Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-1996 Planning Commission minutes~. ~ANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MARCH 27, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce Late: None Absent: Siegfried Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback PLEDGE OF ALLEGI.ANCE Minutes - 3/13/96 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 1996 AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, MURAKAMI; ABSENT: SIEGFRIED. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Reuort of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 22, 1996. y Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSE\TT CALENDAR Commissioners Abshire, Asfour and Chairman Murakami indicated that they were present at the meeting when Consent Calendar Item 1 was considered by the Commission and that they have read the minutes of the March 13, 1996 meeting. Therefore, they were prepared to vote on the item this evening. 1. SD-95-009 & 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 separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single- PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 2 - 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. This application was continued from the 3/13/96 meeting by a 4-0 vote to prepare and adopt Resolutions to deny the project. The public hearing has been closed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR-96-006 - SCUDELLARI; 14855 BARANGALA\TE; Request for Design Review approval to demolish and existing residence (approximately 2,800 sq. ft.) and construct a new 5,292 sq. ft. two-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 1.6 acres in size, located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Richard Scudellari, applicant, stated that the home was designed to be compatible with the surrounding area and that it would be consistent with that of the environment. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:41 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she liked the design of the home and felt that it would fit in with that of the neighborhood. She inquired if the site would accommodate a tennis court? Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that there was any portion of the lot that has a slope of less than 109 to accommodate a tennis court. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she liked the language contained in the conditions of approval relating to the "no parking" requirement for tree protection. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-006. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 3. DR-96-004 - JUANG; 13600 SURREY LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 246 sq. ft. first story addition and a 1,330 sq. ft. second story addition PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 3 - to an existing 3,388 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 44,330 sq. ft. in area and is located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, informed the Commission that he tried to address all the design handout criteria. He felt that the house was close to non-visible and that the design meets his clients' needs. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Chairman Murakami stated that he reviewed the second story segment as mentioned in the staff report. After review of the text contained in the analysis, his concerns were answered. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-004 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 4. LL-95-002, GPA-96-001 & AZO-96-001- BINKLEY; 13570 PIERCE RD.; Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary between two legal lots of record. The application also includes requests to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is located within a Hillside Residential District and Parcel B (40,500 sq. ft.) within an R-1-40,000 District. An environmental Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the lot line adjustment would be contingent upon the City Council's approval of the General Plan and zoning amendments. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a building site would be established for parcel B? Planner Walgren responded that a building site would not be established as part of this approval but that staff requested that the applicant show that there is a reasonable building site for parcel B. The setback em~elopes are being shown on the plan so that when the lot is developed, it is known what the required setbacks would be. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that a home would need to be designed to be located within the setback lines. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the creation of odd shaped lots and the problems that they could create in the future. Commissioner Asfour asked if staff was satisfied with the building site? Planner Walgren responded that the building site was the most feasible building site available given the current configuration of parcel B. The building envelope, as shown, is based on today's setback requirements. Should the lot not be developed for several years, the building site would be subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time of development, as well as review by the City's geologist and arborist. Commissioner Abshire asked if the home could be built on the land that is being added? Planner Walgren indicated that the home ~vould be located on the western most 10,000 square feet of the lot which is currently a knoll with several trees on it, noting that it was gaining a flat terraced area along the hillside. Commissioner Patrick asked the City Attorney if this zoning and General Plan amendments would be affected by Measure G? City Attorney Riback responded that this proposed general plan amendment was the type of amendment that would be subject to Measure G. He indicated that Measure G would go into affect 10 days following City Council's declaration of the vote, sometime in late April or early May. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his understanding that Measure G would only apply if there was an increase in density. He noted that this application was not increasing in density. City Attorney Riback stated that this amendment would be subject to Measure G because there would be a change in the General Plan land use designation from the Residential Hillside conservation to Residential, Very Low Density, an intensification in land use. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Bob Binkley, applicant, informed the Commission that he was in charge of administrating his father's estate. The lot line, as it exists today, does not encompass the pattern for the lot and he felt that it was appropriate to adjust the lot to conform to current zoning standards. He stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He stated that he also understood the effect of Measure G on his application. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL-95-002 CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 5. SD-95-010 - \TAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SU\~TYVALERD.;Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single-family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul-de-sac would access the development off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R-1-12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walaren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that it could not take formal action on the application this evening as the project requires an extended review period to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. This application has been scheduled to allow the Commission to review the comments as outlined in the staff report, take public testimony and requested that the Commission include any additional comments that it may have. The comments received this evening would be addressed at the next available meeting. He identified the following issues: 1) The circulation plan tends to isolate the 15 new homes from the existing neighborhood. 2) It is recommended that the pedestrian connection be either widened or shortened or both without affecting either of the adjoining lots in order to avoid a long, narrow tunnel affect. 3) It is recommended that construction be limited to single story homes of not more than 22 feet in height. 4) The perimeter landscaping has been found to be suitable for this portion of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the recommendation that the applicant provide a more residential wall plan similar to the Saratoga Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Avenue (the use of redwood and used brick columns versus a solid brick wall). 5) Staff also recommends that the developer be required to build a simple post and roof type of bus stop shelter to be maintained by the City in the future. He indicated that the wall plans submitted to the Commission this evening were submitted early this week as an amendment to the original wall plan. He informed the Commission that the original wall plan was proposed to be solid brick which included an arched-entryway over the new court. The new wall plan proposes to use an alternating brick and stucco design, eliminating the arched entryway. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she read the letter from the superintendent of the elementary school. She asked if there was a conflict between the hazardous substance report that came from the County and that of the soil sample? Planner Walgren responded that a conflict did not exist, noting that the County Environmental Health Department was PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 6 - referring to things such as abandoned vehicles and fuel in storage containers (above ground contaminants) that are routinely required to be cleaned up as a condition of project approval. The soils sampling analysis talks about the testing of soils for contamination. One report addresses surface evaluation and the other studies soil seepage. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the traffic report seemed low to her. She felt that the calculations presented made assumptions and that the traffic count would be dependent upon the number of middle school aced children who would reside in the development. She had questions regarding density and circulation. She felt that the project should form a relationship with that of the community and that it could be modeled after the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. She inquired if the environmental traffic analysis would change if the circulation configuration was modified. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that from an environmental impact stand point that modification to the circulation plan would change the conclusions made. The environmental review would consider the level of service of the local road and that of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. If the circulation plan was amended, it would add additional traffic to the neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with the number of dead end streets proposed and felt that the area should be opened. He asked if there would be any impacts if the roads were opened. Planner Walgren responded that an alternative plan would not generate an increase in traffic, but that it would be a different project than what was before the Commission. He felt that the only proposal that would cause a great alteration to traffic movement would be to have Seaton connect all the way through to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. This would be a significant change in circulation and traffic in the neighborhood. Chairman Murakami asked if it would be possible to address pre and post Route 85 affects on circulation to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road? Planner Walgren responded that the traffic analysis was taken on post-85 counts and that they were taken at the time that Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road was upgraded from a Level of Service (LOS) C to B and than to A at this particular intersection. The pre-85 counts would have reflected an LOS C which is an acceptable level of service. The conclusion of the report was that the 15 lot subdivision would not affect the existing LOS A. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Bijon Armandour, project architect, addressed t~vo issues of concerns: 1) access from Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road versus the use of the existing residential collector streets. He indicated that the main reason that access from Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road was used was due to the fact that there would not be an increase in traffic counts nor impacts to the neighborhood. If access is to be from the existing neighborhood, it was his belief that there would be an increase in traffic count to the neighborhood. He disagreed with staff's opinion that the proposed circulation pattern would isolate the project from the rest of the neighborhood. 2) Regarding the design of the wall, it is proposed to break up the wall and that earth tone colors would be used. He requested that the Commission approve the wall concept as presented. He noted that the project proposes a density less than the maximum PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 7 - allowed for this area. Commissioner Abshire asked if the proposed wall along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would vary 18-20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed within this area. He asked what type of fencing would be proposed on the other two sides of the development? Mr. Armandour concurred that the wall along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would be between 18-20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed. He indicated that a masonry sound wall is proposed as a barrier to mitigate noise where a wood fence would not provide that sound mitigation. He noted that a masonry wall was an effective sound wall and would be easier to maintain. Commissioner Patrick inquired if a landscape maintenance district would be responsible for the maintenance of the wall? Mr. Armandour clarified that the side walls belonged to three property owners and that the landscaping would be maintained by a landscape and lighting district. Planner Walgren indicated that the wall and landscaping within the right-of-way area located along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would be maintained by a lighting and landscaping maintenance district and that the landscaping for the pedestrian and side yard private fences would be maintained by the three property owners if that was the preference of the developer and acceptable to the City. Commissioner Asfour asked staff who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping once the state turns over Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the City? Planner Walgren responded that the City would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping which are not maintained by a lighting and landscape maintenance district. Commissioner Pierce asked if the proposed sound wall was to be a solid wall (was the brick and masonry wall to be connected or was there to be a gap)? Mr. Armandour clarified that there is to be an eight inch gap between the brick and the masonry wall. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned that any gaps in the sound wall would not mitigate noise as sound would travel through the wall, noting that a solid sound wall would provide for better noise attenuation. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the wall details depict lighting and other details that would need to be maintained. Max Rasmussen, 20650 Woodward Court, informed the Commission that he was speaking for the 17 individuals who attended the Sunday March 24 neighborhood meeting. He indicated that the neighbors did not object to the proposed development as long as it met the guidelines of the General Plan and that consideration was given to the existing residential development. The residents were pleased to see that no other road would be opened as through streets, specifically Prune Blossom and Seaton. He read into the record the eight concerns identified by the existing residents as follows: PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 8 - 1) Only single story houses shall be placed upon lots backing up to exiting homes on the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision. 2) The building pads of those houses which back up to the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision shall be kept at, or near the existing grade level. The intent of this provision is to maintain the height of the homes as low as possible. 3) Adequate drainage catch basins connected to an underground sewer shall be provided along the northern boundary of the subdivision to prevent drainage onto the adjacent properties. 4) The end of Seaton and Prune Blossom streets shall be properly terminated, completed and landscaped. 5) A landscaping and lighting district shall be established to maintain proper appearance and upkeep of the landscaping along the Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, at the ends of Prune Blossom and Seaton Streets, the subdivision walkway to Seaton, and along the road leading from Seaton to Foothill School. y 6) Protection to the root structure of the 300 year old live Oak Tree on the Martin property shall be provided at least out to the tree drip line. 7) The existing retaining wall along the western boundary of the subdivision shall be inspected and repaired or modified as necessary to assure compliance with building codes. 