Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-1995 Planning Commission Minutes- - - - - -. _ _>; t • ~_ _ - ~ - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Caldwell Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Flanner Walgren and City Attorney Riback Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 11 /22/95 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 22, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 5, first paragraph, line 4 amended to read: "...prohibits three foot ~fiya~ within the side ti~~ yard setback. He stated that currently, a six foot high gate at has _ residence supported by brick pillars.... " - Page 8, addition of a new paragraph four to read: "$'(}P±~S~I~~~IS'H COI~MIIt~NCC3N.CI~RB;ED:1TH~~~'A~'~~EGfiIMM~I~DA"l iq - Page 9, item 2 to be corrected to read: " 2. EIR - Independe~n~~eF-o€ E~-F~ .................................. Nils~i>dei~~" ............................ - Page 10, paragraph 4, line 4, replace the word 4€€ with ~f1~. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL 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 December 8, 1995. " f ! PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 2 - Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-95-046 -FERRARI; 19575 THREE OAKS WAY; Request for Design Review approval to add a new two-car garage attached to the main residence. The proposed addition will add 643 square feet to an existing 5,977 square foot residence. The site is 71,000 square feet in net site area and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-95-044 - GOLDFARB; 19272 CRISP AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,076 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot. The parcel is 40,000 square feet of net site area and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if the City arborist's recommendations have been incorporated into the plans? Planner Walgren responded that the plans have gone through a couple of revisions as a result of the arborist's recommendations primarily relating to grading, fill and retaining walls. He indicated that the latest plans still show some fill within the canopy of oak tree #1 which the arborist has recommended be eliminated in its entirety. Since the report has been distributed, staff has consulted with the arborist and the applicants and that a condition has been added to the resolution of approval to state that either the fill is to be removed or modified in a manor that is acceptable to the City arborist. Commissioner Kaplan asked if this condition would be an issue if the swimming pool was not squeezed in between the trees? Planner Walgren responded that the fill would still be an issue as a result of home construction. He clarified that the fill would be necessary to support the home unless the plans are modified. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his understanding that the fill was to be retained for the pool. Planner Walgren referred the Commission to page 1 of Exhibit A (site development plan) and noted that the proposed fill would come off from the left end of the house. Whether the pool was up above or not, the fill would still be necessary based on the design of the grading .~,; 5_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 3 - plan. • Commissioner Kaplan stated that if the applicant was taking out 1,500 cubic feet of dirt, she asked why it was not being kept as fill? Planner Walgren responded that the amount of fill to be removed was small. He stated that the arborist has expressed concern that any amount of fill within the dripline of the tree would suffocate those portions of the tree's roots and that the arborist is requesting that no fill be placed under the canopy of the tree. Commissioner Asfour asked if there were three entrances to the property from the road and if so, would they impact the road? Planner Walgren responded that there were three entrances to the residence and that staff did not foresee an impact to the road because it is a private easement, not a public road. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Darold Harris, project architect, stated that the staff report was complete and that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with squeezing a swimming pool between the large trees on the property where a swimming pool would not ordinarily be placed. She asked if the applicants have given any consideration to not having a pool on the property. Mr. Hams responded that the applicant would like approval of the swimming pool. He indicated that the location of the pool was the only logical place to locate the pool because it was the flattest portion of the site. Commissioner Asfour also expressed concern with the placement of the swimming pool between the trees due to possible damage to the trees. Commissioner Patrick agreed that a pool may damage the trees. Mr. Hams stated that he has spoken with the City arborist and that the arborist has made recommendations to preserve the existing trees. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he did not have a problem with the proposal with the exception of the pool as he did not believe that the pool could fit in the proposed location without damaging the tree(s). Commissioner Kaplan asked how construction equipment would be able to access the site without damaging the root zones. She indicated that she could approve the proposal if the pool request was eliminated. If not, she could not support the request. .r • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Patrick stated her concurrence with Commissioner Kaplan's comments. Commissioner Abshire indicated that the swimming pool in the proposed location was not a good one. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-044, ELIMINATING THE POOL. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there may be two options that the Commission may wish to consider: 1) the applicant could redesign the proposal, causing the house to be redesigned to bring the pool down off from the hilltop, or 2) the Planning Commission can adopt the resolution as stated in the motion. The applicant could than appeal the pool restriction. CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT ?:52 P.M. Commissioner Asfour clarified for the applicant's benefit, that the approval, as it stands, would be with the elimination of the swimming pool and that this action can be appealed to the City Council. If the applicant wished to redesign to relocate the house and the pool, the Commission can rescind its action and continue this item to another date to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project. Mr. Goldfarb, applicant, stated that he would request approval of the plans and that he would appeal the Commission's decision on the swimming pool as there is no other place to locate the pool on site. CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 p.m. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the original vote by the Commission would stand. 3. DR-95-047 - VENUTI; 14250 PAUL AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing one-story residence and construct a new 2,833 sq. ft. two-story dwelling per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 7,500 sq. ft. in area and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:55 p.m. David Britt, agent for the applicant, stated his concurrence with the staff report and indicated that he would respond to any questions which the Commission may have. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Abshire noted that the left side of the house would have windows on the upper floor and that they appear to be looking into the windows of the house located to the north. Mr. Britt noted that the house next door was located close to the property line. It was his belief that you would look down to a garage and not living space. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95- 047 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT). 4. GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 & DR-94-004 -INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS; 14500 FRUITVALE AVE. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application includes General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review requests to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Phase I of the proposed Master Plan includes the remodel of the I.O.O.F. Home, the expansion of the Villa apartments and the removal and replacement of the Health Center. Phase II represents Odd Fellows' long term plans for the property, which includes two new apartment structures and 19 single-story duplex cottages. The proposed Master Plan would result in an overall net increase from 170 to 307 housing units and from 68 to 99 nursing beds (cont. from 11/8/95; City review deadline is 3/6/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He identified six issues that need to be addressed (i.e., duplex cottages; open space easement; riparian habitat setbacks; preferential occupancy requirements for Saratoga residents; project approval expiration; and submittal of final revised plans that are consistent with grading, site layout, and architectural revisions that have been made a part of these hearings). Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff clarify the location of the 100 foot riparian setback. Planner Walgren identified the location of the riparian habitat and indicated that the 100 foot riparian setback was located on the westerly side of the riparian corridor and would cut through the back of the proposed health center. Commissioner Asfour inquired whether approval of the 9 cottages on the 10 acre site, would require a change to the General Plan designation? Planner Walgren responded that a General Plan amendment would be required because the proposed density would exceed the allowable density as duplexed units were being proposed versus single family homes. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Siegfried asked if the Odd Fellows considered their proposal to be a good mix (i.e., apartment units, nursing facilities, duplex units)? Planner Walgren responded that the plans before the Commission were the plans that the Odd Fellows considered to be appropriate. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the new buildings/additions to the existing facilities would be lower than that of the existing buildings? Planner Walgren responded that the additions would be lower than the existing villa apartment structures, significantly lower at the eastern edge as it drops down the site, but as you go up the grade towards the west, the physical buildings would still be lower than the existing buildings. He indicated that in phase I, no structures are proposed to be higher than what currently exists. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:20 p.m. George Ivelich, project architect, addressed the four levels of care proposed in the retirement community. He indicted that the existing average age of the retirement home was in the high 80s and that it is hoped that the average age would drop to the mid-70s. Also considered was how this project would interface with the surrounding communities. He indicated that the cottages would be duplexed units, with each unit being approximately 1,300 square feet with two bedrooms, two baths, and enclosed garage (building envelop of approximately 3,000+ square feet). The cottages are proposed to serve the more independent seniors. It was felt that this was the appropriate unit to place adjacent to the R-1, single family residential development and that it would provide a good transitional buffer. The new design would be similar in character to the existing facilities and would minimizing grading to the extent possible. Mr. Ivelich indicated that "independent" or "congregate" apartments are also proposed in the location of the original villas. A two story, 51 unit building with a park under garage is being proposed. Building