Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-1997 Planning Commission minutes_~ 'L.a~`NI?~G COMMISSIOl~` MINL?TES~ iV1AY 14. 1997 City Council Chambers. 13777 Fruity ale A~-enue Revular 1\Ieeting Chair«~oman Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire. Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami. Patrick. Pierce. Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Interim Planning Director ~~%al~~ren and City- atton~e~ Faubian Minutes -4.'23%97 COMMISSIONERS KAPLANBERNALD iViOVED TO APPROVE "THE APRIL 23. 1997 MINUTES AS ~~'RITTEN. THE ~10TION CARRIED 6-0-1 «"ITH COMi\1ISSIONER PIERCE ABSTAINING. Oral Communications No coir~~~~erts «~ere offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Go~~ernment Code ~49~4.2, the agenda for this meeting «~as properl~• posted on ~ia~- 9, 1997. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections «-ere noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-97-017 - K.~PtiRIA, 21427 CONTINE\TAL CIRCLE; Request for Design Re~-ie«• appro~~al to add a 2,284 square foot deck to the first stor~• of an existing t«°o-store home. «°ith a 7-foot high understor~~ beneath the deck. The proposed understorv exceeds the ~-foot maximum height. necessitating Design Re~~ie~~~. "Ihe property is 1 acre, and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district (cont. from ~'23~97 at the direction of the Planning Commission to re~~ise plans: application subsequentl~~ ~~~ithdra~~n b~~ applicant). y ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CO'~1~11SSIOtiERS PIERCE.%K:~~PLAti :~10VED TO APPRO~%E CONSE\T CALENDAR I"CE~i 1 BY ti1ItiUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED LNANI`•10USL1' (7-0). PLa\NING C0~11~1ISSI0\`~C~IINUTES ~~IAY 14. 1997 Pace-2- PUBLiC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 2. DR-97-008 - '~IETZLER, 12181 MELLOWOOD DR.; Request for Design Revie~y approval to construct a 1.071 square foot. one and t~yo story addition to an e~istinC7 one store home on a 9.70 square foot lot pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The site is located in an R-I-]0.000 zoninv district (cont. from =I 9;97 at the direction of the Planning Conunission to revise plans -applicants have requested additional continuance to x'28%97 to complete revisions: Cite review deadline is 9~ 14`97). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. SiVi-97-OOl - DE NICOLO, 1171 TEERLI\K «`aV; Request for Site ~loditication approval to construct a s«-imming pool on a =I4.000 sq. ft. lot as required pursuant to SD- 13~~ subdivision conditions of approval. The subject property is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C0~1tilISSIONERS 1~1L;ILaKa>\II;~BER~ALD ~10VL-D TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CO\SEN"T CaLE\DaR ITE~1S 2 :~titD 3 BY ti1ItiTUTE aCTIO\. THE i\10TION CARRIED UNal`?IMOUSLY (7-0). PtiBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR-96-068 - MOROYAN, 1=1961 VIA DE NIARCOS; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 6.161 square foot t«-o-story structure on a vacant =10,776 square foot lot. 1•he subject parcel is lot 2~ of the San Marcos Heights subdivision and is located in an R-1-=10,000 zoning district (cont. from 226.97 at the direction of the Planning Commission to revise plans: City revie~y deadline is 8.%12'97). y Interim Planning Director ~?4~algren presented the staff report. Chair~yoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 7:~8 p.m. Marty Oakley, project desi~~ner, stated his concurrence with staff s recommendation. He indicated that the second story «-ould consist of 1,200 square feet. He stated that a slab floor is proposed and that the chimney stack is approximately one foot lower than the hi~~hest point of the roof (approximatel~~ 24 feet). He said that the building code requires that the chimney- be nvo feet higher and ten feet horizontally from the nearest roof. He said that one fireplace is designed to burn ~yood but that more than likel~~, the propert~~ o~yner «-ould install a log li~~htcr and not burn «-ood. The other fireplace proposed is to be gas only. C01~1~4ISSIONERS PIERCE;t~1L"IZaKa>\~II ~~10~`L-D TO CLOSE THL- I'liBI_IC HE_~RING AT 7:41 p.m. Commissioner abshire stated his support of the revised design. Commissioners Pierce stated that he likes the design as it has been tapered in. • • PLA\NING CO~~I\~tISSION ~tINLTES i~4AY 14, 1997 PAGE - 3 - C01~1~1ISSIONERS K'1PLA\ SIEGFRIED i~iOVED TO :APPROVE RESOLLTICI~' \TO. DR-96- 068. THE 1~~LOTION CARRIED G\'1\1~IOL;SL.Y (7-0). ~. !~i2-96-074 - BAR~IEIER, 13471 CHALET CLOTILDE; Request for Desi~~n Reyie~y approval to demolish an existing residence and construct a ne~y 6,163 sq. ft. ~ri~~o-store structure. ~yith a rear yard pool and detached 687 sq. ft. pool house. on a 4.9 net acre parcel pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the Cit~• Code. The Calabazas Creek crosses the lo«•er portion of this hillside parcel. The propert~~ is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interim Planning Director ~~~algren presented the staff report. He said that staff recommends approval of the request ~yith the stipulation that landscapin~~ is to be installed prior to final inspection. Should the applicant choose to transplant some of the ~°oun~~er oaks. they c~u1 be credited to«~ard the required landscapin~~ that ~yould other«-ise be necessary. I-le indicated that a letter ryas received that is attached to the report from an adjacent nei~_=hbor to the south expressing concern ~yith the impact that the structure «~ould have to her existing ~~ie«-shed. He inlonned the Commission that correspondence has been received and distributed to the Plannin~~ Commission from Loretta and Ed~yard Levin and Susan and Stephen Dougherty supporting the project. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the road leading up from Pierce Road ryas a private or a cit~• street? Interim Planning Director ~~%algren responded that it «-as his belief that the road «-as a pri~-ate street. He said that a condition could be added to stipulate repair of the road prior to final permit should any datnaae occur as a result of construction. Chair~yoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Jude Kiric, project architect. stated that the site ryas a difficult and constrained one because of its irregular shape. its steep topo~raph~~, and ~yater easement restrictions. Given Saratoaa's specific guidelines for hillside construction. it made sense to site the ne~y home approximately ~yhere the old structure exists. He said that the hillside is being used to slide the home in to create a small usable la«n area on the upper terrace, reusing the existing driye~yay approach ~;pith minor re~~isions to meet fire truck access. IIe tried to be sensitive and keep the home as logy and unobtrusive as possible. He expressed concern re~~ardin~~ the close proximit~~ of the adjacent neighbor's home as it is almost on the propert~~ line (non-conforming to current regulations). He said that his client has offered to confer ~;-ith the adjacent property- o«ner regarding landscaping. fencing and other issues to address her concerns. Commissioner Pierce asked «-h~- so much driye~yav coverage is proposed? 1~1r. Kiric stated that amount of driye«-a~- is necessary because the location of the home is approximately ~0 feet above the street level and that City code alloys only 1~ percent grade for the driye~yay. "fhe city has required lengthening of the driyc«a~ to comply ~yith city standards. hire vehicle access is critical as a certain amount of level and turn around area is required. He said that the contractors ~yould assure that the street does not ~~et dama~~ed durin~~ construction. • PLA:~'NING COMMISSION ~•II\LTLS MAY 14. 1997 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern that the drive:va:- is proposed to be 200 feet in length. She recommended that pervious materials be considered to make the drive:vav look attractive. She asked if the excess drive:vav and turn around area can be eliminated? Mr. Kiric stated that cost :vas a consideration and that he :would like to make the dri:-e:t~av as attractive as possible. He stated that he:vould like to reinstate a tree line to soften the driver°av or explore other options. He said that the drive:vav at the Y is the minimum turn around that is needed to allo:v emergency- vehicles to back do:vn the area. The upper area is to be used for : ehicle parking and for a small pared play area for the children. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not want to see any construction up the hill. She said that she could support the construction of a hand cut path but not extensive grading. She asked if a foundation for a retaining ::°all is proposed. Interim Plannin~~ Director ~?l`algren stated that an:~ constriction on the hillside:-ould be subject to the Hillside development rules. if substantial amount of fill is proposed to be removed. it «ould have to return to the Planning Commission for site and architectural reyie:~° and approval. tilarlene Freitas. 13471 Pierce Road. stated that construction ofthe home::-ould eliminate her r-ie:° shed. She expressed concern:vith hillside development and requested that the project be:vell thought out and planned. after revie:ying the stor~• poles. she felt that it :vas intimidating to look out at the proposed garage.%:vorkshop. She requested that an alternate design be required to reduce the size. placement and to provide a greater garage setback. She expressed concern with access to her site should she remodel her home in the future. Commissioner Kaplan stated that ~~ls. Freitas' home was non-confonnin~~ in terns of setback and that it was not this applicant's problem. She said that 1\~1s. Freitas has a second story balcony that:vould allot:- her an unobstructed vie:y. She noted that Ills. I~ reitas does not have a ~_ara~_e and that she has many cars parked on site. She did not believe that the Commission should require the applicant to redesign their plans due to ~1s. Freitas' non-conformin~~ setback. Carol Barmeier, applicant. informed the Commission that her architect met :ith Ms. Freitas last :reek to discuss the plans :with her. She stated that she ::-as sensitive to the view shed concern. She said that she :yould be :willing to screen the garage through landscaping and fencing subject to Ms. Freitas' approval. Regarding access, she did not believe that she ::~ould interli=re «~ith Ms. Freitas' dri:•e::gay should future development of her propert~~ occur. Chair:voman Patrick asked if the applicant :yould agree to eliminate the upper circular drive? i~Ir. Kiric clarified that the upper portion of the driveway meets City standards in terms of percent slope. He :yould have to have the sloped portion to allot:- fire truck backup. • • PLANNII~TG COMMISSION MItiUTES l~1aY 1=1. 1997 PAGE - ~ - Commissioner Kaplan asked if~ra~°el material or other surface material could be used for the drive«~a~- and not hardscape material? >\~Ir. Kiric stated that the driveway is steep and that he ~~~anted to make sure that the material used does not wash away-. I-Ie said that the Fire Department would have a sa~~ on the material to be used due to the use of heavy fire trucl:;~equipment. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the 200-foot driveway be redesigned to reduce its expanse. Interim P1_atmin~ Director ~~'algren clarified that this application is a redesign of the initial drive~a-av submittal. The main le~~ of the driveway- as you go up the hill comes close to the maximum permitted <~radin~ of 17 percent. The Fire District has requested that the main radius be modified as it was too tight of a turnin~~ radius. He did not believe that one «~ould see the len~~thv driveway as depicted on the project plans because of the ~0-foot elevation from the court down below and that tree canopies ~;-ould break up the length of the drives~av. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the interlocking portion ol• the drive«-av could be eliminated to reduce paving? Interim Planning Director ~'~~algren stated that the turn-around could be redesi~~ned at the garage area. COMMISSIONERS t1UR:'1KAt1l;`BIrRNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PCBLIC HEARING A"h 8:09 p.m. Commissioner ~lurakami stated that he does not have a problem with the drive«-av as it is needed to met fire protection. After revie~;ping the models and renderings presented this evening. he «•as comfortable with the design. He said that he etas ready to approve the request. Commissioner Abshire agreed with Commissioner 1\-lurakami's comments. He stated that the house is largc'vut noted that the adjacent property- is also larve. As complaints have not been received .from the neighbors, he would support the request. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he supports the design and that he did not object to the driveway. Conunissioner Pierce expressed concern with the driveway. Ho«~ever. staff feels that the design is the best that can be made. He did not belic~~e that much space «-ould be saved if' redesigned. Therefore. he would support the request. Commissioner Bernald said that it ~t-as commendable that the applicant was willin~* to ~~~orl: «-ith the neighbor to address her concerns. Site stated that she cottld support the request. y COMi~1ISSIONCRS BERNALD.%~~IURAKAA~II MOVED -f0 APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 96-074 ~?~'ITII AN ADDED COtiDITIONT TO REQUIRE ANY \ECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE ROAD AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ~1OT1O\ CARRIED LJNAI~~Ii\1OUSLY (6- 0). • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 14. 19)7 PAGE-6- 6. DR-97-010 - STRINGCR, 2263 GARROD RU.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a ne«~ 6,109 sq. ft. t«°o stop- residence on a 1.83 acre parcel pursuant to Chapter 1 ~ of the City Code. The site is located in a Hillside Residential zonin~~ district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interim Plamiing Director ~?~'algren presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval ~a-ith the condition that the one wing of the home that goes off the existing graded pad be redesiened so that it is brought back onto the pad. Chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Scott Stotler. project desi~=ner. informed the Commission that the o~~ner selected an older California villa-stele design. He addressed the area that goes over the ed~~c ol• the pad. He informed the Commission that a natural cross slope of approximately three feet exists (west side of the lot). Once the pad is dropped. the corner of the house would be approximately tlti-ee Peet tall. By keeping the home for«°ard. the backyard can be maintained at its natural ~=rade. He did not believe that an~-one from Villas Oak Drive ~yould be able to see the home due to the log;per elevation and existin~~ trees. He stated that the home could be moved forward toward the street but that it ~~°ould result in a canalized effect. Commissioner Kaplan said that at the site visit. she did not see an impact on the usable back yard space it•the building is moved back onto the existing pad. She asked il•the fireplaces are to be gas burning and requested that tl~e fireplaces be plumbed for gas. Robert Teal informed the Commission that the four fireplaces would have ~zas burning capabilities. The onl~• fireplace that the applicant would «°ant to burn wood would be in the family room. Commissioner Kaplan requested that the representatives conve~~ to the applicants the request for gas burning fireplaces. She stated that she appreciated that the ~__=ara~?e doors «~ere not desiUned to face the front. She felt that the architect had kno«°led~e of the location of the pad for the site. C0~1~1ISS10\ERS KAPL~\;~1[:IZ.~K.~il~lI 1\~10~'ED 1.O CLOSE THE Ptr~I3LIC HEARING AT 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan stated her support of staff s recommendation regardin~~ the pad. Commissioner ~lurakami concurred ~~~ith Commissioner Kaplari s continents. Looking at the total square footage of the home, the applicants are only a few feet a«-av_ from reachinv the maximum square footage alloyed. y CO~I>l1ISSI0\L•RS KAPLAI~T;~SIEGFRiL•D ~10~'ED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-97- O10 AS RECOivil~iENDED BY STAFF. THE v10TI0\ CARRIED LEA\I~~IOLTSI_Y (7-0). • • PLAT`\I\G COMI~IISS1O\ MItiTUTES ~~1AY 14. 1997 PAGE - 7 - 7. DR-96-065 - SHAH, 22071 DEER TRAIL CT.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,026 sq. ft. t~yo-stork- residence on a vacant 1.22 acre lot. The property- is located in a Ilillside Residential zoning district. Interim Planning Director ~~'algren presented the staff report. He indicated that the future cabana and pool site referenced on the plans are not being approved as part of this request. He said that as lone as the structures do not exceed 12 feet in height, the~~ could be approved administratively. Chairwoman Patrick asked if the applicant increased the width of the drive«~ay, would it result in additional cut and till? interim Planning Director ~'l'algrcn responded that it ~~~ould not. He stated that the height of the entryway was at 18 feet. Commissioner i\1urakami asked if staff would recommend that the roof line be lo~~~ered and that the overhead window above the door be made smaller? Interim Plannin~~ Director VValgren stated that staff recommends that the element be brought do«~n in terms of height, mass and scale. Chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. V1r. Shah. applicant, stated that the lot is flat and that construction would not require much grading. He said that you would not be able to see the front entrance from Villa Oaks Lane. I-le stated that the 20-foot drive «~ould consist of gravel material. I-le said that according to his architect, it would be difficult to reduce the roof line. He distributed photographs of adjacent homes depicting their front entrv~~-avs. ~1s. Shah, applicant~architect, said that the front entr~•wa.~ meets cite codes and that it is at a height of 18 feet. She said that she proposed an architectural design that would be compatible with that of the neighborhood. She stated that the proposed 20-foot drive is due to easements for lots 12 and 14. She stated that the roadwa}° ~a-ould be landscaped approximately one foot in width. Commissioner Kaplan inquired as to the number of fireplaces proposed. ti~ls. Shah responded that two wood fireplaces are proposed. Commissioner Kaplan requested that one fireplace be desi~~ned as a `gas burning fireplace to reduce air pollution. CO~•1~~ISSIO\TERS PIERCE;"BERN:~LD iV1OVED TO CLOSE THr PL"BLIC HLARII~G AT 8:39 p.in. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the colors be toned down as they- appear to be bright. Conurissioncr Bernald concurred with staffs recommendation regarding the lowering of the roof line as it would still allow an open entr~°~~°av. She said that the examples of the neighbors' roof lines do not appear to be as high as the applicant's roof line. She supported a 14 foot access drive and recommended that it be landscaped. • • PLAN?~I1~G COMMISSION MINi;TES MAY 14. 1997 PAGE - 8 - Comtissioner Pierce stated that he did not support a 20-foot «-ide drive~yav. He felt that a 14-foot drive~t-av with landscaping on the sides ~yould make it an attracti~°e drive~yav. He stated his appreciation that the applicant is not maximizing the buildin~~ square footage. He recommended that the «-indo~~~ over the door and the entry door be modified to soften its appearance. I-Ie said that he did not iike the colors proposed. Commissioner Abshire stated his support of the entryway as he likes a bright lighted homes. Conunissioner Siegfried did not support the proposed 20 toot driveway. He said that he did not ha~~e a great deal of trouble ~~~ith the entryway. He did not support the proposed colors and stated that he «ould defer approval of the use of lighter colors to start". Commissioner ~lurakami stated that the home «°as nicer- designed. lie supported staffs recommendation to reduce the entryway glass windo« and supported a 14-loot drive~~ay. Chair~yoman Patrick said that she would support the use of bro~~n. earthtone colors and not the pink earthtone colors. She also supported a 14-foot drive~yav. She expressed concern ~yith the appearance of the entrv~yay. She recommended that the application be denied on the basis that the design ryas not appropriate and that redesign be submitted. Commissioners Nlurakami and Pierce did not agree to deny the application on the basis of the entry~yav and felt that the entrvwa~° could be redesi~~ned as recommended b~~ staP1: Commissioner Kaplan referred to condition 2.d of the resolution of approval. She recommended its deletion as the cabana is not a part of this approval. COi\~1MISSIONERS K.APLAN.%SIEGFRIED MOVED TO ='1PPROVE RESOLUTiO\ NO. DR-96- 06~ AS RECOMi\~IENDED BY STAFF ~?~'ITH THE FOLLOWING 1\~1ODIFICA"IiO\S: 1) COLORS ARE TO BE APPROVL-D BY STAFF; AND 2) DELE1•IO\ 01= CO\DITION 2.D. THE MOTION CARRIED L`tiA\II\~IOUSLY (7-0). 8. SD-96-002 & LP-96-001 - DAOU:`CIVITAF CORP.. CHIQUITA COURT: Request for Tentative Parcel ~-lap approval to subdivide a 26 acre hillside parcel into five individual lots ran~~ing in size from 1.1 to 3.2 net acres. Approximately 1 ~ acres «~ould be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the lots to be clustered together, Thus alloying the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed to access off Comer Dr.- Lots ? - would be accessed via an extension of Chiquita Ct. The property is located within a I Iillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. from 3!26:'97 re~~ular adjourned meeting to vote on motion to deny application: City review deadline is 1.`6.'98). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interim Platming Director ~~`algren presented the staff report. He indicated that this item «-as a continued public hearing. 1-Ie informed the Commission that it continued this item from its 1\~larch • • PLA'_~'NNG CO1~I~TISSIOi~I ~~1INliTES MAY 1=+. 1997 PAGE - 9 - 26, ] 997 meeting to allow for a full vote of the Commission. The action to take place is to see if the majority of the Commission are in support of denial of the applications. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she received a call from ti1r. Daou who indicated that he has spent a lot of money on this application. She recommended that the Commission focus on ne«~ information to be presented. Chair~roman Patrick stated that the Commission is seekin~~ ne~~ information at this public hearinv and that the Commission did not ~~~ant to hear a repetition of previous discussion. Charwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. Ed Daou, applicant. said that he tried to contact each of the Planning Commissioners but that he was not able to reach all of the Commissioners. He said that the propert~~ is zoned as a residential project and that one to five homes can be built. Besides land cost. there .vas 560.000 spent in cite applications and another 560,000 in consultants fees. He requested that the city work with him to mitigate the problems. He said that he has «orked with the neighbors and that the project has been redesigned. One bridge is proposed instead of the n~-o ori~inalh_- proposed b.~ ~~lr. ~~'on~~. He said that he is «~illin~ to ~~orl: ~~-ith staff re~~arding storm drain and sc~~°cr issues. H~ requested that the Commission continue the application and direct him to ~~~ork with staff to come up with solutions to mitigate the negative points and to turn them into positive ones. In the EIR review process, it was not indicated that the Planning Commission «~ould be requiring a detailed solution to every impact associated with this project. He informed the Commission that he has contacted another soils engineer and architect to ans~yer questions raised. He did not believe that anyone would benefit should these applications be denied. He reiterated that no matter ~~~hether one or four lots are constructed, the construction of a bridge would still be required. including? the sanie amount of grading. He requested that this item be continued for further discussion. Interim Planning Director `~'algren clarified that the action scheduled this e~~cning «-as at the request of some Commissioners who ~~~anted to take a vote on the application on its entirety this evenin~~. If the motion to deny fails. the draft EIR ~yould be rescheduled for further consideration. The details discussed at the March 12 and March 26, 1997 meetings «~ould need to be prepared (i.e., sanitary sewer plan, storm drain plan. lone term erosion and sedimentation control plan. etc.). If the application is denied. the applicant can appeal the Coirnnission's decision to the City Council. If the denial is upheld by the City_ Council, the applicant ~~ould need to relile an application. If the application is denied without prejudice the applicant could immediately resubmit a ne~~ application. Luanne Nieman, 13217 Padera Court. stated that the discussion this cvcnin~~ does not address the fact that the EIR is incomplete. She said that over-helmin~~ ~ ariances from the City's code and hillside plans were alarming. As nei~=hbors, they are skeptical ol~ the entire plans and the L:IR as it stands. • • PLAi~]1~II~TG COit~I~1ISSIOti i\IINL?TES >\~1AY 1'1, 1997 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Kaplan asked ~~1s. Nieman if the neighbors ~yould be present had they been aware that there would be a possibilit~~ of a continuance or denial not taking place this evening? ~~1s. \ieman responded that it was the neighbors' understanding at the stud~~ session that the action to be taken this evening ~yould be to deny the request because the proposal has no merit. Shy said that the applicant has not contacted the neighbors as indicated. 1\~Tr. Daou stated that he has ~~~orked e~°ith the propert~• owners on Chiquita Court. He conceded that he has not contacted all ofi the neighbors but that he would continue to ~~~ork Stith the neigThbors. He said that he did not respond to the issues raised by Commissioner Kaplan at the last meeting until it was determined what action would be taken this evening. It was his belief that the issues raised ~yould result in several months of study. COV1~11SSI0\ERS PIERCE-~KAPLA\ ~1OVED TO CLOSE TIIE Pi~13LIC IIEARI\G AT 9:18 p.m. Commissioner Kaplan asked the City Attorney if a residential zoniny~ exists on a parcel of land. is the Cite required to approve a d~ielling unit no matter what the environmental impact report states`? Cite Attornc~• Faubian stated that the issue before the Commission was a discretionary permit request. The standards and guidelines for review are contained in the Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision tap Act. She said that there is a question of "taking." She did not believe that there ~i~as a taking if the fire-lot subdivision was denied because the applicant can resubmit for the subdivision of a one to four lot subdivision. Commissioner Kaplan said that it has been indicated that a bridge «-ould be required no matter the number of lots proposed and that it has also been indicated that the bridge does not comply- with cit<~ standards. She asked if it «°ould still result in a takin~~ if the applicant cannot mitigate all the concerns? She said that the City Attorne~~ has advised that zonin~~ allo~~~s the Commission discretionary review and that the Commission can deny the request for afive-lot subdivision. Interim PlanningT Director ~~'algren informed the Commission that the application cannot be approved this evening. The application can be denied or continued in order to complete the draft EIR. He reiterated that at the i\~iarch ?6, 1997 mcetin~T. the majority- of the Commission continued this item to specificall~~ make a motion to deny the map based on the negative information submitted to date regardin~* the impact of the bridge. It has been noted throughout the process that a bridge would be necessary whether there is one parcel or fire as it is the only feasible ~yay to gain access to the knoll. Staff has not seen an application that accesses the site from Chiquita ~'l`a}~. Staff has been advised that landslide repairs would be necessary to come off Chiquita ~'~'a~- and that it «-ould be more severe and disruptive than the access proposed off Chiquita Court. Previous studies have detet-tnined that walls for the drive«•av «~ould be more disruptive than the installation of the bridge. PLANI~II~G COi`1~~IISSIO`T MII~TLTES LTAY 1 ~, 1997 P:~GC - 11 - Commissioner Kaplan felt that the project has so many natural hazards. She said that she ~yould support denial of the application. Commissioner Nlurakami said that he did not want to cut the applicant olTprematurely and that he wanted the applicant to have a fair hearing. He said that he ~yould be prepared to rote on the issue this evenin~~. Commissioner Bernald said that she revie~red :article 6647=1, subsections C, L and F of the Subdivision i~1ap Act. She said that these subsections address the problems that she is having ~yith this propert~°. She expressed concern that 69 of the 101 trees are proposed to be rcmoycd, noting that ~7 are valley oaks. She said that it would take fifty years to reestablish a riparian habitat. She also expressed concern ~-ith the high erosion potential and «°ith the City's responsibilit~• rc-gardin~ future liability-. The proposed drive~ya~~ ~radinU is too great to be significantly mitivated. She stated that she «~as prepared to vote this evening and that it ~yould be a rote that ~~-ould not be appreciated by the applicant. Commissioner Siegfried concurred ~~~ith the continents expressed b~~ Commissioner Bernald. He said that in the early 1980x, no one ever envisioned this h-pe of development on a hillside. He said that he had difficulty «-ith the ;_~rading proposed. the number of trees that «-ould need to be removed and the extensive landscape repair. He stated that he «-ould be prepared to vote this evening. Commissioner Pierce stated that the applicant has admitted that one lot «ould still require the installation of a brid~~e. He felt that the propert~~ contained environmental impacts. He did not see a good cause for a continuance and that he «-ould vote against the project. Commissioner Abshire said that based on the evidence presented at the last hearing and this evening, he would have to deny the request. He said that future home buyers depend on the Commission to make sure that homes would be made safe and built to construction standards. It has been stated that even one home ~yould require the construction of the bridge. if this is true, he did not see a need to continue this item. Chairwoman Patrick concurred ~yith the comments expressed b~- her fello~r Commissioners. She did not believe that the request complies ~yith the Subdivision ~1ap Act. She felt that destro~~ing trees is a devastation. She felt that the Commission is required to approve mitigations as part ofproject approval. She said that she could not support an~~ part of this proposal. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this application should be denied ~yithout prejudice? Interim Planning, 1>irector «'algren responded that denial ~yithout prejudice would alloy the applicant to resubmit an application. If denied, the applicant ~rould have to ~yait one year before submittin~~ a similar application. I-le stated that lots ] and ~ do not meet mininnnn city standards and that these t«~o lots ~yould need to be eliminated from the map. He felt that an~~ submittal that bridges the propert} from Chiquita Court that provided three to five lots ~yould be essentially the same PLANING CO1~I~IISSION ~11NUTES ~~1AY I ~. 1997 PAGE - 12 - • application. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN-BERN ALD i\-10VEU ~I~O DENY" Vl'[TH PREJL!DICE APPLICA"I"10\ SD-96-002`l, P-96-001. S"1•AFF ~1~0 RETURN ~'l~ ITH A RESOLL!TIO\T OF DENIAL INCORPORATING TI-IE .APPROPRIATE FINDI\GS. THL- i\~iOTIO\ CARRIED UNANIi`IOUSLY (7-0). DIRECTOR ITEIt~1S No Director's Items ~~-ere reported. CO'i~IMISSIO\ ITEMS 1. DR-96-0~0; IIAITRA, 1~45~ PIKE ROAD. Request for appro~~al of color board (cont. from ~%2~;~97j. Anna A~Iaitra, applicant. stated that she chose colors that blend in with the surroundings and that «~ere unobtrusi~~e. She furnished the Commission ~~-ith a color chart depicting colors appro~~ed in the neighborhood. She proposed the use of a muted ~zold color. Chair«°oman Patrick did not support the mustard color as it ~~~ould be too reflecti~~e. BY CONSEtiSi?S THL• CO1~1A1ISSION APPROVED THL- COLOR BOARD SAb1PLE LABELED ..B „ 2. :Appointment of Library Commission Task Force A~lember Interim Plaru~inU Director AA'algren informed the Commission that at its last meetin~,~, Commissioners Bernald. 1-lurakami and Sie~~fried ~ olunteered to ser~-e on the Librar~~ Conunission Task Force. The nett meetinL= is scheduled for AA'ednesda}-, 1~Ia~- 28 at x:30 p.m. He anticipates that meetings ~~~ould be held monthly-. Commissioners Bernald and i~Iurakami ~~~ere appointed as co-Library- Commission Task T'orce V1embers. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she ~ti~ould not be in attendance at the .tune 1 l , 1997 meetin~~. COVItiIU\TICATIO\ S ~V ritten PLANNING COlVtM1SS10N MI\tiTL-S MAY 14, 1997 PAGE - 13 - 1. Cit.' Council ~~tinutes dated 4;`16 & 422:97 2. \'otices for x-28;"97 Planning Commission ADJOtiRNVTENT - "I'herc being no further business. the meetinv adjourned at 9:4~ p.m. to 7:30 p.m. ~~'ednesda~~, Mai- 28, 1997, Ci~~ic Theater, 13777 Fruit~~ale ,wenue_ Saratoga. CA Respectfully- Submitted. Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk it ro~i3~%.s:~k ' ~ -, CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 - 6:30 p.m. PLACE: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff: Appli ca~~. Appellan~. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS STUDY SESSION AGENDA Cor:zmissicners Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Pa~ricc & Murakami Commissioners Pierce & Siegfried interim Planni~g Director Walgren Kazemzade~~ Jenser_ 1. AR-97-001 - Kazemzadeh; 18501 Montpere Way Appeal o an Adr:z_nist -~ative Design ?ZetTi ew approval ~o construct a 1, 484 sq. t . , 13 f t . tall, ore-story addition off t:^.e back cf an existing 1, 755 sc. ft . single story residence . Staff presented that C~~eriel Jensen, at 13737 Quito Read, had requested an appeal hear_ng i~efore the Flanr~i rg Commission pursuance to Article 15-9v of t:~e Saratoga Zo:_-rg Ordina^ce. She was appealing an admir_istrative approval to construct are addition to an existing home located across she W_ldcat/Vasona Creek from her property. It was noted that sta=f had reviewed the plans and visited the prcoerty and determined that the proposed 13 ft. tall addition met ail Zor_ing Ordinance requirements and should be relatively ur_obtrusive to the adjoi=ping neigrbors. The applicant had agreed to move the addition further from the creels bank as a cor~diticn of approval. Iris was requested primarily to keep constructicn activi ties and materials a~~ay f mom the creek. Tre plar_s had alsc been reviewed tie SCVLtiD and they had not raised an:r objectior_s to the proposal. Staff was therefore recommending that tae appeal be denied a„d that the add-cion be cond_tionally approved. Appellant Jensen was present and summarized the points of her appea-. "_'he Plann_rg Com:rission Shen del berated she appeal and had the followi nc ccmr:~ents • Ccmmiss-criers Kaplan and Patr_ck stated that they were ravi~c difficulty understanding the issues raised in the appeal and their relationship ~o :~:hat Mr. Kazemzadeh was proposing. • Commissioner N:uraka*r~i a~so sated he was having trouble relating tree appeal issues to the proposed home addition. ~ . • Kazemzadeh Appeal; 18501 Montpere Way Page Two • It was generally noted that P!s. Jensen's concerns regarding past events, i~:cluding condit_ons placed on her home in 1975 and a tree wish=~ tre cree:c that nad fallen on a neighbor's home, had no relationsh_p to she proposed addition and ghat the anlJeal had no factual merit. Cornmissicner Kaplan :roved to deny the appeal, motior_ passed 5-G. ADJOURNMENT ssmn5-14