Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-1996 Planning Commission Minutesfi~ -~ >>° •.ANNING COMMISSION MINLi~ JUNE 12, 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. Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick. Pierce Late: None Absent: Asfour, Siegfried Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren, Public Works Director Perlin and City Attorney Riback Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - ~ /22/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 22. 1996 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on June 7,1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSE\TT CALE\DAR PUBLIC HEARII~TG CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-96-008 - HUSAIN; 20140 ME\DELSOHN LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4.516 sq. ft. single-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 26.006 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINLTTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES . JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEAR~GS 2. DR-95-048 -CLARK; 12189 PARKER RAl\TCH ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,366 square foot two-story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code. The subject property is approximately 47,180 square feet in gross area and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that a letter «-as received from Thomas Liu, representing a neighboring property owner, expressing their concerns. Commissioner Murakami asked why the vertical design was approved by staff as it bothered him ho~v the element goes straight up. Planner Walgren referred to the pages A4 and AS of the elevation plants and indicated that the vertical tower elements and other elements tend to emphasize the vertical. Staff discussed with the applicant the potential of making design changes to eliminate the flat, tall wall surfaces. He informed the Commission that the applicants elected to pursue this design because they felt that the buildable area of the lot was restrictive and that they needed to stay with a t~vo story design in order to achieve the square footage they were looking for. Ultimately, staff recommended approval of the application based on the fact that the home is six to eleven feet below the street grade which «~ould have a significant affect on how much of the home would be seen. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if this ~;~as the property that proposed along narrow driveway. She asked if the driveway design had been modified? Planner Walgren responded that changes have not been made to the plans. He indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed the plans at an informal design review workshop. Comments were given to the applicant to reduce the amount of paving, noting that the applicant has not modified the driveway. Staff did not believe that one would see the long length of paved surface from the street elevations. He informed the Commission that the majority of the house would be visible and that it would be set five to ten feet Belo«- the street. The line of sight would be five to ten feet above the finish grade and that the length of the driveway would be hidden from public view from the street. Staff indicated that .one of the considerations taken into account in its recommendation was that the house would have some sort of horizontal affect as you go past it and that you would not see all of the vertical elements. Commissioner Patrick felt that the lot coverage appears to be much greater than shown on the plan. Planner Walgren indicated that the applicant has covered over 509 of the pad area, including the driveway. Commissioner Abshire asked if two entrances to the driveway were necessary? Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:41 p.m. William Holl, project architect, noted that this was the last site in the subdivision to be developed. He felt that he vas sensitive to the amount of mass that vas created on the site ~ PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES . JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 3 - so that it can be viewed and not become overwhelming. He indicated that the design of the home was such that it kept the vegetation in mind. He felt that he was able to mitigate the bulky appearance of the home and that the height, size and design of the home vas compatible to those in the neighborhood. He provided the Commission with photographs of homes in the area to depict the homes' compatibility. He addressed the privacy concern of the adjacent neighbors and indicated that the existing and proposed vegetation to be installed would mitigate the neighbors' privacy concerns.yHe also addressed ~ the design of the driveway, noting that the street comes uphill and crests at the intersection and then goes back down and that the design provides off street parking to prevent a hazard. The reason for secondary egress was due to the fact that the driveway at the top of the hill would create a dangerous situation (lack of visibility). He concurred with staff that most of the cut of the site was due to the driveway. He felt that the design review findings can be made to support the application Commissioner Abshire inquired as to the proposed landscaping to be installed between the driveway and the street level. Mr. Holl indicated that it was his belief that the entire area is to be landscaped with shrubbery that would grow four to five feet in height. Planner Walgren noted that ground cover, shrubbery and five crape myrtle trees were proposed to be planted in the front yard area between the driveway and the retaining ~;galls. Thomas Liu, architect, representing Mr. and Mrs. Wu who reside at 12161 Parker Ranch. requested that the home be properly designed as it is a highly visible site. He also requested that the design of the home be made compatible to the existing homes. He provided the Commission with pictures of the Wu's home and of adjacent homes in the neighborhood. He noted that most of the existing homes were designed in such a manner that you do not recognize that they are two story homes. He expressed concern with the mass and bulk of the proposed home from Parker Ranch Road. He did not believe that the proposed design takes into account the Wu's privacy. He expressed concern with the geologic and geotechnical stability of the site (concern with potential landslide). He requested that the Commission defer approval of the request until such time that Mr. and Mrs. Wu hire a geotechnical consultant to complete an independent geotechnical study. Ms. Yuh-Ning Chen. 12161 Parker Ranch Road. read into the record a letter that she submitted to the Commission expressing her concerns of bulk: integration of the structure with the environment: interference with privacy; preservation of vie«~s; and design for energy efficiency. She requested that the Commission defer approval of the plans until such time that all reports are completed. Mr. Holl stated that the window placement took into account the neighbor's backyard privacy. He indicated that a recent geotechnical report was completed and that it has been reviewed by the City's geologist, noting that mitigation measures «-ere included as part of the appro~°al. y COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 P.M. PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES . JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Abshire stated that he understood the neighbors' concern of mass and bulk. He indicated that he was sympathetic with the fact that this was a difficult lot and that in order to obtain the square footage allowed, a second story was being proposed. He felt that additional landscaping would assist in breaking up the mass of the home. However, he did not believe that the trees proposed would provide affective screening. He recommended that evergreen trees be considered. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Abshire's comments. She stated that she was troubled with the bulk and mass in the design proposal. Also of concern vas the impervious coverage of the driveway. She felt that there were alternatives that could be considered to mitigate her concerns (i.e., stepping the home down the hillside). She vas troubled by the fact that the home does not fit into the em~ironment. Also of concern were the two entrances proposed to the driveway . She recommended that the safest driveway access be approved. Based on her concerns, she could not approve the request. Commissioner Pierce agreed that evergreen trees be included to address the privacy concern. He stated that he could reluctantly approve the project, recognizing that it vas a difficult lot. With the design being stepped down from the road and the inclusion of additional landscaping, he could reluctantly support the request. Commissioner Murakami stated that he had problems with the basic design of the home. He felt that a better job could be done by stepping down the home. The ~vay the home is currently designed, the lower view stands out too much. When you look at the rear vie«~ of the home, it appears to go straight up. He felt that the design could be improved and therefore, he could not approve the request. y Chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments of Commissioner Murakami and felt that some of the su~~estions given at the informal work session could have been considered. She also indicated that she could not approve the design as presented. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:11 P.M. TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM OR WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM THIS EVENING. Mr. Holl requested that this item be continued. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 10, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 3. DR-96-016 -CLIFFORD; 12985 PIERCE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,730 sq. ft. first story addition and a 618 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,584 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property has a net site area of 18,339 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-40.000 residential zoning district. y PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that letters were received from Robert and Kathleen Moore, 12969 Foothill Lane, dated June 9, 1996 expressing concern with the windows facing into their rear yard area: and from George and Ruth Sanders, 12979 Foothill Lane, requesting that the Commission give careful consideration to the project. The Sanders also asked if they would be allowed to hook up to the sanitary sewer line that would be extended down to the new residence. He informed the Commission that the Commission can direct the Sanders to talk to the Sanitation District regarding sewer connection. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the letter from the Moores states that the old garage is three feet from the property line. She asked if the garage would be allowed to remain and whether it would be grandfathered in? Planner Walgren responded that the structure is grandfathered in (legal non-conforming structure) and that it is shown to remain approximately five and a half feet from the back property line. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Steven Clark, project architect, stated that he tried to be a good neighbor and that he tried to design the project that is adaptable to the site. He indicated that he tried to eliminate any concerns that any neighbors may have, noting that most of the siting is located towards the creek. v Commissioner Murakami stated that the design vas very nice and suggested that the architect more than restrained himself regarding the rear back portion of the home (upper story). He stated that he would not be opposed if a regular sized ~vindo~v vas installed for lighting purposes as he could not see an impact to the neighbors' privacy. Chairwoman Kaplan agreed with Commissioner Murakami's suggestion of allowing an additional window for lighting as she did not see that it would impact the adjacent neighbors. y Mr. Clark requested that he be allowed to install a window in the utility room to allow for ventilation. The Commission indicated that they did not have a problem with this request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioners Murakami, Pierce and Patrick felt that it was a well designed second story addition and that they could support the request. Commissioner Abshire inquired about the request for sewer connection. Planner Warren stated that staff would include a statement to acknowledge that the sewer connection y~vas acknowledged by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION • _ ~ PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 - PAGE - 6 - NO. DR-96-016. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stepped down from agenda item 4. 4. DR-96-025, V-96-005 -HEAD; 14684 PIKE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,014 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,117 sq. ft. guest house. The addition consists of a 2,20 sq. ft. new lower level, a 659 sq. ft. ground floor addition, and a 1,105 sq. ft. conversion of existing attic space to habitable area. The applicant is requesting Variances to exceed the maximum height allowance and to encroach into the required rear yard setback. The size of the subject parcel is 2.186 acres. while the size of the entire property is approximately 18.75 acres. The property is located within a HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the design review and variance request with an added condition that would require that the plans be modified (i.e., shifting the bottom floor out so that you do not have any portion of the structures overlapping and having three floors). The design modification is to be completed prior to submittal of buildings permits. He indicated that it vas his belief that the applicant would agree to this condition. Commissioner Abshire asked if it would be conceivable to have a lot line adjust to eliminate the need for the rear setback variance. Planner Walgren responded that a lot line adjustment of 18 feet would eliminate the need for a variance to the rear setback. In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's question, he indicated that the lot line adjustment would not be subject to Measure G. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Robert Aviles, project architect, requested Commission support of the design for this unique historic estate. The expansion of the guest house is being requested in order to house a private art collection (gallery space for 18 and 19 century Japanese screen and glass art). He addressed the rear yard variance request and indicated that most of the neighbors support the request. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why there «-as a reluctancy to the lot line adjustment. Mr. Aviles responded that a lot line adjustment would be a lengthy process for 18 feet. He indicated that the building was stepped down to address staff's concerns. In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's question, he indicated that alternatives have been discussed with staff that would address the t~vo story limitation. Commissioner Abshire asked whether the alternatives proposed would make a difference to the distance of the back yard lot line'? Planner Walgren responded that the approval resolution is worded such that if the degree of encroachment chances, the condition would allow for an 8 to 10 feet encroachment ~ if the building needs to be shifted. -' PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that Commissioner Siegfried informed her that he received a call from Marlene Duffy ~vho resides in the vicinity and indicated that she does not oppose the project. Dr. W. Donald Head. applicant, addressed the lot line adjustment. He indicated that it took him two years to obtain a previous lot line adjustment and that he does not want to ~o through a lengthy, bureaucratic process for a lot line adjustment. Philosophical, he stated that he did not oppose a lot line adjustment. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the City recently amended the code to allow administrative approval of lot line adjustments and that they could be handled expeditiously, no longer requiring a public hearing. Chairwoman Kaplan asked ~vhy a kitchen and dining pavilion were being proposed? Dr. Head responded that the existing kitchen is to be removed and that it is to be replaced with a new kitchen and dining facility for receptions, gatherings. and/or shows for charitable events. He also indicated that he would not allow the use of an amplified system, nor does he intend to charge for the use of the premises. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Commissioner Murakami noted that this was a unique piece of property as it was large and old. He stated that he had no problem with the variance or the additional square footage to the guest house. Commissioner Pierce stated that after viewing the property, that one would need to be impressed with the stateliness of the property. He felt that an addition like this appears to be appropriate. He stated that he did not see a need for requiring a lot line adjustment. He felt that staff explained the variance process and that it seemed appropriate to him. Commissioner Abshire stated that he was impressed with the estate and with the property. However, approving a project with t«-o variances was extensive. He felt that reducing the variance to one would be appropriate. He stated that he would not approve the request as proposed. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she understands that a lot adjustment vas a technicality, noting that they are now handled administratively with a non-public notice hearing? procedure. Therefore, she would support the lot line adjustment recommendation. Commissioner Pierce stated that it is known that there are expedited processes and that the City «could move with all due speed. He noted that staff encouraged this process and that he felt that requiring a lot line adjustment was an unnecessary delay to require the applicant to Qo through when a variance is appropriate. Commissioner Murakami stated that he agreed with the comments as expressed by PLANNING COMMISS.~ MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Pierce. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that variance findings can be made when there are no alternatives. She noted that in this case, this project has an option that would not require a variation. She recommended that the option be exercised and that a precedent not be set. Commissioner Abshire concurred with Chairwoman Kaplan and stated that he_ did not believe that a lot line adjustment was an unreasonable request. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the Commission could approve the request with the stipulation that the lot line adjustment be approved to relocate the line to eliminate the need for a variance. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the lot line adjustment process/recordation would take no more than four weeks. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ASK IF THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE PRESENCE OF THE FULL COMMISSION OR TO REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE ACTION THIS EVENING. Dr. Head stated that if the lot line adjustment process only takes four weeks, he would not oppose the condition to a lot line adjustment, eliminating the need for a rear yard setback variance. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE_ PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:48 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-02~ WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE RECORDATION OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE V-96-005. APPROVING THE HEIGHT VARIANCE, TAKING NO ACTION ON THE REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Commissioner Patrick resumed her seat on the Commission. 5. DR-96-013 - FOLEY/R & Z DEVELOPMENT COMpANY,18929 MONTE VISTA -. ~ PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 9 - DRIVE; Request for Design Revie«~ approval to construct a new 5.419 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 within the R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. from x/22/96 at the request of applicant; City re~ie~;~ deadline is 10/17/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He addressed the access issues and issues that are not subject to design review consideration. These issues go back to a mandated court settlement as to how the upper and lower parcels are to share accesses. He stated that staff was aware of this information and that staff felt that this project was consistent with the court settlement. He informed the Commission that this is not a subject before the Commission should it be brought up this evening. He (Walgren) noted that there remains access constraints. He indicated that it is proposed to have two homes access Monte Vista Drive as approved per the tentative map and that a barricade would be constructed at the roadway to prevent through access onto the private stretch of Monte Vista. The design would require that a barricade structure be built partially on the private property to the west, requiring approval of the property owner to build the barricade there. If the approval is not granted, the applicant would then fall back to alternative 1. Alternative 1 would require that the road be shifted within their granted egress/ingress easement, requiring the removal of a pine tree on the adjacent property, noting that the easement does give the applicant the right to do so. If this alternative is pursued, staff ~;could require that a tree replacement be provided for the Monterey Pine that is to be removed. He noted that another alternative would be to move the barricade up to the northwest corner of the access road and then have the existing home above, the new home and the neighboring property to the west all access directly onto Monte Vista. This alternative would be easier from building the barricade. This would require the consent of a property owner to the west. Given the alternatives that could be pursued and