Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-2000 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chairwoman Bernald. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Page, Patrick, Roupe, and Chairwoman Bernald Absent: None Staff: Director Walgren PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - March 8, 2000 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2000, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 7-0. Page 3, paragraph 4, “Vice Chairman Page asked about the location of from Mr. Purvis’ house of the views of the mountains.” ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 17, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-99-060 (397-17-008) – BARRINGER, 14535 Fruitvale Avenue; Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to demolish an existing 2,316 square foot residence and construct a new 5,195 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 25 feet. Use Permit approval is required to allow a detached 922 square foot guest cottage in the rear yard. The property is 45,292 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 4/12/00 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO MODIFY THE LOCATION OF THE GUEST HOUSE DUE TO CONCERNS OF THE REAR YARD NEIGHBORS) COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ROUPE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 MARCH 22, 2000 2. DR-00-005 (397-18-083) – BURNS/BEAN, 14765 Live Oak Lane; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,473 square foot, single story residence and construct a new 6,000 square foot single story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet. The height of the existing residence is 18 feet. The property is 39,900 (net) square feet and is located within an R- 1-40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the application was a request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 18-foot high single-family residence and construct a new approximately 6,000 square foot, 26-foot tall single-story home in its place. The application meets all minimum zoning ordinance requirements in terms of maximum permitted floor area, building setbacks, lot coverage, and building heights. The application was reviewed by staff and found to be conforming. Staff also found that the necessary Design Review findings could be made and recommends approval of the application. It was noted that there were four or five chimneys proposed in the design and, since the ordinance only allows one wood burning fireplace, a change would have to be made prior to issuance of building permits. Commissioner Roupe noted that there were no plans regarding fencing of the property at the present time. He pointed out that applicants in the past were given approvals for their property with no fencing stipulations involved and variances may be required after the fact. He asked if a condition in the “whereas” statements of the Resolution could be included where applicants are made aware of the fencing policy. Director Walgren responded that the fencing requirement was a standard condition in the resolution. Commissioner Jackman asked whether the owner/builder needed to specify which of the four fireplaces would be wood burning prior to starting the project. Director Walgren saw no benefit in requiring the builder to specify that at the present time. Commissioner Barry asked whether a bold heading “Fencing” could be included in the conditions in order for the fencing requirement to be more noticeable. Director Walgren said that could be done. Chairwoman Bernald opened the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. William Bean, 21388 Sarahills Drive, said he worked closely with the Planning, Building, Public Works, and Fire Department staffs to meet all the requirements. Commissioner Barry asked about landscaping that would provide screening to the neighbor to the right of the property. Mr. Bean said he has always tried to work with neighbors to keep everyone happy with landscape screening. Commissioner Roupe said the Planning Commission was recently made aware of the desirability of minimizing the drainage off building sites into the City’s storm sewer water system. He urged the applicant to do whatever was possible to minimize the drainage from the impervious coverage into the onsite drainage. Mr. Bean said the soils report suggested using splash box at the downspouts and that is what he was intending to do. The surface water would be collected onsite and remain on site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 MARCH 22, 2000 Commissioner Roupe asked whether it would be possible to consider taking the downspouts into a French drain or onsite disposal of the water rather than directing it to the storm sewer system. Director Walgren said the French drain was appropriate and could easily be done in this case. He recommended adding a broad condition, which would be developed as a standard condition for all projects, that a storm water retention plan would have to be developed prior to issuance of a zoning clearance. Wenli Lin, 14788 Live Oak Lane, said when the Emery’s built their house, she had drainage problems on her property. Water had also gone to the Kelley’s driveway, and the Emery’s put drainage in their driveway to solve the problem. She was concerned with additional drainage on her property from the proposed project. Commissioner Roupe wanted the applicant to be mindful of minimizing the drainage that would go off his property into the primary system. He wanted to encourage the minimum amount of drainage off the property into the storm sewer system. Director Walgren said the City would require the final drainage plan be prepared prior to issuance of permits and make it available for the neighbors to review. Lori Emery, 14780 Live Oak Lane, said the street was old and private, and there was no storm drain system on the street. French drains were put on her property during the past winter to help with the runoff. Her issue with the project was with privacy. The proposed house was large and appeared to be placed as close to her property line as possible. She