Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-1996 Planning Commission minutes1 h% .~ ~ 1•ANNING COMMISSION MINUTE FEBRUARY 14, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 1/24/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 24, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 2, last paragraph, line 6 amended to read: "...everytime the issue comes up, ,some people wan€~~~i to~~becii:r:n.~~ a€>:. ark`. .. :F:.:.: . .............. . - Page 3, paragraph one, first sentence amended to read: "...wouldhave de~elepecJ-~s- bee apublic park 133x` izoi~>.... " - Page 3, paragraph 4, last sentence amended to read: "He felt that the Williamson Act was a very important part of the City's inventory and that fifty percent of Saratoga's open space i~ covered by the Williamson Act ~ ~~' ~* ~* would isappear over the next 10 years lieca~se'` ~f: Gaacellat~Qns.:alrea..dy.:equest~d;. - Page 11, paragraph four amended to read: Commissioner Abshire noted that seme- ^~residents of the existing Odd Fellows facilities were Saratoga ^'~~srirsd~~ts::::. He asked if these ^c;Tiicirs residents::: ~ ~volc~>ve'~riarit~over other Saratoga ~ cit.izeiiS 7 - Page 12, last paragraph amended to read as follows: "Commissioner Asfour st-ate~i- ~~Id:;::`tlie ~applcitiir that it was his understanding of the comments that have been expressed by the Commission regarding the 10.5 acre site way that the landscaping along the border of the project would need to be installed immediately upon receipt of approval, and that of the cottages be constructed at the same time. If not, Ileri there i~eeds.:;:i€g: be some assurance that what is approved for the project i~a~ *'~~=~- ~ul~€ be constructed.... " =- >- `PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 2 - THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). ORAL COit~I1t1UNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 9, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARI~'G CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR-95-045 - GLENROCK BUILDERS; 14118 SARATOGAAVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,302 sq. ft. single story residence on a 22,685 sq. ft. parcel located within the R-1-20,000 zoning district. The subject propert}~ is the front parcel of a 2-lot subdivision approved in April of 1995 (cont. from 1/24/96; City review deadline is 6/1/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan requested staff clarification regarding the height of the home. Planner Walgren clarified that the conditions of subdivision approval restricted the building height to a 22 foot single story structure and that the home proposed was at 21.5 feet. Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), indicated that the colored renderings presented this evening were quite effective. He stated that at the last meeting, discussion was made about how the roof line and the walls were to be articulated to reduce the appearance of mass and ho~v projections were made on the building to eliminate blank walls. He acknowledged that the design would be an acceptable one were it located on another site and not on Heritage Lane. He expressed concern with the use of stucco material. He indicated that in February 1995, the HPC reviewed the subdivision and architectural plans for the two sites. Six recommendations were made at that time, one recommendation being on the design of the house. He quoted from the HPC minutes as follows: "Encourage the retention of craftsman elements such as wood shingles and exposed beams in the future two story design. Also suggested was utilization of natural earthtone _' >= 'PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 3 - colors for the homes. " He indicated that the intent was not to reproduce an accurate craftsman home but that there be use of some of the elements that constitute a craftsman design (i.e., use of wood, wood combinations, brick and/or stone. He indicated that the Planning Commission needs to consider in its decision whether this building, as proposed, was appropriate for Heritage Lane and whether it was sensitive to the historical background and features of Heritage Lane. Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Peepari if the house used wood siding instead of stucco, would that address Mr. Peepari's concern? Mr. Peepari responded that the use of wood siding may address his concern but that it would depend on the details to be used. He stated that his objection vas the use of stucco which would give the appearance of a plain design. He felt that as long as Heritage Lane was designated as such, every attempt should be made to maintain that inappropriate buildings not be approved. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he drove along Heritage Lane and that he observed the existence of several older stucco homes. Mr. Peepari stated that there were newer homes that were of stucco material. He felt that continuing the approval of stucco homes would not destroy Heritage Lane. As the public hearing vas continued from the last meeting, Chairman Murakami invited the applicant to address the Commission. Rocke Garcia, applicant, informed the Commission that his architect vas present this evening to address the Commission. He pointed out that this project appeared before the HPC and that it received unanimous approval. He stated that he also drove down Heritage Lane and found that there were an equal amount of stucco homes as there were wood homes. Blair Barry, project architect, informed the Commission that he has a background in historic preservation and that he was aware of some of the nuances in areas and streets that have been designated as heritage lanes. He stated that he was committed to designing a project that offered some diversity and texture to the street and the community. Earthtone colors are to be utilized to make the home compatible with its surroundings. He informed the Commission that stucco was a widely used material in the 1920s. He indicated that large stucco faces were used as backdrops for espaliated plant materials to soften the house. He did not believe that the house would appear to be massive. He felt that the Commission would be pleased with the character of the stucco-style home, with accents being achieved through the use of landscape and other materials. Commissioner Abshire asked if the trellis as depicted in the colored renderings were to be part of the architecture or part of the landscaping Mr. Barry responded that the renderings were designed to show that there is design to a blank stucco wall. If the Commission felt that the use of the trellis element was important, the he would agree to include the trellis. Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Barry if he had reviewed the design of the first home s r 'PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 4 - before undertaking this project. Mr. Barry responded that he also designed the two story home. He noted that the two story home had a different footprint and mass to it. He indicated that he designed this home to be a lower, single story profile and to keep it true to the 1920 craftsman-style. He stated that he did not want the two homes to look identical so he looked for variety and texture in the design of the two homes. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she liked the design of the home. However, she concurred with Mr. Peepari that it does not belong on Heritage Lane. She was hoping that the applicant would have returned with a design that fits more with what is considered to be a "craftsman" style of design. She felt that if Saratoga Avenue has been designated as a Heritage Lane, then the City needs to start some place to recreate that atmosphere. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt that this was a well designed home and that he could not find anything about a stucco home that would not make it fit in with the other homes located on Heritage Lane. The home, as designed, has a lot of articulation and he felt that it would be a real attribute. Commissioner Asfour indicated that at the last meeting, he did not have a problem with the design and that he does not have a problem with the design at this time. Chairman Murakami stated that he was not convinced by the architect that the use of stucco was absolutely necessary in the design. He did not object to the mass and articulation of the home. He stated his agreement with Mr. Peepari that the use of siding would assist the design as he felt that the design gives it the appearance of a tract home. For that reason, he indicated that he was inclined to deny the request. Commissioner Pierce reiterated his comments from the last meeting and stated that he liked the design, use of the stucco exterior, and found its use to be appropriate. He indicated that he would vote to support the request. Commissioner Patrick stated that she had no objection to the use of stucco. However, there were aspects in the design of the home that does not match what she considered to be a 1920 flavor of home (i.e., garage door looks like a 1970 tract home). Even though it was a nicely designed home, she could not support it at this location. Commissioner Abshire stated that he was used to stucco. However, in this location, the home would be replacing a wood siding building. He acknowledged that Saratoga has a lot of stucco buildings but that along Saratoga Avenue, there were a lot of wood framed buildings. He felt that the design was good and indicated that he could approve the design if a landscape plan comparable to the plans displayed this evening were included as part of the approval. 'PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that as a matter of policy, she did not believe that placing landscaping against a house does what architectural changes are suppose to accomplish. Chairman Murakami indicated that he agreed with the comments of Commissioner Kaplan and felt that the use of landscaping would be covering up something that would still be the same. Commissioner Siegfried felt that if the project was conditioned to include the use of trellis and landscaping, it would be acceptable to him. He noted that the use of stucco has been a California style since the 1900s. He did not see any reason why this project could not be approved with the condition as recommended by Commissioner Abshire. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-045 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO INCLUDE THE USE OF LANDSCAPE/ TRELLISES - TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, ABSHIRE, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED; NOES: KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK; ABSTAIN; NONE; ABSENT: NONE. 2. DR-94-042 - SKOV; 14970 SOBEY ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 536 sq. ft. first story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 4,154 sq. ft. single story residence with a detached garage and recreation room. The subject property is a 45,389 sq. ft. parcel located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He noted that correspondence has been received from the up slope neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. They cited their concerns as being located above this property and that the 23 foot tall addition would obstruct their view. Also received was correspondence from the property owner directly down slope. Staff's analysis, prior to receiving these letters and visiting the property, was that the massing of the home, the addition and the orientation of the windows and living areas would not impact the neighboring property owners. He noted that one of the conditions in the resolution requires that the east facing upstairs windows be either obscured or be upper level windows so that there would not be a view problem between the two property owners. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Camilla Skov, applicant, stated that she did not believe that the addition would seriously impact any of her neighbors. She informed the Commission that the neighbors down slope have expressed concern that the addition may impact the value of their property as well as invade their privacy. She indicated that she would be willing to plant materials acceptable to the neighbors to address their concerns. 'PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Diana Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, informed the Commission that she previously requested an addition to her cottage. The addition was approved by staff, later to be rescinded due to the 18 foot height. The requirement for the addition was modified to met city standards. She felt that after 20 years at this location, her view was now being threatened by this proposal. She indicated that this was an area of single story homes and felt that the addition would set a precedent for others to follow. She requested that the Commission deny the request because her view shed would be blocked and that her property would be devalued. Richard Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, stated that he would not agree to have 44 9 of his view obstructed so that another neighbor could have a view. He indicated that he moved to his site for its view. He felt that the addition was inappropriate as it would allow an increase in roof height to an already prominent roof line. He felt that there has to be a justification ~vhy other property owners can usurp other individual's views. He could not see any justification for approving this request. Richard Pouliot, 14976 Sobey Road, informed the Commission that he resides below the proposed site. He did not believe that a second story addition was appropriate as the second story addition would be facing directly into his backyard. He stated that he would agree to consider other alternatives that would be less obtrusive. He felt that there was enough room in Ms. Skov's property to place an addition. Also of concern to him were property value impacts. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff to indicate what view would be seen from the deck. Planner Walgren clarified that the deck would be looking at Mr. Pouliot's property and that the second story deck would be 8 to 10 feet higher than that of the first level deck. He noted that the home is proposed at 23 feet in height and that 22 feet was the typical height for a contemporary single story home. Chairman Murakami asked if there was any way that the house could be built at a one story level to accommodate the extra square footage as he perceived the lot to be built out and severely constrained by the hillside. Planner Walgren responded that the site was constrained due to topography and the required building setbacks. He noted that the addition could be placed on the front lawn area but doing so would eliminate the front yard area. Commissioner Abshire stated that he hates to see development come between neighbors. He stated that he could not support the upper level deck as it would be invading the neighbor's privacy. Commissioner Patrick felt that the topography in the area creates the problem and that anything built in this area was going to look down to the Pouliots' yard. She stated that she PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 7 - • did not see an initial concern of view blockage from the Anderson's property and that they would still have the same view. She indicated that she was inclined to approve the request as proposed. Commissioner Pierce felt that it was unfortunate that the properties were situated the way they were. He noted that the short setbacks would not exist if the homes were sited side by side. Because of this fact, he felt that the Commission needs to take a serious look at the second story addition. Commissioner Asfour indicated that at the site visit, it was his belief that anything built would be visible. He stated that the only way he could approve this request would be if the second story deck was eliminated. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he visited the site at the request of Mrs. Anderson so that she can show him how her view would be impacted by the addition. He stated that he did not believe that the second story addition, given its proportions, would impact the Anderson's view. He stated that he would defer the issue of eliminating the upper level deck to the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that in viewing the site from various angles, she did not find the second story addition to be objectionable. She felt that the size of the addition was modest and that it may improve the house and give the homeowners an opportunity to clean up the property. Also, the addition would enhance not only the subject property but that of the neighbors. She did not believe that the addition would impact anyone's life style and that she could support the addition as submitted. Chairman Murakami stated that at the site visit, it was noticed that the lot was constrained as far as where an addition can be placed. Legally, the owner was within the limits to construct the addition at the height being requested. He indicated that he understood the concerns as expressed by the Andersons. However, he would support the request with the elimination of the upper story deck. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUESTING A RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE ELIMINATION OF THE UPPER LEVEL DECK. Ms. Skov stated that she would not object to the elimination of the second story deck. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-042, AS CONDITIONED BY STAFF WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE SECOND STORY DECK. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 8 - PATRICK AND PIERCE VOTING NO. The Commission recessed at 8:36 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:48 p.m. 3. GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 & DR-94-004 - I\TDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS; 14500 FRUITVALEAVE.;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 requests for General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review approval have been heard at several Planning Commission public hearings. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and recommended for certification by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Odd Fellows' representatives are now requesting that the City of Saratoga enter into a Development Agreement with Odd Fellows to assure that upon approval of the project they may proceed with the project in accordance with existing rules and regulations (cont. from 1/24/96; City review deadline is 3/6/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the development agreement has been noticed for tonight's meeting and that it was prepared by the applicant's representative. The development agreement would allow the applicant a 10 year window period to build out as the applicant feels that this time period would be necessary for a project of this type and scope. In exchange, the applicant would offer the city the following: 1) a guarantee that there would be an open occupancy availability to all seniors; 2) program to provide early notification to Saratoga seniors of unit availability; 3) allows for perimeter landscaping adjacent to Crisp Avenue to be installed prior to commencement of construction of the buildings; 4) open space easement; 5) proposed additional drainage improvements beyond what the scope of the impact of the project; and 6) a guarantee that should the project be approved, that the 11 units proposed on the 10.6 southern acres would be developed. Planner Walgren recommended that the public hearing be opened on the development agreement and that the development agreement be discussed. Should the Commission find the development agreement acceptable, staff would recommend that the development agreement, the general plan text amendment, the use permit and the design