based on the cooperation of adjoining property owners, staff recommended that the applicant present the three alternatives to the Planning Commission and that the design review application be approved with the understanding that anyone of the alternatives can be pursued depending on what type of approval is granted by the neighboring property owners. Commissioner Pierce inquired why access could not be achieved from private Monte Vista Drive? Planner Walgren responded that the existing homes could continue to access private Monte Vista but noted that it was a substandard private road~c-a~°. When you add an additional home. it would exceed the number of lots that are supposed to access onto a private roadway. This would get into issues of whether the roadway would need to be improved to public standards. noting that this could not be done because aright of «ray could not been obtained to the nearest public street. Chairwoman Kaplan asked the City Attorney ho~v the Commission should deal with this type of situation. (Should the Commission accept staff's recommendation to approve the design review and allow the applicant to pick one of the access alternatives'?) City Attorney Riback responded that staff's recommendation vas the most reasonable ' . PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 10 - approach given the fact that the preferable barricade design would result in an easement on another private property and that it is not known if it is going to be feasible. If it is not feasible, there are other alternatives. Commissioner Pierce asked if the proposed barricade to be constructed is to be a fence or whether it would be a barricade similar to what exists'? He noted that the area was used as a thoroughfare for walking and riding bicycles. He agreed with the statement in the petition submitted that if a fence is to be built, it would close off the pedestrian trail. Planner Walaren indicated that the barricade is not intended to be a solid fence but that it would be designed to allow access to emergency vehicles as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The barricade would preclude all other vehicular access. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Glenn Cahoon, G&G Design, project designer, indicated that he understood that the access issue was of great concern to a number of individuals. He indicated that he would address any architectural concerns which the Commission may have. He informed the Commission that the home has been articulated and that it steps into the natural slope of the property. Mark Roberts, R&G Development Company, indicated that he understood the sensitivity in regarding the barricade. He stated that his preference for the barricade would be to use the one that comes off the public right of way from the south with the cooperation of the neighbor to the east. He indicated that he has approached the property owner for their approval and that he was awaiting a written acceptance for this alternative. He stated that there are existing easements for the purposes of roadways to go through this area. He indicated that it is questionable as to what can be done with the barricade. He stated that it is the intent to maintain the barricade in someway that would allow foot or bicycle traffic but prevent vehicular access. Donna Homes, 18975 Monte Vista, supported the design of the home and inquired as to ho~v the home would be accessed (road access). Peggy Emerson, 18974 Monte Vista, informed the Commission that she resides t~vo houses down from the proposed building. She noted that nothing has been stated that there is a one foot dedication of land underneath the barricade. It is her understanding that the dedication is worded to stipulate that the barricade is to be retained in perpetuity. She informed the Commission that she vas in possession of the original petition from the middle 1960s that supported the barricade. To date, she has not been provided «.-ith a copy. She requested that wording be included that would state that when a new barricade is installed that it be placed on dedicated land. She noted that Section 1.3. a. of the proposed resolution of approval would allow the City to move or remove the new barricade at any time for any reason without public review. She requested that this section be modified to require Planning Commission review. ' PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Ms. Emerson stated that the residents do not want the road to become a public road. If a gate is to be installed in the barricade, it is requested that it be small enough that motorcycles cannot go through it. She noted that the proposed location would be 24 feet north of its current location. She also noted that there would not be enough turn around space for larger vehicles. She expressed concern that there would be work done on private Monte Vista Road (utility installation). She stated that it was her understanding that when work is conducted on property located on a private road, that the builder is responsible for repair work. She requested that this responsibility be established at this point. Max Lett~veen, 18810 Monte Vista Drive, stated that he did not object to the basic design of the home but stated that he opposed the removal of the barricade more than a foot from where it currently exists. He indicated that he moved to this area because Monte Vista Drive was a private, dead end street with no through traffic. This area has experienced several years of construction and stated that he vas opposed to increased traffic. He felt that landscaping would be eliminated if the barricade is relocated. He did not see ~vhy the proposal could not take the access as it currently has. He asked if the removal of the barricade would fall under Proposition G? Dr. H.P. Lipton. 1420 Monte Vista Drive, indicated that he resides on the southern border of the development. He expressed concern with the amount of water to be used near a very large eucalyptus tree. He noted that the City arborist states that am' trenching or digging should be at least 20 feet from the existing tree and that there is to be no standing water. It is was his belief that there would be standing water at this site due to the large amount of water caused by the shallow slope of the s~vale in this area and the debris from the eucalyptus tree. He recommended that the defuser be moved 30 feet further down the swale where it will be away from the tree. He asked if floodinff has been addressed and whether it has been determined that there is to be no flooding across the road and down into his driveway and garage. If flooding does occur, he asked ~vho would be responsible`? The location of the barricade is of concern to many of the residents. Dr. Lipton indicated that in 1988. the Planning Commission met at the barricade site ~~-ith the residents. Because of the conditions at that time, the agreement approved for the subdivision stated that "all construction equipment and activity shall access the site from the private portion of Monte Vista Drive to the north." The agreement also stipulated that the barricade between the private and public portion of Monte Vista Drive shall be maintained at all times to prevent access before, during or after construction. " In his review of the plans, it vas never shown that the 50 foot pine tree he planted 25 years ago located in the easement in front of his home wwas to be removed. This is the first time that he has heard about its removal and requested that he be allowed time to consult an attorney regarding his rights to retain the tree. Commissioner Pierce asked Dr. Lipton if he «~as aware that he planted a tree ~~-ithin an easement? Dr. Lipton indicated that he vas not aware that he was planting the tree within an easement. PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 12 - William A. Johnson, 18955 Monte Vista Drive. expressed concern with the quality of the private road. Even though Mr. Roberts assured the residents that no construction trucks would utilize the private road, he finds it hard to believe that it would not be used. In the 1960s, the residents were promised that the barricade vas to remain in its current location in perpetuity. He requested that the barricade not be altered in any ~vay. Roberta Johnson. 18955 Monte Vista Drive, indicated that her concerns have been addressed. She stated that the existing residents do not want their street to become a public street. Mr. Roberts responded to Ms. Emerson's statement that the barricade was to remain in perpetuity . He indicated that in 1962, the reserve vas created as part of subdivision approval. It was created across an easement that had been in existence since the early 1900s. It was his belief that the ability to access the site has already been granted. Also, in 1983, the subdivision was approved with a condition that stipulated the property's access was to be to the south. He noted that this property has easements and also a property line that abuts onto a public road. It vas his belief that the site has the right to access that road. In response to Dr. Lipton's concern, he indicated that he would be ~villina to work with him regarding the eucalyptus trees as far as the diverters are concerned. He~indicated that the use of the diverter was one of erosion control and that it was meant to slow the water down. He noted that a natural Swale exists that transports water and holds water in some cases. Regarding the flooding that Dr. Lipton addressed, he felt that the plans address the number of ways to mitigate flooding. He indicated that he could help control water coming across his property , but that he could not control what other water might be intruding Dr. Lipton's property. He noted that he was not the only property that would contribute to his problem. Regarding the removal of the existing pine tree, he indicated that it vas not his intent to remove the tree if it can be avoided. Regarding Dr. Johnsons' comments regarding the quality of the private road. he agreed that it was in poor condition. It was his intent to access the site to the south for all construction traffic with no intention of using the private road. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to tax this parcel for road maintenance. Commissioner Pierce noted that the existing barricade has room for turn around and asked if the proposed barricade would allow for enough turn around room`? Mr. Roberts felt that there would be enough room for a garbage truck to make aturn-around and that if there was not enough turn around room, he did not know what his responsibility would be in that regard. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan asked what the Commission should do with all the conflicting perpetuity issues'? City Attorney Riback stated that there cannot be any breach of access across the one foot easement unless the city authorizes it. He indicated that development was approved in exchange for a one foot non-access lane parallel to the street. thereby preventing driveways PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 13 - from being installed. Anyone wanting to develop would need to come to the city to request an egress/ingress easement be granted. In this case. the City would be able to grant an egress/ingress easement over the one foot non-access strip to allo«~ egress/ingress to these two properties from public Monte Vista Drive. He stated that he does not see a problem with this. He was not aware of an underlying easement. If there is an underlying easement. it is an issue that someone may raise in the future and that the City would have to deal with it at that time. He indicated that no one has conducted a thorough title search and that a title search would be the responsibility of the property owner. He recommended that the Commission proceed, noting that the applicant and the existing property owners would need to agree «-hick barricade alternative would be used. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the one foot dedication would move with the barricade'? City Attorney Riback responded that it would not move with the barricade and that the City would need to execute an egress/ingress easement across the one foot access strip for the purposes of ingress/egress for the t~vo parcels. The barricade would be located on the public Monte Vista and that it would be no different than the City placing a barricade on any other piece of public property. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was uncomfortable that there were three alternatives being proposed, none of which have been agreed upon. None of the neighbors have indicated whether they were willing to grant an easement to the applicant. He expressed concern that things would not go well. However, the City Attorney has advised the Commission that it can approve the three alternatives and that the applicant work out the issue with the neighbors. He was convinced that the barricade would be designed in a way to suit the neighbors so that there can be pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Given these factors, he stated that he would vote to approve the request, but indicated that he still has some concerns. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would not object to any of the alternatives as long as the neighbors agreed to them. She also stated that she did not have a problem with the removal of the pine tree located within the easement. She indicated that she would vote to approve the request. Commissioner Abshire stated that the home was well designed. He noted that the applicant agrees to access the private road and not the public road, he would support it. Planner Walgren stated that when the subdivision was approved, it was approved with access to the public roadway because private Monte Vista was a substandard, private road. Commissioner Murakami stated that most of his concerns have been addressed. As long as the neighbors are in agreement with the developer, he would not object to the proposal. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that gas fireplaces be used and that wood burning fireplaces be avoided. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION . PLANNING COMMIS~1 MINUTES i JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 14 - NO. DR-96-013 WITH ANY OF THE THREE ALTERNATIVES TO WORKED OUT WITH STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 6. DR-96-022 - SL1~l; 14360 DO>LGLASS LA:\E; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5.820 sq. ft. two-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. An additional request has been made to grade within an open space easement/riparian area. The subject property is 6,166 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-20,000 zoning district (cont. from x/22/96 at the request of applicant; City review deadline is 11/1/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He expressed concern with the architectural compatibilityy of the home with the adjoining home. He indicated that staff could not recommend approval of the design review application based on the findings identified in the staff report. Staff recommended that this item be continued to allow the applicant to revise the plans to reduce the square footage to eliminate the floor area exception request: to redesign the site development plan to pull all the grading activity out of the riparian setback; and noted that the applicant is proposing to use the pedestrian pathway as a combination private drive/pedestrian pathway. Staff felt that this can be accomplished with proper signage and striping and indications to make it clear that this is a continuation of a public pathway. He (Walgren) indicated that since the plans were submitted, the City arborist has had an opportunity to look at them. He indicated that the city arborist feels that putting the driveway in the proposed location, impacts the ro~v of native trees located along the western property line. Staff «-ould also encourage the applicants to reconsider this particular driveway approach. Regarding the issue of architectural compatibility, staff not only recommends reducing the building by 400 square feet, but that the applicant consider making height, architectural and design changes to reduce the size and mass of the building to make it more compatible with the homes on Shado«~ Oaks and Douglass Lanes. Should the applicant not wish to have this item continued, staff recommends denial of the application without prejudice so that the applicant's could redesign the plans and resubmit them for Commission review. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:~0 p.m. Rolando Noriega, project architect, indicated that he would respond to any architectural questions which the Commission may have. He addressed the right-of-way of the walk~z~ay and pointed out that this is an existing condition. He inquired why the height of the structure was an issue. y Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the project, addressed the reason the drive~~~ay is proposed over the existing trail and the grading proposed in the riparian open space region. He stated that there is a minimum 18 foot wide access road that is a private road which is also used as a trail. The provision for the driveway area is such that there is turn-around area proposed ' PLANNING COMMIS: MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 15 - ~~-hich would eliminate backing out into the trail. He felt that the proposed access was the most direct and economically feasible access, utilizing existing pavement. He recognized that other alternatives were possible. Due to the grade and the slope of the terrain. a retaining wall could be installed. However, it was felt that it would destroy the intent of the riparian area to put in a small fill. He indicated that the property has restraints as far as where one can build due to the riparian area and setback requirements. The home was sited to keep it as far away from the neighbors as possible. He requested direction from the Commission regarding these issues. Commissioner Pierce asked if the retaining wall was an alternative in lieu of fill. Mr. Heiss indicated that the applicant would prefer the use of fill but would agree to install a retaining wall if required as part of approval. Bonnie Sun, applicant, addressed the need for growth and privacy for her family as well as the need to have her mother in-law reside with her in large quarters. She addressed the location of the proposed driveway. She indicated that she vas as concerned with safety as were others and that the use of the driveway is proposed to be minimal. She indicated that she wanted to preserve the environment for generations to come. She requested that the Commission approve the request. Annette Woolsey, 19952 Douglass Court, expressed concern with privacy and with the location of the proposed balconies. Also of concern was the size and the compatibility of the home with those of the neighborhood. She felt that the neighborhood vas comprised of single story homes. She requested that the Commission deny the request for floor area reduction. She also addressed landscaping. The neighbors want to retain privacy, but that the selection and location of the proposed landscaping needs to be carefully planed to preserve the views of the hills. She requested that the color of the home be indicated at this time. She stated that the gray color as proposed would be acceptable. She also expressed concern with the use of the current trail as a driveway for safety reasons. John Teter, 19931 Durham Court, indicated that he spoke in opposition to the prior approval. He stated that he felt different when a developer built a home for profit. changing the neighborhood versus an individual ~vho buys a property to build their home. He felt that limits should be applied when it impacts others. He stated that the proposed home does not impact him directly. However, the overall affect of a singular x,800 square foot structure has an indirect affect on him. He noted that there is a large area of undeveloped land in the neighborhood and that if a variance is approved. it would create a domino affect. He felt that there should be some control so that there is not a dramatic change of a distinct neighborhood by approving incremental larger homes. He indicated that the entire paved cul-de-sac area was used as a foot path, and that it no~v being proposed as a roadway, changing the rural nature of the area. Jerry Sun. applicant. informed the Commission that he did not want to use a retaining «=all because he felt that it was contradictory to the idea of an easement. Regarding the driveway, he indicated that he could relocate the road, but noted that a paved road currently exists and that he would like to use it as a driveway. PLANNING COMMISS~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 16 - COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that he remembers the original application vividly. He recalled the neighbors addressing the Commission. Concerns were expressed regarding the house. He noted that the Commission worked with the developer to try to change things. He felt that it worked in a way that it did not please everyone but that efforts were made to try to mitigate some of the concerns. He stated that in looking at this proposal, that he was inclined to support staff's recommendation. He agreed with staff in regards to the issues of bulk and mass. He stated that he could not support the exception to floor area reduction. Also, it disturbs him that the Commission tried to work with the applicant towards a compromise, noting that there appears to be a lack of compromise in this case. He indicated that he would deny the request. Commissioner Abshire stated that he could go along with filling of the embankment as it would be a safer feature than the use of a retaining wall where someone may fall off of if. He did not believe that it was practical to utilize the paved area as a driveway and indicated that he would not support it. He agreed with staff that the house vas too big and that he did not believe that the home fits the neighborhood and recommended that it be reduced in size. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support the exception in floor area and felt that the 5,474 square feet was an ample sized home. She felt that the difference between this request and the previous application was that the previous approval tried to retain some of the design semblance of the old home on the adjacent lot. She felt that this home would not compatible to the existing home. She vas uncomfortable with the idea of having a driveway and a pedestrian walkway using the same space. She did not see that any of the safety concerns would be minimized unless the driveway was relocated. She stated that she did not like the use of a retaining wall. However,_ she was uncomfortable in setting a precedent of using fill because it changes the intent of estate sites in keeping it open and somewhat natural. She stated that she could not support the request. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was in agreement with the comments expressed by the Commission. He pointed out that he was on the Parks Commission for approximately 10 years and noted that this trail was a very popular trail. He indicated that there is a proposal to make it more usable due to the its future connection with the Carnelian trail. He felt that the Commission should be aware of this problem. Chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed. However, she stated that she liked the idea of the garage being located behind the house and not being the first thing you see as you drive up. However, she ~i-as not sure if it was going to work in this situation, noting that the house was much too large and that it was not compatible to what has already been approved. She stated that she would deny the request. Community Development Director Curtis noted that at the last work session it was discussed that the use of either a retaining wall or fill is to be used. He stated at that time. that a PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 17 - third alternative would be to redesign and move the structure to eliminate the need for either the retaining wall or fill. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO ADDRESS THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES OR TO REQUEST ACTION THIS EVENING. Mr. Noriega requested that this item be continued. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-96-022 TO JULY 10, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 7. SD-95-004 - BURKE; 1348 VILLA OAKS Lti.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 15 acre (gross) Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision into three individual lots of 6.1, 5.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. from 4/10/96 at the request of the applicant; City revie~s~ deadline is 9/20/96) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that as a result of a court agreement, when the final map was recorded, there was language posted on the map that states that "All lots are not resubdividable" , meaning that they should not be further subdivided. This is one of the main issues that is being considered this evening. He indicated that the City Attorney has reviewed the settlement agreement and that his attached memo reflects his determination. He informed the Commission that the City Attorney vas present this evening to answer any questions which ma}° arise regarding this issue.. He indicated that the City Attorney acknowledges that there may~have been legitimate reasons for having this restriction on the map but that it does not prohibit the City from allowing further subdivision if there are legitimate reasons to do so. He (Walgren) informed the Commission that Public Works Director Perlin vas present this evening to address his efforts to work with the property owners to reclaim and repair an abandoned quarry and erosion and drainage ravine that has evolved around the back corner of the property over the years. The Commission is requested to decide whether there are legitimate and beneficial reasons to consider pursuing the request and amending the final map restriction following receipt of public testimony. Staff would prepare an approval resolution for a following meeting. Should the Commission disagree and does not support the amendment to the final map restriction, staff would prepare a denial resolution for a subsequent meeting and conclude this matter. A third option would be that should the Commission need additional information or would like to discuss this matter further, it could be continued to an informal meeting and have further discussion. He also informed the Commission that a lot line adjustment to transfer 10 acres from lot 4 of the Sung subdivision down to lot 18, increasing it from 5 acres to 1~ acres has been approved and is awaiting recordation. He indicated that this approval would not affect the potential subdivision of the property but that it vas done as part of the City's urging to get the entire quarry and _ PLANNING COMMIS'~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 18 - drainage situation and topographical features on one lot for consideration. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that he tried to be thorough, yet brief in his memo and that he tried to answer questions as to how eve got to where eve are today. He stated that this was a long saga that goes well before his time with the city. This represents the light at the end of the tunnel, solving the problem plaguing Quarry and Calabazas Creeks watershed for many years. He felt that this vas the most feasible ~vay to deal with the problem. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if it would make any difference to the goal of cleaning the mess and keeping the water clean down below if parcels 1 and 3 were not separated. Public Works Director Perlin stated that from the stand point of cleaning up the quarry, it would not make a difference if there were two or three lots but that it may for the applicant. Commissioner Abshire asked staff if there vas an estimate of ho~v much work needs to be done compared to what has already been spent to clean up the area? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the Santa Clark Valley Water District staff estimates that it spends between 50,000 to 584,000 every other year to remove sediment from the quarry basin, noting that a good portion of the sediment is coming from this property due to the abandoned quarry. He informed the Commission that the City has spent approximately 5110,000 last year to repair damage to the Quarry Creek buttress and drainage system caused by severe rains. Solving this problem is critical if the City is to resolve the drainage and erosion problems in that area. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that the problem of the quarry and the problem with the pollution and destruction appears to be one issue and that the subdivision of the land has nothing to do with cleaning up the quarry. Planner Walgren stated that without the subdivision, there is no means to require that the improvements performed. Public Works Director Perlin felt that ultimately something needs to be done. He felt that the problem would need to be solved otherwise the problem would be fought forever. He indicated that his memo stipulates that there either needs to be a voluntary cooperation by the property owners; some incentive presented to the property owner: or that the city will have to step in and take the confrontational approach and force the issue. Forcing the issue would result in declaring the property to be a public nuisance and then ordering its abatement. resulting in litigation and legal costs. y Commissioner Murakami asked how much it would cost to rectify the discharge problem'? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the cost would be approximately 550.000 to $100,000 to clean up the problem. Commissioner Murakami felt that it seemed to be within reason considering the size of the property. He indicated that at the site visit, the Commission noticed that the piles of debris ' PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES JLTNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 19 - located on site had vegetation Qro~ving over it, noting that they would need to be cleaned up. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the ~~~ork being proposed to correct the erosion problem would answer some the problems that individuals are complaining about as far as geologic hazards associated with the site. Public Works Director Perlin felt that restoring the quarry property would vastly improve the geologic and Qeotechnical conditions of the property. He indicated that the quarry property was a very stable piece of ground due to the material underneath the surface soil. He indicated that the steep canyon walls around the rim of the canyon are unstable. He indicated that there is no practical way to stabilize the steep walls. He stated that it needs to be recognized that there are some instability problems with the steep walls and that buildings and improvements be designed to be setback away from the walls to prevent an1~ damage. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern that should the walls start creeping and the house gets destroyed, that the City would foot the bill and would become liable. Public Works Director Perlin stated that he did not see Chairwoman Kaplan's concern happening. He indicated that he has seen quarry restoration projects that continue to shed material over time but that you would not see landslide or major slippage of debris flow destroying a home. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:40 p.m. Thomas Burke, Jr., son of the applicant, stated that the drainage problem predates his fathers ownership of the property. He felt that the subdivision would finance the restoration after the fact. Commissioner Abshire asked if it would be possible to map out a building site for lot 3. Mr. Burke deferred this question to his engineer. He indicated that a geological study vas prepared and that the study identified building em~elopes for the property. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Burke was familiar with Mr. Garrord's letter. Mr. Burke indicated that the Water District has indicated that it can serve the three lots. He felt that it ~~~as a jurisdictional matter as to who would be serving the lots and that the height of a property determines water jurisdiction. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she would recommend a two lot split because she could not see a building site for lot 3, noting that lot 3 appeared to be impassible at the site visit. Willem Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, informed the Commission of past land stability as outlined in the staff report. He questioned the feasibility of a three lot subdivision in accordance with the Hillside slope formula required for the area. He stated his disagreement with the em~ironmental negative declaration as the previous EIR excluded these areas in its evaluation. He recommended that an EIR be prepared to determine the stability and suitability for building in the quarry area. He felt that moving land would result ' PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES • JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 20 - in denser development. He noted that the site contains a steep slope and questioned if it could be subdivided into three lots. Mr. Burke stated that the Sung subdivision was not 24 acres but that it was a 20 acre site. He indicated that the site has gone through the slope density formula and that he did not find the lots to be small or different to those in the area. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:55 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the water issue needs to be addressed by the Commission? City Attorney Riback stated that the water service jurisdiction ~;gas not an issue. Planner Walgren clarified that a new EIR would not be required. Commissioner Abshire stated that he could not approve three lots unless a third building site is identified for lot 3. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she would like to review other options. Commissioners Pierce and .Murakami and Chairwoman Kaplan did not believe that lot 3 contained a building site. Planner Wal~ren recommended that this item be continued to the Commission's June 26 meeting and that the Commission direct the applicant to mark the building site. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the Commission could take action on the request to subdivide the property when there is language on the map that states that there is to be no further subdivision? y City Attorney Riback responded that he has reviewed the court settlement agreements and that he has determined that they do not preclude the property owners from applying to further subdivide the parcels. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ITS MEETING OF JUNE 26. 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that City Council continued the public hearing on the Navico application to its June 19 meeting. The Consta appeal is also scheduled for June 19. He informed the Commission that Mr. Binkley has indicated that he would like to proceed with the project as proposed. The Council has suggested that the lot be expanded to meet the hillside requirement. `'< PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 21 - He (Curtis) indicated that he spoke to the owner of the Argonaut Shopping Center this morning and that he requested that the 6:00 p.m. work session be cancelled because he was revising his plans. He suggested that the owner not only revise the plans but that he sho«~ the Planning Commission the changes that he is proposing. The owner has requested that he be scheduled for a work session on June 26. Community Development Director Curtis requested that the Commission adjourn to a 5:00 p.m. work session (June 26). CO1t1NIISSIO\' ITE`IS Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she received a call on May 31 at 3:30 p.m. from Willie Ivancovich regarding the Boisseranc property. She indicated that she did not kno«~ what he was talking about. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he also received a call from Mr. Ivancovich. Commissioner Patrick commented that in coming down from Dr. Head's property. there was a property that appeared to be a hazard to the people in the area. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the site is a maintenance problem that staff is discussing it with the property owner. COMViL1~lICATION S ~'~'ritten 1. City Council Minutes dated 6/7; x/16; 5/17: 5/21 2. Notices for 6/26/96 Planning Commission meeting Oral Citv Council ADJOtiR\~1ENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 26, 1996. EOC, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga. CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT":PC061296.SAR