Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-1995 Planning Commission Minutes"\ /, ~ ~ ~ ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995 Citv Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami. Patrick Late: None Absent: Caldwell, Siegfried Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. y Pledge of Allegiance Itiinutes - 10/ 11 /9~ COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED 'I'O APPROVE THE OCTOBER 11, 199 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. - Page 11, paragraph 2, line 21, amended to read: "...it is stated that it is significant because it ~i-ould provide senior housing. Yet, he indicated that no demographics «~ere provided in terms of ho~v senior housing would be provided to the residents in Saratoga. It is mentioned that the ' ; expansion of the facility «°ould be made available to Saratoga residents and noted that it «-as not known as to the number of Saratoga residents that are members of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) (there was no way to determine the significant numerical value).... " - Page 1~, last paragraph, line 14, replace the word se~iee with surface. - Page 21, first paragraph, third line amended to read: She also asked if this proposal was going to help add to the Saratoga housing stock for senior citizens because it if is not. then the existing senior citizens are not going to get ~eit~ housing in Saratoga.... " - Page 21, last paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "...to judge~~~ EIR criteria?)" y THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SEIGFRIED ABSENT. • ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2~, 1995 PAGE - 2 - ORAL CO;\ZitiU\ICATIO\S No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code X4954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 20, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSEi\T CALE\TDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALE\DAR 1. DR-92-013.1 & V-93-022.1 -BRAT\DT, 20620 SIGAL DRIVE; Request for none-~~ear extension of time to a Desi¢n Review approval to construct a 4,327 sq. ft. two-store residence on a vacant 1.6 acre hillside parcel, and a Variance approval to allow a ~ ft. tall driveway retaining wall to be located within a required front yard setback. The subject property is accessed via a private road easement off Sigal Drive and is located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. PtiBLIC HEARI\?GS 2. LL-95-005, GPA-95-001, AZO-95-002 & SD-95-006 -MILLER, 15001 BOHLitiAN RD.; Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary between t~vo existing hillside parcels of record located off Bohlman Rd. The application includes a request to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. y Building Site approval is also requested for each lot. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Building Site Approval may be requested to ascertain what off-site improvements would be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on-site development is proposed at this time. (cont. from 10/11/95 at the request of adjoining property owners/staff: application expires 2/10/95). • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2~. 1995 PAGE - 3 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that letters were received from adjacent neighbors expressing concern as follows: 1) whether there was adequate water within the private mutual water system to service an additional home and whether the owner had a legal right to add an additional home to the existing water system: 2) the lon¢ substandard access private road; 3) tree preservation; and 4) the validity of the n~-o parcels of records. He informed the Commission that the City Surveyor has performed a title search and that he is confident that two legal lots of record exist. Commissioner Asfour asked whether water exists at this time to service the old resident. Planner Walgren responded that the existing residents are serviced by the private company and that staff would need to determine whether the property owner had a legal right to hook up an additional home to the water system. Commissioner Kaplan asked if there would be any other parcels that would be affected by the zoning amendment. Planner Walgren clarified that only the two parcels under discussion would be affected by the zone change. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not want to see the City cet involved in private contractual matters. It seemed to her that the issue of water was not within the city's purview and that whether or not there was water on the lot «=as not an issue relevant to the lot line adjusunent. It was her belief that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued if utilities did not exist. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the water issue was not one that was relevant to the lot line adjustment because the lot line adjustment does not approve development. He further stated that the City would not allow the construction of a house if utilities were not available. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the property owner would be required to maintain the private access road and whether the applicant would need to satisfy the Fire District's requirements prior to the City's signing off on the home? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the property owner would need to satisfy both the City's and the private road maintenance association conditions. Commissioner Kaplan asked that if these ~~~ere issues that were not under the Cin~'s purvie«~, why was testimony being taken about these issues. She noted that the letters submitted indicate that the parcels were not legal parcels. Yet, she noted that the Commission has been provided with a Certificate of Compliance. She asked what was the Commission's discretion'? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the Cit}° has determined that there are two legal lots of records. Commissioner Kaplan noted that once that determination has been made, the Commission really has no alternative but to review and take action on the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Abshire noted that Exhibit A indicates that the water supply comes from the San Jose Water Company and that other exhibits indicate that the water supply comes from a water association. He requested that staff clarify the discrepancy. Planner ~'Valgren clarified that a great • s PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2~. 1995 PAGE - 4 - majority of water to the City is supplied by San Jose Water Company. However. the parcels are not serviced by the San Jose Water Company but was serviced by the Bohlman Water Company. a private mutual water company. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mark Kirkeby, civil engineer, stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He informed the Commission that water to the parcels was supplied by the Bohlman ~Vater Company. Commissioner Patrick noted that at the site visit, the applicant indicated that he did not want to remove the three oak trees nor the magnolia tree(s). Mr. Kirkeby stated that the conditions of approval stipulate that the trees are not to be removed and are subject to further review at such time that specific house plans are submitted. Ray McMains, 1015 Bohlman Road, provided the Commission with a copy of letter which addressed his concerns as well as a site plan depicting the location of his home in relationship to the parcels under discussion. He indicated that staff addressed his concern re~ardin~ the water issue and that it was referenced in a letter submitted by the engineer who designed the water system as not being sufficient. He informed the Commission that the Fire Chief indicates that an upgraded fire system would need to be installed prior to allo~vina any additional hook-ups and that the driveways would need to be widened to 16 feet to allow for adequate room for fire trucks to access the site. He noted that staff did not address access to Mr. Miller's site throuali his property. He requested a review and a determination of the validity of the request for lot line adjustment. He did not believe that lot 1 was a buildable lot and that it «-as not in conformance with setback requirements. He also noted that lot 1 vas located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district and that lot 2 was located in the hillside zoning district. He questioned ho~v lot 1 can remain R-1- 40,000 when half of the lot vas located in the hillside zoning district. The submittal requirements for a zone change (requirement 5) requires that a reason be stated ~~~hy the proposed change would be of a benefit to the public. He indicated that he could not find where the benefit to the city has been addressed and requested that it be addressed. He also requested that trees not be removed that would affect views and property values and that the Commission consider the residents' safety and the protection of their rights in its decision. Jim Craik, 2099 Hidden View Lane. addressed the water issue. He stated that the property owner has indicated that he is hooked up to San Jose Water but indicated that he is a member of the Bohlman Water Association. He expressed concern with the existin¢ lo~v level water readings provided by the Central Fire Department and mentioned in the letter submitted by Binkley and Associates, the original designer of the water system. He noted that Mr. Binkley recommends that an extensive study be performed before additional hook-ups are authorized. The agreement stipulates that each hook needs to be approved in writing by the City of Saratoga and that an additional condition stipulates that any and all expenses for each additional hook-up are to he paid for by the owner of the lot that is being hooked-up to the system. • `, • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2~. 1995 PAGE - ~ - Judy Craik, 2099 Hidden View Lane, noted that there were two other letters that ~+~ere submitted to staff on Monday that were not included in the staff report. She indicated that the five individuals belonging to the water association support the completion of a water study prior to granting any building site approval. It was her belief that the eight trees proposed to be removed are being removed to improve the building site and its view of the valley. She felt that with care. the pine trees can be preserved. After receiving the report from botanist, she indicated that she was concerned as to where the lot line is located as she felt that some of the trees were located on her property. She indicated that she has attempted to contact a surveyor to request that a survey of the lot be completed to determine property lines. She felt that the request to chance the lot line was for the purpose of increasing the density in the hillside, one that she opposes. She indicated that in the past, the property owner has indicated that it vas his belief that he has three buildable lots (concern that he was requesting two lots at this time and would return in the future for the third lot). She noted that the City's geologist report refers to lots 5, 7, 8 and 9 which have been crossed out with no initials being noted on the changes. She noted that Planner Walgren referred to a conditional Certificate of Compliance which indicates APN ~ 17-36-012 and that exhibit A which accompanies the certificate also refers to APN 517-36-012. She informed the Commission that the parcel map on file at the County Recorders Office does not recognize the existence of APN 517-36-012. She indicated that she has spoke to a staff member in the Assessors Office and that the actual lines shown on the drawing were not lot lines