Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-1996 Planning Commission Minutes~~ _~__ -: ~ANNING COMMISSION MINU~ AUGUST 14, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Siegfried Late: Pierce Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 7/24/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 24, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 4, paragraph ~, third sentence amended to read: "...inchboxed trees. He also requested staff ^'~~~~~~^~~^~ ~- clarify condition 15 to the applicant relating to indemnification. " - Page 5, second paragraph amended to read: "Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she opposed the use of a-rr the pedestrian easement for vehicular traffic.... " - Page 7, paragraph 7, line 3, replace the word feed with flood. - Page 10, paragraph 10, last sentence amended to read: "...differentthan the newly designed antennas which are acsi~x~te '~° °'~~^-~°~ d€fft?r~ritdu~~~€~ the.>uet used:. - Page 13, paragraph 10 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour informed the public that the issue of antennas :in.: ~eiYel: has been before the Commission.... " .:.:.:: - Page 14, last paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "..uerv~e~~~~ stated that.... " - Page 17, paragraph 2, second sentence amended to read: "....H~sked Mr. Saffarian fcsr:tlireeord if he would be willing to fund the completion of a second geotechnical report'?" y - Page 17, paragraph 5, amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour asked staff tip advise:: ile::~clence if project plans are normally mailed.... " =-~. ~- << - _ PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 2 - - Page 17, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour noted that Ms. Basu has stated that she would like to site the home where it was original Iy proposed. He asked if Ms. Basu would be willing to continue this item to allow the completion of additional studies. Mrs. Basu responded.... " - Page 20, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that he would support the requested modification with the stipulation that the modifications have not yet:: been completed...." - Page 20, paragraph 10, last sentence amended to read: "...Therefore, he could not ...:. ~itpi~t>: the request. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; ABSENT: PIERCE. Oral Communications No comments were offered. ReQort of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on August 9, 1996, y Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there was a text change to agenda item 13, page 4, paragraph 1, line 4 to read: "extend closer than ~ 8: feet to the top of the ridge...." CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-91-031, V-96-007 - SHEtiG; 21791 HEBER ~~'AY; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6.297 sq. ft. , t~vo-story single family residence on a 7.3 acre parcel and a request for Variance approval to encroach into the required front yard setback pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. to 9/11/96 to notice amendment of open space easement; City review deadline is 1/4/97) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSENT). :~ ~' ~. PLANNING COMMIS>~T MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 3 - PUBLIC HEARING CO\SENT CALENDAR 2. DR-94-013 & UP-94-002 - PAPPANASTOS;13475 DEER TRAIL CT.; Request for Design Review approval to build a 1,200 sq. ft. 15 ft. tall detached pool cabana on the subject property. Use Permit approval is also necessary to allow a pool and the cabana to be built within a required rear yard setback and to fence the perimeter of the lot -fencing in the hillside zoning districts is limited to a maximum area of enclosure of 4,000 sq. ft. The lot is 1.5 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. 3. DR-96-029 - ROGERS; 13596 DEER TRAIL COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 1,233 sq. ft. detached garage and pool cabana, at a height of 15 feet, pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.4 acres located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. 4. F-96-002 - BALUNI;14983 GYPSY HILL ROAD: Request for an exemption from the hillside fencing requirements to allow the area of enclosure to exceed 4,000 sq. ft. per the Tentative Map conditions of approval. The area of enclosure would be 25,856 sq. ft. The subject property is lot 26 of the San Marcos Heights subdivision, located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. DR-96-038 - VVALSH; 12550 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,818 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 13,634 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-12.500 zoning district. 6. DR-96-031 - TOU\TG; 19501 GLE\ U1~1A DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval construct a new 5,421 sq. ft. two-story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.06 acres located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner Asfour asked ~vhy consent calendar item 6 was on the consent calendar instead of the public hearing calendar. Planner Walgren responded that this evening's agenda had more items scheduled than are normally scheduled. He informed the Commission that this is the third home of three similar homes that have been designed by the client on the same parcel. He stated that the site development plan was similar to that previously approved by the Planning Commission last year, noting that the tennis court has been eliminated which vas the only concern of the neighbor on the previous proposal. He informed the Commission that agenda item 2 vas a single story home with a 1,200 square foot pool cabana structure and that the use permit would allow the structure to be located within the required rear yard setback. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that a speaker card has been received for agenda item 5. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING ', ~i PLANNING COMMIS•1V MINUTES AUGUST 14.1996 PAGE - 4 - CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2, 3, 4, AND 6 BY MINUTE ACTION ON A 6-0 (COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSENT). 5. DR-96-038 - `'~'ALSH; 12550 SPRIG BLOSSO`~I COLRT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a ne~v 3,818 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 13,634 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Mike Walsh, applicant, indicated that he would respond to questions. Mark Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, stated that he did not have a problem with this application. He requested that the Commission look at the subdivision and ensure that the proper height of the structure and foundation are followed. Robert Sayre, 12558 Wardell Court, asked if the Commission if it has walked through Spring Blossom Court and asked whether it vas empathetic with the neighbors who would be vie~vinQ some of the large homes proposed for the subdivision. He felt that large homes like this one are out of context with the rest of the neighborhood. He felt that the construction of large homes on smaller lots is becoming a pattern in Saratoga. Commissioner Asfour stated for the record that residents within 500 feet are notified of these proceedings. Planner Walgren stated when the subdivision was advertised for public hearing, that staff and the Commission restricted the subdivision to single story homes of not more than 20 feet in height. This was a significant effort to ensure that infill development was compatible with existing homes. Commissioner Pierce entered and vas seated. Lou Pambianco. 20541 Wardell Road, indicted that his home vas one of the original homes built in the area. He agreed that the home is out of context with that of the neighborhood. He felt that there would be an environmental impact if the home is allowed to be built at the square footage being requested. Chairwoman Kaplan asked Mr. Pambianco if screening, via landscaping, would mitigate his concern? Mr. Pambianco responded that he would request that the existing trees remain and that additional landscaping be required. Mr. Walsh stated that he would like to work with the neighbors to address their concerns. He further stated that he vas working ~~-ithin City guidelines in the design of this home. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:48 P.M. :S .PLANNING COMMIS~'sl MINUTES , - AUGUST 14.1996 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Asfour stated that he empathized with the comments as expressed by the speakers and stated that he did not believe that anything could be done in this instance as the applicant is following City codes. Commissioner Siegfried stated that during his tenure on the Commission that he has seen homes get bigger and bigger. The City has amended its code to recognize economic changes. He noted that the subdivision vas approved to restrict height limitations and to request the construction of single story homes. Commissioner Abshire stated that today's homes tend to be linear and massive. He felt that the City has to live with the homes being proposed. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the home is restricted to a single story home and that it occupies only 38 percent of the lot, noting that it could occupy 45 percent of the lot. She pointed out that this was a 1996 home and that the City could not require the applicant to build homes similar to 1970 homes. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-038. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. DR-96-026, V-96-006 - VIDANAGE,12528 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,002 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 14,004 sq. ft. The application includes a Variance request to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage-based rear yard setback. The property is located within the R-1-12,500 zoning district (cont. from 7/10/9 at the direction of the Planning Commission; City revie~;~ deadline is 12/18/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended that condition 2b be amended to include the following: "Prior to the issuance of permits, the applicant will be responsible to survey the property to verify the tree locations and to make sure that no pan of the structure is closer than 8 feet from the trees in order to preserve the trees. " Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Michael Rowe, project designer, indicated that the home «~as redesigned to provide a greater setback. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Rowe to explain how the square footage of the home increased by 260 square feet. Mr. Rowe responded that the increase in square footage was to the perimeter of the home. Lou Pambianco stated that the proposed home backs up to his property. He expressed concern with drainage in this area and felt that with the size of the home, it is anticipated --~ _. PLANNING COMMIS,l~1 MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 6 - that drainage problems would increase. Paula Pambianco, 20541 Wardell Road, expressed concern with the home that she would be looking at. She stated that she has a beautiful old home with existing trees and that she would be opposed to any variances that would threaten existing trees. The loss of trees would result in the loss of charm and character of the neighborhood. She also expressed concern with drainage. Although the home is proposed at 19 feet. it may be padded, increasing the height of the home. Commissioner Asfour informed Mrs. Pambianco that the trees are to remain. Mark Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, expressed concern with the error in plan submission. He