felt the house could have been designed differently to fit further to the back of the property. She asked if the house could be moved away from her property line or at a minimum that the tree replacement include evergreen, rapid growing trees. Commissioner Patrick asked how far her house was from the property line. Ms. Emery said her house was from 30-40 feet from the property line. Commissioner Roupe noted that the only window on the proposed house that would encroach on Ms. Emery’s privacy was the Master bath window. Ms. Emery said that was correct, but her concern was with the location of the house which was 20 feet from her property line. Mr. Bean stated that approximately four weeks ago, he wrote letters to the neighbors letting them know what was planned for the property, and he had not heard from any of the neighbors until recently. He pointed out that the proposed house was approximately 5,100 square feet of livable area with an 835 foot three-car garage. The public record showed the Emery’s house was 5,107 square feet, and several of the other neighboring houses ranged from 4,700 to 4,800 square feet. He felt the proposed house was compatible with the neighborhood. He agreed that the privacy issue was important and was willing to work out a landscape plan that was acceptable to the neighbors. Commissioner Barry asked why the house was located where it was on the property. Mr. Bean said the house was designed to fit within the required setbacks and to retain as many trees as possible. He felt the house was centrally located and took advantage of the trees and topography. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:18 P.M.) PASSED 7-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 MARCH 22, 2000 Commissioner Jackman felt the house was appropriately situated and that a 73 foot rear yard was desirable. She added that landscape could provide the necessary screening between the properties. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman. Commissioner Barry was concerned about the closeness of the house on the right side, and it was very important that a specific landscaping plan be required with fast growing evergreen trees. She was not convinced that there was an architectural need for all the proposed chimneys. Commissioner Page agreed that the house was appropriately situated and that the property owners were willing to work out a landscape plan that would mitigate the privacy issues. He suggested that the chimney on the left side of the house could be lowered. Commissioner Kurasch was concerned there were too many chimneys and they were too massive. She liked the design of the house but would have preferred to see a smaller house on the site. She recalled reading in the Design Review Handbook that landscaping should not be used to correct design faults. She believed that relying on screening for something that was inherent in the design was a problem. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Mr. Bean said he would consider dropping the chimney heights 12 to 18 inches. He said the family room would probably have the wood-burning fireplace. Commissioner Roupe said the Planning Commission would not like to see a chimney higher than the maximum roof line of the house. COMMISSIONERS ROUPE/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:35 P.M.) PASSED 7-0. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE DR-00-005 WITH STORM WATER RETENTION PLAN APPROVAL REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE; ONE WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE; DRAINAGE PLAN IN PLACE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO BE REVIEWED BY NEIGHBORS; LANDSCAPING SCREENING PER STAFF AND NEIGHBORS’ APPROVAL; AND REDUCTION OF THE CHIMNEYS BY 12-18 INCHES, WITH NO CHIMNEYS EXCEEDING THE ROOF LINE OF THE HOUSE. PASSED 7-0. 3. V-00-001 (510-06-035) – CHARLES, 19200 Bountiful Acres; Request for Variance approval to construct a fence over 3 feet in height within the front and exterior side yard setback. Variance approval is also requested to allow columns in excess of seven- ft. and gates in excess of five feet within the front and exterior yard setbacks. The site is located on a 40,075 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the request was for a variance consideration to allow an existing nonconforming fence to remain and to allow a ten-foot fence within the exterior side- yard setback where three feet is the maximum height permitted. To grant the variance, the Planning Commission needs to make the three findings in the staff report. The most difficult finding is whether there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that are different from other properties. The applicant proposed putting wood louvers at the corner but that was rejected as a public safety issue. The next proposal was wrought iron which would be entirely visible and could be an acceptable alternative. The applicant cites the greater level of noise, road dust from the proximity to Highway 9, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 MARCH 22, 2000 the angle of Austin Way as the primary basis for their special circumstances. A letter of support was received from the adjacent property owner to the east. The recommendation was to approve the variance with the conditions in the staff report. The Planning Commission could consider alternatives such as to limit the new portion of the wall on Austin Way to three feet. Commissioner Roupe asked whether it was possible to consider the question of the appropriateness of the nonconforming wrought iron fence on Bountiful Acres. Director Walgren said the variance request could be conditionally approved. Commissioner Barry asked whether there was anything in the zoning ordinance that speaks to design review of fences with respect to fitting in with the neighborhood. Director Walgren pointed out that the resolution specified at the corner, the fence should be no more than three feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the extraordinary physical circumstances on the property. Director Walgren responded that the applicant primarily cited noise due to the property’s proximity from Highway 9. Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Earl Charles, 19200 Bountiful Acres, said Austin Way at Highway 9 was heavily traveled and quite noisy. The safety factor and privacy were issues of concern. He mentioned a bus stop at the corner of Highway 9 and Austin Way where it was easy for people to get off the bus and hop over a three foot fence to get onto his property. Commissioner Roupe said the Planning Commission tries to consider compatibility with the neighborhood. He noted that the other properties on Bountiful Acres were consistent in maintaining relative low profiles in front of their properties. Looking at the totality of the application, he asked whether the applicant would consider a lower fence along the frontage facing Bountiful Acres. Mr. Charles noted that his property was a corner lot and he was concerned with people getting onto his property, which was the main reason he wanted a higher fence. Commissioner Roupe recalled that the neighbor across the street from Mr. Charles had no fence. Mr. Charles said that was correct but noted that the neighbor’s house was situated differently where the access to the property could be controlled. Commissioner Kurasch asked if Mr. Charles was aware the property had a nonconforming fence when he bought the property. Mr. Charles responded that he became aware of the nonconforming issue when he engaged the landscape architect to prepare plans. He noted that he originally proposed a solid wall, but after talking to staff about the visibility issue, a wrought iron fence on top of the wall was suggested. Commissioner Page asked whether the traffic noise was from Highway 9 or Bountiful Acres. Mr. Charles said the traffic noise was from Austin Way which was a very busy street. He said traffic was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 MARCH 22, 2000 heavy throughout the day. Commissioner Page asked if Mr. Charles considered replacing the wood fence with wrought iron in place of stucco along Austin Way. He also suggested as a compromise that the columns and gates on Bountiful Acres be reduced to something more compatible. Mr. Charles said he was considering a wrought iron fence but would have difficulty lowering the columns because they were recently re-plastered and would have stone added to them. Jim Hoffman, 14636 Weeth Drive, San Jose, said the wall and columns along Bountiful Acres were existing. He said he would try to lower the columns on Austin Way, and the gate could be lowered from 7 feet to 6 feet. Commissioner Jackman noted during her visit to the property that trenching beneath the Diadora tree was close to the trunk of the tree and well within the drip line. She said the roots were visible and asked if Mr. Hoffman would look at it. Mr. Hoffman said he would have a discussion with the landscape contractor. Commissioner Barry said the existing structure on Bountiful Acres did not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. She asked what could be done to make the front of the property more compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Hoffman said the improvement made on the columns was meant to upgrade what was existing. Commissioner Jackman said she was uncomfortable discussing making changes to the fence on Bountiful Acres when that was not on the agenda for discussion. Commissioner Roupe said the Planning Commission was able, when a variance was requested on a portion of a property, to consider the totality of the property. Commissioner Kurasch asked what could be done as far as onsite repair or reconfiguration in order to lower the fence. Mr. Hoffman said staff recommended including wrought iron around the corner which he considered doing. The front fence would remain the same. Steve Hall, 19201 Bountiful Acres, said he lived in his home about 20 years and part of his home was situated close to Austin Way near Highway 9. Shortly after moving to the house, a car came across Highway 9 and ended up in his yard. Approximately one year later, his house was robbed. After that, a fence was put up. He felt Mr. Charles was justified in his request for a fence to protect his property. He felt the fence was compatible with the nature of the neighborhood. Commissioner Roupe said the Commissioners did not observe any other nonconforming fences on the length of Bountiful Acres. Mr. Charles asked the Planning Commission to consider the totality of the project. He felt the project would improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Chairwoman Bernald asked what was planned in terms of interior landscaping from Austin Way to the property’s driveway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 MARCH 22, 2000 Mr. Hoffman said he prepared a landscape plan with shrubs and trees along Austin Way which included an existing Oleander and the addition of a large oak tree. He added he would include some landscaping along the outside of the fence. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PAGE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:29 P.M.) PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Jackman favored the six-foot fence along Austin Way for privacy; the corner of Austin Way should be wrought iron. Commissioner Page originally had concerns about the massiveness of the gate and entranceway on Bountiful Acres, but that was no longer a concern. The wrought iron fence did not appear as a compound-type fence. He did not recommend any conditions for approval of the Austin Way fence. Commissioner Patrick felt the application was a difficult precedent, noting that everyone has noise, traffic, privacy and safety issues. She liked the proposed fence but felt the columns were too large. She was not convinced that a fence provides protection. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with the concerns and comments of Commissioner Patrick. She was not sure that the height of the fence on Austin Way was appropriate. She felt the application could be conditioned to tie in the totality and get a better product. The pillars on Bountiful did not fit with the fence. She suggested that the wrought iron fence be lowered as a condition for granting the variance. Commissioner Barry agreed that the issue was one of precedent, and the fencing ordinance had to be strictly abided by. She felt part of the problem was public education. Commissioner Roupe thought the proposal on Austin Way was within the realm of the criteria considered by the Planning Commission. His concern related along the front of the property, and he asked if the application could be deferred to allow the applicant to come back with a potential compromise. Chairwoman Bernald said the fence on Bountiful Acres came into question only because of a change on another portion of the property. She said the fence on Bountiful Acres was in existence for 15 years and was acceptable to the neighbors. She suggested allowing a three-foot wrought iron fence on top of the retaining wall on Austin Way and include landscaping for screening, privacy, and safety. Commissioner Kurasch questioned how the wrought iron fence would address the noise issue since the main logic of the variance request was to help with the noise. Director Walgren suggested as an alternative that if the Bountiful Acres fencing was acceptable to remain at five or six feet, and the Austin Way was a three-foot stucco base with a three-foot wrought iron insert, a six-foot barrier would be provided for safety. He also suggested that the gate could be replaced with a six-foot gate to reduce the mass. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BARRY MOVED THE HEARING BE CONTINUED TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO REVISE HIS PLANS TO ATTEMPT TO REDUCE HEIGHT, BULK, AND VISUAL AMBIGUITY, MAINTAIN SAFETY ISSUES AND CONTINUITY ON BOTH SIDES. Commissioner Roupe saw the application as out of conformity with the other neighbors, although the Commission heard from only one neighbor. He suggested that the neighbors be asked again for their PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 MARCH 22, 2000 opinions in order to be sure the Commission has a neighbor view. Commissioners Kurasch, Page and Jackman concurred. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BARRY MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:50 P.M.) PASSED 7-0. Mr. Charles said a letter from the neighbor across the street from his property was included with his application. There was no objection from that neighbor. Director Walgren mentioned that the Planning Commission’s agenda for the April 12 meeting was a very busy agenda, and he was unsure if the item could be continued to that date. Commissioner Page suggested bringing the recommendation to a study session prior to the Planning Commission’s meeting of April 12. The Commissioners concurred that a study session would be appropriate. Director Walgren said the meeting would begin at 6:00 p.m. The agenda item was continued to 6 p.m., April 12, 2000, in the Community Development Department Conference Room for the purpose of the applicant bringing revised fencing plans based on alternatives discussed at the current meeting. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Walgren reported on the Loh application which was an illegal accessory building that was built within a required front setback. Staff spent time with the applicant to get the building legalized. They ultimately applied for a variance which was denied. The Lowe’s hired an attorney to represent them, submitted plans to relocate the building, but did not meet the deadline for completion. The matter will now have to go to the legal process with the filing of a nuisance abatement against the property. He reported on a case on Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road next to the new Blossom Hill Court Subdivision where there was a tarp held up by poles, and loud music. The back of the property was used to access onto the private cul-de-sac. The property owner was contacted and made marginal efforts to clean up the property. Discussion followed on chimneys. Commissioner Page did not think the City should try to legislate the number of chimneys. Director Walgren said the applications could be discussed on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioners concurred. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Bernald said she was not able to attend the retreat but heard suggestions about how the meetings should be run. She asked how the Commissioners felt the evening’s meeting ran. Commissioner Jackman said she felt more comfortable about the meeting. Commissioner Roupe said one of the thoughts at the retreat was that the Commission should have PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 MARCH 22, 2000 discussion prior to the making of the motion and further discussion after the motion was made. He felt Chairwoman Bernald tried to make that happen, but he did not sense that everyone had their say subsequent to the motion. Commissioner Kurasch felt there was a good exchange particularly with the second item on the agenda. Commissioner Barry appreciated that Chairwoman Bernald tried to implement a process that was described to her second-hand. She was very comfortable with the meeting. Chairwoman Bernald was concerned about the length of the evening’s meeting considering there were only two items. In response to a question raised by Commissioner Roupe, Director Walgren said the policy of the Commission was to not open any public hearings after 11 p.m. Commissioner Page felt the Commissioners often spent time reiterating things that were already in the resolution. Commissioner Patrick said she heard a lot of repetition, and felt the Commissioners could cut down on repetitiveness. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council minutes for regular meeting of March 1 and special meeting of March 6, 2000 - noted ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to Wednesday, April 12, 2000, Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: MINUTES AMENDED AND APPROVED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones James Walgren Minutes Clerk Secretary to the Planning Commission