but that they were tax rate adjusunent lines. She noted that the Certificate of Compliance states that "satisfactory evidence of the boundary survey of the subject property shall be provided to the City Engineer of the City Saratoga. " She stated that both the Certificate and the City Engineers paperwork recommends this condition be satisfied and that it was her understanding from staff that this condition has not been satisfied to date. On a tentative subdivision map, the fact sheet filled out by the applicant, addresses whether there is a culvert, creek or swale adjoining this propern~. She noted that the applicant indicated that there were no such conditions on the parcel when in fact the condition exists by lot 12. Regarding the lot line adjustment and City Code 140.020, a preliminary title report needs to be submitted within 10 days from date of filing the application by a reputable company and that this requirement has not been met as she has not been provided with a title report. City code also states that "The advisory agency shall not appro~~e a lot line adjustment unless it meets the following finding: "The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans." She did not feel that there vas sufficient evidence to verify that t~vo separate parcels exist and that the request before the Commission vas inconsistent with the General plan and/or applicable specific plans. Tina McMains, 15015 Bohlman Road, indicated that when she purchased her home, she was told that there would only be t~vo adjacent neighbors. She felt that the lot line adjustment would impact her. She stated that she bought her parcel because it vas a large lot. If a large house is to built, the homeowners would look down at her and that it would impede her view and privacy. She also expressed concern with the substandard road, increased traffic. noise and pollution. She felt that the mixed density causes a "cramming" affect and that she paid a lot of money to make sure that she was secluded from other individuals. She indicated that water pressure and access L • f~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25 , 1995 PAGE - 6 - for fire truck turn-around/access were not adequate. Mr. Kirkeby addressed the water system by indicating that a study to determine how much water is used is a matter of looking at last years water bills for the area residents. If the system is not adequate. the pump would need to be changed and upgraded. It vas his understanding that the water tank vas 160,000 gallons which exceeds the 120.000 gallon fire storage required by the Fire Department. He did not believe that there were any physical problems that could not be mitigated. He indicated that he would not object to extend the fire truck access to the second house. He did not believe that the t~vo proposed lots would be visible to the lot located to the south. Regarding the request to preserve the pine trees. he noted that the arborist report states that the trees are diseased and old. It vas his belief that the oaks and magnolia trees can be reviewed at the time that a plan is submitted for review. He indicated that there vas no intention to create a third lot as there is a Certificate of Compliance for t~vo legal lots of record. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Asfour noted that the lots were legal lots of record without the benefit of a lot line adjustment. If an individual had a legal lot that has been approved, they have the right to build upon it if conditions are satisfied. He indicated that the action before the Commission does not grant a right to build upon the lots. He noted that comments were made regarding economics. He informed the public that the Commission can not take economics into its decision regarding land use issues. The building site approval does not necessarily grant a property owner the ri~~ht to build on it. Approval stipulates that should there be a building in the future, the building site is specified. Building on the site would still need to follow the application procedure process and receive permission to hook-up to utilities and that if hook-ups are not available, a building permit would not be issued. He asked staff if the lots were switched from a horizontal to a vertical, would there be a mix of t~vo zoning districts and if the fact that the city has issued a Certificate of Compliance, does it mean that the City concluded in its im~estigation that there were two legal lots of record? Planner Walgren responded that the city surveyor completed a title search of the property and located an earlier map that was recorded that clearly sho~~red that parcel 1 was separate from parcel 2. It was the city surveyor's determination that there «~ere two legal lots of record. Regarding the zoning inquiry, he noted that the zoning boundary between the northern lower hills and the southern higher elevations, that the zoning boundary tends to be irregular and follows larger topographical terrains and parcel boundaries. Adjusting the zoninv boundary to match the new parcel configuration would not provide for mixed zoning districts. Commissioner Asfour informed the public that the lot line adjustment. if approved this evening, would be conditional upon the City Council's approval of the General Plan and zoning boundary adjustment. Planner Walgren concurred that the lot line adjustment would be void if the City Council does not approve the General Plan and zoning amendments. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL-95- 005. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA-95-001. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO-95-002 AS WELL AS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-95- 006 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Community Development Director indicated that there would be a renotification of the General Plan Amendment and zone change to the adjacent property owners as to the City Council hearing date. 3. UP-95-006 - IVERSON, 14701 VICKERY AVE; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a detached 1,242 sq. ft. single story art studio/guest house and three-car garage within the rear yard of a 17,760 sq. ft. parcel located on Vickery Lane. The front half of the property is developed with a single story residence. The subject parcel is in an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that letters were received from adjacent property owners expressing concern with the narrow driveway access to the rear hampering fire protection; the large size of the detached unit lends itself to being a rental unit; protection of the trees located along the front of the parcel and along the alleyway: access to the adjacent alleyway; and issues relating to storm drainage. He indicated that the Fire District has reviewed this proposal and acknowledges that the driveway is less than the minimum standards but that conditions have been applied, exceeding the minimum standards (i.e., unit to be hooked-up to the early warning alarm system that is directly hooked-up to the Fire District's station and that the entire structure be fire sprinklered). Regarding the concern that the guest house would be utilized as a rental unit, the resolution of approval requires that a deed restriction be recorded against the property which states that it may not be used as a permanent dwelling unit. He indicated that the city arborist has reviewed the project and felt that the plans submitted indicate protection of the trees as long as the fencing remains in place throughout construction. The city arborist also recommends that the driveway be relocated to the east of the property and that the Arizona Cyprus tree be removed to further protect the neighbor's trees located to the west. He informed the Commission that the applicants have indicated that they do not have legal • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995 PAGE - 8 - access to the alley and that the driveway was being provided so that the applicant would not have a need to have access through the alley He further informed the Commission that an existing pathway exists that is being used which he did not believe was a recorded pedestrian access easement. He indicated that the applicants are proposing to relocate their fence onto their property. eventually eliminating the pedestrian pathway. Commissioner Asfour asked staff if the pathway was required and whether there was an easement to require that it remain as a pedestrian pathway? Planner Walgren clarified that the pathway was a historical pathway that developed as a result of the property not being fenced off and that he did not believe that there was an easement recorded for the pathway. He further indicated that a prescriptive easement based on its historic use would have to be requested and obtained and then recorded to retain the pedestrian pathway. Commissioner Kaplan inquired as to the length of the driveway as it appeared to be a long driveway. Planner Walgren responded that the driveway vas proposed to be the entire length of the parcel (226 feet). y y Chairman Murakami asked if the City spot checks accessory structures to ensure that they are not being rented'? Planner Walgren responded that staff does not check accessory structures but indicated that accessory structures are monitored by neighbors. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Scott Cunningham, 14375 Saratoga Avenue, representing the applicant, noted that the building would meet all city requirements He indicated that the site contained severe limitations (i.e., ponding shed created in the early part of the century. the right side of the building was located only 2.6 feet away from the property line; and the left side of the property to access the parking structure was eight feet off the property line). He noted that there were several lame oak trees located to the rear of the propert}° as well as a sanitary storm drain easement that cuts the property diagonally in half. He indicated that it was found in the title search that the Iversons do not have recorded rights to use the alley and that the owner(s) of the alleyway was not known .However, mail relating to the alleyway is mailed to 14586 Aloha Avenue. In the title research, it vas found that no egress/ingress easements nor maintenance agreement existed for the alley and that lots 3-6 do not have a right to use the alleyway. Regarding the pedestrian pathway, he informed the Commission that the pathway was a 20 foot-wide public utility easement to provide electrical supply to the properties to the west of the Iversons. When those homes were built._ rather than fencing the entire property, the property owners left the rear opened 10 feet, thus creating the pathway. He noted that research has indicated that a prescriptive easement does not exist. He addressed the neighbors concerns based on their letters. He indicated that a ten foot access would remain on the Farfel side of the property. He recognized that a separate building was being proposed and that the neighbors' had a concern that it would be used as a rental. He indicated that he would not object to a title incumbrance that wwould prohibit any future owner from renting • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25. 