal. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not see any reason not to approve this proposal as the home appeazs to be compatible with the neighborhood and would enhance the neighborhood. He stated that he would vote in support of the proposal. Commissioner Caldwell felt that the proposal met all of the design review findings for the neighborhood and that it was compatible with the neighborhood. Chairman Murakami requested clarification about the height. He noted that the height of the home appeazed to be 24 feet and that the code allows for 26 feet. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that during plan revisions, the applicants increased the roof pitch height slightly to get a more substantial roof line, increasing the roof line to 26 feet. Chairman Murakami stated that the applicant has cooperated with the neighbors to try to resolve their concerns. He indicated that he was satisfied with the siting of the home and would support the proposal. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- `• :PLANNING COMMISSI~i\1INUTES ' JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 4 - 95-014 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 3. DR-95-O1~ - ABDULLAH; 147~~ ALOHA AVE. Request for Design Review approval to construct an 874 sq. ft. second story addition and 1,197 sq. ft. of first level floor area to an existing 1,29 sq. ft. one-story residence. The parcel is approximately 13,60 sq. ft. (net) and is located «ithin an R-1-15,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/24/95 at the direction of the Planning Commission; application expires 11/4/95). Chairman Murakami reopened this item to public hearing. Warren Heid, project architect, addressed the changes made to the front elevations. He stated that the front elevations of the single story portion were «:~idened, giving it more balance. The second floor master bedroom was centered on the ridge so that the stairwell was setback, giving the feeling of the ridge being centered. He felt that the change in the windows and the continuation of the bedroom element. softening the elevations «~ith the shudders and small pane, brought the style of the home in character that «ould be acceptable to the neighborhood. Brian Bachman, 14735 Aloha Avenue, indicated that he resides across the street from the subject property and that he was speaking for 10 neighbors in the immediate vicinity who have signed a petition. He stated that the neighbors revie«~ed the design review findings and felt that the proposal met three of the six findings. He informed the Commission that the issues of concern were the views and compatibility with bulk and height «-ith surrounding structures. He provided the Commission ~~~ith a display of pictures ~~-hich depict the vie«~ impacts of the roof of the home to the neighbors. He stated that the neighbors felt that the house ~;~as a beautifully designed home and that it ~~~ould enhance the value of the neighborhood. Ho«~ever, the neighbors felt that the height of the home «-as inconsistent «~ith the homes in the immediate area. all of which are at a single story level. Commissioner Siegfried noted that approximately 20% of the roof line would be at 22 feet and that the remainder of the height ~i-ould be at approximately 18 feet. Kathi Hammill, 14704 Aloha Avenue, provided the Commission with a plot map which depicts the two story homes in the immediate neighborhood. She informed the Commission that only 16 homes out of 110 homes «-ere t~~'o story homes. She noted that there were no two story homes around the proposed two story home and felt that the one-third acre lot could accommodate a one story home. Commissioner Siegfried asked staff if a single story home could be built at 22 feet in height. Planner Walgren responded that the home could be at a height of 22 feet but that it ~i°ould need to go through a public hearing process. He indicated that the house could be at 18 feet ~~~ithout requiring a public hearing. Cotmissioner Siegfried stated that he vas struggling with the fact that the home could be approved at 18 feet «-ithout going through a public hearing process and that only the 20% second story element requires a public hearing. Ms. Hammill felt that the roof line would rise above those in the neighborhood. PLANNII~TG COMIVIISSItl1~~1INUTES ' JUNE 28. 1995 PAGE - ~ - Mr. Dougherty informed the Commission that he has resided at 14732 Aloha Avenue for 28 years and that there has been a long history of the neighbors objecting to t~vo story homes. He felt that the existing ten, two story homes were exceptions. He stated that he has looked over the property and that it appears that there is 24 feet from the Abdullah's house to the Grimm's home located next door and that no trees would need to be removed. He noted that there appears to be only a three to four foot rise from the back of the present structure to the back of the property. He expressed concern with the destruction of the existing landscaping. He felt that a portion of the second story structure would be exposed to several of the neighbors. He requested that the Commission continue to maintain the character of the neighborhood b~° denying the request for a second story addition in this neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour asked if ~~ir. Dougherty was objecting to the design just because it was a two story addition rather than the elevations. iV1r. Dougherty responded that he opposed the two story addition because the height and bulk would detract from the neighborhood. Commissioner Caldwell read a letter that she received from Audrey Chapman as she could not be present this evening. The letter indicates that his. Chapman v~°as in opposition to the tvvo stor}~ construction because it ~~~ould block vie~~~s and impact privacy and that she expressed concern with the proposed landscape architecture surrounding the area. She felt that lot sizes were small, being less than an acre. i\Ts. Chapman felt that if individuals want to construct a large residence, that Saratoga Hills might be a more appropriate location due to the acreage and land space surrounding these homes. Mike Grimm. 20540 Komina A~°enue. informed the Commission that he resides next door to the proposal. He requested that the Commission review the guidelines in the design review findings. He did not believe that the finding as it relates to privacy could be met because he believed that the home could be expanded on the existing property without the need for a second story addition. He did not believe that the proposed addition would be compatible in bulk and height to the surrounding properties. John Dana, 14725 Aloha Avenue. indicated that he was a neighbor of the Bachmans. He stated that he was pleased to have the Abdullahs move into the neighborhood because they would be upgrading their home. He stated that he moved to this neighborhood because it vas a one story neighborhood and that the homes in the neighborhood were approximately half acre lots which would allow homeowners to build reasonably sized, single story homes. He felt that it would be possible to build a 3,600 square foot home on this site. Allowing the construction of two story homes in the neighborhood «-ould further press requests for two story homes. Mr. Abdullah stated that he revie~i-ed the site with 1\1r. Bachman and requested that Mr. Bachman inform him as to where his views «-ould be impacted. He stated that he would treat the roofline to mitigate Mr. Bachman's concerns. iv1r. Abdullah did not believe that there were impacts to any views, line of sight or privacy and that if there were, he ~~-ould modify the plans to mitigate the concerns. He understood the concern of the neighbors saying that a precedence would be set if this two story addition was approved. He felt that the Commission would make the appropriate decision on every single home that comes before it. He requested that he not be penalized for something that someone else may do in the future. PLANNII~TG COMMISSI~iV1INUTES • JLTIVE 28, 199 PAGE - 6 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED;KAPLAI~T MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he understood the neighborhood's concern about tw°o story homes and that it «-ould be a continued concern in this community. He noted that only 30% of the home would be at 22 feet at the peak of the roof. He felt that the home was well within what would be considered a single story home with the exception of the peak. He felt that it was a eery attractively done second story design and that the design would fit the lot. He indicated that he would support the proposal. Commissioner Asfour concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. Commissioner Cald~i~ell noted that at the last meeting. it was indicated that the Commission would consider a second store addition for the lot. She indicated that she went back to visit this lot and looked at the neighborhood in great detail. In looking at the new design that is proposed by the applicant, she felt that the applicant has proposed a design that would include a second story addition and an architectural stele that is eery much in keeping with the lo«=er half of Aloha Avenue but that it ~~~as different from the character of the upper half of Aloha. She indicated that for that reason, she would not support the proposal. Commissioner Abshire reiterated that he hates seeing a situation like this developing in Saratoga where you have a homeowner in an opposite position to that of the neighborhood. He felt that the neighbors presented a much stronger ease this evening than was presented a month ago. He did not feel that the neighborhood ~~•as concerned ~~~ith this individual home because it was a low profile home but that the neighbors «-ere concerned that approval of this design would open up the neighborhood for more t«-o story homes. He felt that the lot «=as large enough to accommodate a single story home. Therefore, he «~ould be inclined to vote no on this proposal where he w-as voting the opposite direction a month ago. Commissioner Patrick stated that she ~~~as hoping that the redesign of the home would make a difference. However, the redesign of the plans did not change her perception of the home being too big for the neighborhood. She did not believe that the drawings make the home appear low and compact enough for the area and indicated that she could not support the proposal. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she ~~~as not crazy about the house style and that she did not believe the style ~~-as too massive for the area. She noted that only a small portion of the house would be a two story addition. She indicated that she could make the design review findings and would vote in support of the proposal. Commissioner Asfour stated that the main issue Liras not the view perception but the concern of establishing a two story precedent. He stated that he could not penalize the applicant because the proposal is not really a two story design even though it has a two story element. Chairman Murakami stated that in listening to the neighbors, he understood that their input vas important. It was pointed out that most of the homes located on the lo«-er half of the street were all one story. He indicated that he w°as not enthusiastic about the redesign and that logic tells him s PLANNING COMMISSI~1l~1INUTES • JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 7 - that the owner has a right to build this house. But in this particular ease, he ~~ould support denial of the proposal. COMMISSIO\TERS KAPLAN!SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION INTO. DR- 9~-01 ~ AS RECOiv1>\~1ENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR. KAPLA\, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE, CALDWELL. MURAKAMI, PATRICK; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE '~~IOVED TO DENY APPLICATION DR-95-O1~. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-~ AS FOLLO~~'S: AYES: ABSHIRE, CALDWELL. MURAKAMI, PATRICK; NOES: ASFOUR, K.aPLAN, SIEGFRIED; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: NONE. S. DR-94-022 & LL-94-005 - CHAtiTG; 21423 SARATOGA HILLS RD. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,821 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate a property line per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The parcels involved are approximately X3,306 and 21,96 sq. ft. in size, and are located ~~~ithin an R-1-40.000 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner ~'~'algren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that correspondence has been received from Jeffrey C. Benzing, A~lichaels Drive, citing concerns with previous landslide movements in the vicinity and on this proposal and cites a specific event that occurred in 1983 as a result of heavy rains and a broken ~i~ater main, and that the home affects view sheds. Also, a letter «~as received from Mary and Robert Chin, the immediate do~~m slope neighbors on the other side of ridge line. expressing concerns with seven specific items primarily dealing with design review concerns (i.e., the house leaning over their house, obstruction of views and invasion of privacy). He also noted that iV1r. Chin also raised technical questions and that he (Walgren) had an opportunity to discuss these technical questions with Mr. Chin and that staff felt that the allowable square footage listed in the report were accurate. Commissioner Patrick noted that the staff report indicates that the home would be 4,821 square feet and that the code allows for 4,742 «ith a height reduction. She asked if the proposed square footage exceeds the maximum allowed by code. Planner ~~%algren responded that if you have a home in a residential area that is primarily single story. then you would need to apply an area reduction. This is an incentive to encourage individuals to keep lov~~er, single story homes in neighborhoods where the homes are primarily single story homes. He stated that staff felt that the exception can be made that the reduction does not need to be applied. Commissioner Kaplan asked if staff has discussed ~~ith the applicant a better step dov~n affect for this house because she did not believe that the home met the design review criteria of stepping into the hillside. Planner ~Valgren responded that staff raised this point with the applicant early on in the process but that the applicants felt that they needed to pursue this design for both design consideration and landslide constraints affecting the single story design. He further informed the Commission that staff received a preliminary landscape plan and that staff requested a more comprehensive landscape plan as a condition of approval. ' ,, PLANNING CO~~Ii\7ISSI~MI\liTES • ~~ JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 8 - Chairman Murakami noted that the staff report indicates that the only reasonable location for the home was the site that «-as chosen. He asked if that precludes any stepping down of the home into the slope. Planner ~~'al~ren informed the Commission that the letter submitted from the Chins requests that the house be stepped and moved off the slope to the south. directly into the landslide area that has been identified. He noted that there ryas room to move the house to the east or west along the ridge line andor step do«-n the house to the natural saddle that exists. Commissioner Abshire asked if there «-ere any plans to install a retaining «-a11 in the area that has been identified as a landslide. Planner ~~'algren responded that the landslide area would not allow any physical improvements or development. He stated that the geologists have identified a 1 ~ to 2~ foot minimum setback from the edge of the landslide area identified. Commissioner Cald~~°ell referred to the letter attached to the Commission's packet submitted by Ms. Girand and Mr. McGregor. She noted that the letter raised several issues such as whether or not the plans show the easements on the property. That relates to some suggestive language regarding any potential interference «-ith «~aterlines. She requested that staff respond to the issues raised in the letter. She noted that there ~yere many references made to the building site being located on a ridgeline. She asked if this ridge ~~~ould be considered a major or minor ridge. Planner Walgren responded that the ridgeline would not be considered a major or minor ridgeline since it is not in the hillside zoning district. He indicated that the easement that would be affected by this development has been plotted. Regarding the suggestive language listed on page 69 of the staff report, staff felt that the suggestive language to require fencing to protect the water company's utility easement that runs along the lower part of the property could be supported. Commissioner Cald«-e11 noted that the material to be used for the driveway to protect the existing oak tree was not addressed as raised by the neighbors. Planner ~~'algren responded that the garage would affect the tree more than the drive«-av. Commissioner Kaplan noted that a corner of the garage ~yould be located within the tree's dripline. Planner ~?~~ algren referred the Commission to page 64 of the staff report which depicts the tree's canopy. He indicated that the city arborist was under the impression that the garage would be encroaching three to four feet into the canopy and found it to be acceptable. But at the site visit, when the height poles ~~~ere up, it appears that the garage would be 12 to 1 ~ feet from the trees' trunk. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Virigina Fanelli. representing the applicants, requested approval of the lot line adjustment and design revie~y application. She stated that she was in agreement with the conditions of the staff report with the exception of condition 7.a. which would require the deletion of the upper-level of the second story balcony closest to the north property line. She informed the Commission that Mr. Chang, applicant, has agreed to work with the Girands and McGregors and with staff to come up with more acceptable colors for the house and the roof. Mr. Chang would also agree to work with the neighbors to determine the t~-pe of screening to be included in the landscaping plan to be submitted (conditions 7. b. and 7.c.) to satisfy the screening concerns between the homes. She stated that the applicant would be following the recommendations of the city arborist as far as preservation of the oak tree. Regarding the fencing issue, she believed that the letter was v~7itten PLAI~ri~TIl~?G COMMISSI•il1INUTES • ~' JUNE 28, 1995 PAGE-9- prior to the last changes made from the last geotechnical review and approval. At this time. because of the changes required by the geotechnical report, there ~;~ould be no grading, soil movement or tractor activity in the area of the «-ater easement. All of the excavation would be moved off site and that there would be no activity on the slope as originally indicated. She stated that the plans have been modified in accordance «-ith the geotechnical report. She felt that the concerns of Ms. Girand and Mr. McGregor have been addressed and stated that the concerns of the Chin's ~yould be reviewed. She stated that the house pad was selected based on the geotechnical report. She stated that the concern of the Chin's prompted the condition to remove the upper-level balcony nearest to their home. She indicated that the applicant disagrees with condition 7.a. because the Chin's received variance from setback requirements in 1990. The Chins' encroaclunent into the required setback impacted future development of the lot. At time of variance approval, 1\~1r. Chin indicated that this setback encroachment «~ould provide sufficient setback for privacy and that he «-ould have no problem «-ith future development. Ms. Fanelli noted that the there ~yould be a distance of 47 feet between this home and that of the Chins' home. She requested that the Commission remove condition 7.a. and that the Commission approve the application as per the staff report. Commissioner Asfour asked if Ms. Fanelli has spoken to the applicant about the possibility of haying the home stepped do«-n. Ms. Fanelli responded that she has spoken with the applicant about stepping do~yn the home and that it ryas determined that due to the geologic constraints of the site, the house was designed in an area determined to be geologically stable. Commissioner Caldwell asked how it «-as kno~yn ~yhether the location of the height poles on the lot as they appeared were accurate. Ms. Fanelli indicated that it was her belief that the location of the height poles were accurate. Commissioner Kaplan asked if it ~yould be possible to eliminate the pool because it would require a lot of excavation to install the pool. The house could than be moved to~yards the east, away from the big oak tree to avoid an~• problems with the garage and drive~yay material. Ms. Fanelli responded that in order to do so ~~-ould require a total redesign of the house. She stated that the geologist report indicates that this ryas the one kno«-n safe place to locate the house and that in addition to that, you have a great deal of cut. She noted that grading was already over the 1.000 cubic yards. y Leon Summers. project architect, informed the Commission that the height poles located on the corner ~yere accurate. Commissioner Asfour felt that the height poles appear to be too close to the oak tree. Mr. Summers indicated that he ~yould agree to have the arborist revie«- the poles for accuracy. Commissioner Kaplan asked ~yhy the house could not be shitted to the east, to«-ards the location of the pool. and the house redesigned so that it does not appear to sit right on top of the ridge. Mr. Summers responded that there «ould be a number of problems with this suggestion, one being access to the house. He felt that the house would have to sit on top of the ridge no matter where the house ~i-as located. The house ~.vould be seen by the neighbors no matter where it is placed on the ridge. He did not believe that the house could be moved more than a foot because ' ~ PLANNING COMMISSIiMINUTES • JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 10 - of the setback cutting back towards the pool. Commissioner Caldwell asked about pad*e T-1 of the plans. She noted that the plans indicate a notation that refers to the landslide setback and that there appears to be some plans for hardscape. She asked if this area was planned for hardscape. ti'Ir. Summers responded that the lines delineate a 30 foot setback from the landslide area and delineates the buildable area. He indicated that the only hardscape proposed «-as the driveway. Ms. Fanelli indicated that the neology and arborist reports were very clear on how limited it would be for any kind of planting, irrigation, or movement of soil. She stated that she would work closely with Mr. Cotton. the city's geologist, to make sure that he is comfortable with the placement of the house. Robert Chin, 21427 Saratoga Hills Road. indicated that he was not officially notified of the original public hearing, its continuance, or any licenses for this application. He requested that the Commission read his letter regarding this proposal. He requested that the proposal be denied because approval would raise a number of problems. He felt that the square footage of the proposal substantially exceeds the maximum allowable by 600 square feet: the proposed setback would interfere ~~°ith his family°s views and privacy; the proposed structure ~~°ould only be 38 feet away from his home: and that the proposal would shado«= his home most of the day and would interfere ~;pith his solar hot «-ater system. He referred to figure 2 of his letter «=hich shows that the windo~~~s and balcony's would invade his privacy. Commissioner Kaplan asked l~Ir. Chin where the site plan configuration he used for his variance application came from because the Commission has been told that the site plan he used vas not the recorded site plan. Mr. Chin responded that he obtained the site plan from the approved package of the 1990 resolution of approval. Mr. Chin stated that he felt that the proposal would be incompatible ~~ith those of the neighborhood as it is a huge Mediterranean home that would be built only 30 feet from a landslide area. He requested that the applicant be required to provide for larger container sized landscaping (i.e., 24 or ~6 inch-boxes) to provide for better screening. He felt that the proposal substantially exceeds the maximum allo«•able square footage as specified in city ordinance. The proposal would look down into his sho«-er, invading his privacy; the proposal is ~0% larger than the adjacent home, being incompatible with most of the homes in the area; the proposal of a huge structure painted red, green and white and built directly on the ridgeline would be incompatible with the vie«-; and that the proposal is only 38 feet from his home, creating an adverse impact upon the aesthetics of the neighboring residential structures. He requested that the existing proposal be denied. Laurie Girand, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, clarified that the issue of fencing along the water pipeline was not raised and that the applicant was not a~~~are of this issue until after design review. She felt that this was a highly visible lot and requested that the neighborhood be allowed to provide input regarding the landscape plans prior to its acceptance. She requested that the City require the use of pavers or other similar material for the driveway to protect the oak tree. She recommended that the roofing material and screen color be of a darker color. She did not feel ,PLANNING COYiMISSI,~iINUTES JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 11 - that the roofing material to be used fits with the character of the neighborhood. She noted that the project architect indicated this evening that no other roof style would be considered. She indicated her support of stepping down of the home and relocating the home either to the east or west on the site. She provided the Commission with a picture of her view of the proposal from her master bedroom. Rick Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road. informed the Commission that he resides across the street from the proposed site. 1-Ie felt that the proposal «-as too large and too close to the Chin's property and would be unsightly to all neighbors. He did not feel that there was any prior approval or discussion with the neighbors. He informed the Commission that this was a private road, maintained by the Road Association. He indicated that no attempt was made to contact the Road Association about this project. He felt that there were other sites on the property that would be more aesthetically pleasing and geologically stable. He requested that the proposal be rejected and that the owner be required to submit another proposal. Commissioner Caldwell recollected that in the Commissions consideration of the McGregor application, it was brought to the Commission's attention that there were problems with the road, land stability and drainage issues. She asked w-ho would be responsible for road maintenance. Mr. Waltonsmith responded that 31 members of the Road Association w°ould be responsible for drainage and damage to the road. He felt that it would onh be fair for a project such as this one to come under the Road Association. He informed the Commission that the most recent home approval was that of the ~1cGregors and that the 1`icGregors came to the Road Association with their proposal prior to submitting an application to the City. Commissioner Patrick asked if bonding is required by the Road Committee during construction. Mr. McGregor responded that the Road Committee has never rf~quired bonding during construction. Jeff Benzing informed the Commission that he owns the parcel directl.~ to the south which has geologic instability. He expressed concern with the stability of the project site because his property would be impacted should a landslide occur. He noted that the water main was the root cause of the geologic instabilit}- that took place in 1983. When he visited the Community Development Department a couple of «~eeks ago, he did not see any mention of any stability measures or safety measures to be put in place for run off from the roof and the pool located directly above the 30 foot setback from the unstable soil. There r.lso was no mention of managing ground water. He stated that he was also concerned with. the prominence of the structure on the ridge and the proposed colors and style of the home being out of character with that of the neighborhood. His concerns were that of land stability, impact of the structure such as this one from the ridgeline, groundwater control and the requirement for additional landscape screening. Ms. Fanelli stated that a letter w°as sent to Mr. Chin and that several attempts were made to contact him with no response. She noted that the site plan referred to by Mr. Chin was a reduction of a print that was indicated on his application for the variance. She felt that Mr. Chin created his own problem when he received variance approval. As far as the installation of fencing on the easement during construction, Mr. Chang has indicated ~:hat he would be willing PLANNING COI~IMISSI.M1\UTES JiJNE 28, 199 PAGE - 12 - to accept such a condition. Mr. Chang has indicated that he ~yould also consider changing the roof to a grayish bro«n color and that he would be «-illina to lower and set the house into the ridge a couple of feet. Ho«-ever, it would require additional cuts. She noted that the driveway contained constraints such as access and the hammerhead turn-around that has been required by the fire district. ~Vith regards to the comments that the proposed house would be too large, she noted that this house would not be as large as the Girand home and that the site is large but that the constraints of the landslide limit its relocation. She apologized that this proposal vas not presented to the Road Committee as she «-as not aware that the Committee existed. She felt that condition 14 addresses 1\1r. Benzines' concerns regrading the geotechnical issues pertaining to draining, irrigation. and ~yater runoff control being sho~~n prior to building clearance being granted. She felt that the staff report «-as very comprehensive in its requirements and that it has addressed all the concerns of the neighbors. She felt that the neighbors would find that Mr. Chang would be willinc to work «-ith them. However, the issue remains with the request to delete condition 7.a. relating to the removal of the balcony because it is felt that the balcony was architecturally ~7ood for the house and created a balance. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the plans indicate that the pool site appears to be 45' x 25' in size. He felt that reducing the pool size to 30' x 20' «-ould allow for a substantial area that would be made available in terms of moving the house. Ms. Fanelli responded that a design for the pool v~-as not proposed at this time. Commissioner Cald~;-ell noted that the cut and fill calculation included the pool area. Planner Walgren noted that a condition of approval requires detail pool plans to be submitted prior to issuance of any permits for the pool. He clarified that the pool excavation itself which is ~0-80 cubic yards is not considered in terms of permitting purposes and «-ould be considered as an excavation. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the only reason he raised the issue of reducing the size of the pool was that the note on the plans states explicitly a s~yimming pool of a size of ~0' x 27' or 4~' x 2~'. This note indicates to hitn the size of the pool. He indicated that the normal size of a s~yimming pool was in the 36' x 18' foot range. He felt that it «°as important to know the swimming pool dimensions because it adds considerable dimension on the length in terms of being able to change the house design slightly, turn the house slightly, or perhaps some other alternative. v y Mr. Summers responded that a larger pool ~i-as originally proposed but that the geological report would not allow the use of fill material to reduce the size of the pool. He indicated that he included the excavation of the pool in the cut numbers. He indicated that the dimensions depict a proposal for amedium-sized pool. He did not believe that the size of the pool would affect the size or the location of the house. COMMISSIO\TERS CALD~~'ELL!PATRICK i\lOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:41 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he «-as concerned that this house seems to be the wrong house in the wYOng place. He felt that some modifications could be made. He felt that the concerns ' PLANNING COiV1~~ISSI•~~1I\TUTES ' JUNE 28. 1995 PAGE - 13 - expressed about the trees were important. Commissioner Asfour stated that he was not normally opposed to two story homes. He felt that the size of the home w-as not appropriate for the site. He would prefer to see the house stepped down to minimize the tw-o story appearance. He indicated that there were some issues that bothered him, one bein~~ the grading plan and the proximity of the garage to the oak tree. He stated that he could not make the finding to support this development at the proposed site. Commissioner Patrick agreed with the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She agreed that this «-as the wrong house on the lot. She felt that this was an exceptional lot and that the site had some constraints. She expressed concern with drainage and that the driveway proposed would have significant amount of runoff. She felt that there would be a need for underground drainage to divert the drainage elsewhere. She felt that it was unfortunate that the home's proximity w•as next to Mr. Chin's home but that she believed that Mr. Chin allowed the situation to occur. She expressed concern with the home being too large and that it was not stepped down. Commissioner Abshire noted that this w•as a ridgeline home and that the home would be visible for miles and felt that the home should be a much lower profile. Because the site was a rigdeline, he felt that a much lower profile type, single story home would be the only structure that he would accept on this ridgeline. Also of concern was the impact to the immediate neighbors as ~;-ell as the valley below. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff regarding the issue raised about the square footage exceeding what is allowed. Planner ~Val~ren indicated that he has double checked all of the calculations and the specific issues raised by 1\Ir. Chin. He believed that the calculation in the staff report were correct. She (Kaplan) asked for clarification regarding the drive~~=ay and that Planner Walgren informed her at the site visit that the fire department did not require the huge turn- around but that it was something that the applicant wanted to accommodate parked cars. Planner Walgren responded that the fire district's transmittal did not ask for a fire engine turn-around and that the applicant would not necessarily need aturn-around that large and that it appears to be designed to provide on-site visitor parking. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she was concerned with the style of the house, the mass and the bulk sitting on the ridgeline. She felt that the house should be stepped do«n. She w-as also concerned about drawings not accurately representing where the driveway, the garage, and the house are to be located in proximity to the oak tree. She felt that the locations need to be confirmed. Regarding Mr. Chin's concerns regarding the proximity of the home. she noted that Mr. Chin built his home into the setback and that he had to live with the consequences as he requested approval of a setback variance. She indicated that she could not support this proposal. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he raised the issue of the pool size because he would not have a problem with a minor variance to allow for a better setting of the house. He noted that this was a difficult site to deal with. He requested consideration of solutions that could accommodate a home that could be stepped into the hillside. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the Commission needed to be careful of granting variances PLANNING CO1~~IMISSI.1\~iINUTES JUNE 28. 1995 PAGE - 14 - because of a law- suit that was tiled «~here a City Council approved a variance request on a ridgeline. Commissioner Asfour asked staff to clarify the issue of the lack of notification to Mr. Chin. Planner Walgren summarized the city's process for public notification by stating that the city contracts with a firm that sends mailers out to all property owners within X00 feet of a subject application. The city also posts a notice in the Saratoga \ews on a Wednesday, the week prior to the hearing, and that a notice is posted in the City Hall kiosk. He noted that the mail notices were distributed on or before June 4 to the property owners within 500 feet. This item was originally scheduled to be heard at the June 14 meeting. He indicated that the Chins notified staff on June 8 that they had not received a public notice. Because of this error, staff postponed this item for two additional ~i-eeks to alloy the Chins a reasonable amount of time to review the proposal. Commissioner Cald«~ell commented that she was on the Commission «~hen the Chin's received variance approval. She recollected that one of the arguments that was made in favor of granting the variance was the configuration of this site. minus the lot merge. There «=ere many individuals who spoke who indicated that it would be very unlikely that this home would be sited at this location because of the flag lot nature of the site. She felt that it could be possible that the Chins really didn't believe that it «-ould be sited as proposed and that the home would be setback further on the site. She also noted that the geotechnical review had not been completed at this point and that no one knew about the landslide. She raised the point that the applicant was proposing to exceed the 1,000 cubic yard limit and that the Commission looks very carefully at the amount of cut and fill that is done. She found it interesting that the applicant's exceeding of that limit is almost equal to the amount of cut and fill that is required for the pool. She felt that if the applicant looks at this again and look at re-siting a home on this property, perhaps closer to the pool site and eliminate the pool, that the applicant may be close to the 1,000 cubic yards. She stated her appreciation that the applicant was «-illing to consider moving the home. She agreed that the applicant should fence the large easement and to take all precautions regarding the geotechnical situations on this property. She felt that it was appropriate to require the change in colors and to take a second look at the style of the home as the homes along Saratoga Hills Road were low profile homes and «-ere well contoured into the land. She felt that this home stands out. She felt that the issue of dealing with the Road Association was important as there was significant issues on the McGregor application and that she recollected that the Commissioners got involved in the issues to make sure that they were properly resolved. She felt that the sanle thing should be done in this instance. Commissioner Abshire stated that there is a point in favor of the pool. That point being that the construction of a pool ~yould assist with providing a safety source of water supply should a fire occur on the ridgeline. Chairman Murakami felt that this home was the «•ron~ house for this particular lot and felt that it should be stepped do«°n. He indicated that he listened to Mr. Chin's view points and his desire to have the house setback further. He felt that all the things that have been said regarding the history of this lot ~i-ere applicable as far as its location. If the house could be moved, it would be much more desirable, taking into consideration the issues of the pool. He stated that he would PLANNING CO~~IIVIISSii ~1I\UTES i JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 1 ~ - vote against the proposal at this time. COMMISSIONER ASFOIJR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. Ms. Fanelli stated that it would be preferable to consider both applications together. She asked if it would be appropriate to conduct a study session «-ith some redesign to determine if they are heading towards the right direction. Rewarding the suggestion of moving the house towards the swimming pool. she felt that doing so would require a variance. She did not feel that there was a point in designing a home that «-ould require a variance. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not be supportive of a tv~-o story structure anywhere on the site. He felt that it «-as important to indicate to the applicant what the Commission's feelings «~ere on this issue. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he ryas not opposed to a two story house or a t~yo story element as a «~hole. He stated that he would like to see a combination of a single story and two story home that was stepped do~~n. He indicated that he «•as not opposed to the total square footage. He felt that it ~~-as the wrong design for this particular area. Commissioner Abshire indicated his «-illingness to sit in a study session and work with the applicant. Commissioner Patrick stated that she has seen a rid~eline house that was partially a two story and partially a split level that ryas very ~~-e11 done and that it did not appear to be a t~~~o story home. She stated that she ~yould support a home that was built into the hillside. Ms. Fanelli indicated that stepping down the hillside «•ould require a variance. Commissioner Asfour asked staff if a variance «-ould be required if the house is stepped down and whether doing so would encroach into the do«nhill setback. Planner VValgren responded that downhill to the south was limited by the landslides and that the house could be moved along the east or west, particularly if the pool was relocated, eliminated or reduced in size. Commissioner Kaplan noted that there were so many variables involved and that she did not recommend that the Commission design the home. Commissioner Cald~yell noted that the driveway consumes part of the building site. She felt that there were other options or solutions and that it may be that the applicant may not be able to build a home of the size that is being applied for. She indicated that she would be willing to go into a study session to look at some of the conceptual options. Commissioner Siegfried suggested that a study session be held to look at conceptional options. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with conducting a study session because of the concern of designing the project for the applicant. y PLANI~TING COMMISSI.1\1INUTES JUNE 28, 1995 PAGE - 16 - Ms. Fanelli stated that she would agree to a continuance to a study session. Planner Vvalgren informed the Commission that the first study session in July has been canceled. Commissioner Kaplan noted that an hour work session has been scheduled for July 18 with the Heritage Commission. Planner ~'~~ algren informed the Commission that conceptual revisions would need to be submitted by Monday, July 9 for the July 18 work session. COMMISSIONERS CALD~?~'ELL/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARIi\TG TO A ~T~~ORK SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOOKING AT SOME OF THE BUILDING OPTIONS AND TO REVIE~'~' THE ISSUES THAT V~TERE BROUGHT UP THIS EVENING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIiV10USLY (7-0). THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:~~ P.M. THE COM~~IISSION RECONVENED AT 10:10 P.M. 6. DR-95-019 - MOSTAAN; 20720 LEO%\TARD RD. Request for Design Rey=ie~~- approval to construct anew- x,336 sq. ft. tw-o-story residence on a 1.2 acre hillside parcel currently developed with an 832 sq. ft. one-story "cottage". A public hearing is required for this proposal pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The property is located at the end of Leonard Rd. and is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner VValgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that additional letters were received from Paul Schuyler, 20711 Leonard Road, expressing concern that the cottage not be allowed as a separate d«~elling unit (a condition of approval); that construction hours be limited, restrictinc construction on Sundays: and that there be some assurance that the private drive that crosses his easement stays «-ithin his easement (staff could im~estigate this and that it could be incorporated as a condition). Also, a letter w-as received from Gary and Alfreda Mastman, 20777 Russell Court, expressing concern that the house was large for the parcel, that the two story home would be overlooking their property, and concern with construction noise. Also received was a letter from Edwin and Da«-n Kennedy, 2020 Leonard Road, expressing concern with how they would receive ~t-ater service, requirement for a fire hydrant, and that the home would not fit in with the older homes on Leonard Drive. Commissioner Caldwell asked staff regarding the grading that has occurred on the property. Planner Vvalgren stated that he has not seen any grading on the property but indicated that Mr. Mostaan has informed him that he has a back hoe and other equipment that he owns and uses in his private business and that it could be the starting and operating of this equipment that vas being referred to. y Commissioner Kaplan asked if the storage of construction equipment wras allowed in residential zones? Planner ~Valgren responded that storage equipment is allowed but that it cannot be stored within a site's front yard setback and that it would need to be screened from the public's view. Commissioner Caldwell asked if staff would investi~~ate the concern of storage or use of construction equipment? Staff deferred this question to the applicant. PLAl~'NING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JiJiVE 28, 199 PAGE - 17 - Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:17 p.m. Mr. Mostaan, applicant, distributed a letter to the Commission that he read into the record relating to the design of the home and the mitigation measures taken to address the neighbors' concerns with regards to the construction of the ne~y home. He stated that he would protect the significant trees as recommended by the Cite arborist. He indicated that the building pad was selected to minimize the impact of the neighbors' privacy. He has reduced the overall number of windows and eliminated all second story windo~ys that faced towards the neighbors. He stated that he would follow all city rules and regulations with regards to construction noise and pollution. He noted that he used construction equipment to repair storm damage and for weed abatement on the hillside. He indicated that there «•as only one incident where the equipment was used in the evening. He concurred with the installation of a protective construction fencing. He addressed the easement of the public driveway. He indicated that iV1r. Schuyler has refused to participate in road improvements. Due to the existing condition of the access road, he did not v<~ant to be responsible for the repair of the road due to use of construction vehicles. He requested that the fire department install the new fire hydrant. He has communicated with the neighbors and indicated that it ryas impossible to satisfi~ all of their concerns. He read the comments from the City arborist commending him on preventing damage to any of the existing trees. He further clarified that no gradin~~ has occurred on site. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff re~ardinn the fire trucks and the roads and whether there vas any releva~ice to this application. Planner ~~%algren responded that these issues were not related to this application and that the history of the Leonard Road Assessment District was being presented as it relates to Mr. Schuyler's comments about the private access road. Alfreda Mastman, 20777 Russell Court, indicated that her lot «~as located adjacent to this proposal. She had several concerns ~;°ith the proposed house plans. The home to be built ~~~as a large home of approximately 6,200+ square feet with another 860 square feet that exists. She felt that the proposal was an inappropriate use of this lot and that the home does not fit with the small, mostly one story homes adjacent to it. The proposed two story home would overlook her home, resulting in a loss of privacy and «-ould further obstruct her views. She noted that the pool would only be 20-30 feet a«-av from her lot and «~ould cause a noise nuisance. She noted that Mr. Mostaan has been using his big bull dozer/grading machine starting in the early evenings at 6:30 p.m. She stated that the code enforcement office advises her that the hours for construction are from 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. daily. She stated that she vas upset that the City did not prohibit construction on Saturdays and Sundays. She requested that construction hours be limited to Monday-Friday because any weekend construction would be disturbing and would be a noise pollutant. She requested that a time limit be placed for the construction of the entire project as it may take a long time to complete a structure of this size. She recommended that the new home be located closer to Leonard Road and that the cottage be demolished. She responded to Commissioner Kaplan~s question by stating that her home was asemi-split home. not a t~~°o store home. Paul Schuyler, 20711 Leonard Road, indicated that he lives in an 1,800 square foot home with a small addition above the <~arage and that he does not have a tennis court and that he does not consider his home to be a large structure. He stated that his home was located about 30-3~ feet PLANNING COMMISSI•;t~IINLTTES JiINE 28. 199 PAGE - 18 - to the north of the Mostaan property line. He noted that the existing home was close to the property line and that the garage was seating within the setback area. He indicated that his main concern was that the existing home would be converted into a guest house/cottage. Should the guest home be allowed to remain. he stated his support to staffs recommendation that the garage/kitchen be removed with no permanent occupancy. He also expressed concern with the construction noise as he has personally seen a dump truck and a back hoe tractor being used late in the evening and early morning. He expressed concern with the noise that would be endured with a project of this size. He also expressed concern for the existing redwood trees and the alteration of the creek. Mr. Mostaan stated that he was a construction manager and not a contractor. He felt that the separation of the homes were sufficient and that the closest neighbor was located on the west side and that their concern «-as that of fencing. He stated that the reason he brought up the issue of the access and easement was due to the fact that he has a right to access a maintained public road. He stated that he was also concerned with the preservation of the existing redwood trees. He recommended that the public works department come up with a professional design and recommendation to improve the roadway rather than denying him the ability to access his property. He requested that the existing carport be allowed to remain as it was built over 3~ years ago and should be grandfathered in. He felt that the proposed structure would be screened from public view and would not obstruct the neighbors use of solar energy. Commissioner Cald«~ell asked Mr. Mostaan if he would be agreeable to limiting the days and hours of construction, eliminating weekends. Mr. Mostaan responded that the City of Saratoga has many rules and regulations and that he would abide by said rules and regulations. Commissioner Caldwell requested clarification as to what the equipment on the property was being used for. Mr. 1~Iostaan responded t11at he used a tractor to remove fallen trees, to repair damage from the rainy season and to construct the height poles. Chairman Murakami asked if i\~Ir. Mostaan «-as proposing to retain the existing cottage structure. Mr. Mostaan responded that many designs were reviewed to preserve the trees. The only site that could accommodate the home was the current location and that the existing home would be used as a recreation room. If he «-as requested to remove the cottage. then he would request the construction of a larger home. Commissioner Kaplan asked if it «°as ~1r. ~lostaan's understanding that he ~~-as to pay for the installation of the good neighbor fence as indicated in condition 4. Planner VValgren responded that the neighbors located directly adjacent to the ~;est requested the installation of the good neighbor fence and that he was not aware if the neighbors have agreed to pay for half of the cost of the fence. As the neighbors «~ere requesting the installation of the boundary fence, Commissioner Kaplan felt that the cost should be shared. She noted that staff vvas recommending that the garage be removed to bring the structure into conformance with minimum setback and that the cottage ~~-ould be controlled so that it would not be used as a second dwelling. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR%CALD~?~~ ELL ~1OVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M. L ; PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • JUNE 28. 199 PAGE - 19 - Commissioner Asfour stated that he was having a problem with the floor area exception and that he did not believe that it was «•arranted in this ease. He asked staff if the structure was a garage or carport. Planner ~?~'al~ren responded that the structure was a fully enclosed garage and that it is the applicant's intent to keep the garage and con~°ert it into a carport. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she «-as having a problem «-ith the compatibility issue. She felt that the cottage and homes were two different designs. She expressed concern with the size of the home and that it appears to back up to the home of the neighbors to the rear. She stated that she could not support the close distance to that of the neighbors. She felt that if the house w=ere sited where the cottage is located, it would be a better location for the home. Chairman Murakami stated that both structures appear to be different in style. He indicated that he respects the owners right to build the style of building that one proposes to build but that ~~-hen he sees both of the structures on the same lot together, he could not support the design. He stated that he would want to see the house placement adjusted either to the front or to the middle of the lot and that he recommended that the existing cottage be removed. Commissioner Cald«-e11 stated that the cottage was compatible with the rest of the neighborhood but that the new structure «ould not be compatible with the existing cottage. She felt that the home appears to be prominent and appears to be close to the neighbors ~i~ho are most highly impacted. She felt that if the structure Xmas moved further to the north where the cottage exists, that the home would be far less of an impact to the neighbors. She stated that she was troubled by the style of the home and the lack of compatibility with the balance of the neighborhood and the degree in which it imposes directly on the two immediate neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried noted that the roof has a lot of articulation to it and that when he looks at the front elevation. it strikes him as a different house. He would support the removal of the cottage and the carport and the relocation of the house. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not have a problem «-ith the house itself if the situation was different. However, he could not make the findings to grant the exception and the retention of the cottage. Chairman Murakami informed the public that it «-ould be the Commission's intent to continue agenda items 11-14 to its Jule 12 meeting due to the lateness in hour. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the design ~t-as incompatible «-ith the homes located on Leonard Road. She expressed concern that the arborist's requirement for the removal of the landscaping underneath trees 13 and 1 ~ have not been noted. Planner ~~'algren responded that the arborist's comments have been responded to and addressed in the revised plans and have been included in the revised plans. Commissioner Kaplan stated that as a Commissioner, she was not inclined to adjudicate boundary disputes bet«-een neighbors. She felt that the cost should be shared if the neighbors to the west request a boundary fence. Therefore, she ~~-ould not approve the condition. She indicated that she would vote against the proposal. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he could not support the project as proposed. It was his , PLANNING CO~1iV1ISS1~ MINUTES • JUNE 28. 199 PAGE - 20 - belief that there ~~°as an incompatibility factor ~i°ith the proposed home. COMMISSIONERS PATRICKiC ALD~~%ELL MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INQUIRING IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS ITEM COI~TTINUED. Mrs. Mostaan requested that the application be continued. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the majority of the Commission have indicated that if the cottage were removed and the house relocated that there may be support for the house. Planner VValgren recommended that this application be continued to the July 26 meeting with revised plans being submitted by Friday, July 14. Commissioner Cald«-e11 further indicated that the Commission also expressed concern ~~=ith the design of the home. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR~SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTTINUE DR-95-019 TO ITS JULY 26 MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED U\ANIMOUSLY (7-0). 7. DR-9~-009 - CHEN/CHLT4NG; 1020 GYPSY HILL RD. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new x,143 sq. ft. t~~-o-stor}. residence on a vacant 1.2 acre hillside parcel. A public hearing is required pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The property is located ~;-ithin the San ~~iarcos Hei~Thts subdi~~ision (Lot 32) and is ~~~ithin an R-1-40.000 zoning district. y Planner ~~%algren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman l~iurakami opened this item to public hearing at 11:06 p.m. Michael Helm, project architect, noted that the site was a 1.2 acre parcel and that there were no trees located on the site. He noted that there «~as a dense, fully matured tree line located on the eastern edge of the propert}-. He stated that there «~as a hole in the dense tree line and that it is proposed to install screen trees. He noted that the pad is 20 feet lover than the road. This allows the project to be «°ell belo«- the allowable height that ~i~as established as a condition of approval for the subdivision. He felt that the project «-as compatible in bulk and height to the surrounding structures as the}• are also t~~•o story homes. He stated that he agreed with the conditions of approval. Chairman Murakami commented that it would be helpful to the Commission if dimensional drawings were submitted to give a visual feeling of the home. He noted that there were some objections raised about the hei~~ht and that dimensional dra~vinas may have helped. Commissioner Abshire felt that it ~i~as difficult to visualize «=hat the house would look like in looking at the drawings. . ~ PLANNING COMMISSI•ivIINLTES • JiJNE 28. 199 PAGE - 21 - Mr. Helm stated that the lot «-as a difficult one to work «-ith. The house «-as designed to bend along the contours and agreed that the standard elevations make it difficult to interpret the drawings. He noted that two letters were received from neighbors regarding privacy issues to the south. He stated that there is a tree line and that trees would be installed to plug the opening. He also noted that no ~.vindows are proposed on the side of the house that faces the tree line. COMMISSIONERS KAPLA\%ASFOLTR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARII`TG AT 11:10 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the site visit. she did not notice a privacy impact. COMMISSIONERS KAPLANIPATRICK 1~10VED TO APPROVE DR-95-009 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 8. DR-9~-016 - LOTUS DEVELOPMENT; 12886 CUMBERLAND DR. (Lot #1) Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,87 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 1~ of the City Code. The property is 13,767 sq. ft. and is located ~~=ithin an R-1-12.00 zoning district. 9. DR-95-017 - LOTUS DEVELOPI~IE\T; 12844 CLT~IBERLAND DR. (Lot #2) Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,10 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 1~ of the City Code. The property is 20,127 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1- 12,500 zoning district. 10. DR-95-018 - LOTUS DEVELOPIt1E\T; 12822 CUMBERLAND DR. (Lot #3) Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,430 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 1~ of the City Code. The property is 22,60 sq. ft. is located within an R-1- 12,~00 zoning district. Planner Vv'algren presented the staff report on agenda items 8, 9 and 10. He informed the Commission that site activity has occurred which was not authorized and resulted in the removal of four ordinance protected trees alone with grading. To address this situation, staff has been meeting with the applicant and that staff has assessed penalties and fines. He noted that the fine has been collected and that the tree replacement value of $17,000 will be incorporated in each new home as construction is finished. He informed the Commission that the applicant relayed to staff that they did not know that the work that occurred was in violation of the original subdivision condition ~~hich stipulated that no site preparation occur until design review has been secured. It was also a violation of the city's tree ordinance. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the City ~i-ould have some control over the replacement trees to make sure that they survive and «~hether bonding could be required? Planner Walgren responded that staff «-ould make sure that the replacement trees are healthy when they are planted and that «-hen irrigation is installed, it would be the new property owner's responsibility to maintain them. Staff further stated that staff could require bonding for the trees but that bonding would not be affective and would be difficult to monitor. y . , PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • JUNE 28. 1995 PAGE - 22 - Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 11:17 p.m. Barry Barnes, Lotus Development, provided the Commission «-ith a short explanation as to «==hat happened at the site. He indicated that after the map «-as approved, the City requested a preconstruction site meeting. Following the meeting, he asked if he could start grading the entire site instead of just the first t«-o sites. He stated that the engineering department responded that they did not have a problem ~-ith the grading of the entire site. He noted that planning staff was not present at this meeting. Regarding the trees. he noted that the only trees that were left on site were walnut trees that had been cut down for fire«-ood. He conceded that it was a misunderstanding and that he has paid the fine. Commissioner Kaplan commented that the south elevations of lots 2 and 3 appear to look like railroad cars and felt that they ~~~ere unpleasant to look at. She felt that the design lacked articulation and shadows to break up its long appearance. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not believe that the proposed design would impact the existing neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR~SIEGFRIL-D iV10VED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARI\TG AT 11:23 P.M. Chairman Murakami stated that he did not have a problem «-ith the design but that what occurred on the site was an unfortunate situation. Commissioner Asfour recommended some articulation to the «-a11 or that there be the installation of a landscape buffer between lots 2 and 3 (southeast elevation of both sites). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS. DR- 95-016; DR-95-017 AND DR-95-018 «'1TH AN ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE SOUTHEAST ELEVATION ON LOTS 2 AND 3. THE MOTION CARRIED L~IANIMOUSLY (7-0). 11. SD-90-003.2, 1JP-90-003.2, DR-90-03.2 & V-90-039.2 - MISSION PARK HOMES; 12297 SARATOGA-StiNNYVALE ROAD Request for modification consideration of a Tentative A~Iap approval to subdivide a 2.67 acre lot into 26 multiple-family townhome parcels and t~-o 10.000 sq. ft. commercial parcels fronting Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Use Permit approval was granted to allo~w° the 26 to~inhomes within a Commercial Visitor (C- V) zoning district. Design Review approval ~i~as granted for the entire project. Variance approval was granted to allo~i~ 32 parking spaces in lieu of the 37 parking spaces required for the commercial buildings pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. An environmental Negative Declaration has been adopted for the project. The modification request is to allo~~- 26 detached homes on parcels ranging from 2,206 to 3.249 sq. ft. in size versus the approved attached to~i-nhomes and "cottage" type homes. Architectural modification of the homes and the commercial structures is also requested. _ . ' ; PLANNING COMMISSI• MII~TUTES • JUNE 28. 199 PAGE - 23 - 12. DR-9~-021 & V-9~-004 - TR[PLETT; 20820 FOURTH ST. Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,378 sq. ft. single story residence and 396 sq. ft. detached garage and construct a new 2.374 sq. ft. t~~o-story home and 380 sq. ft. detached garage in their place. Variance approval is necessary to allow the new garage to be constructed ~-ithin required yard setbacks, though at a more conforming location than the existing garage. The subject property is 8,00 sq. ft. in area and is located in an R-1-10.000 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. DR-9~-027 - LI\T/SH[H; 20315 HERRI~•lAN AVE. Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing residence and detached garage and construct a new 3,973 sq. ft. two-story home and attached aaraQe per Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The subject property is a 19.388 sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. DR-95-023 - VANNIER; 14776 VIA DE MARCOS Request for Design Revie«~ approval to construct a new ~,4~4 sq. ft., single-story residence on a vacant 42.495 sq. ft. hillside parcel. The subject property is Lot ;;2 of the San Marcos Heights Subdivision and is located «~ithin an R-1-10.000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS KAPLA~T;CALD~~'ELL iV10VED TO COI~TTI\TUE AGENDA ITEMS 11-14 TO JULY 12, 199. THE i\10TIOi~T CARRIED L~TANII\~iOUSLY (7-0). DIRECTOR'S ITEil1S 1. Status report of proposed redevelopment of El Paseo Saratoga commercial shopping center. Planner Walgren noted that there is a short response time for the El Paseo Saratoga center and that the Community Development Director has stated that he accepts the Negative Declaration at this time. He informed the Commission that this project has not been assigned to him and that he «~as not sure if he ~i~ould have time to revie«- this proposal due to his work schedule. He suggested that a Planning Commissioner be appointed to revie~~° the documents and that a response be made as a Planning Commission. Commissioner Siegfried requested that staff investigate ~~~hether the traffic impact analysis on Saratoga Avenue and Quito Road ~i~ere addressed by the City of San Jose in its analysis to the Community Development Director's satisfaction. Commissioner Siegfried agreed to review the documents to investigate ~~-hether the traffic impacts «-ere addressed. Commissioner Caldwell requested that staff alert the City Manager to the concerns of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he would agree to meet ~~~ith the City Manager and discuss this issue with him. Commissioner Cald~~-ell noted that the date to protest the Negative Declaration was June 27, 199. Planner ~~'algren informed the Commission that there is an extension to July 7, 1995. Commissioner Caldwell recommended that the City of Saratoga protest the traffic impact issue. ', _ . • ; PLANNING COIVIMISSI• M1Nt,TTES • JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 24 - Commissioner Siegfried noted that the City of San Jose did not review traffic impacts of Saratoga Avenue or the intersection of Cox or Quito Road. The City of San Jose did not address anything other than what was in San Jose. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission could ask staff to find out to see if there is reference in the Cit.' of San Jose's analysis to the impacts on Saratoga Avenue and if so, what are they. Staff also to determine if they are satisfactory and if not, the City of Saratoga should object to them. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. PD-94-002; Greenbrier Homes Co., Saratoga Ave. & Route 8~ Request for consideration of entry walls. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that this was an information item as it meets wall standards should the Cointnission concur. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED `'WITH STAFF'S REC0~IMENDATION. 2. DR-9~-O10; Toung; 1901 Glen Una Dr. Request for building location modification. BY CONSE\TSUS. THE COl\1A~ISSION COi~TCURRED WITH STAFF'S COMPROMISE. 3. DR-94-03~; Lucas. 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. Request for a modification to the garage location. BY CONSENSUS. THE COIV11ViISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. MINUTES - itIAY 24, 199 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK:~KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 24, 1995 WITH THE FOLLOWING AYIENDVIENTS: - Page 2, Paragraph 8 amended to read as follo«-s: "Commissioner Abshire noted that the house was visible from the 1 strut below and recommended the use of subdued colors. He noted that the current house had a light banister and that having a light banister against a dark house •••~••'a ~~~'~° ~' rriakes:.€ visible form the street below." - Page ~, Paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the care of the trees located on the site. She asked if the bonding recommended was ~~ suffiGertt to protect the trees;...." - Page 8, paragraph 7 amended to read: "Commissioner Patrick felt that the garage. at rivo stories. would dive it an appearance of t~t'o houses (row house approach) and could not support the two story garage. She stated that she could net find historical significance for • ;PLANNING COMMISSI. hIINUTES • ` JUNE 28. 199 PAGE - 2~ - the retention of the carriage house. the existing shed.!pump house and the office structure. - Page 10, paragraph 2 amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried prefaced his motion be ly stating that it was the sense of the Commission this evening to approve the lot line adjustment, grant the variance of the four inches additional ~ hei.g~t tc the existing house. deny the variance on the 13e~e secod~~tiry add~n on the garage because the Commission does not believe that it should be a t~i~o story garage, and that the ...... .................. Commission «°ould consider giving credit for the existing two or three ki°rs~i~x~(lI ~iuific;~r~ structures to be preserved in terms of granting variances for the square footage for the house and garage. - Page 10, paragraph 3 to indicate that "The ntotioii carried Ci-0 ~.vith:;~'nrntnissibi~~r A;~fcailr ;~.1~Sei~l. - Page 19, first paragraph amended to read: "the Club can use the facilities for public activities. She felt that the Brookside Club has violated its use permit for the past five years. T~e::::eIuli°'~~as;ria~ti ~ before ihc:~:•Commission ~rccluesting :.:::::::::..: : aut~~rzation of the existing ~=itilatio~is b~~<'ineans,.of a use pertntt." - Page 21, paragraph ~, amended to correct the spelling of Jeff S~ Sch~Cz, Board Member of Saratoga Tea Area°G Homeowners Association. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 ~~'ITH C0~IMISSIOI~TER ASFOUR ABSTAINING. MI\TUTES - .June 14, 1995 - Page 12, paragraph 6 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell asked if a participant of the program ryas caught a~~~ wandering around the nirighbc~rhaod would ;fit be considered as a significant or a minor violation...." - Page 21, first paragraph, line 13 amended to read: "zoning regulations that talks about shelters. She did not believe that if someone moves next to a church that they would ~e assw~ne::::that:::haviii~' a speller ~~~as ::~~°ithin ilie ~ nonxtal~ ~real~n of ner-x~l church activities.... ~~ ;:.> :.::......:..:..........:.:..... ... - Page 22, paragraph 2, correct the spelling of ~'Irs. I~ersee Darsa~ and amend line 11 amended to read: "...and notices that it has worked. She felt that the community can make a contribution to solvu>II a problem that it did not necessarily create...." - Page 22, paragraph 3, second sentence, correct the «-ord "differences" to read "difference". - Page 2~, last paragraph, correct "°,n" to read "ecas;:stem". - Page 29, last paragraph, line 13 amended to read: "...the last decade or so. It is not known.«~t the •-°~~° °~ •~-''°* ~`•~ v'ariet}~. Qf ~~-ildlife is that may be on this property...The ` ~ ~2 ,. PLANNING COMMISSI• MII~TUTES • JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 26 - mitigation that should be prepared need to be sensitive as the sib si# is virtually surrounded by homes...." - Page 30, first paragraph amended to read: "generated, particularly with the one ~] corner located on Pontiac Avenue....(page 166 of her Lexis readout, 248 ~ ~~Il Porter. 3~2 at 360). THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1 ~~'ITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSTAINII~TG. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff would return with resolutions of denial for the DR-9~-O1 ~ Abdullah application for the Commission's July 12, 199 meeting. COMMUNICATIOi\TS Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the Commission review the photographs ~~°hich were displayed in the Plannin~~ Department's conference room. She indicated that the photographs provide an analysis of various home designs «-hich depict «-hat is good and bad architecture. She indicated that there is concern that the city's height limits is driving the appearance of what homes would look like and complaints being received about "squashed" roofs being cut off at the 26 foot level. Commissioner Siegfried commented that 'Marty Oakley ~i-i11 be taking examples of existing homes, removing the existing roof lines and overlaying them ~i~ith various roof lines. Doing so would provide the Design Revie~y Committee ~i~ith how different a house would look with different articulation of roof plans. Commissioner Siegfried informed the Commission that the Bicycle Committee has meet and that notices were sent to the neighbors located on lo«-er Saratoga Avenue regarding the installation of a bike lane. He stated that the neighbors expressed concern about the loss of street parking. He noted that there appears to be enough room on Saratoga Avenue to accommodate an expanded lane that ~yould allow for both parking and a bicycle lane. He indicated that the neighbors appeared to be satisfied with this proposal. Commissioner Cald~yell informed the Commission that the Tree Committee has completed its final and formal recommendation. She informed the Commission that the Tree Committee ryas requesting that these recommendations be scheduled on a regular Planning Commission agenda and that it vas the opinion of the Tree Committee that another study session would not be needed. Planner R'algren recommended that the Tree Committee's report and recommendation be considered at a September meeting. Commissioner Cald«•ell reported that the remaining valley oaks located on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, between Herriman and the Village have been "butchered" during construction. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the State is financing the sidewalks and bike lane improvements but that the City was overseeing the improvements. He informed the Commission that there «-as no way to do the road improvement ~~-ork «-ith the location of the trees and that the trees were originally approved to be removed as part of this improvement by the City Council E ' ~ ~ PLANNII~TG COMti1ISSIli\TINL;~TES JUNE 28, 199 PAGE - 27 - but that an effort ~i-as made to retain the trees. Written 1. City Council Minutes - 5/23/9, 6/3/9, 6/7/9 & 6/12/9 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 6/12/9 Oral Cite Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business. the meeting adjourned at 11:5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday. July 12, 199, Civic Theater. 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED. IRIVIA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK irPC062895.S:1R