did not believe that the rear yard has been defined, noting that it is located where the redwood trees are located. He asked if this vas considered a flag lot because if it was not. Section 15-2.090b determines the rear yard. Section 15-06.430b defines rear lot line to be the most parallel to and the most distant from the front lot line. It was his contention that the majority of the front line is the most parallel to his rear lot line and that it is the most distant from the front lot line. He did not believe that the rear lot line is properly defined according to code. He objected to any variances and expressed concern with the impact to the redwood trees and drainage. He stated that there is a 12 foot gap to the house to the left of this home, noting thatya decision has not been made as to what is to be done with the gap. He felt that the issue of the gap needs to be resolved prior to Commission action. Paul Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, expressed concern with the variance request. He requested that the 45 foot variance be accepted, not the 38 feet. He also expressed concern with the size of the home, noting that the rear property line contains a retaining wall that belongs to the adjacent t~vo neighbors. He indicated that Mr. Law, adjacent neighbor, vas out of the country and that he asked that he (Mr. Campbell) express concern with what is to be done with the 12 foot offset of land. Robert Sayre, 12664 Wardell Court, stated that a previous storm damaged the eucalyptus trees. He noted that redwood trees do not crow quickly to mitigate the impact of the large homes. y Sarath Vidanage, applicant, stated that he purchased the property for a nursery in 1973. He indicated that he lost his use permit for the nursery two years ago. He stated that he did not support the removal of the trees. He indicated that drainage would be mitigated by the installation of a drainage system. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Planner Walgren indicated that the 12 foot offset vas related to the request for the survey to be performed prior to the issuance of permits. If the Commission approves the home. it is being approved 38 feet from the rear property line, not from the fence line. When the . ~` PLANNING COMMIS~N MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 7 - home is built, it would be built per the setback from the property lines and not from fences or retaining walls that may exist. Regarding the existing retaining wall and the fence located to the rear of the property, it was not something that staff anticipated dealing with but that normally, it is an issue that is resolved between two property owners. He indicated that the city engineer would be reviewing engineered drainage plans that are to be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. He stated that every effort would be made to drain to the public storm drain system located on the street. Also, the resolution contained conditions that would require, that the height of the building be varied to ensure that the home does not exceed 18 feet from the existing natural grade. Regarding the yard orientation, he stated that when you have irregular shaped parcels like this one, it takes some discretion to determine which is the rear, front and side yards. He concurred with the speaker that you establish the front property line as being the property that abuts the street. Staff determined that the west property line was the most logical setback in this case. He indicated that the site is consistent with the tentative map in terms of yard orientation and that the site development plan shows that the west property line as being the rear property line. Commissioner Murakami inquired about the expiration of the previous use permit for the nursery. Planner Walgren indicated that the applicant elected not to seek renewal of the use permit. Commissioner Asfour noted that staff has indicated that the area would be surveyed. He asked if conditions were included that would address the drainage concerns. Planner Walgren responded that conditions 2a and 2b would address drainage concerns. Commissioners Patrick, Asfour, Murakami, Abshire stated that they could not support the variance request to encroach into the required setback as the house can be redesigned to fit within the required setback. y Commissioner Patrick asked if the public hearing should be reopened to determine if the applicant would like to request a continuance. Mr. Vidanage indicated that he would request Commission action this evening. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO DENY V-96-006 AS THE NECESSARY FINDINGS COULD NOT BE MADE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR-96-026 BECAUSE THE COMMISSION COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thought findings could be made to approve variance requests under certain circumstances. In this case, he could not make the findings to grant the variance when the home is being increased by 260 square feet. PLANNING COMMIS~i MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Asfour stated has indicated that the denial 15 day appeal period. for the record that Community Development Director Curtis was effective as of tonight's action and that there would be a 8. DR-95-048 - CLARK,12189 PARKER RA\TCH ROAD; Request for Design Revie«~ approval to construct a new 3,357 square foot t~vo-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 (continued from 7/24/96 at the request of the applicant for additional time to complete plan revisions; Cite review deadline is 1/9/97). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern that a lengthy driveway is still being proposed. Planner Walgren noted that the driveway takes up approximately 80% to 90% of the parcel's width. He also noted that the driveway vas behind and below the earth berming of the road and that staff did not believe that it would be highly visible. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Tony Marrow, representing the applicant, presented the Commission with colored elevations for its review. He identified the modifications made to address the neighbor's concern of height. mass and bulk. He noted that the design recesses the second floor. He indicated that the front of the house and the driveway is to be screened. It vas his belief that the design would have less impact from the street. He stated that the second story windows were minimized so that they do not impact the neighbors' privacy. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, Mr. Marrow stated that impervious material is to be used for the driveway . Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about page A-5 of the plans as it depicts a two story element. Mr. Marrow clarified that a t~vo story tower is proposed to be a focal point to the back of the building. Yuh-Nina Chen, 12161 Parker Ranch Road, stated her appreciation of the efforts made on the redesign. She stated that she consulted her geologist regarding the site and that according to a title search, there is a 10 foot fill that was not engineered according to standards. She felt that the site would be suitable only if the recommendations of the geologist's report are followed and incorporated in the resolution of approval. She expressed concern that if construction occurs and a landslide occurs. it would impact property values. She requested that a second geologist and geotechnical report be obtained prior to action being taken and that the recommendations be incorporated in the project's approval. Mr. Marrow stated that the structural engineer retained was well qualified. He indicated . ~'' r PLANNING COMMIS•l~T MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 9 - that he designs home to go deep into the bedrock. Regarding the fill, he indicated that pier and grade beam foundation would be used. He stated that he was also concerned with safety. When it comes to structural design, this design exceeds current standards. He indicated that proper drainage is to be utilized to make sure that drainage is carried away so as not to impact the natural drainage of the lot. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Planner Walgren stated that a geologist report vas required based on the City's slope stability map. The consulting geologist prepared a report that identifies potential unstable soils area. The applicant vas required to prepare a geologic investigation before the application was scheduled for public hearing. The City'sgeologist reviewed the investigation and ultimately granted the project clearance with the conditions contained in the resolution, one of which requires that during construction, the applicant has to have a geotechnical engineer prepare and approve all of the various construction documents which would need to be approved by the city's geologist. Commissioner Murakami inquired if the driveway was reduced':' Planner Walgren responded that the driveway was reduced slightly in length. Commissioner Siegfried noted that one would not be able to see the driveway because there is a 9 foot elevation difference. Commissioner Abshire noted that the home was designed to be screened from the street. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern with the length of the driveway and was hoping that it would have been reduced. Commissioner Asfour indicated that his main concern was with the driveway. However, he concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-95-048. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE VOTING NO. 9. DR-96-032 -YEN; 20988 BURNETT DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct anew 4,800 sq. ft. two-story residence on a vacant lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 1.27 acres and is Governed by the standards of the R-1-20,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/24/96 at the direction of the Planning Commission; City review deadline is 12/19/96) . Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended approval of the request with the condition that the rear balcony proposed at the second story be eliminated because of the privacy impact to the neighbors and the fact that it encroached a fe~v feet into the rear setback which would necessitate a variance for that portion that encroaches into the .~ - ' PLANNING COMMIS~I~T MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 10 - required rear setback. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. David Britt, project designer, indicated that modifications were made to address the Commission's concern. He stated that the house could be moved forward to eliminate the need for a variance. Ms. Yen, applicant, stated that she met with the neighbors and that the neighbors are in support of the redesign. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:47 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not have a problem with the design as the applicant is willing to move the house forward to eliminate the need for a variance into the required setback. Commissioner Asfour thanked the applicant for the redesign to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Murakami stated that it was a well designed project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-032 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE HOUSE BE MOVED FORWARD TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE BALCONY. IF THE HOUSE IS NOT MOVED FORWARD, THE BALCONY IS TO BE ELIMINATED. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 10. SD-95-010 - NAVICO INC./BYRO\T NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.;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-1-12,00 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 (cont. from 4/24/96 Planning Commission meeting; City revie~;~ deadline is 12/19/96). Planner Walaren presented the staff report. He indicated that the Planning Commission denied the request for tentative subdivision map based on the applicant's desire not to revise ~~ ~ PLANNING COMMISiN MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 11 - the circulation plan. The applicant appealed the Commission's decision and that the City Council approved the appeal on a 4-0 vote, locking in the circulation plan. However, the City Council did not wish to consider the various tentative map design issues and directed the applicant to resubmit the map for Planning Commission review. He noted that based on City Council direction, the access point is set, the signalized intersection is set and that staff has received the improvement plan. He informed the Commission that at an earlier public hearing, staff recommended that the applicant consider a mix of single and t~vo story homes, emulating what exists in the surrounding neighborhoods. He informed the Commission that the applicant proposes Alternative 1 which would locate the t~vo story homes to the southern half of the property. He indicated that staff supports alternative 2 which would continue the single story homes along the Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road frontage. This would keep the most visible homes as low as possible and would also work to integrate single story homes to the southern half of the development. Staff also recommended that lots 1 and 15 be restricted to single story structures. Commissioner Asfour stated for the record that the City Council overturned the Commission's action by granting the applicant's appeal. As such, it does not require Planning Commission approval of the request this evening. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. In response to Commissioner Pierce's question, Planner Walgren indicated that several City Council members discussed what the setbacks would be along Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and whether they were to be one or two story homes. Staff's recommendation is consistent with the City Council's direction, including the requirement that the 15 foot exterior side yard setbacks be measured from the landscape easement line which is five feet from the property line. Commissioner Siegfried stated that Mr. IV~ad,. developer, spoke to him after the City Council's action on the appeal. Bijan An~~Agol :, project architect, stated that he would agree to Alternative 2 as proposed by staff. He indicated that he would group the two story homes together and not intermix them with the single story homes. Theodore Smith. 13772 Prune Blossom Drive, stated his opposition to two story structures being located to the north of the site as a two story home would take away from his privacy. Dr. Nehawandian, 13773 Prune Blossom Drive, requested single family homes be constructed adjacent to him. He stated that he supported the contractor as he is known to design nice homes. Momi Buchanan, 13796 Tamworth Avenue, opposed two story homes adjacent to one story homes for privacy reasons. Upon receiving clarification as to the location of the two story home, she stated her support of the project. . i PLANNING COMMIS~IsT MINUTES i AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Carol Martin, 13818 Tamworth Avenue, expressed concern with the loss of view with a two story home. She would support the request if designed as presented. Raymond Nesmith. applicant, thanked the neighbors and staff for their support. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:12 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not support the proposed site plan as the land remains land locked. Commissioners Murakami, Siegfried, and Abshire stated that they were pleased to hear that the applicant vas in agreement with Alternative 2 which would require single story homes being built adjacent to single story homes. Commissioners Pierce and Patrick and Chairwoman Kaplan stated that they were opposed to the lot layout. As the City Council granted the applicant's appeal, they would support the request. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-95-010. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO. 11. DR-96-036 - ~IAXI~I INVEST~TENTS; 28011 AUDREY Si\~iITH LANE (LOT 5) ; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,590 sq. ft. single-story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 40,000 sq. ft. located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. The application includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 feet. Planner Walaren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. Bill Gershwin, applicant, addressed the condition of the existing eucalyptus trees. He stated that he tried to design the home to protect the existing trees. He stated that he also shared the concern of grading. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if tree no. 47 would be impacted and asked whether the left side of the building could be reduced to save tree no.47? Mr. Gershwin responded that once grading limits were set, it was determined that the trees could be saved. He stated that saving the trees would add value to the property. He noted that tree no. 47 is located at PLANNING COMMIS•1~T MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 13 - least 40 feet away from the home and that it would not be impacted. Michael McKay, project architect, indicated that tree no. 47 was mainly impacted by the drainage Swale. Constructing the drainage Swale as close to the house as possible would help to mitigate any impacts to the tree. He stated that he tried to step the house down, minimizing the size of the house. America Dipietro, 20304 Calle Montalvo, indicated that his home abuts the back of the property under discussion. He expressed concern with water run-off and requested the installation of a Swale across the mutual property line to catch run off and that it be diverted to a catch basin. He also requested that additional landscaping be planted to screen the house as the house would be sited on high ground, impacting his backyard privacy. Brad Wells, 20316 Calle Montalvo, concurred with the comments expressed by Mr. Dipietro. He requested that development be suspended until such time that the drainage concern is mitigated and that the line of site be mitigated with additional screening. Mr. Gershwin requested that he be allowed to work with staff and be allowed to grade the site so that he can complete the s~vale system. He stated that he would agree to plant six or seven 36-inch boxed trees and that he would be willing to work with the neighbors towards the species and the planting location of the trees. Planner Walgren stated that grading vas restricted on individual lots until such time that house plans are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. He stated that permits could be issued for the lots that back up to Calle Montalvo and that the drainage could be continued up to the corner parcel. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Murakami recommended the replacement of the eucalyptus trees with native oak trees. Planner Walgren noted that condition 3.a. requires six, 36-inch boxed native replacement trees and one, 24-inch boxed native tree. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that screening be addressed at a staff level. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was pleased to see that the aradina and drainage concerns were being resolved. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-036 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) ADDITIONAL GRADING OF LOT 6 PER STAFF'S APPROVAL, AND 2) SCREENING TO BE APPROVED AT A STAFF LEVEL. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). 12. SD-95-007 (503-19-048, 503-19-070, 503-19-075) -KENNEDY; 13121 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALEROAD; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide '~ y PLANNING COMMISiIV MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 14 - three parcels of land totaling 9.42 acres into eleven single-family residential lots. A new cul-de-sac off of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would provide access to five of the proposed parcels. The connection of Paramount Drive and a new minimum access road would provide access for the remaining six parcels. The existing residence on the property is proposed to be demolished. The proposed lots range in size from 13,091 sq. ft. to 52,369 sq. ft. and would permit residences ranging from 3,880 sq. ft. to 6,180 sq. ft. (including garages). The eastern half of the property is zoned R-1- 12,~00 and the western half of the property is zoned R-1-40,000. 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 Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that the proposed map meets General Plan and zoning regulations, therefore it vas not subject to Measure G. Staff does not feel that the 11 lot subdivision would result in any long term significant em~ironmental impacts as described by CEQA. He informed the Commission that correspondence has been received from adjacent residents and that the letters opposed a through connection. He noted that one of the letters had attached to it an alternative subdivision plan which shows that a court could be built at either end of Paramount Drive and still meet public road standards with emergency access connection. He informed the Commission that the City has an ordinance that states that a cul-de-sac cannot be longer than 500 feet nor should they serve more than 15 individual parcels. He stated that although staff still supports the through connection, the alternative plan could be supported. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Maury Abraham, Nolte and Associates, Civil Engineer, concurred with staff's recommendation. He noted that the tentative map conforms with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he vas aware of the neighborhood's opposition to a through connection. He distributed copies of an alternative circulation plan to the Commission for its review. He informed the Commission that Chris Tinzley, traffic engineer, was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Planner Walgren noted that the alternative plan submitted by Mr. Abraham was similar to the one attached to the neighbor's letter. Roger Higgins 13015 Paramount Drive, stated that the issue of concern was the through connection of Paramount Drive as it would connect Pierce Road to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Doing so would create a traffic safety concern. He stated that there was a consensus by all residents in the neighborhood that Paramount Drive should not be connected. David Chang, 13090 Paramount Drive, expressed concern that emergency vehicles would utilize the vacant lot adjacent to him as aturn-around. He presented an overlay depicting an alternative circulation plan. He requested that Paramount Drive not be made a through connection for safety reasons and that the peace and quite of the neighborhood be _. ~ ' PLANNING COMMIS•l~T MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 1 ~ - maintained. Royce Johnson, 13237 Paramount Drive, stated that he .was not opposed to the development but stated his opposition to a through connection of Paramount Drive due to the safety of children and residents. He felt that individuals would use Paramount Drive to get from Pierce Road to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Roads if Paramount Drive was made a through connection (safety concern). Andy Carter, 13194 Pierce Road, stated his opposition to making Paramount Drive a through street for the following reasons: 1) it is not necessary for the number of units that are to be built; 2) increased traffic and noise; and 3) it would change the status quo (change in circulation not necessary). Charles Goldfarb, 13075 Paramount Drive, noted that there is a safety concern in this area as the neighbors know who belong in the neighborhood. He noted that staff and the developer agree that the connection is not necessary. If the road is connected, it would create a traffic hazard for individuals who would be attending the reopening of the Paul Masson concerts. He requested that a gated Paramount Drive be considered. Gene Tritt, 13816 Stewart Court, stated that he did not oppose the development but that he opposes the connection of Paramount Drive. He stated his support of a cul-de-sac that provides fire access. Peggy Valentine, 12980 Paramount Drive, indicated that she purchased her home 29 years ago and requested that Paramount Drive be retained as a cul-de-sac for safety reasons. If opened, it would result in increased traffic, endangering the safety of the children. Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Valentine if she knew when she purchased her home 29 years ago that Paramount Drive was planned as a through street? Ms. Valentine responded that she was not aware that Paramount Drive vas slated to be a through street. Bill Bettencourt felt that the connection of Paramount Drive would create a major thoroughfare. He did not believe that the traffic report was correct. He felt that a center divider, 15 mile per hour posted speed limit, and the installation of speed bumps would be required if Paramount Drive is made a thru street. He opposed making Paramount Drive a through street. Teresa Yeh stated that she enjoyed the privacy of the existing cul-de-sac. She concurred with the concerns expressed this evening. She stated that she would prefer a division of the area through the middle. utilizing a cul-de-sac. Also of concern was the construction of t~vo story homes. Mr. Abraham stated that he would oppose the use of aturn-grounds as proposed by Mr. Chang as it would result in the loss of a lot. Regarding Ms. Yeh's proposal, he did not believe that her proposal would work because the two smaller lots would not have an access. ' PLANNING COMMIS•1V MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he has seen major diverters placed in the middle of streets in San Jose. He asked if the turn abouts would slow traffic down? Mr. Abraham stated that he could not respond to the question at this time because it may result in the loss of a lot. Chris Tinzly, TJKM Traffic consultant, addressed the traffic circle, stating that they are used primarily to slow traffic down in an immediate vicinity of an intersection. However, they would not address the issues addressed by the residents. He felt that they would be less effective in slowing traffic down in the neighborhood. He indicated that traffic circles are usually retrofitted. that they are not installed initially and that they could be designed to handle traffic at the middle of an intersection. Commissioner Asfour stated that his main concern was safety. If the safety concern can be addressed. he did not see why Paramount Drive could not be a through street. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she vas not prepared to move forward on this item as too many proposals have been made. She stated that she would want the city engineer to advise the Commission which alternative would be feasible. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City Engineer supports the through connection. Should the Commission wish to consider the construction of a cul-de-sac, the Commission would need to decide which end of the subdivision the cul-de-sac should be constructed. He indicated that the northern leg of Paramount Drive accesses 12 homes versus the 38 homes on the southern leg, noting that both leas are 1.500 feet in length. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would like to have staff give a specific recommendation regarding circulation given the comments made by the neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried felt that a decision of whether a cul-de-sac would be appropriate could be discussed at a study session or a future meeting. He felt that the street should be cul-de-sac as there are two distinct neighborhoods. He felt that the cul-de-sac alternative as presented by Mr. Chang would be of great benefit for the neighborhood because there is not a good way to turn an emergency vehicle around. It would take an easement through two properties to provide an emergency access. Connecting the street in the future would result in condemnation. an action that the City has never done in the past. Commissioner Asfour stated that the through road has been on the map since the time of development in the area and recommended that the road go through. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. He felt that the intrusion of a through road would disrupt the neighborhood. Commissioner Abshire felt that staff presented a sound report. However, he stated that he would be inclined to go along with Mr. Chang's proposal. . • '~ PLANNING COMMIS•1V MINUTES • AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with blocking areas of Saratoga because people want to maintain status quo. She felt that access should be made to different parts of Saratoga and stated her support of the thoroughfare. Commissioner Pierce stated that he could not support either recommendation at this time as he felt that a study session was needed. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she would support the recommendation as presented by staff. She indicated that she raised children on a cul-de-sac and that even with a cul-de-sac, she spent hours moving her children out of the ~vay of vehicles and bicyclist. No matter where you live, she felt that traffic concerns exist. In review of the traffic study, it vas her belief that cars would not use the recommended thoroughfare. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-95-007 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A ROUND-ABOUT TO SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR,_ KAPLAN. PATRICK; NOES: ABSHIRE, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED. MURAKAMI. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE SD-95-007. ADOPTING MR. CHANG'S ALTERNATIVE OF INSTALLING A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE SOUTH END OF THE KENNEDY PROPERTY WITH A RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS. THE MOTION FAILED 3-4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A STUDY SESSION SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 1996. AT 5:00 P.M. AT THE SEATON DAY CARE CENTER. Planner Walgren stated that staff would support the northern access court as it would serve the fewer number of lots and would allow the utilization of a traffic siunal at Pierce Road and Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road. y City Engineer Perlin stated that he would not condition approval of a round-about until the applicant and staff have an opportunity to review the proposal. He stated that he would want to review alternatives before commenting as there may be other ways to slow traffic down other than the use of around-about. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK AMENDED THEIR MOTION AND ' ~ PLANNING COMMIS MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 18 - REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 5, 1996, 7:00 P.M.,SEATON DAY CARE CENTER, TO ALLOW STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW MR. CHANG'S PROPOSAL AND TO COMMENT ON THE ROUND-ABOUT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairwoman Kaplan excused herself from the remainder of the meeting. 13. SD-96-005 & UP-96-004 - EITZE\; END OF OLD OAK WAY;Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 31.1 acre hillside parcel into four individual lots of 5.6, 3.1, 2.6 and 2.2 net acres. Approximately 17 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the four lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed on a City Code identified minor ridgeline and Lots 2 and 3 are along a major ridgeline -more restrictive building height limits are applied to ridgeline lots. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walaren presented the staff report. He indicated that the main topic of discussion this evening was ridgeline construction. Commissioner Siegfried raised the issue of whether this item should be continued to a work study session. Vice-chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 10:53 p.m. Caroline Eitzen, applicant, indicated that she proposes to create a four lot subdivision. She responded to concerns expressed regarding lots 1, 3 and 4. She felt that the environmental issues have been mitigated. She stated that she tried to maintain the integrity of the ridgeline ordinance and that the building sites are proposed to be located 20 feet from the ridgeline. She proposes the installation of two trees and ten shrubs to protect the view vista. She indicated that a view shed analysis has been conducted. She stated that structures are proposed to be constructed off the ridgeline and that they would be screened from city view. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, inquired whether an EIR was prepared for this site. She asked if there has been a change to the circulation element for the extension of Old Oak Road as she was assured at the time of home purchase that it would not be extended. She stated that if another accident occurs as a result of individuals partying in this area, she would tell the parents that she has expressed concern of the extension of through traffic and the removal of the barricades. Planner Walgren informed the Commission and the public that an EIR was not prepared for this application as it is a minor land division that is not subject to CEQA. If a variance is required, an environmental initial study would need to be prepared and would be subject to CEQA. r _ PLANNING COMMIS~T MINUTES - AUGUST 14, 1996 - PAGE - 19 - Vince Garrod, 22600 Mt. Eden Road, expressed concern that lot 2 proposes a home in public view and on the ridgeline. He expressed concern that anything that the City calls a ridge may be considered flat land. He felt that the proposal to build as close to the ridge as possible should be considered because it is where stable land can be found and that moving structures off the ridge line would create problems. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 11, 5:00 P.M., ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, TO ALLOW STAFF TO PRESENT A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SITE AND TO DISCUSS RIDGELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITE1ViS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that two Planning Commission actions have been appealed by the neighbor(s) as follows: UP-96-009 -Pacific Bell Mobile Services; Congress Springs Park and DR-96-021 - Basu; 21777 Vintage Lane. These appeals are scheduled to be considered by the City Council on September 4, 1996. COitIItiISSION ITEMS No items were noted. COVI1ViUNICATIO\TS `'Vritten 1. City Council Minutes dated 7/17; 7/23 Oral Citv Council ADJOiJR~1ENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 5, 1996, Mt. Eden Hall, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT ~:PC081496. SAR