1995 PAGE - 9 - the structure. He indicated that he has contacted PG&E and that they have indicated that they ~;could not require vehicle access to service its electrical supply. He stated his agreement with the Farfels that the eight feet was inadequate for fire truck access, recognizing that 12 feet is the standard width required. Regarding drainage, he indicated that there was a 48 inch drain line located to the rear of the property. He would agree to add another drain inlet to improve the site's surface drainage. Regarding the request that the California Cypress be removed in order to preserve trees 1 and 3, he indicated that the applicant would like to retain the Cypress tree and that it was his belief that trees 1 and 3 would be in severe jeopardy. However, he would comply with the city arborist's recommendation. He indicated that it vas the intent to get the stump located between trees 6 and 7 to Grade level. Regarding the Laux's letter of concern. he indicated that the structure complies with the City's zoning ordinance and that it prohibits the accessory structure from being rented. There was mention of the additional driveway cut on Victory Avenue. He noted that the applicants do not have vehicle access to the site. He stated the Simpsons concern regarding fire access was a valid one but noted that the project would be conditioned to exceed fire requirements. Regarding access to the property, it is the intent to provide rear gates so that fire trucks can access the site and respond to any fire that may occur. He informed the Commission that the neighbors to the north have recently discovered that this application vas in the review process and that he has had verbal correspondence with them and that he was trying to accormnodate their needs of privacy, noise and screening impacts and that there would be a relocation of the fence to the property line. y Commissioner Asfour asked where Mr. Cunningham found the information relating to the mailing address for the alleyway. Mr. Cunningham responded that a title search was conducted on the Iversons' property, the alleys and the easement area and that it was found to be a part of a piece of land that resulted from a 1969 lawsuit. In the title search, it ryas found that the alleyway was a legal lot of record with its own APN with the owner unknown and that the tax bill was mailed to a property located on Aloha Avenue. Chairman Murakami asked Mr. Cunningham what the estimated cost would be to remove the trees. Mr. Cunningham responded that a gravel base would be used for the driveway and that there was no intent to pave the driveway nor to remove any of the trees. Chairman Murakami asked if the fence relocation would allow vehicle access to the ne~v structure. Mr. Cunningham responded that it would. Commissioner Asfour asked if any consideration was given to doing a standard remodel and expansion of the existing structure instead of having a separate building`? Mr. Cunningham responded that the building is currently eight feet away from the property line and that there was no means to expand the existing structure without destroying part of the existing structure and putting it back together. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was an attempt to investigate ~vho owns the alley to purchase the land and pave it so that the residents do not need to take access from Vickery Avenue. Mr. ` • • PLAN1`TING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25. 199 PAGE - 10 - Cunningham responded that it would not benefit the neighbors if 1~1r. Iverson drives past their homes to access his property. Gilbert Farfel, 14741 Vickery Avenue, stated his opposition to the request. He indicated that the alley was originally a street and that the pathway was a community access used by walkers, joggers and school children. He indicated that a PG&E pole was located to the rear corner of the lot that services both his lot and that of the Iversons. If fenced off. it would not allow PG&E vehicles to service the pole(s). He expressed concern that the accessory structure could be rented out. He asked if an eight foot driveway vas adequate as fourteen feet is required by code. He indicated that the grade in the back of the property has been raised and expressed concern with drainage. He also questioned if there was access to the alleyway and whether the structure could be accessed from Aloha Avenue. He stated his concurrence with the recommendation as outlined in the arborist report relating to the trees. He noted that the drive~i-ay would be located only 15 inches from the base of the Monterey Pine. Should the project be approved, he requested that the arborist report be followed. Barbara Laux, 14751 Vicken~ Avenue, stated that she concurred with the comments as expressed by Dr. Farfel. She indicated that she has a large gate that is accessed from the alleyway. She expressed concern that she would not be allowed to use the alley way for tree work or maintenance of the swimming pool. She requested that all options be considered and that consideration be given for maintaining the property and still allow the applicant to make the improvements that they would like to make. She requested that a close look be taken as to what has been going on with the alleyway and that the trees and the country atmosphere be maintained. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she was concerned with the length of the driveway. She wanted to know if the neighbors were willing to reach a compromise in assisting this development to have access to the back of the property. She recognized that this was a peculiar lot; that it was long and narrow, that there were trees located in the walkway and fences, noting that there may not~be another location to place the accessory structure; especially knowing that the easement crosses the property on the diagonal behind the house. Ms. Faux indicted that it was important that individuals communicate because it is the goal of the neighbors to maintain the quality if not increase the quality that currently exists. Massoud Modjlehedi, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, indicated that his lot vas located directly behind the subject property. As such. he is the one that is being most affected by the addition. He noted that the new structure