No. 2 would consist of a two story, 48 unit building. He addressed the elevations of the proposed buildings which consist of one or two bedroom units, 650-930 square feet in size. He indicated that the new structures would compliment the existing structures. With the increase in unit size, it was his belief that the people density would be reduced. The ground floor would provide recreational facilities, meeting rooms, dining room, and accommodations for a grand lodge. Regarding the villas building, Mr. Ivelich indicated that it is to be expanded to a total of 60 units, changing the entrance of the building and provide for additional services. The edges of the property are to be scarcely developed and that the core of the property was to be developed. Regarding the height of the building, he stated that they are to be two story buildings that step down the natural contours of the land and that they would be lower than the highest point of the existing building. The parking lot configuration is to be changed, moving it closer to the building and would allow the opportunity to expand on the landscape buffer between the facility and the neighbors across from Chester Avenue. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 7 - Mr. Ivelich also addressed the skilled nursing facility. He indicated that the present nursing facility has 68 beds and that the proposal would be fora 99 bed nursing facility. The building would be a one story building with apavilion-type architecture. He felt that the location of the nursing facility was ideal as it is adjacent to the drainage creek. The residents would not be mobile and therefore, the rooms have been focused to view the permanent greenbelt. It was his belief that the plan and density was reasonable. He noted that almost all the trees would be preserved, minimizing as much grading as possible. Also noted was the fact that the cottages were moved from the knoll down to a lower area. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this was the right combination of cottages, apartments, and skilled nursing facility? Mr. Ivelich responded that this type of facility has been constructed in other areas and that input received from others have indicated that this proposal appears to be the right combination. He did not believe that there would be any problems with the proposed design and that the site could stand alone. Commissioner Kaplan inquired about the skilled nursing facility that would connect with the corner of the villa`? Mr. Ivelich responded that the kitchen for the facility would be for the purpose of preparing food for the skilled nursing facility and that the connection would be a covered walkway rather than an extension of the building. Terry Szewczyk, TS Nowack Consultant, civil engineer, addressed drainage of the site. He indicated that the site was simple in terms of existing drainage. The project would provide for an opportunity to provide a localized improvement for part of the neighborhood. The existing drainage indicates that everything runs northerly onto the property. He felt that there was an opportunity to improve the drainage situation as there are three different creeks that come out north of the property that can be used as watersheds. One is located halfway between the Odd Fellows property and Fruitvale Avenue that has a 36 inch public storm drain. There is a fairly well built drainage system that runs across Chester and into the Leland Circle area. In terms of intensification of the use on the property, the ten year storm drain summary showed that the increase in water runoff would be approximately 22% (1.5 cubic feet per second). This type of increase of water runoff is not difficult to mitigate. Some sort of a storm drainage line can be tied to the 36 inch drain line, intercepting the water and taking it to the water shed. Alternatively, the water runoff may be able to be intercepted and then run it to another watershed. These were options that can be considered to mitigate the neighborhood's storm drainage problems. The three downstream watersheds would need to be analyzed to determine if they can accept the additional runoff. It there is not additional capacity, an alternative would be the use of some sort of on-site detention to retain the storm water runoff. A detailed analysis would need to be conducted in the future to be reviewed by the City Engineer and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Commissioner Siegfried asked if one separated this project into two phases, what would be done in Phase I in terms of drainage? Mr. Szewczyk responded that it would be necessary to plan for a drainage system for the ultimate conditions. An alternative would be to provide a detention PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 8 - • basin if necessary and that it could be deferred and installed as part of phase II. Commissioner Patrick stated that Mr. Szewczyk spoke about the opportunity to defer the drainage plan by dumping water to off drainage sites. She asked if the surrounding neighbors would be impacted by the transporting of the drainage water? Mr. Szewczyk responded that there are two alternative systems. Public systems exist adjacent to the site and that aright-of--way exists along the Odd Fellows' access road that begins the public easement. Any of the work that would be done on public right of way would be overseen by the City. If there is a problem with the capacity of the down stream channels, then the back up alternative would be to create an on- site retention basin, where peak storm water would be stored on-site and slowly dissipate when the channels can handle the capacity. Commissioner Kaplan clarified that the northwest comer of the property had the worst drainage problem and that the proposed catch basin/pond alterative was to be located on the northeast part of the site, directly opposite the pond. She asked if this was the location of the riparian corridor. Mr. Szewczyk responded that the location of the catch basin would be on the easterly side of the riparian corridor. Planner Walgren clarified that the potential retention basin would be located to the south of the riparian habitat area. Chairman Murakami asked if there was a monitoring program that would automate the drainage system? Mr. Szewcryk responded that the system proposed has been used in agricultural farms. The capacity of the pond would be designed based on a 10 year peak storm that would accept enough water that would limit post development flow. Any increase in water runoff would be temporarily caught in the pond and released slowly after the peak storm has passed. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern as to whether this drainage method was addressed as a mitigation measure in the EIR. If it was not included in the EIR, she asked if this was a major environmental, health impact at this particular portion of the property. Planner Walgren responded that Mr. Szewczyk was describing an alternative means to comply with the mitigation measure. It would be an option if the option is to pursue the use of the public storm drain. This would be another option which would be consistent with the mitigation measure. Commissioner Kaplan asked when it would be known when the catch basin would be used in terms of build out? Mr. Szewczyk responded that the drainage plan viewed in the permit stage of the project would identify conclusively what the disposition of the storm drain system would be. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that page I6 of the draft resolution, mitigation measure No. 26 - "Surface Hydrology Drainage", indicates the measure that would be required to mitigate drainage. This mitigation measure would occur at the time of submittal of final grading and drainage plans to the City's Engineering Department for review. He indicated that this issue would need to be addressed and resolved prior to the issuance of building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 9 - Dan Stephens, H.T. Harvey and Associates, habitat riparian specialist, informed the Commission that he conducted an impact analysis along the riparian corridor with the intent to determine the appropriate setback for the proposed development. He indicated that he met with the project architect and with the Department of Fish and Game to discuss impacts to the riparian corridor as well as mitigation measures. He indicated that the most direct impact to the riparian corridor would consist of the removal of 4/ 10 of an acre of low quality riparian vegetation for roadway construction. He was aware that the EIR suggested a 100 foot riparian setback. Typically, in this type of setting where there are a lot of existing buildings in the form of dirt roadways and buildings, the 100 foot setback is considered excessive and felt that it was unusual to require that much of a setback. It has been determined that a 50 foot setback would be adequate. It is proposed that a portion of the site could be used as an area for a detention pond. Nine-tenths of an acre could be preserved as a riparian habitat in perpetuity. He indicated that the Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the impacts associated with this project as well as the mitigation measures and it that it has been indicated that the project could mitigate any impacts to the riparian habitat. Regarding the retention basin in the riparian corridor, he did not believe that it would be in conflict if properly designed and would enhance water flow. However, it would be dependent on the configuration of the retention basin, the sediment of the retention basin and that it would need to be designed to be self-maintaining. He also stated that the project would allow for the introduction of wildlife species. Commissioner Abshire asked if there was a chart that depicts the riparian corridor. Mr. Stephens responded that he did not have a chart that depicts the riparian corridor. Commissioner Patrick inquired if a diagram existed that lists the purposes of the additional mitigations and whether there were specific plans? Mr. Stephens responded that it is proposed to install native shrubs and groundcover if there was enough water available. Commissioner Patrick asked if the installation of the new vegetation would occur as part of phase I of the development? Mr. Ivelich responded that it would be reasonable to install new vegetation as part of phase I of the development. Mr. Stephens indicated that the 50 foot riparian setback was being measured from the edge of the riparian corridor and that it was a greater distance than if measured from the centerline. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a catch basin would attract birds, frogs, etc. Mr. Stephens responded that the installation of the catch basin would attract a diverse variety of seasonal species and that there would be an increase in the attraction of wildlife. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that hand cleaning of the catch basin may be necessary to keep it clean and may not allow the use of machinery. Commissioner Asfour inquired as to the setback from the tree canopies. Mr. Stephens responded that the average setback from the tree canopies were 20 feet. ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 10 - Linda Callon, attorney for the applicant, raised concerns with conditions contained in the resolution as follows: 1) The potential loss of two of the cottage units. She indicted that the size of the project could be increased with single family homes. The impacts of 9 homes versus 11 senior duplex units was minimal and felt that the arbitrary removal of two duplex units was unnecessary as aesthetics was taken into consideration. The additional two units would not impact traffic. She requested that the two duplex units be approved (11 total). 