Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1995 Planning Commission Minutes;- F ~NNI>\TG COMMISSION i\iINUTI~ AUGUST 9, 1995 - City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Murakami Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried, Murakami '~ Late: None Absent: Asfour, Caldwell Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren, Public Works Director Perlin, and City Attorney Faubion PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAI`TCE ylinutes - 7/26/95 COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 26. 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: - Page 1, delete Commissioner Patrick's name from being present as she was absent from the meeting. - Page 4, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried/Asfour oved approved consent item 2.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE. KAPLAN, SIEGFRIED. MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: PATRICK; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL. ORAL COltii\iUNICATIO`TS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTI\G AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 4, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR .~ ., PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARII~TG CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-95-036 - CHEN; 12601 STAR RIDGE COURT Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,300 sq. ft. rear-yard deck off the back of an existing two- story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Design Review approval is necessary to allow the deck to be taller than 5 ft. from the natural grade; the proposed deck is approximately 24 ft. off the ground at its highest point. The parcel is approximately 2.5 acres and is located within an HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district (cont. to 9/13/95 at the request of the applicant: application expires 1/17/96). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. UP-95-005 - RUDDELL; 20390 THELMA AVE\TUE Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 12 ft. tall, 480 sq. ft. enclosed accessory structure within a required rear yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 15,512 sq. ft. parcel located within the R-1-10.000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. S`1-95-003 -PAGE; 21530 SARATOGA HEIGHTS ROAD Request for Site Modification approval to allow the construction of a swimming pool with associated decking, patios, arbors, and landscaping per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 2.47 acres and is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-94-022, LL-94-005 & V-95-010 - CHANG; 21423 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,752 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 and Variance approval to allow a portion of the proposed three-car garage to encroach 7 ft. into the side-yard setback and 2 ft. into the front-yard setback. The parcels involved are approximately 53.306 and 21,965 sq. ft. and are located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. This application has been previously noticed and has been renoticed due to significant plan modifications resulting in a Zoning Ordinance Variance request (cont. from 7/18/9; application expires 11/25/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that correspondence was received from Laurie Girand discussing concerns with the revised plans because the home creates a more visible house from her property above and recommended that the variance request not be supported. Ms. Girand requested that controls be put into place regarding the proposed landscape, grading and irritation plans. She also expressed concern that the water company pipeline below the property not be damaged during construction. Also received was correspondence from Jeffrey Benzing who lives across the property on Michaels . PLANNING COMMISSI,MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 3 - Drive indicating that he was satisfied with the revisions to the plans but requested that careful consideration be given to a final grading and drainage. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City's geotechnical consultant has recommended that the final grading and drainage plan be submitted for their review to ensure that runoff is not occurring as a result of the improvements which would exacerbate existing down slope landslides. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicants, requested Commission approval of the design review, lot line adjustment and the variance applications. She thanked the Commission for taking the extra time to meet with her in a study session. Following the study session, significant changes were made to the plans. The home is now proposed to be a split level home that steps down, following the natural contours of the land. She noted that the maximum height of the home is to be 22 feet with the only second story element being that of a study located above the living area. She felt that the redesign provides privacy to the adjacent neighbors located on both sides and preserves their views better. She indicated that the house was reduced in size as was the swimming pool, grading, driveway, and parking area. She also noted that the hardscape has been reduced to mitigate drainage problems associated with water runoff. She felt that the variance findings for the three car garage could be made because of the land's topography, unstable soil, limited building area and that there were no off-street parking along Saratoga Hills Road for this home. The variance would allow the applicant to have the same privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and would not be a grant of a special privilege. She addressed the proposed landscaping by indicating that the proposed trees and their proposed locations were chosen to preserve the neighbors' privacy. She indicated that she would be willing to work with staff to select alternate types of trees and their locations to enhance the privacy of the neighbors. She indicated that she has met with a representative of the San Jose Water Company to review waterline protection. The representative indicated that he was not concerned with construction equipment because of the distance between the existing waterline and the building site on this property. Regarding the issue of road maintenance, she indicated that she attempted to contact the president of the homeowners association. As she was not able to make contact, Mr. Waltonsmith has agreed to send her the requirements for road maintenance and that said requirements would be followed by the applicant. She indicated her concurrence with the staff report and the resolutions and requested Commission approval. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the diagram as shown by Ms. Fanelli indicates encroachment underneath the existing oak tree's drip line. At the site visit, it was noted that the tree needed pruning. She asked if an arborist would review the condition of the tree(s). Ms. Fanelli indicated that the redline area shown on the plan was the allowable building area but that it was not the building envelope. Commissioner Kaplan noted that one of the letters received requested that interlocking pavers or permeable driveway materials be used. Planner Walgren noted that the driveway was located well away from the dripline of the oak tree and that the project would not need to be conditioned to require the use of interlocking pavers for drainage. Ms. Fanelli indicated that the resolution contained conditions which would require that the City arborist review the fencing around the tree to ensure its protection during construction. PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE-4- Scott McGregor, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, thanked the Changs for working with the City and the adjacent residents in a study session and incorporating concerns in their design. He addressed the landscaping and indicated that he would be satisfied if there was language included with regards to both coverage and the selection of trees to ensure that view sheds are not blocked. He indicated that he did not support the variance for the sole purpose of accommodating a three car garage. He provided the Commission with a photograph of the view that he would have from his bedroom window. He recommended that a two car garage be constructed with the addition of a parking space on the side. He felt that approval of the three car garage would constitute a special privilege as other individuals in the neighborhood do not have three car garages. Jeffrey Benzing, property owner to the south of this proposal, thanked the applicant for the work done in revising the design of the home and found it to be an improvement. He noted that the house structure was close to the old slide setback. He noted that the McGregor-Girand and his development had a condition which required that the development be tied to the storm drain or street system and that they were not allowed to have runoff follow the natural topography or natural drainage of the hillside. He requested that this condition also be applied to Mr. Changs approval. His second concern vas that of landscaping. He requested that additional trees be planted, both in size and quantity, to ensure privacy. Ms. Fanelli reiterated that the variance was only for seven feet, not for a full garage. She felt that three car garages are part of today's homes. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he spoke to Ms. Fanelli briefly as he did not attend the study session. Ms. Fanelli wanted to see if he had any questions regarding the proposal. He felt that the design was an improvement to the plans proposed previously and that the drainage issue has been resolved in the conditions being required. He recommended that staff and the applicant take into consideration the concerns expressed regarding the type and placement of trees and that if there was an issue of concern, that issue could be brought back to the Commission. He stated that he did not have a problem with the variance as he did not see it to be a massive garage. He indicated that he could support the variance for the garage as it complements the roofline. Commissioner Kaplan stated her appreciation of the neighbors' concerns. She felt that their concerns have resulted in a better designed house. She noted that this site did not have room for a big driveway apron as is afforded to the neighboring site(s). She appreciated the manner in which the height poles were laid out as they allowed the Commission to visually see the extent of the impact that the variance would have. She indicated that she could make the findings in this instance because the lot was constrained and that it was a difficult site. She appreciated the fact that the driveway has been shown. She expressed concern with the tree, the single feature of the lot that was attractive. She urged the owner to make sure that the rules for tree preservation are followed because it is very easy to encroach and destroy the tree. PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Abshire indicated that he could support the request including the variance as three car garages are part of today's home. He felt that the owner would have a vested interest in ensuring that good drainage exists to the downside slope of his lot. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she supports the applications and appreciated the changes that have been made. She appreciated the fact that the design of the house was much smaller as it would be less intrusive into the hillside. She indicated that she could support the three car garage as the driveway was reduced and that it would be less of an impact. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was pleased with the redesign. He stated that he did not have a problem with the variance request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-94- 022 WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY MR. BENZING REGARDING THE DRAINAGE CONCERNS AND INCLUDING THE REFERENCES OF THE TWO LETTERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REQUESTS ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITION FOR LANDSCAPING (REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL SCREENING TREES BE PLANTED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME). THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL- 94-005. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-95- O10 MAKING THE FINDINGS AS STATED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. 5. DR-95-027 - LIN/SHIH; 20315 HERRII~ZA.>\T 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 garage per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 19,388 sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/12/95; application expires 12/9/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff noted that the changes made were not significant and that the design was basically the same design previously reviewed by the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the request as staff felt that the findings could be made. Staff noted that the design changes may not be as substantial as the Planning Commission was looking to see. Should the Commission not agree that the plans could be supported, staff recommended that the Commission deny the application rather than a further continuance as this item was continued once before and that this was the compromise plan that the applicant was willing to pursue. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that two letters were received from Mr. and Mrs. Sean Shen indicating support of the proposal and from Mr. and Mrs. David Mann who indicated support so long as the home meets minimum setbacks from their property. PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Siegfried asked staff if a condition was included to require the planting of a row of evergreen trees as requested by the Mann's for privacy reasons. Planner Walgren responded that it was not included as a condition in the prepared resolution. In response to Commissioner Patrick's question, Planner Walgren stated that staff found the plans acceptable as it relates to the attic space. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the attic space above the garage was large for the roof. She asked if the attic space could be lowered to provide a view across that large area. Planner Walgren responded that the attic space could be lowered further. Staff originally recommended that the garage area be reduced because it appeared that the upper garage room was a habitable room. From external appearance, the applicant has reduced it 19 feet in total height, wanting to retain a steeper roof pitch to mach the existing residence. Staff has found the proposal acceptable and that staff was more concerned with the internal height which has been brought down to four feet. With the reduction in height and the elimination of the dormer windows, it is a safe assurance that it would not be used as a habitable room. He further indicated that the applicant's architect was very reluctant to lower the roofline too much because it would throw off the symmetry of the design. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Erwin Haws, project designer, provided the Commission with an overlay of the neighborhood depicting the two story homes in the neighborhood. He agreed that most of the neighboring houses were single story homes. However, he felt that a precedent has been established to allow two story homes. With the lowering of the height of the garage and the installation of landscaping, he felt that the view and privacy impacts have been addressed. He requested approval of the proposal as he tried to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors and staff. Chairman Murakami asked Mr. Haws if the photographs of the home he provided the Commission depicts what this home would look like. Mr. Haws responded that the photograph depicts what this home would look like once constructed. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a problem with the proposal. He indicated that his previous concern was with that of the height of garage. As it has been reduced in height and the home redesigned, he could support the proposal. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. Commissioner Abshire felt that the approval of this proposal would change the appearance of this neighborhood. As the immediate neighbors did not express concern, he would support the request. y PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was satisfied with the redesign and the softening of the appearance of the house and with the height reduction of the garage. Therefore, he could support the proposal. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95-027 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO THE EAST PROPERTY LINE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. 6. DR-95-019 - 1\iOSTAAN; 20720 LEONARD RD. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,132 sq. ft. two-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 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the end of Leonard Rd. and is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/26/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 11/8/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He noted that the home has been lowered in height, the architectural changes that have been made to the plans to reduce the square footage and that the applicant has agreed to eliminate the existing garage. To address the incompatibility of the old wood sided cottage and the ne~v stucco home, the applicant has agreed to redesign the cottage to match the home. He informed the Commission that the applicant was still proposing to retain the existing cottage. The applicant has raised one point relative to relocating the house further to the north. That point being that there are three existing large coast live oak trees located on the northern end of the property which would preclude moving the house in that direction. Based on this fact, staff felt that the proposal could be supported. Staff felt that the design review findings can be made to recommend approval with the conditions contained in the resolution. Should the Commission not be satisfied with the proposal and does not feel that the design review findings could be made, staff would recommend that the application be denied rather than requesting a further continuance as this item has been previously continued for redesign purposes. He noted that letters were received from Gary and Alfreda Mastman, 20777 Russell Court; Richard and Deborah Lindberg; and A.S. Hoagland; 13834 Upper Hill Drive. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a condition was included to require the removal of the temporary shed. Planner Walgren responded that a condition was not included to require the removal of the shed and that it was his understanding that the applicant plans to retain the shed. He noted that the shed was an accessory structure located in a required 30 foot front setback and that he felt that it would be reasonable to require the removal of the shed. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission felt that it was important that the shed be removed as she felt that it was located in the wrong place. She asked if the shed added to the coverage of the lot. Planner Walgren responded that it would make a change to the percentage of the allowable lot coverage and that it would be included in the lot coverage calculation. PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 8 - Chairman Murakami asked how many feet the pad has been moved. Planner Walgren responded that the house pad has been shifted to the east from the west side property line four feet, three inches. He noted that the building was constrained by movement to the north because of the oak trees, movement to the east because of the slope and the additional down slope trees and movement to the south because of the required 60 foot rear setback. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Michael Helm, project architect, informed the Commission that the tool shed referred to by Commissioner Kaplan would be removed. He submitted a letter from the adjacent neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Davis indicating support for the architectural style. He addressed the changes made to the design of the project (i.e., eliminated floor area by reducing the size and height of the house). He submitted a site plan depicting the neighbor's home located behind this property. He indicated that five ne~v screen trees were to be incorporated to fill in the existing screen and to shield the neighbors from the pool area. He addressed the existing cottage and garage. He stated that it is intended to eliminate the existing garage and convert the cottage to a recreational use with the elimination of the cooking facility. Remodeling of the cottage would be undertaken to match the existing home. He provided the Commission with a photo board depicting the three existing trees located in front of the cottage. He noted that the arborist's report recommends that the existing landscaping be retained. He felt that there was economic value to the cottage (the 830 square foot cottage could be used for a TV or game room). He pointed out that the garage sits over the setback line and that when it is removed, it would allow the cottage to sit within setbacks. He indicated that privacy fencing is to be installed and that the cost would be borne by the applicant. He indicated that the applicant would agree to limit construction Monday-Friday as recommended by Commissioner Kaplan. He indicated that the home owned by Mr. and Mrs. Finch (13561 Surrey Lane) has a 1,500 square foot addition currently under construction. The addition would include a three car garage and additional living space. He stated that he concurred with staff's recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Abshire asked Mr. Helm if consideration was given to locating the garage to the south and the house to the north. Mr. Helm responded that consideration had been given to locating the garage to the south and the house to the north but the reason the house and garage were located as proposed was due to the pool and the recreation enjoyment of full sun. He noted that this area was ideal for a pool as there are no over hanging trees. Mr. Helm noted that there was a pool located adjacent to the south side of the property. Commissioner Abshire expressed concern with the noise associated with swimming pool activities for the adjacent neighbors. Paul Schuyler, 20711 Leonard Road, indicated that he was one of three adjacent neighbors impacted by the Mostaan proposal. He expressed concern that it would be difficult to regulate permanent occupancy of the existing house. He noted that there were no other cottages or guest homes located on Leonard Road nor the immediate area. He felt that the impact of two homes on the property was more than what the immediate neighbors should endure. He felt that the existing home would be used as a second unit and asked why the existing home would be classified as a cottage. He also expressed concern with construction noise and felt that there was adequate room to move the house on the site. PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Alfreda Mastman, 20777 Russell Court, indicated that her comments were afollow-up to the letters dated June 20 and July 3. She noted that the existing house would remain but moved on the site. She recommended that the cottage be moved as close as possible to Leonard Road, away from the smaller homes. She noted that the swimming pool was still proposed adjacent to her fence which may allow excessive noise to her peaceful atmosphere. She noted that there were many flood lights proposed on the exterior of the house. She did not feel that the lights were appropriate with the character of the quite neighborhood. She requested that construction hours be restricted Monday-Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. David French, 13561 Surrey Lane, stated his support to the relocation of the garage. He suggested that the changes that have been made be looked at in a more creative standpoint in terms of locating the residence in an area that would not impact the neighborhood. He indicated that he was progressing with an addition to his home. He inquired as to the amount of effort that has gone into trying to address the greater issue of impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Helm reiterated that the existing home would be used solely for recreation purposes and would not be used as permanent occupancy. He felt that the recreation room would be an adequate buffer between the neighbors to the north. The use of the term cottage was to identify the size of the structure. He felt that the pool area could be shifted slightly but that the applicants wanted to retain the sun and to stay away from the trees as much as possible. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:41 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it was his belief that having the driveway and the activities of cars would be less of an impact if it was located in the center of the property than it would be to relocate it to the area where the pool is proposed. He asked if the cottage would be considered as a second unit and whether all applicable regulations would apply. Planner Walgren noted that a second permanent dwelling unit is not permitted in the Hillside zoning districts but that accessory structures are permitted so long as they meet the height, floor area, lot coverage and setback requirements. It can be used as a guest house for temporary stays, as a hobby room, a pool, cabana, etc., but cannot be used as a permanent second dwelling. He informed the Commission that a condition has been included which stipulates that prior to final occupancy of the new home, it will be required that the kitchen facilities be removed from the cottage and that it never be used as a rental. If it is used as rental, it would be in violation of the City's zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she liked the design of the cottage and would have preferred to have the new home look like the cottage. She stated that she would not want to locate a house and/or driveway any closer to the existing trees. She stated that her concern regarding the fence has been dealt with. She recommended that the construction hours be restricted Monday-Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with no weekend construction. She requested clarification regarding the use of the flood lights. She noted that her home has flood lights for security reasons. She noted that the floodlights were not depicted on the plans. She concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that having the car and motor activity in the middle of the property would shield the existing neighbors from noise and lights. She noted that the most prominent PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 10 - structure visible from this property was located across to the west where there is an enormous pool house. She stated that she did not see a problem with the incompatibility issue. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not see a concern with the use of the cottage . She indicated that she could not support the design of 100 feet adjacent to the Frenches project without being stepped down with some recognition being given to the hill as well as some consideration being given to bulk. She would therefore vote against the proposal. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not feel that the applicant addressed the neighbors' concerns. He felt that the proposed design would impact the neighbors located to the south and west. Therefore, he would not support the proposal. Chairman Murakami stated his appreciation for the softening of the design. He indicated that his main concern was that of the accessory structure and felt that it should be removed. However, he was inclined to allow the cottage to remain after hearing staff's explanation of a second unit versus an accessory structure. He was satisfied with the location of the garage, especially after seeing the large house with the large pool structure across the way. As far as the placement of the house, even if it was only moved 4.5 feet, he could not see it being moved further to the west without destroying the existing trees. He felt that the driveway configuration was reasonable at this point for the reasons as explained by the other Commissioners (noise). He indicated that he could approve the application. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95-019 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE LIMITED MONDAY-FRIDAY, 7:30 A.M. 'TO 6:00 P.M.; AND 2) THE REMOVAL OF THE TEMPORARY TOOL SHED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, SIEGFRIED, MURAKAMI; NOES: ABSHIRE, PATRICK; ABSENT: ASFOUR AND CALDWELL. 7. GPA-94-003, AZO-94-002, SD-94-005 -TRINITY DEVELOPMENT CO. Request for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow the properties to be reclassified from an Open Space-Outdoor Recreational/Agricultural designation to a Residential-Very Low Density and Medium Density/R-1-12,500 and R-1-40,000 designation. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is also requested to subdivide the t~vo separate parcels into 9single-family residential building sites. An environmental Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared (cont. from 6/14/95 to expand Initial Study; application expires 1/31/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger challenging both staff's decision procedurally to pursue a mitigated Negative Declaration, specifically challenging the individual components of the initial study in terms its true impact on area traffic, biological resources, tree protection and habitat protection. He informed the Commission that staff has not responded to the letter as staff received the letter late last week. He indicated that staff was prepared to answer questions that the Commission may have regarding this submittal. He indicated that staff still feels that the initial study and the mitigated Negative Declaration are PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 11 - appropriate and that with the City's horticultural consultant report, the City's geotechnical clearance report, the updated biological report and all the other transmittal and correspondences that have been received from public and private utility providers and safety providers, that the environmental review performed to date and that the documents presented to the Commission were accurate. Staff finds that the General Plan and zoning ordinance amendments proposed are consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan for this area. The request is consistent with the land use patterns that occur in this area and that there are sufficient protection measures included in the attached resolution to ensure compatibility of future development with the development in the surrounding area. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the General Plan amendment and Zoning Ordinance for the proposal as stated, that the Commission approve the tentative map subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, and that the Commission adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration. He informed the Commission that present at tonight's meeting were Public Works Director Perlin to address off-site improvements and drainage issues that may be raised; City Attorney Faubion to address legal issues that may be raised regarding staff's procedural review of the applications: and Dr. Rick Hopkins, wildlife ecologist and project manager with H.T. Harvey and Associates to address the biological assessment of the property and to answer any questions which may arise. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the letter from the law firm had been included in the Commission's agenda packet and was not distributed to the Commission this evening. However, staff has not had the opportunity to respond to the letter. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this proposal should have been submitted to the Department of Fish and Game during the 21 day review period? Community Development Director Curtis responded that staff made the initial finding that the proposal would not have a significant impact on wildlife and that staff did not feel that it was necessary to forward the proposal to the Department of Fish and Game as there were no impacts. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter from the law firm appears to be out of date procedurally as the project is no longer going to be a two phased project. She felt that the Commission needed to hear from the City Attorney as to what the impacts of a law suit would have on the Commission's evaluation. City Attorney Faubion indicated that she was not aware of any litigation being filed but that she was informed that there may be an initiative regarding the General Plan amendment. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that litigation was initiated by some neighbors following the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract taken by the City Council. In his discussion with the City Attorney, it was determined that litigation would not have an affect on the deliberation of this project because it was a separate issue and that the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract was not required to be addressed by the Planning Commission. He indicated that the Planning Commission could proceed with its review of this proposal. Commissioner Kaplan asked Public Works Director Perlin as to the water situation as there seems to be a great deal of concern by the neighbors with flooding of the property surrounding Nelson Gardens. She felt that development of the property would capture the natural runoff that is occurring in the City's runoff system, alleviating the drainage problem. Public Works `PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Director Perlin indicated that he was not aware of any unusual flooding or drainage problems that exists in this part of town. He indicated that the Public Works Department has not received any inquires or complaints about drainage in the vicinity nor any inquires regarding drainage problems emanating from this site or properties surrounding this site. Regarding the comment as to whether the development can aid in solving drainage problems, he stated that it was a true statement. However, he was not aware as to what the problems were. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that individuals have stated that suiiip pumps are being installed in some areas. She requested that staff investigate the situation. Director of Public Works Perlin stated that there are storm drain systems in the area and felt that there was more than adequate drainage facilities in the area. He informed the Commission that drainage and grading plans are required to be submitted with the submission of the improvement plans for the subdivision which are reviewed and approved by staff. Chairman Murakami asked Public Works Director Perlin to elaborate on traffic and the traffic studies for this subdivision. Public Works Director Perlin responded that a traffic study was not prepared for this subdivision as it was not warranted for a project of this size. He indicated that anywhere from 90 to 100 additional trips can be expected to generated along the street system that would serve this site if the site was fully developed. He felt that this was such a small number of trips that it did not warrant a special traffic study and felt that the street system in that area can readily accommodate that number of trips. He did not feel that the subdivision would create any detrimental traffic impacts and would not require any mitigation improvements to be constructed to accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated from this project. Commissioner Abshire inquired as to ~vho vas the City's geotechnical consultant. Public Works Director Perlin informed the Commission that William Cotton and Associates was the City's geotechnical consultant. He informed the Commission that the City's geotechnical consultant visits the site as well as reviews the geotechnical reports prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultants. Commissioner Abshire inquired as to who would prepare a detailed site study? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the detailed site study would be performed by either the same firms that did the initial work up to this point or by new firms that may be brought in by individual lot owners in the future as they come in to build individual homes on each lot. It was his opinion that the Commission can take the advise of the geotechnical consultant that all the lots are buildable. Commissioner Siegfried asked when did William Cotton and Associates prepare the original mapping of the hillside. Public Works Director Perlin responded that there were a series of three studies prepared beginning in the late 1970s and culminating in the late 1980s and that it was his belief that the study for this property may have been prepared in the 1970s. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this site or this area was included in the detailed mapping study that was completed. He inquired if there have been any failures due to landslides of the homes that were built subsequently to the completion of the mapping studies. Public Works Director Perlin responded that there have been problems in the hillsides with individual structures built that have exhibited some significant damage as the result of landslide movement and seismic PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 13 - shaking. However, homes that have been constructed since 1985 have been little, if any, significant damage to the home structures. Commissioner Kaplan asked where the map entitled "Shaking Intensity" came from and what information it contained. Public Works Director Perlin noted that the map was a study prepared by ABAG and that the information was probably a culmination of a survey, region-wide (i.e., San Francisco Bay area) and that it was a study that estimated what the maximum credible earthquake might be in different locations around the bay area of how much shaking one might expect from earthquakes of certain magnitudes. He felt that it was useful reference information and should be shown to the general public. However, when it comes down to building on a specific lot, it does not provide assistance. Commissioner Kaplan asked how one specific building site can be identified in an area photograph. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that the study vas at a macro level and that the site was at a micro level. He did not believe that this property could be identified on the map. Commissioner Siegfried noted that all the studies prepared by William Cotton and Associates in the early 1980s were considered mapping of the hillside. However, while they were not identified as potential problems, it was used only as a point of reference. Once you get site specific, a special study would need to be prepared. Public Works Director Perlin indicated studies prepared by the City were the most detailed and accurate studies that have been done on the Saratoga hillsides up to this point. These studies would represent the foundation for when one develops on the hillside. Commissioner Patrick asked how old the existing surrounding homes were? It was Public Works Director Perlin's belief that the existing homes were constructed approximately 20-25 years ago. Commissioner Abshire indicated that this was the first proposal that has come before him that the City had a substantial economic stake and asked if he should recuse himself from this proposal. City Attorney Faubion stated that Commissioner Abshire spoke to her earlier this evening and that although he indicated that he was not present at the June 14 meeting when this item was considered, he has reviewed the record for this project. Regarding his question as to whether he should recuse himself from this project, she stated that as a Planning Commissioner, it was their job to consider the General Plan amendment, the rezoning and the subdivision and determine the appropriateness of the proposal as it relates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She did not believe that the Commission should preclude itself from discussing this proposal . Chairman Murakami asked what was the difference between an EIR and EIS. Community Development Director Curtis stated that an EIR was a California Em~ironmental Quality Act Study and that an EIS was a National Environmental Policy Act Study. NEPA is used to evaluate federal projects. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that this was a new procedure to her in terms of considering a General Plan change and asked what is her role. Community Development Director Curtis PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 14 - responded that the Commission would be dealing with a land use change to the General Plan. The Commission would review the proposal to determine if it is appropriate and whether it would meet the goals of housing for the area. The Commission would primarily be determining if the general plan amendment was an appropriate change and consistent with the area. He stated that the General Plan was a general guide as to how an area should be developed in the future (a guide to plan infrastructure needs) and that the zoning ordinance implements the general plan. He further stated that zoning would need to be consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there were levels of expectations of what individuals thought would be developed in the future and whether it would be outside the expectation of homeowners that the area would remain as it was planned. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it would be an expectation of an individual that the general plan would generally indicate what is to develop in an area and that the General Plan would not vary significantly from the overall development patterns in the area. City Attorney Faubion explained that the General Plan consisted of a map/diagram depicting land use and also includes text and policies. The expectations can be reviewed in the map. She indicated that you can have different uses in an area under certain circumstances. She noted that the General Plan Policies would need to be reviewed. In reviewing a project such as this one, it has to be determined if it is a map or policy change. In this case, it is a map change and as such, the Commission would need to look at the General Plan Map to determine if the change is an appropriate one. Then the policies would need to be reviewed to determine if the amendment it consistent with City goals and policies. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Alan Pinn, Pinn Bros. Construction, indicated that earthquake faults were not found in the two geologic reports that were prepared for this site and that it was found that the soil contained bedrock, the best conditions that one can build on. Regarding the concern that there is leakage of water in the foundation in the area, he stated that the City's geologist did not find any leakage in any foundations. He felt that irrigation and badly designed grading contributed to the geologic hazard. He addressed the wildlife and plant habitat. He noted that the City's arborist recommends that 90~ of the trees be removed as the site was overgrown. He indicated that eleven trees were to remain and that there would be an elimination of the dead orchard. Further, he indicated that all the trees located at the top of the hill were to remain. He addressed the community goals and inquired if the community goals were for Saratoga or just for this area. He indicated that open space could not be provided for the City's enjoyment. This project paid into a park fund so that open space can be spread throughout the community. Regarding the comments in the letter from the law firm relating to negative aesthetic affects, he felt that the Commission could address aesthetics at time of design review. Planner Walgren noted that there were more than a 100 trees on the site and that the green dots shown on the plan depict native trees. He indicated that one coast live oak tree on lot 1 is located in the area of the proposed driveway. He recommended that the tree be retained and that it be required that the driveway be shifted to the east. ..- PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Abshire asked what the steepest slope for the driveway would be for lot 9. Mr. Pinn indicated that a two level home is proposed on lot 9 and that it would be difficult to access but that he was not sure as to the steepness of the slope. Dr. Rick Hopkins, wildlife biologist, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have regarding wildlife. Chairman Murakami asked if any of the wildlife identified on the site would be considered as being endangered in the future. Dr. Hopkins indicated that there were both state and federal processes to designate wildlife species as endangered species. In response to Chairman Murakami's question, Dr. Hopkins explained that there were over a 150 deer herds in California. He indicated that reproductive efforts are not dependent on urban deer. He noted that approximately 10 deer per square mile is standard and stated that this area represents a small portion of the deer herd in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It was his belief that this site would not support habitat for five deer. Commissioner Patrick asked what would happen to the animals that move through this area? Dr. Hopkins stated that it was important to look at the site. He noted that one half of the site was surrounded by intense development. He noted that the site has gone through several changes to where you no longer have a functioning natural habitat. He stated that development has a tendency to displace species. However, it has been determined that the impact of development of this area would not be significant and that deer would continue to wonder on the site as they currently do throughout the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick asked if specific measures should be required to mitigate impacts. Dr. Hopkins noted that there currently exists development and that the residents would complain if wildlife destroyed landscaping. He did not believe that there would be a significant amount of land to support wildlife. He noted that there ~;sere no deer routes in this area. The orchard area would be lost to the deer and that the deer may shift to the other two parcels. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, indicated that she has reviewed the documents prepared by planning staff. She felt that the new negative declaration did not address the deficiencies as outlined in the letters submitted. She felt that approval of General Plan Amendment, zoning and subdivision applications would violate the City's General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. She felt that not addressing the deficiencies would be a violation of CEQA. As the project has changed, she felt that a new negative declaration would need to be prepared. She addressed the significant impacts of drainage and soil stability and that failure to address the significant impacts would be in violation of CEQA requirements. She requested that the large oak tree be addressed. She felt that the proposal became a new project because two projects have been combined. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, addressed the comment that was made that there was an indication that "bedrock" was found on the site. He noted that all faults consist of bedrock. He felt that this issue should be studied. Regarding the water problem on the lot, he noted that an artisan spring exists on the site and that artisan wells come from underground aquifers, not from ;. ~. PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 16 - over watering. The water that the neighbors have are due to the artisan wells that still exist when the water table becomes high enough. The artisan wells will become active if wet years continue and recommended that these issues be investigated. Mr. Pinn addressed the geotechnical report for lots 5, 6, 7 and 8. He indicated that three studies have indicated that there were no faults located on the site. He did not feel that a spring should be the reason to deny the project as development would assist in diverting spring water to a storm drain system. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:18 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he was familiar with the work done by Mr. Cotton and the procedures that need to be undertaken with the geotechnical review. He felt that if one was to look at the old San Jose Water Company site and the kind of studies were completed that are required with this subdivision, there would have been many sites that would not have passed the initial test of being a buildable site. However, in that case, lots were emanated as the sites were reviewed during the Commission's study sessions. He felt that the study presented this evening indicates that there are nine sites that could be built upon and that there is nothing that suggests that they cannot be built upon. There may be specific problems that may cause the relocation and the use of retaining walls. However, he did not remember from this stage forward where specific sites were subsequently rejected. He did remember many instances where sites did not make it to this point because of all the underlying studies. He indicated that he was satisfied with the work that the geologist has done. He felt that the Commission was well advised to do what it did two months ago (i.e., the Commission was not going to approve a negative declaration until it was satisfied that the entire project meets this first threshold test). To go any further than that would be essentially to ask for a final design of a project. He felt that the City has gotten to the point where any potential problems have been identified and any potential mitigations will be affirmed as the result of specific tests which he did not believe would be major at this point in time. He felt that the City has all the information necessary contained in the geotechnical report. He indicated that faults have not been determined on this site. He felt that the study on fauna and vegetation was very complete and accurate. He felt that the question regarding traffic has been adequately addressed by the Public Works Director based on his expertise and belief that this project would not have any significant or substantial impact. He felt that the Commission has been provided through a variety of documents with more than sufficient information to adopt a Negative Declaration. He did not believe that there was any additional information that a focused EIR or a full EIR could provide than what has been provided. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she was satisfied with the reports provided and that she had some knowledge of the area. She felt that an area is being reviewed that has been developed all around it. She felt development of the existing homes have also impacted the neighborhood. She indicated that she was familiar with the deer population and that it was her observation that there were more deer per acre than indicated. She did not feel that this project would cause a substantial impact to wildlife and that she would support the adoption of the Negative Declaration. ;s ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Abshire stated that he has to rely on the advice of the experts and that the experts have indicated that there are nine building sites. He recommended that lot 9 not be built upon because it was more suitable for the animals. He regrets the process that has taken place thus far because it was late in getting the Planning Commission involved in this process. He felt that a lot of issues have been brought up and that the Commission has had very little input on this project. He indicated that he felt guilty with the fact that the City has taken money away from a non-profit organization in order to allow development. He stated that he would hate to see the City doing this sort of thing and that it was not, in his view, as being fair. Commissioner Kaplan agreed that the land use issue and mitigated negative declaration have addressed all the concerns and that she would support them. Chairman Murakami indicated that his main concern was related to environmental issues. He noted that there was development surrounding this site, therefore, it was not a pristine piece of land. He stated that he did have some concerns in terms of procedural questions that have been raised about CEQA. However, he felt that for the most part, staff has answered his concerns. Therefore, he was ready to adopt the Negative Declaration for this project. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATIONS GPA-94-003, AZO-94-002, AND SD-94- 005. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. Community Development Director Curtis clarified, at Commissioner Siegfried's request, that the Commission would be forwarding its recommendation to the City Council regarding the mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan and zoning amendments. The recommendation regarding the GPA and Zoning Amendments would not stipulate the number of lots that would be developed on the site. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA-94-003. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO-94-002. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she focused on the EIR and the mitigated Negative Declaration. She stated that she did not focus on the tentative map. Therefore, she indicated that she was not ready to act on the tentative map. Commissioner Patrick asked if the proposed nine lots were approved and that in the future, the geotechnical staff determines that one lot is basically unbuildable because there is an artisan well or another problem associated with construction, does that mean that the lot is a buildable lot because the Commission approved the lot or vas the Commission approving the subdivision contingent upon the approval of the various expert's reports? Planner Walgren responded that PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 18 - approval of the tentative map would be giving tentative approval to that building site based on the preliminary geotechnical reports that have been prepared and reviewed to date. At that point, the applicant would need to meet those individual conditions in order to file and record the final map. Commissioner Patrick asked if there would be any conditions which would occur that would not allow building on any of the approved lots? Planner Walgren responded that the tentative map should not be approved if there was still a concern. Approval of this tentative map application would be for nine lots. He indicted that the City's geotechnical consultant felt that enough studies have been performed to ascertain that these are nine buildable lots. Granting approval of this tentative map would be granting approval of nine single family home sites. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she has reviewed the tentative map and that her review indicated that one legal lot of record currently exists. She felt that the lower lots can be built upon. She indicated that she was prepared to approve the tentative map. She felt that the resolution contained enough conditions to satisfy her concerns. Planner Walgren responded to the Commission's request to focus on the conditions of approval. He noted that the majority of the conditions, particularly from the City Engineer's office regarding the public improvements and all the geotechnical review conditions, are standard conditions applied to any hillside subdivision. These standard conditions are identified in conditions 1 through 10. He noted that the only thing that was unusual in this particular case was condition 1. That being the fact that each individual home application, whether it was a single story or two story home, would have to come back through a public review process and that they would be further reviewed by the City Arborist in order to protect the significant oaks that have been identified on the property. A finding would need to be made which stipulates that the homes be compatible with the existing homes (a standard design review criteria to be considered in the public hearing review stage). Condition 5 limits lots 1 through 6 to single story construction not to exceed 22 feet in height. This condition is not normally placed on a new subdivision and is governed by existing zoning standards in other areas. In this case, staff felt that the condition would be appropriate to ensure compatibility with the existing homes in the surrounding areas. Condition 6 restricts the fencing of lots 8 and 9 to a maximum of 4,000 square feet which is consistent with what is used in the hillside districts. Condition 8 references the Memorandum of Understanding. The subdivision construction hours are being limited to Monday-Friday. Commissioner Siegfried felt that staff's emphases on condition 1 vas important and supported its language. Also, the language in Condition 4 is important to make sure that the home was compatible in terms of scale and size with existing structures. He felt that these conditions address his concerns. Community Development Director Curtis asked Planner Walgren to describe what the range in house size would be for this development. Planner Walgren responded that the lot area for the lower seven lots would be from 12,500 to 15,000 square feet size and could have 3,700 to 4,000 square foot structures including the garages and accessory buildings. He noted that the range in size would be higher for the upper two lots being that they were one acre and larger in size. He recommended the addition of the following conditions: 1) "Every effort should be made to . ~ PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 19 - realign the driveway to retain oak tree 119 located on lot 1; and 2) "The City Arborist to review and provide any recommendations for any trenching work, any new curb and gutter, etc. " Commissioner Siegfried stated that he preferred the language as contained in condition 4 because he was concerned with the original proposal (Memorandum of Understanding) between the City and the property owner relating to the maximum square footage that would be allowed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD-94- 005 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) "ALL EFFORTS ARE TO BE MADE TO PROTECT TREE NO. 119 LOCATED ON LOT 1 TO KEEP THE TREE PROTECTED FROM THE DRIVEWAY AND TO IMPLEMENT THE STEPS NECESSARY TO PROTECT SAID TREE. THE CITY ARBORIST IS TO BE CONSULTED AND HIS RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREE(S) RELATING TO TRENCHING, FENCING. ETC." THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. City Attorney Faubion pointed out that in order for this tentative map to be valid, the General Plan Amendment and the zoning amendment would need to be approved by the City Council. Community Development Director Curtis further explained that the General Plan and zoning change are a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council and that the tentative map was a final approval by the Planning Commission unless appealed within 15 days from the date of approval to the City Council. 8. DR-95-033 -CARSON/HOUSTON; 14810 SOBEY ROAD Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing residence and construct a new 5,765 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.11 acres and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:41 p.m. Jerry Houston, applicant, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she liked the design of the house and vas glad to see that it was not another Mediterranean stucco design. Mark Lundy, 14750 Sobe}' Road, requested that construction be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. unless there is activity that is not a noise pollutant. He stated that he was surprised to receive notification of just over a one week prior to this hearing date. He noted that the notice did not have a date as to when it was mailed. He also noted that the adjacent neighbor did not receive notice and that he was not aware if the neighbors were aware of the Commission's public hearing. • PLANNING COMMISSI~MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 20 - Community Development Director Curtis indicated that one reason for lack of notification may be due to the fact that the property owner may have purchased his home within the last year and that the property owner's name was not placed on the latest Assessor's role. Mr. Lundy confirmed that the adjacent neighbor purchased his home seven or eight months ago. Mr. Houston informed the Commission that he spoke to the neighbor that Mr. Lundy indicated did not receive notice two days ago and that the neighbors were aware of the proposal. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the long flagged driveway and inquired if there were any plans to install landscaping along the driveway to shield the existing house. Mr. Houston informed the Commission that landscaping would be installed in February on the front parcel. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there would be protective landscaping between Mr. Houston's property and the neighbor's property. Mr. Houston explained that he has an easement from his neighbors. He informed the Commission that the property for the front parcel goes all the way past the creek and that it was not part of the parcel that was being discussed under design review tonight. Therefore, he has no right to landscape that area as the land does not belong to him. Planner Walgren stated that a landscape plan is requested when it is deemed appropriate such as when you want to screen a house or when you want to provide a screen between two properties. In this case, staff felt that there was significant natural vegetation around the perimeter of the site and that there exists a very dense willow grove that separates this lot from the front parcel. He did not believe that you could see the front parcel from the back parcel. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95- 033 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD RESTRICT CONSTRUCTION MONDAY-FRIDAY. 7:30 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COA~iA~iISSION ITEMS 1. DR-95-007 & V-95-001 - INGSTER; 20600 Lomita Ave. Planner Walgren presented the report on the request for minor plan revisions to an approved project. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed whether the house should retain its designation once the addition was completed. He informed the Commission that there were two issues: 1) retaining the original house as much as possible, and 2) a condition that required that the front porch be moved out of the public right-of--way. After the project was approved, the applicants came back to staff and noted that their structural engineers felt that if that porch was to be dismantled and moved back, that it would require substantial foundation reconstruction to the existing house. The applicants now feel that they could make a better effort in retaining more of the house if they are allowed to leave the porch where it is, crossing the front property line. Staff discussed this request with Public Works :- ;. s PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 21 - Director Perlin in terms of whether there is a problem in having the one foot of porch encroaching into the public right-of--way. It did not seem to be a significant concern and staff would be supportive of amending its original approval to allow the porch to remain within that right-of-way in order to retain as much of the old house as possible. Commissioner Kaplan asked how it would be known that the old house would be retained if the encroachment is granted. Planner Walgren stated that the justification for the variance was the fact that the old house would be retained. He indicated that the original approval stipulates the retention of the old house. Ron Day, project architect, stated that there may not be an original foundation for the home. He estimated that the foundation was installed in the 1940s or 1950s. He noted that the foremost part of the foundation was located under the porch. He surmised that the reason the foundation was located under the porch was due to settling. Moving the porch 12 inches would result in the removal of approximately 30~ of the foundation. That would leave him with a partial T foundation underneath the house and that the integrity of the foundation was a problem when you have two different foundations (pier/grade beam and T foundations). He informed the Commission that he spoke with the engineering staff in the Building Department and that staff agreed with his engineering solution of maintaining the existing foundation, leaving the porch in its current location. Public Works Director Perlin stated that granting the request would preserve the historical aspect of the house. His only concern was that it needs to be real clear that if the request is approved, its encroachment into the right-of-way would need to be approved in a form of an encroachment permit and would only apply to this house. Should the house be destroyed or torn down in the future, the encroachment permit would be null and void. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 2. DR-94-033 & V-94-013 - JACOBS; 13845 UPPER HILL CT. Request for minor plan revisions to an approved project. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she received a phone call from Mr. Boyce who resides on the northern side, below the subject property ~vho has lived there for 40 years. Mr. Boyce indicated that there is a 16 foot mound of dirt that has been excavated from the subject property and dumped into the ravine. However, Mr. Boyce indicated that he is working with staff and that he does not object to the five foot variance but that he wants that mountain of dirt removed. Mr. Boyce also inquired if the Commission had any leverage to retain control over this issue. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he also received a call from Mr. Boyce who informed him of the same concerns as explained by Commissioner Kaplan. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that in early July, this item was referred to the _. ~~. PLANNING COMMISSI•MINUTES , AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 22 - Planning Division due to the fact that the foundation piers were off set five feet from where they were intended to be. Any modifications similar to this requires Planning Commission review. When the staff planner went out to visit the property in early July, staff noticed that there were discrepancies between the tree protection plan and what was occurring on the property. There were also discrepancies between the approved grading plan and what was occurring on the property. Staff initially was going to schedule this modification for the July 26 meeting. Staff continued this item to work with the City's arborist, the engineering department, and the applicant's engineer to resolve these discrepancies. Staff was planning initially not to hear this modification until staff had resolved all these issues to everyone's satisfaction. He informed the Commission that staff would not release the "Stop Work Notice" on the project and allow construction to commence until all of the grading issues have been resolved. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. DIRECTOR'S ITEA~iS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission as to the following: both the August 23 Planning Commission meeting and the September 5 work session have been canceled due to lack of a quorum; Tuesday, September 12 is a joint work session with the City Council. Community Development Director Curtis asked the Commission if it was going to direct staff to include construction hours as a standard condition? Chairman Murakami noted that the Greenbriar development vas constructing 7 days a week as there was no one surrounding it. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT IT DID NOT WANT TO INCLUDE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION AS A STANDARD CONDITION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE. COMMU\TICATIO\TS `'Vritten Oral City Council ADJOURNIt~iENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, 1995, Joint City Council/Planning Commission, Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga. CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK i[`:.PC08099~.SAR ~~ `~'rLANNING COMMISSION MINU'r--::_.S ~~ :~~~ AUGUST 9, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairman Murakami Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried, Murakami Late: None Absent: Asfour, Caldwell Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren, Public Works Director Perlin, and City Attorney Faubion PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Minutes - 7/26/95 COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 26, 1995 -- - MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: - - - Page 1, delete Commissioner Patrick's name from being present as she was absent from the meeting. - Page 4, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried/Asfour zv ~t .:................ ..... .. . ....................... approved consent item 2.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN, SIEGFRIED, MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: PATRICK; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 4, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-95-036 - CHEN; 12601 STAR RIDGE COURT Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 2,300 sq. ft. rear-yard deck off the back of an existing two- story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Design Review approval is necessary to allow the deck to be taller than 5 ft. from the natural grade; the proposed deck is approximately 24 ft. off the ground at its highest point. The parcel is approximately 2.5 acres and is located within an HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district (cont. to 9/13/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 1/17/96). 2. UP-95-005 - RUDDELL; 20390 THELMA AVENUE Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 12 ft. tall, 480 sq. ft. enclosed accessory structure within a required rear yard setback per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 15,512 sq. ft. parcel located within the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 3. SM-95-003 -PAGE; 21530 SARATOGA HEIGHTS ROAD Request for Site Modification approval to allow the construction of a swimming pool with associated decking, patios, arbors, and landscaping per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The subject --- -. property is approximately 2.47 acres and is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-94-022, LL-94-005 & V-95-010 - CHANG; 21423 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,752 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 and Variance approval to allow a portion of the proposed three-car garage to encroach 7 ft. into the side-yard setback and 2 ft. into the front-yard setback. The parcels involved are approximately 53,306 and 21,965 sq. ft. and are located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. This application has been previously noticed and has been renoticed due to significant plan modifications resulting in a Zoning Ordinance Variance request (cont. from 7/18/95; application expires 11/25/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that correspondence was received from Laurie Girand discussing concerns with the revised plans because the home creates a more visible house from her property above and recommended that the variance request not be supported. Ms. Girand requested that controls be put into place regarding the proposed landscape, grading and irritation plans. She also expressed concern that the water company pipeline below the property not be damaged during construction. Also received was correspondence from Jeffrey Benzing who lives across the property on Michaels PLANNING COMMISSrON MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 3 - Drive indicating that he was satisfied with the revisions to the plans but requested that careful consideration be given to a final grading and drainage. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City's geotechnical consultant has recommended that the final grading and drainage plan be submitted for their review to ensure that runoff is not occurring as a result of the improvements which would exacerbate existing down slope landslides. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicants, requested Commission approval of the design review, lot line adjustment and the variance applications. She thanked the Commission for taking the extra time to meet with her in a study session. Following the study session, significant changes were made to the plans. The home is now proposed to be a split level home that steps down, following the natural contours of the land. She noted that the maximum height of the home is to be 22 feet with the only second story element being that of a study located above the living area. She felt that the redesign provides privacy to the adjacent neighbors located on both sides and preserves their views better. She indicated that the house was reduced in size as was the swimming pool, grading, driveway, and parking area. She also noted that the hardscape has been reduced to mitigate drainage problems associated with water runoff. She felt that the variance findings for the three car garage could be made because of the land's topography, unstable soil, limited building area and that there were no off-street parking along Saratoga Hills Road for this home. The variance would allow the applicant to have the same privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and would not be a grant of a special privilege. She addressed the proposed landscaping by indicating that the proposed trees and their proposed locations were chosen to preserve the neighbors' privacy. She indicated that she would be willing to work with staff to select alternate types of trees and their locations to enhance the privacy of the neighbors. She indicated that she has met with a representative of the San Jose Water Company to review waterline protection. The representative indicated that he was not concerned with construction equipment because of the distance between the existing waterline and the building site on this property. Regarding the issue of road maintenance, she indicated that she attempted to contact the president of the homeowners association. As she was not able to make contact, Mr. Waltonsmith has agreed to send her the requirements for road maintenance and that said requirements would be followed by the applicant. She indicated her concurrence with the staff report and the resolutions and requested Commission approval. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the diagram as shown by Ms. Fanelli indicates encroachment underneath the existing oak tree's drip line. At the site visit, it was noted that the tree needed pruning. She asked if an arborist would review the condition of the tree(s). Ms. Fanelli indicated that the redline area shown on the plan was the allowable building area but that it was not the building envelope. Commissioner Kaplan noted that one of the letters received requested that interlocking pavers or permeable driveway materials be used. Planner Walgren noted that the driveway was located well away from the dripline of the oak tree and that the project would not need to be conditioned to require the use of interlocking pavers for drainage. Ms. Fanelli indicated that the resolution contained conditions which would require that the City arborist review the fencing around the tree to ensure its protection during construction. PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE-4- Scott McGregor, 21421 Saratoga Hills Road, thanked the Changs for working with the Ciry and the adjacent residents in a study session and incorporating concerns in their design. He addressed the landscaping and indicated that he would be satisfied if there was language included with regards to both coverage and the selection of trees to ensure that view sheds are not blocked. He indicated that he did not support the variance for the sole purpose of accommodating a three car garage. He provided the Commission with a photograph of the view that he would have from his bedroom window. He recommended that a two car garage be constructed with the addition of a parking space on the side. He felt that approval of the three car garage would constitute a special privilege as other individuals in the neighborhood do not have three car garages. Jeffrey Benzing, property owner to the south of this proposal, thanked the applicant for the work done in revising the design of the home and found it to be an improvement. He noted that the house structure was close to the old slide setback. He noted that the McGregor-Girand and his development had a condition which required that the development be tied to the storm drain or street system and that they were not allowed to have runoff follow the natural topography or natural drainage of the hillside. He requested that this condition also be applied to Mr. Changs approval. His second concern was that of landscaping. He requested that additional trees be planted, both in size and quantity, to ensure privacy. Ms. Fanelli reiterated that the variance was only for seven feet, not for a full garage. She felt that three car garages are part of today's homes. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he spoke to Ms. Fanelli briefly as he did not attend the study session. Ms. Fanelli wanted to see if he had any questions regarding the proposal. He felt that the design was an improvement to the plans proposed previously and that the drainage issue has been resolved in the conditions being required. He recommended that staff and the applicant take into consideration the concerns expressed regarding the type and placement of trees and that if there was an issue of concern, that issue could be brought back to the Commission. He stated that he did not have a problem with the variance as he did not see it to be a massive garage. He indicated that he could support the variance for the garage as it complements the roofline. Commissioner Kaplan stated her appreciation of the neighbors' concerns. She felt that their concerns have resulted in a better designed house. She noted that this site did not have room for a big driveway apron as is afforded to the neighboring site(s). She appreciated the manner in which the height poles were laid out as they allowed the Commission to visually see the extent of the impact that the variance would have. She indicated that she could make the findings in this instance because the lot was constrained and that it was a difficult site. She appreciated the fact that the driveway has been shown. She expressed concern with the tree, the single feature of the lot that was attractive. She urged the owner to make sure that the rules for tree preservation are followed because it is very easy to encroach and destroy the tree. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSIaN MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Abshire indicated that he could support the request including the variance as three car garages are part of today's home. He felt that the owner would have a vested interest in ensuring that good drainage exists to the downside slope of his lot. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she supports the applications and appreciated the changes that have been made. She appreciated the fact that the design of the house was much smaller as it would be less intrusive into the hillside. She indicated that she could support the three car garage as the driveway was reduced and that it would be less of an impact. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was pleased with the redesign. He stated that he did not have a problem with the variance request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-94- 022 WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY MR. BENZING REGARDING THE DRAINAGE CONCERNS AND INCLUDING THE REFERENCES OF THE TWO LETTERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REQUESTS ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITION FOR LANDSCAPING (REQUEST THAT ADDITIONAL SCREENING TREES BE PLANTED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME). THE -- MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL- 94-005. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-95- O10 MAKING THE FINDINGS AS STATED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. 5. DR-95-027 - LIN/SHIN; 20315 HERRIMAN 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 garage per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 19,388 sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/12/95; application expires 12/9/95). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Staff noted that the changes made were not significant and that the design was basically the same design previously reviewed by the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the request as staff felt that the findings could be made. Staff noted that the design changes may not be as substantial as the Planning Commission was looking to see. Should the Commission not agree that the plans could be supported, staff recommended that the Commission deny the application rather than a further continuance as this item was continued once before and that this was the compromise plan that the applicant was willing to pursue. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that two letters were received from Mr. and Mrs. Sean Shen indicating support of the proposal and from Mr. and Mrs. David Mann who indicated support so long as the home meets minimum setbacks from their property. "` PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Siegfried asked staff if a condition was included to require the planting of a row of evergreen trees as requested by the Mann's for privacy reasons. Planner Walgren responded that it was not included as a condition in the prepared resolution. In response to Commissioner Patrick's question, Planner Walgren stated that staff found the plans acceptable as it relates to the attic space. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the attic space above the garage was large for the roof. She asked if the attic space could be lowered to provide a view across that large area. Planner Walgren responded that the attic space could be lowered further. Staff originally recommended that the garage area be reduced because it appeared that the upper garage room was a habitable room. From external appearance, the applicant has reduced it 19 feet in total height, wanting to retain a steeper roof pitch to mach the existing residence. Staff has found the proposal acceptable and that staff was more concerned with the internal height which has been brought down to four feet. With the reduction in height and the elimination of the dormer windows, it is a safe assurance that it would not be used as a habitable room. He further indicated that the applicant's architect was very reluctant to lower the roofline too much because it would throw off the symmetry of the design. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Erwin Haws, project designer, provided the Commission with an overlay of the neighborhood depicting the two story homes in the neighborhood. He agreed that most of the neighboring houses were single story homes. However, he felt that a precedent has been established to allow two story homes. With the lowering of the height of the garage and the installation of landscaping, he felt that the view and privacy impacts have been addressed. He requested approval of the proposal as he tried to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors and staff. Chairman Murakami asked Mr. Haws if the photographs of the home he provided the Commission depicts what this home would look like. Mr. Haws responded that the photograph depicts what this home would look like once constructed. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a problem with the proposal. He indicated that his previous concern was with that of the height of garage. As it has been reduced in height and the home redesigned, he could support the proposal. Commissioner Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. Commissioner Abshire felt that the approval of this proposal would change the appearance of this neighborhood. As the immediate neighbors did not express concern, he would support the request. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was satisfied with the redesign and the softening of the appearance of the house and with the height reduction of the garage. Therefore, he could support the proposal. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95-027 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO THE .EAST PROPERTY LINE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. 6. DR-95-019 - MOSTAAN; 20720 LEONARD RD. Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,132 sq. ft. two-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 15 of the City Code. The property is located at the end of Leonard Rd. and is within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/26/95 at the request of the applicant; application expires 11/8/95). -~- - Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He noted that the home has been lowered in height, the architectural changes that have been made to the plans to reduce the square footage and that the applicant has agreed to eliminate the existing garage. To address the incompatibility of the old wood sided cottage and the new stucco home, the applicant has agreed to redesign the cottage to match the home. He informed the Commission that the applicant was still proposing to retain the existing cottage. The applicant has raised one point relative to relocating the house further to the north. That point being that there are three existing large coast live oak trees located on the northern end of the property which would preclude moving the house in that direction. Based on this fact, staff felt that the proposal could be supported. Staff felt that the design review findings can be made to recommend approval with the conditions contained in the resolution. Should the Commission not be satisfied with the proposal and does not feel that the design review findings could be made, staff would recommend that the application be denied rather than requesting a further continuance as this item has been previously continued for redesign purposes. He noted that letters were received from Gary and Alfreda Mastman, 20777 Russell Court; Richard and Deborah Lindberg; and A.S. Hoagland; 13834 Upper Hill Drive. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a condition was included to require the removal of the temporary shed. Planner Walgren responded that a condition was not included to require the removal of the shed and that it was his understanding that the applicant plans to retain the shed. He noted that the shed was an accessory structure located in a required 30 foot front setback and that he felt that it would be reasonable to require the removal of the shed. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission felt that it was important that the shed be removed as she felt that it was located in the wrong place. She asked if the shed added to the coverage of the lot. Planner Walgren responded that it would make a change to the percentage of the allowable lot coverage and that it would be included in the lot coverage calculation. "'- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 8 - Chairman Murakami asked how many feet the pad has been moved. Planner Walgren responded that the house pad has been shifted to the east from the west side property line four feet, three inches. He noted that the building was constrained by movement to the north because of the oak trees, movement to the east because of the slope and the additional down slope trees and movement to the south because of the required 60 foot rear setback. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Michael Helm, project architect, informed the Commission that the tool shed referred to by Commissioner Kaplan would be removed. He submitted a letter from the adjacent neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Davis indicating support for the architectural style. He addressed the changes made to the design of the project (i.e., eliminated floor area by reducing the size and height of the house). He submitted a site plan depicting the neighbor's home located behind this property. He indicated that five new screen trees were to be incorporated to fill in the existing screen and to shield the neighbors from the pool area. He addressed the existing cottage and garage. He stated that it is intended to eliminate the existing garage and convert the cottage to a recreational use with the elimination of the cooking facility. Remodeling of the cottage would be undertaken to match the existing home. He provided the Commission with a photo board depicting the three existing trees located in front of the cottage. He noted" that the arborist's report recommends that the existing landscaping be retained. He felt that there was economic value to the cottage (the 830 square foot cottage could be used for a TV or game room). He pointed out that the garage sits over the setback line and that when it is removed, it would allow the cottage to sit within setbacks. He indicated that privacy fencing is to be installed and that the cost would be borne by the applicant. He indicated that the applicant would agree to limit construction Monday-Friday as recommended by Commissioner Kaplan. He indicated that the home owned by Mr. and Mrs. Finch (13561 Surrey Lane) has a 1,500 square foot addition currently under construction. The addition would include a three car garage and additional living space. He stated that he concurred with staff's recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Abshire asked Mr. Helm if consideration was given to locating the garage to the south and the house to the north. Mr. Helm responded that consideration had been given to locating the garage to the south and the house to the north but the reason the house and garage were located as proposed was due to the pool and the recreation enjoyment of full sun. He noted that this area was ideal for a pool as there are no over hanging trees. Mr. Helm noted that there was a pool located adjacent to the south side of the property. Commissioner Abshire expressed concern with the noise associated with swimming pool activities for the adjacent neighbors. Paul Schuyler, 20711 Leonard Road, indicated that he was one of three adjacent neighbors impacted by the Mostaan proposal. He expressed concern that it would be difficult to regulate permanent occupancy of the existing house. He noted that there were no other cottages or guest homes located on Leonard Road nor the immediate area. He felt that the impact of two homes on the property was more than what the immediate neighbors should endure. He felt that the existing home would be used as a second unit and asked why the existing home would be classified as a cottage. He also expressed concern with construction noise and felt that there was adequate room to move the house on the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 . PAGE - 9 - Alfreda Mastman, 20777 Russell Court, indicated that her comments were afollow-up to the letters dated June 20 and July 3. She noted that the existing house would remain but moved on the site. She recommended that the cottage be moved as close as possible to Leonard Road, away from the smaller homes. She noted that the swimming pool was still proposed adjacent to her fence which may allow excessive noise to her peaceful atmosphere. She noted that there were many flood lights proposed on the exterior of the house. She did not feel that the lights were appropriate with the character of the quite neighborhood. She requested that construction hours be restricted Monday-Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. David French, 13561 Surrey Lane, stated his support to the relocation of the garage. He suggested that the changes that have been made be looked at in a more creative standpoint in terms of locating the residence in an area that would not impact the neighborhood. He indicated that he was progressing with an addition to his home. He inquired as to the amount of effort that has gone into trying to address the greater issue of impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Helm reiterated that the existing home would be used solely for recreation purposes and would not be used as permanent occupancy. He felt that the recreation room would be an adequate buffer between the neighbors to the north. The use of the term cottage was to identify the size of the structure. He felt that the pool area could be shifted slightly but that the applicants wanted to retain the sun and to stay away from the trees as much as possible. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:41 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it was his belief that having the driveway and the activities of cars would be less of an impact if it was located in the center of the property than it would be to relocate it to the area where the pool is proposed. He asked if the cottage would be considered as a second unit and whether all applicable regulations would apply. Planner Walgren noted that a second permanent dwelling unit is not permitted in the Hillside zoning districts but that accessory structures are permitted so long as they meet the height, floor area, lot coverage and setback requirements. It can be used as a guest house for temporary stays, as a hobby room, a pool, cabana, etc., but cannot be used as a permanent second dwelling. He informed the Commission that a condition has been included which stipulates that prior to final occupancy of the new home, it will be required that the kitchen facilities be removed from the cottage and that it never be used as a rental. If it is used as rental, it would be in violation of the City's zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she liked the design of the cottage and would have preferred to have the new home look like the cottage. She stated that she would not want to locate a house and/or driveway any closer to the existing trees. She stated that her concern regarding the fence has been dealt with. She recommended that the construction hours be restricted Monday-Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with no weekend construction. She requested clarification regarding the use of the flood lights. She noted that her home has flood lights for security reasons. She noted that the floodlights were not depicted on the plans. She concurred with Commissioner Siegfried that having the car and motor activity in the middle of the property ' would shield the existing neighbors from noise and lights. She noted that the most prominent A PL NNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 10 - structure visible from this property was located across to the west where there is an enormous pool house. She stated that she did not see a problem with the incompatibility issue. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not see a concern with the use of the cottage . She indicated that she could not support the design of 100 feet adjacent to the Frenches project without being stepped down with some recognition being given to the hill as well as some consideration being given to bulk. She would therefore vote against the proposal. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not feel that the applicant addressed the neighbors' concerns. He felt that the proposed design would impact the neighbors located to the south and west. Therefore, he would not support the proposal. Chairman Murakami stated his appreciation for the softening of the design. He indicated that his main concern was that of the accessory structure and felt that it should be removed. However, he was inclined to allow the cottage to remain after hearing staff's explanation of a second unit versus an accessory structure. He was satisfied with the location of the garage, especially after seeing the large house with the large pool structure across the way. As far as the placement of the house, even if it was only moved 4.5 feet, he could not see it being moved further to the west without destroying the existing trees. He felt that the driveway configuration was reasonable at this point for the reasons as explained by the other Commissioners (noise). He indicated that he could approve the application. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95-019 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE LIMITED MONDAY-FRIDAY, 7:30 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M.; AND 2) THE REMOVAL OF THE TEMPORARY TOOL SHED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, SIEGFRIED, MURAKAMI; NOES: ABSHIRE, PATRICK; ABSENT: ASFOUR AND CALDWELL. 7. GPA-94-003, AZO-94-002, SD-94-005 -TRINITY DEVELOPMENT CO. Request for General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow the properties to be reclassified from an Open Space-Outdoor Recreational/Agricultural designation to a Residential-Very Low Density and Medium Density/R-1-12,500 and R-1-40,000 designation. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is also requested to subdivide the two separate parcels into 9single-family residential building sites. An environmental Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared (cont. from 6/14/95 to expand Initial Study; application expires 1/31/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger challenging both staff's decision procedurally to pursue a mitigated Negative Declaration, specifically challenging the individual components of the initial study in terms its true impact on area traffic, biological resources, tree protection and habitat protection. He informed the Commission that staff has not responded to the letter as staff received the letter late last week. He indicated that staff was prepared to answer questions that the Commission may have regarding this submittal. He indicated that staff still feels that the initial study and the mitigated Negative Declaration are PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES • • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 11 - appropriate and that with the City's horticultural consultant report, the City's geotechnical clearance report, the updated biological report and all the other transmittal and correspondences that have been received from public and private utility providers and safety providers, that the environmental review performed to date and that the documents presented to the Commission were accurate. Staff fords that the General Plan and zoning ordinance amendments proposed are consistent with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan for this area. The request is consistent with the land use patterns that occur in this area and that there are sufficient protection measures included in the attached resolution to ensure compatibility of future development with the development in the surrounding area. Staff recommended that the Commission recommend approval to the Ciry Council of the General Plan amendment and Zoning Ordinance for the proposal as stated, that the Commission approve the tentative map subject to the conditions contained in the resolution, and that the Commission adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration. He informed the Commission that present at tonight's meeting were Public Works Director Perlin to address off-site improvements and drainage issues that may be raised; City Attorney Faubion to address legal issues that may be raised regarding staff's procedural review of the applications; and Dr. Rick Hopkins, wildlife ecologist and project manager with H.T. Harvey and Associates to address the biological assessment of the property and to answer any questions which may arise. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the letter from the law firm had been included in the Commission's agenda packet and was not distributed to the Commission this everting. However, staff has not had the opportunity to respond to the letter. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this proposal should have been submitted to the Department of Fish and Game during the 21 day review period? Community Development Director Curtis responded that staff made the initial finding that the proposal would not have a significant impact on wildlife and that staff did not feel that it was necessary to forward the proposal to the Department of Fish and Game as there were no impacts. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter from the law firm appears to be out of date procedurally as the project is no longer going to be a two phased project. She felt that the Commission needed to hear from the City Attorney as to what the impacts of a law suit would have on the Commission's evaluation. City Attorney Faubion indicated that she was not aware of any litigation being filed but that she was informed that there may be an initiative regarding the General Plan amendment. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that litigation was initiated by some neighbors following the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract taken by the City Council. In his discussion with the City Attorney, it was determined that litigation would not have an affect on the deliberation of this project because it was a separate issue and that the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act contract was not required to be addressed by the Planning Commission. He indicated that the Planning Commission could proceed with its review of this proposal. Commissioner Kaplan asked Public Works Director Perlin as to the water situation as there seems to be a great deal of concern by the neighbors with flooding of the property surrounding Nelson Gardens. She felt that development of the property would capture the natural runoff that is occurring in the City's runoff system, alleviating the drainage problem. Public Works - 'PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Director Perlin indicated that he was not aware of any unusual flooding or drainage problems that exists in this part of town. He indicated that the Public Works Department has not received any inquires or complaints about drainage in the vicinity nor any inquires regarding drainage problems emanating from this site or properties surrounding this site. Regarding the comment as to whether the development can aid in solving drainage problems, he stated that it was a true statement. However, he was not aware as to what the problems were. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that individuals have stated that s€ pumps are being installed in some areas. She requested that staff investigate the situation. ~ Director of Public Works Perlin stated that there are storm drain systems in the area and felt that there was more than adequate drainage facilities in the area. He informed the Commission that drainage and grading plans are required to be submitted with the submission of the improvement plans for the subdivision which are reviewed and approved by staff. Chairman Murakami asked Public Works Director Perlin to elaborate on traffic and the traffic studies for this subdivision. Public Works Director Perlin responded that a traffic study was not prepared for this subdivision as it was not warranted for a project of this size. He indicated that anywhere from 90 to 100 additional trips can be expected to generated along the street system that would serve this site if the site was fully developed. He felt that this was such a small number of trips that it did not warrant a special traffic study and felt that the street system in that area can readily accommodate that number of trips. He did not feel that the subdivision would create any detrimental traffic impacts and would not require any mitigation improvements to be constructed to accommodate the amount of traffic that would be generated from this project. Commissioner Abshire inquired as to who was the City's geotechnical consultant. Public Works Director Perlin informed the Commission that William Cotton and Associates was the City's geotechnical consultant. He informed the Commission that the City's geotechnical consultant visits the site as well as reviews the geotechnical reports prepared by the applicant's geotechnical consultants. Commissioner Abshire inquired as to who would prepare a detailed site study? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the detailed site study would be performed by either the same firms that did the initial work up to this point or by new firms that may be brought in by individual lot owners in the future as they come in to build individual homes on each lot. It was his opinion that the Commission can take the advise of the geotechnical consultant that all the lots are buildable. Commissioner Siegfried asked when did William Cotton and Associates prepare the original mapping of the hillside. Public Works Director Perlin responded that there were a series of three studies prepared beginning in the late 1970s and culminating in the late 1980s and that it was his belief that the study for this property may have been prepared in the 1970s. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this site or this area was included in the detailed mapping study that was completed. He inquired if there have been any failures due to landslides of the homes that were built subsequently to the completion of the mapping studies. Public Works Director Perlin responded that there have been problems in the hillsides with individual structures built that have exhibited some significant damage as the result of landslide movement and seismic - 'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 13 - shaking. However, homes that have been constructed since 1985 have been little, if any, significant damage to the home structures. Commissioner Kaplan asked where the map entitled "Shaking Intensity" came from and what information it contained. Public Works Director Perlin noted that the map was a study prepared by ABAG and that the information was probably a culmination of a survey, region-wide (i.e., San Francisco Bay area) and that it was a study that estimated what the maximum credible earthquake might be in different locations around the bay area of how much shaking one might expect from earthquakes of certain magnitudes. He felt that it was useful reference information and should be shown to the general public. However, when it comes down to building on a specific lot, it does not provide assistance. Commissioner Kaplan asked how one specific building site can be identified in an area photograph. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that the study was at a macro level and that the site was at a micro level. He did not believe that this property could be identified on the map. Commissioner Siegfried noted that all the studies prepared by William Cotton and Associates in the early 1980s were considered mapping of the hillside. However, while they were not identified as potential problems, it was used only as a point of reference. Once you get site -- specific, a special study would need to be prepared. Public Works Director Perlin indicated studies prepared by the City were the most detailed and accurate studies that have been done on the Saratoga hillsides up to this point. These studies would represent the foundation for when one develops on the hillside. Commissioner Patrick asked how old the existing surrounding homes were? It was Public Works Director Perlin's belief that the existing homes were constructed approximately 20-25 years ago. Commissioner Abshire indicated that this was the first proposal that has come before him that the City had a substantial economic stake and asked if he should recuse himself from this proposal. City Attorney Faubion stated that Commissioner Abshire spoke to her earlier this evening and that although he indicated that he was not present at the June 14 meeting when this item was considered, he has reviewed the record for this project. Regarding his question as to whether he should recuse himself from this project, she stated that as a Planning Commissioner, it was their job to consider the General Plan amendment, the rezoning and the subdivision and determine the appropriateness of the proposal as it relates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She did not believe that the Commission should preclude itself from discussing this proposal. Chairman Murakami asked what was the difference between an EIR and EIS. Community Development Director Curtis stated that an EIR was a California Environmental Quality Act Study and that an EIS was a National Environmental Policy Act Study. NEPA is used to evaluate federal projects. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that this was a new procedure to her in terms of considering a General Plan change and asked what is her role. Community Development Director Curtis ' PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 14 - responded that the Commission would be dealing with a land use change to the General Plan. The Commission would review the proposal to determine if it is appropriate and whether it would meet the goals of housing for the area. The Commission would primarily be determining if the general plan amendment was an appropriate change and consistent with the area. He stated that the General Plan was a general guide as to how an area should be developed in the future (a guide to plan infrastructure needs) and that the zoning ordinance implements the general plan. He further stated that zoning would need to be consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there were levels of expectations of what individuals thought would be developed in the future and whether it would be outside the expectation of homeowners that the area would remain as it was planned. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it would be an expectation of an individual that the general plan would generally indicate what is to develop in an area and that the General Plan would not vary significantly from the overall development patterns in the area. City Attorney Faubion explained that the General Plan consisted of a map/diagram depicting land use and also includes text and policies. The expectations can be reviewed in the map. She indicated that you can have different uses in an area under certain circumstances. She noted that --- the General Plan Policies would need to be reviewed. In reviewing a project such as this one, it has to be determined if it is a map or policy change. In this case, it is a map change and as such, the Commission would need to look at the General Plan Map to determine if the change is an appropriate one. Then the policies would need to be reviewed to determine if the amendment it consistent with City goals and policies. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Alan Pinn, Pinn Bros. Construction, indicated that earthquake faults were not found in the two geologic reports that were prepared for this site and that it was found that the soil contained bedrock, the best conditions that one can build on. Regarding the concern that there is leakage of water in the foundation in the area, he stated that the City's geologist did not find any leakage in any foundations. He felt that irrigation and badly designed grading contributed to the geologic hazard. He addressed the wildlife and plant habitat. He noted that the City's arborist recommends that 90 % of the trees be removed as the site was overgrown. He indicated that eleven trees were to remain and that there would be an elimination of the dead orchard. Further, he indicated that all the trees located at the top of the hill were to remain. He addressed the community goals and inquired if the community goals were for Saratoga or just for this area. He indicated that open space could not be provided for the City's enjoyment. This project paid into a park fund so that open space can be spread throughout the community. Regarding the comments in the letter from the law firm relating to negative aesthetic affects, he felt that the Commission could address aesthetics at time of design review. Planner Walgren noted that there were more than a 100 trees on the site and that the green dots shown on the plan depict native trees. He indicated that one coast live oak tree on lot 1 is located in the area of the proposed driveway. He recommended that the tree be retained and that it be required that the driveway be shifted to the east. • PLANNING COMMISS• MINUTES • ' AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Abshire asked what the steepest slope for the driveway would be for lot 9. Mr. Pinn indicated that a two level home is proposed on lot 9 and that it would be difficult to access but that he was not sure as to the steepness of the slope. Dr. Rick Hopkins, wildlife biologist, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have regarding wildlife. Chairman Murakami asked if any of the wildlife identified on the site would be considered as being endangered in the future. Dr. Hopkins indicated that there were both state and federal processes to designate wildlife species as endangered species. In response to Chairman Murakami's question, Dr. Hopkins explained that there were over a 150 deer herds in California. He indicated that reproductive efforts are not dependent on urban deer. He noted that approximately 10 deer per square mile is standard and stated that this area represents a small portion of the deer herd in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It was his belief that this site would not support habitat for five deer. Commissioner Patrick asked what would happen to the animals that move through this area? -- - Dr. Hopkins stated that it was important to look at the site. He noted that one half of the site was surrounded by intense development. He noted that the site has gone through several changes to where you no longer have a functioning natural habitat. He stated that development has a tendency to displace species. However, it has been determined that the impact of development of this area would not be significant and that deer would continue to wonder on the site as they currently do throughout the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick asked if specific measures should be required to mitigate impacts. Dr. Hopkins noted that there currently exists development and that the residents would complain if wildlife destroyed landscaping. He did not believe that there would be a significant amount of land to support wildlife. He noted that there were no deer routes in this area. The orchard area would be lost to the deer and that the deer may shift to the other two parcels. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, indicated that she has reviewed the documents prepared by planning staff. She felt that the new negative declaration did not address the deficiencies as outlined in the letters submitted. She felt that approval of General Plan Amendment, zoning and subdivision applications would violate the City's General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. She felt that not addressing the deficiencies would be a violation of CEQA. As the project has changed, she felt that a new negative declaration would need to be prepared. She addressed the significant impacts of drainage and soil stability and that failure to address the significant impacts would be in violation of CEQA requirements. She requested that the large oak tree be addressed. She felt that the proposal became a new project because two projects have been combined. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, addressed the comment that was made that there was an indication that "bedrock" was found on the site. He noted that all faults consist of bedrock. He felt that this issue should be studied. Regarding the water problem on the lot, he noted that an artisan spring exists on the site and that artisan wells come from underground aquifers, not from . 'PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 16 - over watering. The water that the neighbors have are due to the artisan wells that still exist when the water table becomes high enough. The artisan wells will become active if wet years continue and recommended that these issues be investigated. Mr. Pinn addressed the geotechnical report for lots 5, 6, 7 and 8. He indicated that three studies have indicated that there were no faults located on the site. He did not feel that a spring should be the reason to deny the project as development would assist in diverting spring water to a storm drain system. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:18 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he was familiar with the work done by Mr. Cotton and the procedures that need to be undertaken with the geotechnical review. He felt that if one was to look at the old San Jose Water Company site and the kind of studies were completed that are required with this subdivision, there would have been many sites that would not have passed the initial test of being a buildable site. However, in that case, lots were emanated as the sites were reviewed during the Commission's study sessions. He felt that the study presented this evening indicates that there are nine sites that could be built upon and that there is nothing that suggests that they cannot be built upon. There may be specific problems that may cause the relocation and the use of retaining walls. However, he did not remember from this stage forward where specific sites were subsequently rejected. He did remember many instances where sites did not make it to this point because of all the underlying studies. He indicated that he was satisfied with the work that the geologist has done. He felt that the Commission was well advised to do what it did two months ago (i.e., the Commission was not going to approve a negative declaration until it was satisfied that the entire project meets this first threshold test). To go any further than that would be essentially to ask for a final design of a project. He felt that the Ciry has gotten to the point where any potential problems have been identified and any potential mitigations will be affirmed as the result of specific tests which he did not believe would be major at this point in time. He felt that the City has all the information necessary contained in the geotechnical report. He indicated that faults have not been determined on this site. He felt that the study on fauna and vegetation was very complete and accurate. He felt that the question regarding traffic has been adequately addressed by the Public Works Director based on his expertise and belief that this project would not have any significant or substantial impact. He felt that the Commission has been provided through a variety of documents with more than sufficient information to adopt a Negative Declaration. He did not believe that there was any additional information that a focused EIR or a full EIR could provide than what has been provided. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she was satisfied with the reports provided and that she had some knowledge of the area. She felt that an area is being reviewed that has been developed all around it. She felt development of the existing homes have also impacted the neighborhood. She indicated that she was familiar with the deer population and that it was her observation that there were more deer per acre than indicated. She did not feel that this project would cause a substantial impact to wildlife and that she would support the adoption of the Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Abshire stated that he has to rely on the advice of the experts and that the experts have indicated that there are nine building sites. He recommended that lot 9 not be built upon because it was more suitable for the anunals. He regrets the process that has taken place thus far because it was late in getting the Planning Commission involved in this process. He felt that a lot of issues have been brought up and that the Commission has had very little input on this project. He indicated that he felt guilty with the fact that the City has taken money away from a non-profit organization in order to allow development. He stated that he would hate to see the City doing this sort of thing and that it was not, in his view, as being fair. Commissioner Kaplan agreed that the land use issue and mitigated negative declaration have addressed all the concerns and that she would support them. Chairman Murakami indicated that his main concern was related to environmental issues. He noted that there was development surrounding this site, therefore, it was not a pristine piece of land. He stated that he did have some concerns in terms of procedural questions that have been raised about CEQA. However, he felt that for the most part, staff has answered his concerns. Therefore, he was ready to adopt the Negative Declaration for this project. --- COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE TFIE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATIONS GPA-94-003, AZO-94-002, AND SD-94- 005. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. Community Development Director Curtis clarified, at Commissioner Siegfried's request, that the Commission would be forwarding its recommendation to the City Council regarding the mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan and zoning amendments. The recommendation regarding the GPA and Zoning Amendments would not stipulate the number of lots that would be developed on the site. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA-94-003. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO-94-002. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she focused on the EIR and the mitigated Negative Declaration. She stated that she did not focus on the tentative map. Therefore, she indicated that she was not ready to act on the tentative map. Commissioner Patrick asked if the proposed nine lots were approved and that in the future, the geotechnical staff determines that one lot is basically unbuildable because there is an artisan well or another problem associated with construction, does that mean that the lot is a buildable lot because the Commission approved the lot or was the Commission approving the subdivision contingent upon the approval of the various expert's reports? Planner Walgren responded that : ~' PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES • ~= AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 18 - approval of the tentative map would be giving tentative approval to that building site based on the preliminary geotechnical reports that have been prepared and reviewed to date. At that point, the applicant would need to meet those individual conditions in order to file and record the final map. Commissioner Patrick asked if there would be any conditions which would occur that would not allow building on any of the approved lots? Planner Walgren responded that the tentative map should not be approved if there was still a concern. Approval of this tentative map application would be for nine lots. He indicted that the City's geotechnical consultant felt that enough studies have been performed to ascertain that these are nine buildable lots. Granting approval of this tentative map would be granting approval of nine single family home sites. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she has .reviewed the tentative map and that her review indicated that one legal lot of record currently exists. She felt that the lower lots can be built upon. She indicated that she was prepared to approve the tentative map. She felt that the resolution contained enough conditions to satisfy her concerns. Planner Walgren responded to the Commission's request to focus on the conditions of approval. He noted that the majority of the conditions, particularly from the City Engineer's office regarding the public improvements and all the geotechnical review conditions, are standard -- conditions applied to any hillside subdivision. -These standard conditions are identified in conditions 1 through 10. He noted that the only thing that was unusual in this particular case was condition 1. That being the fact that each individual home application, whether it was a single story or two story home, would have to come back through a public review process and that they would be further reviewed by the City Arborist in order to protect the significant oaks that have been identified on the property. A fmding would need to be made which stipulates that the homes be compatible with the existing homes (a standard design review criteria to be considered in the public hearing review stage). Condition S limits lots 1 through 6 to single story construction not to exceed 22 feet in height. This condition is not normally placed on a new subdivision and is governed by existing zoning standards in other areas. In this case, staff felt that the condition would be appropriate to ensure compatibility with the existing homes in the surrounding areas. Condition 6 restricts the fencing of lots 8 and 9 to a maximum of 4,000 square feet which is consistent with what is used in the hillside districts. Condition 8 references the Memorandum of Understanding. The subdivision construction hours are being limited to Monday-Friday. Commissioner Siegfried felt that staff's emphases on condition 1 was important and supported its language. Also, the language in Condition 4 is important to make sure that the home was compatible in terms of scale and size with existing structures. He felt that these conditions address his concerns. Community Development Director Curtis asked Planner Walgren to describe what the range in house size would be for this development. Planner Walgren responded that the lot area for the lower seven lots would be from 12,500 to 15,000 square feet size and could have 3,700 to 4,000 square foot structures including the garages and accessory buildings. He noted that the range in size would be higher for the upper two lots being that they were one acre and larger in size. He recommended the addition of the following conditions: 1) "Every effort should be made to ~~ PLANNING COMMISS~N MINUTES ~= AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 19 - realign the driveway to retain oak tree 1191ocated on lot 1; and 2) "The City Arborist to review and provide any recommendations for any trenching work, any new curb and gutter, etc." Commissioner Siegfried stated that he preferred the language as contained in condition 4 because he was concerned with the original proposal (Memorandum of Understanding) between the Ciry and the property owner relating to the maximum square footage that would be allowed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD-94- 005 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) "ALL EFFORTS ARE TO BE MADE TO PROTECT TREE NO. 119 LOCATED ON LOT 1 TO KEEP THE TREE PROTECTED FROM THE DRIVEWAY AND TO IMPLEMENT THE STEPS NECESSARY TO PROTECT SAID TREE. THE CITY ARBORIST IS TO BE CONSULTED AND HIS RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREE(S) RELATING TO TRENCHING, FENCING, ETC." THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. City Attorney Faubion pointed out that in order for this tentative map to be valid, the General Plan Amendment and the zoning amendment would need to be approved by the City Council. Community Development Director Curtis further explained that the General Plan and zoning change are a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council and that the tentative map was a final approval by the Planning Commission unless appealed within 15 days from the date of approval to the City Council. 8. DR-95-033 -CARSON/HOUSTON; 14810 SOBEY ROAD Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing residence and construct a new 5,765 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.11 acres and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:41 p.m. Jerry Houston, applicant, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she liked the design of the house and was glad to see that it was not another Mediterranean stucco design. Mark Lundy, 14750 Sobey Road, requested that construction be limited to Monday-Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. unless there is activity that is not a noise pollutant. He stated that he was surprised to receive notification of just over a one week prior to this hearing date. He noted that the notice did not have a date as to when it was mailed. He also noted that the adjacent neighbor did not receive notice and that he was not aware if the neighbors were aware of the Commission's public hearing. ` PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES ~= AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 20 - Community Development Director Curtis indicated that one reason for lack of notification may be due to the fact that the property owner may have purchased his home within the last year and that the property owner's name was not placed on the latest Assessor's role. Mr. Lundy confirmed that the adjacent neighbor purchased his home seven or eight months ago. Mr. Houston informed the Commission that he spoke to the neighbor that Mr. Lundy indicated did not receive notice two days ago and that the neighbors were aware of the proposal. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the long flagged driveway and inquired if there were any plans to install landscaping along the driveway to shield the existing house. Mr. Houston informed the Commission that landscaping would be installed in February on the front parcel. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there would be protective landscaping between Mr. Houston's property and the neighbor's property. Mr. Houston explained that he has an easement from his neighbors. He informed the Commission that the property for the front parcel goes all the way past the creek and that it was not part of the parcel that was being discussed under design review tonight. Therefore, he has no right to landscape that area as the land does not belong to him. ~- - Planner Walgren stated that a landscape plan is requested when it is deemed appropriate such as when you want to screen a house or when you want to provide a screen between two properties. In this case, staff felt that there was significant natural vegetation around the perimeter of the site and that there exists a very dense willow grove that separates this lot from the front parcel. He did not believe that you could see the front parcel from the back parcel. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:50 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-95- 033 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD RESTRICT CONSTRUCTION MONDAY-FRIDAY, 7:30 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND CALDWELL ABSENT. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-95-007 & V-95-001 - INGSTER; 20600 Lomita Ave. Planner Walgren presented the report on the request for minor plan revisions to an approved project. He informed the Commission that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed whether the house should retain its designation once the addition was completed. He informed the Commission that there were two issues: 1) retaining the original house as much as possible, and 2) a condition that required that the front porch be moved out of the public right-of--way. After the project was approved, the applicants came back to staff and noted that their structural engineers felt that if that porch was to be dismantled and moved back, that it would require substantial foundation reconstruction to the existing house. The applicants now feel that they could make a better effort in retaining more of the house if they are allowed to leave the porch where it is, crossing the front property line. Staff discussed this request with Public Works := PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES •*' AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 21 - Director Perlin in terms of whether there is a problem in having the one foot of porch encroaching into the public right-of--way. It did not seem to be a significant concern and staff would be supportive of amending its original approval to allow the porch to remain within that right-of--way in order to retain as much of the old house as possible. Commissioner Kaplan asked how it would be known that the old house would be retained if the encroachment is granted. Planner Walgren stated that the justification for the variance was the fact that the old house would be retained. He indicated that the original approval stipulates the retention of the old house. Ron Day, project architect, stated that there may not be an original foundation for the home. He estimated that the foundation was installed in the 1940s or 1950s. He noted that the foremost part of the foundation was located under the porch. He surmised that the reason the foundation was located under the porch was due to settling. Moving the porch 12 inches would result in the removal of approximately 30 % of the foundation. That would leave him with a partial T foundation underneath the house and that the integrity of the foundation was a problem when you have two different foundations (pier/grade beam and T foundations). He informed the Commission that he spoke with the engineering staff in the Building Department and that staff agreed with his engineering solution of maintaining the existing foundation, leaving the porch in its current location. Public Works Director Perlin stated that granting the request would preserve the historical aspect of the house. His only concern was that it needs to be real clear that if the request is approved, its encroachment into the right-of--way would need to be approved in a form of an encroachment permit and would only apply to this house. Should the house be destroyed or torn down in the future, the encroachment permit would be null and void. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 2. DR-94-033 & V-94-013 - JACOBS; 13845 UPPER HILL CT. Request for minor plan revisions to an approved project. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she received a phone call from Mr. Boyce who resides on the northern side, below the subject property who has lived there for 40 years. Mr. Boyce indicated that there is a 16 foot mound of dirt that has been excavated from the subject property and dumped into the ravine. However, Mr. Boyce indicated that he is working with staff and that he does not object to the five foot variance but that he wants that mountain of dirt removed. Mr. Boyce also inquired if the Commission had any leverage to retain control over this issue. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he also received a call from Mr. Boyce who informed him of the same concerns as explained by Commissioner Kaplan. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that in early July, this item was referred to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s AUGUST 9, 1995 PAGE - 22 - Planning Division due to the fact that the foundation piers were off set five feet from where they were intended to be. Any modifications similar to this requires Planning Commission review. When the staff planner went out to visit the property in early July, staff noticed that there were discrepancies between the tree protection plan and what was occurring on the property. There were also discrepancies between the approved grading plan and what was occurring on the property. Staff initially was going to schedule this modification for the July 26 meeting. Staff continued this item to work with the City's arborist, the engineering department, and the applicant's engineer to resolve these discrepancies. Staff was planning initially not to hear this modification until staff had resolved all these issues to everyone's satisfaction. He informed the Commission that staff would not release the "Stop Work Notice" on the project and allow construction to commence until all of the grading issues have been resolved. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission as to the following: both the August 23 Planning Commission meeting and the September 5 work session have been canceled due to lack of a quorum; Tuesday, September 12 is a joint work session with the City Council. Community Development Director Curtis asked the Commission if it was going to direct staff to include construction hours as a standard condition? Chairman Murakami noted that the Greenbrier development was constructing 7 days a week as there was no one surrounding it. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT IT DID NOT WANT TO INCLUDE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION AS A STANDARD CONDITION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE. COMMUNICATIONS Written Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, 1995, Joint City Council/Planning Commission, Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK i[\PC080995.SAR