Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-1996 Planning Commission minutese ~ANNING COMMISSION MINUT~ IViAY 8, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chair~voman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami. Pierce. Siegfried Late: None Absent: Patrick Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren (City Attorney Riback was not present this evening) Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 4/24/96 CONIMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 24. 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 4, first paragraph, line 3 amended to read: "...streets,Seaton Avenue, .:.......... . should::;. i~ot be extended.... " - Page 4, paragraph 6, the addition of the folio~vina to the end of the paragraph: ...nee to see one more access provtded , coi~triecEirig alie:::;;of.,the,. other::::>resads :::dead:.: ................... . er~dinQ inta~ the property . " - Page ~, second paragraph, the addition of the follo~vina to the end of the paragraph: "...make decisions that would benefit the City as a whole, no[ just a<small locality within theta." - Page 11, paragraph 10 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that there were other issues other than meeting ~ zanir~~. requirements. " - Page 11, last paragraph amended to read: "Ed Costa. applicant indicated that he chose a home design that he liked and tl~theit he searched for a lot in Saratoga that would fit the design.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT). Oral Communications No comments were offered. PLANNING COMVIISS1aN VIINLTTES • MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code ~49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on May 3 , 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSE\TT CALE\DAR Commissioner Siegfried requested that item 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar. 1. SD-95-010 - \AVICO I\C./BYRO\T NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SU\TNYVALERD.;Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 1~ 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 1,000 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-1-12,00 zoning district. (cont. from 4/24/96 meeting to adopt Denial Resolution) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. DR-96-007 -COSTA; 18928 TEST ACRES ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5.676 sq. ft. single story residence on a 44.867 sq. ft. vacant lot per Chapter 1~ of the City Code. The property is located within the R-1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. from 4/24/96 meeting to adopt Denial Resolution). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2 AS PRESENTED BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried noted that he was very much opposed to the position taken by the Commission on Consent Calendar item 1. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the last "Whereas" in the resolution clearly identified the resulting vote on the resolution. 3. UP-96-003 -THE BROOKSIDE CLUB OF SARATOGA19127 COX AVE.;Review of a comprehensive Use Permit for an existing private tennis and swim club facility located on an approximately 3.4 acre site in the R-1-10.000 and R-1-12,00 zoning district, pursuant to Article 1~-~~ of the City Code (cont. from 4/24/96 to adopt remised Resolution.) Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would like to address t~vo issues. One issue related to the basketball standard. He indicated that he had no problem with leaving the standard PLANNING COMMISS~ MINUTES • MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 3 - to the determination of the community development director. However, he recommended that language be added to condition 7.d. to read: "..hut not: to include the placemenr'.along the east~rljrd:t}fth~ prQpertzT ". He also recommended that a sentence be added to :.:::.;:.;:.;. Condition 9 which addresses the club adopting rules to stipulate that the club house is to be used only for normal activities of the club and its membership. This would make it clear that it was the intent that the club house vas not to be used for commercial purposes. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the follo~vina be added to the end of condition 7.d. to read: "...reviewand approval of the Community Development Director r:;lsut in::no.;~vei~t..:shall it.;be:plaeec~'>alon~:tle easterly: ;property ~~e" Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the amendment to condition 9 would preclude members of the club from using it as a barbecue'? Community Development Director Curtis clarified that it vas the intent of the condition to stipulate that the club house vas not be rented out to non-members. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED 'TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL, AMENDING CONDITIONS 7.d. AND 9 AS SPECIFIED ABOVE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COiV1MISSI01\TER PATRICK ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARI\TG CO\TSENT CALENDAR 4. DR-96-013 - FOLEY/R & Z DEVELOPA~IEtiT COitIPA\Y; 18929 ~~IONTE VISTA DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new x,984 sq. ft. two- story single family residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 40.047 sq. ft. The property is located «rithin the R-1-40.000 zoning district (cont. to x/22/96 at the request of applicant; City- re~ie«~ deadline is 10/17/96). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. V-96-001- DIA~IO\D; 18406 it~ONTPERE ~?~'AY;Request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 278 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2.760 sq. ft. single story residence. The addition would encroach 1.2 ft. into the required side yard setback of 7.2 ft. The subject property is 8,220 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district (cont. from 4/24/96 at the request of applicant; Cite revie~:-deadline is 9/12/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. 'PLANNING COMMISS~T MINUTES • MAY 8. 