is proposed to be built six feet away from his fence and that the proposed addition would be seen from his backyard. The view of his family room, dining room and kitchen would be that of the ne~v structure. He indicated that there was a severe drainage problem to the rear of the lot and that the existing fence dams the water on-site. He felt that a compromise solution would be to move the garage from the proposed location further to the right. • • PLANi\TING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 2~, 1995 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Patrick asked if Mr. Modjtehedr understood the status of the alleyway and his right to use it. Mr. Modjtehedr responded that his realtor indicated that all the properties along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and one property located at the corner of Aloha Avenue have the right to use and maintain the alleyway. He indicated that he was willing to ~z°ork «~ith the applicant to reach a compromise solution. y Commissioner Kaplan stated that the applicant has a right to construct an accessory structure and that its proposed location may be the only place that it can be built under the circumstances. Given that fact and given the fact that the structure was only eight feet tall. it can be screened from Mr. Modjtehedr's side with appropriate landscaping. She recommended that the neighbors get together to resolve the alleyway access issue. She noted that the issue before the Commission was how the property owner gets to use his property. Mr. Cunningham stated that the applicant has the right to use his property. He felt that the property owners should be allowed to relocate the fence to their property line and to use their entire parcel. Regarding access from the alley, he noted that there vas a 1991 letter in the City's file that indicates that a maintenance agreement exists for the allev~vay and the right to use the alley. Through a title search, no evidence was found that the Iverson's have a legal right to access the alleyway. He indicated that the building meets the accessory= structure requirements. He stated that the Iversons would be more than willing to provide screening along the property line. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:2~ P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked staff what the setback requirements would for the accessory structure? Planner Walgren responded that for an accessory structure in a rear yard setback, the proposal would meet the minimum setback requirements (at eight feet in height, the minimum rear setback would be 6 feet). He indicated that an applicant would be allowed an additional foot of building height for each additional three feet of rear yard setback. Once one is out of the rear yard setback entirely, an accessory structure can be built to a maximum of 12 feet in height. Chairman Murakami noted that the applicant's next door neighbor immediately to the right has a large accessory structure in the rear yard. He asked if the placement of that accessory structure was setback on the side of that particular lot"? Planner WalQren responded he was not aware of the history of the accessory structure that Chairman Murakami vas describing, but indicated that the Iverson's proposal meets the minimum standards and that the accessory structure vas centered. Chairman Murakami stated that he was contemplating recommending moving the accessor~~ structure further into the lot but that he noticed the large mature oak tree(s) that would preclude placing the accessory structure in the middle of the lot. He indicated that his main concern was that of access to the accessory structure. He indicated that the legal entitlements of the rear half was interesting and made the situation more confusing. He suggested that staff conduct a title search and provide the Commission ~zfith more information. yy - • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Commissioner Asfour indicated that he would not be prepared to vote on this issue tonight because there were a lot of issues that were presented this evening (i.e., the long driveway, alleyway access, etc.). Commissioner Kaplan stated that she concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Asfour and indicated that she vas troubled by this application. Commissioner Abshire stated that he was convinced that the alleyway was not accessible to the Iversons. He felt that they were entitled to the use of their property, even though the driveway vas a long one. He felt that a compromise may be restricted by the trees. He recommended that the structure be moved forward towards Vickery Avenue to accommodate the neighbor located behind the site. He would support the construction of the garage to move the parked cars off the street. He also felt that the structure was very lo~v profiled and that it could not be seen from the street. He felt that this was a fair proposal and that the Iversons should be allowed to use their property. Commissioner Patrick felt that the lot presents a problem for the owners. She felt that if the neighbors were concerned with the driveway as presented that the neighbors should band together and submit to the Iversons a guarantee that they would have access to the alleyway. However, the neighbors have not come forward with an alternative. She felt that the Iversons were entitled to have a garage on their property. She did not know where else the driveway could be located. She did not find the design to be incompatible with the existing structure and to that of the neighborhood. She felt that the structure was appropriate given the constraints of the lot and indicated that she would support the request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-95- 006 AS CONDITIONED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, PATRICK; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN; ABSTAIN: NONE: ABSENT: CALDWELL. SIEGFRIED. 