8) Careful consideration shall be given to extending the eastern wall of the subdivision (with consistent landscaping) to Verde Vista to assure aesthetic harmony along Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road. Note that the existing owners of the two homes between the end of the project and Verde Vista have recently installed new fences in this area. Thus they must not be charged for the wall extension. Mr. Rasmussen requested that these items and any other items which the Commission deemed appropriate be placed in writing with NAVICO before commencement of construction. He informed the Commission that the residents do not want to see Lynde Avenue opened up. He informed the Commission that the following individuals were not in attendance at the March 24 meeting but have indicated support of the area residents recommendations: Mr. and Mrs. Ted Smith, Matthew Vandion, and Mr. Blowe. Chairman Murakami thanked Mr. Rasmussen for speaking on behalf of the area residents. Commissioner Pierce requested clarification regarding condition 4 pertaining to PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 9 - improvements to Seaton and Prune Blossom streets. Mr. Rasmussen clarified that there are no curbs installed. It is being requested that the area be improved, including the installation of landscaping and fencing. Raymond Nesmith informed the Commission that he handled the land transaction. He indicated that he attended a meeting this week with the homeowner association president and that he was pleased to see that the builder was open to every suggestion made by the existing homeowners. Regarding the perimeter fencing, the developer would agree to replace the existing fence with a wood fence. It was suggested by the homeowners association that the cul-de-sac be completed with the installation of a curb with a planting area behind it. Consideration was also given to Mrs. Martin's backyard in relationship to the existing oak tree (tree to be fenced off). He addressed drainage problems being experienced on Prune Blossom and indicated that catch basin would be installed to address the drainage problem. He felt that the proposed development would be of a benefit to the area and to the city. Monte Boisen, 13896 Lynde Avenue, stated his support of the plan. However, he did not support the opening of Lynde Avenue as a through street due to the safety of the children. Cindy Ruby, Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustee, informed the Commission that there are currently 475 students enrolled in the adjacent Foothill School and that the school is slated to grow as soon as students from "Greenbriar" move into their new homes. She indicated that she has not had the opportunity to review the proposed plans and requested the opportunity to review the plans. A concern being that there would be a blind spot attributed to the installation of walls along Seaton, to the rear of the school property. She requested that safety measures be included so that the safety of the children is ensured during construction. She also requested that abike/pedestrian access not be required along the school parking lot because of the desire to keep students in a specific area. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a traffic controller could be hired if it was determined that one was needed during construction (safety concern)? Community Development Director Curtis responded that a traffic controller could be hired, if needed. Commissioner Patrick asked where Ms. Ruby would like to see pedestrian traffic flow? Ms. Ruby responded that she did not want to see traffic empty into the entrance of the parking lot and that she would like to discuss this issue with the site administrator for his input (allow school to be part of the process). Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, addressed the alternate layout and access as addressed by the neighbors. She informed the Commission that several lot layout designs were reviewed and that it was concluded that no matter how many units were proposed, it would impact the existing neighborhood. She indicated that none of the streets are proposed to empty directly into collector streets. In two instances, streets would go by the school, bringing additional vehicles into an area where children are walking or being dropped off. Another street would empty into Prune Blossom which goes onto Verde Vista. Verde Vista could be considered as a collector street. However, there is no signal at the intersection with PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Based on these reasons, the design team redesigned the plan to reflect single cul-de-sacs. She addressed the pedestrian walkways and indicated that the pedestrian walkway appeared long because of the depth of the lots. She indicated that the front portion would be landscaped. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission was handed a document that depicts a pedestrian walkway and that you would be able to see the front yard setback on the curb of lots 5 and 6 and that the walkway fencing would begin in the back of the front yard setback, creating a tunnel affect. This detail would need to be resolved depending upon the final configuration of the streets. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the Commission provide its comments for the benefit of the applicant and the neighbors. Commissioner Kaplan felt that a study session could have been held to discuss alternatives to the plan and to discuss the alternatives with the applicant and the neighbors before it came before the Commission as a public hearing. Commissioner Patrick listed three areas of concern as follows: 1) she was not pleased with the proposed circulation and its relationship to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road because she sees this area to be a hazard and that she would rather see the circulation utilize one of the feeder streets. 2) She did not like the pedestrian walkway as it appears to be a long narrow pathway. 3) She did not like the proposed sound wall. She indicated that she would prefer to see the use of a wood fence because the use of a brick wall would not be in keeping with the rural character of Saratoga. She did not believe that the way that the wall was configured with the eight inch gap would reduce sound levels. She felt that the project would need to start from scratch. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned with the lot layout. One alternative would be to utilize the existing streets, extending the cul-de-sacs. Commissioner Kaplan informed the public that she and Commissioner Asfour reside in the area. She stated that she vas troubled by the strangely shaped lots. She felt that the homes could be built right up to the edges, giving the development a Greenbriar effect (row house effect). She indicated that the Commission vas trying to make the end product look attractive. She was not suaaesting that there be made athrough-way through Lynde. She felt that the Kerwin Ranchy subdivision was a model in the community that provides access from local interior streets so that all the traffic does not flow in and out of the subdivision from the same place. She recommended that this item return to the Commission in a study session. Chairman Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners regarding the traffic patterns. He indicated that the neighbors provided him with enough input as far as what is perceived for the future. The configuration, as presented, was visually unusual. He was concerned with traffic patterns along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 11 - whether it could handle additional traffic. Since the opening of Highway 85, it seems that the main thoroughfare is less hectic and could handle the traffic from this development. He agreed that work sessions would need to be conducted to allow the neighbors, the applicant and the Commission to review alternatives. Commissioner Abshire concurred with comments of his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Asfour thanked Mr. Rasmussen for representing the neighborhood. He indicated that he did not have any objections to the eight conditions as proposed by the neighbors with the exception of condition 4. He stated that he would like to see the developer and the residents get together and develop at least one more connector street. He did not have a problem with opening up Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to egress/ingress to the property. He indicated that he was not appointed to the Commission to look at just the neighbors' needs but that he was appointed to review issues for the good of the City as a whole. He stated his preference for a brick wall instead of a wood wall. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that in the past, she has heard that there were a group of neighbors that have come before the City and stated what they wanted to see develop. After development, other citizens then came before the City asking why a project was allowed to be built. She agreed that the Commission serves the City and that the decisions made would need to be made for the best interest of the community. James Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, asked if planning staff would be involved in the study session? Commissioner Asfour responded that staff would be present at the work session. Mr. Rasmussen informed the Commission that he would be out of town on April 24 but that Mr. Ousley and Mr. Boisen would be in attendance should this item be continued to that date. Mr. Armandour requested that the application be continued to the Commission's April 10 meeting. The Commission recessed at 9:12 p.m. to allow the applicant and the neighbors to discuss a date that would be mutually agreeable to conduct a work session. The Commission reconvened at 9:23 p.m. Byron Navid, applicant, indicated that he was trying to make this a beautiful custom home development. It was his intention to make this an acceptable project to the neighbors. He indicated that he would be willing to modify the fence to address the Commission's concerns. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION SD-95-010 TO 5:00 P.M., APRIL 10, 1996, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that City Attorney Riback has been excused from the remainder of the meeting. 6. SD-92-008.1 & DR-95-049 - PFEIFFER RANCH Il\TVESTORS; 19710 DOUGLASS LN., LOT 3 (N~V CORNER OF TAOS DR. & DOUGLASS LN.) Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,000 sq. ft. single-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request for exemption from the height reduction for total allowable floor area. An additional request is included to modify condition #14 of the Tentative Subdivision Map approval to allow home construction concurrent with subdivision improvements. The subject parcel is Lot 3 of the Sisters of Mercy subdivision, an undeveloped parcel approximately 48,453 sq. ft. in size, located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. DR-95-050 - PFEIFFER RA\TCH Lei VESTORS; 14105 TAOS CT., LOT 4 (SVV CORNER OF TAOS DR. & FUTURE TAOS CT.); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,932 sq. ft. single-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request for exemption from the height reduction for total allowable floor area. The subject parcel is Lot 4 of the Sisters of Mercy subdivision, an undeveloped parcel approximately 48,047 sq. ft. in size, located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walaren presented the staff report for agenda items 6 and 7 as they were part of the same subdivision. He indicated that a condition has been included for both applications which would stipulate that any future pool or tennis court construction would be subject to the City arborist's review and approval prior to the issuance of a permit. He indicated that the applicant has requested amendment of Condition 2 of the resolution of approval for lot 3 which requires that all subdivision improvements would need to be built, reviewed, inspected and accepted by the City. He indicated that subdivision improvements are accepted by the City after its completion to make sure that improvements are holding up. It is at this time that the design review application can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting modification of this condition to allow for the filling of a design review application to be reviewed, considered and to allow for home construction to occur concurrently with subdivision level improvements. Staff has in the past approved similar requests where the builder of the subdivision was also the builder of the future home. Staff recommended approval of this modification because the subdivision would need to be completed and accepted before final occupancy can be granted for either of the homes. Chairman Murakami asked if the amendment to the condition was also approved for the Greenbriar project? Planner Walgren responded that the Greenbriar project was allowed to construct homes concurrently with subdivision improvements but that it was a different situation. He noted that the Kerwin Ranch project had the same restriction and that it was granted the same exception to allow construction to occur in a short period of time rather than dragging the development out for many years. PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES • MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Kaplan asked what kind of control would the City have if the Commission amended Condition 2, allowing for submittal of design review concurrently with subdivision improvements? Planner Walgren responded that control was not a concern. The standard condition was applied to hillside subdivisions where lots are sold individually and ultimately you have several property owners who cannot get final occupancy on their homes because the roads were not built properly. The condition is meant to avoid this kind of a conflict. In cases where the developer is building each of the homes, the City does not grant final approval to allow the homes to be sold until the subdivision has been accepted. Also, the City continues to hold certificates of deposits on subdivisions to make sure that the improvements are properly installed. Commissioner Abshire asked staff for clarification regarding the rule over the maximum square footage that would require a variance? Planner Walgren clarified that a variance was not necessary as both homes meet the allowable square footage for both parcels. The parcels include an exception request to waive the 1.5 9~ floor area reduction for building over 18 feet. The only finding that the Commission needs to make is that the majority of the homes in the neighborhood are already two story homes. Therefore, that restriction would not apply to this particular development. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff received a revised plan for lot 4 this afternoon. He noted that it was basically the same plan but that it shifted the home from five feet to approximately ten feet away from the larger oak trees located to the rear of the property. As the revision improves tree protection and does not appear to affect any other design standards, staff recommended that the revised plan be incorporated into the file as exhibit "A" . Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 9:36 p.m. Ruben Haws, project designer, stated his concurrence with staff's comments. Commissioner Kaplan asked how many fireplaces were proposed for the homes? Mr. Haws responded that three fireplaces were proposed; one in the master bedroom, one in the living room, and one in the family room. He indicated that the master bedroom would have a gas fireplace. Commissioner Kaplan encouraged that the applicant install fireplaces that could be used either as gas or fire logs to protect the air that we breath. She would support the installation of three fireplaces as long as one of them was dedicated to gas only. Chairman Murakami asked about the design and whether both homes were considered to be the same type of design? Mr. Haws indicated that lot 3 was of a Mediterranean style home and that lot 4 would be a country French style home. Hong Huang, 14328 Taos Drive, informed the Commission that he resides opposite to that of lot 4. He asked why the homes were proposed in such a strange angle, noting that the PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 14 - home across from him was at a 45 decree angle. He stated that he did not like the angle facing him as the other homes on the street face one direction. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the City arborist's report recommends that the home be angled to protect the existing oak trees, noting that the existing trees would provide screening. Lynn Barnum, 14350 Taos Drive, informed the Commission that she resides across the street from lot 3. She indicated that the angle of the home would look strange and that it would not be aesthetically pleasing. She requested clarification as to the number of trees that are proposed to be removed as well as the type and size of the replacement trees. She expressed concern regarding the street as there are a lot of trees located at the corner of Taos Drive and Douglass Lane, creating a blind corner. She asked if a stop sign could be installed to protect the children from this blind spot. Mr. Haws indicated that the lots were gateway lots and that the homes were to be single story homes so that when you come up from Douglass Lane from Fruitvale Avenue, you are not confronted with tall houses. He indicated that Mr. Wang's privacy was taken into account and therefore the house vas designed to face his garage. The City arborist has stipulated the number and type of trees to be installed, noting that the trees are to be native trees and that they are to be compatible with the area as well as being drought resistant trees. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:47 P.M. Planner Walgren noted that there were five ordinance protected trees within the building envelop that are proposed to be removed. Also, six or seven Monterey Pines along Douglass Lane were approved to be removed as part of this subdivision and that four Monterey Pines are proposed to be removed along Taos Drive to accommodate the horseshoe driveway. He indicated that in addition to theytree replacement of the five trees, the applicant will be required to provide a significant tree replacement (approximately $12,000 of native trees to be replanted on the property). The City arborist gives examples of what the replacement trees could be (i.e., one, forty-eight inch boxed; three thirty-six inch boxed; six twenty-four inch boxed; or six fifteen gallon and four five gallon). The applicant would be allowed any combination. y Commissioner Asfour asked how it would be determined where the trees are to be planted. Planner Walgren stated that prior to issuance of any permit, landscape plans would need to be submitted depicting the location, type and size of the trees. Commissioner Asfour asked staff if they had an answer to the request for a stop sign? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that Mrs. Barning's request for the PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 15 - installation of a stop sign would be referred to the Public Works Director for his evaluation and that staff may refer the request to the Public Safety Commission. Chairman Murakami stated that the angle of the homes did not bother him and that he understood that there were reasons for their angle placement (i.e.,protection of the trees). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD- 92-008.1 AND DR-95-049 WITH THE ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A GAS FIREPLACE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. SD-92-008.1 TO ALLOW FOR SUBMITTAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO BE REVIEWED, CONSIDERED AND TO ALLOW FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR CONCURRENTLY WITH SUBDIVISION LEVEL IMPROVEMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-050 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A GAS FIREPLACE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Chairman Murakami thanked staff for all their help and stated his appreciation for the Commission's assistance during his term as Chair. DIRECTOR'S ITE~TS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the rotation of chair/vice-chair would take place at its April 10 meeting. Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission that it agreed to pay $10 for its dinner for work session meetings. CO1tIMISSION ITEMS 1. Report on Bicycle Committee Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that this item was scheduled at the request of Commissioner Siegfried. Due to his absence this evening, this item would be rescheduled for the next meeting. Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the Planning Commissioner's Institute, the most important session that she attended dealt with antennas. She felt that antennas were very unobtrusive devices (seven to eight inches wide and five feet long). She requested that staff make copies of pages 200-206 of the document that she received at the Institute and that they be included with the material to be provided next week. She noted that this was a nation-wide process and that antennas would proliferate everywhere in the country as there PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 16 - would be more vendors licensed by the Federal government. At the work session, it was argued that cities take control up front and that they indicate the location where antennas would be allowed, locating them on city property so that revenue can be generated from the leasing of the land so that antennas are not strung out all over the city. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the impact of Measure G has yet to be determined. It has been suggested that representatives from the Planning Commission meet with representatives from the City Council (i.e., Planning Commission Chair/Vice-chair and Mayor/Vice-Mayor) along with the City Attorney to discuss the impacts of Measure G. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a joint study session could be scheduled with the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss Measure G. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that transmittals on all major projects are sent to the appropriate school district. In the case of application SD-95-010 (agenda item 5) transmittals were referred to the Saratoga Union School District, noting that the District had an opportunity to comment on the transmittal. Commissioner Pierce indicated that a new type of antennae has been installed on top of Saratoga Liquor Store and encouraged the Commission to drive by and view the antennae if it had an opportunity to do so. COl~ii\~ILJNICATIOITS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 3/6 & 3/12/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 4/10/96 Oral Citv Council ADJOURI~i ~IENT -There to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. April 10, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. , IT\PC032796. SAR