2) Page 18, condition 41 calls for the use of "Temporary construction barriers when constructive activities are within 200 feet of any noise sensitive uses, such as residences. " If you look at the EIR, it calls for noise mufflers and barriers. She stated that she did not know what a "temporary construction barrier" was defined as. 3) page 21, condition 52 addresses fire mitigation measures. It was being requested that the Odd Fellows pay fora 1500 gpm serial fire truck. She indicated that it was originally requested by the Fire Department that a paramedic unit be required and later, it was required that this be substituted with a fire truck. She did not believe that there was an analysis of why a serial fire truck was necessary. She requested further discussions with the Fire Department to determine if there was an alternative that would be acceptable. Also being requested was a 24-hour emergency advanced life support (ALS) to the residents. She indicated that the Fire Department would need to be consulted to determine the amount of training needed, etc. Regarding the resolution of approval, it was stated that approval of the use permit and site review was under the Planning Commission's purview. The Planning Commission's approval would become final upon City Council approve of the EIR and the General Plan Amendment. Ms. Callon requested that this issue be addressed. Commissioner Siegfried asked about the availability of the facility to the public, specifically to the residents of Saratoga. Ms. Callon indicated that she would be willing to work with staff or members of the Commission to develop a plan as to who the facility would be made available to. She clarified that the facility was opened to the general public. Chairman Murakami indicated that it has been requested that preference be given to Saratogans. Commissioner Kaplan asked as to the definition of "seniors" . She inquired if the resolution needed to state the age of its residents?. Ms. Callon stated that the City of Saratoga has a definition to describe seniors but that the state has a senior definition as it relates to affordable housing and senior projects. When senior projects are described, the state requires that the age be of 60-65 in order to receive a density bonus. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Kaplan requested clarification whether young, handicapped individuals would qualify for the skilled nursing facility. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:13 p.m. W.J. Pecka, 12764 Homes Drive, indicated that he was not an Odd Fellows member but stated that he supported the proposal and urged Commission approval of the proposal. Marguerite Fischer, 14520 Fruitvale Avenue, stated that she supported wild life as well as th preservation of open space. She did not believe that the project would impact either. She requested that Phase I be approved. She indicated that she had questions and reservations relating to Phase II. She hoped that the existing wildlife would remain safe and comfortable. She requested that historic preservation take place (i.e., the picnic grounds). She did not see the need for a club house. She expressed concern that there was not much in the plans for recreation. She did not support the duplex units and felt that they would be a poor use of the land. She recommended that the one story infirmary be designed to accommodate a future two story facility. Morris Jones, 19472 Riesling Court, expressed concern that during the review of the EIR, it was stated that concerns would be addressed during the project review and that those concerns were not being addressed. He raised the following issues: 1) the reason for the riparian corridor was due to the fact that the groundcover supports the existing vegetation (concerned that if the vegetation is moved, it would not survive; 2) concern with traffic; 3) requested that construction hours be limited for the safety of children walking to school; 4) concern that the process for the EIR has been closed and now goes on to the City Council; 5) he indicated that it would be helpful if an agenda identified the issues that are to be addressed at the Council level; 6) mufflers are noisy and should be part of the master plan discussion; 7) requested that the Commission take into account what was discussed in the EIR and that they not be lost; 8) he felt that a project could be reviewed and approved if well planned; 9) he inquired as to what toxins are present, if any; and 10) whether the existing bunkers would be closed and how? Bob Finocchio, 19160 Crisp Avenue, expressed confusion and perplexity with the process. He did not believe that the public understood the process. He indicated that what was before the Commission was different than what was presented at its last hearing. Because of the lack of details provided, he felt that there may be impacts that cannot be mitigated (i.e., noise). He asked when would be the appropriate time to actively engage in discussion regarding the project's impacts. He indicated that he was pleased with the additional landscaping proposed along Crisp Avenue but that the plans lacked specificity. It was his believe that it was unfair to have this project go on for ten years and negatively impact the neighborhood and property values. He asked what would be the possibility of selling the project to others and then find that the proposal was not feasible? He asked when City standards would be applied, when would there be discussion regarding the driplines, tree by tree, and when there would be discussion of ground movement? • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - l2 - Commissioner Asfour clarified for the public's benefit that this was the time to address the concerns as raised by Mr. Finocchio. Mr. Finocchio indicated that it was difficult to respond to the issues if there is lack of details provided to the public. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, indicated that he received a three page staff report that recommends Commission approval. It was stated that certain issues raised in the EIR process would be addressed at a later date. He stated that he did not know what the project was proposing relative to drainage off of San Marcos Road. He indicated that he did not have sufficient time to review the staff report. He asked if the Commission read the report dated 1989 as to the appropriateness of a senior facility. He indicated that there has been no discussions of any of the issues of concern. He stated that the General Plan was not adopted lightly and that it was not adopted for this project. He stated that he differed with staff's density interpretation. It is being requested that there be approval of spot zoning, ignoring the General Plan. He noted that the staff report does not mention that there is a use permit paper trail and that the Odd Fellows was out of compliance with its existing use permit. Regarding design review, Mr. Schwartz noted that there are two paragraphs relating to design review for a health center facility to be reviewed as part of this project. The issue of compatibility was ignored with the exception of the Mediterranean-style architecture. Staff has indicated that the neighbors would support 9 cottages versus 11 units. It was his belief that the neighborhood does not care as to the number of duplex units as it would still be a terrible project. He felt that this proposal would be a disaster as was Highway 85. Regarding the open space easement, the Odd Fellows promised a number of important issues such as the 10 acre open space easement, cul-de-sac, and no further development proposal which are no longer operative. Regrading the comments that the neighbors don't care about senior citizens, he responded that the neighbors provided monies to the Odd Fellows organization. He addressed the setbacks from the riparian corridor and noted that the occupancy restrictions have not yet been addressed. Mr. Schwartz noted that the 10 year master plan does not indicate a variety of scenarios that state that this is as much density which this site can handle, at a later date to be amended once again. There is no mention of geologic analysis of the site and no specifics which stipulate that development can take place. He stated that the existing roadway was in need of repair caused by runoff from the Odd Fellows site. There is no mention of traffic and noted that the Commission was not satisfied with the traffic study presented. The issue of compatibility has not been addressed. He requested that information be provided to the neighbors and that this item be scheduled for a January meeting date. He felt that further discussions were warranted. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, indicated that he resides adjacent to phases I and II. He felt that it was unusual that the public was excluded from discussions and that he was not able to respond to information that he has not seen. He was pleased to see the development moved off from the hill. He noted that there was a 45 foot elevation change in the congregate building area, causing extensive grading in the previously designated open space areas. He inquired as • h • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 13 - • to what measures would be taken to ensure that the master plan is not changed again? He asked what assurances would be put in place in the approval process to ensure that the mitigations are going to be applied to phase II? He felt that every time the project is reviewed, it becomes more intensive. He requested that serious consideration be given to the proposal. He also requested that the Commission direct staff to make available to the public all pertinent information. Commissioner Siegfried stated that this was a complex project. He felt that the Commission was being asked to approve a project that was not viable. There needs to be a fundamental question asked whether the proposal makes sense. He felt that study sessions should occur over the next few months and that each issue be reviewed. Ms. Callon stated that nothing new was heard this evening that has not been brought up at previous meetings. She hoped that there would not be months of review. She indicated that plans have been made available to the public in the office of the Community Development Department. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that staff was not recommending approval of the project. It is being requested that the Commission provide its comments to staff so that staff could return with responses to those comments. Chairman Murakami asked if the speakers were requesting that this item be continued and that the public be renotified? Community Development Director Curtis stated that when a public hearing is continued from one meeting date to the next within a reasonable time period, a public hearing notice is not renoticed. He indicated that an agenda was sent to the neighbors who requested an agenda be mailed to them. He indicated that there was nothing secret about the information that has been produced. Packets are made available to the public but are not distributed until such time that the Commission receives its packet. He indicated that staff has made every attempt to keep the public informed. Commissioner Asfour felt that there needs to be a better way to allow the public to see what is being presented. Dom Richiuso, 19303 Chablis Court, expressed concern with the comments expressed by Community Development Director Curtis as the agenda states that staff recommends approval of the project. Commissioner Asfour clarified for the public's benefit that the agenda states "discussion" . Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the colored renderings be made available to the public. She felt that the correct procedure would be to identify those items that need further information/ clarification. .