Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-1995 Planning Commission Minutes• • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 . City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Vice-chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. c~ _ Roll Call // Present: Abshire, Asfour, Caldwell, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried `l ~/-~~~ Late: None Ll~~~ ~~ Absent: Murakami Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Alle fiance Minutes - 1 l /8/95 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 8, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. - Page 4, paragraph two, line one amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried asked if the modified plans represent what staff perceived tlQ~~~ it would like to see or was ~?vi~~i~ there to be further modifications to the sits plan...." - Page 4, paragraph three, line 3 amended to read: "...she ~ responsible for the preparation of the draft EIR and t~respond a~~ei~ao~ to comments on the EIR...." and line 5, replace the word were with the word Wis. - Fage 6, paragraph one, lines 10 and 11 amended to read: "...This would result>in an overall improvement to the drainage system. She indicated that CEQA does not require a project to improve an existing situation, but only to mitigate the project's impact." - Page 6, paragraph 2, line six, delete the word te. - Page 6, last paragraph, third and fourth sentence amended to read: "...The modified design alternative would replicate the formerly approved San Marcos Heights Residential Subdivision Phase III pr~jee~ footprint, including provision of an open space easement along the riparian woodland corridor which would restrict development within its bc~ies !tl~a>ir'. This alternative would also result in the removal of the five cottages located on the southern ridgeline and relocation of three of the five cottages eax~i~ter~t-with-tl~ San-A~~o~ Rl~ase~~eotpr-i~. She indicated that.... " • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 2 - Page 8, second paragraph, line 22 amended to read: "...the project. Examples of plans and maps that are to be used as mitigations...." Page 9, paragraph 2, line 5 and sixth sentence amended to read: "...site are i different than what is found throughout the region....Ms. Worthington-Forbes responded that based on the preliminary geotechnical assessment that has heir been conducted, ~~'~ no constraints krav~-identifted tba~~i~.ftt place~e~t of buildings on the site. I~~ the structtn'es will neui to (allow the wtrndard l.tnili~rm l3uitding (;odes in terms c-f building types. Ccrmmissiuncr Kaplan asked if' there was anything that needed to be mitigated in terms cif building u~me kind of structures underneath the buildings tc~ hukl ~ti~::Fl~cd'~ She I~_ngt=>~v~ responded that pier structures would be required #hat--aFe included as a mitigation for the construction of homes." Page 10, paragraph 4, line 8 amended to replace the word resident-e with ~ir~. Page 12, second paragraph, line 6 amended to read: "...was fully opened. He also asked if the Commission should be considering ~+he-~voxld-be-befle€iti~g-fron3~his-pFO~}ee~? siimett#ing~ ~canrrot ~~t~e rrtitiglttetl:~ft»~>~i~ ~ ti~irl;:t i~f Saratvgai~: ~~i~ance th~'scal~:~.i~:.io state that "while you can't mitigate this, it is a good thing." He asked if this statement should be known so that it could be ~itrig~at~ opFsi~ihredai~mtg~toi~~faiytt~r. City Attorney Riback responded that in this particular stage of review, the Commission was reviewing the environmental issues. The Commission-~+oulcl~~o~13e-r~ie~ng ~?v~~~pt ~tkii~g;~ttte~r issue raised by Commissioner Siegfried unless tl~~~~tris~ioa you can somehow place it into an environmental context. H~~r±~~~~t~itt~~l~e~it~~~.o know if' that was Ieasihle ur whether it could he dune. In so far as this project was concerned.... " - Page 12, paragraph 3, line 3 amended to read: "...hundred~~f miles away who would not be visiting often. It also raises the question that if there are some things than cannot be mitigated, .... " - Page 14, paragraph 2, last sentence amended to read: "...regardless of whether or nt~t Phase II builds out orrt~t. - Page 14, paragraph 3, line 3, replace the word relay with rir~~-. - Page l7, paragraph 7, the addition to the end of the paragraph: "...need to knowto pr~ce~dfrv t~~~pi~. - Page 21, paragraph 4 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour i•~icatecl~hat-as-~-as #~-ae~af~evelopmext-phases,--he asked tb~-~~~~r if it would be appropriate to include language in the EIR.... " • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 3 - • - Page 21, paragraph 6, line one amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour asked if the Ciry could require that both parcels be geti=~~ developed as one.... " - Page 2l ,paragraph 7, line one amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour iequired vr::~~ ...a~f..:~c~tit~.e±v:::xry<:~4ttc~~y:;:c~I':;t[~e:::b~~~~t<:pf<~~:::~n~~ that s ou d e Commission recommend that the EIR be adopted.... " - Page 22, last paragraph, the addition of the following to the last sentence: "...He did not believe that the re ort was ade uate~ttl~t~~~ould>~~+piv~r ~rvr~. P q , ...................:................ .... .... - Page 23, paragraph 3, second sentence amended to read: "...He indicated that he would like to see the entire document reassembled but that he would agree to forward a recommendation vpgroa~ if that was the consensus of the Commission. " - Page 24, paragraph 4, line one amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell felt that the report did not provide additional analysis to compensate ~ the fact that the hydrology information was wrong.... " - Page 24, paragraph 7 to be moved to page 25 prior to Commissioner Caldwell's response (paragraph 1, page 25). THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT. 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 November 17, 1995. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the resolution for Item 1 is to be amended to include the following verbiage to page 9, condition 6 to read: "No ordinance protected trees shall be removed unless a tree permit is issued to do so ~ivtt~tlitxi~.e~i~ofiti~ZQ;~r ~~:>£v~:~~rd:fi~u':;re:~y::th€ ei~:y.:~'t~or:~st:::::~:::1'±e. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 4 - • PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR-95-041 - FLYNN; 14475 LELAND CIRCLE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,973 sq. ft. two-story residence. The application includes a request for exemption from the height reduction for total allowable floor area. The subject property is 40,511 sq. ft. in gross site area and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district. -------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:47 p.m. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:48 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-041, AMENDING CONDITION 6 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT). 2. V-95-012 -BUTLER; 20650 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR.; Request for Variance approval to allow a 6 ft. tall wall to be located within a required front yard setback, and to allow a portion of the wall to exceed 6 ft. ; fences and walls are limited to 3 ft. in height within front yards and 6 ft. in height maximum pursuant to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance. The wall has already been built. The subject property is approximately 1.12 acres in size and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if the five foot brick wall to be stuccoed was the existing wall. Planner Walgren responded that the five foot brick wall was a portion of the fence and that it continues around the entire the court and that similar brick and wrought iron walls up to five foot in height can be seen throughout the development. Commissioner Kaplan noted that each property has configured its wall to a different style. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Jerry Butler, applicant, informed the Commission that the existing wall was approximately 6 feet in height in some areas. The wall changes throughout the subdivision to give each residence a different identity (i.e., changes from brick to stucco). He did not believe that the wall would hinder the existing residents and that his neighbors have stated their support to the proposal. It was his belief that once landscaping is installed, the wall would not be seen by the adjacent properties and that the landscaping would soften the appearance of the wall. Another reason that the wall is important was because of the privacy that it would allow. He also noted that there are a lot of deer in the neighborhood. The wall would keep the animals out of his property and • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 5 - • his yard. He has grandchildren that visit and the wall would be a safety aspect to keep the children off the street and to keep others off of his property. He noted that every lot has a six foot side yard fence. He acknowledged that the new ordinance prohibits three foot tall fence within the front yard setback. He stated that currently has a six foot high gate at his residence supported by brick pillars. To go around the corner with a three foot fence would not be consistent with the six foot gate. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she came to the meeting with some reservations about the visibility of the fence that can be seen from the street. She noted that there appears to be a number of textures, sizes and shapes of fences in the area. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Commissioner Abshire noted that this was a first class neighborhood and that the wall would look better if the front wall was lowered to three feet. However, he understood the arguments that have been made. He was not sure if the wall would be a barrier to deer or other animals. Commissioner Patrick stated that she opposed the six foot wall within the front yard setback. She did not believe that the proposal was consistent with that of the neighborhood. She felt that the way the two fences meet were not compatible and should not be continued. She did not believe that the wall was necessary for safety and indicated that she would not support the request. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he would support the request as the applicant has done an incredible job to enhance and balance the subdivision. He felt that special circumstances existed on the property especially in the area where the wall exceeds six feet to warrant the request. He felt that staff's comments were applicable. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he came to the meeting with reservations regarding the proposal. However, he indicated that he may be persuaded to go along with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she could not find any hardship in this case. She did not see that the existing subdivision created a hardship. She did not believe that the quality of the neighborhood had anything to do with the Commission's decision on the variance request. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan stated that she concurred with Asfour and Caldwell's comments. She asked if the issue of the front yard setback area separately from the interior part of the wall? Commissioner Asfour indicated that he could support retaining the front wall at three feet. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan noted that at the site visit, there was a tall column in the first section and that the third portion contained a lower wall. She asked what was the height of the lower PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 6 - • wall. Planner Walgren responded that the panels are fairly uniformed and that they go up and down as they follow the contours, some panels that were taller and larger and finished off at the bottom to compensate for any gaps. The second panel was approximately 5 to 6 foot panel and that the third panel might have been a foot lower. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the third column did not look offensive from the street. She felt that the first two columns looked extremely large when you sit in the cul-de-sac and look into the driveway. Commissioner Patrick indicated that the 40 foot setback area was her main concern. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE V-95-012 CONDITIONED UPON THAT THE SETBACK BE NO HIGHER THAN THREE FEET TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING CODES BASED ON THE FINDINGS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED VOTING NO AND CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION AGREED TO HEAR COMMISSION ITEMS AT THIS TIME. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Tony Marsh - 13676 Ronnie Way (Lot #1, Kerwin Ranch Subdivision); Request for amendment to Kerwin Ranch Subdivision tree planting plan. Planner Waigren presented the report on this item. Staff informed the Commission that Mr. Marsh opposes locating a tree within the front yard and is requesting that the Planning Commission vary the standard. Staff recommended that the tree still be required but based on the reasons stated in his letter, that the tree not be located in the rear yard adjacent to the existing live oaks along the creek instead of the front yard. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had no problem with applicant's request as long as it is stipulated that the tree is to be maintained for two years. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan stated that her concern was that the purpose of the trees on the street front was to create a continuation of the oak canopy that exists on Saratoga Avenue. She felt that there was a gap on the street and that she was not sure that one tree in the back of the property would make a difference but that there was a gap on Ronnie Way. She indicated that she was not inclined to approve the modification. She felt that there was space in the front of the subdivision to accommodate a tree. Commissioner Caldwell stated that it troubles her that conditions are placed on subdivisions and homeowners are not made aware of the conditions. Planner Walgren informed the Commission • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 7 - • that the developer has indicated to staff that the future property owners were made aware of the conditions of approval. He informed the Commission that the City is still holding a security deposit on the developer that would require him to install the trees. He indicated that the developer is holding off in installing the tree until Mr. Marsh has a chance to make this request to the Commission. Commissioner Asfour asked how the front yard was landscaped prior to the installation of the tree and whether it was to be part of the approval of design review. Planner Walgren responded that the landscaping planted was installed independently by the eight property owners. He further informed the Commission that the only landscaping requirement was to get a certain number of native oak trees back into the development. Installation needs to occur prior to issuance of a final or in this case, a bond was accepted in lieu of installation of the trees. Commissioner Siegfried felt that bonding for the trees was a good suggestion as many times, trees do not survive because they were not watered properly or could not be watered properly. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the tree has been purchased and that it would be planted in the backyard or side area as suggested by Mr. Marsh, should the Commission approve Mr. Marsh's suggestion. He stated that the condition to require the planting of tree(s) in the front to provide a street tree canopy. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern that this was a condition placed upon a developer and felt that the developer should be present to address the issue as he is paying for the tree. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the developer would be required to forfeit his bond as he created the situated? Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that the developer created this situation as the developer was more than willing to install the tree. The developer is holding off in installing the tree until Mr. Marsh has the opportunity to make his request before the Commission. Staff is supporting Mr. Marsh's request because every lot in the subdivision has been landscaped. There are a number of other trees that have been installed that would provide a canopy in themselves and that there are six oak trees located on the Court. Commissioner Abshire suggested that the tree be planted on public property (i.e., Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga Avenue or in a location where staff feels that a tree is needed). Community Development Director Curtis recollected that this suggestion was used once before where a tree was donated to the City and the City would decide where it was to be planted. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that in reading Mr. Marsh's letter, he indicates that he would like to plant the tree on his property. Commissioner Asfour felt that Commissioner Abshire's suggestion was a good one. However, he expressed a concern as to who would be responsible for the tree's maintenance to ensure its survival? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the developer would bond PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 8 - for the tree. Mr. Marsh, applicant, informed the Commission that there were nine existing oak trees on Ronnie Way, not six trees. He identified the oak trees located on Ronnie Way. He noted that oak trees tend to grow large. He indicated that he has an a heritage oak tree in his back yard that has a radius of between 40 to 47 feet, with a diameter of over 8 feet and that it is still growing. Placing this size tree in the front yard would dominate and destroy. He informed the Commission that his home was fully landscaped before he was made aware that the City was to install an oak tree. He indicated that to the rear of his yard, land has been dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. There is an area that has been destroyed by the developer in order to build a storm drain system. Behind the storm drain is a creek and his neighbors property. He stated that the tree could be installed in public property to the rear of his property and indicated that he has every incentive to preserve and maintain the oak tree so that it provides him with screening. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff work with the applicant regarding the location of the tree to ensure that the tree is planted in an area where it is not over watered. Commissioner Caldwell indicated that planting in the Santa Clara Valley District property would require their permission. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 2. Asim Abdullah - 14755 Aloha Ave. ; Reyuest for minor amendment to approved Design Review application. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the applicant is requesting an increase of 170 square feet in second floor area and that the area would be expanded into the existing attic area and would not physically alter the exterior appearance of the residence. The home would look the same as what was approved but that according to Planning Commission policy, any increase in square footage more than 50 feet would need to be brought back to the Commission. Staff recommended approval of the amendment. Commissioner Asfour asked if this modification gives the applicant something back that the Commission required be removed. Planner Walgren responded that it would not and that the design of the building remains exactly the same with no physical expansion of the building. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2l, 1995 PAGE - 9 - r~ U DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Sarato a-Sunnyvale Gateway Corridor Area Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that a neighborhood meeting was held with the business property owners and residential property owners along the Saratoga- Sunnyvale gateway corridor area a couple weeks ago. The meeting was an initial meeting in preparation of the specific plan for that area. He informed the Commission that 37 individuals were in attendance and that 27 individuals have indicated that they would like to continue working on the preparation of the specific plan. He also informed the Commission that staff is looking at doing a Charette would be an all day process. He indicated that the Commission can participate as individuals not representing the Commission. He invited the Commission to continue its participation in the process. He informed the Commission that the next meeting is to be held on Tuesday, December 12, 1995 at 7:00 p. m. in the Senior Center. Discussions would be on City process and discussions and the creation of teams. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if a Commissioner participates as an individual in the process, would it change their ability or hinder their ability to vote on the matter. Community Development Director Curtis responded that it would not because the Commission, as individuals would be providing input and that there would not be a vote on any issues. No decisions would be made out of this process. At a later date, the Commission may be asked its input on recommendations. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he was in attendance at the neighborhood meeting as a Planning Commissioner and as an individual who resides in the area to be affected. He requested that staff investigate what his role would be in this case. 2. EIR -Independent Order of Odd Fellows Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the consultant has completed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Nelson Gardens project and that the document would be distributed this evening to the Commission. He informed the Commission that tomorrow, November 22, 1995 would be the official start date of the 45-day review period for the draft EIR. He informed the Commission that two items have been scheduled for its December 5 work session; 1) the design review task force, with discussions with the Architectural Review Committee and 2) the tree handbook. He recommended that the Commission present comments on the draft EIR on December 5 and that those comments would be considered as well as all of the comments received during the 45 day review period. The Commission would in term prepare a response to comments which would then become the final EIR to be considered as part of a public hearing at a later date. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if the structure of the study session does not preclude the Commission from making official comments on the draft EIR. Community Development • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 10 - • Director Curtis responded that the Commission would not be making any decisions but that it would be indicating any questions or comments regarding the context of the draft EIR. He informed the Commission that the consultant would be present at the December 5 worksession. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he had no problem with the recommendation. However, he inquired how the public would be notified of the Commission's comments on the draft EIR. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the comments would be included in the final EIR. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was concerned with the perception that the public may have that comments were being made without benefit of public hearing. He felt that it needs to be made clear to the public that the Commission made comments on the draft EIR and that those comments are to be included in the EIR. Commissioner Caldwell did felt that public notification should be made if there is to be discussion on the draft EIR at the Commission's December 5 work session. She noted that the City has in the past gone out of its way to make sure that the public was informed, notified and given the opportunity to address the Commission. If the public is not noticed on the worksession, it would not have the benefit of knowing what the Commission has said about the document and would not have the opportunity to discuss those issues in more detail. She indicated that the time limits bother her. CEQA talks about providing comments as early as possible in the process and encourages the public to do so and encourages the decision makers to open up the process to the public as much as possible. She felt that the December 5 work session meeting should be noticed in some way to give the public the opportunity to know that there is to be discussion on the draft EIR. Community Development Curtis asked if it would be acceptable to the Commission if notice was sent to residents within 500 feet of the Nelson Garden proposal of the December 5 worksession? Commissioners Caldwell and Siegfried felt that the December 5 work session should be noticed if there is to be discussion of the draft EIR for Nelson Gardens. Commissioner Asfour asked what the rush was to receiving comments on December 5. Community Development Curtis responded that there is not an urgency to discuss comments on the draft EIR for Nelson Gardens. He indicated that at time of discussion of the Off Fellows EIR, the Commission questioned when it had an opportunity to comment on the draft EIR. The Commission did not have an opportunity to comment on the draft EIR. The draft EIR was provided to the Commission followed by public hearings. Staff was trying to do in this case was to receive Commission comments before the end of the 45 day review period. so that when when the public hearing is scheduled, the Commission would have the final EIR (the draft, comments, and responses). The Commission would be conducing its public hearing on the final EIR, still allowing for further comments on the documents. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 11 - L' Commissioner Caldwell stated that it was clear to hear with the EIR for the Odd Fellows project that the consultants were not responding to the Commission's concerns. Laura Worthington-Forbes clarified that the City conducts public hearings on the final EIR as opposed to the draft EIR. In order to provide the Commission with the opportunity to review the document before the Commission holds its public hearing on the final EIR which is the response to comments. This would provides the opportunity to brainstorm any issues that have not been identified that the Commission would like addressed in the final EIR as a response and to avoid the issues that Commissioner Caldwell brought up as ways to avoid the issue of the public not having the benefit of Planning Commission discussions was to reiterate those same comments made during the work session into the public record during the hearing and at the same time allow staff to provide responses. Commissioner Caldwell asked if it was expected that she would remember exactly what she said during a study session and then repeat it at a public hearing. She indicated that a public hearing was conducted in the draft EIR for the Odd Fellows project. Commissioner Asfour inquired if a recording secretary would be present at the work session. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that staff would request a recording secretary be present for the December 5 work session. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PROVIDE A MAIL NOTICE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS OF A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT EIR FOR NELSON GARDENS WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS BEING TAKEN AND THAT A RECORDING SECRETARY TO BE PRESENT. 3. Planning Commission Orientation Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the Planning Commission Orientation scheduled for December 1 was provided for the Commission's information and that it was not intended to replace the Planners Institute to be held in March 1996. The Planning Commission Orientation was for the benefit of newly appointed Commissioner. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Caldwell reminded the Commission about the presentation to be made by the Director of Technical Services for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding "Air emissions from wood/gas burning fireplaces and wood burning stores to be held Wednesday, November 29 at 7:30 p.m. in the Los Altos Public Library. PLANNING COMMISSI~INUTES NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PAGE - 12 - Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 11 / 1 /95 Oral C~ Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p. m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 5, 1995, Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk PCI12195.SAR