Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-1996 Planning Commission Minutes.b ;~1 i1 ~~. __e~ SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Present: Kaplan. Murakami, Patrick, Pierce. Siegfried Late: Asfour Absent: Abshire Avenue Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Asfour entered and was seated. Minutes - 9/11/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 MINUTES WITH ONE AMENDMENT AS FOLLOWS: - Page 8, line 4 amended to read: "....areaand that the planting of a few trees would not: properly screen the house.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Oral Communications Marvin Becker, 12120 Mello~vood Drive, stated that he received a letter from City Manager Peacock informing him that an amendment to the Sign Ordinance was scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission this evening. He noted that the City's Ordinance prohibits the placement of signs in any location other than private property. He stated that "garage sale" signs as well as other signs are being placed in major thoroughfares. He recommended that the names and addresses of those displaying the signs be included on the signs. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission and the public that staff has not completed its review of the proposed sign ordinance amendment and that staff would schedule it for a Commission work study session to be followed by public hearing(s). Sara Adolphson and Jennifer Chang invited the Commission and the public to the Youth Commission Golf tournament to benefit youth activities. -., . ~ ~ PLANNING COMMISS~T MINUTES • SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting vas properly posted on September 20, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren stated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSE\TT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSE\T CALE~~DAR 1. SD-95-006 & LL-95-004 - CONSTANTI\, 15261 \ORTON RD. & 20855 KITTRIDGE RD.; Request for Building Site approval for an existing 50.094 sq. ft. hillside parcel of record located off Norton Rd. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also requested to merge a 43,560 sq. ft. parcel off Kittridge Rd. above together with the lower Norton Rd. parcel to create a single lot. Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Building Site Approval may be requested to ascertain what off-site improvements ~vould be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on-site development is proposed at this time (cont. to 10/23/96 at the request of the applicants; City review deadline is 3/4/97). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARL\TGS 2. SD-95-007 -KENNEDY, 13121 SARATOGA-SU\TNYVALEROAD; Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide three parcels of land totaling 9.42 acres. The applicants have prepared four alternatives for Planning Commission consideration. Two of the alternatives yield eleven lots and provide for the through access of Paramount Drive. The other t~vo alternatives yield twelve lots and provide for a cul-de-sac turn-around at both ends of Paramount Drive. The eastern half of the property is zoned R-1-12,500 and the western half 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 (cont. from 9/5/96 adjourned meeting; City review deadline is 1/17/97). y Chairwoman Kaplan requested that the public address any ne~v issues that it may have as the Commission has considered this item in length. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that a representative from Central Fire was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. He informed the Commission that three additional petitions have been submitted in support of Alternative 3. He stated staff's support of either Alternatives 1 or 2. Chairwoman Kaplan reopened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he spoke with Mr. Goldfarb this evening regarding procedural points. Maury Abraham stated that he was representing Mrs. Kennedy and stated his support to the Alterative 3 lot layout configuration. Royce Johnson, 13237 Paramount Drive, spoke on behalf of the residents ~vho reside on Paramount Drive. He stated his agreement to Alternative 3 and indicated that a petition has been submitted in support of Alternative 3. He requested that the Commission approve Alterative 3 as it meets the safety concerns of the neighborhood. Charles Goldfarb, 13075 Paramount Drive, stated that the neighborhood expressed concern with the original proposal due to public safety concerns. He felt that there would be negative impacts associated with a through street if approved and that it would result in the loss of pedestrian and bicycle access. He felt that alternative 3 would allow access to the greenbelt area and noted that both the developer and the neighborhood approve Alternative 3. Planner Walgren stated that a letter vas received from the three adjacent property owners expressing concern that if a home is built on lot 6, it would be 10 feet from their west property line. Also recommended was that lots 4 and 5 be merged to place the building pad further away from the property line. To address the neighbor's concern, he recommended that lot 5 be limited to a single story structure. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:56 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he believed that the neighbors were correct in stating that Alternative 3 would provide safety in walking and bicycling. He noted that a through connection would generate additional traffic and that it could result in a dangerous situation. He agreed that there were no sidewalks and that an area does not exist that would allow one to walk or ride a bicycle except along a dangerous street. He did not see the City gaining any benefit from connecting a through street. He stated his support of Alternative 3. y Commissioner Pierce expressed concern with public safety and emergency fire access. If gates are provided it would provide fire department access. He stated that he was impressed • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25.1996 PAGE - 4 - with the neighbors' presentation and acknowledged their desire for a cul-de-sac as safety vas an important issue. He stated that he would support Alternative 3. Commissioner Murakami felt that the neighbors were reasonable and logical in the manner in which they presented their concerns. He felt that Alternative 3 was a good compromise and that he would support it. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support alternative 3. She did not believe that it was a good idea to chantre planning in the middle of the stream unless there is good reason for it. She felt that a through street would provide public safety. She stated that she would support Alternatives 1 or 2. She felt that it was important that when development occurs that traffic be allowed to go through. She did not believe that a through street would create a dangerous situation. Commissioner Asfour concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments. He felt that an overriding issue was that the street was designed to be a through street. He stated that he would support Alternatives 1 or 2. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she felt that Alternative 3 vas contrary to good public safety issues. She noted that the Fire Department and the City Engineer support Alternatives 1 and 2. She stated that Paramount Drive was planned to be a through street and that it vas good planning. She also stated that she felt that the neighbors have done an excellent job in working with the applicant. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE DECLARATION FOR SD-95-007. COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD-95- 007, APPROVING ALTERNATIVE 2 AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION FAILED 3-3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK; NOES: MURAKAMI, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ABSHIRE. Community Development Director Curtis stated that a tie vote would result in having this item continued to the Commission's next meeting. Planner Walgren clarified that a tie vote would result in rescheduling this item for the next Planning Commission meeting for a re-vote and that a second tie vote would result in a denial of the project. He further stated that the applicant has the option to accept the first tie vote as a denial and that the applicant can appeal the Commission's action to the City Council. 3. DR-96-041 - DOUGHERTY, 13479 PIERCE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 408 sq. ft. first story addition and an 842 sq. ft. second story • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 5 - addition to an existing 2,034 sq. ft. single story residence on a hillside parcel with a net site area of 42,260 sq. ft. The application also includes a new 367 sq. ft. detached garage. The property is located within the HR-Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Leif Rideout, project architect, stated that he would answer any questions which the Commission may have. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08 P.M. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-96-041. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. 4. DR-96-045 - NGUYEN, 20802 NORADA COURT; Request for Design Revie«~ approval to construct a new 864 sq. ft. second story addition and a 264 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2,568 square foot single-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 feet. The subject property is 13.000 square feet located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the applicant is requesting an exemption from the floor area reduction requirement. He noted that there is a predominance of two story homes in the neighborhood. Staff felt that the floor area exception can be supported. He informed the Commission that four letters were received and that they were attached to the staff report from residents ~vho reside in the Beauchamps subdivision in opposition to the second story addition. Commissioner Murakami stated that he noted that this particular lot was lower than the lots behind it. Planner Walgren stated that the lots within the Beauchamps subdivision were approximately five to eight feet higher in pad elevation. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Marty Oakley, project designer, presented exhibits which he felt would meet the needs of the applicant and addresses the neighbors' concerns. He noted that the Parrish residence was located 525 feet away from the proposed second story addition, separated by three building sites; that Mr. and Mrs. Mudrock were located 190 feet from the second story addition and that he did not believe that there would be an impact to their rear yard as the existing large tree would screen the view; that the D'Angelo residence vas located 130 feet • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25.1996 PAGE - 6 - away from proposed addition and that the existing trees would block any view of the addition from their home; and that he did not believe that the second story addition would impact the Leasia's privacy as the existing trees would provide screening from both properties to protect privacy. Richard D'Angelo, 12278 Beauchamps Lane. stated that in reviewing the plans, it appears that the second story addition would have a direct view of his yard, swimming pool and play area. He noted that the existing trees lose their leaves in the winter. He stated his opposition to the addition. noting that he already has an existing t~vo story home that impacts his privacy. Richard Leasia, 12250 Beauchamps Lane, concurred with the comments as expressed by Mr. D'Angelo as the second story addition would have a view into his rear yard area. He stated that his pad is not lower than the property behind him and that it vas at an even level. He requested that the Commission read the letter he submitted as it addressed his concerns. He stated that it was determined some time ago that two story homes were inappropriate behind his home. He felt that the Commission would need to make findings to grant a variance and that he did not believe that the findings could be made. He felt that neighborhood would be impacted, noting that six to seven months of the year there are no leaves on the trees to provide adequate screening. He stated that there were no two story homes on his side of the street. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the applicant was not requesting approval of a variance but that the applicant was requesting approval of an exception to the floor area reduction requirement. Fred Francisco, 20797 Norada Court, stated that he reviewed the plans and finds that the proposed architecture would be a positive addition to the area. He stated that he resides in a two-story home across the street and that his neighbors also have t~vo story homes. In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question, Mr. Oakley stated that the average size of the homes located east of Beauchamps was 4.000 square feet. He stated that the homes that abut the Nguyen's lot range from 4.000 to 4, 800 square feet in size, including the garage area. He felt that with the increase in square footage, the home would be proportional to the lot and that the proposed second story addition would result in 22% of the total floor area ratio of the home. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:27 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she felt that the second story addition is located away from the individuals opposed to it and that it would not unnecessarily intrude in the neighbors' privacy. She felt that the area appears to be predominantly two story homes and that she could support the request. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Pierce concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Patrick. Commissioner Asfour stated that he takes into consideration the dissention of the neighbors but that in looking at the site and looking at the pictures presented, he did not see that there was a major privacy concern. Commissioner Murakami stated that at the site visit, he viewed the landscaping and noted that the proposed remodel was lower than the property of the neighbors located to the rear. He felt that the applicant proposes a well designed home and that he would support the request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-96-045 AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. ~. DR-96-042 & V-96-013 - WU, 2010 BO\'NIE BRAE LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct anew 4.781 square foot one-story residence on a developed lot, pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. An existing residence on the property is proposed to remain as a guest house. Variance approval is required because the existing residence will not meet current City Code requirements for heights of detached structures. The application includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 feet. The subject property is approximately 1.4 acres located within an R-1-40.000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that staff met with the applicant and that it was agreed that the Quest house could be restricted by deed to ensure that it was not converted at a later date to a second dwelling or rental unit. Staff recommended approval of the design review and variance request as conditioned. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the tree preservation and security amount have been reduced from that recommended by the City arborist and requested staff clarification on the reduction. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Michael Lane, project designer, informed the Commission that Mr. and Mrs. Wu were in agreement with staff's recommendation. Stan Shoor, 15177 Piedmont Road, stated that his home was located adjacent to the property under discussion. He noted that the existing home vas sited on the edge of the southwest corner of the lot and that the structure is setback 54 feet from his front door. He felt that the house is placed obtusely to the line of sight of his living area. He appreciated the efforts of retaining the trees and that the removvalyof two trees would expose the 23 foot • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 8 - height of the one story structure. He expressed concern that the total square footage of the guest home and primary home was large. He also expressed concern that the guest home would be converted into a rental unit as it has a separate driveway and entryway, separated from the main home by a large wall. Laurie Duckham-Shoor, 15177 Piedmont Road, expressed concern with the removal of the trees as their removal would impact her privacy. She expressed concern that tree 26 which is located on her property would be impacted by driveway construction. Also of concern ~;gas the impact to the existing pine trees with the grading that would occur for the basement. She felt that the privacy impact would have a detrimental impact on property value. She asked why an access vas not proposed from the fence to the primary home. She also expressed concern that the property would be used as a rental. She stated that when she purchased her home, she acknowledged that a large home could be built but that she did not suspect that two homes would be built. Mr. Lane stated that he was sensitive to the concerns of the neighbor. As the neighbor's property vas higher than this lot, he felt that the impacts would be minimal. He stated that the owners have no intention of using the guest home as a rental unit and that he did not know ho~v the neighbor's concerns could be protected in the future should the property be sold. Commissioner Patrick requested clarification as to ~vhy a gate was not proposed to access the guest home to the main home. Mr. Lane deferred this question to the landscape architect. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern that the guest home was being isolated from the main structure. She asked if the home could be shifted to keep it away from tree 26? Mr. Lane responded that the pool vas sited after the home vas shifted. He stated that the city arborist was consulted regarding the placement of the home to protect as many trees as possible. Robert Mowat, landscape architect, informed the Commission that with the first submittal, tree number 13 could not be saved. On the second submittal, tree 13 vas able to be saved, reducing the replacement value. He indicated that the working drawings depict a pathway from the main house to the guest house with a gate between the fence. He stated that once he received Mr. Coats tree replacement schedule, he tried to create some new grading situation so that tree number 26 is not impacted. The home was sited at its current location to protect as many trees as possible. He stated that there is an existing, decomposed gravel road located to the left of the site that provides access from the guest home to the main home. Mr. Lane noted that the two sets of stairways adjacent to tree 27 were in an earlier proposal. However, in discussion with staff and Mr. Coats it was determined that the current location of the stairway would not impact tree 27. He indicated that the three • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 9 - fireplaces proposed are gas burning but that they could have wood burning capabilities. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that at least one fireplace be devoted to a gas burning fire place. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he could not find any justification to support the variance request, noting that the existing building has not been designated as a historical structure. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would like to have the gravel driveway eliminated to restrict access of vehicles to the guest house. If the driveway was eliminated, he stated that he could support the request. Commissioners Siegfried, Patrick and Kaplan stated their concurrence with Commissioner Pierce's comments. Commissioner Murakami expressed concern with the guest home as it may be used other than what it vas intended for. 4 Commissioner Pierce recommended that staff draft conditions that would require the removal of the gravel or that a natural barrier (i.e., builders, landscaping) be installed to block vehicle access to the Guest home. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff identify the findings that staff made to support the approval of the variance request. He expressed concern that the structure would be used as a rental. Planner Walgren stated that staff made a finding that the existing structure created a special circumstance and that the structure complies with accessory structure requirements in terms of floor area, setback and location. However, it is taller than permitted for an accessory structure. Also, it vas noted that it was an older building and that was in good shape. He stated that two conditions have been included that would require the removal of the kitchen prior to the issuance of a final and that a deed restriction would be recorded against the property stating that any future owner could not use the guest home as a permanent residence or rental unit. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE V-96-013. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR- 96-045 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO STIPULATE THE REMOVAL OF THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND THAT THERE BE NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 10 - GUEST HOME. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. 6. SD-96-007 - WESTFALL ENGINEERS. WEST SIDE OF SARATOGA AVE. SOUTH OF LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide three parcels of land totalling 4.3 acres into twelve single family lots. The existing residence and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul-de-sac would access the development via an extension of Lolly Dr. The proposed lots range in size from 10,000 to 16,000 sq. ft. and would permit 3,200 to 4.200 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. An environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that staff could support access from Lolly Drive as it would serve less than 15 lots, meeting City code standards and that it was not felt that a through access would provide a great benefit. He indicated that the applicant proposes a Good neighbor fence along the entire backside of Saratoga Avenue with an eleven foot buffer of planting adjacent to the existing ten foot wide sidewalk. Given the location and its proximity to a commercial development to the north and the way that the homes to the south are developed, staff felt that the eleven feet of landscaping vas sufficient to screen the wall and that it would provide a softening affect to the wall. Staff recommended that at least half of the lots be identified and be restricted to single story homes to achieve a mix of single and t~vo story homes to what currently exists in the area. He informed the Commission that the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting last Thursday to allow the applicant and the neighbors to indicate which homes should be restricted to single story . He noted that a letter was received from Marcia Farris, representing the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, requesting that the entire subdivision be restricted to single story homes. Commissioner Asfour asked staff what was the difference between this subdivision and that of agenda item 2 in regards to not requiring a through street? Planner Walgren responded that it was not an issue of improving circulation in this instance as there is adequate circulation to get from the subdivision out to Saratoga Avenue. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Jitka Cymbal, Westfall Engineers, stated her concurrence with staff's recommendation. She stated that she would answer any questions which the Commission may have. She requested that condition 26 relating to the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan be amended to include the language "ifapplicable." Planner Walgren stated that staff would support the requested amendment. • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Marty Oakley informed the Commission of the meeting held with the adjacent homeowners and stated that it was the consensus of the neighbors that single story homes be restricted to lots 1, 2, 3, 11 and 12. He stated that the t~vo story design would not give the appearance of a two story home. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not like to see t~vo story homes backing along an arterial. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she would prefer to see single story homes on a major thoroughfare as two story homes would give the appearance of a "wall community". Mr. Oakley stated that he felt that t~vo story homes would be appropriate along Saratoga Avenue because if they are designed properly, individuals driving by would appreciate the architecture. David Chui, Pan Cal, informed the Commission that Pan Cal developed two projects in Saratoga (Congress Springs site and Beauchamp project). He felt that the proposed design was in conformance with staff's recommendation. He indicated that a community meeting was held with a number of homeowners in attendance. He felt that it vas a good meeting with concerns being addressed. He stated that it vas not his understanding that the homeowners would be requesting that all homes be restricted to single story homes as stated in Ms. Farris' letter. He noted that the project was a lo~v density development and that it was in conformance with the City's zoning and general plan. He requested that the Commission allow a maximum height of up to 26 feet for single story homes (Condition 4 stipulates that 22 feet it not to be exceeded). He requested that lots 1, 2, 3, 11 and 12 be restricted to single story homes. James Stockdale, 12308 Radoyka Drive, stated that there is a predominance of single story homes in the Saratoga Woods subdivision. He stated that the homes located on Radoyka Drive do not have mature foliage to block the view of two stor}~ homes and that he did not believe that the proposed fence would mitigate traffic sound from Saratoga Avenue. Ray Simpson, 12300 Radoyka Drive, stated that the neighborhood opposes t~vo story additions and that they would like to retain single story home development. He requested that the neighbors' privacy not be infringed upon. He requested that the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association be allowed to input when it comes to the final design of the homes. Jim Shaw, 18735 Kosich Drive, President of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, stated his appreciation of the meeting that was held with the homeowners. With regards to Marcia Farris' letter, he stated that if the neighborhood had its choice,_ it would like to see the development of all single family homes. v Evan Baker, 12324 Obrad Drive, speaking on behalf of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, complimented the builder and the developer for bringing the first acceptable • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 12 - proposal for the use of the Kosich property. The only issue of concern is that of the construction of single story and two story homes. He requested that the Commission approve a fifty percent mix of two story and single story homes with no allowances for variances. Betty Morse, 18701 Kosich Drive, stated that she spoke to all but two of the neighbors who would directly be affected by this development. The neighbors agree that they do not want to have two story homes looking down on their single story property, she specifically addressed lot 1. Regarding the request to raise the height of the home, she stated that the three homes nearest her property are in conformance with city regulations. She noted that they are higher than her home and that they look down on her property. Arthur Bliss, 12430 Curry Court, Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association Board Member, asked if an alternative to a through drive has been reviewed. He recommended that at least fifty percent of the homes be designated as single story homes. He noted that there was a significant difference between a vesting tentative map and the tentative map that is before the Commission. He felt that there is a strong indication that the entire site should be restricted to single story. He noted that lot 4 would be looking down into rear lots. Mr. Chui stated that he would agree to increase the number of single story homes to six single story homes. He did not believe that it would be appropriate to require a developer to provide all single story homes. He stated that a buffer is proposed along Saratoga Avenue and that he would be willing to install landscaping and mature trees to mitigate the Commission's concerns. He also agreed to build single story homes adjacent to the existing single story homes. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would support single story homes on lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 11 and 12. He informed the public that a single story home can be more imposing than a well designed two story home as it can take up most of the lot. He further agreed that lots 8 and 10 could be designed to mitigate the appearance of a wall. Commissioner Asfour asked what condition can be included that would mitigate his design concern along Saratoga Avenue and further stated that he did not want to see all two story homes along Saratoga Avenue. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she did not know how the City could restrict homes to single family homes, later to be converted to t~vo story homes. Commissioner Pierce stated his agreement that lots 9 and 11 be restricted to single story homes to break up the wall affect and to provide for a housing mix. Planner Walgren recommended that the fifty percent condition be amended to stipulate that • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 13 - lots 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, and 12 shall be restricted to single story structures, deleting reference to the fifty percent language. He further recommended that condition 15 be amended to delete reference to '~•°~~"tentative map. Commissioner Murakami stated that he agreed with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. He supported the breaking up of the homes along Saratoga Avenue as recommended by Commissioner Siegfried. He felt that the neighbors did an excellent job in meeting with the developers and noted that they were in support of single and two story housing mix. Commissioner Patrick noted that a condition vas not included to restrict pad elevations so that they do not exceed 22 feet in height. Planner Walgren agreed that the condition should be amended to restrict the height of the home to 22 feet from the existing grade and not from any pad build up. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATION SD-96-007. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD- 96-007, RESTRICTING LOTS 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, AND 12 TO SINGLE STORY HOMES: CONDITION 26 AMENDED TO READ "IF APPLICABLE", AMENDING CONDITION 4 TO RESTRICT THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO 22 FEET FROM THE EXISTING GRADE AND THE DELETION OF ~'~c~ T~~FROM CONDITION 15. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the Vedanage application on Spring Blossom Court was unanimously denied by the City Council and that the City Council upheld the Commission's decision. CO1t~MISSION ITEMS Commissioner Patrick asked staff if the Nelson Garden's project had its pad raised? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the property has always been three feet higher than the street. y Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that staff include in its report that a finding for an exception for height requires that a preponderance of two story homes exist. She felt that tonight's study session vas a waste of time as the applicant was requesting an indication as to how the Commission may vote on the issue. She requested that further thought be given regarding the types of applications that should be scheduled for a work study session. She also expressed concern that if testimony was taken for an agenda item that is continued to • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 14 - allow the full presence of the Commission, that the Commissioner(s) who was absent from the meetings would need to read all the material presented and listen to the tapes. If not, the Commissioner(s) would not be able to vote on an application that has been continued. Commissioner Patrick stated that when she went to the Old Oak Road for a site visit, the property was chained off. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the height poles were visible and noted that the applicant proposes to cut into the hill. She did not believe that the applicants listened to the Commission's comments at the study session. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the height poles would be retained for a field visit for the October 9 meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 9/4/96. 2. Public notices for 10/9/96 meeting. Oral Citv Council ADJOURNit7(E\T -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to S:OOp.m.,Wednesday, October 9, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted. Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT`:.PC092~9G.S:~R