~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 14 - U Community Development Director Curtis indicated that it was recommended this evening to have a workshop scheduled. He suggested that an informal worksession be scheduled to resolve the issues. Commissioner Kaplan felt that issues have been raised by the public and that those issues have been heard. She indicated that the Commission also has its issues and concerns. Community Development Director Curtis felt that it was time for the Commission to direct the applicant to change certain aspects of the project. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not convinced that this was a project that was marketable and that nothing has been presented to indicate that this was the right project. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the Commission address its concerns this evening and that there be an understanding where this project would be heading. Commissioner Siegfried recollected that the property owner stated that when the subdivision was approved, three phases were approved. He did not feel that this proposal was the right mix of development. Commissioner Abshire felt that times have changed and that needs have also changed. Commissioner Kaplan asked what the Commission was bound by? City Attorney Riback responded that the Commission was not bound to consider the prior project as described by Commissioner Siegfried. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would address the project before her. It was her belief that it was not feasible to drive past the nursing facility. She expressed concern with the Area G guideline as it speaks to the institutional use of the property and that it was already being used for quasi public uses. If this was a guideline, it has not changed. Regarding the 8.6 acres, she noted that the Odd Fellows are proposing 9 duplexes. She indicated that she would prefer to see smaller uses so that the use of the land would not be intensified. The court recognizes that change can occur to General Plans as necessary. She asked about the character of the property and whether the units were to be rental units. She recommended that the facility be made available to local residents. She recommended that the proposal be conditioned to stipulate that the facilities would be made available to Saratogans. She recommended that landscaping along Crisp Avenue be installed at the beginning of development. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the project was viewed at various angles at the site visit. She indicated that she was satisfied that the placement of the structures would not be monolithic nor would give the appearance of a great wall. She recommended that the Odd Fellows look at the Chester Avenue side because it needs to be cleaned up. .~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 15 - • Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had a number of issues/concerns relating to the proposal. Should this project proceed as one phase, the second phase may not occur within 7 years. He did not see a reason for this. It has been stated that even though phase II is approved, it may never be built. Commissioner Asfour stated that he was also concerned with the approval of a phase that may not be built. He indicated that he asked if the EIR could stand alone and that it was indicated that it can. He did not know why the neighbors and the City were being put through hoops when a future phase may not be developed or that it may change later down the line. Other concerns that he wanted addressed were: the need for a more detailed flood plan; the driveway adjacent to San Marcos Drive be combined to one road; the riparian corridor needs clarification; and the reservation of units to Saratoga residents. Chairman Murakami concurred with Commissioner Asfow regarding the Phase II issue (approving something that may not be built). He felt that phase I should be considered and that phase II be considered at such time that it is ready to proceed. Other concerns that he had were: construction hours, safety, and noise impacts. He concurred with Commissioner Kaplan that the Chester Avenue side needs to be looked at if the project is continued (what can be done with fencing and screening to making it presentable?). He agreed that the setbacks were confusing and requested that it be more definitively described. He requested that an occupancy screening process be developed for review. Regarding traffic, he was satisfied with the city's analysis. Regarding the issue of 9 cottages versus 11 cottages, he recommended that 9 cottages be designed. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with historical modifications. She asked why a project has been approved several times and continues to be modified. It was her understanding that phase I would consist of its remodeling. She felt that the concerns relating to Phase II can be deferred to another date. She noted that you can hear and see the water runoff occurring on site. She indicated that drainage was of concern to her and inquired where the water runoff was to be diverted. She noted that construction hours have been previously addressed as a concern. She noted that the riparian corridor setbacks have changed. She indicated that she could not approve phase I of the proposal if the riparian comdor was not installed nor could she approve phase II if the improvements were not installed. If there is to be a phase II, she would not approve more than 9 units. She also expressed concern with the mass and bulk of the Chester Avenue side. She stated that she would want to see what the area facing Chester would look like. An issue raised was that of a sale/merger of the facility and noted that nothing has been stipulated as to a contractual agreement. She noted that the fencing on the Chester Avenue side was unattractive. She also shared the neighbors' concerns of compatibility. She stated that she was not certain as to Ms. Gallon's comments pertaining to noise. Commissioner Abshire stated that many of the questions and concerns of the neighbors related to phase II of the proposal. He recommended that the two phases be separated. He stated