Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-1996 Planning Commission Minutes~~ =~ ,~ ~NNING COMMISSION MINUTI• OCTOBER 23, 1996 City Council Chambers. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vice-Chairwoman Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Asfour, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Abshire, Kaplan Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Bradley, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback. Community Development Director informed the Commission that recently appointed Planning Commissioner Mary-Lynne Bernald was present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance iViinutes - :10/9/96 COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 9, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 1 to note that Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. - Page 6, paragraph 3 to include the following: Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the item be continued to the next Commission meeting following Commission discussion to allow the applicant the opportunit}° to address the Commission aut:° its concerns expressed tonight. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. Oral Communications Barbara Torok, 13037 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, stated that she was representing herself and two other families regarding consent calendar item 1. She stated that she sent communication to the Commission regarding the Kennedy subdivision. It is believed that there are items that directly impact the three neighbors in a significant «~ay. She requested that the Commission remove Agenda Item 1 from the consent calendar to further discuss the issues that have not been resolved. ' PLANNING COMMISSI~ MINUTES •~ OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Bill Perkins, 19349 Kodiac Place, stated that a new neighbor moved into the neighborhood and requested the construction of a two story addition. The request vas eventually denied and the neighbor constructed a one story extension. He stated that he drove down Bonnet Way and noticed that atwo-story home was being constructed on 19100 Dagmar. He asked how this two-story home was built without notification. He noted that the home does not confirm to the neighborhood and felt that the lot was small for the size of the home. Planner Bradford informed the Commission that Mr. Hahn received approval approximately two months ago for a small. second story addition that was in compliance with the floor area requirements under the design review guidelines. She stated that individuals within X00 feet of the property would have been notified. Vice-Chairwoman Patrick requested that staff look into this matter and that staff report back to the Commission. Report of Posting A eg nda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 18. 1996. y TECH\TICAL CORRECTIO\S No corrections were noted. CO\TSE\TT CALENDAR Community Development Director Curtis indicated that consent calendar item 1 vas heard under two separate public hearings, noting that correspondence was received from Mrs. Torok and that it was included in the Commission's packet. In its review of the Kennedy subdivision, the Commission determined that the request did meet zoning standards. The Commission considered the contents of Mrs. Torok's letter from the three residents who reside on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The Commission did not believe that it «.-as necessary to amend the plan. However, the Commission did take into consideration the proximity of the existing homes to the subdivision and that one of the provisions imposed was a height limit on Lot 6. y Commissioner Pierce stated that he recalled the review of the Kennedy subdivision. The issue discussed in length was whether the road should go throu~h~. He felt that the Commission addressed the neighbors' concerns as best as possible under the circumstances, limiting lot 5 to a single story. The Commission felt that other issues could be addressed at the design review stage. Vice-Chairwoman Patrick empathized with the neighbors as they were not part of the earlier discussions. She stated that the Commission would review the homes at the design review stage to limit impacts to the neighbors. y PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Siegfried agreed that the emphases of discussion was whether the street should go through or not. However, the Commission did consider the concerns raised about lot 5. He noted that lot 5 was restricted to a single story home. However, he did not believe that this issue vas resolved. He did not see any reason ~vhy the Commission should eliminate the lot. He felt that at the design review process, the location. the height of the single story home and other issues would be addressed. Commissioner Murakami concurred that the Commission could not eliminate Lot 5 and that the Commission considered all factors. He recollected that the through street was the major issue but that the Commission also addressed lot 5. He stated that the Commission would review lot 5 when it comes before the Commission for design review. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR REMOVED AGEI~TDA ITEM 1 FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 1. SD-95-007 -KENNEDY, 13121 SARATOGA-SUNNYVALEROAD; Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide three parcels of land totaling 9.42 acres. The proposed subdivision yields twelve lots and provide fora 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 and adopted for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (cont. from 10/9/96 to adopt Resolution of approval). Vice-chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public comment at 7:42 p.m. Mrs. Torok stated that while the Commission may have had the opportunity to review the contents of the letter submitted, it was not apparent that the issue was truly discussed. She noted that there was no exchange of dialogue and that a decision was being made at the time, noting that the concern relating to lot 5 would be addressed at the design review stage. She did not believe that the Commission understood that a public road would be constructed next to the neighbors' home and that a new home would be constructed up against the back of her home. She stated that there would be a financial impact to her. Although there are three families. she felt that the concerns expressed are as important as those who reside on Paramount Drive. It was the neighbors' belief that communication would occur between the neighbors and the Commission when the letter vas sent and that a written response was anticipated, noting that one was not received. She felt that the three neighbors still felt that issues remain. She stated that the neighbors are willing to compromise but that they would like to be included in the formula and dialogue. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Commission receives and reviews many letters submitted to them. However, there is no way that the Commission can respond to each letter and that public hearings are held to allow individuals to raise their points or concerns. ' PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 4 - The Commission did not see any reason the applicant could not have the number of lots requested. Vice-chairwoman Patrick stated that it vas her understanding that the law does not allow private discussion about issues before the Commissioners and that comments are to be made public. She acknowledged receipt of Mrs. Torok's letter dated October 16. She stated that she felt that Mrs. Torok's concerns would be addressed at the design review level. Vice-Chairwoman Patrick closed the public comment at 7:~0 p.m. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the vote taken tonight would reflect and confirm in resolution form the Commission's direction and discussion at its last meeting. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. Commissioner Asfour stated that although the action was to confirm the direction given to staff on this item, he would be voting against the action as a matter of principle. y THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARII\TG CON SENT CALENDAR 2. SD-95-006 & LL-95-004 - CONSTANTLN, 15261 NORTON 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 would be necessary to develop the lots in the future; no on-site development is proposed at this time (cont. to 11/13/96 at the request of the applicants; City- review- deadline is 3/4/97). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. UP-96-013 -SPRINT SPECTRLI~1 L.P./CRA~'~'FORD; 14425 BIG BASIN S'L'AY; Request for Use Permit approval to construct an eight foot pole with six antennas on top of the building. Equipment cabinets will be placed in an existing garage on site. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California PLANNING COMMISSI• MINUTES • OCTOBER 23.1996 PAGE - 5 - Environmental Quality Act (cont. from 10/9/96 at the request of staff; City revie~;~ deadline is 3/11/97) . Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Vice-chairperson Patrick opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Patty Mejia, representing Sprint Spectrum L.P.,stated that the antenna would be mounted on a single pole and that it would not exceed the height of the existing antennas. She informed the Commission that a community meeting was held on August 29, noting that no response was received from the neighbors. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 p.m. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the City Council has adopted an ordinance which would encourage providers to co-locate on single sites. He stated that this request was consistent with the Council's direction. Commissioner Siegfried felt that this vas an appropriate location. Commissioner Pierce agreed that this would be an appropriate location, keeping antennas out of residential areas~as much as possible. Commissioner Murakami stated that he could support the request as there are existing antennas on the roof and that they were well placed and very difficult to see. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATION UP-96-013: SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P./CRAWFORD; 14425 BIG BASIN WAY. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP-96-013 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. 4. DR-96-047 - BLACKWELL BROTHERS DEVELOP~ZE\T CO.; 13145 PIERCE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5.769 square foot single-story residence on a newly created lot 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 approximately 48,000 sq. ft. located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Vice-chairperson Patrick opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Andy Carter, 13194 Pierce Road, informed the Commission that he resides across the street from this request. He stated that he has not had an opportunity to review the plans. However, in driving by the site, the house appears to be very large and the poles seem to be as tall as most two story homes. He requested that the rules laid down as standards be folio~ved and that the exemption request be denied. David Leitzell, 21000 Comer Drive, stated that he drove by the site. He requested that the exemption request be denied as he did not see the need for it. He stated that he did not receive a notice of public hearing, noting that he may reside outside of the 500 foot radius. He stated that he moved to the area because of its openness and that approval of the request would go against the open feeling. Chris Kole, project architect, stated that it would be difficult to design this style of home with a flatter roof (lowering the roof pitch would be detrimental to the appearance of the house. He said that the average height of the roof was 20 feet at center. He stated that the poles stand at the peak and that they do not give the sense of the roof line sloping away. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he resides on Surrey Lane, off Pierce Road. He asked ~vh}' a 74-foot interior side yard setback was being proposed where as little as 21 feet could be allowed. He noted that the home is sited 47 feet off Pierce Road. He asked if anv thought was given to moving the home further away from Pierce Road? Mr. Kole responded that the home was sited to protect the backyard of this lot from Pierce Road, noting that this was a corner lot. He did not want to have a back yard that was completely opened to public view. By designing the home as a L-shape. it would provide a protective backyard, maximizing the court yard created behind the backyard. Commissioner Pierce asked if any thought was given to exterior fencing? He noted that a vineyard is shown on the plans and said that there is a problem with deer. He recommended that the fencing material be other than chicken wire, should one be installed. Mr. Kole stated that a fence vas not proposed but that he would agree to a condition that would stipulate the fencing material to be used. Vice-chairwoman Patrick stated that she could not understand why compliance with height requirements could not be met. Mr. Kole stated that a slate roof is proposed and that cutting the roof a few feet would not require an exception. However, the design of the home «-ould not look as good and asked if that would be of benefit to the community. He stated that the design of the home was selected by the owners as it was compatible to the vineyard theme. Vice-chairs;roman Patrick stated that the Kerwin Ranch subdivision had its homes' roof height at 26 feet and that the design of the home did not appear to be chopped off. • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS PIERCE/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he could support the exemption as it is only for 160 square feet. He did not believe that it would make much difference in the house as it was almost 6,000 square feet in size. However, he expressed concern with ho«~ close the home would be to Pierce Road (47 feet), making the home appear to be at the edge of the road. He stated that he understood the applicant's desire to maximize the back yard area. Commissioner Asfour stated that the proximity of the home to the street could create a problem and recommended that the home be sefba~l: further. He stated that he did not have a problem with the design and that he would prefer a pitched roof versus a flat roof. Commissioner Pierce concurred with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. He felt that the 163 feet would be insignificant and that he could support the request as submitted. Commissioner Murakami stated his concurrence with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners. Vice-chairwoman Patrick recommended that the home be setback further from Pierce Road. She stated that she could not support the floor area reduction and recommended that the applicant meet the design standards. Therefore, she could not support the request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-96-047. WITH THE REQUIREMENT TO INCREASE SETBACK FROM PIERCE ROAD BY 10 FEET, RESULTING IN 61 FEET ON THE INTERIOR SIDE AND 57 FEET FROM PIERCE ROAD. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED; NOES: PATRICK, MURAKAMI; ABSENT: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN. 5. DR-96-050 - CHAN; 13502 ~IYREN DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,600 sq. ft. single story residence and construct a new 2.895 sq. ft. two-story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 9,838 sq. ft. located in an R-1-10.000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that a letter was received from a neighbor who resides on Kodiak Place yesterday afternoon in opposition to this project, siting concerns with backyard privacy and freeway noise reflecting from the second story. As the project meets all zoning ordinance requirements and is designed to confirm to the policies of the Design Review Handbook, staff felt that all the design review findings can be made in terms of architectural compatibility and preservation of views and privacy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Vice-chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Karen Carte, 13449 Kodiak Place, stated that she moved to this neighborhood and selected her home due to the large, private backyard and the neighborhood's single story restrictions. She felt that a two story home would impact the privacy of her backyard, the enjoyment of her home and property values. She felt that a two story home in a predominantly single story neighborhood was unusual. William Kinnear, 18863 Casa Blanca Lane, informed the Commission that he would be a next door neighbor. He expressed concern with the elimination of light from his property and also privacy as two bedrooms would be overlooking his backyard. He stated that most of the homes in the area are single family homes. If two story homes are approved, it would change the neighborhood. He also informed the Commission that a neighbor on the other side of Mr. Chan has also expressed concern regarding light being taken away from her home. He requested that careful consideration be given to the neighborhood and to Mr. Chan's plan as far as height and light elimination along the length of his property. Rolf Lips, 18834 Casa Blanca Lane, informed the Commission that he has been a 25-year resident. He expressed concern with atwo-story home because it does not fit in with the neighborhood that is predominantly single story homes. He felt that a 2,895 square foot single story home could be built on the 9,834-foot lot. He expressed concern with shadows, noise and density. Also of concern vas that a precedent would be set whereby anyone on Casa Blanca Lane could build two story building, a detriment to the City of Saratoga. He requested that the Commission approve a single story home. Commissioner Pierce stated that the area appears to be developed separately from the Dagmar/Myren development. He felt that the homes on Casa Blanca appear to be of different designs/styles as to those of Dagmar/Myren. He acknowledged that the homes on Casa Blanca Lane are single story homes and that some of the homes on Dagmar/Myren are two story homes. He noted that this home is located on a corner of t~vo different styles of development. Kong Chan, applicant, stated that his home was carefully designed with additional setbacks. He noted that more than a 60-foot setback has been provided to the house located to the rear. Therefore, lack of lighting would not be a problem. He did not see any reason he could not build atwo-story design. Bill Yates, 13583 Myren Drive, stated that rebuilding has improved the area. He stated that he would like to have the option of constructing a second story addition if his neighbors will approve it. He noted that there were t~vo story homes located on Casa Blanca. He did not view atwo-story home to be a detriment to the City of Saratoga if properly designed. He felt that he should be allowed the option to construct a t~vo-story home on his 12,000 square foot lot in the future. • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 9 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the City would be seeing more and more two story homes in this area. He stated that he was not concerned with the t~vo story home but that he was concerned with the design of the home. He felt that a second story could be designed so that it is not imposing. He did not believe that the south elevation was compatible with that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami agreed with Commissioner Siegfried. He stated that he did not have a problem with two story homes in this neighborhood as it was a changing neighborhood. Regarding the design, he had his doubts about approving it because it does not fit in with the neighborhood as it was not proportionally balanced. Once a balance is achieved. he felt that the neighbors would not object to its design. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not have a problem with two story homes if they are designed properly. He felt that a second story can be designed where it does not appear to be a two-story home. Vice-chairwoman Patrick concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She did not believe that the design blends in with the neighborhood. Therefore, she could not support the second story as designed. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the applicant be given a continuance if he so wants to redesign his plans. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:31 p.m. Mr. Chan inquired when the request would be considered by the Commission if a continuance was granted? Community Development Director Curtis stated that this item could be considered at a work session, noting that the next available work session would be November 26, that the Commission could hold a special work session or that the Commission could continue the public hearing to Tuesday, November 26, 1996. If continued to November 26, plans would need to be submitted to staff by November 12. Mr. Chan stated that he would like the opportunity to resubmit a design for the Commission's consideration. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26,1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that the second story should have the appearance of being tucked into the roof line. As such, it would take a redesign as the present design does not fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami felt that there needs to be a reduction of the second story with a slight increase in the first story as the present design does not fit in, is obtrusive and stands out. He recommended that it be smoothed out and balanced. Commissioner Siegfried stated that Commissioner Asfour's home vas a prime example of not recognizing that a second story home exists. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that there were no Directors Items to report. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-96-027 -Brown; 21952 Villa Oaks Ln. -Request for a minor revision to a condition of approval. Planner Bradley presented the staff report and informed the Commission that the applicant has not been able to modify the design to eliminate the need for a second retaining wall. She indicated that staff was supportive of the request as the applicant has been able to eliminate the rear yard grading. Commissioners Siegfried and Murakami stated that they did not have a problem with the request and would support staff's recommendation. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMU\TICATIONS Commissioner Asfour thanked staff and his fellow Commissioners for all their help while he was a Planning Commissioner. Vice-chairwoman Patrick thanked Commissioner Asfour for his service as a Planning Commissioner. y ~'Vritten 1. City Council Minutes dated 10/2 & 10/5/96 • ~ ~ - • s PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Oral Citv Council ADJOL'R~TMEI\T -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday. November 13, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk I?`•:.PC 10'_396. S aR