1996 PAGE - 4 - Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:4~ p.m. Angelo Leber, representing the applicants, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Abshire stated that it was his understanding from reviewing the plans that the gable located on the right side of the front of the house would be removed and that the roof line would be extended downward. He asked if the pitch of the roof would change'? Mr. Leber responded that the pitch of the roof would not change. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:47 P.M. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-96-001. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 6. DR-96-018 - FYKE/FALCONS; 19020 MONTE VISTA DR. ; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,510 sq. ft. single-story residence and construct a new 5.014 sq. ft. nvo-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 1.5 acre parcel located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami noted that the applicant felt that the site vas fully wooded as far as the number of trees located on site. He indicated that after reading the arborist report. it mentions that the lot was overcrowded with trees. He asked if staff had any input as far as what the arborist report states. Planner Walgren indicated that the site vas heavily wooded and that if staff required the removal of all the trees as recommended in the arborist's report, it would increase the replacement value which staff did not believe was necessary. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the city would charge the applicant a replacement cost to remove trees that are in poor condition`? Planner Walgren responded that the City would not normally require the replacement of trees that are in poor condition. He noted that the arborist recommended the replacement value as specified in the resolution. Beyond that. the homeowners would be free to come to the City and apply for a tree removal permit. noting that the city staff member who issues the tree removal permit would take into account the number of trees located on site and would more than likely not require additional replacement trees. Commissioner Asfour asked if staff verified if the trees to be removed are ones recommended for removal? Planner Walgren responded that staff would verify the appropriate tree(s) to be removed. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - ~ - Chairwoman Kaplan noted that page 4 of the staff report indicates that staff recommends a bonding of 10~ and that the arborist recommends 25 ~ bonding. She asked if the value of bonding has changed. Planner ~'Valgren stated that the arborist recommends 2~ 9~ bonding for all trees that could be affected for every project that he is asked to review. This percentage gives the monetary valuation of the trees that are affected. Beyond that. it would be up to Planning Commission to determine what would be a reasonable amount. He noted that 2~ 9 in this case would be S23,000. This amount «-as significantly larger than most tree protection bonds that are taken in. Staff recommends that a 109 bond be required which would be closer to the valuation of the trees. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the City was requiring a replacement value of trees recommended for removal due to their condition safety. She recommended that this issue be scheduled for a study session. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it seemed that a tree recommended for removal by the arborist because it is diseased should have a zero value. Planner Walgren clarified that the arborist does give trees zero value in some cases. In this situation, keynoted that the arborist assigned the trees a value. He stated that a security deposit was meant to be an incentive to follow the guidelines. In this case, staff did not believe that it needs to match the exact value of every tree. It «~as Planner VValgren's belief that the applicant would be requesting that they not be required to provide for a replacement of the redwood tree to be removed because the site was so wooded based on his conversation with the applicants. Chair~~-oman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Cathy Fyke, applicant, requested the she be relieved of the replacement value of the redwood tree as the arborist acknowledges that the redwood tree would eventually need to be removed due to its condition. She informed the Commission that the site contained 11~ trees. She noted that there is no open area to plant another tree. She indicated that the front yard contains water lines and that it would not be conducive to tree planting. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired if Ms. Fyke would consider replacing the wood burning fireplaces with a gas fireplace to preserve our breathable air'? Ms. Fyke responded that she would consult her architect and would agree to do so, if possible. She noted that the master bedroom fireplace would be the one used and that the others would be used for decoration purposes. Commissioner Pierce noted that the master bedroom proposes a gas fireplace. Chairwoman Kaplan referred to page 13 of the arborist report which talks about the driveway being within two feet of the tree trunk. She asked if this concern was addressed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 6 - in the resolution of approval'? Planner Walgren indicated that he would check to see if this condition was included in the resolution. Ms. Fyke clarified that the existing drive~yay would be utilized and that a new layer would be placed on top of it. She vas informed that she should not pull out the existing driveway nor to disturb the tree's root system. She felt that her proposal would be beneficial to the tree. Chair roman Kaplan recommended that a condition be added to reflect the Commission's concern about the drive~yay not being removed because that would be detrimental to the tree. y Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the resolution did not contain conditions reflecting the city arborist's recommendation. Ms. Fyke stated that she would agree to a condition that would require that the driveway is to remain in its present location. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that since the city arborist recommends the removal of the red«-ood tree because of its condition, he does not see why the applicant should be required to pay a replacement value and that he would agree to waive the replacement cost of the redwood tree. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he visited the site and noted that there were a number of healthy, good sized oak trees located on site. He stated that he did not see the need to require additional tree planting as there were a number trees on site. Commissioner Murakami stated that the redwood tree vas a non-native variety and that he did not see a reason to penalize the applicant for its removal. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-018 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: - DELETION OF CONDITION 7 WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE REDWOOD TREE. - THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD STIPULATE THAT THE PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY ADJACENT TO TREE #37 IS TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED TO PROTECT THE TREE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 7 - 7. V-96-002 -LUCAS; 19370 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS RD. ; Request for Variance approval to construct a 669 sq. ft. detached garage with a roof height of 19.E feet where 15 feet is the maximum height permittedy by the City Code. The subject property is a 4.47 acre parcel and is located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Asfour noted that the garage is to be detached from the building. He did not know why the garage needed to be as high as being proposed because he felt that the garage could be designed to be compatible with the main structure. He indicated that he had a problem with the roof height. Planner Walgren indicated that the garage was originally approved at a height of 15 feet. The applicants are requesting the additional height to increase the roof pitch. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Robert Aviles, project designer, indicated that a decision vas made to request a variance to make the roof more compatible with the existing front elevation. Commissioner Asfour asked if compatibility could be achieved without going up the extra foot in height. Mr. Aviles noted that ~~=ith a 6:12 pitch, you end up with a height of 1~ feet. Comparing this height to the existing front elevation, it would stick out like a sore thumb. Commissioner Asfour stated that the neighbors located to the right side of the driveway had a problem with the original approval and noted that it ~yould be visible to those neighbors. Mr. Aviles indicated that the neighbors located to the right side would not have a window facing this property and that the neighbors do not have a problem with the proposal. Commissioner Murakami noted that when you first drive into the circular driveway, you will be seeing the profile of the garage, and not the front view of the garage. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that there were no height poles at the site to give her an understanding of what the difference in roof height would be. She did not know why the additional four feet in height was necessary and felt that the larger structure ~;~ould be more obtrusive visually than keeping it at lower height. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:13 P.M. Commissioner Pierce felt that this was a unique estate home built in 1929. He felt that it was an appropriate request given the fact that there is a circular driveway located in the front area. He felt that the roofline was important and felt that it would provide continuity. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 8 - He clarified that he vas not supportive of higher rooflines but that in this case. he could support the increase in height. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with the comments as e;cpressed by Commissioner Pierce. Commissioner Murakami stated that in reviewing the profile of the garage, the height does not bother him because it lends itself to the overall scheme of the "estate" look. He stated that he would not object to the request. Commissioner Asfour stated that he could not make the findings to approve the variance because it vas his belief that the roof scale could be made to fit the architecture. Therefore. he could not support the request. Commissioner Abshire stated that he could make the findings to support the variance request. He noted that the adjacent home has a similar height pitched roof. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the pitch of the roof could not be achieved without raising the height as high as being requested. Mr. Aviles clarified that a 45 degree angled roof would reduce the height to 1~ feet, reducing the depth of the garage and also reducing what you can fit into the garage (only a small car would be able to fit in the garage). Commissioner Siegfried clarified that the applicant could install a 15 foot tall garage, but that he could not install a 1~ foot high garage with the pitch proposed. Commissioner Asfour asked staff how it derived at the findings to approve the variance. Planner Walgren referred to page 1 of the resolution. Staff felt that the special circumstance,y in this case, vas the era in which the house vas built. The applicant is proposing to match what was built in the 1920s to achieve aesthetic and architectural compatibility. In addition, the supporting findings are the fact that the parcel vas as large and screened as it is and that it is not visible from off site vantage points. If the Commission can accept the special circumstances, than there is no grant in special privilege because of these special circumstances. Commissioner Asfour stated that had the garage been attached to the main structure. he could support the request. As it was detached from the main structure, he could not make the findings to approve the variance request. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V-96-002 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 9 - 8. DR-96-012 -MITCHELL: 15351 PEPPER LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a ne«~ ~,52~ sq. ft. single story residence on a 33.659 sq. ft. lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing cottage and accessor}~ structures on the site would be demolished. The property is located within the R-1-40.000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Marty Oakley, project designer, indicated that he would answer any questions «-hick it may have. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired if any of the proposed fireplaces are to be designated as gas burning. She also inquired if the applicant would consider installing inserts in the wood burning fireplaces to prevent air pollution. Mr. Oakley indicated that the master bedroom would have a gas burning fireplace and that the t~vo others would be wood burning fireplaces. Regarding the installation of inserts in the fireplaces, he indicated that he would discuss this issue with his clients. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff if a condition vas included to restrict driving or parking underneath the dripline of the trees. She recommended that driving/parking restrictions be included as a condition of approval if it was not included as one. Jim Sweet, 15395 Pepper Lane, informed the Commission that he has no problem with the design of the home. He informed the Commission that across the street from him, there is a home, under construction, that was approved by the city council over three year ago. His concern vas in the length of time that it takes to complete construction. He asked if there was any ~vay to require that progress is made in development. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a building permit is valid as long as progress is being made towards the completion of the project. If construction ceases for six months, the building permit would expire. However, a condition could not be imposed to require completion of the home by a certain period of time. Mr. Oakley indicated that the home would be constructed within 11 to 13 ~~seeks. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PLTBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the project «~as nicely designed. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-012 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT NO DRIVING/PARKING IS TO OCCUR UNDERNEATH THE TREES' DRIPLINE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that a timeline for construction be scheduled for a work session as he felt that it is a condition that could be included as part of project approval. 9. DR-96-005 -FLICK; 20067 MENDELSOHN LANE: Request for Design Revie«- approval to construct a new 4,00 sq. ft. t~vo-story single family residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 21,170 sq. ft. The property is located within the R-1-20.000 zoning district. Planner Walaren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Dave Flick, applicant, indicated that the proposed home steps down and that it takes ownership of Wild Cat Creek. The only part of the home that is a two story is located by Wild Cat Creek. The design vas similar to the house located next door. Regarding tree replacement, the home was designed to remove three dead redwood trees valued at 59,000, noting that the other trees to be removed are valued at S26,000. He felt that requiring a property owner to replace trees that are dead was redundant. especially when there are over 100 trees on site. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that the trees be planted close to the next door neighbor located to the right. She recommended that staff be allowed to define the number and location of the replacement trees. Commissioner Pierce felt that the requirement for replacement of dead trees should be reviewed. Commissioner Murakami indicated that he would agree to allow staff to determine the number of trees to be replaced. Mr. Flick stated that he would agree to work with staff regarding the number of replacement trees. y COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:36 P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked how the applicant can appeal staff's recommendation if the applicant disagrees with staff's requirement'? • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a condition could be included that would require the replacement of the trees in terms of number and location subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. If there is not a mutual agreement, the issue would be brought back to the Commission for further consideration. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLLiTION NO. DR-96-005, ADDING A CONDITION TO STIPULATE THAT THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF THE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis recommended that a «~ork session be scheduled for May 22 to discuss the three issues brought up this evening (time permitting): 1) replacement values of trees; 2) fireplace issues; and 3) the timing of construction. Commissioner Siegfried further recommended that timing of construction for the installation of landscaping or on-site improvements be included for discussion. He recommended that the City be careful about requiring a decorative fire place that is never to be used be required to be plumbed for gas. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that apresentation/information relating to studies conducted relating to wood burning fireplaces be scheduled for a work session. She also recommended that the issue regarding no parking/driving underneath the trees be scheduled for discussion. CO`Z~IISSION ITEitIS Commissioners Asfour and Murakami indicated that they would not be present at the May 22 meeting. As two Commissioners were going to be absent from the May 22 meeting, the Commission agreed to schedule the work session to discuss the three items identified above to another date when all Commissioners could be present. Staff is to notify the Commission if an applicant requests that a work session be scheduled for May 22. CO~I1tiUNICATIO\S Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 4/17. 4/20 4/23 & 4/24/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 5/22/96 Oral ~ • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Cite Council ADJOUR\~IENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to 7:30 p. m. ,Wednesday, May 22, 1996. Civic Theater, 13777 Fruin~ale A~~e. ,Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT'iPC0~0A9fi.SAR