that he would like to view a map that depicts the location of the riparian corridor. Regarding the • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 16 - cottages/duplexes, he indicated that he has many friends who live in senior complexes and noted that the units proposed were the type of units that appeals to seniors. He did not believe that reducing the number of duplexed units would be a wise decision. Commissioner Siegfried felt that it was important to separate phase I from phase II of the proposal. He asked if the health center would be moved? He stated that discussion was being undertaken relating to phase I that would also apply to Phase II, noting that phase II may never be built in the future. Commissioner Kaplan asked how all the buildings are to be placed in phase I and how construction equipment would access the site? She recommended that the nursing facility be relocated. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the proposed cottages were relatively small and would not require the use of large equipment. He indicated that phase I of the proposal could be considered to be the 10.6 acre parcel. Commissioner Kaplan asked if staff was suggesting that the west side of phase II be built first? Community Development Director Curtis stated that it was his belief that the cottages would be the last part of development to be constructed. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the 10 acre portion be excluded from the proposal. Ms. Callon recommended that a meeting be scheduled to discuss what would develop as part of each phase of development as she could not respond to the specifics at this time. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the health facility could. be kept away from the riparian corridor, relocating it adjacent to building A. She recommended that consideration be given to the rearranging of the location of the buildings. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that a worksession be scheduled to discuss the specifics of the project because it was his belief that a regular meeting would not be an efficient way to review this proposal. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that a worksession be scheduled the same week as the regular meeting because if the worksession was not scheduled the same week of regularly scheduled meetings, it would limit her ability to be flexible with her time. She asked if there was a suggestion or mechanism to require that the facility be made available to Saratoga residents that would run with the land (i.e., contract or covenants). Mr. Borelli indicated that three neighbors would be out of town the week of January 8. =:. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 17 - COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 and DR-94-004 TO JANUARY 9, 1996, 7:30 P.M.; SENIOR DAY CARE CENTER. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ABSENT. Commissioner Asfour clarified that he was not opposed to the scheduled worksession, but that he was opposed to the January 9 date. Commissioner Siegfried stepped down from discussion of the next item due to a conflict of interest. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Memo from City Manager re: Wireless Communications System Antenna Location Policy Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the City Manager has put together policies on this issue. He requested Commission direction on the policies. Commissioner Asfour requested that information be obtained from other jurisdictions to assist the City on this issue. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that information from other cities would be provided to the Commission as will as information to be made available from the provider. Chairman Murakami requested that information relating to health hazards also be made available to the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan asked the City Attorney if it was legal to make a requirement retroactive as stipulated in item 4 of the staff report which read: "Should the City adopt a co-location policy as suggested by Pac Bell and can the City make the policy retroactive to existing sites of which two currently exist....?" City Attorney Riback responded that it was questionable whether the City could make the policy retroactive and that the City would need to be investigate the issue to see if it can be retrofitted. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THIS ITEM. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission as to the following: Butler appeal is scheduled for City Council consideration at its Januan~ 3, 1996 meeting. :+ :, _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1995 PAGE - 18 - - He provided the Commission with its 1996 schedule of regular Planning Commission meetings, noting that the August 28 and December 25 meetings are assumed to be cancelled. - March 20-22 are the scheduled dates for the Planning Commission Institute to be held in Long Beach. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Abdullah - DR-95-015; 14755 Aloha Ave. Request for minor modification of approved architectural plans. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that Mr. Abdullah indicated that he would pursue ridgeline construction. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not support the modification because there was extensive discussion during the architectural review process regarding the height of the structure. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she would not support the requested modification. Commissioner Patrick noted that no architectural renderings were before the Commission. She noted that she did not support the project at time of approval. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION DENIED THE REQUEST. COMMUNICATIONS Wri en 1. City Council Minutes dated 11 /7; 11/ 15 & 11 /21 Oral C~ Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 2, 1996, Senior Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk