Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-1996 Planning Commission minutes~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Vice-Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Asfour, Caldwell, Murakami Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Faubion Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 12/5/95, 12/13/95 & 1/2/96 December 5. 1995 COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 5, 1995 MINUTES AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 2-0-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI. December 13, 1995 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 13, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 7, last sentence, replace the word "k-aob" with "~~". - Page 15, line one, replace the word "~e~ie~ved" with "v~e~" and the deletion of the following sentence: "Goi~garot~-the•rile-,-yotre-a~rse~~e~iasir~t~€-t~e-oFigi~building anEl-Il~~e-~i~e,uve~~lfi-not-ine~ease. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 2 - January 2, 1996 Commissioner Abshire stated that the work session minutes of January 2, 1996 correctly reflected his comments that the Nelson Garden was a useful garden and that the response to comments talks about the site as a park. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 2, 1996 MINUTES AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN, PATRICK; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: SIEGFRIED; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI. 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 January 5, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there was one correction. The correction pertained to Public Hearing Consent Calendar, Item 1, condition lc. Said condition should be expanded to read: "Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the future residences on each lot or as otherwise required by the Saratoga Fire District pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code. " CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD-91-004.1 - WIRNOWSKI; 20140 MENDELSOHN LANE; Request for aone- year extension of a Tentative Map approval to subdivide a 40,920 net sq. ft. site located in an R-1-20,000 zoning district into two parcels of 20,000 sq. ft. and 20,920 sq. ft. in net site area. 2. SD-89-016.2 & LL-89-006.2 - ARNDT TRUST; 13397 SOUZA LANE; Request for aone-year extension of a Lot Line Adjustment and Tentative Map approval to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 2.18 acres into six lots, ranging in size from 11,372 sq. ft. to 16,828 sq. ft. The subject property is located within the R-1-10,000 zoning district. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 3 - 3. SM-95-004 - REYES; 14742 VIA DE MARCOS; Request for Site Modification approval to construct a pool and associated patio paving. A request is also made for exemption from the hillside district fencing regulations to allow the area of enclosure to exceed 4,000 sq. ft. The parcel is a 1.18 acre site located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-95-037 - CAMPAGNA; 13888 DAMON LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,521 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 1.26 acre parcel in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. The subject site is a double frontage lot which abuts both Damon Lane and Albar Court. The proposed driveway will access the property from Damon Lane. Planner Walgren presented to the staff report. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan indicated that at the land use visit, a large oak tree was noticed on the corner of the adjacent property. She asked if a provision was included to protect the tree so that it is not impacted? Planner Walgren responded that the city arborist's map depicts protective fencing around the large oak tree. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:42 p. m. Michael Rowe, Britt-Rowe Partnership, indicated that this was the third house designed for this site. Originally, a two story home was designed with access being taken from Albar Court. It was determined that the driveway would exceed 15 % slope. The civil engineer proposed bringing a large amount of fill material to make the driveway conform to Saratoga codes. This proposal would result in taking the height of the building from the existing grade rather than from the new fill grade, eliminating the potential for a two story home. His clients elected to design a one story home, to be accessed from Albar Court. Two weeks prior to the public hearing, the city's geotechnical report and the applicant's soils engineer discovered a problem with ground stability. A meeting was held with the City Engineer and planning staff. It was determined that the home could not be built up to the soils stability line, but to within 50 feet of that line. The house was required to go all the way down the hill and was not allowed to be sited in the middle of the property. A house has been designed to take access off of Damon Lane where it intersects with Teerlink Way. He indicated that staff encouraged the applicant to obtain anegress/ingress easement from the neighboring property because of the safety concern associated with accessing the site at the intersection of Damon and Teerlink Way. He informed the Commission that the easement was not obtained and that the driveway was located at the only location it can be • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 4 - without causing any problems to the intersection. He indicated that with the exception of the 1,000 cubic feet of grading, the house was designed so as not to necessitate a need for a variance. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he appreciated that this was a difficult lot. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she was concern with fire codes. She asked if the fire places were to be gas or wood burning ones? Mr. Rowe responded that the homes would be gas equipped where allowed. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan indicated that it would be her preference that all fireplaces be gas burning. Commissioner Abshire asked what steps were being taken to prevent mud slides as it has been determined that the site has been found to be unstable. Mr. Rowe indicated that a small retaining wall is proposed and that for the upper portion of the site, it would be landscaped to mitigate landslide (surface level treatment short of rebuilding hillside). THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:47 P. M. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she would also prefer that the fire places be equipped with gas. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIEDMOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95-037. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI ABSENT). 5. V-95-013 - KELKER; 13783 FORTUNA CT. ; Request for Variance approval to legalize a room addition constructed approximately 18 years ago without building permits. The Variance is necessary because a portion of the structure encroaches 9 ft. into a required 25 ft. rear yard setback. The parcel is 16,147 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-12, 500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented to the staff report. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Paul Kelker, applicant, thanked the Commission for taking the time to review the request. He indicated that it has taken two decades to correct this issue. He stated that he tried to resolve the issue by adding 90 square feet to his property which was not viable and that the variance before the Commission was his only recourse. He requested Commission approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 5 - THERE BEING NO FURTHER INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:52 P. M. Commissioner Abshire noted that no comments or complaints have been received in the past 18 years and that he would be inclined to go along with the request. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not have a problem with the variance and did not want to tie the variance to the fact that the situation which necessitated the variance occurred over 18 years ago. Because of the configuration of the lot and the fact that this was a minor encroachment into the rear yard setback, he could support the request. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan concurred with Commission Siegfried's comments and stated that she did not feel that longevity was the issue. She indicated that she had a concern as to whether or not the addition was constructed according to City codes. She stated that she could approve the variance based on the configuration of the lot and that the addition meets city code requirements. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V- 95-013. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). 6. GPA-94-003, AZO-94-002 & SD-95-008; TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA HILLS RD.; Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels totalling 5.1 acres to be reclassified from an Open Space-Outdoor Recreational designation to Residential-Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassified from an Agricultural designation to R-1-40,000 and R-1-12,500. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single- family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract is included as part of the project description. An EIR has been prepared and made available for public review and comment for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the primary focus this evening was that of the final EIR. He stated that all comments recorded during the two public meetings as well as the written correspondence submitted during the 45-day review period have been responded to by the environmental consultants in the final EIR and were contained in Volume 3 of the EIR. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened, public testimony be taken, and that unless new evidence is presented that alters the environmental determination of the final EIR, staff would recommend accepting the final EIR and that the Commission recommend its certification to the City Council. Also recommended was approval of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments and Commission approval of the vesting tentative subdivision • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 6 - map, contingent upon the other actions being accepted by the City Council. Laura Worthington-Forbes, Michael Brandman and Associates, stated that she was the project manager for the preparation of the draft EIR and the response to comments. She indicated that the environmental issues that were examined in the draft EIR included: land use, traffic, aesthetics, earth resources, hydrology and historic/recreational resources. As a result of the environmental analysis, the EIR identified potential significant impacts as follows: the potential loss of one native oak tree on lot 1; subsurface soil conditions that would impact the structural integrity of the structures; the potential for ground shaking on the site; and the potential for drainage impacts to the 100 year storm. She stated that each of these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the implementation of mitigation measures that were identified in the document. She further stated that there were residual impacts that following the implementation of those mitigations measures were identified as significant or unavoidable. Ms. Worthington-Forbes indicated that the draft EIR was circulated on November 22, 1995 through January 5, 1996. During the public review period, there were two Planning Commission workshops and public hearings. She noted that no written comments or oral testimony received after January 2, 1996. She stated that City staff and the City Attorney have thoroughly reviewed all of the comments as well as the testimony received on the draft EIR and that it has been determined that there are no new issues or no new significant information that has not been previously presented. All issues, since the review of the draft EIR, have been addressed in the draft EIR or in the response to comments document before the Commission this evening. As provided foT under Section 15088.b of the CEQA guidelines, the focus of the response to comments is only on the disposition of significant environmental effects that were raised on the comments provided. Detail responses on the merits of the project were not included in the document. She indicated that the issues raised during the public review process identified the following primary areas of concern: consistency with the General Plan, on-site and off-site drainage, retention of the site as an agricultural preserve or heritage park, consistency of the project with the surrounding land uses, the site's geotechnical constraints, and the loss of open space. She stated that these issues have been responded to in detail, particularly responding to the Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger letter. She referred the Commission to pages 2-38 through 32-52 of Volume 3 which provides the responses to comments as identified above. She indicated that the purpose of tonight's hearing was to take public testimony on the final EIR. Commissioner Abshire noted that the letter from Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger pointed out that the General Plan states that "the City shall encourage the use of the Williamson Act contract. " It also, states that the General Plan discourages the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts as much as possible. He indicated that the response to this statement in the final EIR was devoted primarily to agricultural and commercial uses. He stated that it was his believe that the intent was that the Nelson Gardens be used as a demonstration garden, and was not intended to be used as an industrial/commercial use. He stated that Saratoga was no longer looking at agricultural uses but that it was looking at preserving open space. He was not sure that this issue was addressed • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 7 - in the final EIR. Ms. Worthington-Forbes stated that it was the intent of the policy, as stated in the Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger letter, to protect the provisions of the Williamson Act contract which stipulates the preservation of lands for agricultural uses. She did not believe that the policy distinguished between the agricultural uses for commercial/agricultural production versus agricultural uses such as natural orchards or open space and conservation. The intent of the policy was to protect a productive, agricultural use and not necessarily to protect a Williamson Act contract that is not currently being utilized as productive agricultural uses. Commissioner Abshire felt that the Williamson Act contract was placed on the property for the purpose of retaining agarden-type use as opposed to a commercial/agricultural use. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the General Plan was amended and the zoning changed when the property owner entered into a Williamson Act contract. He did not believe that it was intended to retain property as viable agricultural uses but for the purpose of recognizing the property as open space. He noted that the site has not been listed in the Parks Master Plan. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Allen Pinn, Pinn Brothers, representing Trinity Development, stated that the project was started in 1988 with two public hearings being conducted. Two additional public hearings were conducted in 1995 along with two study sessions on this same property. He indicated that this was now the seventh hearing on this proposal. He requested that right to reserve his comments following the receipt of public comments. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan informed the public that the Commission has discussed the draft EIR. The focus this evening would be on the adequacy of the responses to the questions that were raised at the January 2, 1996 public hearing by both the public and the Commission. She indicated that the Commission was not reopening the entire conversation of the EIR. She stated that an application for a park on this property was not before the Commission this evening. She requested that the public focus on the adequacy of the responses to the comments raised in Volume 3 of the final EIR. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, indicated that she evaluated Volume 3, the responses to external comments. She raised four points as follows: 1) the document continues not to address the concerns to issues that have been raised both verbally and in writing. These were the same issues that were brought up during the review of the draft EIR. Volume 3 does not provide additional research nor new information to evaluate the original issues of concerns (i.e. page 2-46, hydrology and drainage - no effort has been made to interview the neighbors to discuss the problems with drainage). Z) There are references made in Section E-6 that the city is mandated to develop land to be consistent with surrounding development. It was her belief that • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 8 - this statement was incorrect. The surrounding land is zoned for single family homes. Thus, the area should not be developed into multi-family or commercial uses but that it should be developed as a community, educational park or a vacant piece of property to be consistent with the General Plan for that area. 3) The EIR refers to a 1960 General Plan as a proof of a point (Section E). It was her belief that the existing General Plan has a newer date than that. 4) The traffic pattern study is incorrect. She did not believe that you could equate peak traffic patterns for a community garden with peak patterns for residential homes. Peak traffic patterns for a community garden would be at non-rush hour times, putting less stress on the neighborhood than a nine home traffic pattern would. She felt that the City should evaluate what would happen with a community garden by asking individuals who have experience with a community garden. She requested that the Commission not take action on the Final EIR until it has adequately addressed the public's concerns. She felt that it was the Commission's job to preserve the character of Saratoga. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, stated that he prefers to have the site retained as an educational park and that he endorsed the comments as expressed by Ms. Waltonsmith. As Dr. Stutzman was out of town, he agreed to inform the Commission that Dr. Stutzman also supported Ms. Waltonsmith's comments. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter submitted by Dr. Stutzman has been responded to in the final EIR. Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, stated her support to Commissioner Abshire's comments. She stated that in 1981, this parcel was chosen as a demonstration area for its beauty. She indicated that the Friends of the Nelson Garden worked hard in the early years to maintain the site because of its educational value. She indicated that when the City celebrated its 25th anniversary, the City chose Nelson Gardens to be on display and be opened to the public. Mr. Pinn echoed the responses that Ms. Peck made, specifically her recurring theme over the debate over the use of this property. He indicated that a park site has been tried with no success. He indicated that a letter had been found dated 1988 from Frank Nelson written to William Henlock, Jr., Director of the National Park Service and read the letter into the record. The letter indicates that it has been difficult to dedicate the land for public use because of liability insurance, cost factors, and other problems. It was felt that it would be in the best interest of the Foundation to sell the property and to use the proceeds for charitable purposes. Mr. Pinn felt that keeping the property in open space benefits very few individuals because of its locality as compared to the many who can benefit from the sale of the property. It was recognized that the property should be sold because it was too expensive to maintain. He felt that the City Council recognized this fact when it entered into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU would allow funds to be applied to the balance of the parks within the City of Saratoga by developing this property as well as providing funds to the Community Foundation which benefits community organizations. He felt that it was time to pass • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 9 - the benefits of this land to more individuals than just the neighbors who have had the benefit of open space for 20 plus years. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the public hearing this evening was to receive comments on the adequacy of the fmal EIR as well as to receive comments on the related land use applications. Philip Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, indicated that he has been involved with the Community Foundation. He acknowledged that it was time to develop the property and that thoughtful development needs to be considered. He felt that the Pinn Brothers thoughtfully planned for development. He felt that development of the property would allow for monies to be given to the City, to be used effectively and recycled back into the community. He requested Commission support of this proposal. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission discuss the EIR, take action on the final EIR and then pursue its discussion on the project. Commissioner Abshire stated that he reviewed the EIR and felt that it was nicely prepared from a technical and environmental stand point. He did not see any reason why this property cannot be developed from an environmental stand point. He indicated that he personally had an eversion to hillside property with slopes over 30% because of the possibility of landslides. However, the civil engineer feels that these lots are buildable. He therefore would support the environmental report. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was prepared to certify the EIR as it addressed the issues that needed to be addressed and that the response to comments were satisfactory. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was more than satisfied with the EIR and felt that it addressed the issues adequately. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan felt that the responses had been adequately addressed and that she would support certification to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he missed the last two hearings on the draft EIR. However, he has read the minutes and all the documents associated with this item. He felt that he had sufficient information to make a recommendation on this item. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL AND • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 10 - MURAKAMI ABSENT. Community Development Director noted that the Commission conducted a public hearing simultaneously with the final EIR and recommended that the Commission discuss and make motions on the land use applications. Vice-chairman Kaplan noted that Resolution No. SD-95-008 contains a typo that needs to be corrected on page 13 (last paragraph, replace the word eater with c~th basins. Commissioner Abshire stated that the General Plan supports the Williamson Act and that it discourages its cancellation. In this case, the request is for an early cancellation of the Williamson Act. He did not question the City's right to do this. However, if the City was going to allow for the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, it should have a good reason for doing so. He asked if the development of more new expensive executive homes was something that was needed in Saratoga? He did not believe so as the schools were already impacted. He was not sure if the proposed houses were needed and asked if these new homes were worth given up open space for? if the land was to be used for senior housing or low cost housing, the City can make a strong case in changing the land use designation from open space to residential. However, he was not sure a strong enough case has been made to change the land use designation. He recognized that Mr. Nelson was a kind gentlemen who thought of the future. However, he felt that Mr. Nelson made a mistake in placing this property under the Williamson Act because it did not work. Although Mr. Nelson made an effort to donate this land for public use, he could not fmd any one to match his donation. He was sorry that this has happened and for the people who tried to make this use work but have not been successful in their efforts. However, in spite of this, he felt that this was a big action to request early cancellation of the Williamson Act, an act that would need to be explained to historians. It was his belief that the City needs to seriously consider what is being done here. He asked if the City of Saratoga was behind their General Plan? He did not believe that the City was if it continued with the approval of this development. For this reason, he indicated that he would vote no on changing the land use designation and zoning applications. He indicated that he was sympathetic towards the efforts made by the applicant but that he did not feel that this was the right time to consider the request. City Attorney Fabian indicated that she wanted to comment on Commissioner Abshire's comments because it raised a very important issue. She stated that a question would need to be asked. That question being whether this amendment would set a precedent and whether there were other properties that are currently under the Williamson Act that have similar circumstances that would cause the Commission to set in motion a landslide of similar requests. Or, on the other hand, is the situation before the Commission so unique that it feels it would not set a precedent. She felt that it would be helpful to articulate any questions which the Commission may have regarding the policy that has been addressed. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Commissioner Siegfried inquired as to the penalties that would be levied for early cancellation of the Williamson Act. City Attorney Fabian explained that the non-renewal of a Williamson Act contract would result in the tax benefits being phased out during a period of time. Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract would result in penalties that would result in back taxes having to be paid. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan requested clarification as to City Attorney Fabian's comment regarding the need fora "super majority" of the Commissioners present this evening to act on the General Plan amendment or adoption of a General Plan. City Attorney Fabian clarified that a positive vote on a recommendation of approval would require a majority of the Commission (body), not just the majority of a quorum. Therefore, it would take the four votes of the four Commissioners present this evening to make a recommendation on the General Plan amendment. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if it would be prudent to take a vote on the General Plan amendment request at this time to see how the vote would result or should the Commission continue these applications to allow the presence of a full Commission? City Attorney Fabian indicated that it would be a good idea to hear what each of the Commissioners have to say. Commissioner Patrick stated that she supported the request the last time it was before the Commission and that she was inclined to approve it again. She noted that California encourages/subsidizes agricultural uses in the state. However, she did not believe that this site was a working farm, noting that it was a small parcel. There was no one willing or able to continue its use as anon-profit use. She indicated that the farm was in need of extreme repair. If agricultural was to be undertaken, the site would need to be stripped and than restarted all over again. She felt that the City of Saratoga needs to evaluate what kind of open space it can continue to maintain and keep. Also, the quality of open space needs to be evaluated. She felt that the failure to maintain the site as open space was a good reason to amend the General Plan. She felt that the quality of open space needs to be considered as a General Plan policy and that it needs to be reviewed for its benefit. She felt that this site only benefited the neighbors. Because of the sites proximity to an existing park and its lack of agricultural interest at this time, she indicated that she would support the development of the 9 building sites as well as the General Plan amendment. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he has been involved with this issue off and on for several years. He stated that it was his belief that the intent of the City of Saratoga was to abide by the General Plan, noting that it was just that, a general plan with guidelines for the future, one that changes. He felt that this was a unique 5+ acre site surrounded by residential property. It has been noted that the site is adjacent to an existing park and the fact that the site is not used very • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 12 - much. He felt strongly about protecting open space to the extent that the City can do so but that it has to be recognized that this is a small piece of property, completely surrounded by residential properties. He stated that there was an attempt by the neighbors to purchase the property with no success. Just because the City made a mistake in placing this land under the Williamson Act, he did not believe that it was fair to have the neighbors not allow the property to be removed from the Williamson Act and to maintain it as open space at the City's expense. He felt that the property should be developed in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhood. The City will be given a large fee to be used on City parks. He felt that the design review process would ensure that the homes are compatible with the existing homes. He noted that the property owner would be penalized with back taxes for early Williamson Act cancellation. He did not believe that retaining the General Plan designation would be of benefit to the community as the property is surrounded by a cyclone fence, the garden has not been taken care of for many years and that the site has become an eyesore. He supported moving forward in a meaningful fashion as he did not believe that a precedent would be set as this was no longer a viable piece of land for working agricultural land uses. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioners Siegfried and Patrick. She felt that it was time to move forward with the request as a request for a park was not before the Commission. Commissioner Abshire agreed that it has been almost 25 years since this issue has been trying to come to fruition, but that he felt that miracles do happen. He felt that maybe in another five years or so, someone would be able to preserve the open space and the historical significance of the site. He stated that he would like to leave this possibility open. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that action first be taken on the General Plan Amendment as it requires a "super" majority vote. If there was not a 4-0 vote, he recommended that the Commission make another motion to continue these applications to the January 24, 1996 meeting to allow the presence of the other Commissioners who were absent this evening. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-003. THE MOTION FAILED 3-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 24, 1996 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING A SECOND VOTE ON THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. City Attorney Fabian was excused from the remainder of the meeting. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 13 - 7. GPA-95-002 - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Saratoga Community Development Department is initiating a General Plan map correction for the parcel of land identified as APN 517-36-008 (Miller, 15001 Bohlman Rd.). The City's current map shows this parcel as being a part of Hakone Gardens, a City park, and designated as Open Space- Outdoor Recreational. This one-acre parcel has had a residence on it since the late 1800's and is not identified as a park site in Saratoga's Parks and Trails Master Plan. The park designation for the property appears to be a mapping mistake made when the City's General Plan map was updated in 1987. The correct General Plan designation for this parcel is Residential-Very Low Density. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented to the staff report on this city-initiated General Plan Amendment. Staff recommended that the General Plan Map be corrected to designate the parcel as Residential, Very Low density and that this recommendation be forwarded to the City Council along with the Negative Declaration for the General Plan map correction. Should the Commission vote in favor of this correction, this item would then go to the City Council for action just prior to hearing Mr. Miller's request for lot line adjustment, General Plan and Zoning designation boundary amendment which has been put on hold pending this correction. He informed the Commission that Mr. Miller, the property owner, was present this evening to answer any questions which it may have. He clarified that the request before the Commission was to correct a map mistake that appears to have occurred in 1987, removing the public park designation off of a private parcel that is developed with a residence. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Ray McMaines, 15015 Bohlman Road, adjacent property owner, furnished the Commission with a letter which addressed his concerns. He informed the Commission that during the October 24 public hearing relating to the lot line adjustment, that it was determined that a mistake in the General Plan existed. He requested that the Commission consider his submittal of November 30 that it was his belief that the lot line adjustment approved by the Planning Commission did not conform to Article 1450 which briefly states that the resulting two new lots were substantially different in zoning and that the statute requires that the parcels be created from like zones. It was also his belief that the approval of the lot line adjustment was a correct action in light of the General Plan/zoning designation and that the approval was in violation of the General Plan. He felt that the Planning Commission's October 25 decision would have been different had this discrepancy been brought to light at that time. He requested that the lot line adjustment be stayed until such time that the issue is fully resolved. Kristina McMaines felt that the Commission made a decision based on insufficient and/or incorrect information, noting that the land is designated as open space. She furnished the Commission with a letter written by Judi Craik. She requested that the open space easement be • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 14 - corrected. She indicated that it was her recollection that the evening that the Commission considered the lot line adjustment request, the Commission questioned if it had jurisdiction on the request. However, the Commission approved the lot line adjustment based on the fact that the lot conformed to the General Plan. But at the City Council meeting, it was found that the site was designated as open space. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan acknowledged the last comment made by Mrs. McMaines but also noted that staff has indicated that the open space designation was a mistake. THERE BEING NO FURTHER INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:08 P.M. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff requested an interpretation from the City Attorney regarding the action taken by the Commission in October and how this request is to be considered this evening. He indicated that the City Attorney had advised staff that the Commission does not have to reconsider the previous applications but that the City can take action to correct the mapping inconsistency. He explained to the Commission how the mapping inconsistency occurred. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan requested that staff clarify the easement issues as raised by the McMains. Planner Walgren indicated that the easement that the McMaines brought up on the second page of their letter shows an open space easement being recorded through the adjacent parcel which was once designated as a park and thought to be annexed to the Hakone Gardens. The open space easement is not similar to designating a parcel as a park site. Open space easements are recorded through all of Saratoga's subdivisions and that they protect steep terrain, land slides, creeks, or quarries. They are designed to be "no build zones" and that they are easements placed on private property. The McMaines were referring to the open space easement that is recorded on the adjacent subdivision. Therefore, there is no correlation between that easement as the easement would be retained irregardless of the action to be taken on the lot line. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. GPA-95-002 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION CORRECTION AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of its Friday, January 19, 1996 retreat to be held from 8:30 a. m. to approximately 4:00 p. m. An agenda and backup material would be made available to the Commission on Tuesday. He informed the Commission that Mark Pearce would be in attendance at that meeting. He indicated that the following items PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 15 - • are scheduled for the retreat: - "Orchids and Onion" tour - Discussion regarding the Design Review Task Force's recommendations regarding the process for Administrative Design Review - Discussion on cellular antennas and ordinance policies recommended by the City Council - Review of Commission meeting schedules and work programs. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Abdullah - DR-95-015; 14755 Aloha Ave. Request for minor modification of approved architectural plans. Planner Walgren presented the request for minor modification to increase the height of an approved second story addition to an existing single story home to allow the lower ridgeline of the structure to increase in height from 19 feet to 20 feet. He indicated that the Commission considered this request at its last public meeting. He noted that Mr. Abdullah was not able to attend that meeting and is now requesting that the Commission reconsider his request. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if the neighbors were notified about this request? Planner Walgren responded that the neighbors were notified prior to the December 13 meeting, noting that none of the neighbors were in attendance at the meeting. He informed the Commission that a second notice was not sent out and that throughout this period, no phone calls or inquires from neighbors were received regarding this change. Asim Abdullah indicated that he was requesting the minor modification because it was discovered that there would be a one foot drop in ceiling height from the existing structure and the proposed addition at the entrance of the home. He stated that the modification would have minimal impact on the neighbors and that it would not impact the design of the home. Commissioner Patrick noted that the request would change the pitch of the roof. Commissioner Abshire noted that the drawing depicts an increase in height of the gable over the front door. Mr. Abdullah indicated that in order to keep the design consistent, the roof would need to be raised and that this was the simplest way, structurally, to correct the situation. Vice-chairwoman Kaplan asked if the modification would change the height of the roof. Planner Walgren responded that the entrance was not a factor but that the overall ridgeline height would be raised by one foot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 16 - r1 Commissioner Siegfried asked what would be the perception of the pitch of the roof? Planner Walgren responded that one of the reasons that staff was supporting the project was that if the addition had been drawn this way originally, the Commission would not have been able to notice the difference between the 19 foot versus the 18 foot height. He felt that it was still proportional to the rest of the proposed residence. As explained by Mr. Abdullah, the pitch will not increase, but that the "pony wall" beneath the roof eave was being raised by a foot. Therefore, the pitch of the roof would not change. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE REQUESTED MINOR MODIFICATION. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Abshire indicated that the City Council considered the Butler appeal at its January 3 meeting. At the request of Chairman Murakami, he attended the meeting to support staff and the Commission's action. He stated that Mr. Butler hired Virginia Fanelli to represent him. He indicated that the resulting vote was 4-1 in support of the appeal . Written City Council Minutes dated 12/20/95 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 1 /24/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 19, 1996, Saratoga Country Club, 21990 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT\PC011096.SAR