Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-1996 Planning Commission minutes'~ P~NNING COMMISSION MINUTE FEBRUARY 28.1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren City Attorney Riback had been excused from the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGI~TCE Yiinutes - 2/14/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 24, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 11, last paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that he appreciated the fact that the applicants came up with ~ a hydrology play: for Ede:: :.;:. area grid ~rcl:no~~ Icd~~cd that tlu~plan~vas:::niore than what is requ±~d > ~)ae: ~ihrlicant i~~ rmhrcr~~e ~I~~: c;xi,~irn~ neighborhood." - Page 12, the deletion of paragraph four that reads: "Commissioner Asfour asked staff if condition 60 relating to noncompliance.... " ... ............. - Page 12, last paragraph, line three amended to read: "roads to ~~ be:;mrged::.... " - Page 20, paragraph 6, line one, replace the word to read ~atiais~o~:e Kaplan. ......... - Page 26, paragraph 2 first sentence amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that he vas disturbed by the fact that this issue was being presented at the eleventh .... hour aiid that he was rlsplea~ed with.l~oth Sides...." - Page 26, third paragraph, line 3 amended to read: "...Kaplan stated that ~ she hoped that both parties recognized the safety concern.... " - Page 27, last paragraph amended to read: "By consensus, the Commissioner s: concurred with Commissioner Sieafried's statement regarding land use compatibility. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 2 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cal Hammack, 15440 Quito Road, informed the Commission that he objected to the issuance of a permit by staff to his neighbor located upstream from his residence. He indicated that his neighbor proposes to install a concrete retaining wall along the creek and that the reason for his objection to the wall was because it is a new wall and that it would set a precedent against the environment. He did not believe that the technical laws from the State Department of Consumer Affairs for Land Surveyors and Professional Engineers have been met as the land has not been surveyed. The plans submitted by his neighbor do not indicate the location of the existing trees nor provides cross sections of the creek. He noted that 25 cubic yards of concrete is to be used for the wall and expressed concern that this would increase the existing yard. He indicated that he was informed by a staff member that they would walk the creek and listen to his concerns before a permit was issued. He was also told that mitigation measures would be applied to insure that the wall to be installed was aesthetically pleasing, noting that an additional 18 inches in wall height was approved. He also noted that the applicant did not obtain an Army permit, a requirement necessary when there is an impact to the water level of a creek; over 10 cubic yards of dirt is to be removed; and mitigations be applied to allow a creek to meander. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff respond to Mr. Hammack's concern. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the existing retaining wall located along the creek bed gave way last year. He informed the Commission that the Department of Fish and Game and the Water District would not allow construction on the creek during the winterization period and that these departments allowed the applicant to work on the wall when possible. He indicated that the only jurisdiction that the City had was with the issuance of a building permit for the retaining wall. The other outside jurisdictions have the authority to deal with creeks and with the location of the wall. He informed the Commission that the outside agencies have signed off on the plans. He informed the Commission that he agreed to walk the creek with Mr. Hammack and to show Mr. Hammack what the wall would look like. Staff attempted to come up with a decorative type of wall feature that would fit in, including the use of landscaping. However, the Water District and the Fish and Game Department did not approve the alternatives because solid walls would need to be installed. A reinforced retaining wall, capped with 18 to 24 inches of brick to match the existing wall vas eventually approved. The issue as expressed by Mr. Hammack was such that he does not agree with the engineers who reviewed the wall. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 23, 1996. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 3 - No corrections were noted CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARI\TG CONSENT CALE\TDAR 1. SD-95-004 - STELLA I1~TVESTMENT CO./DOUGHERTY; 22665 GARROD RD. Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 16 acre Lot 4 of the "Sung" subdivision into three individual lots of 4.7, 6.2 and ~.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. to 3/13/96 at the request of staff and the applicant; City review deadline is 8/21/96). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP-95-007 - CONGREGATION BETH DAVID; 19700 PROSPECT ROAD, CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION;12033 MILLER AVENUE; 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. (cont. from 2/14/96 due to late hour; City review deadline is 7/ 12/96). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if additional correspondence had been received other than that included in the packet? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that in addition to the form letter opposed to the temporary shelter included with the staff report, correspondence was received in opposition to the program from a resident on Colby Court. In addition to that letter, staff was in receipt of over 150 form letters in support of the proposal. Chairman Murakami asked staff if any complaints were filed the last time the shelter was in operation? Planner Walgren responded that no complaints had been filed with staff. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Howard Stohlman, 19479 Melinda Circle, member of Ascension Church, indicated that he was present representing the Faith in Action program. He informed the Commission that the program provides job placement services, shelter, food, and support to 15 participants. He indicated that this program has been in existence for over six years in residential PLANNING COMMISSIi MINUTES • FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 4 - neighborhoods and that no adverse affects from the program has been experienced. He noted that the Prince of Peace Church was granted a use permit last year and that the congregation of Beth David now wants to implement the program in June and Ascension Church in August. He informed the Commission that flyers were distributed to residents within the 500 foot area of Beth David and Ascension Church, notifying the residents of the proposed program, inviting the residents to attend a February 1 meeting to gain information about the program and to voice any concerns that they may have. He indicated that only one neighbor attended the meeting to inquire how she could assist. Over 165 letters have been received from both San Jose and Saratoga areas in support of the program. He requested Commission approval of the use permit. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter included in the Commission's packet claims that the letter distributed by the Church should have been distributed to the neighborhood and not just to the parishioners. She requested that Mr. Stohlman respond to this statement. Mr. Stohlman stated that a flyer vas distributed to the neighbors who reside within five hundred feet of the churches and that a form letter in support of the program was made available to the congregation. He stated that a letter was not mailed out soliciting a response. Chairman Murakami noted that speaker cards were received from the following individuals indicating support of the program: Eugene Meyer, 19447 Eric Drive; Andrew Estigoy, 10185 North Stelling, Cupertino; Joie Wesolowsky, 12069 Kristy Lane; Ronnie Gordon, 4734 Durango River Court, San Jose. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that there was controversy about the program last year and recollected that one speaker made a comment that hosts would know more about the participants than one knows about ones gardener. He indicated that he would support the program. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was pleased to see that this program was working and that there was a condition included that would allow the Commission to review the use on a yearly basis. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he vas present when a similar request was considered by the Prince of Peace Church and that he supported that request. Therefore, he could support the request before the Commission. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-95-007. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 3. SD-9~-009 & V-95-014 - NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two PLANNING COMMISSI* MINUTES • FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 5 - 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. (cont. from 2/14/96 due to late hour; City review deadline is 6/6/96). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that although the residence was not currently listed on the city's Heritage Resource Im~entory, it was referred to the Historic Preservation Commission because of the 1930s hand crafted adobe brick structure located on site. He indicated that the Heritage Preservation Commission was interested in pursuing the property to learn more about its history and that it would consider whether this property should be included in the heritage resources inventory list at a later date. Staff finds that the lot split meets all minimum standards and was recommending approval of the lot split, contingent on the variance application being approved. He informed the Commission that a letter vas received from the adjoining property owners, Marcia and Harry Ratner, expressing concern with the protection of their privacy, the oak trees and the topographical features on site. The Ratners were requesting that an 85 foot setback from their property line be required and that the new home be restricted to a single story. He recommended that condition 1 be amended to address the Ratner's concern regarding setback as follows: "Future development of Lot 2 shall require Design Review approval. The building site shall be left in a natural state until Design Review approval has been granted and Building Permits have been issued. An appropriate building location shall be determined at the Design Review stage based on than current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy -the building envelope shown for Lot 2 on Exhibit "A" does not reflect accurate current setback requirements. The Chcste.r Avenuc~~~froi~tagc..;:of Lot No:::2:>~hall:be:::~lesated< .. . . ... .. :: as the ~piircel's front .property linc::~nd sh~l!•~~.be used as the.:.front properiy::::for~ determining ~~~requ~i~r:d: future building setbacks ." Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the arborist report addresses the damage to trees that would occur as a result of the demolition of the main house. He informed the Commission that this portion of the discussion should be disregarded as the main house was not proposed to be demolished. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that condition 1 would require Planning Commission approval of the design review irrespective of whether the home was designed to be a one or two story structure. He recommended that Condition 1 be amended to so reflect. PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Asfour asked staff regarding its opinion about restricting the new home to one story. Planner Walgren responded that staff would not normally restrict the home to a one story structure on a parcel of this size. Staff would normally recommend restricting a home to one level if it was an infill development where single story homes existed. He stated that should the Commission wish to restrict the home to a one story structure, that the map so be conditioned. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission had discretionary review over the lot line? Planner Walgren responded that the Commission has discretionary review over the parcel map and the variance request. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Mrs. Nagpal, applicant. informed the Commission that she would not object to placing the existing home on the city's heritage resources list. She indicated that the reason for the request before the Commission was to allow for the construction of a home for her parents. She felt that the parcel was large enough to accommodate the lot split and that care would be given to preserve the existing trees. Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Nagpal if she would want to have future neighbors look into the swimming pool area should the new home be sold in the future? He asked if there were other alternatives to the request. Ms. Nagpal responded that she would have preferred the lot to be configured a different way but that the engineers felt that the proposal before the Commission was the best solution. Other alternatives would require variances that she would be uncomfortable requesting. She indicated that a two story home may be proposed on the new parcel to preserve the existing trees. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the size that is being considered for the new home? Ms. Nagpal responded that the size nor the design of the new home have been discussed with her parents so as not to raise their hopes. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that normally, a property owner should be able to do what is considered to be in their best interest. However, she indicated that she had a problem with the request before the Commission as the property does not lend itself to two separate lots based upon the configuration of the house and the location of the swimming pool. She felt that a lot split would create a problem in the future should the family no longer occupy the home. She stated that she could not support the request. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he could support a different lot line for the second lot, PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 7 - recognizing the fact that the first home was to be preserved. Commissioner Asfour stated that, generally, he supports the desires of individuals to build on their property and sympathized with the applicant's request. However, he recommended that alternatives be explored. Commissioner Pierce concurred with the comments as expressed by the other Commissioners. It was his belief that the property owners purchased the 2.5 acre site for the existing, beautiful home. He indicated that he would be inclined to approve a larger guest home on the property that would fit within the constraints of the neighbors. He stated that he was opposed to the lot split as requested. Commissioner Patrick also indicated that she was opposed to the lot split. She felt that the existing home was sited beautifully on the property. She felt that once the parcel was split, you would loose control over the entire site, including design considerations. She stated that she could support a guest residence. Commissioner Abshire stated that he agreed with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. He indicated that he opposes the request because it would create two meandering lots and with the fact that the existing adobe home was sitting in the middle of the parcel that it vas designed for. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the public hearing be reopened to determine if the applicant would consider a continuance of this item for the purpose of reviewing alternatives. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff worked with the city's civil engineer on several different map alternatives before bringing this request to the Commission. The proposal before the Commission was the only alternative that met city standards. He indicated that staff spoke with the applicants about considering a larger accessory structure such as a guest house, noting that a guest home could not be used on a permanent basis. He also noted that City code does not allow for a variance of a secondary dwelling greater than 800 square feet. y Chairman Murakami indicated that he vas initially opposed to the request. However, he indicated that he could support the applicant's request based on the information provided by staff. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Asfour asked staff as to the maximum size of a guest home that would be allowed with or without a variance, excluding a kitchen facility? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a guest house would be subject to design review and that as PLANNING COMMISSI~i MINUTES i FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 8 - part of the design review consideration, the Commission can review its size. He reiterated that the purpose of a guest house was for temporary quarters. He indicated that a larger guest home could be considered as an alternative as long as it is designed so that a kitchen facility cannot be accommodated in the future. Planner Walgren indicated that the existing home was approximately 6,200 square feet and that even though it remains a single parcel, the maximum cumulative square footage that can be constructed is 7,200 square foot. Therefore, the guest home could not be larger than 1.000 square feet unless the Commission grants a variance from the allowable building floor area. Commissioner Pierce asked staff if the City had provisions for a granny unit. Community Development Director Curtis responded that secondary dwelling units are permitted to a maximum of 800 square feet with no variances allowed by code. Ms. Nagpal noted that the two lots, as proposed, conformed to city standards. She stated that she has considered the possibility of having neighbors living next door and that the request would be something that she would have to live with. She indicated that she would like additional time to discuss this issue with her family, staff and the Commission. She informed the Commission that alternative plans were considered and that it was her understanding that the alternatives did not meet setback requirements. Commissioner Siegfried stated that a possibility exists for the creation of two legal lots. Perhaps, y then the Commission could consider approving a variance in setback, to accommodate a better situation. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her belief that the Commission was requesting that the applicant consider a guest residence in the appropriate location that would provide a place for her parents to reside on the lot. The Commission would be willing to consider latitudes which would allow the maximum lot coverage to be exceeded. She indicated that she was opposed to the lot split. y Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not support the lot split as she did not support meandering lots. She stated that she would like to retain the lot as a single lot and that she would consider the approval of an accessory structure. Ms. Nagpal indicated that this was a legitimate lot split as setbacks and other code requirements were being met. She asked how the application could be modified to address the Commission's concern. She indicated that a guest home would be a concern because it would not allow for a kitchen facility. She indicated that she was not asking for anything special and that the only variance requested would be for the existing home. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting to PLANNING COMMISS>~ MINUTES S FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 9 - allow the applicant to consider the comments expressed this evening. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the tentative parcel map request before the Commission was a discretionary action and that the division of land must still meet the intent of land planning and development of the area, even if the request meets all technical code requirements. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS SD-95-009 AND V-95-014 TO MARCH 13, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Community Development Director Curtis asked if the only alternative that would be acceptable to the Commission was a guest house without a kitchen? Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not oppose the lot split if it can be designed in a different way to allow the integrity of the existing structure to remain the same, even it requires the approval of a variance. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he vas not opposed to a lot line split so long as a condition was stipulated that would restrict the size of the home on the second lot. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that it could place restrictions on the ne~v parcel relating to the new home to be built (i.e.,design, location, height and square footage, etc.). Community Development Director Curtis stated that should the Commission approve a lot split with recorded restrictions, that the only way the condition(s) could be amended was to return to the Commission for the approval of an amendment. 4. UP-9~-008 - KOLOTOUROS; 202011tIERIDA 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. (cont. from 2/14/96 to late hour; City review deadline is 7/22/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that the continued use of the business would not be compatible with the nature of the residential district and does not meet the criteria that is necessary to approve a conditional use permit. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the use permit request. He informed the Commission that a letter was included in the packet that was unsigned in opposition to the request. Also, letters were distributed to the Commission this evening from neighbors supporting the continuation of the operation and one additional letter in opposition to the request. Commissioner Asfour indicated that it would have been beneficial to hear from the two PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 10 - adjoining neighbors and that he would not consider the unsigned letter in opposition to the request. y Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Maria Kolotouros, wife of the applicant, furnished the Commission with photographs of the area. She stated that she hoped that the Commission had the opportunity to read the letters in support from the neighbors. She also hoped that the one anonymous letter received would not carry as much weight as the letters from the neighbors in support. She stated that any noise generated by the use would be drowned out by the constant noise from the freeway. She indicated that there has never been a violation of the Fuel Storage Ordinance. The violation addressed by staff was due to the removal of the underground fuel tanks. She apologized for not informing the City of the removal of the tanks. It was her belief that the constant fumes from the freeway was a much bigger problem than the use of the trucks. She informed the Commission that it has been difficult to find commercial property to park the trucks and if a lot was found, they could not afford the rental price. Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Kolotouros how long her family would be requesting renewal of the use permit? Ms. Kolotouros responded that her husband vas at a retiring age and that once he retires (approximately seven years), the business would cease. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she was not opposed to individuals maintaining home offices and other kinds of home occupations. She asked why the business couldy not be conducted out of the home and that the trucks be parked in a different location. Ms. Kolotouros indicated that she could not afford the rental fees required to park three trucks. Jim Kolotouros, son of the applicants, spoke on behalf of his father. He informed the Commission that his father wished to thank the City for allowing him to maintain the family business for 25 years. He indicated that in a few years this use would cease due to the retirement of his father and that neither of the sons plan to take over the business. For the past ten years, the family has actively and aggressively searched for an alternative place to park the trucks. As this was a small business, it has always been prohibitively expensive to find the funds to lease a parking space. He indicated that his family has worked hard over the past years to address concerns raised and that they have tried to be good neighbors. He felt that the individual who wrote the anonymous letter did not understand the situation. He requested that the Commission take into consideration those comments of the neighbors in support of the use. His family would continue to address any issues or concerns that may be raised. He requested that the use be allowed to continue for a short while longer. Commissioner Patrick asked ~vhy Mr. Kolotouros (father) could not park the trucks where he commutes to work. Jim Kolotouros responded that most places do not allow for truck parking and that rental costs were prohibitive. Peter Kolotouros, elder son of the applicants, indicated that he did not receive a copy of the letter of concern received this evening. He indicated that his family would address any PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 11 - C7 issues of concerns expressed. He informed the Commission that there were few places that would allow trucks to park due to zoning restrictions and that the business has been reduced from eight trucks to four trucks. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:09 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried recollected that the City allowed the Kolotouros to park their trucks at this location until such time that the freeway opened. He remembered that this property was once used as farm property with farm equipment stored on site. Therefore, the City justified the parking of the trucks on a short term basis. He stated that he could not support the continued use in a residential area. Commissioner Kaplan commended Mr. and Mrs. Kolotouros on raising two fine sons. She indicated that at the site visit, she was immediately struck by the gasoline fumes and noticed that there was a broken truck left on site. She acknowledged that the property was located adjacent to Highway 85 but that the issue was the use on this property. She noted that the applicant has stated that the trucks could not be parked elsewhere due to zoning restrictions. She asked why the City vas being asked to violate its o~vn zoning regulations. She stated that normally she would not put much credence to an anonymous letter. However, she could understand that there are situations where neighbors do not want to precipitate an argument with a neighbor. Therefore, she would give credence to the anonymous letter. She stated that she could not support the use permit. Commissioner Patrick acknowledged that this business has been around for a long time. She indicated that she also smelled fumes at the site visit. She stated that as years went by, it was noticed that the trucks kept being parked closer and closer to the home and that the trucks were know being parked in the driveway. She indicated that she could not support the continuation of the use. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he drove by the property and observed that the site appeared to be well cared for. He agreed that the time has ran out for the continued use of the property as a business. With the completion of the freeway, he could not see any reason to grant the use permit. Commissioner Abshire noted that the Kolotouros family has conducted a successful business over the past several years. However, the use was incompatible with the area and the neighborhood. He felt that the time has run out for its use and that it was time for the family to change the operation. Chairman Murakami stated that he respected the family for all the time that they have been in this area. He felt that the time has come for this business to let go and cease the operation in this location. PLANNING COMMISSI! MINUTES • FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Commissioner Asfour indicated that he has driven by the business for the past 13 years and that the applicant should be commended for maintaining a clean operation. He indicated that he was inclined not to approve the request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK NO. UP-95-008, DENYING THE USE UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PERMIT. THE MOTION CARRIED Community Development Director Curtis indicated that whether the Commission's decision is appealed or not and if the appeal is denied by the City Council, continued operation would result in violations and that citations would be issued. However, staff would work with the applicant to give them a reasonable time to correct the violations. THE COlvii\iISSION RECESSED AT 9:15 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.iVi. Commissioner Asfour recommended that items 5 and 6 be combined as one public hearing with a vote being taken separately. 5. DR-95-054 - itiAXll~i INVESTMENTS; 28000 AUDREY SiViITH LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct anew 6,037 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 51,054 sq. ft. hillside parcel. The subject property is lot #1 of the Audrey Smith Subdivision and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. 6. DR-95-052 - itiAXIl~i INVESTMENTS; 28021 AUDREY SMITH LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct anew 5,759 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant 44,893 sq. ft. hillside parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is lot #4 of the Audrey Smith Subdivision and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walaren presented the staff report on agenda items 5 and 6. He noted that Lot 1 would require the removal of three ordinance protected trees. Their removal was anticipated when the map was approved for this subdivision. The remaining thirty ordinance protected trees would be retained. The City arborist has provided a replacement value for the trees to be removed and that this condition has been incorporated in the resolution of approval. Also, the city arborist's measures for tree protection, including the relocation of utility lines, modifications of lawn areas, etc., have also been incorporated as conditions of approval. The issues relating to lot 4 were similar and were primarily related to tree protection matters that have been incorporated in the conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of both design review applications. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Bill Hershman, 1190 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, applicant, informed the Commission that Mr. McKay, project designer, was present to answer any questions which the Commission PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 13 - may have. He noted that a comment was made regarding illegal grading that occurred on lot 4. He clarified that the grading of lot 4 was not illegal and that the Engineering Department was aware of the grading. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the pool to be built on the corner lot located on Audrey Smith Lane could be pulled away from the back hill and located closer to the house without hurting the trees? Michael McKay, project designer, informed the Commission that he was the designer for both homes under consideration. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's suggestion regarding the relocation of the pool, he indicated that the pool was sited to minimize any impacts to the trees and to minimize grading. If the pool was to be relocated closer to the house, there would not be a separation between the home and the pool. He indicated that he would be willing to minimize the impact of the lawn and the pool to the existing trees. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that a condition be added that would prohibit the parking of vehicles underneath the trees. Mr. McKay stated that he would not object to the added condition as recommended by Commissioner Kaplan. Commissioner Asfour stated that the homes were nicely designed. However, he expressed concern with the three fire places proposed on lot 1 and recommended the elimination of the fireplace located in the dining area. Mr. McKay requested that the Commission approve the three fireplaces and that he would agree to install a gas fireplace in the dining room. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not object to the installation of a fire place in the dining room as long as it was a gas fireplace and that it could not be converted to a woodburning fireplace. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioners Asfour and Kaplan. She indicated that she had no problem with the design of the home. Chairman Murakami stated that the drawings submitted were not complementary to the design but that viewing the colored renderings helped define the articulation of the home. Brad Wells, 20316 Calle Montalvo, informed the Commission that he vas affected by lot 4 of this development. He indicated that his lot sits below lot 4. The fact that the home is proposed as a two story home, it would create a three story appearance. He requested that additional screening be required to provide a visual barrier between his home and that of lot 4. He informed the Commission that a water problem exists and that the was not sure if the problem was created by this subdivision. He hoped that by placing the swales towards the storm drain would mitigate the problem. He informed the Commission that a large amount of water runoff comes down Montalvo Road and that the issue of the storm drain PLANNING COMMISS>~ MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 14 - at the corner of Montalvo and Calle Montalvo were discussed with the City Engineer. He requested that the Commission assist with improving the water management in the area as his efforts have been futile to date. Mr. McKay stated that he would be willing to work with Mr. Wells to address his drainage and landscape screening concerns. Mr. Hershman informed the Commission that drainage had been provided in the back of lots 4, 5 and 6. He indicated that grading has not been completed but that the facilities have been installed. He agreed that there has been significant change in water runoff because the water from the streets were being diverted to the creek. He acknowledged that the drainage system has not been completely installed because the swales and the grading of the back yards have not been completed. It is hoped that when the grading was completed that it would mitigate the surface runoff. Commissioner Asfour asked staff ~vho was responsible for ensuring that the drainage system was functioning properly and had adequate capacity? Planner Walgren responded that this was the first time that planning staff was made aware of Mr. Well's concern. If it is a public storm drain system, it would be the City's responsibility to keep the drain clear. He indicated that between this subdivision and the completion of Vine Street up above, it remedied the long standing historical drainage that has been occurring on these steep hillside lots for many years. Mr. Hershman informed the Commission that in addition to the surface Swale, an underground drainage pipe system has been installed that would divert water to the creek. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan reiterated her recommendation that the pool be relocated off the hill. Chairman Murakami felt that the proposed location would be better for the protect of the existing trees. Commissioner Abshire stated his concurrence with Commissioner Kaplan's recommendation to relocate the pool closer to the home. Commissioners Siegfried and Patrick recommended that the location of the pool be left to staff to ensure that the property is kept in tact and the trees protected. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK AMOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-054 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: CONDITION 5 AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A CHAIN LINK FENCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES AND THAT NO PARKING OF VEHICLES SHALL BE ALLOWED ADJACENT THE TREES; AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION PLANNING COMMISS* MINUTES • FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 15 - THAT STIPULATES THAT THE FIRE PLACE IN THE DINING ROOM SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO GAS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-052 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: CONDITION 5 AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A CHAIN LINK FENCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES AND THAT NO PARKING OF VEHICLES SHALL BE ALLOWED ADJACENT THE TREES; THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT THE FIRE PLACE LOCATED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM BE RESTRICTED TO GAS; AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 7. DR-95-053 -GREBE\'E;15479 BELNAP VVAY; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 554 sq. ft. first and second-story addition to an existing single-story residence. The subject parcel is 1.09 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the County Environmental Department has reviewed the request as well as all applicable safety utility providers and that the requested addition has received their endorsement. He informed the Commission that a letter has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer located two parcels down slope from this proposal requesting that consideration be given to the location of the second story addition so that it does not look down into their pool area. He noted that the second story addition vas located on the interior side of the property and would not be looking down on the adjoining property. Therefore, the Sawyer'sconcern should be addressed. Commissioner Asfour asked staff if there were any other alternatives to preclude a "box on box" appearance? Planner Walgren responded that there were other options and noted that the single story addition would be restricted to a decree because of the slope on one side, the driveway turn-around on the interior side, and the septic tank in the yard area. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Karen Grebene, applicant, informed the Commission that the balcony setback was the best alternative that could be designed and that it would be the least obtrusive. Commissioner Abshire asked Mrs. Grebene if the addition would be painted the same color as the existing home. Mrs. Grebene responded that the color to be used would be a different tone of brown. She stated that she did not want the home to be noticeable from the valley. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:01 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES ~. FEBRUARY 28, 1996 ~~ PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the land use site visit, the house was not visible from any location. She indicated that she would not normally agree to approve a "box on box" design but noted that no one would be able to see the home. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-053. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). DIRECTOR'S ITEI\1S Community Development Director Curtis reported on the following: - He would be distributing the final version of the work program as well as the distribution of an article entitled "Quit the Blame Game" from a planning magazine. - At the recommendation of the Planning Commission and as discussed at the recent Planning Commission/Cit}' Council joint meeting, the Council has indicated that the Commission does not need to attend future City Council meetings. - At the last Council meeting, the Council approved the Odd Fellows development with minor changes (the elimination of the purchase of a fire truck; required a donation of $12.000 towards the purchase of a fire truck; required the purchase of a 35 foot ladders subject to the Fire Chief's approval). Regarding the timing of cottage constructions, the Council felt that if the open space was recorded, it would only allow the construction of cottages or something similar to the cottages within the footprints. If other buildings were built before the cottages were constructed, the neighbors would still have open space. He stated that there was a concern that if the development agreement expired, that the open space would go away. He indicated that this was not the case and that the open space would remain in place forever and that the only ~vay that the open space would change was to have it rescinded by the City Council, following public hearing(s). - Four items are scheduled for the Commission's March 13 meeting. - A work session is scheduled for Wednesday. March 13 at 5:00 p.m. Staff to establish a process to inform individuals that a work session has been scheduled should a preliminary review by the Planning Commission/Architectural Review Committee be requested. At the Commission's retreat, the Commission agreed to hold a second work session if necessary, if individuals wished to have the Commission review projects. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she attended the City Council meeting and found the meeting to be interesting. She stated that it was her belief that the Council agreed to allow the Commission to conduct work sessions in lieu of a formal Architectural Review . - - - PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • ~, FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 17 - Committee meeting. Community Development Director Curtis stated that Commissioner Kaplan's statement was correct. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission set aside every 2nd and 4th Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. should a work session need to be scheduled. Commissioner Asfour requested that the Commission be furnished with a notice should a work session meeting be scheduled or cancelled. COl\IMUNICATIO\S Written 1. Letter from Earl Burke re: Christa McAuliffe School 2. City Council Minutes dated 2/3 & 2/7/96 3. Planning Commission Public Notices for 3/13/96 Oral Citv Council ADJOURi\11\1El~iT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. ,Wednesday, March 13, 1996, EOC Center, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT~.PC022896. SAR