review applications be forwarded to the City Council for approval. He informed the Commission that the State's Permit Streamlining Act requires that local jurisdiction complete its review of projects such as this one within a one year period. He indicted that this project would be nearing that one year time limit (March 6, 1996). Planner Walgren read into the record correspondence received from the following individuals: Jeffrey Schwartz, San Marcos Road, (summarizing eight topics of concern, many of which deal with the procedural review of this project); Linda Callon with the law firm of Berliner Cohen, representing the Odd Fellows (addressed the fact that a letter was received from the Law Offices of William D. Ross, representing the Fire District, contesting the EIR PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 9 - • requirements and conditions of approval which would require the purchase of an aerial fire truck for the Fire District. Being challenged was the connection of the impact that the project has and that of providing afire truck), and a letter from William D. Ross (supporting the Fire District's request for the fire truck). Also distributed to the Commission this evening vas a packet of information containing a series of correspondence between the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks addressed to Mayor Jacobs, responded to by City Manager Peacock and a second letter from the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks addressed the water quality of the creeks as well as the City Manager's subsequent response to that letter. Planner Walgren indicated that the author of the letter, Mr. Whetstone, performed storm water quality tests at various outfall locations below the property and raised concerns regarding the water quality at the Odd Fellows site. Planner Walgren noted that some of the drainage systems came from adjacent development and not from the Odd Fellows' site. He informed the Commission that City Attorney Riback has reviewed this information and was prepared to answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff where this new information would fit as the Commission has already reviewed the final EIR? Planner Walgren responded that the letters address hydrology to a degree but that primarily, the letters are commenting on the level of bacteria in the storm water found downstream and contesting that it was not properly addressed in the EIR. City Attorney Riback clarified that the letters were addressed to the Mayor and that this would be included as part of the City Council packet. In the interest of full disclosure, the City wanted to make sure that the Commission was made aware of these correspondence. He indicated that they have been responded to by City staff. It was the City's belief that the response was more than adequate, that the issues raised were dealt with adequately in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and that there was no need to further consider this matter other than as described in the City Manager's letters. Commissioner Abshire asked staff if exhibit "A"consists of the 22 pages of plans that were included in the Commission's packet. Planner Walgren indicated that the 22 pages of plans were to be identified as exhibit A. Commissioner Abshire requested that the applicant identify the changes that have been made. Planner Walgren clarified that the changes made to the plans were refinements to the plans to make them consistent with the changes that were made at the November public hearing. At the November public hearing, the Commission requested that the applicant address the various plan revisions (i.e., taking the cottages off the hilltop, reversing the roadway, eliminating the fire access road). Those changes were incorporated in the site plan but that the changes were not made consistently throughout the entire plan. Commissioner Kaplan noted that exhibit A was not the exhibit A to the development agreement. Planner Walgren clarified that the development agreement contains its own exhibits A, B and C which are separate from the staff report. 'PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Kaplan noted that exhibit C was not included as a part of the development agreement and asked what exhibit C was? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff did not receive a copy of exhibit C but that the description of exhibit C states that it is supposed to be a map that identifies the open space easement. He informed the Commission that the open space easement is shown on the plan set distributed to the Commission. Staff recommended that the open space easement be expanded along the entire drainage system and not just along the west edges as shown on the set of plans. Chairman Murakami noted that the public hearing remained opened from the last Commission meeting. Linda Callon, representing the Odd Fellows, requested that the Commission take action on the general plan amendment, use permit, design review and development agreement. She indicated that the Odd Fellows would like to provide more senior housing in Saratoga. A partnership is now being sought with the City through a development agreement to provide senior housing. The development agreement would give the Odd Fellows time to build out the project so that the approvals are valid for a longer period of time than the two years that is generally given in the use permit and design review approval. She informed the Commission that the development agreement was structured after the development agreement that was granted to Greenbriar in April 1995, including a few modifications. She indicated that this project was special to Saratoga as it fulfills the Housing Element objective for senior housing and diversity of housing among seniors and Saratoga residents. Ms. Callon indicated that the last part of Exhibit B of the development agreement identities how the 10.6 acre parcel is to be developed. She indicated that an initiative is attempting to affect this part of the project. She indicated that Odd Fellows would agree to construct all of the duplex units on the 10.6 acres or that part of the duplex units would be constructed and that at that time, an easement would be dedicated that would restrict development on the rest of the property so that it follows the master plan. She identified a third option as being that if it is found that there are some reasons for not developing the cottages as part of phase I, that there would be a dedication of a private open space easement. This easement would either restrict future development to the master plan design of duplex units or an easement would be dedicated to restrict the 10.6 acre to the general plan and zoning that currently exists. She felt that this requirement would alleviate the fear expressed regarding future requests for intense development. Ms. Callon requested that the Commission modify the following conditions contained in the use permit/design review resolution: - Condition 2.f. talks about asking the Odd Fellows to show a good faith effort to obtain an easement across 100 foot of property on San Marcos Road in order to combine the two private roads at the intersection of Fruitvale. She requested that this condition be deleted because the EIR did not find any significant effects even though it acknowledged the peculiar intersection. She indicated that the Odd Fellows did not have a good working relationship with their neighbors. She would not be - 'PLANNING COMMISS>~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 11 - able to explain to her clients as to what is meant by a good faith effort. She noted that the City could condemn the property or request that both property owners dedicate an easement. - Condition 52 -She acknowledged sending a letter to staff requesting relief from part of the condition which requires the purchase of a fire truck for the Fire District (as part of phase II). She noted that the EIR states that the Fire District originally wanted a prorata share of a paramedic or medical personnel. The factual analysis of the EIR indicate that there were 37 calls from the Odd Fellows in the year that it was analyzed and that there were 786 calls in the City. Of the 37 calls, only 4 calls were related to fire calls and that the remainder of the calls related to either a medical response or service call. The EIR concluded that it was a potentially significant impact to have an increase of 134 units on site and that it was fair to require some kind of medical response on the property. Instead of the requested 24- hour life support service personnel, the Fire District was now requesting that the Odd Fellows purchase afire truck. She did not believe that there vas anything in the fact analysis that states that there was a connection with what this project is proposing and the need for a new fire truck. She indicated that she received a letter late this afternoon from the Fire District which explained the laws that sets out when the Fire District can request items. She stated that facts have to support the legal analysis and that she did not believe that it does. She requested that a portion of the condition relating to the purchase of a fire truck be deleted as it is estimated to cost approximately $300,000+ to purchase afire truck. The number of units to be increased is only 134. The purchase of a fire truck would add a $2,500 per unit cost. - Condition 59 -She sent a letter to the City addressing the Odd Fellows picking up the defense cost for the City should there be a law suit filed against the City. She indicated that this matter has been addressed in the development agreement (paragraph 16, page 9). She requested that this condition be deleted or that the condition be amended to read: "To conform with Development Agreement, Section 16, page 9). y - Condition 60 is a liquidated damage provision that states that if the Odd Fellows is in violation of the conditions, that damages are to be imposed on a daily basis. She requested relief from this condition and that it be replaced with the standard condition which would allow for a public hearing to determine if there is a violation of the use permit and to determine whether the city would modify the use permit or revoke the use permit. Commissioner Asfour stated that he appreciated the fact that the applicants came up with a hydrology plan for the area and acknowledged that this plan was more than what is required by the applicant to improve the existing neighborhood. He referred to the following sections of exhibit B of the development agreement: paragraph 2 - he noted that only a one week notice was being recommended prior to release of information. He recommended that the time be changed to 15 days. He referred to the last line of exhibit PLANNING COMMISS)! MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 12 - B and noted that the applicant was requesting deletion of conditions 3, 4 and 6. He recommended that condition 3 be deleted because this condition should have been completed by that time (landscaping is to be installed immediately). Commissioner Kaplan noted that the discussion on the fire truck has been going on for a long time and that an objection vas not previously raised by the applicant. Ms. Callon indicated that she did not come into the project until late in the process and that she was not aware of this requirement until it was listed as a condition in November. She indicated that she met with the Fire District and requested that the condition be deleted. She informed the Commission that this issue has not be resolved. Commissioner Patrick asked if the Odd Fellows would be responsible for defending the City if a third party sued the City for any action taken by the City relating to the Odd Fellows development (paragraph 16 of the development agreement)? Ms. Callon responded that the Odd Fellows' counsel would select the attorney who is to defend the City unless the City elects to use separate counsel. City Attorney Riback indicated that Ms. Callon representation of paragraph 16 was his understanding of what vas the intent of that paragraph. He informed the Commission that this paragraph was negotiated in the Greenbriar Development Agreement and that it was intended to protect the City's interest and to assure that the City does not end having to expend a great deal of funds to defend the applicant. City Attorney Riback further clarified that the development agreement has a requirement for an annual review. It is at this point in time that issues relating to non-compliance are raised on the part of the developer. He indicated that he did not object to the deletion of condition 60. He indicated that the defense and indemnification was what was critical to the City. The developer would normally want to have control as to who defends the City. This was an issue that the City can take issue with. Commissioner Asfour asked City Attorney Riback regarding the two parallel roads and whether the Planning Commission could request condemnation of land and force the two roads to be merged? City Attorney Riback indicated that in the case of a subdivision map, there are provisions that states that a subdivider is to obtain the property interest of someone else's property. If it cannot be obtained, the City is required to move forward with condemnation if the condition is to be met. In this case, there is no such requirement in state law. The best that the City can do is to request that a good faith effort be made. He indicated that if the City really wanted to merge the two roads, that the City would need to condemn the property and make it a public road as property can only be condemned if it serves public interest. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the condition, as worded, requires that the applicant make a "good faith effort" . If there was a hazard, she felt that the individuals residing on the other side would be more than happy to have somebody help them to improve a safety hazard. She stated that at this time, she would not be agreeable to force the Odd Fellows PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 13 - to do more than send a letter requesting an easement from the neighbor(s). She asked if there was more to this condition than the issue of "attempt"? City Attorney Riback did not believe that there was more to this condition than to have the Odd Fellows make a good faith effort. Susan Masiello, 19271 San Marcos Road, addressed the drainage problem on her property. She indicated that two of her property lines have been excavated because of trees and shrub problems. Ten days ago because of the storm, the drainage ditch was within two to three inches of overflowing and that the back drainage ditch was currently overflowing. She noted that the Odd Fellows' site has two culverts that dump water into her yard. When she noticed the second culvert, she contacted the city because she thought it vas a plumbing problem. City staff inspected the site and that she was told that the water came from a spring located on the side of the hill on the Odd Fellows site. She expressed concern with the bacteria associated with water bound streams. She stated that she has noticed an increase in the mosquito population. She expressed concern that additional buildings at the Odd Fellows site would flood her yard and family room. y Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the mosquito problem in Santa Clara County was a vector control problem as the County has ceased to mitigate the mosquito problem. Sara Stephenson, 12491 Jolen Court, stated that she was representing the League of Women Voters. She read a letter from the League in support of the provisions of Senior Housing in Saratoga. The League supports General Plans and zoning ordinances that facilitate the development of housing for seniors; supports undertaking ongoing evaluations of senior needs and housing restrictions; supports changes in local government regulations to reduce the cost of housing and encourages the construction of rental units. Based on these positions, the League encourages the City to facilitate and approve the plan for development of the Odd Fellows property. She indicated that the League does not take a stand on an issues unless it was studied. She informed the Commission that the League has studied the need for senior housing and that the League feels very strongly that this request needs to be facilitated. Chung Park, 14642 Via de Marcos, expressed concern regarding the cottages that are to be located along the road located to the left of the site plan. He noted that a in previous document, he recalled seeing only half as many units proposed. The number of cottages proposed and their closeness lends itself to a sardine type of a look. He felt that the cottages would be incompatible with the overall atmosphere and the look and feel of the neighborhood. He requested that the landscape buffer be extended along the bottom of the map depicted in consideration of the neighbors located at the bottom as well as the neighbors located to the left of the property. William D. Ross, attorney representing the Saratoga Fire Protection District, indicated that his remarks would supplement those of the written communication. He informed the Commission that it was the District's position that condition 52 dealing with the aerial fire ~~PLANNING COMMISS)~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 14 - truck was justified by substantial evidence. He pointed out that it was not the District's burden of proof to establish this once the issue is verified and that the burden of proof was that of the applicants. He noted that the issue was first raised on June 13, 1995 by the Chief in the draft EIR. This resulted in a response to comments which are designated as SFG 1-8 contained in the response to comments portion of the final EIR. It was his belief that the applicant's representative first met with the District regarding condition 52 on February 2, 1996 and that the representative indicated that the Odd Fellows would not be willing to buy a fire truck. He referred the Commission to Public Resources Code, Section 21177 A and B which recognizes the District's obligation to raise this issue. Mr. Ross felt that there were some critical facts that the Commission should be made aware of and that all matters to be addressed by the applicant would have to be substantiated. It was his belief that the Chief's analysis of June 1995 as well as those of William Maxwell, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. attached as exhibit A, analyzed the methodology employed by the District to come up with the requirement for an aerial fire truck. It was believed that the characteristics of this project as proposed, justifies the purchase of the apparatus for the Fire District (i.e., doubling of senior population, characteristic of the footprint of the facility, the limited access to the facility, and the ability to have the aerial capability to rescue seniors from potential hazards). He did not believe that the applicant has a problem with the Advanced Life Support (ALS) requirements as contained in condition 52. He stated that the District's records for the calendar year 1995 shows that the existing facility accounts for over 10% of the medical assistance to the District. He noted that there are several General Plan policies regarding senior housing. It was his belief that the correct policy for determining consistency with the General Plan contained in the General Plan Guidelines (page 212) issued by the Governor's Office (1990). Specifically a project can be found consistent with the General Plan if it meets all of the goals and policies of the General Plan. Pages 26 and 47 of the Safety Element clearly indicates that access is a major concern. Mr. Ross indicated that the District neither favors nor opposes the project but that if it is to be approved, it is believed that condition 52 is essential. Should condition 52 be deleted, it would create a problem with the sufficiency of the final EIR because response to comment SF #1 indicates that this is a significant effect on the environment. Should the City approve the applications, it would be appropriate to add condition 52.1 which would stipulate that the applicant is to comply with all of the provisions of the State Building Codes which include the Uniform Fire Code because of the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 18938B. This condition would clarify the obligations and whether permits for authorization are discretionary or ministerial in the future. He felt that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the need for an aerial apparatus as this was a unique facility. The district does not want to appear before the City in years to come to justify why some incident occurred at this facility. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Ross what was so unique about this facility as compared to a three story condominium located in the downtown area. Mr. Ross responded that the EIR states that there are significant development concerns from a fire safety stand point ' - PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 15 - . capability and with the composition of the residents of the facility (seniors). He indicated that there were no other facilities proposed with limited access. He stated that he did not contest that there would be an incidental benefit to the balance of the city and that this would be the fifth 1500 GPM apparatus in the District. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission recommended certification of the EIR to the City Council and that it included the requirement of a fire truck. She asked the City Attorney if this was the time to reopen the EIR. City Attorney Riback responded that the EIR was not being reopened by discussion of this matter. The Commission was dealing with the question of whether this particular mitigation measure should be imposed as a condition of approval, or whether it should not be required or whether there vas a middle ground between the two options. He did not believe that it was inappropriate to deal with this issue at this time. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Ross agreed with the estimated cost for the fire apparatus as being $300,000. Mr. Ross agreed with this estimate based on the statements made this evening. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the additional cost associated with an aerial feature? Mr. Ross responded that all fire apparatus manufacturers would state that it vas not an additional cost. Commissioner Asfour stated that this requirement seemed to be a form of extortion. He asked why this has become an issue at the 11th hour? Mr. Ross directed this question to the applicant as this requirement has been in the public forum since June 1995. The requirement was applicable to this facility and that the district does not view this as being an issue of an extortion for the reasons previously stated (not wanting to explain why the District was not able to save a resident). City Attorney Riback stated that the issue that is dealt with in the EIR was not the purchase of a ladder or aerial fire truck but that of making one available. If a fire apparatus is made available through the Los Gatos Fire District and a mutual aid agreement exists between Los Gatos and Saratoga Fire Districts or between the City and other Fire Districts, that may well satisfy the requirement of having an aerial fire truck available to respond to any incidents that may arise on this property. Mr. Ross indicated that he was familiar with the Mutual Aid agreement. The agreement states that only upon availability when not needed in the jurisdiction of origin would the fire apparatus be made available. There were no guarantees that this issue can be addressed. Commissioner Asfour noted that it was stated that there were four apparatuses in the district. He asked if this would be the only apparatus with an aerial ladder? Mr. Ross responded that this would be the only apparatus that would have the aerial capability and that the other fire apparatuses have side ladder capabilities. Commissioner Siegfried noted that there was at least one, three story building in Saratoga. He asked Mr. Ross if he was indicating that the District could not service the facility with ' = 'PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 16 - the existing equipment? Mr. Ross responded that the existing structures could be serviced based on the characteristics of the building. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, felt that staff's advise to the Commission was wrong with regards for the need of an instant approval. He felt that the development agreement was an exercise to circumvent an initiative. The development agreement would not afford the protection that has been discussed for several months. He felt that it was a one sided agreement. The applicant can allow any of the agreed upon provisions to lapse and then return to request development at a higher density on undeveloped portions of the land. The senior access agreement was not well defined and does not offer true protection. The City has lost the open space that was to be preserved in previous approvals. The open space is now going to be an easement over what is left of the riparian corridor. He noted that one of the huge massive structures would be built into the riparian corridor. He addressed water quality and noted that the findings of the "Friends" were 2.5 times that of the federal limit. If the Odd Fellows project is approved, there would be an increase if the City allows intensification of the use. He noted that drainage plans were not provided. He indicated that the neighbors support the fire district's request. If the City vas going to ignore the General Plan and allow three to four story structures in the middle of residential neighborhoods, he requested that the City makes sure that the fire department has what it needs to access the structures. He did not know why there was a rush to get this request to the Council. Other cities have development plans for large projects that go on for more than a year if an extension is secured. If an extension is not authorized, the project is denied. He felt that the Odd Fellows would go through months not telling the City that they have any intentions of buying a fire truck, leaving it in the agreements and than come forward at the last minute. He hoped that the Commission continues its deliberation to make this project work. Dom Richiuso requested that the City ensure that whatever is agreed to in the master plan is what is built out over time, making the master plan irrevocable. One way to ensure that the master plan is build out as approved is to provide for an open space easement anywhere where it is not buildable to prevent further development in the future. He did not know why the City had to give up things to the developer in return fora 10 year buildout. He addressed paragraph 4.2 (term of the agreement); 5.1 (if there is to be a change in the future, there need not be a public hearing and that the public would not be aware of proposed changes); 7.3 (moratorium not applicable -this was a way to circumvent this issue; it does not belong in this agreement); and 9.3 (no such operating memorandum shall constitute an amendment to this agreement requiring public notice or hearing -this was an example of what has happened in the past, keeping individuals in the dark). He indicated that exhibit B addressed only the 10.6 acres, specifically items 3, 4, and 6. He recommended that the entire project be included, not just the 10.6 acres). The last paragraph located on the last page states: "...may take any action necessary to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. It was his interpretation of this section that if something changes, there can be an increase in density. He felt that the development agreement contained several loop holes. He could not understand why the city could approve the development agreement as it does not do anything that the city wants it do. PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 17 - Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Coun, acknowledged that the draft development agreement was submitted by the applicant's counsel and that it does not necessarily reflects the city's position. He addressed the "cancellation by mutual consent" and the use of a consent calendar without proper notification being given. He felt that the public should be included in some fashion in those provisions. Regarding exhibit B, item 3, page 1, it refers to a perimeter landscaping. He felt that the entire perimeter of the property should have the benefit of a landscape buffer because the view corridor would be impacted all around the property. Regarding the open space easement, he felt that it should be ensured that the 20- 30 acre site does not include additional development outside the building areas. He recommended that an open space easement also be required under section 6.a. should the project not develop as is stipulated under section 6.c. Commissioner Asfour informed Mr. Borelli that any item on a consent calendar can be removed from the consent calendar by the Commission or the public. The fact that an item is on a consent calendar does not mean that the item is being slipped under the carpet. Mr. Borelli commented that had the adjacent residents been notified of the material change that was accommodated under the consent calendar of phase III of Rogers and Brook, he could assure the Commission that the residents would have packed the chambers and raised their concerns. He requested that if there was a major material change being contemplated, that the neighborhood be notified. and that it not be placed on a consent calendar. Bob Finocchio, 19160 Crisp Avenue, stated that he would not enter into this type of an agreement as it does not protect the City. He felt that the ten year term for the contract was too long. He felt that if the applicant could not afford this development, the applicant should not apply to build this development. He asked what were the remedies should the applicant not follow through with the provisions of the agreement? He inquired as to the successors' ability to modify the project in the future. Ms. Callon indicated that the development agreement was fashioned after the development agreement entered into with Greenbriar. It was believed that the development agreement would give the Odd Fellows some security that they can build the project and at the same time to provide the City with some benefits that it may not otherwise have. She explained that the reason for the timeline was due to the time that was needed to get state approval for the skilled nursing facility. She noted that it takes 12 to 18 months to build a skilled nursing facility and that the rest of the facilities would not take as long to build. Construction of the project would not be more than a two to three year process. Regarding the Fire District's condition, she apologized for addressing this concern at this late of a date. She indicated that it was a condition of approval that was recently brought to her attention. She did not believe that the facts support what has been suggested to the Commission. The fact was that only four fire calls out of 700+ have occurred. The EIR states that the Fire District has three Class A 1500 GPM engines at this time. The agreement also states that not only is there a mutual aid agreement through the county but in fact there is an automatic aid agreement with the neighboring cities (Los Gatos and Cupertino). She felt that whatever fire protection was being provided was being made available through the 'PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 18 - automatic aid agreement. She noted that further build out was restricted by the General Plan and zoning. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked the City Attorney if there was a way for the City to grant an extension to the one year Permit Streamlining Act limit? City Attorney Riback responded that an extension must be agreed upon by the applicant and that the maximum extension that can be granted would be for a three month period. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the Commission review the development agreement sequentially. Commissioner Siegfried asked City Attorney Riback how binding this agreement would be? He indicated that the neighbors have requested that should the Commission approve the request, that it is done with. He did not get that sense from this agreement that this would be accomplished. He asked if there were other things that the City could do to ensure that this proposal would be the ultimate development that would be allowed on the site? City Attorney Riback indicated that he was not aware of any agreement or any other approvals that can be made that would be irrevocable so as to guarantee that the project is going to be built as approved. He indicated that the applicant has the right to build or not build the project. The applicants have agreed to record a private open space should the cottages not be built in response to this concern. He stated that there were no guarantees that the applicant would follow through with an approval after it is received. Comments on the development agreement Page 2, Section 4.2, Term of the Agreement -Commissioner Kaplan noted that Ms. Callon has suggested that the 10 year period be retained because all of the preliminary approvals would cut off their right to build on a normal two year build out. She asked if there could be a revision to this section that stipulates that the initial processing of the application was not counted (the project is put on hold until the application is approved and that the project is ready to obtain permits, giving the applicant five years to develop from that date). City Attorney Riback indicated that there was nothing to prevent the city from amending the section as recommended by the Commission other than the applicant's failure to agree to the amendment. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a degree of comfort with this agreement. He noted that the 1982 master plan vas to be the final development of the land, noting that it is now 1996 and that it is being suggested that this was to be the final master plan with no further requests for development other than what is being presented. He felt that a penalty should be built into the agreement should the developer not build according to the master plan. City Attorney Riback agreed that there were no guarantees that the project would develop as proposed. ' = ~ PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 19 - Commissioner Asfour asked if the agreement limits the applicant to three options as listed in Exhibit "B"? City Attorney Riback responded that the agreement would limit the development potential of the site for the term of the agreement. He noted that the penalties for not proceeding in the manner as stipulated in the development agreement would need to be agreed upon by the applicant. City Attorney Riback noted that a question was raised with regard to Section 5.1-The right to develop and the phrase that states that "any amendment to any of them shall from time to time be approved pursuant to this agreement. " He noted that state law stipulates that development agreements can amended and that an amendment may not occur unless it returns to the Commission and City Council through the public hearing process. Commissioner Patrick indicated that the term of the agreement means that the City and the developer are bound by the agreement for a period of time. She indicated that the agreement does not state that construction needs to take place. Commissioner Abshire noted that the developer has agreed to mitigate any drainage problems in the area regardless of whether this project develops or not. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the major concern vas that of the 10.6 acre site. He felt that there has to be some ~vay to tie down what is being developed in such a way that it becomes over and done with. The neighbors basic concern as to the overall project was that City and the developer do something that gets that 10.6 acre developed one way or another. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that he has stated at worksessions and at previous public hearings that the only way to guarantee that the 10.6 acres be developed was to require that the cottages be built. The question was that of how this can be accomplished. He indicated that there exists a planning term known as "leap frog development" whereby you skip over undeveloped land. In this case, the City could require as a condition of approval that the construction and occupancy permit issuance on the 11 cottages be secured prior to the issuance of any other permits. Paragraph 6.2 -Uniform Codes Applicable, Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Fire District's attorney indicated that there were new fire standards. She noted that one item was not included in the paragraph relating to state permits for the health facilities. She suggested that should the applicant attempt to be certified for Medicare and for Medical, that the applicants need to obtain state and federal approval (no mention to federal programs). City Attorney Riback indicated that the agreement could be amended to include reference to federal programs as well as reference to the Fire Codes. Paragraph 7.3 -Commissioner Asfour requested that City Attorney Riback interpret this paragraph. City Attorney Riback indicated that the intent of this paragraph was to clarify what is already a law. He stated that when a development agreement is issued, it vests rights to the developer to build a project in accordance with the standards in effect at time of approval. It was his belief that this provision was intended to respond, in part, to the • PLANNING COMMISS)• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 20 - initiative. He noted that the initiative exempts projects that already have vested rights. The development agreement is a form of a vested right. Even without this paragraph, the state of the law was such that the development agreement would provide a vested right to allow the applicant to move forward regardless of the initiative. The purpose for inserting this paragraph was to clarify and emphasis this position. Paragraph 7.4 -Commissioner Asfour felt that there was language missing from the end of the paragraph. He recommended that the following be included at the end of the paragraph: "in no way affect or impair DEVELOPER'S vested rights under Agreement loii~~° ~as the pr~jcct is completed ori~ time " or something to that affect. Chairman Murakami agreed that paragraph 7.4 was opened ended. He asked if this paragraph could be amended? Commissioner Asfour asked if the vested rights expire with the expiration of the term of the agreement? City Attorney Riback responded that it would. Commissioner Kaplan noted that paragraph 7.4 contains language that the Commission objects to regarding the developer's right to build but not the obligation to develop the property in any order. She recommended that the language as suggested by Community Development Director Curtis be included in this section which stipulates that cottages are to be built prior to the issuance of other permits for the remainder of the facility. Commissioner Asfour stated that he supported Commissioner Kaplan's recommended modification. However, he did not believe that this modification would be acceptable to the applicant. He felt that the language would need to be drafted and returned that would be acceptable to both parties. He recommended that language be included in exhibit B that would stipulate that should the cottages (not be built within a designated period of time, an open space easement is to be designated. He asked if this was a legal modification. City Attorney Riback responded that this recommendation was feasible. noting that this recommendation vas different from what the Community Development Director's recommendation. Commissioner Patrick suggested that the Commission recommend the provisions to the City Council as an either or provision (the applicant is to build out everything, that the 11 cottages be built, or that should the cottages not be built within a specified time frame, the land is to be preserved as open space. City Attorney Riback indicated that the Commission could recommend alternatives to the City Council as to how it would like to see this project phased. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her understanding that the applicant would reserve the area around the riparian corridor as open space as well as the area located to the west. • ~ PLANNING COMMISSI! MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 21 - Planner Walgren clarified that there were two open space easements. One of the easements was a requirement of project approval for the entire length of the drainage corridor. The applicant's agreement would be that if the applicant only builds part or none of the cottages, that they would record an open space easement around everything on that 10.6 acre parcel that would otherwise be open, restricting development. It was his belief that the applicants were indicating that they would either build the cottages or that if the cottages were not built immediately, that an open space easement would be recorded. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern that should the applicant wait 10 years and if nothing is built, the City would have no recourse. Ms. Callon noted that paragraph 7.4,relating to the timing of development, was not an open ended paragraph. City Attorney agreed with the comments of Ms. Callon and noted that paragraph 7.4 references paragraph 5.3 and the additional conditions as set forth in Exhibit B. Chairman Murakami informed the applicant and the public present this evening that the Commission would not be able to consider agenda items 4, 5, and 6 this evening due to the lateness in the hour and that the Commission would be continuing these items to the Commission's next meeting. 4. UP-95-007 - CO\TGREGATION BETH DAVID; 19700 PROSPECT ROAD, - CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION;120331tIILLERAVENUE; Request for a joint Use Permit to allow Congregation Beth David and the Church of the Ascension to participate annually in the "Faith in Action" Rotating Shelter Program during the months of June and August respectively. The program offers shelter, meals and employment assistance to a maximum of 15 transitionally homeless adults. The facilities are located directly adjacent to one another in the R-1-10,000 residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. SD-95-009 & V-9~-014 -1TAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single- family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. UP-95-008 - KOLOTOUROS; 20201 A~IERIDA DR.; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a residential zoning district. The subject property fronts onto Merida Dr. and abuts Prospect Rd. to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. ' ~ J ~ PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 22 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CONTINUE AGENDA ITEMS 4, 5, AND 6 TO ITS FEBRUARY 28, 1996 MEETING. Paragraph 9.3 -Operating Memoranda. City Attorney Riback noted that reference was made by a speaker regarding paragraph 9.3 relating to the Operating Memoranda. He indicated that the intent was to provide the normal standard operating procedure whenever there are minor clarifications or modifications to be made to the large project during the course of the project. Staff would need to decide whether the modification was minor or whether it has to return to the Commission or City Council for action. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that public hearing consent calendar items are noticed in the paper. However notifications are not mailed to the adjacent residents unless the item is advertised as a public hearing. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff make sure that any modifications for this project be placed on the public hearing calendar to address the residents concern about notification. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the examples as listed in paragraph 9.3.If you go from a skilled nursing to an assisted living, she felt that this was a dramatic change. She asked why these were considered insignificant alterations to the project? City Attorney responded that these were examples submitted by the applicant and that the applicant wanted this particular language inserted. He recommended that the Commission ask the applicant the rationale for this section. Commissioner Kaplan felt that this language gives the applicant the option to amend the original plans. If the Commission agrees to a congregate care unit and that at a later date, the applicant wants to convert it toyan assisted living quarters, she did not believe that it could be approved and recommended that it be stricken. Commissioner Patrick felt that this paragraph appears to state that the applicant can change those uses that cannot be seen from the outside. She felt that it should be made clear that the City does not expect that the cottages be suddenly changed to a dormitory. She felt that the language may affect density in the "for the instance" portion of the paragraph. She recommended that this section be deleted. City Attorney Riback indicated that this paragraph was submitted by the applicant to help clarify what this paragraph is intended to mean. If the language was not consistent with what the Commission wants to see, he recommended that the Commission delete this section. Commissioner Kaplan did not support the retention of the last sentence of paragraph 9.3 because it would authorize the City Manager to execute an operating memoranda without Council approval. City Attorney Riback stated that staff already has the ability to approve minor clarifications or modifications that do not affect density, intensity of use, bulk, mass, size, architectural design, etc. , and would be similar to a field change order. s •-~~ 'PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 23 - Commissioner Kaplan felt that this sentence goes beyond a change order. She did not believe that an operating memorandum authority should be given to the City Manager without City Council approval if a procedure was already in place to deal with change work orders. She did not believe that it should be expanded. City Attorney Riback recommended that paragraph 9.3 be deleted should the Commission not feel comfortable with this provision. Paragraph 11.2 -Annual Review Process. Commissioner Asfour noted for the record that during the break he discussed with the attorney the last two sentences which reads: "Unless the City Council elects for the matter to be heard at a public hearing, the hearing shall be conducted by the Council as anon-public hearing. The burden of proof of good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement shall be upon the DEVELOPER. " He noted that the Commission has indicated that it would recommend public hearings on this project and that it be ensured that any recommendations that are made by the Commission are applied throughout the agreement and that it contain no conflicts. Paragraph 11.3 -Termination. Commissioner Asfour asked City Attorney Riback if modification and termination of the agreement was a two way street? City Attorney Riback clarified that this section was contained in the Greenbriar agreement and that he argued for its retention because it gives the City the authority to terminate, cancel or modify the agreement if the applicant was not operating in compliance with the agreement after being notified. Paragraph 11.5 -Fee for Annual Review. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that this section be amended to require that the fees to be collected would recover all costs associated with normal procedures so that the City does not have to make up the difference if the cost is higher. Paragraph 16 -Attorney's Fees and Cost. Commissioner Patrick asked if a provision should be included that stipulates that the city can select a different attorney should it find itself in conflict with the attorney selected by the applicant. City Attorney Riback responded that this would be subject to a written consent by the City. Paragraph 17.1 -Right to Assign. Commissioner Abshire asked if the City has the right to approve the company that the project is assigned to or can the City reject the assignment? City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that the applicant requested the deletion of this provision but that the City could reinstate the provision. Commissioner Kaplan noted that at one point, someone asked why this agreement was requested for a period of time and that it vas not binding on its successors. She noted that paragraph 18 indicates that the agreement runs with the land. So whomever may buy the Odd Fellows' project, is bound by this agreement. She pointed out this stipulation to the public. e ~~` , "PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 24 - Paragraph 19 -Bankruptcy. Commissioner Patrick asked if this was a valid paragraph? City Attorney Riback responded that the intent of this paragraph was for the City's benefit. Exhibit B Section 1 -Residency Criteria. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the criteria as listed under Section 1 relating to the residency criteria be tightened. She noted that this subsection gives first preference to individuals residing on the property. She recommended that a new subsection b. be added that would read: "Second preference will be granted to other Saratoga residents for a period of thirty days". The existing subsection l.b. is to be relabeled as subsection l.c. Section 3 -Perimeter Landscaping by Crisp Avenue. Commissioner Patrick recollected that the Commission specified landscaping that was to be installed along Crisp Avenue because it would not be affected by any construction. She indicated that Crisp Avenue was not being given preference but that the Commission was trying to accommodate construction and the road. She was not aware of any landscaping that would be installed otherwise that would not be affected. Chairman Murakami and Commissioner Asfour recommended the installation of additional screening along the northern boundary of Chester Avenue. Commissioner Abshire noted that Mr. Park requested that landscaping be installed along Via de Marcos. Commissioner Asfour noted that installation of landscaping along Via de Marcos would be damaged due to construction. Chairman Murakami asked staff if the Commission's suggestion regarding landscaping should be addressed in this document at this time or should it be addressed at time of design review. Community Development Director responded that the Commission can, at this time, identify what part of the phasing the landscaping is to be installed. Should a problem with installation be identified, the issue would return to the Commission for its review. Section 4 -Open Space Easement. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he would like to see the open space easement expanded as addressed by Planner WalQren in his opening remarks. Not having seen exhibit C he was not sure what vas being referred to under this section. At the request of Commissioner Asfour, Planner Walgren identified the location of the open space easement as following the ridgeline, taking in part of the upper drainage system. This is consistent with where the open space easement was recorded for the previous Rogers and Brook Phase III. Staff recommended that the open space be recorded on the other side of the drainage system, including both sides of the riparian habitat. He indicated that there was not a requirement to include Via de Marco in the open space easement at this time. However, an open space easement would include the western portion of Via de Marco should the cottages not be built immediately upon approval of phase I. s ,S ;" 'PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 25 - Section 6 -Phasing. Community Development Director Curtis clarified the options available under Section 6 as being: 1) the applicant can construct the 11 cottages and receive occupancy permits prior to the issuance of building permits for new buildings; or 2) if the 11 cottages are not built within the 10 year term of the development agreement, that the remaining portion of the 10.6 acre site would revert to open space with the exception of the building envelopes. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not want the agreement to prohibit the upgrade of the existing facilities. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the applicant should be allowed to complete phase 1 which includes upgrading the existing buildings and the construction of the new skilled nursing facility. Nothing else would be allowed unless the cottages are built. If phase I is not built out, the applicant would not be allowed to build the new apartment unit(s). Commissioner Asfour requested that reference to condition 3 located on the last paragraph, last sentence of the second page of exhibit be deleted. The Commission noted the comments were expressed on drainage. City Attorney Riback stated that although the comments were received following the close of the public review period relating to drainage, the City looked into this matter. The City contacted the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. According to both of these agencies, the EPA standards referred to by Mr. Whetstone were not relevant to water quality health issues. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she has reviewed the correspondence and stated that she was satisfied that the concerns expressed were addressed by the City and that according to the final EIR, the concern would be mitigated. Planner Walgren acknowledged that the timing of the project was stated as a condition. He indicated that the normal review procedure would be to have the applicant request a grading permit from the city, this would activate the grading and drainage plan for the entire development. He indicated that staff was satisfied with this procedure. City Attorney Riback indicated that staff has noted the changes as recommended by the Commission to the development agreement and that staff would prepare a redlined version of the changes that were made by the Commission. Aerial Fire Truck Chairman Murakami felt that there was a safety liability. He noted that equipment of this type was needed. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the requirement of the aerial truck be retained and forwarded to the City Council. However, he recommended that factual information be PLANNING COMMISS1i MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14.1996 PAGE - 26 - furnished to the City Council. Commissioner Asfour stated that he vas disturbed by the fact that this issue was being presented at the eleventh hour and that he was displeased with both sides. However, he would agree to forward this issue to the Council. Resolution No. GPA-94-001, UP-94-001 & DR-94-004 Condition 2.frelating to verification of a good faith effort to acquire and record a reciprocal vehicular ingress/egress easement to join the two private parallel roadways, Commissioner Kaplan stated that she hoped that both parties recognized the safety concern. She felt that there would be a mutual benefit if there was some cooperation given from both sides. She felt that as long as a good faith effort was made, she would be satisfied that the condition was met. Condition 59 -Liability and Enforcement - to be deleted as it is covered under paragraph 16 of the development agreement. Condition 60 relating to noncompliance with the condition of the use permit and liquidated damages to be deleted (Commissioner Asfour indicated that he discussed this condition with the City Attorney and noted that this condition vas covered in the development agreement). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NOTING THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: Development Agreement Paragraph 9.3 -Operating Memoranda to be deleted. Paragraph 11.2 -Annual Review Process. Amended to require that the annual review process be a duly noticed public hearing. Paragraph 11.5 -Fee for Annual Review. Amended to reflect that the fee to be collected for the annual review is to be the prevailing rate (amount not to be specified). Paragraph 17.1 -Right to Assign. Amended to reflect that the City has the right to reject the assignment. Development Agreement -Exhibit "B" Section 1 -Residency Criteria. s v ~ ' 'PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 27 - - The addition of a ne~v subsection l.b. to read: "Second preference will be granted to other Saratoga residents for a period of thirty days" - The existing section l.b. to be relabeled as section l.c. Section 3 amended to read: "Perimeter landscaping by Crisp Avenue aid Cl~es~e~::..~nu~:." Section 4 -Open Space Easement amended to read as recommended by Planner Walgren. Page 2, last sentence of the last paragraph amended to delete reference of condition 3. Section 6 -Phasing of the project to allow renovation of existing structures and construction of new health center. Before any other new development, the 11 cottages must be finalized or open space easement recorded. The intent is to guarantee that the only development on the 10.6 acre site is to be cottages. THE COMMISSION ALSO APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. GPA-94-001 AND RESOLUTION NO. UP-94-001 & DR-94-001. RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. THE USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS. DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO RESOLUTION UP-94-001 AND DR-94-001: - Deletion of condition 59 -Liability and Enforcement. - Deletion of Condition 60 -Noncompliance with any conditions of the user permit shall constitute a violation.... " THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Community Development Curtis informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that this item be advertised before the City Council next week. As there has to be a quick turnaround of information, including the minutes, staff would be furnishing the City Council with minute excerpts from the recording secretary. The minutes forwarded to the City Council will be stamped draft as the Commission will not have seen them or approved them. Commissioner Siegfried noted for the record that the issue of compatibility has been raised repeatedly. When you look at the issue of compatibility of the apartment units, one would need to indicate that the apartment units are compatible with the public facilities that exist today which preexisted any of the residential property around it and that the duplex units were compatible with the residential property. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSIONERS CONCURRED WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED'S STATEMENT REGARDING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS ` ~ ~~ `PLANNING COMMISS># MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 28 - CO~iMISSIO\T ITEMS CO1~~~IUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 1/9, 1/17, 1/22 & 1/23/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 2/28/96 Oral Citv Council ADJOURN\T~TENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 28, 1996. Civic Theater. 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT\PC021496. SAR