4. DR-95-043 - ~~~AGNER, 12861 PIERCE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,50 sq. ft. first story addition and a 732 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 2,066 sq. ft. sin~~le story residence per Chapter 1~ of the City Code. The subject property is a 35,90 sq. ft. parcel and is located in the R-1-12,00 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received in opposition to the two story addition because it was not felt to be appropriate in this particular neighborhood and also noting that it was much larger than the adjacent homes in the vicinity. He indicated that staff felt that the home vas architecturally compatible to that of the neighborhood. Although there were not a lot of two story homes within the area, there were two story homes directly backing up to this property as well as one directly adjacent to it. He also noted that two letters were received from David Webb, 12841 Pierce Road and Ejub • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995 PAGE - 13 - Ferhatbegovic, 12871 Pierce Road, adjacent property owners supporting the proposal. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Roger Griffin, project designer, noted that the existing house does not have a garage and that a moderate sized, two car garage addition is being proposed. He indicated that the garage vas the only portion of the project that would project beyond the front setback in its relationship to Pierce Road. The project utilizes the existing driveway layout so that it preserves the safety aspects of accessin¢ Pierce Road. He informed the Commission that consideration was given to a one story addition but that the swimming pool placed a severe limitation on the site. He indicated that he was sensitive to the neighbors and placed the master bedroom window to the rear of the parcel, facing the rear yard rather than having the windows placed on the sideyard. He informed the Commission that he has spoken with the adjacent neighbors who have indicated that they were supportive of the project. y Chairman Murakami suggested that in the future, Mr. Griffin not use flat roofline drawings because one does not get a physical perception of the home. However, he indicated that he had no problems with the proposal. Commissioner Abshire indicated that the roofline bothered him and found the protrusion located at the top objectionable. He recommended the elimination of the protrusion and that the gable go all the way to the top. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:45 P.M. Commissioners Asfour and Patrick indicated that they did not have a problem with the proposal as presented. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the architectural renderings appeared to be that of a three story structure. However, if her fellow Cotmissioners felt that the three story appearance vas due to the flat articulation of the drawings, she would support the proposal. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95- 043 AS SUBMITTED AND CONDITIONED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO FOR THE REASON INDICATED ABOVE AND COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995 PAGE - 14 - DIRECTOR'S ITE1t~IS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission as to the following dates: - January 2 is a scheduled worksession (so long as there is a quorum). - Tuesday, November 21 would be the second public hearing scheduled for the month of November with the land use visit scheduled for Monday. November 20. - November 7 is the next scheduled worksession meeting to commence at 7:30 p.m. and that commencing at 8:30 p.m. there would be a presentation b_v the Design Review Task Force on their work on the design review process, etc. - The Planning Commission retreat has been tentatively scheduled for Friday, January 19. He also informed the Commission that it had recommended that the City Council make no change to the ordinance dealing with the reduction of public notification. The City Council had scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment and has since directed staff to table this item as they also had some concerns. It vas his belief that in the future, the ordinance would not be amended. CO1tI~IISSIO\ ITEITS Planner Walgren informed the Commission that a letter vas received from the Saratoga Village Oaks Condominium Association and that staff provided the Commission with a copy of that letter because it was copied to the Commission. The letter expressed concern that the foundation grading was not being done in accordance with the approved plans for the five townhomes located at the end of Fifth Street in the Village. He informed the Commission that staff would be making a site visit with engineering and building inspectors to review the issues of concerns. Another concern raised in the letter was that the wood shake was being changed to a slate shake as well as changes to other architectural changes. He informed the Commission that it reviewed and approved minor architectural changes to the plans. Regarding the concern for the oak tree, he indicated that the city arborist has reviewed a set of revised plans and found the revised plans to be acceptable. Chairman Murakami recommended that the Commission's Christmas party be tentatively scheduled for December 8 and that the Warner Hutton House be used. CO~I1~iUNICATIO\ S Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 10/4; 10/10/9 .,~~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES S OCTOBER 25, 199 ~~ PAGE - 1 ~ - 2. Planning Commission Public Notices dated 11!8/9 Oral City Council ADJOURI\'1~IE\T -There being no further input, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 7, 1995, Senior Day Care Center, 196~~ Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk