Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Planning Commission MinutesANNING COMMISSION MINUTE DECEMBER 11, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present. Min - 11/26/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 26, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 1 to reflect that City Attorney Riback was not present Page 8, third paragraph, line 13 amended to read: "...installation of new sidewalks on Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; bus deck d out to be installed as required ... " Page 8, fifth paragraph amended to read: "Mr. DeLeon stated that Safeway was currently at 30,000 square feet ... " Page 11, fourth paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had a problem with the 45 3$ -foot tower element. THE MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 6, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that Consent Calendar Item 3, page 4, is to be corrected to reflect a maximum height of 5. feet and not 1$ feet. PLANNING COMMISSI( 'MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Chairwoman Kaplan removed Item 1 and Commissioner Patrick removed Item 2 from the Public Hearing Consent Calendar. 3. DR -96 -066 - LINDORES; 14545 FRUITVALE AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 484 sq. ft. detached garage at a height of 15 feet pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 76,327 sq. ft. located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. 1. SD -96 -005 & UP -96 -004 - EITZEN; END OF OLD OAK WAY; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 3 1. 1 acre hillside parcel into four individual lots of 5.6, 3.1, 2.6 and 2.2 net acres. Approximately 17 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the four lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed on. a City Code identified minor ridgeline and Lots 2 and 3 are along a major ridgeline -more restrictive building height limits are applied to ridgeline lots. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (the applicants are requesting a 90 day extension to the City's mandated six month project review deadline; if granted, City review deadline would now be 3/17/97). Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that a new application fee be collected as the applicant has delayed review of the project. Commissioner Pierce felt that the applicant was trying to confirm to city codes and did not recommend that additional fees be collected. Commissioners Siegfried and Patrick felt that this was an administerial act and that they would not object to a continuance. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commissioner that the applicant is requesting a continuance to allow additional time to file a variance application. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 FOR 90 DAYS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN VOTING NO. 2. UP -96 -019 - KWOK, 12297 SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE RD.; Request for Use Permit approval to establish a medical office within a newly constructed commercial building. The medical office would occupy approximately 1,800 sq. ft. of the 3,600 sq. ft. retail /office building. The property is located in a Commercial- Visitor zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSIf MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Robert Kwok, applicant, informed the Commission that the New Area Medical Clinic was not a franchise business. Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with the proposed signage as she did not believe that it was discussed at the last hearing. She asked if a uniform sign program has been approved. Planner Walgren responded that a uniform sign program has been approved for the project. He further said that logo restrictions were not imposed. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the size and area of the sign was within the sign ordinance as well as the limitation of the approved uniform sign program. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the floor plan depicts a frame for a future door, noting that there is also an existing door. Mr. Kwok informed the Commission that OSHA does not require the installation of a rear door but that he plans to install one. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43. Commissioner Patrick said that she did not like the proposed logo. She recommended that a uniform sign program be adopted for business logos as there will be different logos proposed for the different buildings. Commissioner Pierce said that he was not fond of the logo but stated that he could support the logo as it is the business' logo. Commissioner Abshire felt that the logo would be important to identify Mr. Kwok's business. Planner Walgren stated that the Sign Ordinance allows the use of a logo. However, should the Commission feel that it is an inappropriate logo, it can request that it be revised. Commissioner Murakami stated that he felt that the proposed logo would be acceptable for an individual business. He also noted that the Sign Ordinance allows individual logos in a multi tenant building. Commissioner Patrick stated that she felt that the City could require the redesign of an individual logo that is not associated with a specific franchise. Chairwoman Kaplan recollected that the bank located in the Village was prevented from having a logo. She asked if Safeway decided to place a logo in the center that appears to be out of place, would the City have to accept it? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the uniform sign program allows logos but that the Commission has discretion of its appearance. PLANNING COMMISSK MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she did not like the use of multicolors. She recommended that the applicant work with staff to select different colors for the sign. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 96-019 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -2 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK VOTING NO. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if her fellow Commissioners received a letter sent by Dora Gren regarding agenda item 1? She noted that a study session was held to address Ms. Gren's concerns. The Commission acknowledged receipt of Ms. Gren's letter. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he called Ms. Gren to inform her that the Commission would be continuing agenda item 1 and that the Commission would take her comments into consideration. Commissioner Bernald said that she contacted Ms. Gren to state her appreciation of the information provided. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR -96 -046 & V -96 -015 - MUNIZ; 19938 BARONI CT.; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single story home and build a new 2,400 sq. ft. (including garage) two -story residence in its place. Variance approval is requested to allow the new structure to maintain the existing nonconforming yard setbacks.. The subject parcel is 4,560 net sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 20,000 zoning district (coat. from 11/13/96 to allow the applicants to present revised plans for a smaller residence; City review deadline is 4/23/97). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:54. Terry Martin, project architect, said that he felt that the character of the house was maintained. He requested clarification of the City review deadline of 4- 23 -97. Planner Walgren clarified that a public hearing would need to be conducted by the April 23 date. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt that the applicant has modified the plans as requested by the Commission and that he supported the redesign. Commissioner Murakami stated that he was not present at the November 13, 1996 meeting but indicated that he has reviewed all the pertinent information relating to these applications. Therefore, he would be voting on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he was not present at the previous meeting and that he would be abstaining from this item. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 96 -046 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSTAINING. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V- 96 -015 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSTAINING. 5. DR -96 -064 - MIROYAN; 15400 EL CAMINO GRANDE; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,283 sq. ft. residence and construct a new 5,804 sq. ft. residence in its place, pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1. 11 acres and is located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why three driveway entries were needed as the hardscape appears to be massive? Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Allen Nikitin, project architect, informed the Commission that an entrance was needed to access the garage and that another one is proposed as a formal entrance to the home. He stated that the existing driveway is u- shaped. The design proposes to connect two driveways. He did not believe that the proposed pavement was excessive. He noted that the property next door has pavement that is nicely landscaped to minimize any visual impacts. He informed the Commission that impervious material is proposed for the driveway. Commissioner Siegfried agreed with Chairwoman Kaplan that the proposed hardscape is massive. He stated that he did not know how often the interconnecting driveway would be used. He asked Mr. Nikitin if he would consider using pervious material? Mr. Nikitin stated that his client would prefer the use of impervious material. Chairwoman Kaplan asked which trees would be impacted by the driveway? -Planner Walgren clarified that trees 5 and 6 are to be removed with a replacement value of $7,099 and $1,1293 respectively. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that the pavement be reduced to save the two trees. Mr. Nikitin said that he would consider redesign but that redesign would still result in a driveway connection. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 6 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the driveway design because it impacts the existing trees. She recommended the elimination of the Monte Vista Drive access and the elimination of the connection. In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's question, Planner Walgren stated that the trees could be saved with the elimination of the driveway connection. Commissioner Pierce did not believe that the driveway connection was necessary as it provides excessive surface. Commissioners Patrick/Pierce reopened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Bob Miroyan, applicant, requested the removal of the tree located in front of the home. He did not feel that the trees on the Monte Vista side would take away from the site. He stated that he would agree to a continuance for the purpose of redesigning the driveways. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would consider approving the proposed driveway connection if pervious coverage is used to save the trees. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 96 -064 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL IS NOT TO BE USED TO CONNECT THE TWO DRIVEWAYS. THE USE OF PERVIOUS MATERIAL IF IT IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ARBORIST THAT IT WILL NOT IMPACT THE EXISTING TREES. IF THE CITY ARBORIST FINDS THAT THE TREES CANNOT BE SAVED, PERVIOUS MATERIAL IS NOT TO BE USED. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN VOTING NO. 6. DR -96 -052 - PINN BROS. CONST., INC.; 20855 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,850 sq. ft., single -story residence on a 13,940 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Chuck Bommarito, construction manager for Pinn Brothers Construction, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Bommarito if he would agree to shift the home to save the trees? Mr. Bommarito stated that once the home is laid to scale, he does not believe that there would be an impact to the trees. He said that he felt that he could make the driveway work and not impact the two trees. Planner Walgren stated that he felt that the home could be shifted away from one of the two trees. Commissioner Abshire stated that the design of the home was appropriate for the neighborhood. He felt that narrowing the driveway with the use of pervious material would save pistachio tree numbers 4 and 5 for at least five years. Planner Walgren recommended the modification of the condition to save the pistachio trees to read as follows: "Modification of driveway to save both pistachio trees." In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's question, Mr. Bommarito said that the fireplaces would be equipped with gas starters. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. Commissioner Patrick recommended that future homes in this subdivision utilize this design as it is an attractive one. She also recommended that the architects for the Argonaut Shopping Center look at this design. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 96 -052 AMENDING THE RESOLUTION TO REQUIRE MODIFICATION TO THE DRIVEWAY TO SAVE THE PISTACHIO TREES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 7. DR -96 -062 _ PINN BROS. CONST., INC.; 13955 TRINITY AVE.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,872 sq. ft. single -story residence on a newly created lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 13,442 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. ---------------------=- - - - - -; ---------------------------------------=---------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami asked if this was the same design as that of lot 1 as this design seems to have the same floor plan in terms of square footage, etc. Planner Walgren responded that he was not sure if they were both the same floor plans. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Chuck Bommarito responded to Commissioner Murakami'$ question by stating that the site plan for lot 4 was similar to that of lot 1. However, future submittals for lots 7, 8, and 9 would be similar to that of agenda item 6. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 P.M. Commissioner Patrick noted that the use of stucco is being proposed and that she was tired of seeing its use. Commissioner Murakami concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments and stated that it appears to be the same house as that of lot 1 using a different motif in the front. He stated that he was hoping to see something less monotonous. Commissioner Abshire said that he did not feel that the design fits in with the neighborhood as it is too large and too overbearing. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 96 -062 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN VOTING NO. 8. DR -96 -063 - VIDANAGE; 12528 SPRING BLOSSOM CT.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,706 sq. ft. single -story residence on a newly created lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 14,004 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff how the applicant was going to buffer the view between this property and the one next door as the driveways run together? She felt that locating the two driveways close together gives the appearance of a double -wide driveway. Planner Walgren said that the planting as shown in the project plans identify the landscaping proposed. He noted that the home is only 18 feet in height. He did not believe that there would be a solar or height impact to the adjacent home. Commissioner Patrick asked if two bay windows appear to project into the required setbacks? Planner Walgren responded that the code allows bay windows to encroach into the required setbacks. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 9 - David Britt, project designer, informed the Commission that a planting strip is proposed between the two driveways. He said that the applicant proposes to mound the area with earth and landscape to create a visual barrier between the two driveways. He stated that the use of concrete material is proposed for the driveway. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended the use of pavers or textured material for the driveway. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that he was satisfied with the modifications made to the previous submittal. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96- 063 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 9. DR -96 -023 & UP -96 -002 - HERNANDEZ, 14626 BIG BASIN WAY; Request for Design Review and Use Permit approval to construct two single story and two, two -story motel "cabins" at the Saratoga Motel in the upper Saratoga Village area. The three existing cottages along St. Charles St. would be removed and the front motel abutting Big Basin Way would remain. The subject property is approximately 11,252 sq. ft. in size and is located in an RM -3,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff' report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Dennis Burrow, project architect, informed the Commission that the property owner proposes to replace three substandard cottages with four new cottages. He stated that he tried to maintain the architectural character of the cottages. He indicated that meandering walkways would be proposed between the units. Commissioner Abshire asked how the new parking area would be accessed and whether the parking platform is to be cantilevered out of the property? If the platform is to be cantilevered, what plans are proposed to disguise the cantilever? Mr. Burrow said that the intent of the cantilever is to move the footings away from the trees. He said that the cottage units would screen the cantilever platform and that shrubs and trees will also act as a screen. Mr. Burrow also noted that the existing trees are to remain to act as screening. Commissioner Pierce said that it appears that units B and C are proposed as two units with kitchens. Mr. Burrows clarified that units B and C are designed with kitchen facilities and felt that the kitchen facilities would be a benefit to individuals staying longer than one night. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Paul Hernandez, applicants' son, provided the Commission with photographs that depict the views of the site along with the existing units. He identified the location of the cantilevered parking area and the existing screening. He also identified the site of the adjacent neighbors. He informed the Commission that a kitchen facility is provided so that individuals can stay for a long period of time if so needed. He informed the Commission that he had a tenant who occupied one unit for a period of eight years. He said that the cottage units are not owner units, but that they are rental units with the larger units designed for long term occupants. He clarified that vehicles would not be going through the property. He stated that he was trying to preserve the existing oak trees as they are valuable commodities. Walter Marchetti, 20701 St. Charles Street, informed the Commission that his rear yard borders this project. He expressed concern with the trees, noting that the report states that no trees ate to be removed. He inquired as to the setback of the two story structures and felt that the structures would be too close to his property. He stated that he did not know if St. Charles Street could support additional parking. He requested that the integrity of the residential community be retained versus that of a commercial use. Marilyn Marchetti, informed the Commission that St. Charles Street is a narrow street and that a parking problem currently exists. She expressed concern that St. Charles Street is not feasible for access to the parking structure. She noted that the driveway structure is proposed in front of her home. She expressed concern with the aesthetics of the parking structure; the lack of a guarantee that the cottages would not be used as rental units; and that the two story structures are located too close to the fence, becoming an unsightly view. She requested that additional plantings be required to screen the project should the project be approved. In response to Commissioner Pierce's question, Mrs. Marchetti said that her home is also a two - story design. Commissioner Pierce stated that at the site visit, he noted that the Marchetti's home appears to be a large, two story structure on a small lot. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if adequate screening would be provided? Planner Walgren stated that landscaping is proposed interior to the project to mitigate aesthetics. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that planting is not proposed between units C and D. Planner Walgren stated that the Planning Commission could require additional screening be planted to mitigate the Marchetti's concern. He stated that the building is setback 20 -25 feet from the property line. He informed the Commission that a condition has been included that would require that the parking platform use a decorative paver or stamped color concrete to mitigate its visual impact. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if street parking was being taken away from the area residents with this proposal? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that individuals are parking on the shoulders and that it is not a stripped area. He stated that staff processed the application as part of the motel use and that it was not known that some of the units were being used as rental units. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 11 - He stated that it needs to be clarified whether the use is that of a motel or that of an apartment - type use. He noted that the parking requirement for a motel is 1 space per unit and that permanent rental units require a garage and 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Betty Riley, 20795 Pamela Way, informed the Commission that Sixth Street is a narrow street and that it is a dangerous street. She stated that she does not like the fact that new people Would be coming and going with this use. She also stated that she would prefer to see four small, one story cottages. Mr. Burrow stated that the design of the two story structure is such that the second story is setback further in than the first story. He informed the Commission that he spoke with City Engineer Perlin regarding the proposed parking facility and that it was determined that it would be acceptable to have vehicles park on the street. He stated that he would agree to install landscaping between the buildings as long as drought tolerant landscape material is used. Mr. Hernandez informed the Commission that the height of the second story would not be greater than the existing units depicted in the photos provided. He stated that he would like to provide his visitors with a view of Saratoga. Therefore, he objected to the use of obscured glass as it would not provide his visitors with a vista. He said that several existing units have kitchen facilities. He felt that there was a need of providing units for individuals who want to stay in Saratoga for a period of a month or two. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Hernandez would oppose a condition that would limit the length of stay? Mr. Hernandez responded that he would not like to have a length of stay restriction imposed. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that city codes do not limit length of stays. He felt that an assessment would need to be made as to whether the use was that of a motel or an apartment. He noted that 10 parking spaces would be required if this use is considered a multi- family use. Commissioner Pierce felt that it would- be appropriate to consider this issue in a study session. He felt that there was a need in the community for a motel and also a need for short term rentals other than apartments. However, he was not sure which restrictions would be applied. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she understood the neighbors' concerns of having individuals going back and forth. She stated that she did not want to see cars drive through the motel and damage the existing trees. She asked if there were other parking alternatives? Commissioner Murakami stated that he had no problem with the design but concurred that a study session was warranted to discuss issues of concerns. Commissioner Siegfried clarified that parking requirements are based on the use of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Community Development Director Curtis stated that there is a need for short term housing proposed by the applicant. He felt that the issue may be what would be considered an appropriate length of stay. Chairwoman Kaplan asked what type of vehicles would be allowed to park in the four parking spaces (i.e., RV, trucks, etc.)? She recommended that consideration be given to restricting certain vehicles as the street cannot accommodate large vehicles. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /BERNALD MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A JANUARY 8, 1997 STUDY SESSION TO COMMENCE AT 5:00 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. Mr. Hernandez invited the Commission to a tour of the facility. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would like to accept the offer of the tour. Commissioner Siegfried clarified the major issue of concern was that of parking. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Schedule of 1997 Planning Commission Meetings: Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission of the Planning Commission meeting dates for 1997. He requested that the Commission hold on to the information for agenda items continued. COMMISSION ITEMS No items were reported. COMMUNICATIONS written 1. City Council Minutes dated 11/20/96 City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 8, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC121196.SAR INNING COMMISSION MINUTI NOVEMBER 26, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis & Planner Deming. City Attorney Riback was not present Minutes - 10/23/96 and 11/13/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 23, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 1 to reflect that Vice - chairwoman Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. - Page 3, paragraph 1, fourth sentence amended to read: "...Howeverhe did not ... ............................... believe that this r-esal e the issue vva >zes l -`d ... " ... ............................... ... ............................... ... ............................... ... ............................... THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -2 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN AND COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND BERNALD ABSTAINING COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 13, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: ................... ................... Page 5, paragraph 2, line 5, replace the word awns with curers. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSTAINING. Oral Communications No comments were offered Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 22, 1996. PLANNING COMMISS' MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Deming noted one correction to Agenda Item 3. The agenda suggests that the home is to be 5,941 square feet. The staff report correctly reflects 6,586 square feet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004 - CONSTANTIN, 15261 NORTON RD. & 20855 KITTRIDGE RD.; Request for Building Site approval for an existing 46,600 sq. ft. hillside parcel of record located off Norton Rd. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also requested to merge a 51,400 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. from 11/13/96 to have staff prepare final approval Resolutions). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSTAINING. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -96 -050 - CHAN; 13502 MYREN DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,600 sq. ft. single story residence and construct a new 2,912 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 (cont. from 10/23/96 at the Planning Commission's direction to present revised plans; City review deadline is 4/2/97). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Deming presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Chan, property owner, stated his appreciation of having the opportunity to redesign the home. William Kinnear, 18863 Casa Blanca, adjacent resident, felt that the construction of a two -story home would obstruct light to his home. He opposed the request as he did not believe that a second story design belongs in this neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Rolf Lips, 18824 Casa Blanca, asked if Mr. Chan was constructing the home for speculation. If so, he felt that the home should be kept to a single story so that the architectural character of the neighborhood is not changed. Mr. Chan stated that at the last meeting, the Commission approved a two -story design concept. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, Mr. Chan stated that he would be residing in the home once it is built. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:41 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she has reviewed the minutes of the meeting when this request was first discussed and that she would be able to vote on this request. Commissioner Patrick stated that there was some question about the second story at the last meeting and that the Commission had a problem with the previous design. Commissioner Abshire felt that the applicant improved the design and that it would fit in with that of the neighborhood. Commissioner Bernald stated that the applicant has redesigned the home to make the second story smaller. She did not believe that the privacy of the neighbors would be infringed upon with this redesign. Also, the front entry was modified to bring it into scale with the rest of the building. Therefore, she stated her support of the redesign. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -050. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 3. DR -95 -011- WANG; 13626 DEER TRAIL CT.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,586 sq. ft. two -story single family residence on a vacant 2.49 acre hillside parcel. The subject parcel is Lot 23 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Deming presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Scott Stotler, Stotler Design Group, representing the applicant, stated that he has met with the applicant regarding staff's comments. He said that the applicant has requested approval of the entryway and colors as submitted. He concurred with staff's recommendation regarding drainage. Commissioner Abshire stated that he found the colors too bright for the hillside. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Mr. Stotler requested that he be allowed to work with staff toward the selection of colors. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, he clarified that the applicant felt that the height element would break up the horizontal lines. Requiring the applicant to lower the entryway would take away the emphases from the entryway that the applicant wanted to achieve. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it troubles him that the home sits high on the hill and that it would be highly visible. He asked if there was something that could be done to make it less imposing? Community Development Director Curtis noted that conditions 2 b, c and d address the drainage issue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would support the use of darker earthtone colors as the site is highly visible. She felt that the entryway was too massive and that it would be visible. She recommended that the entryway be scaled down. Commissioners Bernald and Murakami agreed that the entryway would be massive on the hillside. Mr. Stotler stated that he would like to have the project approved at a staff level. If the entryway needs to be lowered, he would agree to modify it. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -050 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 4. DR -96 -051- PINN; 13975 TRINITY AVENUE, Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,206 sq. ft. single -story residence on a newly created lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 16,266 sq. ft. located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Deming presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Chuck Bommarito, construction manager for Pinn Brothers Construction, stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission may have. , Commissioner Patrick requested clarification of the roof overhang. Mr. Bommarito stated that the architectural feature is that of a covered, three -sided porch. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the porch was similar to that of a covering over a door. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, stated that he was not use to seeing 4,000 to 5,000 square foot homes in this neighborhood. He noted that the home is going to be built five feet above street level. He asked if sidewalks would be installed and what the setbacks would be from the street. Mr. Macrae stated that Commissioner Abshire contacted him to ask about the size of the homes in the neighborhood. He stated that he has a 2,000 square foot home and that the proposed home appears large for the area. Commissioner Siegfried asked if Mr. Macrae's square footage includes the garage as today's square footage includes the garage area. He noted that seven homes could be built in excess of 4,000 square feet in this subdivision. Mr. Bommarito indicated that sidewalks are not proposed to be installed, noting that there were no sidewalks in the neighborhood. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that complaints are being received that homes are being built at a higher level than the curb level. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that a home can be built from the natural grade of the property, noting that this lot sits at its natural grade. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had concerns regarding the elevation of the home when he first visited the site but that after looking at it a second time, his concerns were satisfied that the home was sited on natural grade. He indicated that he did not oppose the design of the home. Commissioner Abshire stated that he surveyed homes on Trinity and Pontiac Avenues. He noted that the proposed home was almost twice as large as some of the existing homes or at least 50 percent larger. He noted that the building coverage is maxed out. He did not believe that the home was compatible with that of the neighborhood. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that at time of subdivision review, the Commission discussed the possible size of the homes in relation to the lot sizes. She did not believe that this was the time to discuss the size of the homes. Commissioner Pierce stated that almost every home is being built to maximize the home based on land values. He stated that he could support the project. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the resolution states that the proposed residence is compatible in size and bulk. She stated that this would be a true statement in relation to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 6 - adjacent, newly developed subdivision. She stated that she had a problem with the wording of the resolution because it is not in conformance with the size and style of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the subdivision approval restricted the construction of homes to single story so that the homes would fit in with those in the neighborhood. He stated that it was the intent to blend the homes with the homes built over a decade or two ago. In response to a question raised by Mr. Macrae, Commissioner Siegfried stated that the Commission has tried to slow down the construction of large homes. He noted that in the early 1980's hillside homes were being built at 10,000- 11,000 square feet and since have been restricted to approximately 6,500 square feet. He agreed with Commissioner Pierce that land price has become expensive and that the City could not require a property owner to build a 2,000 square foot home. Commissioner Murakami stated that a concern was raised regarding the height of the home. He agreed that it was unfortunate that the perception would be that of a large home, but noted that times have changed. He indicated that the design review is based on the codes that are in place. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the height of the home is only 18 feet. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would not approve the home if it was a 22 -foot tall building. She recommended less use of stone and stucco and more use of wood siding in the design of future homes. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -050 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO. 5. UP -96 -017 - KELLOGG; 14740 CODY LANE; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 262 sq. ft. addition to an existing legal non - conforming guest house within the rear yard pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject parcel is 23,784 sq. ft. located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Deming presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Robert Villas, representing Mr. and Mrs. Kellogg, requested Commission approval of the addition. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she visited the site but that she did not go into the yard. She asked about the non - conforming nature of the existing guest home and whether there was any impact to the neighbors as the guest home is sited close to the rear fence? Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not believe that the guest home would impact the neighbor. Commissioner Bernald noted that there were three redwood trees to screen and buffer the home. Commissioner Siegfried asked about enforcement should the guest home be used as a rental unit. Community Development Director Curtis stated that staff would investigate complaints and noted that a condition is to be placed on the deed restricting the guest home from being rented out. Commissioner Patrick stated that the existing electrical wiring was not sufficient for a kitchen facility. Commissioner Pierce stated that approval would allow additional protection that the City would not otherwise have. Therefore, he could support the request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -050 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 6. DR -96 -056 & UP -96 -016 - ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES; SARATOGA - SUNNYVALE RD. AT BLAUER DR.; Request for Design Review approval to redevelop and expand the Argonaut Shopping Center by renovating the existing commercial structures and constructing two new free - standing buildings. Use Permit approval is necessary to allow the existing 30,070 sq. ft. Safeway Supermarket to be expanded by 10,720 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. An environmental Initial Study and prepared for this project pursuant Environmental Quality Act. subsequent Negative Declaration have been to the requirements of the California Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that no action would be taken this evening as a 20 -day review period for the Negative Declaration has not yet been completed according to CEQA. Staff recommended that public input be received followed by Commission discussion and direction to the applicant and staff. These PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 8 - applications would need to be continued to a specific date. He indicated that items to be considered are as follows: architectural style, colors, signage, and tying the creek with passive recreational amenities to make it an integral part of this project. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Alex DeLeon, project architect, stated that the shopping center owners would like to renovate the current shopping center with a face lift to three sides of the building. He identified the proposed shopping center modifications as follows: parking layout to be redesigned; parking lot to be resurfaced and sealed; additional landscape islands are proposed to break up the parking lot; new landscaping is to be installed on the southern and western portions of the lot; existing trees to remain on the northern and eastern portion of the lot; new lighting system is to be installed; installation of a pre -cast sound wall along the eastern property line; the existing redwood fence is to be retained; sound wall to be installed three to four inches in front of the redwood fence; removal of the existing chainlink fence to be replaced with an open fence design; picnic tables are not proposed due to health and safety concerns (i.e., if a fence is not installed to keep pubic away from the edge of the property, individuals could slip and slide due to the hill, becoming a liability to the owner); installation of new sidewalks on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; bus duck out to be installed as required by the County Transportation Department; access to the main entrance of the shopping center would be through the existing curb cut; project designed to meet Americans of Disability Act (ADA) requirements; a new monument sign is proposed, to be relocated further to the right of the existing monument sign; separate trash enclosure proposed for pad A; the existing trash enclosures located to the rear are to be redesigned; and the roof line is proposed to be the same height as the existing roof line. Mr. DeLeon clarified that he used multi- tiered architectural elements and that a series of arches and port holes are used to break the horizontal mass. The north side of the shopping center would be made a working part of the shopping center (office space) to make it less of a back side to the building. The architectural elements to be used are keystone arches. It is proposed to use a light color for the main body of the building to brighten up the center. It is to be off set with darker and richer colors on the roof and facade trims of the arches. He felt that the contrast in colors would add excitement to the center. He stated that a 6,000 and 3,500 square foot building are proposed across the street. Mr. DeLeon stated that Safeway was currently at 30,000 square feet and that it would be expanded by 10,720 square feet. Parking is at 493 spaces, noting that the traffic study indicates that there are 50 to 55 spaces more than the proposed uses require. This would allow introduction of food service. Community Development Director Curtis concurred that the number of parking spaces proposed is sufficient and that when a use is proposed, the use would be evaluated to ensure sufficient parking is provided. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Richard Noodleman, 20420 Pierce Road, townhome community resident, stated that there are 25 individuals who reside adjacent to the shopping center. He stated that the residents are excited about the upgrades and expansion of the center. He addressed concerns as stated in the letter submitted to the Commission this evening. The main concern relates to traffic safety and nuisance issues. He expressed concern with loitering of teenagers and homeless individuals as well as with the harassment that is occurring. He stated that there were problems associated with: noise associated with delivery trucks; invasion of privacy; garbage collection; burnt out lights, and with the general lack of maintenance. He stated that he would like to work with the developer to address the residents' concerns. He requested the installation of a six -foot soundwall setback from the existing redwood fence to mitigate noise and to create a sound barrier to the residential properties. The soundwall would also create a greenbelt, separating the townhomes from the shopping center. He also requested that the northern portion of the lot be made into a less of a traffic flow area and that trucks be required to use the back side of the shopping center. He further requested that an on going 24 -hour patrol be required to mitigate noise and vandalism. Chairwoman Kaplan acknowledged receipt of the letter submitted by Mr. Noodleman addressing area resident's concerns. Marc Kocir, 12795 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, stated his support of improvements to the shopping center but that he was not sure if the design fits in with the residential neighborhood. He stated that the entryway to the Safeway Store is in the same location. He expressed concern with the bottleneck that would occur in the middle of the shopping center. He asked if thought had been given to moving the entryway south on Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Relocation of the entryway would eliminate much of the traffic at the intersection. He recommended that the hours of operation be restricted to cut down on noise and loitering impacts to the adjacent residential area. Deke Hunter, co- applicant, felt that he could address most of the issues raised by the neighbors. He informed the Commission that he has been the owner of the shopping center for a little over eight months and that he has tried to mitigate the loitering that has been occurring to the north of the property. He is also trying to improve traffic safety and the appearance of the shopping center. He informed the Commission that there is a 15 -foot drop from Blauer Drive to the back of the shopping center. He felt that lighting, and landscaping will help guide traffic. He stated that he would be willing to meet with a neighborhood committee to address the residents' concerns (i.e., soundwall, installation of landscaping). Commissioner Patrick asked why the color scheme was selected as they appear to be Orange County or Florida colors. She also asked why earthtone colors were not selected? She also asked about the architectural style selected as it is not considered to be a rural or woodsy appearance associated with Saratoga. Mr. Hunter stated that the architectural improvement was to take advantage of the existing glass line that is in place. He felt that a lighter color scheme would improve the center's presentation to help the tenants become successful. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 10 - stated that there are a variety of architectural styles in Saratoga. He said that he tried to pick up some of the harder surfaces to make maintenance easier and to give the shopping center a newer look. He clarified that the trees to be replaced are the series of older trees located in the parking lot as well as the landscape median. Commissioner Siegfried asked if Mr. Hunter had knowledge of proposed uses for buildings A and B? Mr. Hunter responded that small businesses are proposed for buildings A and B. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she received a letter at her home from Kenneth Fieldbauer dated November 18, 1996 expressing concern with the remodel, specifically expressing concern that the property is constrained with a building that could not exceed 12,000 square feet at the corner of the property. Mr. Fieldbauer also expressed concern that a 6,000 square feet would be out of balance. She expressed concern with the architecture style of the building (i.e., projection of a 35 -foot tower. She recommended that the applicant look at the Town of Los Gatos for architectural styles. She stated that she did not like the use of pink stucco. She said that residents have expressed concern with the hours of operation. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the hours of operation for the Safeway Store were legal non - conforming hours. To change the hours of operation, a determination would need to be made that the hours of operation are a nuisance. He indicated that this process was a complicated one. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if traffic to the north side could be limited by signage (i.e., employee parking or time restrictive parking? Mr. Hunter stated that he would be willing to work with staff and that he was not here with a "take it or leave it" attitude. He stated that he would be willing to make the necessary modifications. Commissioner Abshire asked if there are any special plans for Blauer Drive. Mr. Hunter stated that it has been recommended that improvements be made to the median with the installation of landscaping. Commissioner Pierce asked why a softer look to the design was not proposed (i.e. , use of wood or tile)? Mr. DeLeon responded that rural material was not used due to the history of the shopping center and its maintenance. Materials such as stucco were selected so that they would be permanent, durable and maintain their new appearance longer. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the same stucco material could be used but giving it a "woodsy" appearance? Mr. DeLeon responded that the use of material was not addressed because it was not a problem before this date. Commissioner Patrick recommended that attention be given to Blauer Drive for safety reasons, tying the two intersections together; that consideration be given to incorporating the creek area and that it be opened up; and that additional trees be planted to soften the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 11 - architecture. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if any other Commissioners have a problem with the tower element? Commissioner Murakami stated that he did not believe that the architectural design reflects the feeling of the City. He noted that Los Gatos has new shopping malls under design that have a softening affect and recommended that they be viewed for ideas. He stated that he appreciated the comments expressed by the neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he had a problem with the 35 -foot tower element. Commissioner Bernald stated that she was having a problem with the stucco facade and the brick look. She stated that she would not have a problem with the tower if it was softened with a wooden look. She felt that the use of wood would make the design conducive to the residential neighborhood. She recommended that the applicant view the shopping center in Los Gatos located at Blossom Hill -Los Gatos Road. Community Development Director Curtis requested that the Commission address whether the expansion of the out pads are appropriate as part of the shopping center development. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern with the out buildings as they are located too close to the corner. She asked about the environmental clearance for the gas station site. Community Development Director Curtis stated that environmental clearance would need to be obtained. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that additional landscaping be incorporated in the Blauer side of the project. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE OUT BUILDINGS ARE APPROPRIATE PROVIDED THAT ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF AND GREATER SETBACKS ARE PROVIDED. Commissioner Siegfried requested that the comments and concerns raised by Mr. Kocir relating to access and traffic problems be addressed. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff if the food services provide would provide sufficient parking as raised in a letter addressed to Planner Walgren dated November 5, 1996? She also asked if staff was aware of the other questions being raised? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the letter addresses a parking study that evaluates the parking needs for the center and whether the uses proposed would provide sufficient parking. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern with softening of the shopping center's appearance. He noted that other Commissioners have addressed various degrees of concerns. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1996 PAGE - 12 - recommended that the Commission provide the applicant direction. Commissioner Patrick noted that the Commission has expressed concern with the hard edge, ridges, modern Orange County, non - wood -type appearance in the design. Chairwoman Kaplan requested better depiction, cross sections and color board of the fencing and planting material to be proposed. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS APPLICATION TO JANUARY 8, 1997 TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE DESIGN TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE COMMISSION AS EXPRESSED THIS EVENING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS No Director's Items were noted. COMMISSION ITEMS No Commission Items were reported. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 11/6; 11/12/96 2. Planning Commission Notices for 12/11/96 City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 11, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk ITTC 112696. SAR I NNING COMMISSION MINUTE NOVEMBER 13, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting -------------------------7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Pierce, Murakami Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback. Minutes - 10/23/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 23, 1996 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 1 to reflect that Vice - chairwoman Patrick called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Page 3, paragraph 1, fourth sentence amended to read: "...However he did not ... ............................... believe that this r-esel e the issue AS THERE WERE ONLY THREE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE OCTOBER 23, 1996 MEETING, THE MINUTES WERE DEFERRED TO NOVEMBER 26, 1996. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 8, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR Bill Cornwell, 13964 Crisp Avenue, requested that item 2 be removed from consent calendar item 2. PLANNING COMMISSI' MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -96 -005 & UP -96 -004 - EITZEN; END OF OLD OAK WAY; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 31.1 acre hillside parcel into four individual lots of 5.6, 3.1, 2.6 and 2.2 net acres. Approximately 17 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the four lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed on a City Code identified minor ridgeline and Lots 2 and 3 are along a major ridgeline - more restrictive building height limits are applied to ridgeline lots. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. to 12/11/96 at the request of the applicants; City review deadline is 12/17/96) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. 2. DR -96 -055 - CORNWELL; 19364 CRISP AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 337 square foot addition to an existing single family residence and to increase the roof height from 16 feet to 21 feet, pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 40,300 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Bill Cornwell, applicant, requested that he be allowed access to the dormer windows so that the windows can be maintained. He did not believe that the area would be suitable for living space. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that a hatch could be installed. She asked if the slope was fixed or would future consideration be given? Planner Walgren responded that the slope was not fixed and that the square footage could change if a survey is conducted and found that slope is less than 10 %. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she would support staff's recommendation of having a nonfunctional dormer window. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 96 -055 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 3 - PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR -96 -043, V -96 -016 & SD -96 -009 - ROSENGARTEN, 14596 BIG BASIN WAY; Request for Design Review approval to construct a mixed -use four unit residential townhome and two unit commercial /retail development in the Saratoga Village. The existing commercial structure would be removed. Variance approval is requested to deviate from the pedestrian open space and parking requirements. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is necessary to establish the townhomes on their own parcels. The subject property is approximately 13,200 sq. ft. and is located within the Commercial- Historic zoning district (cont. from 10/9/96; City review deadline is 3/18/97) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Michael Rosengarten, applicant, stated that he tried to address the Commission's previous concerns and stated that he would answer any questions relating to the design of the project. Warren Heid, project architect, explained the changes made to the drawings as stated in the letter he submitted. He stated that the basic philosophy was not to have a bridge affect but more of a mall affect with a symmetrical entryway. He stated that the CH -2 zoning district requires a mall affect as part of the design requirement so that the public can walk inside the mall area. The windows and doors at the front were changed to bay windows to give it a better store front appearance. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the design appears to have a bridge between two buildings. She stated that she did not like this feature in the previous design and that she did not care for it in this redesign. She commented that it was still unknown if there would be an increase in on- street parking. Mr. Heid stated that two normal size and two compact parking spaces could be located in the front of the building for a total of four on- street parking spaces. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:00 P.M. Commissioner Bernard stated her appreciation of the applicant's willingness to work with the City and of the changes that were made, specifically the open windows and setbacks. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the changes made were an improvement. Commissioners Patrick and Abshire stated that they would support the changes. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the variance as far as the parking spaces were concerned as it is not known what off -site parking spaces are to be proposed. Planner Walgren clarified that the applicant is proposing 14 parking spaces, 25 % of which are to be compact spaces which are what the Code requires for this particular project. He indicated that the City Arborist recommends the elimination of one of the parking spaces in order to break up existing asphalt to allow the large coast live oak tree more breathing room. Therefore, staff recommended deviation from the parking spaces by one space subject to the variance findings as listed in the report. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -016 WITH THE FINDINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -96 -009 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -043. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. 4. SD -95 -005 & LL -95 -004 - CONSTANTIN, 15261 NORTON RD. & 20855 KITTRIDGE RD.; Request for Building Site approval for an existing 46,600 sq. ft. hillside parcel of record located off Norton Rd. Lot Line Adjustment approval is also requested to merge a 51,400 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. from 10/23/96 at the request of the applicants; City review deadline is 3/4/97). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that letters have been received and distributed to the Commission from Mr. and Mrs.. Phipps who reside on Kittridge Road and the Cheesemans who have cited their concerns regarding this proposal and also expressing concern that none of the neighbors were notified of the public hearing for this project. He confirmed that noticing was sent out to the residents within 500 feet of this project. Commissioner Patrick asked staff if by merging these two parcels and approving a building site on the lower parcel, what would that mean to the upper parcel (i.e. can accessory structures be built on the upper parcel)? Planner Walgren stated that prohibiting construction on the upper parcel could be handled through a recorded open space easement and not affect the buildability of the lower parcel. Staff did not recommend such a condition because the code prohibits development on any slopes of 30% or greater. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 5 - indicated that there is no portion of the upper Kittridge Road parcel that has a slope of 30% or less. I Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the in has not taken place? City Attorney Riback responded that the City was pursuing a mandatory merger with the properties and that the intention to merge has been recorded against the properties placing future purchasers on notice of the intent of the City to have, the parcels merged. It was his belief that the City put this action on hold when the property owners indicated that they were willing to merge the properties. He stated that the city has not waived its right to merge the lots should the property owners elect not to pursue the merger. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Virginia Fanelli, requested approval of a building site and lot line adjustment. She stated that two years ago, the Planning Commission and the City Council denied a request for lot line adjustment. Following the denial, the City recorded an intent to merge the parcels. She felt that the denial of the original lot line adjustment was based on incorrect information. As such, her clients were left with no use of their parcels until a resolution could be reached. She informed the Commission that the Constantins are in agreement with a merger, allowing one single family residence to be built on it with the stipulation that both applications are approved. She stated that the geotechnical reports have identified two acceptable building sites on these combined parcels. She stated that it is understood that a single home would be built on the merged lots. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that it has been suggested that buildings be permanently be prohibited in the area outside of the building pad. She asked if the Constantins would be agreeable to recording an open space easement on the upper portion? Mrs. Fanelli stated that it was the intent to build on the lower portion within the building envelop. She stated that she would not object to reserving the area outside of the building setbacks in an open space easement. Beverley Phipps, 15270 Norton Road, stated that the site has been defined in the City's geologic map as being unstable. He stated that site has an average slope is 65% and is accessed by a single road. He felt that it would require radical disturbance to the fragile shallow soil in the steep hill to have a home built and that construction of a home would affect the geologic condition. The steep slope provides an excellent view of the valley. Therefore, the residents in the valley would also view the home that is to be built on the hill. He stated that the residents expressed a strong support of preserving open space in a 1990 survey. If a permit to build is granted, he felt that it would set a precedent and allow construction on this slope. Regarding notification, it was true that the neighbors were notified of the original meeting but noted that the hearing was continued several times without renotification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Mrs. Fanelli stated that she was in possession of the January 1996 geotechnical report and that it determined that a building site exists if the appropriate mitigation measures are followed. Planner Walgren stated that this item was originally heard in September 1996 by the Planning Commission and that the application was continued to October 23, 1996 at the applicant's request. At the October 23 meeting, a second continuance was announced to tonight's meeting. When continuances are announced, new notices are not mailed out to adjacent property owners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:27 P.M. Commissioner Abshire felt that this was a good compromise to solve the problem and stated that he would support the request with the stipulation that the upper portion be reserved as open space. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was satisfied with the geotechnical report that this home would not impact any of the neighboring homes. She stated that she would support the request with the dedication of open space for the upper portion of the site. Commissioners Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments and stated that he has a high degree of confidence in the geotechnical work by Mr. Cotton, geotechnical consultant. Commissioner Bernard concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she could support the request as long as the approval is conditioned upon the preservation of an space easement. She recommended that the resolution return to the Commission with the condition requiring dedication of an open space easement for its review and approval. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the approval was contingent upon the merger. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would support the merger followed by the approval of a building site. City Attorney Riback recommended that the Commission take action this evening subject to review of the language relating to the open space easement at its next meeting. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -004. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 7 - PIERCE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD- 95 -005 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IT INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES AN OPEN SPACE DEDICATION AS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSION. THE RESOLUTION TO RETURN TO THE COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1996 FOR ITS APPROVAL. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. 5. V -96 -011 & SM -96 -002 - PAK; 21441 TOLLGATERD; Request for Variance and Site Modification approval to construct a new 704 square foot three -car carport and a new pool pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is requested to allow the carport to be located within the front and exterior side yard setbacks. The subject parcel is 1.2 net acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that letters were received in opposition to the request; one letter being co- signed by the Araldis, Martins, Achkars and Gail Frizzel and a separate letter from Richard Geno in opposition to the request He informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that the variance application be continued to January 8, 1997 so that he could respond to the concerns expressed in the letters and work on the existing garage configuration and driveway access so that the variance request could be withdrawn. He indicated that the site modification for the swimming pool could be considered this evening. Staff recommended approval of the site modification and continuance of the variance to January 8, 1997. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, stated that based on the concerns by the neighbors regarding the variance request, he would request that it be continued. Regarding the site modification request, he stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He informed the Commission that the pool pad would be dropped 2.5 feet from the lawn area and that the parcel would eventually be landscaped. Fencing material is proposed to be a green mesh netting and that it is to be installed at the pool deck. He stated that approximately 60% of the trellis is to be removed and that the retaining wall would be of poured concrete and that it would be heavily screened with landscaping. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about the size of the trees. She felt that larger oak trees should be planted initially. Planner Walgren stated that it has been common in other developments to require that 50% of the trees be a minimum of 24" -boxed minimum to provide a mix in sizes. He stated that the Commission could condition this to install 50% 24" boxed trees. Mr. Cunningham asked what is the likelihood of the survival of larger specimen sized trees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 8 - compared to smaller trees? He stated that he would not object to the condition. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /BERNARD MOVED TO CONTINUE APPLICATION V -96 -011 TO JANUARY 8, 1997. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /BERNARD MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SM- 96 -002 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ADDITIONAL LARGER SIZED BOXED OAK TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. 6. DR -96 -046 & V -96 -015 - MUNIZ; 19938 BARONI CT.; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single story home and build a new 2,628 sq. ft. (including garage) two -story residence in its place. Variance approval is requested to allow the new structure to maintain the existing nonconforming yard setbacks and to exceed the 2,400 sq. ft. building size limit for the parcel. The subject parcel is 4,560 net sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that staff was generally supportive of the front and side yard setbacks as it matches the footprint of the existing home. He indicated that staff could not support the rear yard setback as the existing home currently meets the rear yard setback. Staff recommended that the plans be modified to meet the rear yard setback of 20 feet. This would also coincide with the arborist recommendations to protect the large redwood tree. Staff was not able to find special circumstances to allow the building to be built larger than is allowed by code. Staff finds that the design is appropriate and fits architecturally in size mass and bulk. However, staff recommends that this item be continued and that the applicant be directed to bring the design down to 2,400 square feet and to address the arborist's comments addressed in the report relating to the protection of the redwood tree and the future home from the buttress roots expanding and causing damage to the home's foundation. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. Terry Martin, project architect, stated that he would comply with the 25 -foot rear yard setback to protect the redwood tree. He stated that a 400 square foot garage was needed. He stated that he neglected to note an existing easement. He felt that a 2,560 square foot home could be designed and yet maintain the character of the home. Inclusion of the easement would make the project comply with design standards (reduction of 68 square feet) . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Anita Muniz, applicant, requested the approval of the additional 160 square feet. She noted that the approval of the 160 square feet would still make her home the smallest home in the area. If required to eliminate 160 square feet, it would result in the elimination of a bedroom and that it would create a hardship. She informed the Commission that all the neighbors on Baroni Court support the requested square footage and submitted the letter in support for her file. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if thought was given to installing a basement. Mr. Martin stated that a flood plain exists in this area. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:52 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she felt that it was a beautiful site and that she liked the design of the home. However, she could not make the variance findings based on the size of the lot. Commissioner Abshire concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Patrick. He felt that this was a small lot located within an R -1 20,000 zoning district which would require too many variances and that he could not support the request. He stated that he would support a 2,112 square foot home as this was a small lot. Commissioner Bernard felt that a special lot exists which contains special trees and a creek. She stated that she supported the design. However, she could not support the variance request. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with the. comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired if the applicant would like to have this item continued to allow him the opportunity to redesign the project. Mr. Martin stated that he would agree to a continuance. COMMISSIONERS BERNARD /PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DR -96 -046 AND V -96- 015 TO DECEMBER 11, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI AND PIERCE ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis indicated that there were no Director's Items to report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR -89 -126 - Hong; 14591 Deer Spring Ct. Request for modification to approved building materials /colors. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that staff supports the removal of the brick and recommended the use of stucco with the use of a darker color with a corresponding darker roof line. Austin Hong, applicant, stated that the home is setback 50 feet from the ridgeline. He stated that you would only see a small portion of the top of the home. The use of a Malibu beige color is proposed. He did not believe that the color would stand out and that it would add warmth and fit in with the environment. Chairwoman Kaplan concurred with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the use of the Malibu beige color as it appears to be too reflective. She recommended that the sand pebble color be used as it would be a better tone that would blend with the adjacent home. Commissioner Bernard agreed that the color would stand out, pick up light and that it would be seen. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE BRICK VENEER TO BE REPLACED WITH A DARKER COLORED STUCCO FINISH. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 10/16 & 10/22/96 2. Planning Commission Notices for 11/26/96 City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 26, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 13, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk ITTC 111396. SAR 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 Minutes - 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 opportunity to address the Commission a€ t s:.:::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::..:::::: P ............................ ........ ................................................... ............................... 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 way. 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 was eventually denied and the neighbor constructed a one story extension. He stated that he drove down Bonnet Way and noticed that a two -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 500 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 Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 18, 1996. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR Community Development Director Curtis indicated that consent calendar item 1 was 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 was 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 5. Commissioner Pierce stated that he recalled the review of the Kennedy subdivision. The issue discussed in length was whether the road should go through. 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. 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 was resolved. He did not see any reason why 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 AGENDA 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 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 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 was 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 was 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 7:50 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. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 2. SD -95 -006 & LL -95 -004 - CONSTANTIN, 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 SPECTRUM L.P. /CRAWFORD;14425 BIG BASIN WAY; 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 review 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 was 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 DEVELOPMENT 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 followed 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 why 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 any 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 was 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 would 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 - chairwoman 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 how 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 setbacl: 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 MYREN 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 a two -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 was 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 two 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 a two -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 two story homes located on Casa Blanca. He did not view a two -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 two -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 two 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 was 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. COMMUNICATIONS 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. Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 10/2 & 10/5/96 i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - 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 IT \PC 102396. SAR INNING COMMISSION MINUTI OCTOBER 9, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Asfour Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Community Development Director Curtis introduced newly hired Assistant Planner Deming. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 9/25/96 COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 MINUTES AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 4, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. UP -96 -013 - SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. /CRAWFORD;14425 BIG BASIN WAY; 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 Environmental Quality Act (cont. to 10/23/96 at the request of staff; City review deadline is 3/11/97) . 0 PLANNING COMMISS' MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 PAGE - 2 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 2. SD -96 -005 & UP -96 -004 - EITZEN; END OF OLD OAK WAY; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 31.1 acre hillside parcel into four individual lots of 5.6, 3.1, 2.6 and 2.2 net acres. Approximately 17 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the four lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed on a City Code identified minor ridgeline and Lots 2 and 3 are along a major ridgeline - more restrictive building height limits are applied to ridgeline lots. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. to 11/13/96 at the request of the applicants; City review deadline is 12/17/96) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 2. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 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 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 two 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 9/25/96 for revote on the Tentative Map application - the Negative Declaration has been unanimously adopted; City review deadline is 1/17/97) . Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He stated that at the Commission's September 25, 1996 meeting, a motion was made to approve the application subject to Alternative 2 as presented. The vote on the motion resulted on a 3 -3 vote. According to the Municipal Code, a tie vote would be continued to the next Planning Commission for reconsideration of the same motion. He stated that the action to be taken this evening would be a revote on the application. He noted that the motion made was to approve Resolution No. SD -95 -006, approving alternative 2 as presented. He requested that the Commission clarify if the motion was to include. a condition to stipulate that lot 5 is to be limited to a single story home. PLANNING COMMISS' MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 PAGE - 3 - COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO AMEND ITS SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 MOTION TO STIPULATE THAT LOT FIVE IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. Commissioner Abshire stated that the subdivision request has previously gone through two public hearings and one study session review. At the September 25, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission was presented with four alternatives for the development of the Kennedy subdivision. He noted that the motion included the approval of Alternative 2 which incorporates a traffic circle at the intersection of Claremont Drive and a new minimum access road that was favored by the Planning staff, Fire District, Public Works Department and three Planning Commissioners. He noted that Alternative 3 allows 12 lots with a cul -de -sac at each end of Claremont Drive to be connected with an emergency access that was supported by the applicant, the neighbors and three of the Planning Commissioners. In addition, concerns were presented by the three neighbors who reside on Saratoga Drive. He felt that Alternative 2 has advantages (i.e., conforms with City code regulations and improves area circulation). However, Alternative 3 also improves area circulation to emergency vehicles, bicyclist and pedestrians and would also preserve the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that the applicant proposes a mechanism that would ensure the maintenance of the fire lanes. Both the Fire District and the Public Works Department are satisfied that alternative 3 was a workable solution. He stated that he would support Alternative 3 for the reasons stated above. He indicated that he listened to the tapes, noting that the tapes were not audible when the public was making its presentation. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 2. THE MOTION FAILED 2 -4 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -007, DIRECTING STAFF TO RETURN WITH A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL, INCORPORATE THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE THREE, RESTRICTING LOT 5 TO SINGLE STORY, AND TO INCLUDE THE NECESSARY LANGUAGE TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE FIRE ACCESS. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN AND PATRICK VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. 4. V -96 -017 - ROSEBERRY,13761 DOLPHIN DR.; Request for Variance approval to build a 559 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,987 sq. ft. single story residence. The Variance is necessary to allow the addition to be located 25 ft. from the front property line when 30 ft. is the minimum requirement. The property is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Ed Roseberry, property owner, requested Commission approval of the request. Commissioner Abshire asked what was to be done with the fence facing Dolphin Drive (was the fence to be moved back or was it to be moved in front of the garage)? Mr. Roseberry informed the Commission that he has not made a decision regarding the fence. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:47 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -017, MAKING THE VARIANCE FINDINGS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. 5. UP -96 -014 - MORICl/PHAM, 12297 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.; Request for Use Permit approval to open and operate a dental office in a newly constructed commercial building. The currently vacant commercial tenant spaces front a planned development project, which include 26 residential townhomes, located within a Commercial- Neighborhood zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Nicole Pham, applicant, requested Commission approval of the request. She felt that the proposed use would provide a great service to the community and that it would complement the City of Saratoga. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that the applicant proposes professional uses and that he would not be in support of having the entire site being used as professional offices. He stated that he would support more commercial establishments. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -96 -014 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. 6. DR -96 -043, V -96 -016 & SD -96 -009 - ROSENGARTEN, 14596 BIG BASIN WAY; Request for Design Review approval to construct a mixed -use four unit residential townhome and two unit commercial /retail development in the Saratoga Village. The existing commercial structure would be removed. Variance approval is requested to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 PAGE - 5 - deviate from the pedestrian open space and parking requirements. Tentative Subdivision Map approval is necessary to establish the townhomes on their own parcels. The subject property is approximately 13,200 sq. ft. and is located within the Commercial- Historic zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that staff feels that the structure maintains a relatively massive front elevation in comparison to what would normally be seen at this end of the Village. He stated that the applicant feels that this is the extent that they could rework this project and still make it feasible. He informed the Commission that the City arborist's recommendation to eliminate a parking space in order to break up some of the existing asphalt that currently encircles a large coast live oak tree on the adjoining parcel has been included as a condition of approval subject to the adjacent property owner's consent. Therefore, staff felt that the special circumstance in this case was the protection of the large oak tree that warrants reducing the parking requirements from fourteen parking spaces to thirteen parking spaces. He also informed the Commission that the Village Plan requires that 20% of the parcel be dedicated as available public plaza or public pedestrian open space. He indicated that the applicant is proposing 15% of the total side area be devoted to a plaza and planting area which staff feels meets the intent of the Village Plan and the Commercial Zoning Ordinance requirement. Commissioner Murakami noted that staff did not have any objections regarding the design of the structure. He asked if staff felt that there was still room for improvement? Planner Walgren responded that staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of eliminating the fourth townhome above the commercial building to maintain a single story commercial building. He informed the Commission that the applicant did not feel that it would be feasible to pursue the project if this modification was made. Commissioner Pierce stated that Mr. Benzing, one of the project architects, was assisting him with a small remodel of his home. He did not believe that he has a conflict of interest as it would not affect his decision on this application. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that staff was recommending a reduction in parking, assuming that the neighbor gives permission to salvage the tree. She asked if the tree could be salvaged? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that it is believed that the neighbors have given their consent as their project was integral to the neighbor's use of their project (i.e., a component of the project is that the three existing driveways be merged). If the variance is approved, the approval should be contingent on the adjacent property owners' agreement. Commissioner Siegfried asked if an extra parking space would be provided on the street due to the elimination of the driveway. Planner Walgren responded that there is a possibility as there appears to be enough land freed up to gain an additional street space. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 PAGE - 6 - No comments were offered. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the item be continued to the next Commission meeting following Commission discussion to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the Commission. Commissioner Abshire recommended that this item be continued to a work session to allow the applicant the opportunity to answer the Commission's questions. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she could not support the design because she felt that the second story element is too bulky and that she felt that the project could be better designed. She noted that the design across the street was that of a craftsman design. She stated that she was not sure how the driveway configuration was going to work (combination of the three driveways). Planner Walgren clarified that the existing fence is to be removed and that the driveway is to be widened to eighteen feet to serve the subject parcel, the townhomes and the parcel to the south. He stated that there would be less paving as the three driveways will be merged to a single asphalt access. He informed the Commission that the building is to be setback 25 feet from the sidewalk, providing some relief from the front property line. He identified the location of the parking spaces. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not object to the variance request. However, he concurred with Chairwoman Kaplan's comments relating to the design of the building. If the applicant wishes to move forward with these plans, he would want to see a design that he could support. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could support the variance as she felt that the preservation of the oak tree was more important than providing an extra parking space. However, she did not support the design of the building as she did not believe that the common design elements of the Village were incorporated, noting that the building appears to be massive. She stated that she would support a different design that was complimentary to the homes located to the front of the parcel and that she would support a single story commercial building. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the work session would be a productive one should this item be continued to one. She noted that the Commission has identified its design concerns. She recommended that the applicant be directed to return to the Commission with a redesign of the project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SD -96 -009. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 PAGE - 7 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SD -96 -009 TO NOVEMBER 13, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO SCHEDULE THIS ITEM FOR A WORK SESSION FOR OCTOBER 23, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Hillside Preservation Strategy - Final Report Community Development Director Curtis stated that the Commission reviewed the Hillside Preservation Strategy Final Report at a work session conducted earlier this evening and recommended that the Commission forward its recommendation to adopt the plan as presented to the City Council. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that although the Commission could not make a decision at the work session that it was the general consensus of the Commission that this was a fine piece of work. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE FINAL REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the November 27 meeting has been rescheduled to Tuesday, November 26 due to the Thanksgiving holiday and that the land use visit would be held on Monday, November 25. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Kaplan asked if one of the Planning Commissioners would be willing to attend the Regional Open Space meeting to be held on October 30, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in Los Altos. Commissioner Siegfried agreed to attend the meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she received a phone call requesting assistance with the health hazard associated with the abandoned home and swimming pool located at Juniper and Loveland Court. She requested that staff investigate this health hazard. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that the Commission view the antennae at Quito and Highway 85 as she felt that it was well done and that it proves that antennas can be installed with very minimal impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 PAGE - 8 - COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 9/10 & 9/18/96 2. Public notices for 10/23/96 meeting. Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 23, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk ITTC 100996. SAR SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 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 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 ha::: properly screen the house...." THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Oral Communications Marvin Becker, 12120 Mellowood 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. E PLANNING COMMISS- MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 20, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren stated that there were no technical corrections to the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -006 & LL -95 -004 - CONSTANTIN, 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 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 HEARINGS 2. 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 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 two 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). Chairwoman Kaplan requested that the public address any new 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 who 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 was received from the three adjacent property owners expressing concern that if a home is built on lot 5, 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. 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 was 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 change 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 was 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 was 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 Review 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 who 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 was 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 two 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 was 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 two 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. 5. DR -96 -042 & V -96 -013 - WU, 20150 BONNIE BRAE LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 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 guest 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 was 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 removal of 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 was 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 was 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 was 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 how the neighbor's concerns could be protected in the future should the property be sold. Commissioner Patrick requested clarification as to why 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 was sited after the home was 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 was 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 was intended for. 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 was 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 was 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 two 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 two story design would not give the appearance of a two story home. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not like to see two 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 two 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 was a good meeting with concerns being addressed. He stated that it was 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 low 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 story 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 two 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. 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 two 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 "vesting-" 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 was 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 VESTING 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. COMMISSION 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. 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 was 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 City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Wednesday, October 9,1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC092596.SAR ANNING COMMISSION MINU' SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Roll Call Present: Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Abshire, Asfour Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 8/14/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 14, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 7, last paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried stated that Y 1ct findings be made to approve variance requests under certain circumstances. In this case, he could not make the findings to grant the variance .................................. ............................... ?# i C1 r s 1 P'l Z increased b 260 square feet. :. Y q Page 9, first paragraph, line 1, replace the word "peer" with "pier and grade beam" foundation. - Page 9, paragraph five, line 2, replace "90 "with "9 ". - Page 11, parag...raph 7 amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried stated that Mr. ............. Afmandpeur— Iteaz, developer, spoke to him.... " ................ ................ ................ THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT). Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 6, 1996. ' PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V -94- 005.1- MARTIN, 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE; Request for a one year extension to a Variance approval which allowed a 302 sq. ft. single -story addition to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. two -story residence where 2,720 sq. ft. was the maximum allowed floor area. The subject property is approximately 19,285 gross sq. ft. (7,800 net sq. ft.) and is located within an R -1- 12,500 zone district. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -91 -031, V -96 -007 - SHENG, 21791 HEBER WAY;A request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6297 square foot, two story, single family residence on a 7.3 acre parcel and a request for Variance approval to encroach into the required front yard setback pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The applicant also requests to amend the final map of Tract 6781 (Lot 13) for the purpose of modifying the boundaries of a portion of an open space easement on the subject property pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The property is located in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. from 8/14/96 to notice amendment of open space easement; City review deadline is 1/4/97). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the design application was not more current than 1991. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the application has been incomplete since 1991 due to the physical constraints of the property, the need to obtain geotechnical clearance, and in some instances, inactivity on the applicant's part. He informed the Commission that the time clock for the Permit Streamlining Act does not start until the application is deemed complete, noting that this application was deemed complete in July 1996. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. No comments were offered. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:48 P.M. PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 3 - In response to Commissioner Siegfried's question, Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the fault line was located approximately 20 feet from the structure, noting that the driveway was located adjacent to the fault. The Commission deferred discussion on this item to allow staff to furnish it with a color board. 3. DR -96 -039 - PFEIFFER RANCH, 19863 DOUGLASS LANE (LOT 1); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,112 square foot two -story residence on an undeveloped parcel 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 1.2 acres located within a R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the applicant has submitted a revised schematic diagram depicting the swimming pool's location to the west of the house on the embankment above the creek. He stated that staff was not willing to approve the proposed location without reviewing grading plans and more detailed exhibits. He recommended that the condition relating to the location of the swimming pool be modified to state that if the pool is to be located to the west of the house, a final grading plan is to be submitted, reviewed and approved by the City arborist and staff. Chairwoman Kaplan referred to page 8, condition 5.a. and noted that the fifth bullet should be amended to read: "...minimum clearance of six fit from the root collar. It was also noted that page 9, first bullet, line 7 should read "Spring 19967". Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Chuck Bommarito, Pinn Brothers Construction, indicated that he meet with three adjacent neighbors and supplied them with plans. He indicated that all three neighbors supported the design as submitted. He requested that the Commission approve the application with the modified condition to stipulate that any concerns associated with the pool be addressed at a staff level. Chairwoman Kaplan agreed that the west side was the most appropriate location for the pool. She asked if impervious material was to be used around the pool. She also asked if the pavilion was necessary as she was trying to keep structures out of the creek area. Mr. Bommarito indicated that a six foot concrete deck would be used around the pool. He informed the Commission that a design for the pavilion was not being proposed at this time. Richard Walker, 3 Quail Acres, stated that his property backs up to this property and expressed concern that a precedent would be set in the granting of a variance to allow for an exception in square footage. Irwin Haas, project designer, indicated that a 16 square foot covered patio is proposed for the pavilion. It is to be located on the neighbor's side of the pool to protect the neighbors PLANNING COMMIS' V MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 4 - from noise. He indicated that he would agree to install a gas burning fireplace in the bedroom and that he would confer with his clients to see if they would be in agreement to installing gas burning fire places in the other rooms. Planner Walgren indicated that a letter was received from Spencer Ozawa, 19897 Douglass Lane, expressing concern with the noise to be generated from the use of the pool that close to his property. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:01 P.M. Commissioner Murakami felt that staff has addressed the concern regarding the location of the pool and supported the recommendation that staff approve the final details of the swimming pool. Commissioner Pierce stated that he liked the new location of the pool and would support its location. Commissioner Patrick asked if the pool house was necessary and noted that the Commission does not know what materials are to be used for the pavilion. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that staff ensure that the creek bed is protected. Planner Walgren stated that the application includes a request for an exception in floor area reduction rule. He explained to the audience that if a new two story home is proposed in an area where homes are below 16 feet in height, the applicant would need to reduce the allowable floor area of the house by 1.5% for each foot that the building exceeds 18 feet in height. In areas where all homes are single story, it is an incentive to keep the homes as low as possible and to allow a larger home if the home is kept low to encourage compatibility. This reduction is not required in neighborhoods where the majority of the homes are already two story homes. An applicant would need to demonstrate that a particular neighborhood is a simple majority of two story homes. He further indicated that at the time of map approval, special consideration were given to lots 6 and 7 located at the end of Taos Court because they abutted older developments located on Douglass Lane and Quail Acres Court and that they would be given greater scrutiny when plans are submitted for design review. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR.96 -030, AMENDING CONDITION S.A. AS NOTED ABOVE AND AMENDING THE POOL CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT IT BE SUBJECT TO STAFF REVIEW. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. 2. DR -91 -031, V -96 -007 - SHENG, 21791 HEBER WAY;Cont'd. Chairwoman Kaplan reopened the pubic hearing at 8:05 p.m. PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Steve Sheng, property owner, stated that the application was filed in 1991. At that time, he was notified that a geological clearance was needed. He explained the reason why this application took several years to get to this stage (i.e., completion of the geologist report and the review and acceptance of the report). Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that if fireplaces are to be installed that gas burning fireplaces be installed as the home is located in a hillside area. Mr. Sheng stated that he would be open to the installation of gas burning fireplaces. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Commissioner Patrick felt that the design was the most appropriate given the constraints of the lot. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not impressed with the design but acknowledged that the property owner has a right to build on the lot. Commissioner Pierce concurred that the design may not be one that he would chose, noting that the home is to be located in an eclectic area. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE V -96 -007 AND THE ADOPTION OF THE OPEN SPACE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR.91 -031 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. 4. V -96 -010 - DORSA, 18560 PROSPECT ROAD; Request for Variance approval to construct a new free standing gasoline price sign at the Classic Car Wash pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is required to allow two freestanding signs on the property, to allow the front setback to be six feet where 10 feet is the minimum required, and to allow the area of the price to be 15 square feet where 10 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. The subject parcel is located in a C -N zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended that the pedestal be reduced to 4.5 feet and the elimination of the column element located on the left side and that the base be reduced by 1.5 feet. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Frank Dorsa, applicant, stated that it was important to have proper signage as individuals who drive on the street do not know that his business is there. He requested approval of the Chevron logo. PLANNING COMMIS' v MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Murakami noted that the existing flags block the gas prices from public view and recommended their removal and stated his support of staff's recommendation. Commissioner Pierce asked Mr. Dorsa how he felt about reducing the sign by a 1.5 feet? Mr. Dorsa informed the Commission that Chevron makes four different signs and indicated that the sign proposed was the smallest sign. He requested that the sign be raise three feet above the ground as there is a lot of confusion along the street with other signage. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was not sure that raising or lowering the sign would help the business. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern with the use of a larger base for the sign because it would block the business located behind the sign. She stated that she would support staff's recommendation. Kevin O'Brady, Sign Designs, stated that reducing the sign by 1.5 feet would obscure the sign from the travelling public. He also addressed the issue of the column located to the left of the sign. He stated that the purpose of the sign was to identify the Chevron business and that it was an important part of the company's logo. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Patrick felt that part of the signage visibility problem could be attributed to the blocking the sign(s) as cars are being parked and dried. She stated that she would support staff's recommendation as she did not want to see San Jose's sign program in Saratoga. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would support a larger sign. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Pierce and felt that it was important to identify this business as a Chevron business through signage. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION V -96- 010, APPROVING THE SIGN AS DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT "A ",APPROVING THE SIX FOOT HIGH SIGN. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND KAPLAN VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. 5. DR -96 -040 - MAITRA,14492 PIKE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,880 sq. ft. one -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 3.6 acres located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended approval of the request, amending condition 8.c. to allow the applicant to transplant the oak trees. If the trees are PLANNING COMMIS; V MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 7 - transplanted successfully, that would off set the replacement valuation requirement. Staff also recommended approval of the request to exceed the 1,000 cubic yards of cut and fill grading limit by approximately 600 feet. Doing so would allow the driveway to be cut down to the back of the hill, lowering its profile and that of the home on the site. He informed the Commission that approval stipulates that pervious material is to be used for the driveway and that it not exceed 15,000 square feet per city code. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from the downslope neighbors expressing concern with drainage. He recommended that a condition be added to read: "Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, a drainage study prepared by a qualified professional which describes the drainage area, drainage capacity and the necessity of any on site drainage improvements or facilities shall be approved by the city engineer. " Chairwoman Kaplan asked what was to prevent anyone from using impervious material. Community Development Director Curtis responded that a permit is not required for paving but that if impervious material is used, it would be a violation of city code. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:34 p.m. Walter Chapman, project architect, presented the Commission with colored renderings and overlays of the project. He indicated that a turf block with openings would be used to allow water to drain towards the center of the blocks. He did not believe that the he would exceed the 15,000 square feet of pervious material. He indicated that the material of the roof was granite and that it is proposed to be used to simulate a ring. He felt that the main feature of the home was the diamond - shaped room. He requested the use of vibrant colors to accent the design as gables and projections are not being proposed. He indicated that the home would only be visible to the Parker Ranch subdivision, noting that it is located far away. Commissioner Murakami stated that he appreciated the drawings presented this evening because it assisted in the understanding of the physical layout and appearance of the home. Mrs. Maitra, applicant, explained the evolution of the design. She indicated that a courtyard was important to her and stated that she considered the style of the home to be modern international. She indicated that the colors are being used to replicate a gold band with a diamond. She felt that the use of vibrant colors would give the home a personality. Ginne Kelsey, interior designer, stated that the home was that of an international style. She presented the Commission with a brochure of international styled homes that use bright colors and intersecting planes. Chairwoman Kaplan asked what was going to be placed in the middle of the driveway. Mr. Chapman responded that it would be a green area (vegetation) with a center piece but that no final plans are proposed at this time. Commissioner Patrick stated that it appears to her that a contrast could be achieved without the use of the yellow color but that it could be achieved with the use of a colored trim or PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 8 - use of a material that would come out through the window rather than an exterior color. She asked if this suggestion was considered? Mr. Chapman stated that the colors chosen help to represent the gold band and that the accent color (red) was the contrast color chosen to make the home come alive. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, indicated that he met with Ms. Prendergast and that he would be working towards the development of a drainage system that would mitigate her drainage concern. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:52 P.M. Commissioner Pierce noted that the staff report recommends the use of earth tone colors for homes constructed on the hillside. He asked if this recommendation was one that was adopted by City policy? Planner Walgren responded that this is a design criteria from the Hillside Design Guidelines that primarily applies to hillside lots that are visible off site. In this case, the home is visible to the Mt. Eden Valley and Paul Masson Winery. He recommended that muted colors to used so that the home blends with the hillside. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about the cut and fill and expressed concern with the safety of the oak trees. She recommended that the trees be watched as it was her belief that they would be damaged during construction. She felt that the home would be visible from a wide area and that the planting of a few trees would properly screen the house. As the house would be visible, she could not support the use of the requested yellow color for the roof. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he could not support the use of the yellow color but that he could support the design. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the Commission regarding the use of colors. He felt that there may be a compromise in the use of colors being proposed. He stated that he understood the concept of the ring design but noted that the site was located in a prominent area. Therefore, he would support staff's recommendation. He commended the applicants on their design. Commissioner Patrick felt that the design was creative. However, she felt that the home would be visible. She stated that she liked the use of the red color trim but not the reflective yellow color. She stated her appreciation of the use of pervious paving material. Commissioner Siegfried recommended the use of tarnish gold color to achieve the diamond ring concept. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:58 P.M. Ms. Maitra agreed to return with alternative colors. PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 9 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:59 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -040, SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ALL EXTERIOR COLORS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT). 6. DR -96 -027 - BROWN, 21952 VILLA OAKS LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,063 sq. ft. two -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request for exemption from the Hillside district grading regulations. The subject property is approximately 1.6 acres located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request with an added condition that would eliminate the hillside cut entirely, reducing the amount of cut. Also, that the rear yard area be reduced and /or terraced in order to achieve a single retaining wall to bring the grading down to not more than 1,000 cubic yards. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. James Stroupe, project architect, stated that the applicant would agree to install 24" boxed trees. He addressed the grading and felt that terracing of the lot was the best design solution for the lot. He presented drawings that showed the continuation of the natural slope of the hillside. He did not believe that the proposal would be visibly obtrusive and that it would blend in with the natural hillside. Andy Brown, applicant, indicated that this was a challenging lot as it was at 33% grade. He indicated that Mt. Eden drew him to the area because of the Mediterranean style homes located in this area. He felt that the use of a retaining wall would provide a play area for his children and that terracing would allow the hillside to look as natural as possible. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:15 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that he did not object to the design of the home. However, he noted that the lot was configured at an angle where the lot is being aligned for the home. He indicated that he would support staff's recommendation regarding grading. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support changing the topography of the lot nor the amount of cut being requested. She recommended that the applicant reduce the amount of cut or that the home be redesigned. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would support stepping the house and that he would reluctantly approve the request as submitted. PLANNING COMMIS' V MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she did not support the purchase of a lot that would need to be cut up to accommodate a play area and stated her support of staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -027 AS AMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT). 7. SD -96 -003, V -96 -008 - BOISSERANC, 13650 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide a parcel of land totaling 3.78 acres into seven single- family lots. An extension of Franklin Avenue will provide access to six of the proposed parcels, while the remainder parcel will continue to access from Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. The application includes a Variance request in order to retain the existing residence with a nonconforming rear yard setback. The existing barn on the property is proposed for demolition. Each of the six lots with access on Franklin Avenue will be 12,500 sq. ft. in area and each would permit a single family residence with a maximum floor area of 3,710 sq ft. (including garage). The remaining lot will be 1.67 acres and would permit a single family residence with a maximum floor area of 4,830 sq. ft. (including garage). The property is zoned R -1- 12,500. 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. Staff recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and resolution of approval which include two unique conditions that restricts future construction to single story structures in order to ensure compatibility with the existing single story homes and that the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City to be recorded against the remainder parcel to ensure that upon any future development or subdivision of the remainder parcel that a new cul -de -sac turn- around is to be installed. He informed the Commission that the applicant does not want to remove his home to allow the connection of Franklin Avenue to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at this time. Commissioner Patrick asked if the resolution of approval should include a condition to require Franklin Avenue to be a through connection. Planner Walgren stated that the proposed condition would restrict development in the future should development patterns change in the future. Commissioner Patrick stated that if a cul -de -sac is proposed, that it would serve more than 15 homes, a condition that is not supported by the fire department. Planner Walgren noted that the cul -de -sac would serve less than 15 homes. He stated that the connection of Franklin Avenue would require the demolishing of the existing home. He stated that it was not known how the remainder parcel is to be developed. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:29 p.m. Steven Arnold, representing the applicant, indicated that the current property owner does not want to extend Franklin Avenue at this time as it would impact the existing residence. PLANNING COMMIS' v MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 11 - He indicated that a barricade would be installed subject to Public Works approval and that it could be landscaped. He stated that the proposed subdivision meets current zoning and that the proposed lots are larger than the ones located to the south and a little smaller than those located to the north. William Klett, 20369 Chalet Lane, representing three of his neighbors (Tom Maddox, 20389 Chalet Lane; Pavlina residents, 20373 Chalet Lane; and Mr. Miller, Thelma Avenue), stated that the residents support single story homes that are low in profile and that the homes be compatible to the existing homes located on Thelma Avenue, Chalet Lane, and Franklin Avenue. He expressed concern with grading of the lot and of the height of the homes and requested that privacy be maintained for all homes in the area. He requested that Franklin Avenue become a cul -de -sac, allowing emergency vehicle access and that traffic concerns be mitigated. Joel Mattox, 20393 Chalet Lane, felt that the proposed plans are in keeping with the character of the area. He stated his support of the construction of single story homes and the installation of a cul -de -sac. John Waite, 20344 Franklin Avenue, expressed concern with traffic (how is traffic to be controlled when school is in session); opposed to Franklin Avenue being extended to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road; and requested that a time frame be established for the installation of the cul -de -sac. Mr. Arnold indicated that the Fire Marshall has approved the dead end street as shown on the tentative map. Regarding grading of the parcels, he stated that at the most, a foot of fill would be used at the front portion of the residences and a maximum of a foot cut to the rear lots (grading to be less than 3 %). Regarding the cul -de -sac installation, he felt that Mr. Boisseranc would be selling the property in five years and that the cul -de -sac may be installed at that time. Planner Walgren indicated that a letter was received from Danny and Jung H. Hu who reside on Thelma Avenue requesting that Franklin Avenue be extended to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road; installation of a traffic signal at Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Thelma Avenue; that homes be restricted to single story homes; and that construction not commence prior to 9 a.m. on weekends. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Commissioners Pierce and Patrick supported the request as recommended by staff. Commissioner Patrick further recommended the installation of landscaping at the end of Franklin Avenue. Commissioner Murakami recommended that the concerns of the neighbors be investigated (i.e., installation of a stop sign to assist in traffic control). Commissioner Siegfried stated his support of the request. He did not see the need to PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 12 - require the installation of a cul -de -sac at this time and that he did not see the need to require that Franklin Avenue be a through street to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SD- 96- 003/V -96 -008. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION SD -96 -003 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AT THE STUB STREET. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION V -96 -008 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE AND ASFOUR ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. 8. UP -96 -011 - SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. /CITY OF SARATOGA, CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK; Request for Use Permit approval to establish a Personal Communications Services site at Congress Springs Park. The proposal is for a 48 ft. tall monopole with six (6) flush mounted panel antenna located at the south end of the park, adjacent to Highway 85. Five (5) accompanying radio cabinets would be located on the ground adjacent to the antenna. 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 recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and approval of Exhibit C which depicts the use of a single pole subject to the following: it is to be encased and painted a sky blue color; and that the equipment at the base of the antennae be fenced and screened with landscaping. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:49 p.m. Patty Mejia, representing Sprint Spectrum, informed the Commission that a community meeting was held on August 29, 1996 to receive public input and to determine which site was the best alternative site, noting that only 2 community members out of the 300 invited attended the meeting. She indicated that 9 comment cards were received of which 6 stated their support, two requested additional information and that one was a negative response. Commissioner Patrick asked how many poles would be located on Congress Springs Park. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that there are currently 37 netting poles located on Congress Springs Park. PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Murakami stated his appreciation that the applicant has agreed to utilize alternative C. Bernard Vogel, 13010 Glen Brae Drive, expressed concern with the type of landscaping that would be installed to mitigate the visual impacts of the cabinetry and the poles. He indicated that many of the neighbors are concerned with the park and its current condition. He recommended that some of the leasing monies be used to improve the park. He stated that he was glad to see that an encasing was to be used. He also asked if there was a technical reason for the requested height of the pole. He noted that five radio cabinets are proposed and asked if there was a need for five due to their visual impacts. William Elhoff, 19379 Via Real Drive, stated that he received an invitation to the public meeting and indicated that the invitation was misleading. He expressed concern with the visual impacts associated with the pole as many poles, cabinets and towers have been installed, impeding his view of the sky. Also of concern was the health hazards associated with electro magnetic fields. He felt that there currently exists a dangerous level of electro magnetic fields in the area and that he would oppose any incremental increases. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, stated that she felt that the Negative Declaration was inefficient as she felt that there were health related impacts associated with this proposal. She requested that Dr. Stutzman's concerns expressed in the past be included. She stated that the General Plan stipulates a rural character for the city of Saratoga. She felt that the proposed use was that of an industrial use and that it did not belong in this city, in a park, nor in open space areas. She did not believe that the city has made a decision as to whether towers are appropriate in Saratoga, noting that other cities have allowed this type of use and that those cities have destroyed their views. She felt that the open space was being changed to a commercial use and that it was a clear violation of Measure G. She stated that this would be considered a gift of public funds by a private enterprise. Ms. Mejia stated that landscaping would be installed to mitigate visual impact concerns. She indicated that the height of a structure would be dependent on what is located around the site. She felt that visual impacts could be handled at a staff level, taking into account neighborhood concerns. Regarding the health hazards raised, she indicated that the use falls well below the exposure rates. Donald Pierce, senior engineer, Sprint Spectrum, indicated that the site would release less then one tenth of one percent of the maximum allowable level of emissions. He indicated that he would have to research whether the emission would add to the existing emission found in the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Pierce's question, Mr. Pierce responded that the pole would be emitting electro magnetic waves, a variation of electro magnetic fields as it naturally exists (an extension upward from technology originally used for am /fm radios and television, moving progressively to higher frequencies). PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 14 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that in work sessions attended, the Commission was advised that there were no health hazards associated with the proposed frequencies to be used. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that FCC regulations prohibit agencies from denying this type of request based upon perceived health hazards. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:12 P.M. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the proposed use was not subject to Measure G as it is not a change in zoning or general plan designation from residential to commercial. He recommended that the Planning Commission indicate whether this project is subject to Measure G and that the Commission's decision could be appealed to the City Council. He stated that this use was not a gift of public funds but that it would be approval of a use permit. If approved, a lease would be negotiated and presented to the City Council and that should the City Council approve the lease, rental fees would be paid to the City. Planner Walgren stated that a chain link fence is proposed with shrubbery to be installed around the utility boxes and fencing. Commissioner Murakami inquired about the reference made to Dr. Stutzman's objections to alter telecommunication sites. He asked if there was any validity to legal blockage of any technology of this type? Community Development Director Curtis stated that several public hearings have been held with extensive discussions. He stated that he was not familiar with Dr. Stutzman's comments. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that an interesting observation was made at the meetings she attended. That observation being that schools, churches, and colleges can generate revenue from leasing lands for these types of uses. Commissioner Patrick felt that once painted, she finds the poles less objectionable than telephone poles /wires. Therefore, she would support the request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND FOUND THAT THIS REQUEST WAS NOT SUBJECT TO MEASURE G. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR UP -96 -011. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP -96 -012, APPROVING EXHIBIT C AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. u PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 15 - 9. UP -96 -012 - SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. /CITY OF SARATOGA,19700 ALLENDALE AVENUE; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 48 ft. tall monopole antenna for a new Personal Communications Services site in the City of Saratoga's Maintenance Yard. Five (5) accompanying radio cabinets would be located on the ground adjacent to the antenna. 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 recommended approval of a Negative Declaration and the use permit with a condition to stipulate that the pole is to be painted with no requirement for landscaping to the back corner of the corporation yard. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 10:24 p.m. Ms. Mejia, representing Sprint Spectrum, informed the Commission that she would answer any questions which it may have. Cheriel Jensen asked what the rental fee to be collected would be used for. She expressed concern with the emission of electro magnetic fields. She indicated that federal laws do not override state laws. She felt that the issue of health and safety still needs to be addressed according to CEQA. She did not believe that the poles conform to the General Plan as it would be a private use of public property and that it was a commercial use in public designated land. She also noted that the use of the land did not go out to bid. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CONCUR WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS THAT THE REQUEST WAS NOT SUBJECT TO MEASURE G. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR UP -96 -012. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP -96- 012 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 10. DR -96 -037 - DENNIS, 15020 SOBEY ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,779 sq. ft. addition to an existing 3,360 sq. ft. single story residence on a hillside parcel with a net site area of 1.43 acres. The addition consists of 1,411 sq. ft. to the existing main level, an 852 sq. ft. new lower level, and a 516 sq. ft. PLANNING COMMIS" N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 16 - detached garage. Also proposed is a new swimming pool and tennis court. The parcel is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the existing driveway was at a sharp angle at the bend of Sobey Road and that the property owner plans to complete the driveway with a horseshoe design to provide a safer egress from the property. He indicated that the horseshoe design exceeds the grade limits of the City code and that there would be the installation of curbing between several existing ordinance sized oak trees located on the neighboring properties. He recommended that the driveway not be approved. If the applicant and the architect are able to come up with a revised design alternative that pushes the driveway further down the hill so that it does not have a steep drop, that it could be considered at a staff level. He also informed the Commission that the existing pervious driveway would need to be included in the lot coverage. Commissioner Patrick noted that a two story home was located across the street and that it was not identified in the location map. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. Noel Cross, project architect, addressed the driveway issue. He stated that backing out of the driveway was unsafe. He stated that a new driveway configuration would be proposed that would not impact the existing oak trees. Commissioner Murakami inquired what the lower area located below the balcony would be used for? Mr. Cross responded that the area was to be used as a game room. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:29 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that he liked the design and that the was willing to approve the request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -037 WITH THE DRIVEWAY TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF FOLLOWING FURTHER EVALUATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 11. UP -96 -010 - CALI INVESTMENTS, 14510 BIG BASIN WAY; Request for Use Permit approval to operate a restaurant in an existing retail commercial building fronting on Big Basin Way. The vacant tenant space is within the Village Square commercial center located at the corner of Fourth Street and Big Basin Way within the CH -1 (Historic Commercial) zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 17 - Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the hours of operations were more restrictive than that of the fondue restaurant located in the same center. Planner Walgren clarified that approval would allow the applicant to expand the hours of operation in the future without the need to return to the Commission to request expanded hours. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 10:43 p.m. Michael Dieves, co- applicant, stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission may have. Commissioner Murakami asked if the restaurant would be that of a standard Sushi bar? Mr. Dieves responded that the restaurant would be that of a Japanese Bistro. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:45 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP -96 -010 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reported the following: - Variance V -96 -006: Vidanage, 12528 Spring Blossom Court has been appealed and that it would be heard by the City Council next Wednesday night. Future staff reports would have a notation whether a project is subject to Measure G. - Planner Anne Daily would be leaving the Community Development Department and that Planner Heather Bradley would be leaving for maternity leave. Due to staff shortage, Planning counter hours will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He also indicated that the current Community Services Officer (CSO) was leaving and that the City is looking towards a CSO intern. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Kaplan requested that a uniform style fencing be reviewed for Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and that a fence style be selected with two variation in colors. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 8/7/96. • PLANNING COMMIS v MINUTES SEPTEMBER, 1996 PAGE - 18 - 2. Public notices for 9/25/96 meeting. Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 25, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk [till 1IliLI�Y:T7 � t ,ANNING COMMISSION MIND' AUGUST 14, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Siegfried Late: Pierce Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 7/24/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 24, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 4, paragraph 5, third sentence amended to read: "...inch.b..:o:.;:.xe:.;:.d trees. He He als o requested staff elan -i fe tief n 61 -W condition 15 `P <l t relatin g ......::: . ....... to indemnification. " - Page 5, second paragraph amended to read: "Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she ....... ............................... opposed the use of arrte;;eeiti�< easement for vehicular traffic...." .............. Page 7, paragraph 7, line 3, replace the word fe94- with d. .............. .............. .............. Page 10, paragraph 10, last sentence amended to read: "...different than the newly designed antennas which are dffrhti <xith g:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:Y:. .::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:: ............................... . - Page 13, paragraph 10 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour informed the public that the issue of antennas �# has been before the Commission.... " Page 14, last paragraph, last sentence amended to read: "...eweyer , hie stated that.... " ..... - Page 17, paragraph 2, second sentence amended to read: ......Heasked Mr. Saffarian .......................... f r t E recur i if he would be willing to fund the completion of a second geotechnical ..... ............................... ....... ............................... ........ ............................... report? " ....................... - Page 17, paragraph 5, amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour asked staff tt tte €e1 if project plans are normally mailed.... " %; r PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 ' PAGE - 2 - - Page 17, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour noted that Ms. Basu has stated that she would like to site the home where it was original 1:y proposed. He asked if Ms. Basu would be willing to continue this item to allow the completion of additional studies. Mrs`. Basu responded.... " Page 20, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that he would support the requested modification with the stipulation that the modifications have not yti been completed.... " - Page 20, paragraph 10, last sentence amended to read: "...Therefore, he could not .................... szrt; the request. " THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 -2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; ABSENT: PIERCE. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 9, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there was a text change to agenda item 13, page 4, paragraph 1, line 4 to read: "extend closer than 6- $ feet to the top of the ridge...." CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -91 -031, V -96 -007 - SHENG; 21791 HEBER WAY; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,297 sq. ft., two -story single family residence on a 7.3 acre parcel and a request for Variance approval to encroach into the required front yard setback pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located in the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. to 9/11/96 to notice amendment of open space easement; City review deadline is 1/4/97) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSENT). PLANNING COMMIS, v MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 3 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 2. DR -94 -013 & UP -94 -002 - PAPPANASTOS;13475 DEER TRAIL CT.; Request for Design Review approval to build a 1,200 sq. ft. 15 ft. tall detached pool cabana on the subject property. Use Permit approval is also necessary to allow a pool and the cabana to be built within a required rear yard setback and to fence the perimeter of the lot - fencing in the hillside zoning districts is limited to a maximum area of enclosure of 4,000 sq. ft. The lot is 1.5 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. DR -96 -029 - ROGERS; 13596 DEER TRAIL COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 1,233 sq. ft. detached garage and pool cabana, at a height of 15 feet, pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.4 acres located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4. F -96 -002 - BALUNI;14983 GYPSY HILL ROAD; Request for an exemption from the hillside fencing requirements to allow the area of enclosure to exceed 4,000 sq. ft. per the Tentative Map conditions of approval. The area of enclosure would be 25,856 sq. ft. The subject property is lot 26 of the San Marcos Heights subdivision, located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 5. DR -96 -038 - WALSH; 12550 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,818 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 13,634 sq. ft. and is located within the R -1- 12,500 zoning district. 6. DR -96 -031 - TOUNG; 19501 GLEN UNA DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval construct a new 5,421 sq. ft. two -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 1.06 acres located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Commissioner Asfour asked why consent calendar item 6 was on the consent calendar instead of the public hearing calendar. Planner Walgren responded that this evening's agenda had more items scheduled than are normally scheduled. He informed the Commission that this is the third home of three similar homes that have been designed by the client on the same parcel. He stated that the site development plan was similar to that previously approved by the Planning Commission last year, noting that the tennis court has been eliminated which was the only concern of the neighbor on the previous proposal. He informed the Commission that agenda item 2 was a single story home with a 1,200 square foot pool cabana structure and that the use permit would allow the structure to be located within the required rear yard setback. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that a speaker card has been received for agenda item 5. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING k PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 4 - CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2, 3, 4, AND 6 BY MINUTE ACTION ON A 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSENT). 5. DR -96 -038 - WALSH; 12550 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,818 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 13,634 sq. ft. and is located within the R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Mike Walsh, applicant, indicated that he would respond to questions. Mark Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, stated that he did not have a problem with this application. He requested that the Commission look at the subdivision and ensure that the proper height of the structure and foundation are followed. Robert Sayre, 12558 Wardell Court, asked if the Commission if it has walked through Spring Blossom Court and asked whether it was empathetic with the neighbors who would be viewing some of the large homes proposed for the subdivision. He felt that large homes like this one are out of context with the rest of the neighborhood. He felt that the construction of large homes on smaller lots is becoming a pattern in Saratoga. Commissioner Asfour stated for the record that residents within 500 feet are notified of these proceedings. Planner Walgren stated when the subdivision was advertised for public hearing, that staff and the Commission restricted the subdivision to single story homes of not more than 20 feet in height. This was a significant effort to ensure that infill development was compatible with existing homes. Commissioner Pierce entered and was seated. Lou Pambianco, 20541 Wardell Road, indicted that his home was one of the original homes built in the area. He agreed that the home is out of context with that of the neighborhood. He felt that there would be an environmental impact if the home is allowed to be built at the square footage being requested. Chairwoman Kaplan asked Mr. Pambianco if screening, via landscaping, would mitigate his concern? Mr. Pambianco responded that he would request that the existing trees remain and that additional landscaping be required. Mr. Walsh stated that he would like to work with the neighbors to address their concerns. He further stated that he was working within City guidelines in the design of this home. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:48 P.M. PLANNING COMMIS" N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Asfour stated that he empathized with the comments as expressed by the speakers and stated that he did not believe that anything could be done in this instance as the applicant is following City codes. Commissioner Siegfried stated that during his tenure on the Commission that he has seen homes get bigger and bigger. The City has amended its code to recognize economic changes. He noted that the subdivision was approved to restrict height limitations and to request the construction of single story homes. Commissioner Abshire stated that today's homes tend to be linear and massive. He felt that the City has to live with the homes being proposed. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the home is restricted to a single story home and that it occupies only 38 percent of the lot, noting that it could occupy 45 percent of the lot. She pointed out that this was a 1996 home and that the City could not require the applicant to build homes similar to 1970 homes. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -038. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 - VIDANAGE,12528 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,002 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 14,004 sq. ft. The application includes a Variance request to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage -based rear yard setback. The property is located within the R -1- 12,500 zoning district (cont. from 7/10/95 at the direction of the Planning Commission; City review deadline is 12/18/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended that condition 2b be amended to include the following: "Prior to the issuance of permits, the applicant will be responsible to survey the property to verify the tree locations and to make sure that no part of the structure is closer than 8 feet from the trees in order to preserve the trees." Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Michael Rowe, project designer, indicated that the home was redesigned to provide a greater setback. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Rowe to explain how the square footage of the home increased by 260 square feet. Mr. Rowe responded that the increase in square footage was to the perimeter of the home. Lou Pambianco stated that the proposed home backs up to his property. He expressed concern with drainage in this area and felt that with the size of the home, it is anticipated M PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 6 - that drainage problems would increase. Paula Pambianco, 20541 Wardell Road, expressed concern with the home that she would be looking at. She stated that she has a beautiful old home with existing trees and that she would be opposed to any variances that would threaten existing trees. The loss of trees would result in the loss of charm and character of the neighborhood. She also expressed concern with drainage. Although the home is proposed at 19 feet, it may be padded, increasing the height of the home. Commissioner Asfour informed Mrs. Pambianco that the trees are to remain. Mark Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, expressed concern with the error in plan submission. He did not believe that the rear yard has been defined, noting that it is located where the redwood trees are located. He asked if this was considered a flag lot because if it was not, Section 15- 2.090b determines the rear yard. Section 15- 06.430b defines rear lot line to be the most parallel to and the most distant from the front lot line. It was his contention that the majority of the front line is the most parallel to his rear lot line and that it is the most distant from the front lot line. He did not believe that the rear lot line is properly defined according to code. He objected to any variances and expressed concern with the impact to the redwood trees and drainage. He stated that there is a 12 foot gap to the house to the left of this home, noting that a decision has not been made as to what is to be done with the gap. He felt that the issue of the gap needs to be resolved prior to Commission action. Paul Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, expressed concern with the variance request. He requested that the 45 foot variance be accepted, not the 38 feet. He also expressed concern with the size of the home, noting that the rear property line contains a retaining wall that belongs to the adjacent two neighbors. He indicated that Mr. Law, adjacent neighbor, was out of the country and that he asked that he (Mr. Campbell) express concern with what is to be done with the 12 foot offset of land. Robert Sayre, 12664 Wardell Court, stated that a previous storm damaged the eucalyptus trees. He noted that redwood trees do not grow quickly to mitigate the impact of the large homes. Sarath Vidanage, applicant, stated that he purchased the property for a nursery in 1973. He indicated that he lost his use permit for the nursery two years ago. He stated that he did not support the removal of the trees. He indicated that drainage would be mitigated by the installation of a drainage system. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Planner Walgren indicated that the 12 foot offset was related to the request for the survey to be performed prior to the issuance of permits. If the Commission approves the home, it is being approved 38 feet from the rear property line, not from the fence line. When the PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 7 - home is built, it would be built per the setback from the property lines and not from fences or retaining walls that may exist. Regarding the existing retaining wall and the fence located to the rear of the property, it was not something that staff anticipated dealing with but that normally, it is an issue that is resolved between two property owners. He indicated that the city engineer would be reviewing engineered drainage plans that are to be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. He stated that every effort would be made to drain to the public storm drain system located on the street. Also, the resolution contained conditions that would require that the height of the building be varied to ensure that the home does not exceed 18 feet from the existing natural grade. Regarding the yard orientation, he stated that when you have irregular shaped parcels like this one, it takes some discretion to determine which is the rear, front and side yards. He concurred with the speaker that you establish the front property line as being the property that abuts the street. Staff determined that the west property line was the most logical setback in this case. He indicated that the site is consistent with the tentative map in terms of yard orientation and that the site development plan shows that the west property line as being the rear property line. Commissioner Murakami inquired about the expiration of the previous use permit for the nursery. Planner Walgren indicated that the applicant elected not to seek renewal of the use permit. Commissioner Asfour noted that staff has indicated that the area would be surveyed. He asked if conditions were included that would address the drainage concerns. Planner Walgren responded that conditions 2a and 2b would address drainage concerns. Commissioners Patrick, Asfour, Murakami, Abshire stated that they could not support the variance request to encroach into the required setback as the house can be redesigned to fit within the required setback. Commissioner Patrick asked if the public hearing should be reopened to determine if the applicant would like to request a continuance. Mr. Vidanage indicated that he would request Commission action this evening. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / ASFOUR MOVED TO DENY V -96 -006 AS THE NECESSARY FINDINGS COULD NOT BE MADE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR -96 -026 BECAUSE THE COMMISSION COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Commissioner Siegfried stated that he thought findings could be made to approve variance requests under certain circumstances. In this case, he could not make the findings to grant the variance when the home is being increased by 260 square feet. 1; PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Asfour stated for the record that Community Development Director Curtis has indicated that the denial was effective as of tonight's action and that there would be a 15 day appeal period. 8. DR -95 -048 - CLARK, 12189 PARKER RANCH ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,357 square foot two -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code. The subject property is approximately 47,180 square feet in gross area and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district (continued from 7/24/96 at the request of the applicant for additional time to complete plan revisions; City review deadline is 1/9/97). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern that a lengthy driveway is still being proposed. Planner Walgren noted that the driveway takes up approximately 80% to 90% of the parcel's width. He also noted that the driveway was behind and below the earth berming of the road and that staff did not believe that it would be highly visible. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Tony Marrow, representing the applicant, presented the Commission with colored elevations for its review. He identified the modifications made to address the neighbor's concern of height, mass and bulk. He noted that the design recesses the second floor. He indicated that the front of the house and the driveway is to be screened. It was his belief that the design would have less impact from the street. He stated that the second story windows were minimized so that they do not impact the neighbors' privacy. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, Mr. Marrow stated that impervious material is to be used for the driveway. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about page A -5 of the plans as it depicts a two story element. Mr. Marrow clarified that a two story tower is proposed to be a focal point to the back of the building. Yuh -Ning Chen, 12161 Parker Ranch Road, stated her appreciation of the efforts made on the redesign. She stated that she consulted her geologist regarding the site and that according to a title search, there is a 10 foot fill that was not engineered according to standards. She felt that the site would be suitable only if the recommendations of the geologist's report are followed and incorporated in the resolution of approval. She expressed concern that if construction occurs and a landslide occurs, it would impact property values. She requested that a second geologist and geotechnical report be obtained prior to action being taken and that the recommendations be incorporated in the project's approval. Mr. Marrow stated that the structural engineer retained was well qualified. He indicated PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 9 - that he designs home to go deep into the bedrock. Regarding the fill, he indicated that pier and grade beam foundation would be used. He stated that he was also concerned with safety. When it comes to structural design, this design exceeds current standards. He indicated that proper drainage is to be utilized to make sure that drainage is carried away so as not to impact the natural drainage of the lot. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Planner Walgren stated that a geologist report was required based on the City's slope stability map. The consulting geologist prepared a report that identifies potential unstable soils area. The applicant was required to prepare a geologic investigation before the application was scheduled for public hearing. The City's geologist reviewed the investigation and ultimately granted the project clearance with the conditions contained in the resolution, one of which requires that during construction, the applicant has to have a geotechnical engineer prepare and approve all of the various construction documents which would need to be approved by the city's geologist. Commissioner Murakami inquired if the driveway was reduced? Planner Walgren responded that the driveway was reduced slightly in length. Commissioner Siegfried noted that one would not be able to see the driveway because there is a 9 foot elevation difference. Commissioner Abshire noted that the home was designed to be screened from the street. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern with the length of the driveway and was hoping that it would have been reduced. Commissioner Asfour indicated that his main concern was with the driveway. However, he concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -048. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE VOTING NO. 9. DR -96 -032 - YEN; 20988 BURNETT DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,800 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 1.27 acres and is governed by the standards of the R -1- 20,000 zoning district (cont. from 7/24/96 at the direction of the Planning Commission; City review deadline is 12/19/96) . Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended approval of the request with the condition that the rear balcony proposed at the second story be eliminated because of the privacy impact to the neighbors and the fact that it encroached a few feet into the rear setback which would necessitate a variance for that portion that encroaches into the PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 10 - required rear setback. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. David Britt, project designer, indicated that modifications were made to address the Commission's concern. He stated that the house could be moved forward to eliminate the need for a variance. Ms. Yen, applicant, stated that she met with the neighbors and that the neighbors are in support of the redesign. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:47 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not have a problem with the design as the applicant is willing to move the house forward to eliminate the need for a variance into the required setback. Commissioner Asfour thanked the applicant for the redesign to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Murakami stated that it was a well designed project. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -032 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE HOUSE BE MOVED FORWARD TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE BALCONY. IF THE HOUSE IS NOT MOVED FORWARD, THE BALCONY IS TO BE ELIMINATED. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 10. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC. /BYRON NAVID; 15041 - & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (cont. from 4/24/96 Planning Commission meeting; City review deadline is 12/19/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the Planning Commission denied the request for tentative subdivision map based on the applicant's desire not to revise PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 11 - the circulation plan. The applicant appealed the Commission's decision and that the City Council approved the appeal on a 4 -0 vote, locking in the circulation plan. However, the City Council did not wish to consider the various tentative map design issues and directed the applicant to resubmit the map for Planning Commission review. He noted that based on City Council direction, the access point is set, the signalized intersection is set and that staff has received the improvement plan. He informed the Commission that at an earlier public hearing, staff recommended that the applicant consider a mix of single and two story homes, emulating what exists in the surrounding neighborhoods. He informed the Commission that the applicant proposes Alternative 1 which would locate the two story homes to the southern half of the property. He indicated that staff supports alternative 2 which would continue the single story homes along the Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road frontage. This would keep the most visible homes as low as possible and would also work to integrate single story homes to the southern half of the development. Staff also recommended that lots 1 and 15 be restricted to single story structures. Commissioner Asfour stated for the record that the City Council overturned the Commission's action by granting the applicant's appeal. As such, it does not require Planning Commission approval of the request this evening. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. In response to Commissioner Pierce's question, Planner Walgren indicated that several City Council members discussed what the setbacks would be along Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road and whether they were to be one or two story homes. Staff's recommendation is consistent with the City Council's direction, including the requirement that the 15 foot exterior side yard setbacks be measured from the landscape easement line which is five feet from the property line. .................. Commissioner Siegfried stated that Mr. a developer, spoke to him after the City Council's action on the appeal. .......... ............................... xjz'X , project architect, stated that he would agree to Alternative 2 as proposed ........:.. ................::.:.......:... by staff. He indicated that he would group the two story homes together and not intermix them with the single story homes. Theodore Smith, 13772 Prune Blossom Drive, stated his opposition to two story structures being located to the north of the site as a two story home would take away from his privacy. Dr. Nehawandian, 13773 Prune Blossom Drive, requested single family homes be constructed adjacent to him. He stated that he supported the contractor as he is known to design nice homes. Momi Buchanan, 13796 Tamworth Avenue, opposed two story homes adjacent to one story homes for privacy reasons. Upon receiving clarification as to the location of the two story home, she stated her support of the project. \ L PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Carol Martin, 13818 Tamworth Avenue, expressed concern with the loss of view with a two story home. She would support the request if designed as presented. Raymond Nesmith, applicant, thanked the neighbors and staff for their support. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:12 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not support the proposed site plan as the land remains land locked. Commissioners Murakami, Siegfried, and Abshire stated that they were pleased to hear that the applicant was in agreement with Alternative 2 which would require single story homes being built adjacent to single story homes. Commissioners Pierce and Patrick and Chairwoman Kaplan stated that they were opposed to the lot layout. As the City Council granted the applicant's appeal, they would support the request. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -010. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO. 11. DR -96 -036 - MAXIM INVESTMENTS; 28011 AUDREY SMITH LANE (LOT 5) ; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,590 sq. ft. single -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 40,000 sq. ft. located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. The application includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 feet. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. Bill Gershwin, applicant, addressed the condition of the existing eucalyptus trees. He stated that he tried to design the home to protect the existing trees. He stated that he also shared the concern of grading. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if tree no. 47 would be impacted and asked whether the left side of the building could be reduced to save tree no.47? Mr. Gershwin responded that once grading limits were set, it was determined that the trees could be saved. He stated that saving the trees would add value to the property. He noted that tree no. 47 is located at PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 13 - least 40 feet away from the home and that it would not be impacted. Michael McKay, project architect, indicated that tree no. 47 was mainly impacted by the drainage swale. Constructing the drainage swale as close to the house as possible would help to mitigate any impacts to the tree. He stated that he tried to step the house down, minimizing the size of the house. America Dipietro, 20304 Calle Montalvo, indicated that his home abuts the back of the property under discussion. He expressed concern with water run -off and requested the installation of a swale across the mutual property line to catch run off and that it be diverted to a catch basin. He also requested that additional landscaping be planted to screen the house as the house would be sited on high ground, impacting his backyard privacy. Brad Wells, 20316 Calle Montalvo, concurred with the comments expressed by Mr. Dipietro. He requested that development be suspended until such time that the drainage concern is mitigated and that the line of site be mitigated with additional screening. Mr. Gershwin requested that he be allowed to work with staff and be allowed to grade the site so that he can complete the swale system. He stated that he would agree to plant six or seven 36 -inch boxed trees and that he would be willing to work with the neighbors towards the species and the planting location of the trees. Planner Walgren stated that grading was restricted on individual lots until such time that house plans are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. He stated that permits could be issued for the lots that back up to Calle Montalvo and that the drainage could be continued up to the corner parcel. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Murakami recommended the replacement of the eucalyptus trees with native oak trees. Planner Walgren noted that condition 3.a. requires six, 36 -inch boxed native replacement trees and one, 24 -inch boxed native tree. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that screening be addressed at a staff level. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was pleased to see that the grading and drainage concerns were being resolved. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -036 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: 1) ADDITIONAL GRADING OF LOT 6 PER STAFF'S APPROVAL, AND 2) SCREENING TO BE APPROVED AT A STAFF LEVEL. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 12. SD -95 -007 (503 -19 -048, 503 -19 -070, 503 -19 -075) - KENNEDY; 13121 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALEROAD; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 14 - three parcels of land totaling 9.42 acres into eleven single - family residential lots. A new cul -de -sac off of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would provide access to five of the proposed parcels. The connection of Paramount Drive and a new minimum access road would provide access for the remaining six parcels. The existing residence on the property is proposed to be demolished. The proposed lots range in size from 13,091 sq. ft. to 52,369 sq. ft. and would permit residences ranging from 3,880 sq. ft. to 6,180 sq. ft. (including garages). The eastern half of the property is zoned R -1- 12,500 and the western half of the property is zoned R -1- 40,000. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that the proposed map meets General Plan and zoning regulations, therefore it was not subject to Measure G. Staff does not feel that the 11 lot subdivision would result in any long term significant environmental impacts as described by CEQA. He informed the Commission that correspondence has been received from adjacent residents and that the letters opposed a through connection. He noted that one of the letters had attached to it an alternative subdivision plan which shows that a court could be built at either end of Paramount Drive and still meet public road standards with emergency access connection. He informed the Commission that the City has an ordinance that states that a cul -de -sac cannot be longer than 500 feet nor should they serve more than 15 individual parcels. He stated that although staff still supports the through connection, the alternative plan could be supported. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Maury Abraham, Nolte and Associates, Civil Engineer, concurred with staff's recommendation. He noted that the tentative map conforms with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he was aware of the neighborhood's opposition to a through connection. He distributed copies of an alternative circulation plan to the Commission for its review. He informed the Commission that Chris Tinzley, traffic engineer, was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Planner Walgren noted that the alternative plan submitted by Mr. Abraham was similar to the one attached to the neighbor's letter. Roger Higgins 13015 Paramount Drive, stated that the issue of concern was the through connection of Paramount Drive as it would connect Pierce Road to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Doing so would create a traffic safety concern. He stated that there was a consensus by all residents in the neighborhood that Paramount Drive should not be connected. David Chang, 13090 Paramount Drive, expressed concern that emergency vehicles would utilize the vacant lot adjacent to him as a turn- around. He presented an overlay depicting an alternative circulation plan. He requested that Paramount Drive not be made a through connection for safety reasons and that the peace and quite of the neighborhood be PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 15 - maintained. Royce Johnson, 13237 Paramount Drive, stated that he was not opposed to the development but stated his opposition to a through connection of Paramount Drive due to the safety of children and residents. He felt that individuals would use Paramount Drive to get from Pierce Road to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Roads if Paramount Drive was made a through connection (safety concern). Andy Carter, 13194 Pierce Road, stated his opposition to making Paramount Drive a through street for the following reasons: 1) it is not necessary for the number of units that are to be built; 2) increased traffic and noise; and 3) it would change the status quo (change in circulation not necessary). Charles Goldfarb, 13075 Paramount Drive, noted that there is a safety concern in this area as the neighbors know who belong in the neighborhood. He noted that staff and the developer agree that the connection is not necessary. If the road is connected, it would create a traffic hazard for individuals who would be attending the reopening of the Paul Masson concerts. He requested that a gated Paramount Drive be considered. Gene Tritt, 13816 Stewart Court, stated that he did not oppose the development but that he opposes the connection of Paramount Drive. He stated his support of a cul -de -sac that provides fire access. Peggy Valentine, 12980 Paramount Drive, indicated that she purchased her home 29 years ago and requested that Paramount Drive be retained as a cul -de -sac for safety reasons. If opened, it would result in increased traffic, endangering the safety of the children. Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Valentine if she knew when she purchased her home 29 years ago that Paramount Drive was planned as a through street? Ms. Valentine responded that she was not aware that Paramount Drive was slated to be a through street. Bill Bettencourt felt that the connection of Paramount Drive would create a major thoroughfare. He did not believe that the traffic report was correct. He felt that a center divider, 15 mile per hour posted speed limit, and the installation of speed bumps would be required if Paramount Drive is made a thru street. He opposed making Paramount Drive a through street. Teresa Yeh stated that she enjoyed the privacy of the existing cul -de -sac. She concurred with the concerns expressed this evening. She stated that she would prefer a division of the area through the middle, utilizing a cul -de -sac. Also of concern was the construction of two story homes. Mr. Abraham stated that he would oppose the use of a turn - arounds as proposed by Mr. Chang as it would result in the loss of a lot. Regarding Ms. Yeh's proposal, he did not believe that her proposal would work because the two smaller lots would not have an access. J PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he has seen major diverters placed in the middle of streets in San Jose. He asked if the turn abouts would slow traffic down? Mr. Abraham stated that he could not respond to the question at this time because it may result in the loss of a lot. Chris Tinzly, TJKM Traffic consultant, addressed the traffic circle, stating that they are used primarily to slow traffic down in an immediate vicinity of an intersection. However, they would not address the issues addressed by the residents. He felt that they would be less effective in slowing traffic down in the neighborhood. He indicated that traffic circles are usually retrofitted, that they are not installed initially and that they could be designed to handle traffic at the middle of an intersection. Commissioner Asfour stated that his main concern was safety. If the safety concern can be addressed, he did not see why Paramount Drive could not be a through street. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she was not prepared to move forward on this item as too many proposals have been made. She stated that she would want the city engineer to advise the Commission which alternative would be feasible. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:15 P.M. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the City Engineer supports the through connection. Should the Commission wish to consider the construction of a cul -de -sac, the Commission would need to decide which end of the subdivision the cul -de -sac should be constructed. He indicated that the northern leg of Paramount Drive accesses 12 homes versus the 38 homes on the southern leg, noting that both legs are 1,500 feet in length. Commissioner Pierce stated that he would like to have staff give a specific recommendation regarding circulation given the comments made by the neighbors. Commissioner Siegfried felt that a decision of whether a cul -de -sac would be appropriate could be discussed at a study session or a future meeting. He felt that the street should be cul -de -sac as there are two distinct neighborhoods. He felt that the cul -de -sac alternative as presented by Mr. Chang would be of great benefit for the neighborhood because there is not a good way to turn an emergency vehicle around. It would take an easement through two properties to provide an emergency access. Connecting the street in the future would result in condemnation, an action that the City has never done in the past. Commissioner Asfour stated that the through road has been on the map since the time of development in the area and recommended that the road go through. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. He felt that the intrusion of a through road would disrupt the neighborhood. Commissioner Abshire felt that staff presented a sound report. However, he stated that he would be inclined to go along with Mr. Chang's proposal. PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 17 - Commissioner Patrick expressed concern with blocking areas of Saratoga because people want to maintain status quo. She felt that access should be made to different parts of Saratoga and stated her support of the thoroughfare. Commissioner Pierce stated that he could not support either recommendation at this time as he felt that a study session was needed. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she would support the recommendation as presented by staff. She indicated that she raised children on a cul -de -sac and that even with a cul -de -sac, she spent hours moving her children out of the way of vehicles and bicyclist. No matter where you live, she felt that traffic concerns exist. In review of the traffic study, it was her belief that cars would not use the recommended thoroughfare. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD -95 -007 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A ROUND -ABOUT TO SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK; NOES: ABSHIRE, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED, MURAKAMI. COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE SD -95 -007, ADOPTING MR. CHANG'S ALTERNATIVE OF INSTALLING A CUL -DE -SAC AT THE SOUTH END OF THE KENNEDY PROPERTY WITH A RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A STUDY SESSION SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 1996, AT 5:00 P.M. AT THE SEATON DAY CARE CENTER. Planner Walgren stated that staff would support the northern access court as it would serve the fewer number of lots and would allow the utilization of a traffic signal at Pierce Road and Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road. City Engineer Perlin stated that he would not condition approval of a round -about until the applicant and staff have an opportunity to review the proposal. He stated that he would want to review alternatives before commenting as there may be other ways to slow traffic down other than the use of a round - about. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK AMENDED THEIR MOTION AND . r PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 18 - REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1996, 7:00 P.M.,SEATON DAY CARE CENTER, TO ALLOW STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW MR. CHANG'S PROPOSAL AND TO COMMENT ON THE ROUND - ABOUT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairwoman Kaplan excused herself from the remainder of the meeting. 13. SD -96 -005 & UP -96 -004 - EITZEN; END OF OLD OAK WAY;Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 3 1. 1 acre hillside parcel into four individual lots of 5.6, 3.1, 2.6 and 2.2 net acres. Approximately 17 acres would be dedicated as open space. Use Permit approval is requested to allow the four lots to be clustered together, thus allowing the open space dedication. Lot 1 is proposed on a City Code identified minor ridgeline and Lots 2 and 3 are along a major ridgeline -more restrictive building height limits are applied to ridgeline lots. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the main topic of discussion this evening was ridgeline construction. Commissioner Siegfried raised the issue of whether this item should be continued to a work study session. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened the public hearing at 10:53 p.m. Caroline Eitzen, applicant, indicated that she proposes to create a four lot subdivision. She responded to concerns expressed regarding lots 1, 3 and 4. She felt that the environmental issues have been mitigated. She stated that she tried to maintain the integrity of the ridgeline ordinance and that the building sites are proposed to be located 20 feet from the ridgeline. She proposes the installation of two trees and ten shrubs to protect the view vista. She indicated that a view shed analysis has been conducted. She stated that structures are proposed to be constructed off the ridgeline and that they would be screened from city view. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, inquired whether an EIR was prepared for this site. She asked if there has been a change to the circulation element for the extension of Old Oak Road as she was assured at the time of home purchase that it would not be extended. She stated that if another accident occurs as a result of individuals partying in this area, she would tell the parents that she has expressed concern of the extension of through traffic and the removal of the barricades. Planner Walgren informed the Commission and the public that an EIR was not prepared for this application as it is a minor land division that is not subject to CEQA. If a variance is required, an environmental initial study would need to be prepared and would be subject to CEQA. ,A. t PLANNING COMMIS ,"' v MINUTES AUGUST 14, 1996 PAGE - 19 - Vince Garrod, 22600 Mt. Eden Road, expressed concern that lot 2 proposes a home in public view and on the ridgeline. He expressed concern that anything that the City calls a ridge may be considered flat land. He felt that the proposal to build as close to the ridge as possible should be considered because it is where stable land can be found and that moving structures off the ridge line would create problems. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 11, 5:00 P.M., ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, TO ALLOW STAFF TO PRESENT A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SITE AND TO DISCUSS RIDGELINE DEVELOPMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that two Planning Commission actions have been appealed by the neighbor(s) as follows: UP -96 -009 - Pacific Bell Mobile Services; Congress Springs Park and DR -96 -021 - Basu; 21777 Vintage Lane. These appeals are scheduled to be considered by the City Council on September 4, 1996. COMMISSION ITEMS No items were noted. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 7/17; 7/23 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 5, 1996, Mt. Eden Hall, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC081496. SAR 1 1 ANNING COMMISSION MIND JULY 24, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Pierce Late: None Absent: Patrick, Siegfried Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 7/10/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 10, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 5, paragraph 6, amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour asked staff to clarify fe :s:1:F: to . a e.:::: .... u­ the status of this pfejeet ... f �ft h "a ..... ffl-* .... t -* ...... W#:I: . ........... . . ... . ..... . . . . . . . . . .......... ...... Measure G. Page 7, second paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Abshire did flet believe . ........ a .......... ............. d" flag lot. that this parcel Rt ou .. . . ... ........... ......... .............................................. Page 8, paragraph 2, line 2 amended to read: "... input from the neighbors was a reason to deny a request.... " ..................... THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0-2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: KAPLAN, PIERCE; ABSENT: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 19, 1996. 0 Technical Corrections to Packet t PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Planner Walgren noted two corrections to consent calendar item 1 as follows: 1) Condition 1 of the resolution of approval has been amended to clarify that the future building and driveway locations need to be consistent with the approved site development plan and all tree protection measures, and 2) The applicant requested that page 2 of the handout be clarified to state that the applicants would have the opportunity to select their own geotechnical and geological consultant to complete the study. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -004 - BURKE, 13485 VILLA OAKS LN.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 15 acre (gross) Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision into three individual lots of 6.1, 5.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (cont. from 7/10/96 to adopt approval Resolutions; City review deadline is 9/20/96). COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 2. DR -95 -048 - CLARK, 12189 PARKER RANCH ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,366 square foot two -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code. The subject property is approximately 47,180 square feet in gross area and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district (continued to 8/14/96 at the request of the applicant for additional time to complete plan revisions; City review deadline is 1/9/97). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3. DR -96 -034 & SD -91 -004.2 - HUSAIN: 20150 MENDELSOHN LN. Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,510 square foot single -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 20,006 square feet located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. The application also includes a request to modify a condition of the subdivision approval. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2 AND 3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR -96 -022 - SUN, 14360 DOUGLASS LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,340 sq. ft. two -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 65,166 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district (continued from 7/10/96 at the request of the applicant to complete plan revisions; City review deadline is 11/1/96). PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that letters were received from area neighbors withdrawing their previous concerns and objections regarding this application. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that page 21, item 1 of the mitigation measures, a part of Scott's Design Associates' letter, addressed the use of a gate. She asked what gate was being referenced as a concern? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the design group was referring to a proposed gate that would start at the beginning of the driveway. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, addressed the fence issue. He indicated that a new driveway is proposed as an alternative and that the gate being referred to is to be separated by a delineated pedestrian pathway to access the Sun's property. He indicated that he was trying to determine if this was a construction improvement as defined by the tentative map requirements. It was his belief that the issue of the riparian easement was supposed to be scheduled for public hearing at the last meeting but that staff did not notice it for public hearing. He addressed the compatibility of the building with those of the neighborhood. He noted that the home next door was remodeled to a two story structure with no public input and that there were a number of two story homes within this region. He addressed the following conditions: - Condition 6a - requested clarification whether the condition meant that parking would be prohibited under the tree planting during construction or whether it was a permanent condition; Condition 8 - requested that the 15 gallon trees be maintained as there are a number of large trees located on site and that the 15 gallon trees would meet the concerns that were originally expressed; - Condition 15 - requested that Mr. Sun be indemnified from any injuries derived from the pedestrian right -of -way. Mr. Cunningham addressed the modifications made to the proposal and felt that the proposed revised design addressed the concerns of grading, mass and bulk. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that three fireplaces were proposed. Mr. Cunningham stated that the applicant would agree to modify the fireplaces to be gas burning. John Tefer, 19931 Durham Court, stated that the applicant's willingness to modify the plans was appreciated. He addressed the fruit trees and felt that they were compatible with that typical of Saratoga. He thanked the Commission for seriously considering the concerns of the neighbors and hoped that it would continue to do so. Annette Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, stated that the applicant met with the neighbors and that the modifications presented this evening address the neighbors' concerns. t PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Mr. Sun, applicant, informed the Commission that two proposals were submitted, noting that the second alternative was not reviewed or considered. He requested that he be allowed the use of the easement. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that it reviewed the applicant's original proposal at its June 26, 1996 meeting. He stated that Exhibit "B "addresses the recommended changes of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaplan informed Mr. Sun that the Commission considered the original proposal and the it has reviewed all pertinent information that has been included in the Commission's packet. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour noted that a concern was raised regarding condition 8 relating to the landscaping. He asked staff why it was recommending an increase from 15 gallons to 24 inch boxed trees. He also requested staff clarify condition 15 to the applicant relating to indemnification. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that condition 15 holds the applicant liable and not the city. Planner Walgren stated that eight oak trees are proposed, noting that it is a common practice of the Planning Commission to require that half (four) of the trees be upgraded to 24 inch boxed size trees to achieve a variation in tree canopy. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that condition 15 is a standard condition and that the Commission does not have the authority to amend it. Commissioner Murakami stated that early in the design phase of the project, staff worked with the applicant for some time. He did not believe that the applicant took steps to address some of the concerns expressed by staff. He stated that this was the reason he raised the compromise issue. Regarding the request to amend condition 15, he did not believe that the City should be held liable. Commissioner Abshire felt that the applicant made reasonable adjustments to the plans, noting that the neighbors stated their agreement to the modifications. He felt that the house would look like a castle in the neighborhood. However, if the neighbors did not object to this, he would not object to it either. Commissioner Pierce stated that the applicant worked with the neighbors and that the neighbors appear to be in agreement with the modification. He also felt that the home was a big house but would support the home as the applicant agreed to the modifications to address the Commission's previous concerns. t PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Chairwoman Kaplan felt that it was reasonable to vary the size of the planting materials and would support staff's recommendation. If the applicant wishes to plant additional trees beyond staff's recommendation, she would support it. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she opposed the use of the pedestrian easement for vehicular traffic as it would set a terrible precedent. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -022, APPROVING EXHIBIT "B" AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 5. SD -96 -001 - BLACKWELL; 13145 PIERCE ROAD; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide a parcel of land totalling 9.02 acres into six single - family lots. The existing residence and improvements would be maintained and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Pierce Road. The proposed lots range in size from 40,000 to 5 1, 000 sq. ft. and would permit 5,766 to 6,160 sq. ft. residences (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 40,000 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 identified the reports completed as part of the project's environmental review (i.e.,traffic impact statement, soil sampling and analysis report, geotechnical and geologic investigation report, arborist report, and biotic assessment to assess the impact of the bridge construction on riparian habitat through the Calabazas Creek area). He stated that the reports conclude that there are no long term significant environmental impacts that would result due to this development. He informed the Commission that letters were received from area residents expressing concern regarding: 1) the size of the homes that would allowed with the creation of the lots; 2) whether this proposal would be affected by the recently enacted Measure G (Planner Walgren indicated that the proposal would not be affected by Measure G as the subdivision as proposed complies with the City's General Plan designation and complies with the zoning standards for this property); and 3) questioned whether the construction of the bridge has been properly reviewed (it was indicated that the Department of Fish and Game, the Water District, the City Engineer, biologist, geologist and the arborist have reviewed this proposal and that they are supported the proposal). Chairwoman Kaplan referred to page 27, Environmental Initial Study, III. Geologic Problems, and inquired as to the creek setbacks for the Odd Fellows' property. She asked if there was a setback standard for creek setbacks. Planner Walgren responded that the creek setbacks for the Odd Fellows' project was recommended to be 100 feet for a particular area, noting that it was reduced in areas that were already developed. He indicated that City codes does not stipulate creek setback requirements. Community PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Development Director Curtis further clarified that creek setbacks are determined on a case - by -case basis. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, noted that the parcel was a large level one and that it lends itself to the proposed development. Access to the parcel located on the other side of the creek is to be by a railroad flat bed with a clear span of 80 feet and that the fill to be used would reduce any impact to the riparian corridor. Greg Blackwell, applicant, furnished the Commission with preliminary renderings for lots 1 and 6, noting that the designs were that of single story homes. He informed the Commission that lot 4 would probably be a two story home as it has a smaller building area. He informed the Commission that the existing 3,500 square foot adobe home that is located on lot 2 is to remain. Commissioner Murakami asked if there was any new information regarding access to lot 3? Mr. Blackwell informed the Commission that no decision has been made regarding access to lot 3. He further informed the Commission that there was a possibility that lot 3 may be sold to Mr. Hulme. Lewis Franklin, 13209 Padero Court, informed the Commission that he owns the property that runs the entire length of the western side of this property. He expressed concern regarding lots 3 and 4. He expressed concern with the proposed bridge and with the trees that would go down the creek. He stated that approximately 10 years ago, the Water District brought in 300 large rocks to control erosion, noting that the rocks have moved around the creek. He stated that he did not oppose the development, but indicated that he only had one week to review the proposal. Haus Stellrecht, 13200 Pierce Road, expressed concern with the size of the proposed homes, the need to connect to existing services (increased load), and with increased traffic to Pierce Road (lack of visibility of the corner of Pierce Road as it turns southwest). He requested that two story homes be prohibited. John Hulme, 20964 Comer Drive, stated that he has seen trees fall into the creek and bank erosion occurring during big storms. He expressed concern with the proposed bridge that would access lot 3 and with the creation of a channel to his property. He expressed concern that the SCVWD would not maintain the creek area. He also expressed concern regarding the setback of the home proposed behind him. Luanne Nieman, 13217 Padero Court, expressed concern with the cumulative affect with development upstream from the Calabazas Creek and with increased water runoff (maintenance of the creek). She noted that there are several levels of bureaucracy involved with the Calabazas Creek. She also expressed concern with the construction of the bridge. Although 5 homes do not impact the schools or roads, she felt that the power lines would be impacted (power surges). PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 7 - William Glennon, 13091 Pierce Road, stated that he opposed the replacement of vineyards with homes. He also did not like homes being built for individuals who were not residents of Saratoga. He inquired about condition 7 relating to the asphalt swale and expressed concern that the swale would run all the way to Comer Avenue. He noted that there were three private driveways between this property and Comer Drive. He hoped that the swale would not traverse the driveway but that it be tunneled through. He noted that Condition 8 addresses the widening of Pierce Road and that he hoped that the entire frontage would not be widened as it would create an unsafe traffic situation (i.e., cars passing). Mr. Heiss indicated that he would be working with the city engineer regarding the swale issue. He stated that a shoulder is being proposed to be installed to prevent erosion. He indicated that widening of the road would be approximately five or six feet as one approaches the cul -de -sac. He stated that the bridge proposed would be high enough to handle a 100 year flood. He indicated that the bridge would be an intrusion into nature by two feet but that it can be architectural treated with a facade. He also indicated that the utilities are to be undergrounded. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Murakami inquired about the size of the bridge and whether its size was a fire requirement? Planner Walgren responded that the size of the bridge was a building code requirement as well as a fire code requirement. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that there were outstanding issues that needed to be addressed and that she could not take action unless the issues were addressed. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with access to lot 3. Commissioner Pierce asked if other lot layouts were submitted for review. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that this was the only map that staff reviewed and that based on the civil engineer's ability to design a bridge that is well above the 100 year flood plain and with all of the environmental clearances, it seemed like the design could work. Commissioner Murakami stated that he could not support the bridge proposal because it would be a hazard. He concurred with the neighbors' concern regarding flooding. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she understood the neighbors' drainage concern. She asked if the city could limit the homes to one story structures for lots 1, 5, and 6. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would support restricting lots 1 and 6 to one story homes but not the other lots. PLANNING COMMIS N MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Abshire felt that there may be some valuable information regarding the bridge that traverses Comer Drive as to how it handles flooding and recommended that staff investigate its history. Planner Walgren noted that the Comer bridge is a shorter spanned bridge and that it was a lower bridge than what is being proposed. He indicated that .the Comer bridge requires regular maintenance by the Water District. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the material proposed would help stabilize the banks? Planner Walgren stated that the material would help stabilize the banks at the point where they support the bridge. Community Development Director Curtis addressed the construction and height requirement of a bridge to meet a 100 year flood. He indicated that staff would research the history of the Comer bridge. Chairwoman Kaplan asked about the non - responsiveness concern expressed by the neighbors by the Water District. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the Public Works Department would have that information. Commissioner Murakami asked if there was an active problem with power outages in the Pierce Road area. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he was not aware of a specific development that was over loading power lines. Commissioner Murakami asked staff if thought had been given to installing a sign warning individuals of a blind spot near the cul -de -sac area. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the Public Works Department refers traffic concerns to the Public Safety Commission to determine whether a warning sign is necessary. Commissioner Asfour recommended that this item be continued to determine what would happen to the front portion of lot 3 should the back portion of lot 3 be sold to Mr. Hulme. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00 P.M. Mr. Blackwell informed the Commission that lots 3a and 3 would be sold to Mr. Hulme and that Mr. Hulme has not indicated that he would install a bridge but that its installation would not be ruled out. Commissioner Asfour asked if Mr. Blackwell would be willing to sell the back lot to Mr. Hulme Mr. Blackwell responded that the back portion of lot 3 could be sold separately, but that it would not be as valuable. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:02 p.m. PLANNING COMMIS: 1 MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she liked the proposal with the exception of lot 3. She also expressed concern that the flooding issues. Commissioner Pierce recommended that there be a size limitation to lot 3 due to its small footprint. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that this suggestion be addressed at the design review stage. Planner Walgren stated that the resolution could stipulate that lots 1 and 6 are to be restricted to single story home and that the future home for lot 3 is to be designed in size to be compatible and consistent with the size of the back portion of the lot. Commissioners Pierce and Abshire stated that based on staff's response, they could support the request. Commissioner Murakami expressed concern with the proposed bridge and the impact to the creek and recommended that this item be continued so that the concerns can be addressed. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR APPLICATION SD -96 -001 AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD- 96 -001 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO STIPULATE THAT LOTS 1 AND 6 ARE TO BE RESTRICTED TO SINGLE STORY HOMES AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO STATE THAT LOT 3 IS TO BE COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE SIZE OF THE BACK PORTION OF THE LOT. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, PIERCE; NOES: KAPLAN, MURAKAMI; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED. 6. UP -96 -006 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES /WEST VALLEYCOMMUNITY COLLEGE; 14000 FRUITVALE AVE; Request for Use Permit approval to construct Personal Communications Services antennas atop an existing building at West Valley Community College. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened UP -96 -006 to public hearing at 9:20 p.m. Charles O'Brian, representing Pac Bell, concurred with staff's recommendation. He noted that the proposed antennae panels are to be of a slim profile. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PLANNING COMMIS: J MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS SUBMITTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION UP- 96 -006. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. UP -96 -007 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES /TURKUS; VACANTLOT NEXT TO 13501 SOUSA LN.; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 30 ft. tall monopole Personal Communications Services antenna at a vacant on Sousa Ln. at the corner of Quito Rd. and Route 85. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami asked if the property owner has been contacted and whether the property owner has agreed to clean up the property (weed abatement)? Community Development Curtis indicated that the applicant receives the conditions of approval and that it would be up to the property owner and the applicant to determine who would be maintaining the property. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Mr. O'Brian indicated that he is working with the property owner regarding the maintenance of the property. Commissioner Asfour noted that the antenna structures are different for this site. He asked why the Sousa Lane site proposes a tri -pole versus a single pole as proposed at West Valley. Mr. O'Brian indicated that this was a single pole with an array of antennas and that it would be mounted differently. Rolf Slade, 13501 C Souza Lane, noted that there were three homes located on Souza Lane. He stated his opposition to the antennas because he did not want to see the antennas from his backyard. He indicated that the adjacent neighbors were not notified of the request. He asked if the zoning would allow this commercial use? Commissioner Asfour stated that the antenna structure located at Lawrence Expressway was different than the newly designed antennas which are different due to the frequency used. Nick Lundmark, 13501 B Sousa Lane, indicated that he is the adjacent resident. He informed the Commission that he was not notified of the public hearing for this use, noting that he purchased the home eleven months ago. He opposed the antenna because of its visibility. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that there would be greater control of maintenance with the approval of a use permit. PLANNING COMMIS,` v MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Jack Clay, representing his mother who resides at 13393 Sousa Street, expressed concern with property values and the fact that the antennae would be an eye sore. Also of concern was the lack of maintenance to the site. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour stated that technology moves on whether one likes it or not, noting that antennas need to be located somewhere. It was his belief that antenna sites are scientifically selected and were not randomly selected. Commissioner Murakami noted that the antennae was sited in the middle of the property. He stated that if a tree was located on the site, it would hide the antenna so that it is less obtrusive. Planner Walgren noted that the antennae is located behind a tree to screen it from the street view. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she has driven up and down the state and stated that you would not notice these antennas unless you were looking for them. Planner Walgren clarified the city'spublic noticing process, noting that a newer resident may not be listed on the most current tax roll. Commissioner Pierce stated that he sympathized with the neighbors. Unfortunately, the antennas are going to have to go somewhere. It was his belief that this was a better location than other locations. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she did not feel that this request would detract from the neighborhood and that approval of the request may help with the property's maintenance. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PIERCE AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE UP -96 -007. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. UP -96 -008 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES /O'CONNOR; 12820 -12840 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.; Request for Use Permit approval to construct Personal Communications Services antennas atop an existing commercial /retail building at the Saratoga Oaks shopping center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:40 p.m. PLANNING COMMIS` V MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Mr. O'Brian addressed the siting of the proposed antennae on the property. He indicated that he field tested the alternate site as recommended by staff and that it would be necessary to raise the antennae 35 feet above grade to achieve a clear reception. He did not believe that there would be a visual impact on this site and that it would not be visible from surrounding streets. He indicated that he would agree to relocate the antennae to the alternative location and that it be no higher than 35 feet above grade. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would prefer a shorter structure at the original location. Ken Wilton, 20405 Cox Avenue, stated that one antennae is not objectionable but how do you deny future requests to install antennas on retail buildings. He indicated that most of the neighbors oppose the request. Marc Kocir, 12795 Saratoga Road, questioned the need for these antennas in Saratoga. He felt that the residents of Saratoga object to these antennas. He noted that Mayor Jacobs has indicted that telephone poles are to be undergrounded along Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road up towards the Village. He asked why residential areas are now being selected for antennae sites. Mr. O'Brian responded that the process is part of a large network and that sites are selected in intervals, noting that antennas are sited along the freeways to serve commuters as well as the community. This site is a localized infill site to serve the community, noting that the antennae would be virtually invisible. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:46 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour stated that he has no personal interest in the request and felt that the use would benefit the general public. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she attended work sessions where it has been indicated that there is a need for these antennas. This is a world wide event and that in this case, it would benefit everyone who resides in the city or travels through the city. She felt that this was an ideal location for the proposed use. Commissioner Murakami asked if this would be a multiple user site? Planner Walgren stated that it could be, noting that two new applications have been submitted. Commissioner Pierce stated that the Commission has been reviewing these requests for the past six months that he has been on the Commission. He indicated that he attended the work sessions in Long Beach with Chairwoman Kaplan relating to this issue. He stated that if the City of Saratoga had commercial areas, antennas could be located within those areas. He noted that Saratoga was primarily a residential city. He felt that the City needs to deal with these uses as best that it could. He felt that this antenna was sited adjacent to the oak trees and that it would be screened. PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 13 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ALTERNATE SITE AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, ADJACENT TO THE CREEK. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -96 -008. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. UP -96 -009 - PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES /CITY OF SARATOGA; CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK; Request for Use Permit approval to construct a 34 ft. tall monopole antenna at Congress Springs Park on Glen Brae Dr. An environmental Initial Study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for each individual project and site pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Mr. O'Brian stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation. Madeline Chiavetta, 19548 Chardonnay Court, felt that the park was an eye sore due to the lack of maintenance. She felt that individuals are hesitant in moving into this area, noting that the older homes are depreciating in value with the construction of newer homes. She stated her opposition to the request. Bernard Vogel, 13010 Glen Brae Drive, indicated that he resides adjacent to the park. He stated that he was not contacted by Pacific Bell regarding their proposal. He indicated that he received a weeks notice of the request and that he submitted a letter to be included in the Commission's packet. He did not believe that the weeks notice was enough time to inform adjacent residents of tonight's meeting. He felt that technology needs to be dealt with in a very prudent fashion and that there are more than scientific reasons why sites are selected (i.e., financial reasons). He recommended that the City consider sharing the burden because he felt that this park already shares more than its fair share of poles. Commissioner Asfour informed the public that the issue of antennas, in general, has been before the Commission for the past six months but that this is the first time that the Commission is reviewing these use permit requests. Commissioner Abshire asked the applicant if there was a technical reason why one of the existing poles could not be used? Mr. O'Brian responded that the poles holding the net are of a wood design and that it is not structurally designed for this antenna. PLANNING COMMIS: V MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 14 - Commissioner Murakami noted that there were existing utility towers located adjacent to this field and asked if there would be transmission interference with the existing towers. Mr. O'Brian responded that there would not be transmission interference because there would be a difference in frequencies. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Murakami felt that this was one of the better sites for the antennae as it blends in with what exists on the site. Commissioner Pierce asked staff if Sprint has applied for a use permit application for this site? Community Development Director Curtis stated that Sprint has submitted an application at the far end of Congress Springs Park and that it is scheduled for an August 14, 1996 public hearing. Commissioner Pierce recommended that both requests be considered at the same time to view its location in relationship to the park to minimize the impact of multi- users. He recommended that the pole be relocated to the tennis court area. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that this was a perfect site as it was located adjacent to the freeway and that it already contained a number of poles. Approval would require that the site be cleaned up. Planner Walgren stated that a maintenance district has been established for the maintenance of the park and that it is likely that the property owner would be required to participate in the district. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:18 P.M. TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD AGREE TO A CONTINUANCE. Commissioner Asfour asked if the applicant would be willing to relocate the antenna closer to the tennis courts? Mr. O'Brian stated that he supported the proposed location because it fits with the network established. He indicated that he would agree to a condition that would stipulate that he is to cooperate with Sprint if they want to explore the possibility of co- location of this site. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:21 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not support the placement of the antennas in the middle of the park and recommended that they be located at either end of the park. He stated that he accepts the applicant's explanation/preference. PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 15 - Commissioner Abshire stated that he had a credibility concern and that he did not believe that moving the antenna a couple hundred of yards to the east would create a technical problem. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR UP- 96 -09. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -96 -09 AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, MURAKAMI, KAPLAN: NOES: ABSHIRE, PIERCE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 7. DR -96 -035 - MUELLER; 14840 MONTALVO ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 213 sq. ft. first story addition and a 1,075 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 3,226 sq. ft. single story residence. The subject property has a net site area of 20,400 sq. ft. and is located within the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:27 p.m. Doug Todd, architect, concurred with staff's recommendation. He felt that the design was compatible to the existing homes. He addressed the privacy concern as they relate to the proposed upper windows. He provided the Commission with photos depicting the line of site. Mr. Mueller, applicant, indicated that he spoke to the neighbors to the south who have indicated that they do not object to the request. Iqbal Husain, 13271 Via Arriba, expressed concern with the reduction in privacy. He requested that additional landscaping be required to mitigate his privacy concern. Commissioner Murakami stated that at the site visit, the Commission felt that there was adequate tree coverage and that the applicant has indicated that he would be willing to install additional landscaping to address Mr. Husain's concern. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -035 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 16 - 8. DR -96 -021 - BASU; 21777 VINTAGE LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,528 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant, hillside lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 1.57 acres and is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:36 p.m. Walter Chapman, project designer, thanked staff for its assistance in the redesign following being informed that trace faults exist on the property. He felt that efforts have been made to minimize the impact to the oak grove of trees and to grading of the site, taking into consideration the neighbors' concerns. He noted that shifting the home downhill would require the removal of six additional trees. He addressed the pavilion architectural feature. Bill Heiss, civil engineer, addressed the building envelop and indicated that he had no prior knowledge of the faults. He also addressed the boundary lines of buildable area and the 30 foot public service easement. He further stated that the geologist did not believe that the pool would create a safety concern. Chairwoman Kaplan requested clarification regarding the proposed gate. Mr. Chapman indicated that a gate is proposed to be installed at the driveway as the entire area has been fenced in to contain a dog. Evert VanDeven, 21615 Vintage Lane, President of the Saratoga Heights Homeowners Association, stated that he was pleased that the proposed home would be consistent with the existing buildings. He was also pleased with the fact that the six trees are to be retained for screening purposes. He stated that he did not have a problem with the proposed plans for a single story home. He requested that the city engineer review the drainage plans as there have been many landslides in the area. Patrick Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, indicated that he did not receive plans for this proposal until Sunday because they were sent to the vacant lot D. He objected to the location and the height of the structure. He felt there were some inconsistencies with the geotechnical findings from previous reports. He requested that a second opinion be obtained to verify the findings. He expressed concern that the hillside home would be visible to every home in the neighborhood. He felt that the home would infringe on his family's privacy, noting that his views would be obstructed. He requested that the height of the home be reduced as a 26 foot height limitation seems to be excessive. He also requested that the home be redesigned to reduce the height of the structure or that this item be continued so that he could have adequate time to review the plans. Commissioner Asfour inquired about the discrepancies between the prior geotechical report and this geotechnical report. Planner Walgren stated that the discrepancy could be as a result of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. He also noted that at the time Mr. Heiss submitted an application, it was not a city requirement that these properties receive PLANNING COMMIS, v MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 17 - geotechnical clearances in advance of the public hearing. If permits were pursued, the geotechnical information would have come up later in the process (building permit stage). Commissioner Asfour noted that the applicant has an approved geotechnical report and that the Commission would be willing to accept the report. He asked Mr. Saffarian, for the record, if he would be willing to fund the completion of a second geotechnical report? Mr. Saffarian responded that his family would be willing to fund another geotechnical report. James Saffarian, 21519 Saratoga Heights Drive, noted that lot 33 shows fault traces. He did not believe that the geologist reviewed every part of the lot to determine whether there were other faults. He requested that this item be continued or that the Commission require that the home be sited higher on the site to preserve the existing trees. Marie Rose Gaspar, area resident for 46 years, stated that she did not have an opportunity to review the plans. She requested that the Commission continue this item to allow her the opportunity to complete her studies (i.e.,have her architect study the plans and to hire an engineer to determine if a home other than what is being proposed can be built). Commissioner Asfour asked staff to advise the audience if project plans are normally mailed with the public notices? Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that plans are not mailed to the adjacent property owners. However, the notices indicate that plans are available in the Community Development Department for review. John Aldrich, project landscape architect, informed the Commission that the project would add 18 more trees and that the recommendation of the arborist would be followed. Radha Basu, applicant, informed the Commission that she purchased the lot from Mrs. Gaspar. She stated that it was a surprise to her to find that trace faults exist on the property. She stated that this was the only location that the home could be sited. She indicated her willingness to install additional landscaping to address Mrs. Gaspar's concerns. Commissioner Asfour noted that Ms. Basu has stated that she would like to site the home where it was originally proposed. He asked if Ms. Basu would be willing to continue this item to allow the completion of additional studies. Ms. Basu responded that she would not support a continuance as it would cause a delay in construction. Mr. Chapman stated that further studies would not result in additional findings and that a continuance would result in delay of construction due to weather conditions. He indicated that screening is proposed above the vineyard area to provide the neighbors with privacy and screening from the proposed home. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:11 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PLANNING COMMIS V MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 18 - Commissioner Murakami felt that the applicant was severely constrained as far as siting the home. He stated that he did not object to the two story home. He felt that the trees that had to be removed were addressed with the replacement policy. He indicated that he would support the application. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would have preferred a single story structure. He indicated that he would accept the geotechnical report and support the application. Commissioner Pierce stated that he visited the site and indicated that he would support the application. Commissioner Abshire indicate that he would support the request with mixed emotions. He stated that he would have preferred to see a lower and smaller structure, but he noted that City ordinance allows this design construction. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the Commission visited the site and could not find any reason not to approve the application. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -035. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 9. DR -96 -032, SD- 1567.2 - YEN; 20988 BURNETT DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,462 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant lot pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request to modify a condition of the subdivision approval which limited the allowable floor area to 4,800 sq. ft. The subject property is 1.27 acres and is governed by the standards of the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He recommended that this item be continued to the August 14, 1996 to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise the plan to reduce the mass of the home and the innateness of the structure. Should the Commission wish to approve the request, staff would prepare resolutions of approval for its next meeting. Should the applicant not be willing to modify the design, the Commission could deny the request and staff would return with a resolution of denial. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 11:19 p.m. David Pruitt, project designer, indicated that a design change has been completed to mitigate staff's concerns. He furnished the Commission with reduced, revised elevation plans for its review and identified the changes made to the plans. He noted that the landscape plans have been revised to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He stated that it would be difficult to design a home that would not impact the neighbors. He indicated that he would be willing to work with the neighbors to screen the property with the installation of additional shrubs and trees. He felt that visibility from the front street can be mitigated. He requested a decision this evening due to the applicant's time constraints. PLANNING COMMIS V MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 19 - Raymond Sinsley, 12280 Farr Ranch Road, stated that he helped create Beauchamps Lane. He stated that the maximum allowable square footage is 4,800 square feet according to the CC &Rs. Mr. Pruitt stated that he is a little over the 4,800 square feet due to the raising of the ceiling in the attic area for storage. He felt that the size of the lot and the constraints of the lot merits consideration of the increased square footage. He noted that this parcel was required to install a fire hydrant where other parcels were not required to do so. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI / ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:32 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Asfour asked if the CC &Rs restrict the size of the home to 4,800 square feet? Planner Walgren indicated that the 4,800 square feet restriction was made as part of the original subdivision conditions. He informed the Commission that the title report submitted to staff did not have the CC &Rs attached. Commissioner Pierce noted that staff has not had an opportunity to review the design submitted this evening. Commissioner Murakami stated that staff's concerns have not been mitigated and that he concurred with staff's recommendation. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern that a buyer purchased a property with restrictions. She felt that the residents of Saratoga do not want the city approving projects contradicting what was originally approved. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not be willing to approve the request this evening. Should this item be continued, he requested that staff research the CC &Rs to review the restrictions. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that what is being requested was a change to the subdivision and that she would not make changes to what was originally approved. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the CC &Rs would take precedent over an amendment by the Commission. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the material composition of the driveway? Planner Walgren responded that a concrete driveway is proposed. Commissioner Pierce expressed concern with the size of the driveway and its surface. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBIC HEARING TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO REDESIGN THE MASSIVE LOOK OF THE HOUSE AND THAT THE DRIVEWAY MATERIAL BE CHANGED TO A PERVIOUS MATERIAL. w PLANNING COMMIS; V MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 20 - Mr. Pruitt stated his agreement to a continuance. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SD- 1567.2 TO AUGUST 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS PATRICK AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Ms. Yen, applicant, indicated that this was not the only request for an over sized home as a 5,500 square foot home has been built in the area. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. DR -96 -019 & 020; 13925 Trinity Ave. & 20755 Pontiac Ave. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the builder is requesting that the two elevation trims be switched. He stated that the adjacent neighbors have expressed concern with the change in elevation. He noted that the applicant is also requesting a square foot adjustment to lots 1 and 2, noting that the homes are well under the lot and floor coverage allowed. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she and Commissioner Siegfried received a call from Jean Williams who was informed by the construction crew that the homes had been switched. Ms. Williams expressed concern that the neighbors were not notified of the proposed changes. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the additional 50 square feet to lot 1 would bring the proposed home to 3,892 square feet where the code allows 4,000 square feet. For lot 2, the house was approved at 3,800 square feet and that it is now proposed to be 4,000 square feet where 4,100 square feet is allowed. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would support the requested modification with the stipulation that the modifications have not yet been completed without benefit of review and approval. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it would not be appropriate to approve the design modification only to rescind it in the future. He informed the Commission that if the applicant commenced construction of the design change without benefit of approval, the applicant would be required to pay a double fee at the building permit stage. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not believe that the size was appropriate. Therefore, he could not support the request. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN APPROVAL. PLANNING COMMIS; J MINUTES JULY 24, 1996 PAGE - 21 - COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the letter submitted by Ms. Nieman does not accurately reflect the action taken by the Planning Commission on the Wong application located on Chadwick Court, noting that the Commission followed City codes. She also stated that when the Commission drove up to Aloha to Lomita, where a remodel has taken place, the Commission noted that the oak tree had debris and construction material located adjacent to the tree. Planner Walgren stated that he spoke with the property owner and with the city arborist. He informed the Commission that the City arborist was aware that the fencing was removed. He noted that the construction has been completed and that a walkway was being constructed underneath the tree. He indicated that the City arborist has been requested that he revisit the site. Commissioner Pierce stated that he attended a bicycle meeting and that the Committee was enthusiastic about the access through at the Stitch property. Commissioner Asfour informed the Commission that he has advised the Mayor that he would not be seeking reappointment to the Commission as his schedule would not allow him to continue serving as a Commissioner. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 6/29, 7/3, 7/5, 7/9/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 14, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC072496.SAR r ,ANNING COMMISSION MINU' JULY 10, 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: Abshire, Asfour, Murakami, Patrick, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Kaplan, Pierce Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren. City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 6/26/96 COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 26, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 2, paragraph 7 amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he ....................... visited the site with Mr. KeffielFelk! on Sunday.... " ................. .................. Page 5, paragraph 4 amended to read: "...Herecommended the use of lighter ................. colors for the home.... - Page 11, paragraph 4, last sentence amended to read: "...He indicated that the City ....... ............................... h 4t€ic' jurisdiction of this parcel.... " ....... ........................ :...... ....... ............................... Page 13, paragraph 3 amended to read: "...Sheasked if it was felt that staff's _.. the Ct': Councils`'d y: ...... <.....: not make a one way or another to the Commission. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -0 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 2 - July 3, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there was 1 technical correction to the packet. That correction occurs to agenda item 4, V -96 -009; 20890 Hidden View Lane (Williams). He indicated that the project was advertised as a variance (11 feet) from the side yard setback where 12 feet is required. He noted that the table located on page 3 of the staff report lists the side yard setback as 12 feet and that it should be corrected to read 11 feet. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -004 - BURKE, 13485 VILLA OAKS LN.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 15 acre (gross) Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision into three individual lots of 6.1, 5.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district (preparation of approval Resolutions continued to 7/24/96 at the joint request of the applicant and City Engineer; City review deadline is 9/20/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Asfour requested the removal of agenda item 2 in order to change the recommended continuance date. 3. DR -96 -022 - SUN, 14360 DOUGLASS LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,820 sq. ft. two -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. An additional request has been made to grade within an open space easement /riparian area. The subject property is 65,166 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district (continued to 7/24/96 at the request of the applicant for additional time to complete plan revisions; City review deadline is 11/1/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED / ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. 2. DR -95 -048 - CLARK, 12189 PARKER RANCH ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,366 square foot two -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code. The subject property is approximately 47,180 square feet in gross area and is located in a Hillside PLANNING COMMIS, 'N MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Residential zoning district (continued to 7/24/96 at the request of the applicant for additional time to complete plan revisions; City review deadline is 1/9/97). Commissioner Asfour stated that staff has recommended that the public hearing for agenda item 2 be continued to August 14, 1996. COMMISSIONER ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 2 TO AUGUST 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. V -96 -009 -WILLIAMS, 20890 HIDDEN VIEW LN.; Request for Variance approval to allow a detached 528 sq. ft. garage to be constructed partially within a required side yard setback - the garage would be located 11 ft. from the south property line where 20 ft. is the minimum setback required. The property is 2.06 acres in size and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no speakers for agenda item 4. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:36 P.M. Commissioners Siegfried and Abshire indicated that they did not have a problem with the variance request. Commissioner Murakami stated that he and vice - chairwoman Patrick visited the site and indicated that he did not have any problem with the request. Vice - chairwoman Patrick concurred that she did not have a problem with the request. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -009 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. 5. S -96 -002 & V -96 -012 - SANFILIPPO, 18809 COX AVENUE; Request for approval to construct a new 25 sq. ft., 5.6 ft. tall, externally illuminated, freestanding, multi - tenant redwood identification sign for the Quito Courtyard office building. The application includes a Variance request to locate the sign 10 ft. from the front property line, where 15 ft. is the minimum setback required per the City Code. The subject property is located within the C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami inquired as to the setback requirements for the commercial zoning district? He asked whether adequate spacing could be provided in the future to avoid this situation? Planner Walgren responded that signs are typically approved as part of the center's development under a use permit, noting that they were always located within the front yard setback. If monument signs are proposed, they are located away from the building, within the front of the property. He felt that there should be an exception for signs in commercial districts. If a commercial building meets other criteria, staff did not believe that a sign would need to meet a building setback requirement. Commissioner Abshire asked if there is to be a street number placed on the sign. Planner Walgren responded that an address number would be located at the top of the sign. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public hearing at 7:39 p.m. There were no speakers for agenda item 5. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:39 P.M. Commissioners Murakami and Siegfried stated their support of the request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -012 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. S -96 -002 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. 6. DR -96 -026, V -96 -006 - VIDANAGE,12528 SPRING BLOSSOM COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,741 sq. ft. single story residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 14,004 sq. ft. The application includes a Variance request to allow the structure to deviate from the lot depth percentage -based rear yard setback. The property is located within the R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that condition 3 addresses the concerns raised by the neighbors that the pad grade may be changed during construction. He noted that condition 3 specifies that the building has to be built at the existing grade level and that this would be verified by a civil engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff recommended approval of the design review and variance to the rear yard setback. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public hearing at 7:43 p.m. PLANNING COMMIS,' v MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 5 - David Britt, project designer, concurred with the staff report and indicated that he would agree to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Murakami inquired as to the height of the building pad. He indicated that one of the homes that has been built in this area was recently raised two feet and that a question was raised regarding this lot as far as whether this lot would also be raised. Mr. Britt responded that there were two homes currently under construction. He indicated that lot 4 was built on the existing grade instead of digging out the required subfloor. Lot 5 has provisions to require that the subfloor be excavated. Therefore, it would not be raised. He noted that the Kerwin Ranch subdivision was built similar to that of lot 4. Vice - chairwoman Patrick noted that a lot of dirt has been piled on the lot. She asked what the applicant intends to do with the dirt? Mr. Britt responded that it was his belief that the applicant would use the dirt for landscaping or that it would be smoothed out over the lot. Commissioner Siegfried asked staff about the difference in foundation construction. He asked if a condition was included to require grading at the required subfloor. Planner Walgren responded that the resolution includes conditions that would ensure that the building does not exceed 18 feet from the current grade. Paul Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, indicated that he lives directly behind the home that was raised (lot 4). He expressed concern that he nor Mr. Lau received notice of this hearing, noting that a neighbor informed him of this meeting. He indicated that Mrs. DeBianco received her public notice on Monday and that she was not able to attend the meeting nor submit her comments in writing regrading this request. He requested that the variance be denied as he did not receive notice of this public hearing. He indicated that he went to the building department to obtain information regarding setback requirements, noting that the Ordinance was adopted in 1992 that stipulates that all vacant lots are required to have 25 percent of their yard depth at their rear setback which would equal 45 feet in this case. He felt that the City should make homes comply with city codes. He asked if other homes would be exempt from meeting setback requirements? He felt that there were enough individuals present that are concerned with the construction of the home on this site. If the variance is considered and granted, he felt that the City may need to consider Measure G and put the request before the voters. Commissioner Murakami asked Mr. Campbell if he received the original notice on the development itself. Mr. Campbell responded that he has been present since 1991 when development occurred and that he was notified of previous hearings and that he was in attendance at those meetings. Commissioner Asfour asked staff to clarify to the audience the status of this request regards to Measure G. Community Development Director Curtis stated that this project was not one that was subject to Measure G. PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Sue Campbell, 12578 Wardell Court, indicated that she resides adjacent to this property. She concurred with the comments as expressed by her husband. It was her belief that the neighbors were intentionally deleted from receiving notice of this request. She felt that the applicant does not want the neighbors to be notified. She felt that the lack of notice warrants denial of the variance request and that she felt that city codes should be followed. Ann Ryan, 20563 Wardell Road, informed the Commission that she resides directly behind the fence from the home being considered for a variance. Her husband and her neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. DeBianco strongly oppose any variance that would place the home closer to the fence. Having the home overlooking her fence would be unbearable. She requested that the variance be denied. Commissioner Abshire asked how far back Mrs. Ryan's home was from the lot line. Ms. Ryan responded that she did not have that information. Commissioner Asfour asked staff to identify the location of the neighbors who addressed the Commission this evening. Planner Walgren identified the lots as being lots 68 and 73 as shown on the vicinity map. Mr. Britt stated that he felt that the design proposed was a reasonable solution for this difficult site. He felt that the home was designed to be compatible with the existing homes and the subdivision. He felt that if the home was designed with a 45 foot rear setback, the home would be pushed up closer to the eastern and the southern property lines, adversely affecting the adjacent homes, making the home less compatible with those of the neighborhood. Vice - chairwoman Patrick noted that the rear property line jogs back further than the adjacent parcels. Mr. Britt indicated that the rear property line was setback 15 feet further than lots 78 and 79. He stated that he did not know how far the home located on lot 60 was setback from the rear property line. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his belief that the neighbors were upset that they were not notified of this hearing date. Community Development Director Curtis stated that a speaker indicated that the applicant intentionally left the neighbors' names off the list. He clarified that the owner does not generate the hearing list. He indicated that the City contracts to a provider who uses the latest County Tax Assessors Roll. He stated that he would need to review the file to determine who was notified of this hearing date. Commissioner Siegfried stated that Vice - chairwoman Patrick brought up a good point that the rear property line jogs back further than lots 78 and 79. He indicated that his initial reaction was to grant the variance. However, he was not sure whether the applicant should PLANNING COMMIS; v MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 7 - take another look at redesigning the home to achieve a greater setback. He stated that he was sympathetic with the applicant and that the adjacent neighbors would need to understand that the lot was created under a different ordinance than what currently exists. Under the previous ordinance, it was believed that a 25 foot rear setback would be sufficient. He felt that a problem exists and that it could be addressed by some form of variance. He recommended that the applicant be requested to return with a redesign. Commissioner Murakami stated that he senses hostility with the neighbors. He felt that maybe the developer may have had a poor relationship with the neighbors. He concurred with the recommendation that the applicant investigate a redesign. Commissioner Abshire felt that this parcel could be interpreted as a flag lot. In view of the neighbors' comments, he could not approve the variance. He recommended that the applicant consider a redesign. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his belief that this parcel was a flag lot. He emphasized that these six lots were created under a different code than currently exists. He felt that the property line needs to be reviewed and that alternative designs be considered. Vice - chairwoman Patrick stated that she felt that the lot was a flag lot and that she understood the difficulty in applying newer restrictions onto older sites. Because this property jogs back 15 feet, the City would be siting a home 10 feet back from where the other homes are sited. She understood that this was a difficult site but that she was not sure if alternatives have been considered to address the neighbors' concerns. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he could not find the public hearing mailing list. He stated that it has been represented that noticing was not received and that he could not verify this fact. He stated that staff would further investigate this issue should the Commission continue this item. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED / ASFOUR REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:07 TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR REQUEST THAT ACTION BE TAKEN THIS EVENING. Mr. Britt stated that the home could be redesigned to reduce the rear setback and that he would agree to a continuance. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DR -96 -026 AND V -96 -006 TO AUGUST 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND CHAIRWOMAN KAPLAN ABSENT. 7. DR -96 -024 - HAN,19121 DAGMAR DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval construct a 642 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing single story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 8,036 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMIS' N MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He noted that this would be the first, two story home proposed in this existing residential tract. He requested that the Commission make a statement as to whether the approval of a two story home is the type of precedent that it is comfortable in setting in this residential neighborhood. Staff recommended approval of the request. Vice - chairwoman Patrick opened this item to public hearing at 8:10 p.m. No comments were offered for agenda item 7. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:11 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that the Commission visited the neighborhood and that typically, input from the neighbors was a reason to deny a two -story request. He noted that there was no input from the neighborhood. He felt that this was an older neighborhood that transitioned from the freeway. He felt that the design was a vast improvement to what exists today. He stated that he did not have a problem with the fact that this would be the first, two story home in this area as it was nicely designed. Commissioner Abshire agreed with the comments expressed by Commissioner Murakami. He noted that the home would be located adjacent to the freeway. He did not believe that a two story home adjacent to the freeway would be a good idea due to the noise generated from freeway traffic. He felt that this could be a long term problem. However, he believed that it was a nicely designed project and improved the neighborhood. Commissioner Siegfried agreed with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Murakami and felt that it was a nicely designed home. He stated that he was not concerned that this would be the first, two story home design in this neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami suggested that when the applicant constructs the home, that the applicant consider the use of extra insulation, including the installation of double pained window or any other materials that would mitigate freeway noise. Commissioner Asfour stated that he had no problem with the request as it was a well designed home. Vice - chairwoman Patrick concurred with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED / ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -024 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis noted that the Commission historically cancels its PLANNING COMMIS' v MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 9 - second meeting in August. He inquired if the Commission was in agreement of cancelling its August 28 meeting? BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION AGREED TO CANCEL ITS AUGUST 28 MEETING. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that an appeal has been filed by the Giberson regarding DR -96 -015 and V -96 -003: Wilson/Davison, 15580 Peach Hill Road and that the appeal request has been scheduled for the City Council's August 7 meeting. It was noted that the appeal was not from the immediate neighbors. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR -95 -050 - Pinn Brothers Construction; 14315 Taos Drive - Request for minor modification to an approved project. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that staff supports the request to increase the floor area by 136 square feet as staff did not believe that it would make a difference in the overall approved design. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 6/19/96 2. Notices for 7/24/96 Planning Commission meeting Oral City Council Commissioner Abshire informed his fellow Commissioners that he attended the last City Council meeting. He informed the Commission that most of the discussion related to the Warren Hutton house as far as opening up for use. The Council agreed to open the home to the youth and to share the cost of approximately $12,000 a year with the youth group. He also indicated that his packet contained the Commission's attendance record. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 24, 1996, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING COMMIS` N MINUTES JULY 10, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC071096. SAR ANNING COMMISSION MINUTi -1 JUNE 26, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Asfour, Murakami Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren, and Planner Bradley City Attorney Riback was not present this evening. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 6/12/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 12, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 7, paragraph 4 amended to add the following to the end of the paragraph: "...events.He also indicated that he would not allow the use of an amplified system Page 9, paragraph 3, line 12 amended to read: "...the northwest corner of the ............ pfopefty - 4 �S.:: :.r A . and t� tie `, have the existing home above.... Page 16, paragraph 3, line 5 amended to read "...did believe that the home fits the neighborhood.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 21, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. PLANNING COMMISIS d MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 2 - CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. SD -95 -004 - BURKE, 13485 VILLA OAKS LN.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 15 acre (gross) Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision into three individual lots of 6.1, 5.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. from 6/12/96 at the request of the Planning Commission to revisit the site; City review deadline is 9/20/96) Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that this item was continued from the Commission's last meeting to allow the Commission the opportunity to revisit the site and to better understand the location of the three building pads. Staff recommended that the Commission take additional testimony on this item. He informed the Commission that Public Works Director Perlin was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Should the Commission agree that special circumstances exist that warrant approval of the subdivision, staff would return with a resolution of approval. If the Planning Commission does not want to reconsider this subdivision further, staff would prepare a denial resolution for its next meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the Commission could limit the configuration /location of the driveway which was viewed at the site visit should the Commission approve the subdivision? She wanted to make sure that there is no access across the canyon. Planner Walgren indicated that a condition can be added that would stipulate that this is the approved development plan and that it cannot be deviated. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Thomas Burke, Jr., son of the applicant, indicated that he would agree to the condition which would restrict the location of the driveway to save the oak tree located to the right of the driveway. He indicated that this request was a solution to a sedimentation problem that comes from the old quarry. He stated that clean up work to the creek would be completed and accepted prior to final map approval. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he visited the site with Mr. Teerlink on Sunday. He felt that the request was a good solution to the quarry creek problem. Commissioner Abshire stated that at the last meeting, the Commission could not see a building site for parcel 3, but he indicated that the Commission could see a building pad at the site visit. PLANNING COMMISS 1 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he was also invited to a site visit but indicated that he was not able to make the site visit. He stated that he had heard from Mr. Garrod who had some concerns as a member of the water company, noting that any objections that the water district had have since been withdrawn. He felt that the problem requires extraordinary actions and efforts on the part of the city. Chairwoman Kaplan agreed with the comments as expressed by her fellow Commissioners and requested that staff prepare a resolution of approval with an added condition to address the concern for the driveway and the oak tree. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -004 WITH A CONDITION TO BE INCLUDED THAT WOULD STIPULATE THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY TO PROTECT THE TREE. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. 2. DR -96 -002 - LUMINOSO, 14010 PIKE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing single story 1,721 sq. ft. residence and construct a new 3,917 sq. ft. two -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 22,527 sq. ft. and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if staff had a response to Ms. Witkin's allegation that the slope density calculation was contradictory to Saratoga's HR Residential Hillside District, Article 15 -13? She stated that her reading of this section does not agree with Ms. Witkin's analysis. Planner Bradley responded that there may have been a point of confusion on how staff derived at the allowable floor area calculations. She indicated that there was no validity to Ms. Witkin's reference to the code requirement. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Fred Luminoso, applicant, indicated that when he moved to the site four years ago, he discussed improvements to the property with the Witkins. He was surprised with the bitter attack of his proposal. He presented the Commission with exhibits that contained photographs of homes located on Pike Road. He noted that some of the homes were large, dominating, and imposing structures. He indicated that a neighbor contiguous to his property granted him an easement to allow him to access Perata Court. He indicated that for the past three years, he has been preparing a proposal for his dream home. He felt that he resides in a neighborhood that is in transition. He indicated that in 1994, he spoke with Ms. Witkin and informed her that he would be willing to work with her to preserve her privacy in every way possible. He provided the Commission with additional pictures taken in September 1994 that depict the views that he and the Witkins would have of each others PLANNING COMMIS." d MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 4 - home /property. He stated that he took exception that Mr. Fredkin, attorney, and the Witkins came onto his property, unannounced to inspect the property. He indicated that he invited Ms. Witkin to review the drawings so that he could explain the location of the windows, keeping her concerns in mind. Jerry Ceppos, 14550 Pike Road, noted that Pike Road was in a rural, pastoral state. He felt that the height of the home would clash with the rest of the neighborhood. His view would be that of the gigantic red tile roof that would jog through the trees. He stated that he was never consulted regarding the proposal and that he did not know about the proposal until he received notice of the hearing. He recommended that a single story home with the use of different colors be considered with a guarantee that trees would protect views. Mark Fredkin, attorney for the Witkins, indicated that there was nothing personal about the Witkins' concern about their property. He indicated that the Witkins were not shown these particular plans until they were noticed about this hearing. He indicated that there were three issues of concerns that needed to be considered. The concerns were as follows: 1) this lot has been grandfathered in, noting that the house would not be allowed today; 2) the orientation of the home has been made such that there is not sufficient distance between the homes (setback and grade difference); and 3) there is substantial visibility of the proposed tile roof (privacy issue and concern with the existing, diseased trees on the Witkins' property). He requested that additional trees be required to be planted to provide screening. Also of concern was the color compatibility, tile roof, and the size of the lot. Marsha Witkin, 14020 Pike Road, indicated that her view would be that of the western elevation, noting that the elevation of the Luminoso property was higher than her lot. Her main concern was that of privacy as a large, two story home is being proposed, noting that the home would be looking down into her backyard, pool, hot tub and patio area. She felt that it was intrusive because of the closeness of the home to her property, and also because of the nature of the design and proposed color of the roof. She indicated that what looks like a good screening of trees would not last much longer because the trees are diseased. She expressed concern regarding screening. When she remodeled her home a few years ago, the Commission required that she provide a shield of tall fast growing evergreen trees along the southern property line to shield her home from the neighbors. Another concern was that the Luminoso's trees would be protected during construction, noting that her trees adjacent to the property line were not being protected. She requested that all trees be protected. Chairwoman Kaplan asked Ms. Witkin if she was planning to do anything with the trees with the knowledge that they were dying. Ms. Witkin indicated that the trees were planted 11 years ago and that it took 11 years to provide the screening. She requested that the Commission require additional screening. Tom Lustenachee, 14220 Pike Road, indicated that he resides a couple of blocks from the Luminoso's lot. He indicated that the roof was virtually invisible. However, he expressed concern with the use of red tile and requested that the color be toned down. PLANNING COMMIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Mr. Luminoso indicated that there are huge trees between his property and that of Mr. Bone's property. He indicated that Mr. Bone granted him an easement to help him build a two story home and that Mr. Bone had no problem with the red roof nor with the two story home. He acknowledged that his lot was grandfathered in. However, he noted that there were several, one acre lots that were grandfathered in. He also acknowledged that he is setback 20 feet from the lot line, noting that the setback is within the guidelines. He indicated that he was located 20 feet from the back of the Witkin's garage. He did not know why Ms. Witkin was not replacing the trees if they were dying. He indicated that he would be willing to plant a tree for every tree that Ms. Witkin plants between the dining room and the southern side. He indicated that he did not want to be boxed in with a number of redwood trees, closing him in (north of Ms. Witkins dining room). He noted that a private road exists that others are using illegally. Regrading the color of the roof, he indicated that the color was selected to blend with the environment. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that the old road that the Commission used to access the property was in poor condition. She noted that the project calls for the construction equipment to use the old road. She asked how the incremental damage caused by construction would be measured. Mr. Luminoso indicated that he has an agreement with his neighbor to the north (Mrs. Carlson) that the construction equipment would access the old road and that he would improve the road this winter. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:15 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that he came to the meeting willing to approve the home but that after hearing the arguments from the neighbors, he was not sure if he could approve the project. He indicated that he could not approve the red tile roof that would be visible. He recommended that an alternative color tile be selected. He recommended the use of darker colors for the home. He indicated that he would need to see changes before he could approve the request. Commissioner Pierce stated that it was unfortunate that the lot was small. He felt that the applicant made a reasonable effort to build within the lot. He stated that it appears to him that the color of the roof was that of an earth tone color and that it was not offensive to him. He recommended the planting of pines and redwood trees as offered by the applicant. He also recommended that Ms. Witkin consider tree plantings to mitigate her concerns. He indicated that he could support the request. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she was contacted by Mr. Fredkin regarding Ms. Witkin's concerns this afternoon. She recommended that a condition be added that would stipulate the planting of additional trees (tree for tree) should the project be approved. She indicated that if the roof color was that of the blended color indicated, she did not have a problem with it. Regarding the privacy concern expressed, she could not see any issues of invasion of privacy at the site visit, noting that the house was setback as required. She indicated that she could approve the request. PLANNING COMMIS. d MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Patrick stated that she wondered why the home was not set more into the hillside. She felt that additional landscaping would mitigate Ms. Witkin's privacy concern. She indicated that she could support the project as long as a red tile roof is not used. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that staff would recommend that a condition relating to the trees stipulate that trees are to be planted to provide adequate screening, irrespective of how many trees Ms. Witkin plants. Commissioner Abshire felt that the colors proposed would stand out like a beacon against a green area. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a color sample could be brought back to the Commission for its review. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that staff look at the color and that if staff does not feel that it is the appropriate color, staff is to bring the color back to the Commission for its review. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -002 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE SCREENING AS DETERMINED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. 3. DR -96 -003 - WONG, 21252 CHADWICK COURT; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,133 sq. ft. single story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 2.8 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. The application includes a request for exemption from the Hillside district grading regulations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that staff added a condition to the resolution to clarify that the required landscaping is to be installed prior to final occupancy. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about the cut and fill for the driveway as it would require 11 to 88 cubic yards of fill and the residence has 550 cubic yards of cut. She asked if the fill would be swapped on site? Planner Bradley responded that it appears that additional fill would be required. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. David Britt, project designer, indicated that the home complies with all the hillside zoning ordinances and that variances are not required. However, an exception is being requested for the driveway. He indicated that there was discussion early in the process of shared easement with the adjoining neighbor. However, the neighbor declined to share the easement because it would go through a large flat area on his parcel. He indicated that this PLANNING COMMIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 7 - was the best location for the driveway. Minimal grading would be required for the porte- cochere area in front of the house for a small turn around. He indicated that his client was sensitive to the many oak trees located on the property and every attempt was made to design around the trees to ensure their survival. He noted that the concerns expressed were from individuals who do not reside on Chadwick Court. The concerns expressed were that of changes made to the previously approved plans that expired 30 days after his client bought the property. He showed the Commission an overlay of the previously approved project and the current proposal depicting the location of the driveway and siting of the home. He informed the Commission that the turn around located by the garage is a fire department requirement. He noted that the home is set into the hillside to help minimize the height of the home and to mitigate the view of the home from that of the neighbors. Rosemary Wong, applicant, requested Commission approval of the proposal. She acknowledged the fact that the parcel had an illustrious past but that it was her intention to alleviate some of those ill feelings with the change of ownership. She stated that she positioned the home as far away from the neighbors as possible. The home has been angled so that it runs parallel along the knoll rather than perpendicular across the knoll. She noted that the proposed one story home is four feet lower than the code requires for height. She stated that she has no intention of drawing attention to the home by the use of color, size or its placement. She indicated that she approached the neighbor about a shared easement for driveway access, noting that a copy of that letter was attached to the Commission's packet. As the neighbor was not willing to grant the shared access easement, the proposed location was the only feasible access to the building pad. She addressed the Barka's land swap that was addressed in one of the letters submitted to the Commission and indicated that the land swap served as a fire protection break. She indicated that she intends to landscape that piece of property for protection reasons and to stop the parties that occur. She indicated that her closest neighbors located on Chadwick Court support the proposal. Bob Stark, 21247 Chiquita Way, provided the Commission with a handout which depicts how this proposal would affect him. He indicated that his home is sited on the ridge across from this site, 20 feet lower. He indicated that he reviewed some of the Commission meeting minutes of the previously approved plan and that he was convinced that the City was sensitive to the neighborhood's concerns for the site. He indicated that he purchased his home based on this policy. He indicated that the new proposed house plan came as a shock and as a surprise to him as so much effort and time was spent to establishing a regional plan. He felt that the new plan contradicts every promise made by the previous Planning Commission and violates city regulations. He felt that the City has mislead the neighbors by changing its policy. He identified the differences between the previously approved plans and the proposed plans. He indicated that he would have a view of a wall that is 160 feet long and 12 feet higher than the previously approved plan. The proposed garage doors directly face his views with no buffers proposed. The exposed hillside driveway was 50% less under the previous approval. Another concern was that the design proposes a 1,000 foot gallery that opens up directly to his home. It was designed for large crowds and gatherings, setting up a high traffic /activity situation. He felt that this use warrants additional buffers. PLANNING COMMISIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Ray Pionteck, 21195 Chiquita Way, addressed the difference between the previous proposal and the current proposal. He indicated that the home is proposed to be 6,133 square feet as opposed to 5,659 square feet. He addressed the elevation difference, noting that over 155 feet of roof line will be staring at him. He requested that the proposal be redesigned to address height, bulk and privacy. He also requested that the Commission conduct a site visit to be followed by a work session. Commissioner Pierce informed Mr. Pionteck that the Commission conducted a site visit and that they specifically viewed Mr. Pionteck's site. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not attend the site visit but that he has visited the site many times. Luanne Nieman, 13217 Padero Court, indicated that her property adjoins this site. She addressed the drainage problems that she has been experiencing. She informed the Commission that her home was located 12 feet from the creek. She indicated that for 9 years she has had to watch the Chadwick /Cocciardi property develop. She expressed concern with grading and setbacks. She also expressed concern with the approval of a lot line adjustment that extends the property by 40 feet with an informal statement that stipulates that no building is to occur within this 40 foot setback. She indicated that the building code allows construction in this 40 feet area. She stated that the property has a lot of history (i.e. drainage erosion and landscape problems). She did not believe that the drainage issues have been adequately addressed. She felt that the plans warrant further consideration. Ms. Wong indicated that her property was not considered a ridge as defined by city code. She noted that the staff report does not list any violations to city codes and regulations. She stated that she took great care in dividing the walls into four separate portions to provide interesting architectural features. She noted that the driveway does not face Mr. Stark, noting that it is at an angle to his home. Regarding the Pionteks' concerns, she informed the Commission that their home is listed for sale. Regarding the issue of privacy, she noted that all of her living space would be located to the north with her back to the Pionteks. She understood Ms. Nieman's concern regarding flooding and indicated that she would address this concern in the final landscape plan. Regarding the piece of property that was swapped, she indicated that there was a signed covenant that was attached to the bill of sale that states that no permanent structure, decking or swimming pool can be built in that area. Therefore, Ms. Nieman's privacy would not be impacted. Mr. Britt clarified that the height of this home would be 4.5 feet lower than the previously approved home. Commissioner Abshire inquired about the materials to used on the driveway. Mr. Britt responded that the driveway would be asphalt with a decorative border (i.e. brick). He noted that the plans show the use of interlocking pavers around the house but that the driveway would be of asphalt material. PLANNING COMMIS I MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Chairwoman Kaplan asked how big was the porte - cochere? Mr. Britt responded that it was approximately 40 feet from the front door to the outside of the circle. He stated that modifications were made to the driveway because of the large oak tree. He indicated that the length of the mandatory turn- around was approximately 180 feet. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern with the amount of paving proposed with the turn- around. She asked if it could be redesigned? Mr. Britt responded that the length of the driveway past the garage was required because of the fire turn- around requirement. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the garage could be relocated so that vehicles would not have to go across the hill. Mr. Britt responded that several options were reviewed but that they required additional grading. He indicated that the length of the driveway would not have a retaining wall as the driveway follows the existing contours and that the only grading required would be at the porte - cochere area. In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's concern with the expanse of the paved driveway, Mr. Britt indicated that he would not oppose the installation of additional trees to screen the headlights. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:53 P.M. Commissioner Patrick indicted that she liked the plans and the proposed landscaping. She felt that the plan works well. She indicated that the swap of the land occurred due to the concern of earth movement. She felt that the colors would blend nicely. Commissioner Abshire stated he likes crepe myrtle but that he did not believe that they would provide sufficient screening. Planner Bradley stated that the retaining wall proposed close to the entrance of the driveway was only three feet in height. Commissioner Pierce stated that he liked the design and the layout. He indicated that he was aware of the neighbors' concerns. He stated that the applicant has tried to mitigate the neighbors' view concerns. Given the nature of the location and the length of the driveway, necessitated by the lot configuration, he felt that a parking area was required for guests. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the size of the home was an overkill in terms of its size and the gallery room. However, he felt that the style of the home is compatible with the existing homes. He indicated that he could support the request. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if this site contributed to the drainage problem. Planner Walgren responded that there is a natural sheet flow of drainage that is coming off of this property that is going to the drainage system both to the north and south. All that can be done with a development like this is to make sure that the additional drainage collected from the building is properly directed into the drainage system through an outflow system with an energy dissipater and other engineering practices to minimize the amount of erosion that would occur. PLANNING COMMISIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she could support the request with the added condition that would require additional tree plantings along the driveway. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the additional planting of native trees would occur towards the top of the bank to provide screening. Planner Walgren indicated that a condition was included that required that the landscape plans be modified, noting that the condition could be modified to require additional screening along the driveway area. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he would be looking for a series of trees that would provide a breaking up of the building and not a solid row of trees to screen the entire building. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the trees are to provide screening for the driveway so that it does not appear to be prominent. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -003 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PARKING AREA. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. 4. DR -96 -015 & V -96 -003 - WILSON /DAVISON,15580 PEACH HILL RD.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,523 sq. ft. two -story residence on an undeveloped hillside parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Variance approval is also requested to allow the structure to deviate from lot depth percentage -based setbacks and to allow retaining walls within the required front yard in excess of 3 ft. in height. The 1.05 acre subject property was recently approved by the City Council to be annexed to Saratoga and will be in the Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. Michael Garibaldi, architect, provided the Commission with a schematic model of the proposed home. He indicated that the site contained constraints due to the slope of the lot and its irregularity. He indicated that he was sensitive towards any view blockage from adjacent properties, minimizing the building height /grading and respected the privacy of the adjacent parcels. He noted that the site is wooded but that it is not an evergreen -type forest. He felt that the site had a Mediterranean feel as does the home. Simple forms and simple materials are to be used to provide a comfortable feeling. He indicated that the backside of the structure is one and a half story and that the front of the home is a two story structure. PLANNING COMMIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Bob Gorski, 15600 Peach Hill Road, indicated that he resides across the driveway and stated his support of the project. However, he opposed the location of the garage due to the combination of setback and privacy. He felt that the setbacks appear to be wrong according to a survey he conducted on his property in 1993. He felt that there would be a major invasion of privacy. The proposal is for a two story garage and that it would be visible from his living areas (i.e., kitchen, living, and dining rooms). Also of concern were the two mature oak trees that are 14 inches in diameter that may be at risk. He requested that the lot lines be verified as there are two conflicting surveys. He requested that windows be minimized in the garage that are overlooking his living areas. He reiterated that he did not object to the home but requested that the garage structure be setback as far as possible taking into account the constraints of the slope. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she recognized the name of the next speaker (Mr. Massone) and that she was not sure if this was the name of the family who were friends to one of her sons. She indicated that this fact would not influence her decision. William Mussone, 15590 Peach Hill Road, indicated that he is the Wilson's nearest neighbors to the east. He indicated that he was not opposed to the structure. However, he had concerns regarding oak trees 1 and 2. It was his belief that oak tree 1 was going to die and that there was some question as to how tree 2 would be pruned. He felt that his curb appeal would be impacted if oak tree 2 dies. He indicated that there are questions as to where the proper lot lines are situated. He requested the opportunity to speak with the Wilsons to resolve this problem. He requested that the structure be setback as far as possible to the west, keeping the slopes and their constraints under consideration. Scott Jaunich, Berliner -Cohen Attorneys at Law, informed the Commission that he was retained by William Mussone and the Gorskis who are concerned with the location of the garage and the property line. He indicated that the property was measured and that it appears to be less than 20 feet setback. He requested that this item be continued so that the proper boundary lines can be defined. Also of concern were trees 1 and 2. He noted that the staff report identifies compensation for the loss of tree 1 but that there is no discussion regarding tree 2 other than its pruning. He indicated that the City does not have jurisdiction of this parcel as the annexation process has not yet been completed. Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive, expressed concern with the possible impacts of this project to the sewer system and the driveway location. She indicated that her concerns were outlined in the two page document she submitted to the Commission. She asked what studies or findings addressed the project's environmental impacts. She indicated that the annexation of the property went unnoticed and that there was no hearing nor information provided. She indicated that there have been problems with sewer going up the road. She felt that environmental review was warranted in view of the past history and the future right of way impacts from the sewer extension. Mr. Garibaldi indicated that the issue of privacy has been discussed with the neighbors. He acknowledged that this was a complex site. The garage is located as close to the road as possible. Shifting the house around would either increase the slope of the driveway or raise PLANNING COMMISIc 1 MINUTES - JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 12 - the garage structure, noting that it was at its height limit. He did not feel that there was a lot of latitude to accommodate the shifting of the garage, noting that the garage angles away from the property line. He felt that the removal of the windows from the wall would create a blank wall. He indicated that the oak trees have been protected as much as possible, compromising one of the trees. He requested that the item not be continued because doing so would delay construction into next year. Regarding sewer hook -up, he indicated that the sewer would be going to the street (Peach Avenue sewer system). Chairwoman Kaplan stated that it was her understanding that the only windows proposed in the garage area are located in the bedroom above the garage. Mr. Garibaldi confirmed that the windows were located in the bedroom above the garage. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the windows cannot be eliminated from a bedroom. She did not believe that individuals would stand at their bedroom windows looking at other individual's property. Mr. Wilson, applicant, indicated that he has in his possession a survey map, noting that his surveyor has located the iron pipes that mark the boundary lines. He felt that the discrepancies were limited to one or two feet. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:40 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan asked what should be done about the issue of the property lines. Planner Walgren responded that as a survey has been prepared by a registered civil engineer that shows the property lines noting that there is no reason to believe that this survey is not accurate. Commissioner Pierce recommended that the applicant's surveyor meet with the neighbor's surveyors to confirm property lines. Commissioner Patrick acknowledged the neighbors' concerns. However, in looking at the plans, it was her belief that the house was sited such that it would be least intrusive to the neighbors. Therefore she could support the request. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he visited the site and the he wished that the garage could be further away from Mr.- Gorski's property. He felt that it was unfortunate that the parcel was a narrow lot. He stated that he could support the request. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that the home was designed nicely on the lot and that she could make the variance findings. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -003 WITH THE FINDINGS AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI PLANNING COMMIS I MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 13 - ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -015. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that its next meeting is scheduled for July 9 at 7 p.m. He indicated that it would be a joint meeting with the City Council. Topics to be discussed are as follows: the hillside plan, Saratoga /Sunnyvale specific plan, and a design review task force presentation. COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Kaplan addressed the actions taken by the Council at its last meeting. She stated that in listening to the Council's review of the Costa's request, she noted that Mr. Costa changed his plans after review /action by the Planning Commission. The Council felt that Mr. Costa cooperated and compromised. She felt that if an applicant states that they are proposing a dream home, it gets approved by the Council, irrespective of the design review findings or anything else that the Commission has to say. She asked if the City Council is swayed by the applicant's comments that they (applicant) rely on staff's recommendationin the staff report to the Planning Commission. She recommended that staff not make a recommendation one way or another to the Commission. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that it was his job to make a recommendation to the Commission when appropriate. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 6/1; 6/5; 6/7; 6/11 2. Notices for 7/10/96 Planning Commission meeting Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 10, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING COMMISI� 1 MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996 PAGE - 14 - Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC062696.SAR r r ,ANNING COMMISSION MINU' JUNE 12, 1996 - City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce Late: None Absent: Asfour, Siegfried Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren, Public Works Director Perlin and City Attorney Riback Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 5/22/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 22, 1996 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 7, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -96 -008 - HUSAIN; 20140 MENDELSOHN LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,516 sq. ft. single -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 26,006 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 1 PLANNING COMMIS; 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -95 -048 - CLARK; 12189 PARKER RANCH ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 3,366 square foot two -story residence on an undeveloped parcel pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Saratoga City Code. The subject property is approximately 47,180 square feet in gross area and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He indicated that a letter was received from Thomas Liu, representing a neighboring property owner, expressing their concerns. Commissioner Murakami asked why the vertical design was approved by staff as it bothered him how the element goes straight up. Planner Walgren referred to the pages A4 and A5 of the elevation plants and indicated that the vertical tower elements and other elements tend to emphasize the vertical. Staff discussed with the applicant the potential of making design changes to eliminate the flat, tall wall surfaces. He informed the Commission that the applicants elected to pursue this design because they felt that the buildable area of the lot was restrictive and that they needed to stay with a two story design in order to achieve the square footage they were looking for. Ultimately, staff recommended approval of the application based on the fact that the home is six to eleven feet below the street grade which would have a significant affect on how much of the home would be seen. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if this was the property that proposed a long narrow driveway. She asked if the driveway design had been modified? Planner Walgren responded that changes have not been made to the plans. He indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed the plans at an informal design review workshop. Comments were given to the applicant to reduce the amount of paving, noting that the applicant has not modified the driveway. Staff did not believe that one would see the long length of paved surface from the street elevations. He informed the Commission that the majority of the house would be visible and that it would be set five to ten feet below the street. The line of sight would be five to ten feet above the finish grade and that the length of the driveway would be hidden from public view from the street. Staff indicated that . one of the considerations taken into account in its recommendation was that the house would have some sort of horizontal affect as you go past it and that you would not see all of the vertical elements. Commissioner Patrick felt that the lot coverage appears to be much greater than shown on the plan. Planner Walgren indicated that the applicant has covered over 50% of the pad area, including the driveway. Commissioner Abshire asked if two entrances to the driveway were necessary? Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:41 p.m. William Holl, project architect, noted that this was the last site in the subdivision to be developed. He felt that he was sensitive to the amount of mass that was created on the site PLANNING COMMIS: J MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 3 - so that it can be viewed and not become overwhelming. He indicated that the design of the home was such that it kept the vegetation in mind. He felt that he was able to mitigate the bulky appearance of the home and that the height, size and design of the home was compatible to those in the neighborhood. He provided the Commission with photographs of homes in the area to depict the homes' compatibility. He addressed the privacy concern of the adjacent neighbors and indicated that the existing and proposed vegetation to be installed would mitigate the neighbors' privacy concerns. He also addressed the design of the driveway, noting that the street comes uphill and crests at the intersection and then goes back down and that the design provides off street parking to prevent a hazard. The reason for secondary egress was due to the fact that the driveway at the top of the hill would create a dangerous situation (lack of visibility). He concurred with staff that most of the cut of the site was due to the driveway. He felt that the design review findings can be made to support the application Commissioner Abshire inquired as to the proposed landscaping to be installed between the driveway and the street level. Mr. Holl indicated that it was his belief that the entire area is to be landscaped with shrubbery that would grow four to five feet in height. Planner Walgren noted that ground cover, shrubbery and five crape myrtle trees were proposed to be planted in the front yard area between the driveway and the retaining walls. Thomas Liu, architect, representing Mr. and Mrs. Wu who reside at 12161 Parker Ranch, requested that the home be properly designed as it is a highly visible site. He also requested that the design of the home be made compatible to the existing homes. He provided the Commission with pictures of the Wu's home and of adjacent homes in the neighborhood. He noted that most of the existing homes were designed in such a manner that you do not recognize that they are two story homes. He expressed concern with the mass and bulk of the proposed home from Parker Ranch Road. He did not believe that the proposed design takes into account the Wu's privacy. He expressed concern with the geologic and geotechnical stability of the site (concern with potential landslide). He requested that the Commission defer approval of the request until such time that Mr. and Mrs. Wu hire a geotechnical consultant to complete an independent geotechnical study. Ms. Yuh -Ning Chen, 12161 Parker Ranch Road, read into the record a letter that she submitted to the Commission expressing her concerns of bulk; integration of the structure with the environment; interference with privacy; preservation of views; and design for energy efficiency. She requested that the Commission defer approval of the plans until such time that all reports are completed. Mr. Holl stated that the window placement took into account the neighbor's backyard privacy. He indicated that a recent geotechnical report was completed and that it has been reviewed by the City's geologist, noting that mitigation measures were included as part of the approval. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 P.M. PLANNING COMMIS: T MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Abshire stated that he understood the neighbors' concern of mass and bulk. He indicated that he was sympathetic with the fact that this was a difficult lot and that in order to obtain the square footage allowed, a second story was being proposed. He felt that additional landscaping would assist in breaking up the mass of the home. However, he did not believe that the trees proposed would provide affective screening. He recommended that evergreen trees be considered. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Abshire's comments. She stated that she was troubled with the bulk and mass in the design proposal. Also of concern was the impervious coverage of the driveway. She felt that there were alternatives that could be considered to mitigate her concerns (i.e., stepping the home down the hillside). She was troubled by the fact that the home does not fit into the environment. Also of concern were the two entrances proposed to the driveway. She recommended that the safest driveway access be approved. Based on her concerns, she could not approve the request. Commissioner Pierce agreed that evergreen trees be included to address the privacy concern. He stated that he could reluctantly approve the project, recognizing that it was a difficult lot. With the design being stepped down from the road and the inclusion of additional landscaping, he could reluctantly support the request. Commissioner Murakami stated that he had problems with the basic design of the home. He felt that a better job could be done by stepping down the home. The way the home is currently designed, the lower view stands out too much. When you look at the rear view of the home, it appears to go straight up. He felt that the design could be improved and therefore, he could not approve the request. Chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments of Commissioner Murakami and felt that some of the suggestions given at the informal work session could have been considered. She also indicated that she could not approve the design as presented. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:11 P.M. TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM OR WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM THIS EVENING. Mr. Holl requested that this item be continued. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 10, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 3. DR -96 -016 - CLIFFORD; 12985 PIERCE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,730 sq. ft. first story addition and a 618 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,584 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property has a net site area of 18,339 sq. ft. and is located within the R -1- 40,000 residential zoning district. PLANNING COMMIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that letters were received from Robert and Kathleen Moore, 12969 Foothill Lane, dated June 9, 1996 expressing concern with the windows facing into their rear yard area; and from George and Ruth Sanders, 12979 Foothill Lane, requesting that the Commission give careful consideration to the project. The Sanders also asked if they would be allowed to hook up to the sanitary sewer line that would be extended down to the new residence. He informed the Commission that the Commission can direct the Sanders to talk to the Sanitation District regarding sewer connection. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the letter from the Moores states that the old garage is three feet from the property line. She asked if the garage would be allowed to remain and whether it would be grandfathered in? Planner Walgren responded that the structure is grandfathered in (legal non - conforming structure) and that it is shown to remain approximately five and a half feet from the back property line. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Steven Clark, project architect, stated that he tried to be a good neighbor and that he tried to design the project that is adaptable to the site. He indicated that he tried to eliminate any concerns that any neighbors may have, noting that most of the siting is located towards the creek. Commissioner Murakami stated that the design was very nice and suggested that the architect more than restrained himself regarding the rear back portion of the home (upper story). He stated that he would not be opposed if a regular sized window was installed for lighting purposes as he could not see an impact to the neighbors' privacy. Chairwoman Kaplan agreed with Commissioner Murakami's suggestion of allowing an additional window for lighting as she did not see that it would impact the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Clark requested that he be allowed to install a window in the utility room to allow for ventilation. The Commission indicated that they did not have a problem with this request. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioners Murakami, Pierce and Patrick felt that it was a well designed second story addition and that they could support the request. Commissioner Abshire inquired about the request for sewer connection. Planner Walgren stated that staff would include a statement to acknowledge that the sewer connection was acknowledged by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PLANNING COMMIS` T MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 6 - NO. DR -96 -016. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Patrick stepped down from agenda item 4. 4. DR -96 -025, V -96 -005 - HEAD; 14684 PIKE ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 4,014 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,117 sq. ft. guest house. The addition consists of a 2,250 sq. ft. new lower level, a 659 sq. ft. ground floor addition, and a 1,105 sq. ft. conversion of existing attic space to habitable area. The applicant is requesting Variances to exceed the maximum height allowance and to encroach into the required rear yard setback. The size of the subject parcel is 2.186 acres, while the size of the entire property is approximately 18.75 acres. The property is located within a HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the design review and variance request with an added condition that would require that the plans be modified (i.e., shifting the bottom floor out so that you do not have any portion of the structures overlapping and having three floors). The design modification is to be completed prior to submittal of buildings permits. He indicated that it was his belief that the applicant would agree to this condition. Commissioner Abshire asked if it would be conceivable to have a lot line adjust to eliminate the need for the rear setback variance. Planner Walgren responded that a lot line adjustment of 18 feet would eliminate the need for a variance to the rear setback. In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's question, he indicated that the lot line adjustment would not be subject to Measure G. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Robert Aviles, project architect, requested Commission support of the design for this unique historic estate. The expansion of the guest house is being requested in order to house a private art collection (gallery space for 18 and 19 century Japanese screen and glass art). He addressed the rear yard variance request and indicated that most of the neighbors support the request. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why there was a reluctancy to the lot line adjustment. Mr. Aviles responded that a lot line adjustment would be a lengthy process for 18 feet. He indicated that the building was stepped down to address staff's concerns. In response to Chairwoman Kaplan's question, he indicated that alternatives have been discussed with staff that would address the two story limitation. Commissioner Abshire asked whether the alternatives proposed would make a difference to the distance of the back yard lot line? Planner Walgren responded that the approval resolution is worded such that if the degree of encroachment changes, the condition would allow for an 8 to 10 feet encroachment if the building needs to be shifted. PLANNING COMMISi 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that Commissioner Siegfried informed her that he received a call from Marlene Duffy who resides in the vicinity and indicated that she does not oppose the project. Dr. W. Donald Head, applicant, addressed the lot line adjustment. He indicated that it took him two years to obtain a previous lot line adjustment and that he does not want to go through a lengthy, bureaucratic process for a lot line adjustment. Philosophical, he stated that he did not oppose a lot line adjustment. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the City recently amended the code to allow administrative approval of lot line adjustments and that they could be handled expeditiously, no longer requiring a public hearing. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why a kitchen and dining pavilion were being proposed? Dr. Head responded that the existing kitchen is to be removed and that it is to be replaced with a new kitchen and dining facility for receptions, gatherings, and /or shows for charitable events. He also indicated that he would not allow the use of an amplified system, nor does he intend to charge for the use of the premises. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Commissioner Murakami noted that this was a unique piece of property as it was large and old. He stated that he had no problem with the variance or the additional square footage to the guest house. Commissioner Pierce stated that after viewing the property, that one would need to be impressed with the stateliness of the property. He felt that an addition like this appears to be appropriate. He stated that he did not see a need for requiring a lot line adjustment. He felt that staff explained the variance process and that it seemed appropriate to him. Commissioner Abshire stated that he was impressed with the estate and with the property. However, approving a project with two variances was extensive. He felt that reducing the variance to one would be appropriate. He stated that he would not approve the request as proposed. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she understands that a lot adjustment was a technicality, noting that they are now handled administratively with a non - public notice hearing procedure. Therefore, she would support the lot line adjustment recommendation. Commissioner Pierce stated that it is known that there are expedited processes and that the City would move with all due speed. He noted that staff encouraged this process and that he felt that requiring a lot line adjustment was an unnecessary delay to require the applicant to go through when a variance is appropriate. Commissioner Murakami stated that he agreed with the comments as expressed by PLANNING COMMISS'� MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Pierce. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that variance findings can be made when there are no alternatives. She noted that in this case, this project has an option that would not require a variation. She recommended that the option be exercised and that a precedent not be set. Commissioner Abshire concurred with. Chairwoman Kaplan and stated that he_ did not believe that a lot line adjustment was an unreasonable request. Community Development Director Curtis stated that the Commission could approve the request with the stipulation that the lot line adjustment be approved to relocate the line to eliminate the need for a variance. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the lot line adjustment process /recordation would take no more than four weeks. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ASK IF THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE PRESENCE OF THE FULL COMMISSION OR TO REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION TAKE ACTION THIS EVENING. Dr. Head stated that if the lot line adjustment oppose the condition to a lot line adjustment, variance. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PIERCE HEARING AT 8:48 P.M. process only takes four weeks, he would not eliminating the need for a rear yard setback MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONERS PIERCE / MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -025 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE RECORDATION OF A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE / MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE V -96 -005, APPROVING THE HEIGHT VARIANCE, TAKING NO ACTION ON THE REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Commissioner Patrick resumed her seat on the Commission. 5. DR -96 -013 - FOLEY /R & Z DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 18929 MONTE VISTA PLANNING COMMIS: J MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 9 - DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,419 sq. ft. two - story single family residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 40,047 sq. ft. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/22/96 at the request of applicant; City review deadline is 10/17/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He addressed the access issues and issues that are not subject to design review consideration. These issues go back to a mandated court settlement as to how the upper and lower parcels are to share accesses. He stated that staff was aware of this information and that staff felt that this project was consistent with the court settlement. He informed the Commission that this is not a subject before the Commission should it be brought up this evening. He (Walgren) noted that there remains access constraints. He indicated that it is proposed to have two homes access Monte Vista Drive as approved per the tentative map and that a barricade would be constructed at the roadway to prevent through access onto the private stretch of Monte Vista. The design would require that a barricade structure be built partially on the private property to the west, requiring approval of the property owner to build the barricade there. If the approval is not granted, the applicant would then fall back to alternative 1. Alternative 1 would require that the road be shifted within their granted egress /ingress easement, requiring the removal of a pine tree on the adjacent property, noting that the easement does give the applicant the right to do so. If this alternative is pursued, staff would require that a tree replacement be provided for the Monterey Pine that is to be removed. He noted that another alternative would be to move the barricade up to the northwest corner of the access road and then have the existing home above, the new home and the neighboring property to the west all access directly onto Monte Vista. This alternative would be easier from building the barricade. This would require the consent of a property owner to the west. Given the alternatives that could be pursued and based on the cooperation of adjoining property owners, staff recommended that the applicant present the three alternatives to the Planning Commission and that the design review application be approved with the understanding that anyone of the alternatives can be pursued depending on what type of approval is granted by the neighboring property owners. Commissioner Pierce inquired why access could not be achieved from private Monte Vista Drive? Planner Walgren responded that the existing homes could continue to access private Monte Vista but noted that it was a substandard private roadway. When you add an additional home, it would exceed the number of lots that are supposed to access onto a private roadway. This would get into issues of whether the roadway would need to be improved to public standards, noting that this could not be done because a right of way could not been obtained to the nearest public street. Chairwoman Kaplan asked the City Attorney how the Commission should deal with this type of situation. (Should the Commission accept staff's recommendation to approve the design review and allow the applicant to pick one of the access alternatives ?) City Attorney Riback responded that staff's recommendation was the most reasonable PLANNING COMMIS; I MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 10 - approach given the fact that the preferable barricade design would result in an easement on another private property and that it is not known if it is going to be feasible. If it is not feasible, there are other alternatives. Commissioner Pierce asked if the proposed barricade to be constructed is to be a fence or whether it would be a barricade similar to what exists? He noted that the area was used as a thoroughfare for walking and riding bicycles. He agreed with the statement in the petition submitted that if a fence is to be built, it would close off the pedestrian trail. Planner Walgren indicated that the barricade is not intended to be a solid fence but that it would be designed to allow access to emergency vehicles as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The barricade would preclude all other vehicular access. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Glenn Cahoon, G &G Design, project designer, indicated that he understood that the access issue was of great concern to a number of individuals. He indicated that he would address any architectural concerns which the Commission may have. He informed the Commission that the home has been articulated and that it steps into the natural slope of the property. Mark Roberts, R &G Development Company, indicated that he understood the sensitivity in regarding the barricade. He stated that his preference for the barricade would be to use the one that comes off the public right of way from the south with the cooperation of the neighbor to the east. He indicated that he has approached the property owner for their approval and that he was awaiting a written acceptance for this alternative. He stated that there are existing easements for the purposes of roadways to go through this area. He indicated that it is questionable as to what can be done with the barricade. He stated that it is the intent to maintain the barricade in someway that would allow foot or bicycle traffic but prevent vehicular access. Donna Homes, 18975 Monte Vista, supported the design of the home and inquired as to how the home would be accessed (road access). Peggy Emerson, 18974 Monte Vista, informed the Commission that she resides two houses down from the proposed building. She noted that nothing has been stated that there is a one foot dedication of land underneath the barricade. It is her understanding that the dedication is worded to stipulate that the barricade is to be retained in perpetuity. She informed the Commission that she was in possession of the original petition from the middle 1960s that supported the barricade. To date, she has not been provided with a copy. She requested that wording be included that would state that when a new barricade is installed that it be placed on dedicated land. She noted that Section 1.3. a. of the proposed resolution of approval would allow the City to move or remove the new barricade at any time for any reason without public review. She requested that this section be modified to require Planning Commission review. PLANNING COMMIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Ms. Emerson stated that the residents do not want the road to become a public road. If a gate is to be installed in the barricade, it is requested that it be small enough that motorcycles cannot go through it. She noted that the proposed location would be 24 feet north of its current location. She also noted that there would not be enough turn around space for larger vehicles. She expressed concern that there would be work done on private Monte Vista Road (utility installation). She stated that it was her understanding that when work is conducted on property located on a private road, that the builder is responsible for repair work. She requested that this responsibility be established at this point. Max Lettween, 18810 Monte Vista Drive, stated that he did not object to the basic design of the home but stated that he opposed the removal of the barricade more than a foot from where it currently exists. He indicated that he moved to this area because Monte Vista Drive was a private, dead end street with no through traffic. This area has experienced several years of construction and stated that he was opposed to increased traffic. He felt that landscaping would be eliminated if the barricade is relocated. He did not see why the proposal could not take the access as it currently has. He asked if the removal of the barricade would fall under Proposition G? Dr. H.P. Lipton, 15420 Monte Vista Drive, indicated that he resides on the southern border of the development. He expressed concern with the amount of water to be used near a very large eucalyptus tree. He noted that the City arborist states that any trenching or digging should be at least 20 feet from the existing tree and that there is to be no standing water. It is was his belief that there would be standing water at this site due to the large amount of water caused by the shallow slope of the swale in this area and the debris from the eucalyptus tree. He recommended that the defuser be moved 30 feet further down the swale where it will be away from the tree. He asked if flooding has been addressed and whether it has been determined that there is to be no flooding across the road and down into his driveway and garage. If flooding does occur, he asked who would be responsible? The location of the barricade is of concern to many of the residents. Dr. Lipton indicated that in 1988, the Planning Commission met at the barricade site with the residents. Because of the conditions at that time, the agreement approved for the subdivision stated that "all construction equipment and activity shall access the site from the private portion of Monte Vista Drive to the north." The agreement also stipulated that the barricade between the private and public portion of Monte Vista Drive shall be maintained at all times to prevent access before, during or after construction." In his review of the plans, it was never shown that the 50 foot pine tree he planted 25 years ago located in the easement in front of his home was to be removed. This is the first time that he has heard about its removal and requested that he be allowed time to consult an attorney regarding his rights to retain the tree. Commissioner Pierce asked Dr. Lipton if he was aware that he planted a tree within an easement? Dr. Lipton indicated that he was not aware that he was planting the tree within an easement. PLANNING COMMIS: 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 12 - William A. Johnson, 18955 Monte Vista Drive, expressed concern with the quality of the private road. Even though Mr. Roberts assured the residents that no construction trucks would utilize the private road, he finds it hard to believe that it would not be used. In the 1960s, the residents were promised that the barricade was to remain in its current location in perpetuity. He requested that the barricade not be altered in any way. Roberta Johnson, 18955 Monte Vista Drive, indicated that her concerns have been addressed. She stated that the existing residents do not want their street to become a public street. Mr. Roberts responded to Ms. Emerson's statement that the barricade was to remain in perpetuity. He indicated that in 1962, the reserve was created as part of subdivision approval. It was created across an easement that had been in existence since the early 1900s. It was his belief that the ability to access the site has already been granted. Also, in 1983, the subdivision was approved with a condition that stipulated the property's access was to be to the south. He noted that this property has easements and also a property line that abuts onto a public road. It was his belief that the site has the right to access that road. In response to Dr. Lipton's concern, he indicated that he would be willing to work with him regarding the eucalyptus trees as far as the diverters are concerned. He indicated that the use of the diverter was one of erosion control and that it was meant to slow the water down. He noted that a natural swale exists that transports water and holds water in some cases. Regarding the flooding that Dr. Lipton addressed, he felt that the plans address the number of ways to mitigate flooding. He indicated that he could help control water coming across his property, but that he could not control what other water might be intruding Dr. Lipton's property. He noted that he was not the only property that would contribute to his problem. Regarding the removal of the existing pine tree, he indicated that it was not his intent to remove the tree if it can be avoided. Regarding Dr. Johnsons' comments regarding the quality of the private road, he agreed that it was in poor condition. It was his intent to access the site to the south for all construction traffic with no intention of using the private road. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to tax this parcel for road maintenance. Commissioner Pierce noted that the existing barricade has room for turn around and asked if the proposed barricade would allow for enough turn around room? Mr. Roberts felt that there would be enough room for a garbage truck to make a turn- around and that if there was not enough turn around room, he did not know what his responsibility would be in that regard. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan asked what the Commission should do with all the conflicting perpetuity issues? City Attorney Riback stated that there cannot be any breach of access across the one foot easement unless the city authorizes it. He indicated that development was approved in exchange for a one foot non - access lane parallel to the street, thereby preventing driveways PLANNING COMMIS; 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 13 - from being installed. Anyone wanting to develop would need to come to the city to request an egress /ingress easement be granted. In this case, the City would be able to grant an egress /ingress easement over the one foot non - access strip to allow egress /ingress to these two properties from public Monte Vista Drive. He stated that he does not see a problem with this. He was not aware of an underlying easement. If there is an underlying easement, it is an issue that someone may raise in the future and that the City would have to deal with it at that time. He indicated that no one has conducted a thorough title search and that a title search would be the responsibility of the property owner. He recommended that the Commission proceed, noting that the applicant and the existing property owners would need to agree which barricade alternative would be used. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the one foot dedication would move with the barricade? City Attorney Riback responded that it would not move with the barricade and that the City would need to execute an egress /ingress easement across the one foot access strip for the purposes of ingress /egress for the two parcels. The barricade would be located on the public Monte Vista and that it would be no different than the City placing a barricade on any other piece of public property. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was uncomfortable that there were three alternatives being proposed, none of which have been agreed upon. None of the neighbors have indicated whether they were willing to grant an easement to the applicant. He expressed concern that things would not go well. However, the City Attorney has advised the Commission that it can approve the three alternatives and that the applicant work out the issue with the neighbors. He was convinced that the barricade would be designed in a way to suit the neighbors so that there can be pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Given these factors, he stated that he would vote to approve the request, but indicated that he still has some concerns. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would not object to any of the alternatives as long as the neighbors agreed to them. She also stated that she did not have a problem with the removal of the pine tree located within the easement. She indicated that she would vote to approve the request. Commissioner Abshire stated that the home was well designed. He noted that the applicant agrees to access the private road and not the public road, he would support it. Planner Walgren stated that when the subdivision was approved, it was approved with access to the public roadway because private Monte Vista was a substandard, private road. Commissioner Murakami stated that most of his concerns have been addressed. As long as the neighbors are in agreement with the developer, he would not object to the proposal. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that gas fireplaces be used and that wood burning fireplaces be avoided. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PLANNING COMMIS: 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 14 - NO. DR -96 -013 WITH ANY OF THE THREE ALTERNATIVES TO WORKED OUT WITH STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 6. DR -96 -022 - SUN; 14360 DOUGLASS LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,820 sq. ft. two -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. An additional request has been made to grade within an open space easement /riparian area. The subject property is 65,166 sq. ft. and is located in an R -1- 20,000 zoning district (cont. from 5/22/96 at the request of applicant; City review deadline is 11/1/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He expressed concern with the architectural compatibility of the home with the adjoining home. He indicated that staff could not recommend approval of the design review application based on the findings identified in the staff report. Staff recommended that this item be continued to allow the applicant to revise the plans to reduce the square footage to eliminate the floor area exception request; to redesign the site development plan to pull all the grading activity out of the riparian setback; and noted that the applicant is proposing to use the pedestrian pathway as a combination private drive /pedestrian pathway. Staff felt that this can be accomplished with proper signage and striping and indications to make it clear that this is a continuation of a public pathway. He ( Walgren) indicated that since the plans were submitted, the City arborist has had an opportunity to look at them. He indicated that the city arborist feels that putting the driveway in the proposed location, impacts the row of native trees located along the western property line. Staff would also encourage the applicants to reconsider this particular driveway approach. Regarding the issue of architectural compatibility, staff not only recommends reducing the building by 400 square feet, but that the applicant consider making height, architectural and design changes to reduce the size and mass of the building to make it more compatible with the homes on Shadow Oaks and Douglass Lanes. Should the applicant not wish to have this item continued, staff recommends denial of the application without prejudice so that the applicant's could redesign the plans and resubmit them for Commission review. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Rolando Noriega, project architect, indicated that he would respond to any architectural questions which the Commission may have. He addressed the right -of -way of the walkway and pointed out that this is an existing condition. He inquired why the height of the structure was an issue. Bill Heiss, civil engineer for the project, addressed the reason the driveway is proposed over the existing trail and the grading proposed in the riparian open space region. He stated that there is a minimum 18 foot wide access road that is a private road which is also used as a trail. The provision for the driveway area is such that there is turn- around area proposed PLANNING COMMIS! I MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 15 - which would eliminate backing out into the trail. He felt that the proposed access was the most direct and economically feasible access, utilizing existing pavement. He recognized that other alternatives were possible. Due to the grade and the slope of the terrain, a retaining wall could be installed. However, it was felt that it would destroy the intent of the riparian area to put in a small fill. He indicated that the property has restraints as far as where one can build due to the riparian area and setback requirements. The home was sited to keep it as far away from the neighbors as possible. He requested direction from the Commission regarding these issues. Commissioner Pierce asked if the retaining wall was an alternative in lieu of fill. Mr. Heiss indicated that the applicant would prefer the use of fill but would agree to install a retaining wall if required as part of approval. Bonnie Sun, applicant, addressed the need for growth and privacy for her family as well as the need to have her mother in -law reside with her in large quarters. She addressed the location of the proposed driveway. She indicated that she was as concerned with safety as were others and that the use of the driveway is proposed to be minimal. She indicated that she wanted to preserve the environment for generations to come. She requested that the Commission approve the request. Annette Woolsey, 19952 Douglass Court, expressed concern with privacy and with the location of the proposed balconies. Also of concern was the size and the compatibility of the home with those of the neighborhood. She felt that the neighborhood was comprised of single story homes. She requested that the Commission deny the request for floor area reduction. She also addressed landscaping. The neighbors want to retain privacy, but that the selection and location of the proposed landscaping needs to be carefully planed to preserve the views of the hills. She requested that the color of the home be indicated at this time. She stated that the gray color as proposed would be acceptable. She also expressed concern with the use of the current trail as a driveway for safety reasons. John Teter, 19931 Durham Court, indicated that he spoke in opposition to the prior approval. He stated that he felt different when a developer built a home for profit, changing the neighborhood versus an individual who buys a property to build their home. He felt that limits should be applied when it impacts others. He stated that the proposed home does not impact him directly. However, the overall affect of a singular 5,800 square foot structure has an indirect affect on him. He noted that there is a large area of undeveloped land in the neighborhood and that if a variance is approved, it would create a domino affect. He felt that there should be some control so that there is not a dramatic change of a distinct neighborhood by approving incremental larger homes. He indicated that the entire paved cul -de -sac area was used as a foot path, and that it now being proposed as a roadway, changing the rural nature of the area. Jerry Sun, applicant, informed the Commission that he did not want to use a retaining wall because he felt that it was contradictory to the idea of an easement. Regarding the driveway, he indicated that he could relocate the road, but noted that a paved road currently exists and that he would like to use it as a driveway. PLANNING COMMIS l MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 16 - COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:10 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that he remembers the original application vividly. He recalled the neighbors addressing the Commission. Concerns were expressed regarding the house. He noted that the Commission worked with the developer to try to change things. He felt that it worked in a way that it did not please everyone but that efforts were made to try to mitigate some of the concerns. He stated that in looking at this proposal, that he was inclined to support staff's recommendation. He agreed with staff in regards to the issues of bulk and mass. He stated that he could not support the exception to floor area reduction. Also, it disturbs him that the Commission tried to work with the applicant towards a compromise, noting that there appears to be a lack of compromise in this case. He indicated that he would deny the request. Commissioner Abshire stated that he could go along with filling of the embankment as it would be a safer feature than the use of a retaining wall where someone may fall off of if. He did not believe that it was practical to utilize the paved area as a driveway and indicated that he would not support it. He agreed with staff that the house was too big and that he did not believe that the home fits the neighborhood and recommended that it be reduced in size. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support the exception in floor area and felt that the 5,474 square feet was an ample sized home. She felt that the difference between this request and the previous application was that the previous approval tried to retain some of the design semblance of the old home on the adjacent lot. She felt that this home would not compatible to the existing home. She was uncomfortable with the idea of having a driveway and a pedestrian walkway using the same space. She did not see that any of the safety concerns would be minimized unless the driveway was relocated. She stated that she did not like the use of a retaining wall. However, she was uncomfortable in setting a precedent of using fill because it changes the intent of estate sites in keeping it open and somewhat natural. She stated that she could not support the request. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was in agreement with the comments expressed by the Commission. He pointed out that he was on the Parks Commission for approximately 10 years and noted that this trail was a very popular trail. He indicated that there is a proposal to make it more usable due to the its future connection with the Carnelian trail. He felt that the Commission should be aware of this problem. Chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed. However, she stated that she liked the idea of the garage being located behind the house and not being the first thing you see as you drive up. However, she, was not sure if it was going to work in this situation, noting that the house was much too large and that it was not compatible to what has already been approved. She stated that she would deny the request. Community Development Director Curtis noted that at the last work session it was discussed that the use of either a retaining wall or fill is to be used. He stated at that time, that a PLANNING COMMIS l MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 17 - third alternative would be to redesign and move the structure to eliminate the need for either the retaining wall or fill. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO ADDRESS THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES OR TO REQUEST ACTION THIS EVENING. Mr. Noriega requested that this item be continued. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE DR -96 -022 TO JULY 10, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 7. SD -95 -004 - BURKE; 13485 VILLA OAKS LN.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the. 15 acre (gross) Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision into three individual lots of 6.1, 5.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. from 4/10/96 at the request of the applicant; City review deadline is 9/20/96) Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that as a result of a court agreement, when the final map was recorded, there was language posted on the map that states that "All lots are not resubdividable ", meaning that they should not be further subdivided. This is one of the main issues that is being considered this evening. He indicated that the City Attorney has reviewed the settlement agreement and that his attached memo reflects his determination. He informed the Commission that the City Attorney was present this evening to answer any questions which may arise regarding this issue. He indicated that the City Attorney acknowledges that there may have been legitimate reasons for having this restriction on the map but that it does not prohibit the City from allowing further subdivision if there are legitimate reasons to do so. He ( Walgren) informed the Commission that Public Works Director Perlin was present this evening to address his efforts to work with the property owners to reclaim and repair an abandoned quarry and erosion and drainage ravine that has evolved around the back corner of the property over the years. The Commission is requested to decide whether there are legitimate and beneficial reasons to consider pursuing the request and amending the final map restriction following receipt of public testimony. Staff would prepare an approval resolution for a following meeting. Should the Commission disagree and does not support the amendment to the final map restriction, staff would prepare a denial resolution for a subsequent meeting and conclude this matter. A third option would be that should the Commission need additional information or would like to discuss this matter further, it could be continued to an informal meeting and have further discussion. He also informed the Commission that a lot line adjustment to transfer 10 acres from lot 4 of the Sung subdivision down to lot 18, increasing it from 5 acres to 15 acres has been approved and is awaiting recordation. He indicated that this approval would not affect the potential subdivision of the property but that it was done as part of the City's urging to get the entire quarry and PLANNING COMMIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 18 - drainage situation and topographical features on one lot for consideration. Public Works Director Perlin indicated that he tried to be thorough, yet brief in his memo and that he tried to answer questions as to how we got to where we are today. He stated that this was a long saga that goes well before his time with the city. This represents the light at the end of the tunnel, solving the problem plaguing Quarry and Calabazas Creeks watershed for many years. He felt that this was the most feasible way to deal with the problem. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if it would make any difference to the goal of cleaning the mess and keeping the water clean down below if parcels 1 and 3 were not separated. Public Works Director Perlin stated that from the stand point of cleaning up the quarry, it would not make a difference if there were two or three lots but that it may for the applicant. Commissioner Abshire asked staff if there was an estimate of how much work needs to be done compared to what has already been spent to clean up the area? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the Santa Clark Valley Water District staff estimates that it spends between $50,000 to $84,000 every other year to remove sediment from the quarry basin, noting that a good portion of the sediment is coming from this property due to the abandoned quarry. He informed the Commission that the City has spent approximately $110,000 last year to repair damage to the Quarry Creek buttress and drainage system caused by severe rains. Solving this problem is critical if the City is to resolve the drainage and erosion problems in that area. Chairwoman Kaplan felt that the problem of the quarry and the problem with the pollution and destruction appears to be one issue and that the subdivision of the land has nothing to do with cleaning up the quarry. Planner Walgren stated that without the subdivision, there is no means to require that the improvements performed. Public Works Director Perlin felt that ultimately something needs to be done. He felt that the problem would need to be solved otherwise the problem would be fought forever. He indicated that his memo stipulates that there either needs to be a voluntary cooperation by the property owners; some incentive presented to the property owner; or that the city will have to step in and take the confrontational approach and force the issue. Forcing the issue would result in declaring the property to be a public nuisance and then ordering its abatement, resulting in litigation and legal costs. Commissioner Murakami asked how much it would cost to rectify the discharge problem? Public Works Director Perlin responded that the cost would be approximately $50,000 to $100,000 to clean up the problem. Commissioner Murakami felt that it seemed to be within reason considering the size of the property. He indicated that at the site visit, the Commission noticed that the piles of debris PLANNING COMMIS 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 19 - located on site had vegetation growing over it, noting that they would need to be cleaned up. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the work being proposed to correct the erosion problem would answer some the problems that individuals are complaining about as far as geologic hazards associated with the site. Public Works Director Perlin felt that restoring the quarry property would vastly improve the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the property. He indicated that the quarry property was a very stable piece of ground due to the material underneath the surface soil. He indicated that the steep canyon walls around the rim of the canyon are unstable. He indicated that there is no practical way to stabilize the steep walls. He stated that it needs to be recognized that there are some instability problems with the steep walls and that buildings and improvements be designed to be setback away from the walls to prevent any damage. Chairwoman Kaplan expressed concern that should the walls start creeping and the house gets destroyed, that the City would foot the bill and would become liable. Public Works Director Perlin stated that he did not see Chairwoman Kaplan's concern happening. He indicated that he has seen quarry restoration projects that continue to shed material over time but that you would not see landslide or major slippage of debris flow destroying a home. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 10:40 p.m. Thomas Burke, Jr., son of the applicant, stated that the drainage problem predates his fathers ownership of the property. He felt that the subdivision would finance the restoration after the fact. Commissioner Abshire asked if it would be possible to map out a building site for lot 3. Mr. Burke deferred this question to his engineer. He indicated that a geological study was prepared and that the study identified building envelopes for the property. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Burke was familiar with Mr. Garrord's letter. Mr. Burke indicated that the Water District has indicated that it can serve the three lots. He felt that it was a jurisdictional matter as to who would be serving the lots and that the height of a property determines water jurisdiction. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she would recommend a two lot split because she could not see a building site for lot 3, noting that lot 3 appeared to be impassible at the site visit. Willem Kohler, 21842 Via Regina, informed the Commission of past land stability as outlined in the staff report. He questioned the feasibility of a three lot subdivision in accordance with the Hillside slope formula required for the area. He stated his disagreement with the environmental negative declaration as the previous EIR excluded these areas in its evaluation. He recommended that an EIR be prepared to determine the stability and suitability for building in the quarry area. He felt that moving land would result PLANNING COMMIS I MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 20 - in denser development. He noted that the site contains a steep slope and questioned if it could be subdivided into three lots. Mr. Burke stated that the Sung subdivision was not 24 acres but that it was a 20 acre site. He indicated that the site has gone through the slope density formula and that he did not find the lots to be small or different to those in the area. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:55 P.M. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the water issue needs to be addressed by the Commission? City Attorney Riback stated that the water service jurisdiction was not an issue. Planner Walgren clarified that a new EIR would not be required. Commissioner Abshire stated that he could not approve three lots unless a third building site is identified for lot 3. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she would like to review other options. Commissioners Pierce and .Murakami and Chairwoman Kaplan did not believe that lot 3 contained a building site. Planner Walgren recommended that this item be continued to the Commission's June 26 meeting and that the Commission direct the applicant to mark the building site. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the Commission could take action on the request to subdivide the property when there is language on the map that states that there is to be no further subdivision? City Attorney Riback responded that he has reviewed the court settlement agreements and that he has determined that they do not preclude the property owners from applying to further subdivide the parcels. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE REOPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ITS MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR AND SIEGFRIED ABSENT). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that City Council continued the public hearing on the Navico application to its June 19 meeting. The Consta appeal is also scheduled for June 19. He informed the Commission that Mr. Binkley has indicated that he would like to proceed with the project as proposed. The Council has suggested that the lot be expanded to meet the hillside requirement. ' PLANNING COMMIS: 1 MINUTES JUNE 12, 1996 PAGE - 21 - He (Curtis) indicated that he spoke to the owner of the Argonaut Shopping Center this morning and that he requested that the 5:00 p.m. work session be cancelled because he was revising his plans. He suggested that the owner not only revise the plans but that he show the Planning Commission the changes that he is proposing. The owner has requested that he be scheduled for a work session on June 26. Community Development Director Curtis requested that the Commission adjourn to a 5:00 p.m. work session (June 26). COMMISSION ITEMS Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she received a call on May 31 at 3:30 p.m. from Willie Ivancovich regarding the Boisseranc property. She indicated that she did not know what he was talking about. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he also received a call from Mr. Ivancovich. Commissioner Patrick commented that in coming down from Dr. Head's property, there was a property that appeared to be a hazard to the people in the area. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the site is a maintenance problem that staff is discussing it with the property owner. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 5/7; 5115; 5/17; 5/21 2. Notices for 6/26/96 Planning Commission meeting Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 26, 1996, EOC, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC061296.SAR 'LANNING COMMISSION MINT S ` MAY 22, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting, to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Asfour Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren (City Attorney Riback was not present this evening) Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 5/8/96 COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 8,1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 6, paragraph 12 amended to read: "The addition of a condition that would stipulate that the :: : ><:cl vura: ; >:<at1 ac <:t' »tree::: >: '7:;: is to remain P PQ:.;:.;::Q..........:; ;; ...;:.;: ? .;:.;; :.:;:;::. >Y .::.::::::.::.;;:.;: .:.;:.;:.; .;;:. :; :<.:;.;: ...................................::...................................................:::.......... ............................... undisturbed to protect ' tree #3:7. " Page 7, paragraph 10 amended to read: "Commissioner Murakami noted that when you first drive into the circular. driveway, you will be seeing the profile of the keme- .................. .................. garage; and not the front view of the garage. " .................. THE MOTION CARRIED .5 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSTAINING AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 16, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMI '�N MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR -96 -013 - FOLEY /R & Z DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 18929 MONTE VISTA DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,420 sq. ft. two - story single family residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 40.,047 sq. ft. The property is located within the R- 1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. to 6/12/96 at the request of applicant; City review deadline is 10/17/96). 2. DR -96 -022 - SUN, 14360 DOUGLASS LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 5,820 sq. ft. two -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application also includes an exemption request from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. The subject property is 53,178 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. to 6/12/96 at the request of applicant; City review deadline is 11/1/96). COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. DR -96 -014 - PAYNE,13485 VILLAOAKS LN.; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,507 sq. ft., 24 ft. tall, single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The currently vacant parcel is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. The parcel was originally created as Lot 18 of the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision and has recently been increased in size from 3 acres to 15.2 net acres through a Lot Line Adjustment with an adjacent parcel. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that whether the lot line adjustment. is recorded or whatever action is taken on the subdivision would not affect this proposal as the home has been designed to meet the minimum zoning standards. Staff recommended Commission approval of the design review request. Commissioner Pierce asked if this application was submitted to the Parks and Recreation for its review of the improvements to the pedestrian/equestrian trail easement? Planner Walgren indicated that the pedestrian/equestrian trail easement was recorded at the time of subdivision approval. He indicated that the Parks and Recreation Commission has recently had the opportunity to reconsider the trail easements on this property and that it was their belief that the configuration before the Commission this evening was the one that it felt was appropriate. Chairwoman Kaplan requested staff clarification as to what a "Landslide I keyway was" (page 7, condition 16.c.). Planner Walgren responded that it referred to the landslide repair that was conducted at the subdivision level. This condition requires further investigation prior to the issuance of building permit (completion of all geotechnical requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit). PLANNING COMMI ON MINUTES MAY 22, .1996 PAGE - 3 - Chairwoman Kaplan inquired about condition 20 which reads: "The applicant shall sign the written statement required by section 16- 75.020(d) of the City Code prior to issuance of any permits." Community Development Curtis indicated that the condition is required when an applicant retains a geologist and that any permits issued utilizing the investigative reports assumes all risks associated with it and holds the City harmless (hold harmless agreement). Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:37 p.m. William Koehler, 21842 Via Regina, indicated that he resides close to the property under discussion. He noted that the application at this time is for one home and that he has no problem with this particular home. However-, he has a problem with the lot as it is the most unstable lot in Saratoga noting that it was the last lot of the Mount Eden Estates subdivisions to develop. He noted that in 1982 or 1983 Quarry Road collapsed and that a "burrough hill" was established. The EIR prepared states that parts of the site were unstable and that it was determined that only the top of the hill could be developed. He indicated that if you build a house on any part of the property, the house would need to be built on sound foundation. He requested that the City make sure that the property does not slide during the rainy season. He stated that he appreciated that the horse trail was to be retained. Commissioner Siegfried informed Mr. Koehler that condition 16 requires additional geologic studies to .be completed prior to the issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of the City. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that given the siting of the house, she did not feel that it would create a problem. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -014. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. As the issues were the same for agenda items 4 and 5, the Commission agreed to consider them together. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that a letter was received this afternoon from an attorney for the Friends of Nelson Gardens. She thanked them for their concerns. 4. DR -96 -019 - PINN BROS.,13925 TRINITY AVE.(Lot 1) ; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 20 ft. tall 3,842 sq. ft. single story residence on Lot 1 of the recently approved nine -lot Trinity Place subdivision. The property is located within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. 5. DR -96 -020 - PINN BROS., 20755 PONTIAC AVE. (Lot 2); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 22 ft. tall 3,877 sq. ft. single story residences on PLANNING COMMI 3N MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Lot 2 of the recently approved nine -lot Trinity Place subdivision. The property is located within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff reports for agenda items 4 and 5. Staff recommended that both design review applications be approved. Chairwoman Kaplan opened agenda items 4 and 5 to public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Allan Pinn, Pinn Brothers, indicated that he would be available for questions. Commissioner Murakami asked if both homes were facing the same direction, would they have the same floor plan? Mr. Pinn responded that if the elevations changed it would also require a change in the floor plan. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired if there would be the use of a gas fireplace? Mr. Pinn indicated that the master bedroom fire places are to be plumbed for gas and the other two fireplaces are wood burning. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that the fireplaces be restricted to gas or that inserts be provided that would allow clear burning. Jeanne Williams, 20777 Trinity Avenue, indicated that she resides opposite to lot 1. She. informed the Commission that her roofline was 50 percent lower than the one proposed and that her lot sits two to three feet lower on the north side of Trinity. She also noted that her home was half the size in square footage as lot 1, noting that it has been described as being compatible to that of the neighborhood. Don Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, indicated that the Friends of Nelson Gardens have hired an attorney to represent it. He indicated that there is a question relating to the Williamson Act as it relates to this parcel, noting that a letter was distributed to the Commission for its review. Chairwoman Kaplan informed Mr. Macrae that the City Attorney has advised the Commission as to its appropriate review and action prior to placing this item on the agenda this evening. She indicated that receipt of the letter has been acknowledged, noting that the letter had no bearing on the design review hearing. She requested that Mr. Macrae restrict his comments to design review issues. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Pinn why this particular house was proposed at 20 feet and why both homes were not being proposed at 17 or 18 feet? Mr. Pinn responded that the property drops considerably and that the Nelson property rises considerably. He indicated that where the grade is measured determines the height of the house, noting that the grade goes down on the other side of the second lot. Therefore, the roofline was lower on the second lot. Planner Walgren indicated 'that both buildings are proposed at 20 feet but that the structure on lot 2 is cut down lower, noting that the height is measured from the natural grade. Mr. Pinn informed the Commission that the 33 year old house across the street that recently PLANNING COMMI ON MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE - 5 - sold was 2,816 square feet on a 13,000 square foot lot (the lot is considerable smaller than these two lots. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that he found the homes to be massive for the neighborhood and that they seem to dominate the lot as opposed to blending in with the lot. He found them objectionable. Commissioner Patrick stated that it was her- perception that the homes met the definition of compatibility. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he visited the site and that he was familiar with the neighborhood. He felt that the design of the homes were suitable and that they would blend in with the neighborhood as well as can be expected, noting that the existing homes were 30 year old homes. Commissioner Siegfried noted for the record that garages are included in the total square footage, noting that the living area proposed is 3,200 square feet, not 3,800 square feet (600 square feet is dedicated to the garage). He felt that the homes appear to be compatible, coming in below the allowable height and the allowable square footage, noting that the lots are larger than the existing lots. He felt that it needs to be recognized that the existing homes were built 30 years ago and that he did not believe that the developer should be forced to design the homes to look like the homes built 30 years ago. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Siegfried. COMMISSIONERS. SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -019. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -020. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER ASFOUR ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that an appeal was received for the Navico Subdivision and that an appeal was filed today for the Costa design review application. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Mission Park Homes /Cal -Neon; 12297 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. Review, of proposed PLANNING COMMI' -)N MINUTES MAY .22, 1996 PAGE - 6 - sign program. Planner Walgren presented the staff report and indicated that it was staff's recommendation that the applicant pursue a unifying element in their sign proposal (i.e., limiting the signage to a certain color or allowing the color to vary but limiting it to a certain letter style). Also recommended was that the monument sign be reduced by at least two feet (reducing the pedestal base by two feet). Staff felt that this type of sign at a four to five foot height and proportioned in width to keep the massing consistent would be adequate to identify, the townhomes located to the back bf the property. He indicated that the city's traffic engineer, has reviewed the proposal and felt that the sign needs to be setback further. If the applicants do not want to move it back, the -sign would need to be reduced to a maximum of three feet in order to provide reasonable line of site for vehicles entering and exiting the property. Commissioner Murakami noted that the strip center located down the street next to the Argonaut Shopping Center had a sign program that was more detailed as far as colors and how the letters were to be laid out. Planner Walgren clarified that the sign program identified by Commissioner Murakami required a unifying element that tied the sign program together. Commissioner Murakami recommended that the applicant review this sign program. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the applicant consider reducing the sign. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that the applicant review a good sign program that has been recently approved. She asked staff how this request would fit in with the city's proposed sign program? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that staff was working on a sign program and that discussions have taken place regarding appropriate signage for shopping centers. It has been determined that the use of monument signs would be appropriate. He did not feel that the proposal was out of-line to the city's proposed sign program. Commissioner Siegfried asked if this sign program would allow the use of a logo? Planner Walgren responded that logo signs would be allowed in sign programs. Commissioner Abshire felt that the area would have a "classier" appearance if the same color signage was used, recognizing that a company's sign logo could use their corporate colors. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the General Plan document could be indexed and brought up to date. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the General Plan would be reformatted within the next year. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE ONE COLOR (COMMISSIONER MURAKAMI FELT THAT TWO COLORS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE). PLANNING COMMI ')N MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Tony Mercy, representing the applicant, addressed the reason for the request for two colors (used in the sign logo) for the freestanding sign and requested that the Commission look favorably of the use of two colors. Regarding the monument sign, he stated that he has no objections to moving it back five feet for visibility. Regarding the height of the sign, he indicated that he was trying to bring the character of the project out to the .front, using the block face to blend the retail and the residential uses. He recommended that the sign be. limited to six feet (three feet of rock and three feet for the identifying logo). Commissioner Siegfried noted that a company's logo allows for the use of several colors. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would Prefer the shorter sign, noting that the driveway area was narrow. She felt that the sign proposed would block traffic. Planner Walgren indicated that staff would support the freestanding sign with the use of a beige background with burgundy and green lettering and that it was not the intent to limit the freestanding sign to a single color. Staff would also recommend that the individual tenant signs use one of the three colors identified to be the unifying element of the sign program. Commissioner Pierce asked if the Parker Ranch application was scheduled to be discussed at the work session? He recommended that in the future, the work session identify the projects that are to be discussed as well as their location. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he did not believe that the work sessions were working as they were intended to as the applicants were using the work sessions to present their arguments. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Murakami indicated that a letter was received from the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and recommended that they be contacted to determine if a member would be interested in serving on the Commission. He felt that it would be beneficial to have someone with architectural expertise on the Commission. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that he would be recommending that someone from their organization sit in on the design review work sessions. Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 5/1/96 Oral City Council PLANNING COMMI DN MINUTES MAY 22, 1996 PAGE - 8 - ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 12, 1996, EOC Center, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk PI1PC052296. SAR I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Patrick Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren (City Attorney Riback was not present this evening) Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 4/24/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 24, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 4, first paragraph, line 3 amended to read: "...streets, Seaton Avenue, would ............................. hQ !l l`< >zit t be extended.... " ............................ ............................. ............................ ............................. - Page 4, paragraph 6, the addition of the following to the end of the paragraph: .................................................................................. ............................... need to see one more access provided e ithec iri "> >' t ' : >Qf thir > ther T ads:.. dead .................................................................................. ............................... ............ ........ ................. - Page 5, second paragraph, the addition of the following to the end of the paragraph: ..................................... ............................... "...make decisions that would benefit the City as a whole '' >zt'' >astJ 'aalt> ...................................... ............................... .................................... ............................... - Page 11, paragraph 10 amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that there .................. were other issues other than meeting Wig- zati` requirements." ..........I....... - Page 11, last paragraph amended to read: "Ed Costa, applicant indicated that when he chose a home design that he liked and tY he searched for a lot in Saratoga that would fit the design.... " THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT). Oral Communications No comments were offered. PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 3, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Siegfried requested that item 3 be removed from the Consent Calendar. 1. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. (cont. from 4/24/96 meeting to adopt Denial Resolution) . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. DR -96 -007 - COSTA; 18928 TEN ACRES ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a 44,867 sq. ft. vacant lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. from 4/24/96 meeting to adopt Denial Resolution). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2 AS PRESENTED BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried noted that he was very much opposed to the position taken by the Commission on Consent Calendar item 1. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the last "Whereas" in the resolution clearly identified the resulting vote on the resolution. 3. UP -96 -003 - THE BROOKSIDE CLUB OF SARATOGA19127 COX AVE.;Review of a comprehensive Use Permit for an existing private tennis and swim club facility located on an approximately 3.4 acre site in the R -1- 10,000 and R -1- 12,500 zoning district, pursuant to Article 15 -55 of the City Code (cont. from 4/24/96 to adopt revised Resolution.) Commissioner Siegfried stated that he would like to address two issues. One issue related to the basketball standard. He indicated that he had no problem with leaving the standard PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 3 - to the determination of the community development director. However, he recommended .... ... . that language be added to condition 7.d. to read. t ...... rici t..... ; >:l c m . the:Xea - ..::.;> de t e > ra ". He also recommended that a sentence be added to :: >:: >:: >:: >:: >:: >:: >:: >::... . Condition 9 which addresses the club adopting rules to stipulate that the club house is to be used only for normal activities of the club and its membership. This would make it clear that it was the intent that the club house was not to be used for commercial purposes. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the following be added to the end of condition 7.d. to read: "...reviewand approval of the Community Development e< e:: >easteri : >:::: ro <ert::. >.� .. Director <: >. ....r :: no ...event::::shall:.....::be:::: <aaced :aloe ...th .... ................. ...:..........................................:.......... ............................... Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the amendment to condition 9 would preclude members of the club from using it as a barbecue? Community Development Director Curtis clarified that it was the intent of the condition to stipulate that the club house was not be rented out to non - members. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL, AMENDING CONDITIONS 7.d. AND 9 AS SPECIFIED ABOVE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 4. DR -96 -013 - FOLEY /R & Z DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 18929 MONTE VISTA DRIVE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,984 sq. ft. two - story single family residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 40,047 sq. ft. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district (cont. to 5/22/96 at the request of applicant; City review deadline is 10/17/96). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 4 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. V -96 -001- DIAMOND; 18406 MONTPERE WAY;Request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 278 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2,760 sq. ft. single story residence. The addition would encroach 1.2 ft. into the required side yard setback of 7.2 ft. The subject property is 8,220 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district (cont. from 4/24/96 at the request of applicant; City review deadline is 9/12/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. PLANNING COMMISS1vN MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Angelo Leber, representing the applicants, informed the Commission that he would answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Abshire stated that it was his understanding from reviewing the plans that the gable located on the right side of the front of the house would be removed and that the roof line would be extended downward. He asked if the pitch of the roof would change? Mr. Leber responded that the pitch of the roof would not change. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:47 P.M. COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -001. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. 6. DR -96 -018 - FYKE /FALCONE; 19020 MONTE VISTA DR.; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,510 sq. ft. single -story residence and construct a new 5,014 sq. ft. two -story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 1.5 acre parcel located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Murakami noted that the applicant felt that the site was fully wooded as far as the number of trees located on site. He indicated that after reading the arborist report, it mentions that the lot was overcrowded with trees. He asked if staff had any input as far as what the arborist report states. Planner Walgren indicated that the site was heavily wooded and that if staff required the removal of all the trees as recommended in the arborist's report, it would increase the replacement value which staff did not believe was necessary. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the city would charge the applicant a replacement cost to remove trees that are in poor condition? Planner Walgren responded that the City would not normally require the replacement of trees that are in poor condition. He noted that the arborist recommended the replacement value as specified in the resolution. Beyond that, the homeowners would be free to come to the City and apply for a tree removal permit, noting that the city staff member who issues the tree removal permit would take into account the number of trees located on site and would more than likely not require additional replacement trees. Commissioner Asfour asked if staff verified if the trees to be removed are ones recommended for removal? Planner Walgren responded that staff would verify the appropriate tree(s) to be removed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Chairwoman Kaplan noted that page 4 of the staff report indicates that staff recommends a bonding of 10% and that the arborist recommends 25% bonding. She asked if the value of bonding has changed. Planner Walgren stated that the arborist recommends 25% bonding for all trees that could be affected for every project that he is asked to review. This percentage gives the monetary valuation of the trees that are affected. Beyond that, it would be up to Planning Commission to determine what would be a reasonable amount. He noted that 25% in this case would be $23,OOO.This amount was significantly larger than most tree protection bonds that are taken in. Staff recommends that a 10% bond be required which would be closer to the valuation of the trees. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the City was requiring a replacement value of trees recommended for removal due to their condition/ safety. She recommended that this issue be scheduled for a study session. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it seemed that a tree recommended for removal by the arborist because it is diseased should have a zero value. Planner Walgren clarified that the arborist does give trees zero value in some cases. In this situation, he noted that the arborist assigned the trees a value. He stated that a security deposit was meant to be an incentive to follow the guidelines. In this case, staff did not believe that it needs to match the exact value of every tree. It was Planner Walgren's belief that the applicant would be requesting that they not be required to provide for a replacement of the redwood tree to be removed because the site was so wooded based on his conversation with the applicants. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Cathy Fyke, applicant, requested the she be relieved of the replacement value of the redwood tree as the arborist acknowledges that the redwood tree would eventually need to be removed due to its condition. She informed the Commission that the site contained 115 trees. She noted that there is no open area to plant another tree. She indicated that the front yard contains water lines and that it would not be conducive to tree planting. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired if Ms. Fyke would consider replacing the wood burning fireplaces with a gas fireplace to preserve our breathable air? Ms. Fyke responded that she would consult her architect and would agree to do so, if possible. She noted that the master bedroom fireplace would be the one used and that the others would be used for decoration purposes. Commissioner Pierce noted that the master bedroom proposes a gas fireplace. Chairwoman Kaplan referred to page 13 of the arborist report which talks about the driveway being within two feet of the tree trunk. She asked if this concern was addressed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 6 - in the resolution of approval? Planner Walgren indicated that he would check to see if this condition was included in the resolution. Ms. Fyke clarified that the existing driveway would be utilized and that a new layer would be placed on top of it. She was informed that she should not pull out the existing driveway nor to disturb the tree's root system. She felt that her proposal would be beneficial to the tree. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that a condition be added to reflect the Commission's concern about the driveway not being removed because that would be detrimental to the tree. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the resolution did not contain conditions reflecting the city arborist's recommendation. Ms. Fyke stated that she would agree to a condition that would require that the driveway is to remain in its present location. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Commissioner Abshire stated that since the city arborist recommends the removal of the redwood tree because of its condition, he does not see why the applicant should be required to pay a replacement value and that he would agree to waive the replacement cost of the redwood tree. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he visited the site and noted that there were a number of healthy, good sized oak trees located on site. He stated that he did not see the need to require additional tree planting as there were a number trees on site. Commissioner Murakami stated that the redwood tree was a non - native variety and that he did not see a reason to penalize the applicant for its removal. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -018 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: - DELETION OF CONDITION 7 WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE REDWOOD TREE. THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD STIPULATE THAT THE PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY ADJACENT TO TREE #37 IS TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED TO PROTECT THE TREE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 7 - 7. V -96 -002 - LUCAS; 19370 SARATOGA -LOS GATOS RD.; Request for Variance approval to construct a 669 sq. ft. detached garage with a roof height of 19.5 feet where 15 feet is the maximum height permitted by the City Code. The subject property is a 4.47 acre parcel and is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Asfour noted that the garage is to be detached from the building. He did not know why the garage needed to be as high as being proposed because he felt that the garage could be designed to be compatible with the main structure. He indicated that he had a problem with the roof height. Planner Walgren indicated that the garage was originally approved at a height of 15 feet. The applicants are requesting the additional height to increase the roof pitch. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Robert Aviles, project designer, indicated that a decision was made to request a variance to make the roof more compatible with the existing front elevation. Commissioner Asfour asked if compatibility could be achieved without going up the extra foot in height. Mr. Aviles noted that with a 6:12 pitch, you end up with a height of 15 feet. Comparing this height to the existing front elevation, it would stick out like a sore thumb. Commissioner Asfour stated that the neighbors located to the right side of the driveway had a problem with the original approval and noted that it would be visible to those neighbors. Mr. Aviles indicated that the neighbors located to the right side would not have a window facing this property and that the neighbors do not have a problem with the proposal. Commissioner Murakami noted that when you first drive into the circular driveway, you will be seeing the profile of the garage, and not the front view of the garage. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that there were no height poles at the site to give her an understanding of what the difference in roof height would be. She did not know why the additional four feet in height was necessary and felt that the larger structure would be more obtrusive visually than keeping it at lower height. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:13 P.M. Commissioner Pierce felt that this was a unique estate home built in 1929. He felt that it was an appropriate request given the fact that there is a circular driveway located in the front area. He felt that the roofline was important and felt that it would provide continuity. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 8 - He clarified that he was not supportive of higher rooflines but that in this case, he could support the increase in height. Commissioner Siegfried concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioner Pierce. Commissioner Murakami stated that in reviewing the profile of the garage, the height does not bother him because it lends itself to the overall scheme of the "estate" look. He stated that he would not object to the request. Commissioner Asfour stated that he could not make the findings to approve the variance because it was his belief that the roof scale could be made to fit the architecture. Therefore, he could not support the request. Commissioner Abshire stated that he could make the findings to support the variance request. He noted that the adjacent home has a similar height pitched roof. Chairwoman Kaplan asked why the pitch of the roof could not be achieved without raising the height as high as being requested. Mr. Aviles clarified that a 45 degree angled roof would reduce the height to 15 feet, reducing the depth of the garage and also reducing what you can fit into the garage (only a small car would be able to fit in the garage). Commissioner Siegfried clarified that the applicant could install a 15 foot tall garage, but that he could not install a 15 foot high garage with the pitch proposed. Commissioner Asfour asked staff how it derived at the findings to approve the variance. Planner Walgren referred to page 1 of the resolution. Staff felt that the special circumstance, in this case, was the era in which the house was built. The applicant is proposing to match what was built in the 1920s to achieve aesthetic and architectural compatibility. In addition, the supporting findings are the fact that the parcel was as large and screened as it is and that it is not visible from off site vantage points. If the Commission can accept the special circumstances, than there is no grant in special privilege because of these special circumstances. Commissioner Asfour stated that had the garage been attached to the main structure, he could support the request. As it was detached from the main structure, he could not make the findings to approve the variance request. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -96 -002 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ASFOUR VOTING NO AND COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 9 - 8. DR -96 -012 - MITCHELL; 15351 PEPPER LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,525 sq. ft. single story residence on a 33,659 sq. ft. lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing cottage and accessory structures on the site would be demolished. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Marty Oakley, project designer, indicated that he would answer any questions which it may have. Chairwoman Kaplan inquired if any of the proposed fireplaces are to be designated as gas burning. She also inquired if the applicant would consider installing inserts in the wood burning fireplaces to prevent air pollution. Mr. Oakley indicated that the master bedroom would have a gas burning fireplace and that the two others would be wood burning fireplaces. Regarding the installation of inserts in the fireplaces, he indicated that he would discuss this issue with his clients. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff if a condition was included to restrict driving or parking underneath the dripline of the trees. She recommended that driving /parking restrictions be included as a condition of approval if it was not included as one. Jim Sweet, 15395 Pepper Lane, informed the Commission that he has no problem with the design of the home. He informed the Commission that across the street from him, there is a home, under construction, that was approved by the city council over three year ago. His concern was in the length of time that it takes to complete construction. He asked if there was any way to require that progress is made in development. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a building permit is valid as long as progress is being made towards the completion of the project. If construction ceases for six months, the building permit would expire. However, a condition could not be imposed to require completion of the home by a certain period of time. Mr. Oakley indicated that the home would be constructed within 11 to 13 weeks. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that the project was nicely designed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 10 - COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -012 WITH AN ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THAT NO DRIVING /PARKING IS TO OCCUR UNDERNEATH THE TREES' DRIPLINE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that a timeline for construction be scheduled for a work session as he felt that it is a condition that could be included as part of project approval. 9. DR -96 -005 - FLICK; 20067 MENDELSOHN LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,050 sq. ft. two -story single family residence on a vacant lot with a net site area of 21,170 sq. ft. The property is located within the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Dave Flick, applicant, indicated that the proposed home steps down and that it takes ownership of Wild Cat Creek. The only part of the home that is a two story is located by Wild Cat Creek. The design was similar to the house located next door. Regarding tree replacement, the home was designed to remove three dead redwood trees valued at $9,000, noting that the other trees to be removed are valued at $26,000. He felt that requiring a property owner to replace trees that are dead was redundant, especially when there are over 100 trees on site. Chairwoman Kaplan recommended that the trees be planted close to the next door neighbor located to the right. She recommended that staff be allowed to define the number and location of the replacement trees. Commissioner Pierce felt that the requirement for replacement of dead trees should be reviewed. Commissioner Murakami indicated that he would agree to allow staff to determine the number of trees to be replaced. Mr. Flick stated that he would agree to work with staff regarding the number of replacement trees. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:36 P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked how the applicant can appeal staff's recommendation if the applicant disagrees with staff's requirement? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 11 - Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a condition could be included that would require the replacement of the trees in terms of number and location subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. If there is not a mutual agreement, the issue would be brought back to the Commission for further consideration. COMMISSIONERS PIERCE /MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -005, ADDING A CONDITION TO STIPULATE THAT THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF THE REPLACEMENT TREES ARE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER PATRICK ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis recommended that a work session be scheduled for May 22 to discuss the three issues brought up this evening (time permitting): 1) replacement values of trees; 2) fireplace issues; and 3) the timing of construction. Commissioner Siegfried further recommended that timing of construction for the installation of landscaping or on -site improvements be included for discussion. He recommended that the City be careful about requiring a decorative fire place that is never to be used be required to be plumbed for gas. Chairwoman Kaplan requested that a presentation/information relating to studies conducted relating to wood burning fireplaces be scheduled for a work session. She also recommended that the issue regarding no parking /driving underneath the trees be scheduled for discussion. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners Asfour and Murakami indicated that they would not be present at the May 22 meeting. As two Commissioners were going to be absent from the May 22 meeting, the Commission agreed to schedule the work session to discuss the three items identified above to another date when all Commissioners could be present. Staff is to notify the Commission if an applicant requests that a work session be scheduled for May 22. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 4/17, 4/20 4/23 & 4/24/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 5/22/96 Oral PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1996 PAGE - 12 - City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 22, 1996, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC050896.SAR rLANNING COMMISSION MINU i ra APRIL 24, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce Late: Siegfried Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, and Planner Bradley (City Attorney Riback was not present this evening) Pledge of Allegiance Chairwoman Kaplan presented Commissioner Murakami with a plaque and thanked him, on behalf of the Commission, for acting as past Chair to the Commission. Minutes - 4/10/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 10, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: Page 6, paragraph 9, second sentence amended to read: "...Shestated that she could ................. ............................... not support zal rei tide approval of antennas in residential zones.... " ................. ............................... THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 19, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V -96 -001 - DIAMOND; 18406 MONTPERE WAY; Request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 272 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2,688 sq. ft. single story residence. The addition would encroach 1.2 ft. into the required side yard setback of 7.2 ft. The subject property is 8,220 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district (applicant is requesting continuance to 5/8/96; City review deadline is 9/12/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Commissioner Siegfried entered and was seated. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INC./BYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. An environmental initial study and subsequent Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (cont. from 4/10/96 regular adjourned meeting). Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He indicated that there were still issues to be resolved prior to approval as follows: pedestrian access; circulation alternatives; Saratoga - Sunnyvale wall; one story versus two story homes; and the bus stop shelter. Staff requested Commission discussion and that it provide the applicant and staff with direction regarding the issues listed above or any other issues that it may have. Should the Commission approve the project, a resolution of approval would be prepared for this application and that it would be placed on the consent calendar for its next meeting. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the public hearing remained open (7:40 p.m.) Ray Nesmith indicated that he did not have anything further to state other than the comments that were stated at the work session. He agreed to answer any other questions which the Commission may have. He stated that he was in agreement with the conditions PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - contained in the letter presented to him. Jim Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, informed the Commission that he was representing the homeowners to the north and west of the project. He indicated that the homeowners presented a petition at the first hearing on this item, noting that the primary concern was that no additional traffic be added to the adjacent streets. The petition also listed items that should be completed to make this project neighborhood friendly. Study sessions have since been held, giving the neighbors the opportunity to review the various concepts proposed. He indicated that the neighbors unanimously supported the street layout as proposed. He noted that the school also prefers this circulation pattern for the safety of the children. He informed the Commission that there is an athletic field controlled by the Saratoga -Los Gatos Recreational District, noting that there still remains activities outside school hours. He reiterated that the homeowners support this proposal and requested that the following conditions be included as part of the Commission's approval of the subdivision map: - Lots on north and west boundaries of subdivision are to be restricted to single story residences. - Finished grade of lots on north boundary are not to exceed present grade level. Landscaping and irrigation to be installed at the end of Lynde Avenue, Seaton Avenue and Prune Blossom Court by removing portions of existing pavement. The pavement's new terminus shall be curved. - Area between school driveway and west boundary of the subdivision, which is city owned land, to be landscaped and irrigated. - Maintenance of items 3 and 4 to be provided by a landscape and lighting district supported by the Lands of Navico. Retain integrity of existing retaining walls and fences along north, west, and south boundaries of subdivision. All damage or replacement to be accomplished at Navico's expense. Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, identified the modifications made to the subdivision layout as follows: the cul -de -sac that goes in a southwesterly direction was straightened slightly, moving it closer to Seaton Avenue; the pedestrian walkway was shortened to 120 foot; the size of the walkway was increased to a varying witdh of 20 to 25 feet; the lot lines for lots 3 -10 were modified; landscaping would be installed in the area located at the end of Lynde Avenue and Prune Blossom Court; an alignment of the existing driveway to the school and Seaton Avenue; and that a small landscape easement has been provided at the corner of the school parking lot and driveway. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Siegfried stated that a lot of thought has gone into this proposal and that although there are three streets that have the potential to be extended, only one of the streets, Seaton Avenue, should not be extended. He felt that the proposal was a good one. He felt that it was important to provide this kind of access directly through to Herriman, from a pedestrian stand point. He concurred with Mr. Ousley that the athletic field located at the school site was used extensively on weekends and evenings. Therefore, this circulation would allow for bicycle and walking traffic from areas that are not easily accessible. He stated that he liked the plans and that he would like to see a mixture in size of houses as well as single and two story homes. Commissioner Abshire stated that he originally objected to the proposed plans. However, at the work session held a couple of weeks ago, he was convinced that this was probably the best plan that could be perceived and that it would preserve the existing ash tree. He felt that the signal light at the entrance of the project would be more efficient now that there were four accesses being proposed instead of three. He felt that a problem would exist in that there would be no traffic from this subdivision going to the ones adjacent to it. However, he felt that this disadvantage was outweighed by the advantage of the current plans. Commissioner Pierce stated that he still had a concern with the layout. He also stated that he did not like any of the alternatives that were presented at the study session. He felt that the logical solution to the lot layout would be a modified alternative C (instead of having two cul -de -sacs, the project could use the signal light at Herriman, go through and make a right turn to connect to Prune Blossom. This modified Alternative C would allow the use of the Herriman signal light and that it would provide additional safety to individuals using Verde Vista. He noted that it was not safe to pull out onto Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road when the traffic is heavy, because it is a dangerous situation. He indicated that he could accept the rest of the proposal with the exception of the project's layout. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the circulation plan proposed. She recommended that there be another outlet. She felt that there were other alternatives that could address her concerns. She indicated that she liked Commissioner Pierce's suggestion of the use of a modified alternative C. Therefore she could not support this proposal. Commissioner Murakami stated that after reviewing the proposal at the study session, that he was more inclined to agree with Commissioners Siegfried and Abshire. He felt that the proposal would provide enough access for a development of this size. He stated that he would be inclined to support the proposal. Commissioner Asfour stated that his original concern has not been addressed, that being that the proposal only provides one access to the development. He stated that he would need to see one more access provided, connecting one of the other roads dead ending into the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that she supported Commissioner Pierce's modified alternative C because it would relieve a dangerous traffic situation from Verde Vista to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. She felt that the modified alternative would open up the proposed neighborhood to the existing neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not want the neighbors to think that the Commission was not listening to their concerns. However, the Commission is mandated to make decisions that would benefit the City as a whole, not just a small locality within the City. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the public hearing be reopened to determine whether the applicant wishes to modify the plans as recommended by the majority of the Commission or whether they wish the Commission to take action this evening. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. TO INQUIRE IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO ALLOW TIME TO MODIFY THE PLANS OR WHETHER THEY WISH A VOTE TO BE TAKEN THIS EVENING. Mr. Nesmith informed the Commission that he has investigated the recommended alternative. He indicated that a concern was that the City calls for a maximum length of a court and that the court was already proposed at 1,100 feet. The Lynde addition would bring the court up to 1,600 feet. This extension would be of concern under fire regulations (extension from a fire hydrant). He felt that the additional traffic to the school would also be an issue. What was being proposed was something that would work for the entire neighborhood. Chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the purpose of reopening the public hearing was to determine whether the applicant would like to return with a revised plan to address the concerns of the majority of the Commission based upon the comments made this evening or whether the applicant wishes the Commission to vote on the request before it. Mr. Nesmith requested that the Commission take action on this item tonight as there were no other alternative that would make better use of this site. Commissioners Patrick / Asfour moved to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not believe that the proposed modified alternative C was a rational one. He felt that it would make a through way from Herriman onto Verde Vista through an existing neighborhood (impacting the four homes currently located on the dead end street). It was his belief that individuals driving across town would go through the signal light, turn right and drive down the existing street, adding additional traffic to an existing neighborhood (taking an existing dead end street and making it a thoroughfare). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010 AS PROPOSED. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -4 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE; NOES: ABSHIRE, MURAKAMI, SIEGFRIED. Community Development Director indicated that the resolution of denial would be scheduled for the May 8, 1996 Planning Commission - Consent Calendar. 3. DR -96 -010 - STEPS; 14136 ARCADIA PALMS; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 773 sq. ft. first -story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second -story addition to an existing single -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application also includes a request for exemption from the floor area reduction requirement for building heights over 18 ft. and for the underfloor clearance height of 5 ft. The subject property is 53,178 sq. ft. and is located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Bradley presented the staff report on this item. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:15 p.m. David Zaro, project architect, concurred with staff's recommendation. He stated that he made a sincere effort to minimize the bulk of the second floor area. This was accomplished by centering the second floor area. He also tried to minimize any impacts to the surrounding neighbors and to their view corridors. Commissioner Murakami complimented Mr. Zaro on his architectural drawings. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -010 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 4. UP -96 -003 - THE BROOKSIDE CLUB OF SARATOGA 19127 COX AVE.; Review of a comprehensive Use Permit for an existing private tennis and swim club facility located on an approximately 3.4 acre site in the R -1- 10,000 and R -1- 12,500 zoning district, pursuant to Article 15 -55 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item and informed the Commission that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to consolidate all previous conditions of the use permit into one resolution. Staff recommended approval of the resolution. Chairwoman Kaplan noted that the Commission was presented with a document this evening dated April 24, 1996 from Brookside Club, stating that there were corrections to misprints. She stated that she would refer to the resolution before the Commission until such time that the corrections were identified. Commissioner Pierce clarified that the Commission was being requested to consolidate the conditions of approval and not to discuss the conditions in particular. Commissioner Siegfried felt that a definition needed to be identified regarding what constitutes a swim meet as well as the definition for private swim /tennis lessons. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff regarding page 1 of the resolution, condition 2 pertaining to the hours of operation for outdoor activities - Swimming. She noted that there were inconsistencies in the hours for adult swimming as identified in the proposed resolution of approval and that of the matrix prepared by staff (8 a.m. versus 9 a.m.). She also noted a discrepancy located at the top of page 2 of the resolution relating to the Sunday swim hours (resolution stipulates 10:00 a.m. and the matrix table states 11 a.m.; resolution stipulates Saturday and holiday hours as 9 a.m. - matrix states 10 a.m.). Community Development Director Curtis indicated that staff would review the hours that swim practices could commence. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the only testimony that the Commission would consider this evening was the resolution before it. The comments would need to address whether the unified use permit proposal correctly states the terms and conditions of all of the previous use permit amendments. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Walter Windus, 12681 Saratoga Creek Drive, indicated that he resides across the street from the Brookside Club. He expressed concern with the increase in membership and the increase in use of the facility (condition 5, page 2 of the consolidated resolution of approval). Commissioner Siegfried clarified that condition 5 limits membership to 250 families and that it would not be increasing the membership. He indicated that he spoke with Dee Askew briefly regarding this matter and that at the time that he spoke with her, he had not reviewed the packet, nor of the request for use permit consolidation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Dee Askew, 12651 Saratoga Creek Drive, stated that the neighbors were concerned because the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a comprehensive use permit that reflected all previously and currently applicable use permit conditions. She indicated that upon reviewing the respective permit, the neighbors found discrepancies and omissions as follows: Page 2, weekend swim hours (previously identified by Chairwoman Kaplan); the last four items located on the matrix were not included in the resolution (upgrade perimeter fencing along east property line; additional landscaping to reduce impacts to neighbors; eliminate tennis rebound wall; eliminate or move basketball standard); - Inclusion of a section which stipulates that the Planning Commission shall retain jurisdiction "To preserve the health, safety, convenience, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding areas or to preserve the existing or perspective values of properties and improvements." (Included in UP -14.1 of 1960) Ms. Askew requested that the Commission consider its draft permit report in its deliberations. Bob Salutric, 12365 Saratoga Creek Drive, requested that the ambiguities be resolved. He expressed concern with how the club house is to be used henceforth. He requested that the previous verbiage of preceding use permits be incorporated in the resolution of approval. Regarding the sound system, he did not feel that the six foot fence would mitigate the noise of the sound system. He requested that an eight foot fence be required (condition 7). He also requested that the non - membership and group lessons be clarified. Jim Shaw, stated his support of the neighbors who reside on Saratoga Road. Bob Williams, Vice President, Brookside Club Board, offered the following comments: page 2 of the consolidated resolution of approval should indicate that the Sunday swim hours are to be from 11 a.m. until one hour after sunset; requested that under Club Swim Team Practices (page 2 of the resolution of approval) be amended to read: "11 -18 year old team members: Commencing at 8 a.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays during the period of aprmae June 15 through July 31; "All team members: commencing at 9 a.m. on weekdays during ..... ... ..... kthe period Jae 15 be inin'' he th r A R throu h Jul 31 - Swim Meets and Time Trials - amended to read: "Three Saturday swim meets and ........................... one Saturday o Sunday time trial during the period June 15 to July 31, beginning no ::......:......:::;:.;:...... earlier than 9 a.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 9 - A group to be defined as 3 to 4 swimmers. Commissioner Patrick noted that page 27 of the staff report indicates that a 1985 amendment made it possible for the Club to begin practices as soon the school children are released for the summer rather than waiting until June 15. It was her belief that at one point, in the review of the use permit, commencement of practices were earlier than the June 15 date. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:45 P.M. Commissioner Abshire excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the last four conditions listed in the matrix have been satisfied and therefore were not included. However, should the Commission wish to include them in the resolution of approval, they could so be included. He informed the Commission that it would continue to retain jurisdiction of the use permit and that the Commission has the right to amend or revoke the use permit if problems arise. Regarding the request to install an eight foot fence instead of a six foot fence, he indicated that the Commission approved the installation of a six foot fence. He addressed the swim trials and stated that it was the intent to have four congregate activities. A swim trial could be held either on a Saturday or Sunday as long as it is not both days. He indicated that the Commission has discretion regarding weekend swim trials. It was his belief that it was the intent of previous decisions to allow swimming to start at the end of the school year rather than identifying a specific date. He recommended that the date be identified as being the first week or first Monday after the end of the school year. He informed the Commission that he needed clarification as to what constitutes private lessons as well as clarification regarding Saturday versus Sunday swim trials. Commissioner Patrick recommended that the swim practices be stipulated not to start prior to the first Monday that the Saratoga elementary school is released for summer break, but no earlier than June 1 of any year. She indicated that she did not have a problem with Saturday versus Sunday swim trials but that she would not want a continuous, two day event. She also stated that she would support private lessons not to exceed a certain number at any given time. Commissioner Siegfried stated that his concern has been the advertisement of swim and tennis camps. He did not believe that private swim and tennis lessons was ever the intent of approval (condition 6). Commissioner Asfour indicated that it was his belief that private lessons is a one to one basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Chairwoman Kaplan stated that it was her interpretation that private lessons are ones that are paid for. Community Development Director Curtis stated that he did not believe that the issue was whether or not there were private lessons but that the issue was that of providing lessons to non -club members. He indicated that staff was looking at the definition of private lessons as being lessons being offered to non -club members. Commissioner Asfour felt that allowing paid, non - members to receive lessons would be indirectly increasing the Club's membership. Commissioner Patrick felt that the difference between member and private lessons was one whether the life guard was directing an individual how to swim versus spending an hour with an individual receiving lessons, regardless of whether it is a private individual or as a group. Commissioner Siegfried stated that it was his belief that it was not the intent of the City to allow the advertisement of swim /tennis camps or a day care center. Commissioner Patrick recommended that language be included in the resolution that would limit the number of individuals who can be present before it constitutes a group (tennis not to exceed two individuals per lesson and swimming lessons not to exceed five individuals per group) . Commissioner Pierce noted that testimony has not been received that implies that the club is conducting swim camps. He did not believe that a problem exists. He acknowledged the fact that the neighbors were concerned with a potential problem. He felt that it should be made clear that it is not the Commission's intent to allow camps. If it gets to that point, the Commission would continue to retain its jurisdiction over the use permit. Community Development Director indicated that he understood the Commission's definition of "private lessons". COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO ITS MAY 8 MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION PER COMMISSION DISCUSSION. Community Development Director informed the Commission that this item would not be placed on the consent calendar as the public hearing was reopened. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK RESCINDED THEIR MOTION. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND TO INCORPORATE THE MODIFICATIONS AS IDENTIFIED THIS EVENING. THE RESOLUTION IS TO BE PLACED ON THE MAY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 11 - 8, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THE COMMISSION'S VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Chairwoman Kaplan thanked everyone for their efforts on this item. 5. DR -96 -007 - COSTA; 18928 TEN ACRES ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,676 sq. ft. single story residence on a 44,867 sq. ft. vacant lot per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Bradley presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Greg Kwahara, project architect, indicated that grading would allow the home to appear more natural and softer without the use of a retaining wall. He thanked staff for its assistance. Commissioner Asfour expressed confusion regarding how the proposed design would work. It was indicated that if the house was stepped down, it would need a retaining wall to the rear. But that if the house was not terraced, a retaining wall would not be necessary. It was his opinion that the applicant was trying to fit the lot to the home instead of fitting the home to the lot. Mr. Kwahara indicated that the amount of cut could be reduced and that it could be softened with the use of landscaping. Paul Doble, general contractor, stated that grading can be reduced and still meet the City's requirement, but doing so would require the installation of a large, ugly retaining wall. He did not want to see a retaining wall built because it would not be attractive. It was his belief that this proposal would be a "win -win" situation. Commissioner Siegfried clarified that Commissioner Asfour was asking if it was possible to redesign the house, stepping it down to minimize grading. Commissioner Asfour stated that there were other issues other than meeting zoning requirements. Ed Costa, applicant, indicated that he chose a home design that he liked and then he searched for a lot in Saratoga that would fit the design. He felt that the plans would work well on this particular lot. He was looking for a lot that was aesthetically pleasing, having a park -like setting. In order to conform to any type of building on this particular lot, it was found that a certain amount a dirt would need to be removed. He indicated that he proposes to install a considerate amount of large trees, noting that the lot was currently PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 12 - bare. He indicated that an alternative would be the use of retaining walls but that doing so would impose a large amount of concrete in the way of a retaining wall. He felt that his proposal would fit well within the community. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not support the use of retaining walls and that he was in support of a house that fits the lot, not creating a lot that fits the design. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M. Commissioner Murakami stated that Commissioner Asfour's points were well taken. He indicated that he did not have an objection to the design of the home but that he was concerned that the lot was being modified to accommodate the home. Therefore, he could not support the request. Commissioner Patrick stated that she could not support the massive earth movement. She felt that the home could be redesigned to fit the property or that the home could be re- sited. She did not feel that the topography was too strict that it makes redesign impossible. She indicated that she could not support the request as submitted. Chairwoman Kaplan stated that her concern was with upsetting the hill and that she concurred with the comments as stated by her fellow Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUEST A VOTE OR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. Mr. Costa indicated that he did not wish a continuance and requested that the Commission vote on this item this evening. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION DR- 96-007 AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ITS MAY 8, 1996 CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1996 PAGE - 13 - COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 4/3 & 4/9/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 5/8/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC042496. SAR being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. May 8, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., r ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTL6 APRIL 10, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Dailey (City Attorney Riback was not present this evening) Pledge of Allegiance Planning Commission Chair Appointment Commissioners Patrick / Murakami moved to nominate Commissioner Kaplan as Chair. Commissioners Asfour /Siegfried moved to close the nominations for Chair. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN WAS ELECTED TO SERVE AS CHAIR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Commissioners Asfour /Kaplan moved to nominate Commissioner Patrick as Vice - chair. Commissioners Abshire /Siegfried moved to close the nominations for Vice - chair. COMMISSIONER PATRICK WAS ELECTED AS VICE -CHAIR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE. Minutes - 3/27/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 27, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 9, paragraph 4, line 3 amended to read: "...Aconcern being that there would ................................................. ............................... be a blind spot attributed to the installation of walls: >I >S'th >a >thirzaxf P ......:::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ................................................. ............................... ............................ ............................ ............................ - Page 9, paragraph 4, amended to read: "Cindy Ruby, Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustee, informed the Commission that there are currently 475 students enrolled in the adjacent t. :: School and that the school is slated to grow : r ..................... .......... ..................... .................... ...................................................................................................................... ............................... ........... ::::.:... as:... tit is s< i >rQin:: >:: »:.. xeen rear:: >:<:> rnoYe ::> nto::: >: err- : : :hd.w.. c!mes:::. She indicated that she .............................................................................................................................. ............................... . ............................................................................................................................... ............................... . .............................................................................................................................. ............................... . ................................................................................................ ............................... I .............................. . has not had the opportunity to review the proposed plans and requested the a. PLANNING COMMISSivN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 2 - opportunity to review the plans. A concern being that there would be a blind spot f wall :..,,<,,;;::;: :::::t :.:! .: :. >:..:::: `.:':`.<<,::,;:::;;;:.: >> >;:,,s,;;:.;:,X . ,.: ><,,, ;:::> "::<:. > >' 4. attributed to the installation o a aIt€g ea,4 t.C. „tklcl. p cape ` She requested that safety measures be included so that the safety of the children is ensured during construction.... ” Page 11, paragraph 3, second sentence amended to read: He indicated that he did not have any objects to the eight conditions as proposed by the neighbors with the exception of Condition 4. He stated that he would like to see the developer and the ................ ............................... residents get together and develop an—altematii a *Foul^*'^ plan i tl f THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 5, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -004 - STELLA INVESTMENT CO.; 13485 VILLA OAKS LN.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 14.7 acre Lot 18 of the "Mt. Eden Estates" subdivision into three individual lots of 6.2, 5.1 and 3.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (applicant is requesting a continuance to 6/12/96; City review deadline is 8/21/96) PLANNING COMMISSwN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 3 - 2. V -96 -001 - DIAMOND; 18406 MONTPERE WAY; Request for Variance approval to allow the construction of a 272 sq. ft. first story addition to an existing 2,688 sq. ft. single story residence. The addition would encroach 1.2 ft. into the required side yard setback of 7.2 ft. The subject property is 8,220 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district (applicant is requesting a continuance to 4/24/96; City review deadline is 9/12/96). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3. DR -91- 033.3, SD -91 -003.3 - COCCIARDI; 22631 MT. EDEN RD. Request for a third and final one -year extension of a previously approved Design Review and Building Site approval application to remodel and expand an existing two -story residence with one and two -story additions pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposed residence would have a total square footage of 6,658 sq. ft. The property is approximately 3.2 acres and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4. SM -94 -007 - HARTE; 13967 ALBAR CT.; Request for Site Modification approval to construct a swimming pool with associated hardscape pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code and the conditions of the approved Tentative Map. The subject property is approximately 1.37 acres and is within the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 -4 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. DR -96 -011 - GURNEE; 18545 VESSING ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 985 sq. ft. second story addition and balcony to an existing 3,224 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property has a net site area of 40,511 sq. ft. and is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Dailey presented the staff report. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Tom Gurnee, applicant, stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Murakami complimented Mr. Gurnee for the design of the second story addition. Karen Louie, 18579 Vessing Road, adjacent neighbor, indicated that the second story addition would be looking directly into two other lots and that the windows located to the rear of the home would be looking into her bedroom, living room and back yard area. PLANNING COMMISSiuN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Mr. Gurnee stated that it was his belief that the neighbors' privacy would be preserved as it would be difficult to look out of the proposed windows. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M. Commissioner Asfour stated that at his site visit, he could not see an impact of the addition to any of the neighbors. Commissioner Patrick and Chairwoman Kaplan concurred that there would not be an invasion nor impact to the neighbors' privacy. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/ SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -011 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Commissioner Siegfried stepped down from discussion of agenda item 6. 6. AZO -96 -002 - CITY OF SARATOGA; Amend Chapter 15 of the Saratoga Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) requiring Use Permit review and approval for cellular and wireless communication antenna facilities in all zoning districts. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this Ordinance Amendment finding that no significant adverse environmental impact will result from the project (i.e. requirement of the Use Permit process). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that a letter was distributed this evening to the Commission from Suzanne Hook, JM Consulting Group, Inc., representing Pacific Bell Mobile Services, requesting that the City of Saratoga maintain its current Ordinance provision which allows administrative review of wireless facilities in commercially designated parcels. Staff felt that the proposed use permit procedure would provide proper review of the proposed site and provide adequate public notification to the neighbors. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward its recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of the Negative Declaration and that the Council amend the Municipal Code to require use permit approval for communication antenna facilities in all zoning districts. Commissioner Asfour indicated that this proposed zoning ordinance amendment was a different process than previously discussed. It was his believe that the City would be simplifying the process by reviewing and approving pre- designated sites that would be appropriate for antenna facilities. Community Development Director Curtis stated that it was his belief that designating pre - approved sites would allow too many providers to locate on one site and that this may not be a desirable situation. Allowing the providers to locate on different sites as single users PLANNING COMMISSivN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 5 - would allow the facilities to be screened to mitigate any potential visual impacts. Commissioner Asfour asked why it was being proposed to complicate the process as it appears that the ordinance amendment would be making it more difficult. Community Development Director Curtis stated that this amendment would allow for public hearing notification process to occur concurrently with the review of the application, allowing for adequate review. He indicated that other larger cities allow antennas to locate within commercial districts, noting that those cities have taller buildings, allowing the antennas to be better screened than those in Saratoga. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he has seen three antennas approved administratively but due to the possible proliferations of antennas, it has become more complicated. He felt that locating additional antennas in areas that already have existing antennas would be appropriate to consider. Chairwoman Kaplan asked staff if a public hearing would be conducted when there is a request to share an existing, approved antenna site. Community Development Director Curtis responded that an initial applicant /provider may not wish to have a use permit approved for a multi -user site as the initial applicant applied and paid the fees associated with a use permit. He clarified that the previous procedure for administrative approval of a commercial designated site has not been a problem. However, he felt that future requests in certain areas should be reviewed by the Commission as there was concern with the proliferation of antennae. Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Derek Empey, Mathews Land Company, GTE MobileNet, stated his appreciation for the efforts made on this issue and indicated that he has followed the work sessions relating to this item. He agreed that there should be a mechanism for the review of antenna requests in place. He felt that it would be beneficial to the community to build the infrastructures in the community. He suggested that the process address concerns either at the administrative level or the public hearing process. He felt that the best means to achieve goals is to review each request on a site -by -site basis. He felt that residential areas can be reviewed based on its sensitivity and that the community development director could review the uses at an administrative level to determine if the antennas have been designed to mitigate any potential visual impacts. If there are no visual impacts associated with the use, the community development director can approve the project. If there is a concern, at his discretion, the community development director could refer the request to the Planning Commission to address the concerns of the adjacent property owners. Regarding pre - approved sites, he felt that there are both pros and cons to shared pole issues. He felt that mechanisms were in place to alleviate the public's concern of visual impacts. It was his PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 6 - belief that the industry was responding to alternative designs to address community concerns. He requested that the Commission consider his alternative as an option. Commissioner Abshire asked if agriculture and open space zoning districts were included in the "non- residential" areas? Mr. Empey responded that alternative sites can be of a benefit to the City (generate revenue to the general fund). Commissioner Pierce asked if the antenna industry would require additional sites in this community. Mr. Empey indicated that modifications of the site may be necessary in the future to improve the quality of service to the site and as improvements to technology occurs. He stated that he did not want to go through the public hearing process and requested that this be reviewed and approved at an administrative level. He did not anticipate that an additional site would be needed in this community by his company. Betty Jo Stuart inquired if any of the Commissioners have seen the lit bill board located on El Camino as it was located in a commercial area? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the bill board was lit up but that the existing antenna was not. He informed the Commission that staff has contacted the business owner and requested that the lighting be modified. Sandra Smith, JM Consulting Group, South San Francisco, felt that the installation of antennas can be sensitively installed within commercial zones and concurred with the comments as expressed by Mr. Empey. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked if a public hearing would be required if a modification for an approved site was requested? Community Development Director Curtis responded that a minor modification would be handled administratively (modifications that do not intensify the power or size). He indicated that future use permits could include a condition that would allow minor modifications to be approved administratively. Commissioner Patrick stated that she would support the zoning ordinance amendment which would require approval of a use permit for antenna facilities in all zoning districts. She stated that she could not support only requiring the approval of antennas in residential zones. She also indicated that she was concerned with intensification of the use. Commissioner Murakami asked if there were several applications in the process? Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that there were no applications on file for antennas, but that he was aware of potential applications and proposed sites. He stated that he was not comfortable indicating the appropriate sites for antennas, noting that there were not many commercial zoned districts to locate these facilities in Saratoga. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 7 - Commissioner Pierce stated that he was impressed with the last paragraph of the staff report, noting that there were not a lot of industrial areas in Saratoga and that the commercial districts were in close proximity to residential areas. He felt that requests would be received in the future to locate antenna facilities within residential zoned areas. Commissioner Abshire stated his support of staff's recommendation. Chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she would prefer to have selected sites so as to generate revenues for the city (i.e.,public lands). She informed the Commission and staff that at the League of California Cities - Planning Commissioners Institute work sessions, it was suggested that cities take the initiative and direct applicants to the locations that have been designated as appropriate sites to locate antenna facilities. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that he would be meeting with representatives from PacBell. He indicated that he needs to be cautious in encouraging individuals to locate on city or public owned properties. He stated that his objective would be to find the best site whether it is a city, school, or fire district site that meets the needs of the antenna provider. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ASFOUR MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, REQUIRING USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR COMMUNICATION ANTENNA FACILITIES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSTAINING. Commissioner Siegfried resumed his seat on the Commission. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the following Planning Commission actions have been appealed to the City Council: SD- 95- 009/V -95 -014 - Nagpal; 19010 Via Tesoro (to be reviewed by the City Council May 1, 1996). - UP -95 -008 - Kolotouros; 20201 Merida Drive (continued to the Council's April 17 meeting at the applicant's request) - DR -94 -042 - Skov; 14970 Sobey Road (continued to the Council's April 17 meeting to allow the presence of all Councilmembers as there was a 2 -2 vote taken on the appeal). COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR -94 -050; Lewis, 18581 McCoy Ave. 4 PLANNING COMMISSIUN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Planner Dailey presented the staff report for a request to modify approved architectural plans. Staff finds that the modifications are acceptable and that the design review findings can be made. Therefore, staff recommended Commission approval of the requested modifications. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the location of the requested additional square footage. Commissioner Murakami noted that the addition would be located in the master bedroom, to the rear of the home. Marilyn Lewis, applicant, indicated that the addition would be to the open ceiling located in the living room area. Mark Harrington, project designer, indicated that the rear elevation of the master bedroom would be the area where the addition would be located. Commissioner Patrick inquired about the west elevation and whether it was to be a wall with no first story roof overhang. Mr. Harrington informed the Commission that he met with staff and that this submittal was the best solution that would meet his client's needs. Commissioner Patrick felt that this modification defeats the purpose of the approval granted a year ago. She stated that she could not support the requested modifications. Commissioners Asfour and Kaplan indicated that they could not support the requested modifications because the original approval that was granted was to ensure that the home was designed to be compatible and in keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood. Commissioner Murakami indicated that he liked the approved design better and that the proposed design bothers him. Commissioner Abshire stated that he did not see any reason to deny the requested modification(s) as the overhang was located to the rear of the home. If this was the design that the property owner wanted and it met all the design requirements, he indicated that he could support the modification. Community Development Director Curtis noted that the requested changes were not significant to require a new design review. He recommended that a motion be made with a formal vote taken. He indicated that he would review the Municipal Code to determine if there can be an appeal to a denial of a plan revision. Chairwoman Kaplan asked if the original approval would stand if this modification was denied. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the original approval would stand should the Commission deny the requested plan revisions. PLANNING COMMISSiuN MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Siegfried indicated that it was his belief that the Commission would need to take formal action to deny the request in order for the applicant to appeal the Commission's denial. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR APPLICATION DR -94 -050. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 WITH COMMISSIONER ABSHIRE VOTING NO. 2. Bicycle Committee Report (Commissioner Siegfried) Commissioner Siegfried informed the Commission that there is a continued interest in providing an access walkway from Seaton to Herriman as part of the proposed Navico subdivision. He requested that another Planning Commissioner be appointed to the Bicycle Committee as he has fulfilled his term on the Committee. COMMISSIONER PIERCE VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BICYCLE COMMITTEE. Commissioner Asfour indicated that it would be difficult for him to attend the 5:00 p.m. work sessions on in the future as he has a different job /schedule. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 3/20 & 3/26/96. 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 4/24/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 24, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk r \PC041096.SAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce Late: None Absent: Siegfried Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Minutes - 3/13/96 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 13, 1996 AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -0 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, PATRICK, PIERCE; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, MURAKAMI; ABSENT: SIEGFRIED. Oral Communications No comments were offered. Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 22, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioners Abshire, Asfour and Chairman Murakami indicated that they were present at the meeting when Consent Calendar Item 1 was considered by the Commission and that they have read the minutes of the March 13, 1996 meeting. Therefore, they were prepared to vote on the item this evening. 1. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014 - NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 2 - family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. This application was continued from the 3/13/96 meeting by a 4 -0 vote to prepare and adopt Resolutions to deny the project. The public hearing has been closed. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. DR -96 -006 - SCUDELLARI; 14855 BARANGALANE; Request for Design Review approval to demolish and existing residence (approximately 2,800 sq. ft.) and construct a new 5,292 sq. ft. two -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 1.6 acres in size, located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Richard Scudellari, applicant, stated that the home was designed to be compatible with the surrounding area and that it would be consistent with that of the environment. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:41 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she liked the design of the home and felt that it would fit in with that of the neighborhood. She inquired if the site would accommodate a tennis court? Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that there was any portion of the lot that has a slope of less than 10% to accommodate a tennis court. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she liked the language contained in the conditions of approval relating to the "no parking" requirement for tree protection. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -006. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). 3. DR -96 -004 - JUANG; 13600 SURREY LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 246 sq. ft. first story addition and a 1,330 sq. ft. second story addition PLANNING COMMISSIC,i� MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 3 - to an existing 3,388 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 44,330 sq. ft. in area and is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, informed the Commission that he tried to address all the design handout criteria. He felt that the house was close to non - visible and that the design meets his clients' needs. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Chairman Murakami stated that he reviewed the second story segment as mentioned in the staff report. After review of the text contained in the analysis, his concerns were answered. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -96 -004 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 4. LL -95 -002, GPA -96 -001 & AZO -96 -001- BINKLEY; 13570 PIERCE RD.; Request for Lot Line Adjustment approval to relocate an existing parcel boundary between two legal lots of record. The application also includes requests to realign existing General Plan designation and Zoning District boundaries to match the realigned parcel boundaries. Parcel A (8.4 acres) is located within a Hillside Residential District and Parcel B (40,500 sq. ft.) within an R -1- 40,000 District. An environmental 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 informed the Commission that the lot line adjustment would be contingent upon the City Council's approval of the General Plan and zoning amendments. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a building site would be established for parcel B? Planner Walgren responded that a building site would not be established as part of this approval but that staff requested that the applicant show that there is a reasonable building site for parcel B. The setback envelopes are being shown on the plan so that when the lot is developed, it is known what the required setbacks would be. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that a home would need to be designed to be located within the setback lines. PLANNING COMMISSIC,i� MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that she was concerned with the creation of odd shaped lots and the problems that they could create in the future. Commissioner Asfour asked if staff was satisfied with the building site? Planner Walgren responded that the building site was the most feasible building site available given the current configuration of parcel B. The building envelope, as shown, is based on today's setback requirements. Should the lot not be developed for several years, the building site would be subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time of development, as well as review by the City's geologist and arborist. Commissioner Abshire asked if the home could be built on the land that is being added? Planner Walgren indicated that the home would be located on the western most 10,000 square feet of the lot which is currently a knoll with several trees on it, noting that it was gaining a flat terraced area along the hillside. Commissioner Patrick asked the City Attorney if this zoning and General Plan amendments would be affected by Measure G? City Attorney Riback responded that this proposed general plan amendment was the type of amendment that would be subject to Measure G. He indicated that Measure G would go into affect 10 days following City Council's declaration of the vote, sometime in late April or early May. Commissioner Asfour stated that it was his understanding that Measure G would only apply if there was an increase in density. He noted that this application was not increasing in density. City Attorney Riback stated that this amendment would be subject to Measure G because there would be a change in the General Plan land use designation from the Residential Hillside conservation to Residential, Very Low Density, an intensification in land use. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Bob Binkley, applicant, informed the Commission that he was in charge of administrating his father's estate. The lot line, as it exists today, does not encompass the pattern for the lot and he felt that it was appropriate to adjust the lot to conform to current zoning standards. He stated his concurrence with staff's recommendation. He stated that he also understood the effect of Measure G on his application. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. LL -95 -002 CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT. 5. SD -95 -010 - NAVICO INCJBYRON NAVID; 15041 & 15072 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALERD.; Request for Tentative Subdivision Map approval to subdivide two parcels of land totalling 6.94 acres into 15 single - family lots. The existing residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures would be removed and a new cul -de -sac would access the development off Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd. opposite Herriman Ave. - there is no vehicular access proposed through the adjoining neighborhoods. The proposed lots range in size from 15,000 to 21,600 sq. ft. and would permit 4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. homes (including garages). The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 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 informed the Commission that it could not take formal action on the application this evening as the project requires an extended review period to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. This application has been scheduled to allow the Commission to review the comments as outlined in the staff report, take public testimony and requested that the Commission include any additional comments that it may have. The comments received this evening would be addressed at the next available meeting. He identified the following issues: 1) The circulation plan tends to isolate the 15 new homes from the existing neighborhood. 2) It is recommended that the pedestrian connection be either widened or shortened or both without affecting either of the adjoining lots in order to avoid a long, narrow tunnel affect. 3) It is recommended that construction be limited to single story homes of not more than 22 feet in height. 4) The perimeter landscaping has been found to be suitable for this portion of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road with the recommendation that the applicant provide a more residential wall plan similar to the Saratoga Oaks subdivision on Saratoga Avenue (the use of redwood and used brick columns versus a solid brick wall). 5) Staff also recommends that the developer be required to build a simple post and roof type of bus stop shelter to be maintained by the City in the future. He indicated that the wall plans submitted to the Commission this evening were submitted early this week as an amendment to the original wall plan. He informed the Commission that the original wall plan was proposed to be solid brick which included an arched - entryway over the new court. The new wall plan proposes to use an alternating brick and stucco design, eliminating the arched entryway. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she read the letter from the superintendent of the elementary school. She asked if there was a conflict between the hazardous substance report that came from the County and that of the soil sample? Planner Walgren responded that a conflict did not exist, noting that the County Environmental Health Department was PLANNING COMMISSIU,� MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 6 - referring to things such as abandoned vehicles and fuel in storage containers (above ground contaminants) that are routinely required to be cleaned up as a condition of project approval. The soils sampling analysis talks about the testing of soils for contamination. One report addresses surface evaluation and the other studies soil seepage. Commissioner Kaplan felt that the traffic report seemed low to her. She felt that the calculations presented made assumptions and that the traffic count would be dependent upon the number of middle school aged children who would reside in the development. She had questions regarding density and circulation. She felt that the project should form a relationship with that of the community and that it could be modeled after the Kerwin Ranch subdivision. She inquired if the environmental traffic analysis would change if the circulation configuration was modified. Planner Walgren responded that he did not believe that from an environmental impact stand point that modification to the circulation plan would change the conclusions made. The environmental review would consider the level of service of the local road and that of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. If the circulation plan was amended, it would add additional traffic to the neighborhood. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern with the number of dead end streets proposed and felt that the area should be opened. He asked if there would be any impacts if the roads were opened. Planner Walgren responded that an alternative plan would not generate an increase in traffic, but that it would be a different project than what was before the Commission. He felt that the only proposal that would cause a great alteration to traffic movement would be to have Seaton connect all the way through to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. This would be a significant change in circulation and traffic in the neighborhood. Chairman Murakami asked if it would be possible to address pre and post Route 85 affects on circulation to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road? Planner Walgren responded that the traffic analysis was taken on post -85 counts and that they were taken at the time that Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road was upgraded from a Level of Service (LOS) C to B and than to A at this particular intersection. The pre -85 counts would have reflected an LOS C which is an acceptable level of service. The conclusion of the report was that the 15 lot subdivision would not affect the existing LOS A. Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Bijon Armandour, project architect, addressed two issues of concerns: 1) access from Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road versus the use of the existing residential collector streets. He indicated that the main reason that access from Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road was used was due to the fact that there would not be an increase in traffic counts nor impacts to the neighborhood. If access is to be from the existing neighborhood, it was his belief that there would be an increase in traffic count to the neighborhood. He disagreed with staff's opinion that the proposed circulation pattern would isolate the project from the rest of the neighborhood. 2) Regarding the design of the wall, it is proposed to break up the wall and that earth tone colors would be used. He requested that the Commission approve the wall concept as presented. He noted that the project proposes a density less than the maximum PLANNING COMMISSIUiq MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 7 - allowed for this area. Commissioner Abshire asked if the proposed wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would vary 18 -20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed within this area. He asked what type of fencing would be proposed on the other two sides of the development? Mr. Armandour concurred that the wall along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be between 18 -20 feet from the curb with perimeter landscaping being installed. He indicated that a masonry sound wall is proposed as a barrier to mitigate noise where a wood fence would not provide that sound mitigation. He noted that a masonry wall was an effective sound wall and would be easier to maintain. Commissioner Patrick inquired if a landscape maintenance district would be responsible for the maintenance of the wall? Mr. Armandour clarified that the side walls belonged to three property owners and that the landscaping would be maintained by a landscape and lighting district. Planner Walgren indicated that the wall and landscaping within the right -of -way area located along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road would be maintained by a lighting and landscaping maintenance district and that the landscaping for the pedestrian and side yard private fences would be maintained by the three property owners if that was the preference of the developer and acceptable to the City. Commissioner Asfour asked staff who would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping once the state turns over Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to the City? Planner Walgren responded that the City would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping which are not maintained by a lighting and landscape maintenance district. Commissioner Pierce asked if the proposed sound wall was to be a solid wall (was the brick and masonry wall to be connected or was there to be a gap)? Mr. Armandour clarified that there is to be an eight inch gap between the brick and the masonry wall. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned that any gaps in the sound wall would not mitigate noise as sound would travel through the wall, noting that a solid sound wall would provide for better noise attenuation. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the wall details depict lighting and other details that would need to be maintained. Max Rasmussen, 20650 Woodward Court, informed the Commission that he was speaking for the 17 individuals who attended the Sunday March 24 neighborhood meeting. He indicated that the neighbors did not object to the proposed development as long as it met the guidelines of the General Plan and that consideration was given to the existing residential development. The residents were pleased to see that no other road would be opened as through streets, specifically Prune Blossom and Seaton. He read into the record the eight concerns identified by the existing residents as follows: PLANNING COMMISSIw MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 8 - 1) Only single story houses shall be placed upon lots backing up to exiting homes on the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision. 2) The building pads of those houses which back up to the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision shall be kept at, or near the existing grade level. The intent of this provision is to maintain the height of the homes as low as possible. 3) Adequate drainage catch basins connected to an underground sewer shall be provided along the northern boundary of the subdivision to prevent drainage onto the adjacent properties. 4) The end of Seaton and Prune Blossom streets shall be properly terminated, completed and landscaped. 5) A landscaping and lighting district shall be established to maintain proper appearance and upkeep of the landscaping along the Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road, at the ends of Prune Blossom and Seaton Streets, the subdivision walkway to Seaton, and along the road leading from Seaton to Foothill School. 6) Protection to the root structure of the 300 year old live Oak Tree on the Martin property shall be provided at least out to the tree drip line. 7) The existing retaining wall along the western boundary of the subdivision shall be inspected and repaired or modified as necessary to assure compliance with building codes. 8) Careful consideration shall be given to extending the eastern wall of the subdivision (with consistent landscaping) to Verde Vista to assure aesthetic harmony along Saratoga /Sunnyvale Road. Note that the existing owners of the two homes between the end of the project and Verde Vista have recently installed new fences in this area. Thus they must not be charged for the wall extension. Mr. Rasmussen requested that these items and any other items which the Commission deemed appropriate be placed in writing with NAVICO before commencement of construction. He informed the Commission that the residents do not want to see Lynde Avenue opened up. He informed the Commission that the following individuals were not in attendance at the March 24 meeting but have indicated support of the area residents recommendations: Mr. and Mrs. Ted Smith, Matthew Vandion, and Mr. Blowe. Chairman Murakami thanked Mr. Rasmussen for speaking on behalf of the area residents. Commissioner Pierce requested clarification regarding condition 4 pertaining to PLANNING COMMISSIui� MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 9 - improvements to Seaton and Prune Blossom streets. Mr. Rasmussen clarified that there are no curbs installed. It is being requested that the area be improved, including the installation of landscaping and fencing. Raymond Nesmith informed the Commission that he handled the land transaction. He indicated that he attended a meeting this week with the homeowner association president and that he was pleased to see that the builder was open to every suggestion made by the existing homeowners. Regarding the perimeter fencing, the developer would agree to replace the existing fence with a wood fence. It was suggested by the homeowners association that the cul -de -sac be completed with the installation of a curb with a planting area behind it. Consideration was also given to Mrs. Martin's backyard in relationship to the existing oak tree (tree to be fenced off). He addressed drainage problems being experienced on Prune Blossom and indicated that catch basin would be installed to address the drainage problem. He felt that the proposed development would be of a benefit to the area and to the city. Monte Boisen, 13896 Lynde Avenue, stated his support of the plan. However, he did not support the opening of Lynde Avenue as a through street due to the safety of the children. Cindy Ruby, Saratoga Union School District Board of Trustee, informed the Commission that there are currently 475 students enrolled in the adjacent Foothill School and that the school is slated to grow as soon as students from "Greenbriar" move into their new homes. She indicated that she has not had the opportunity to review the proposed plans and requested the opportunity to review the plans. A concern being that there would be a blind spot attributed to the installation of walls along Seaton, to the rear of the school property. She requested that safety measures be included so that the safety of the children is ensured during construction. She also requested that a bike /pedestrian access not be required along the school parking lot because of the desire to keep students in a specific area. Commissioner Kaplan asked if a traffic controller could be hired if it was determined that one was needed during construction (safety concern)? Community Development Director Curtis responded that a traffic controller could be hired, if needed. Commissioner Patrick asked where Ms. Ruby would like to see pedestrian traffic flow? Ms. Ruby responded that she did not want to see traffic empty into the entrance of the parking lot and that she would like to discuss this issue with the site administrator for his input (allow school to be part of the process). Jitka Cymbal, project engineer, addressed the alternate layout and access as addressed by the neighbors. She informed the Commission that several lot layout designs were reviewed and that it was concluded that no matter how many units were proposed, it would impact the existing neighborhood. She indicated that none of the streets are proposed to empty directly into collector streets. In two instances, streets would go by the school, bringing additional vehicles into an area where children are walking or being dropped off. Another street would empty into Prune Blossom which goes onto Verde Vista. Verde Vista could be considered as a collector street. However, there is no signal at the intersection with PLANNING COMMISSIui� MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. Based on these reasons, the design team redesigned the plan to reflect single cul -de -sacs. She addressed the pedestrian walkways and indicated that the pedestrian walkway appeared long because of the depth of the lots. She indicated that the front portion would be landscaped. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission was handed a document that depicts a pedestrian walkway and that you would be able to see the front yard setback on the curb of lots 5 and 6 and that the walkway fencing would begin in the back of the front yard setback, creating a tunnel affect. This detail would need to be resolved depending upon the final configuration of the streets. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the Commission provide its comments for the benefit of the applicant and the neighbors. Commissioner Kaplan felt that a study session could have been held to discuss alternatives to the plan and to discuss the alternatives with the applicant and the neighbors before it came before the Commission as a public hearing. Commissioner Patrick listed three areas of concern as follows: 1) she was not pleased with the proposed circulation and its relationship to Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road because she sees this area to be a hazard and that she would rather see the circulation utilize one of the feeder streets. 2) She did not like the pedestrian walkway as it appears to be a long narrow pathway. 3) She did not like the proposed sound wall. She indicated that she would prefer to see the use of a wood fence because the use of a brick wall would not be in keeping with the rural character of Saratoga. She did not believe that the way that the wall was configured with the eight inch gap would reduce sound levels. She felt that the project would need to start from scratch. Commissioner Pierce stated that he was concerned with the lot layout. One alternative would be to utilize the existing streets, extending the cul -de -sacs. Commissioner Kaplan informed the public that she and Commissioner Asfour reside in the area. She stated that she was troubled by the strangely shaped lots. She felt that the homes could be built right up to the edges, giving the development a Greenbriar effect (row house effect). She indicated that the Commission was trying to make the end product look attractive. She was not suggesting that there be made a through -way through Lynde. She felt that the Kerwin Ranch subdivision was a model in the community that provides access from local interior streets so that all the traffic does not flow in and out of the subdivision from the same place. She recommended that this item return to the Commission in a study session. Chairman Murakami concurred with the comments expressed by his fellow Commissioners regarding the traffic patterns. He indicated that the neighbors provided him with enough input as far as what is perceived for the future. The configuration, as presented, was visually unusual. He was concerned with traffic patterns along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 11 - whether it could handle additional traffic. Since the opening of Highway 85, it seems that the main thoroughfare is less hectic and could handle the traffic from this development. He agreed that work sessions would need to be conducted to allow the neighbors, the applicant and the Commission to review alternatives. Commissioner Abshire concurred with comments of his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Asfour thanked Mr. Rasmussen for representing the neighborhood. He indicated that he did not have any objections to the eight conditions as proposed by the neighbors with the exception of condition 4. He stated that he would like to see the developer and the residents get together and develop at least one more connector street. He did not have a problem with opening up Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road to egress /ingress to the property. He indicated that he was not appointed to the Commission to look at just the neighbors' needs but that he was appointed to review issues for the good of the City as a whole. He stated his preference for a brick wall instead of a wood wall. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that in the past, she has heard that there were a group of neighbors that have come before the City and stated what they wanted to see develop. After development, other citizens then came before the City asking why a project was allowed to be built. She agreed that the Commission serves the City and that the decisions made would need to be made for the best interest of the community. James Ousley, 20707 Seaton Avenue, asked if planning staff would be involved in the study session? Commissioner Asfour responded that staff would be present at the work session. Mr. Rasmussen informed the Commission that he would be out of town on April 24 but that Mr. Ousley and Mr. Boisen would be in attendance should this item be continued to that date. Mr. Armandour requested that the application be continued to the Commission's April 10 meeting. The Commission recessed at 9:12 p.m. to allow the applicant and the neighbors to discuss a date that would be mutually agreeable to conduct a work session. The Commission reconvened at 9:23 p.m. Byron Navid, applicant, indicated that he was trying to make this a beautiful custom home development. It was his intention to make this an acceptable project to the neighbors. He indicated that he would be willing to modify the fence to address the Commission's concerns. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION SD -95 -010 TO 5:00 P.M., APRIL 10, 1996, ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that City Attorney Riback has been excused from the remainder of the meeting. 6. SD -92 -008.1 & DR -95 -049 - PFEIFFER RANCH INVESTORS; 19710 DOUGLASS LN., LOT 3 (NW CORNER OF TAOS DR. & DOUGLASS LN.) Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,000 sq. ft. single -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request for exemption from the height reduction for total allowable floor area. An additional request is included to modify condition #14 of the Tentative Subdivision Map approval to allow home construction concurrent with subdivision improvements. The subject parcel is Lot 3 of the Sisters of Mercy subdivision, an undeveloped parcel approximately 48,453 sq. ft. in size, located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. DR -95 -050 - PFEIFFER RANCH INVESTORS; 14105 TAOS CT., LOT 4 (SW CORNER OF TAOS DR. & FUTURE TAOS CT.); Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,932 sq. ft. single -story residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The application includes a request for exemption from the height reduction for total allowable floor area. The subject parcel is Lot 4 of the Sisters of Mercy subdivision, an undeveloped parcel approximately 48,047 sq. ft. in size, located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report for agenda items 6 and 7 as they were part of the same subdivision. He indicated that a condition has been included for both applications which would stipulate that any future pool or tennis court construction would be subject to the City arborist's review and approval prior to the issuance of a permit. He indicated that the applicant has requested amendment of Condition 2 of the resolution of approval for lot 3 which requires that all subdivision improvements would need to be built, reviewed, inspected and accepted by the City. He indicated that subdivision improvements are accepted by the City after its completion to make sure that improvements are holding up. It is at this time that the design review application can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting modification of this condition to allow for the filling of a design review application to be reviewed, considered and to allow for home construction to occur concurrently with subdivision level improvements. Staff has in the past approved similar requests where the builder of the subdivision was also the builder of the future home. Staff recommended approval of this modification because the subdivision would need to be completed and accepted before final occupancy can be granted for either of the homes. Chairman Murakami asked if the amendment to the condition was also approved for the Greenbriar project? Planner Walgren responded that the Greenbriar project was allowed to construct homes concurrently with subdivision improvements but that it was a different situation. He noted that the Kerwin Ranch project had the same restriction and that it was granted the same exception to allow construction to occur in a short period of time rather than dragging the development out for many years. PLANNING COMMISSIuN MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Kaplan asked what kind of control would the City have if the Commission amended Condition 2, allowing for submittal of design review concurrently with subdivision improvements? Planner Walgren responded that control was not a concern. The standard condition was applied to hillside subdivisions where lots are sold individually and ultimately you have several property owners who cannot get final occupancy on their homes because the roads were not built properly. The condition is meant to avoid this kind of a conflict. In cases where the developer is building each of the homes, the City does not grant final approval to allow the homes to be sold until the subdivision has been accepted. Also, the City continues to hold certificates of deposits on subdivisions to make sure that the improvements are properly installed. Commissioner Abshire asked staff for clarification regarding the rule over the maximum square footage that would require a variance? Planner Walgren clarified that a variance was not necessary as both homes meet the allowable square footage for both parcels. The parcels include an exception request to waive the 1.5% floor area reduction for building over 18 feet. The only finding that the Commission needs to make is that the majority of the homes in the neighborhood are already two story homes. Therefore, that restriction would not apply to this particular development. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff received a revised plan for lot 4 this afternoon. He noted that it was basically the same plan but that it shifted the home from five feet to approximately ten feet away from the larger oak trees located to the rear of the property. As the revision improves tree protection and does not appear to affect any other design standards, staff recommended that the revised plan be incorporated into the file as exhibit "A". Chairman Murakami opened the public hearing at 9:36 p.m. Ruben Haws, project designer, stated his concurrence with staff's comments. Commissioner Kaplan asked how many fireplaces were proposed for the homes? Mr. Haws responded that three fireplaces were proposed; one in the master bedroom, one in the living room, and one in the family room. He indicated that the master bedroom would have a gas fireplace. Commissioner Kaplan encouraged that the applicant install fireplaces that could be used either as gas or fire logs to protect the air that we breath. She would support the installation of three fireplaces as long as one of them was dedicated to gas only. Chairman Murakami asked about the design and whether both homes were considered to be the same type of design? Mr. Haws indicated that lot 3 was of a Mediterranean style home and that lot 4 would be a country French style home. Hong Huang, 14328 Taos Drive, informed the Commission that he resides opposite to that of lot 4. He asked why the homes were proposed in such a strange angle, noting that the PLANNING COMMISSIui� MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 14 - home across from him was at a 45 degree angle. He stated that he did not like the angle facing him as the other homes on the street face one direction. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the City arborist's report recommends that the home be angled to protect the existing oak trees, noting that the existing trees would provide screening. Lynn Barnum, 14350 Taos Drive, informed the Commission that she resides across the street from lot 3. She indicated that the angle of the home would look strange and that it would not be aesthetically pleasing. She requested clarification as to the number of trees that are proposed to be removed as well as the type and size of the replacement trees. She expressed concern regarding the street as there are a lot of trees located at the corner of Taos Drive and Douglass Lane, creating a blind corner. She asked if a stop sign could be installed to protect the children from this blind spot. Mr. Haws indicated that the lots were gateway lots and that the homes were to be single story homes so that when you come up from Douglass Lane from Fruitvale Avenue, you are not confronted with tall houses. He indicated that Mr. Wang's privacy was taken into account and therefore the house was designed to face his garage. The City arborist has stipulated the number and type of trees to be installed, noting that the trees are to be native trees and that they are to be compatible with the area as well as being drought resistant trees. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:47 P.M. Planner Walgren noted that there were five ordinance protected trees within the building envelop that are proposed to be removed. Also, six or seven Monterey Pines along Douglass Lane were approved to be removed as part of this subdivision and that four Monterey Pines are proposed to be removed along Taos Drive to accommodate the horseshoe driveway. He indicated that in addition to the tree replacement of the five trees, the applicant will be required to provide a significant tree replacement (approximately $12,000 of native trees to be replanted on the property). The City arborist gives examples of what the replacement trees could be (i.e., one, forty -eight inch boxed; three thirty -six inch boxed; six twenty -four inch boxed; or six fifteen gallon and four five gallon). The applicant would be allowed any combination. Commissioner Asfour asked how it would be determined where the trees are to be planted. Planner Walgren stated that prior to issuance of any permit, landscape plans would need to be submitted depicting the location, type and size of the trees. Commissioner Asfour asked staff if they had an answer to the request for a stop sign? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that Mrs. Barning's request for the PLANNING COMMISSIw MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 15 - installation of a stop sign would be referred to the Public Works Director for his evaluation and that staff may refer the request to the Public Safety Commission. Chairman Murakami stated that the angle of the homes did not bother him and that he understood that there were reasons for their angle placement (i.e., protection of the trees). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD- 92 -008.1 AND DR -95 -049 WITH THE ADDED CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A GAS FIREPLACE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. SD -92 -008.1 TO ALLOW FOR SUBMITTAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO BE REVIEWED, CONSIDERED AND TO ALLOW FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR CONCURRENTLY WITH SUBDIVISION LEVEL IMPROVEMENTS. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -050 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A GAS FIREPLACE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. THE MOTION CARRIED 6 -0 (COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED ABSENT). Chairman Murakami thanked staff for all their help and stated his appreciation for the Commission's assistance during his term as Chair. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the rotation of chair /vice -chair would take place at its April 10 meeting. Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission that it agreed to pay $10 for its dinner for work session meetings. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Report on Bicycle Committee Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that this item was scheduled at the request of Commissioner Siegfried. Due to his absence this evening, this item would be rescheduled for the next meeting. Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the Planning Commissioner's Institute, the most important session that she attended dealt with antennas. She felt that antennas were very unobtrusive devices (seven to eight inches wide and five feet long). She requested that staff make copies of pages 200 -206 of the document that she received at the Institute and that they be included with the material to be provided next week. She noted that this was a nation -wide process and that antennas would proliferate everywhere in the country as there PLANNING COMMISSIu,� MINUTES MARCH 27, 1996 PAGE - 16 - would be more vendors licensed by the Federal government. At the work session, it was argued that cities take control up front and that they indicate the location where antennas would be allowed, locating them on city property so that revenue can be generated from the leasing of the land so that antennas are not strung out all over the city. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the impact of Measure G has yet to be determined. It has been suggested that representatives from the Planning Commission meet with representatives from the City Council (i.e., Planning Commission Chair /Vice -chair and Mayor /Vice- Mayor) along with the City Attorney to discuss the impacts of Measure G. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a joint study session could be scheduled with the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss Measure G. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that transmittals on all major projects are sent to the appropriate school district. In the case of application SD -95 -010 (agenda item 5) transmittals were referred to the Saratoga Union School District, noting that the District had an opportunity to comment on the transmittal. Commissioner Pierce indicated that a new type of antennae has been installed on top of Saratoga Liquor Store and encouraged the Commission to drive by and view the antennae if it had an opportunity to do so. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 3/6 & 3/12/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 4/10/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC032796.SAR being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. April 10, 1996, EOC Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., 1-i,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 13, 1995 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vice- chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Kaplan, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Abshire, Asfour, Murakami Staff: Community Development Director Curtis PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Minutes - 2/28/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /PIERCE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1996 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 6, paragraph 9, second sentence amended to read: "...However,she indicted that ....................... she had a problem with the request before the Commission as the request p e t ..:.................... does not lend itself to two separate lots.... " Page 8, paragraph 5 amended to read: "Commissioner Siegfried stated that a ......................... possibility exists for the creation of two legal lots. b•�� Fil? then the ......................... ................................................................... ............................... Commission >::;:.::>:::.;:.;: .;:.:«.;:.;::;::;:,.;:.:,;:.::. ................................................................... ............................... Lib to accommodate a better situation. " - Page 11, paragraph 2, line 4 amended to read: "...justifiedthe parking of the trucks ........................... ............................... pi1zCez?Crxtsx<. He stated that he could not support the continued use in a residential area." Page 13, paragraph 9, last sentence, replace the word "fetes" with "f fif THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. Oral Communications PLANNING COMMISSIVi-4 MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Report of Posting Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 8, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -004 - STELLA INVESTMENT CO. /DOUGHERTY; 22665 GARROD RD. Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 16 acre Lot 4 of the "Sung" subdivision into three individual lots of 4.7, 6.2 and 5.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. to 4/10/96 at the request the applicant; City review deadline is 8/21/96). 2. DR -91 -026.3 - LEE /RUEHLE; 21097 COMER DR.; Request for a third, and final, one -year extension of a previously approved Design Review application to construct a new 5,221 sq. ft. two -story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is currently vacant, approximately 1.9 acres in size and is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 AND 2 BY MINUTE ACTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that City Attorney Riback as well as Planner Walgren were excused from tonight's meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014 - NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single - family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSIU,v MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 3 - An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (cont. from 2/28/96; City review deadline is 6/6/96). Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He recommended that the Commission discuss whether the applicant has responded to the Commission's concerns regarding the justification for creating two separate parcels as well as the size of the second home. Staff indicated that should the Commission feel that the applicant has responded to its concerns, that a resolution would be prepared for the Commission's approval. Should the Commission feel that its concerns have not been addressed and that it would be inappropriate to subdivide the property, that the Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for its next meeting. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan clarified that the entire issue of the subdivision of the parcel was before the Commission, not just the size of the proposed second home. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Mrs. Nagpal, applicant, stated that at the last meeting, it was her understanding that the main concern of the Commission was the impact to the existing home. She proposed to locate the future home as far back into the building envelope as possible to minimize the impact to the existing home. She indicated that a two story home would be proposed because it would minimize the building footprint. She stated that the second home is proposed to be approximately 3,000 square feet, half the square footage allowed under the current zoning district. She indicated that she would agree to increase the side setback from 20 to 50 feet. She noted that alternative two would protrude outside of the building envelope and that it would require a rear yard setback variance. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not impressed with the modifications proposed at the site visit. She felt that the Commission made it clear that it would consider a guest - type cottage and that the building was to be a low profile building, minimizing its impact. She did not see a 3,400 square foot two story home on either of the two alternative building envelopes doing that. Therefore, she would not approve the request. Commissioner Pierce agreed with the comments as stated by Commissioner Patrick. He felt that the existing home was a beautiful estate home and that the proposed lot with a proposed 3,400 square foot home would be inappropriate. He stated that he was enthusiastic about the possibility of a smaller guest home and indicated that he could not approve the request as proposed. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan stated that she had some real concerns from a land use stand PLANNING COMMISSIUi� MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 4 - point. She felt that the lot split would create a terrible, irregular- meandering configuration and that it has been the Commission's experience that once you do so, you create all kinds of problems for the future. She felt that the existing property was beautiful and that she would hate to see it disturbed. She felt that the size of the second home would be too small and that it would be out of character with that of the neighborhood. She referred to page 9 of the February 28, 1995 minutes where Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the tentative map request before the Commission was discretionary. As it was a discretionary review, she felt that the request was not good planning and would vote against the request. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission include in its motion that it could not make the findings necessary to approve the tentative map and the variance applications and to direct staff to prepare resolutions for its next regularly scheduled meeting, to be placed on the consent calendar, should the Commission wish to deny the request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO DENY APPLICATIONS SD -95- 009 AND V -95 -014 AND DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH RESOLUTIONS OF DENIAL FOR THE COMMISSION'S NEXT MEETING AS IT COULD NOT MAKE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE APPLICATIONS. THE�MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR, MURAKAMI ABSENT). Vice - chairwoman Kaplan informed Ms. Nagpal that the appeal process would commence upon adoption of the resolution of denials by the Commission at its next meeting . 4. DR -96 -001- FLICK /SMALL; 20140 RANCHO BELLA VISTA; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,421 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 20,042 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that a letter from Peter and Christine Rutti, 20097 Mendelsohn Lane, adjacent property owners, was received and included in the staff report. The letter states their opposition to the windows proposed to the backside of the building. Staff felt that the design of the house was appropriate for the neighborhood, noting that second story windows were not an unusual characteristic in design for that neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the project. Vice - Chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:51 p.m. No one offered public testimony. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:52 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSI(jiv MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 5 - COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -96 -001. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE, ASFOUR AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS No Director's items were noted. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR -95 -033 - Houston; 14810 Sobey Rd. - Request for minor modification of approved architectural plans. Kent England, designer, informed the Commission that a potential buyer had a different opinion of what the house should look like. Therefore, minor modifications were being requested. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan stated that she liked the proposal the first time around, commenting that the design of the home was not a Mediterranean -style design, that it proposed porches and that she liked the design presented. She asked if the buyers could be encouraged to make one fire place an irrevocable gas burning fireplace? Mr. England indicated that he would discuss this recommendation with his clients. He stated that his clients may wish to propose all gas burning fireplaces. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the Commission's role with this minor modification. Community Development Director Curtis responded that a design review was approved for this site. Modifications are now being proposed to the original design review and that the Commission needs to determine if the modifications are consistent with the original approval of the home. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he particularly liked how the roof line steps down and its articulation. Mr. England indicated that he tried not to change the foot print of the house with the exception of the slight wall change in front of the garage. He stated that the reason for pulling the garage wall out was to allow the details to be pushed up to the bottom of the windows and to provide additional space above the garage door, creating an open feeling. He noted that the original design proposed a cantilever second story. He also noted that the archways located above the garage door would help to soften the rest of the design. Commissioner Pierce indicated that Mr. Houston contacted him and that he told Mr. Houston that he did not know what action the Commission would be taking this evening. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSIViv MINUTES MARCH 13, 1996 PAGE - 6 - REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS, MAKING A FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THE HOME DESIGN. COMMUNICATIONS Community Development Director informed the Commission that the Kolotouros family has appealed the Commission's action on their use permit request and that the appeal is scheduled to be considered by the City Council at its meeting of April 3. Also, an appeal has been received for the Skov design review approval and that the appeal is also scheduled for the April 3 City Council meeting. He reminded the Commission that it can attend the City Council meeting if it so desires but that it is no longer a responsibility. Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 2/13, 2/21 & 2/27/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 3/27/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 27, 1996, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC031396. SAR Pi ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis and Planner Walgren City Attorney Riback had been excused from the meeting. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Minutes - 2/14/96 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 24, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 11, last paragraph amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that he ....... appreciated the fact that the applicants came up with � a hydrology .............. z: for e', neighborhood. " - Page 12, the deletion of paragraph four that reads: "Commissioner Asfour asked staff if condition 60 relating to noncompliance.... " ............................ - Page 12, last paragraph, line three amended to read: "roads to �krg...." ........... :..... ............................ ............................ Page 20, paragraph 6, line one, replace the word to read Kaplan. Page 26, paragraph 2 first sentence amended to read: "Commissioner Asfour stated that he was disturbed by the fact that this issue was being presented at the eleventh hourttt5 <:Je�,t« >C >btytk <;d.... ............ � ..::.:........................ ............................... - Page 26, third paragraph, line 3 amended to read: "...Kaplan stated that dIL- she hoped that both parties recognized the safety concern.... " Page 27, last paragraph amended to read: "By consensus, the Commissioner s concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's statement regarding land use compatibility. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). PLANNING COMMISS1 MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 2 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cal Hammack, 15440 Quito Road, informed the Commission that he objected to the issuance of a permit by staff to his neighbor located upstream from his residence. He indicated that his neighbor proposes to install a concrete retaining wall along the creek and that the reason for his objection to the wall was because it is a new wall and that it would set a precedent against the environment. He did not believe that the technical laws from the State Department of Consumer Affairs for Land Surveyors and Professional Engineers have been met as the land has not been surveyed. The plans submitted by his neighbor do not indicate the location of the existing trees nor provides cross sections of the creek. He noted that 25 cubic yards of concrete is to be used for the wall and expressed concern that this would increase the existing yard. He indicated that he was informed by a staff member that they would walk the creek and listen to his concerns before a permit was issued. He was also told that mitigation measures would be applied to insure that the wall to be installed was aesthetically pleasing, noting that an additional 18 inches in wall height was approved. He also noted that the applicant did not obtain an Army permit, a requirement necessary when there is an impact to the water level of a creek; over 10 cubic yards of dirt is to be removed; and mitigations be applied to allow a creek to meander. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff respond to Mr. Hammack's concern. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the existing retaining wall located along the creek bed gave way last year. He informed the Commission that the Department of Fish and Game and the Water District would not allow construction on the creek during the winterization period and that these departments allowed the applicant to work on the wall when possible. He indicated that the only jurisdiction that the City had was with the issuance of a building permit for the retaining wall. The other outside jurisdictions have the authority to deal with creeks and with the location of the wall. He informed the Commission that the outside agencies have signed off on the plans. He informed the Commission that he agreed to walk the creek with Mr. Hammack and to show Mr. Hammack what the wall would look like. Staff attempted to come up with a decorative type of wall feature that would fit in, including the use of landscaping. However, the Water District and the Fish and Game Department did not approve the alternatives because solid walls would need to be installed. A reinforced retaining wall, capped with 18 to 24 inches of brick to match the existing wall was eventually approved. The issue as expressed by Mr. Hammack was such that he does not agree with the engineers who reviewed the wall. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 23, 1996. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 3 - No corrections were noted CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -95 -004 - STELLA INVESTMENT CO. /DOUGHERTY; 22665 GARROD RD. Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide the 16 acre Lot 4 of the "Sung" subdivision into three individual lots of 4.7, 6.2 and 5.1 acres. The property is located within a Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district. (cont. to 3/13/96 at the request of staff and the applicant; City review deadline is 8/21/96). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 1. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. UP -95 -007 - CONGREGATION BETH DAVID; 19700 PROSPECT ROAD, CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION; 12033 MILLER AVENUE, Request for a joint Use Permit to allow Congregation Beth David and the Church of the Ascension to participate annually in the "Faith in Action" Rotating Shelter Program during the months of June and August respectively. The program offers shelter, meals and employment assistance to a maximum of 15 transitionally homeless adults. The facilities are located directly adjacent to one another in the R- 1- 10,000 residential zoning district. (cont. from 2/14/96 due to late hour; City review deadline is 7/12/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff if additional correspondence had been received other than that included in the packet? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that in addition to the form letter opposed to the temporary shelter included with the staff report, correspondence was received in opposition to the program from a resident on Colby Court. In addition to that letter, staff was in receipt of over 150 form letters in support of the proposal. Chairman Murakami asked staff if any complaints were filed the last time the shelter was in operation? Planner Walgren responded that no complaints had been filed with staff. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Howard Stohlman, 19479 Melinda Circle, member of Ascension Church, indicated that he was present representing the Faith in Action program. He informed the Commission that the program provides job placement services, shelter, food, and support to 15 participants. He indicated that this program has been in existence for over six years in residential PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 4 - neighborhoods and that no adverse affects from the program has been experienced. He noted that the Prince of Peace Church was granted a use permit last year and that the congregation of Beth David now wants to implement the program in June and Ascension Church in August. He informed the Commission that flyers were distributed to residents within the 500 foot area of Beth David and Ascension Church, notifying the residents of the proposed program, inviting the residents to attend a February 1 meeting to gain information about the program and to voice any concerns that they may have. He indicated that only one neighbor attended the meeting to inquire how she could assist. Over 165 letters have been received from both San Jose and Saratoga areas in support of the program. He requested Commission approval of the use permit. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter included in the Commission's packet claims that the letter distributed by the Church should have been distributed to the neighborhood and not just to the parishioners. She requested that Mr. Stohlman respond to this statement. Mr. Stohlman stated that a flyer was distributed to the neighbors who reside within five hundred feet of the churches and that a form letter in support of the program was made available to the congregation. He stated that a letter was not mailed out soliciting a response. Chairman Murakami noted that speaker cards were received from the following individuals indicating support of the program: Eugene Meyer, 19447 Eric Drive; Andrew Estigoy, 10185 North Stelling, Cupertino; Joie Wesolowsky, 12069 Kristy Lane; Ronnie Gordon, 4734 Durango River Court, San Jose. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried stated that there was controversy about the program last year and recollected that one speaker made a comment that hosts would know more about the participants than one knows about ones gardener. He indicated that he would support the program. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was pleased to see that this program was working and that there was a condition included that would allow the Commission to review the use on a yearly basis. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he was present when a similar request was considered by the Prince of Peace Church and that he supported that request. Therefore, he could support the request before the Commission. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP -95 -007. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 3. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014 - NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 5 - separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single - family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. (cont. from 2/14/96 due to late hour; City review deadline is 6/6/96). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that although the residence was not currently listed on the city's Heritage Resource Inventory, it was referred to the Historic Preservation Commission because of the 1930s hand crafted adobe brick structure located on site. He indicated that the Heritage Preservation Commission was interested in pursuing the property to learn more about its history and that it would consider whether this property should be included in the heritage resources inventory list at a later date. Staff finds that the lot split meets all minimum standards and was recommending approval of the lot split, contingent on the variance application being approved. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from the adjoining property owners, Marcia and Harry Ratner, expressing concern with the protection of their privacy, the oak trees and the topographical features on site. The Ratners were requesting that an 85 foot setback from their property line be required and that the new home be restricted to a single story. He recommended that condition 1 be amended to address the Ratner's concern regarding setback as follows: "Future development of Lot 2 shall require Design Review approval. The building site shall be left in a natural state until Design Review approval has been granted and Building Permits have been issued. An appropriate building location shall be determined at the Design Review stage based on t':. current Zoning Ordinance regulations and City policy - the building envelope shown for Lot 2 on Exhibit "A" does not reflect accurate current setback Planner Walgren informed the Commission that the arborist report addresses the damage to trees that would occur as a result of the demolition of the main house. He informed the Commission that this portion of the discussion should be disregarded as the main house was not proposed to be demolished. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that condition 1 would require Planning Commission approval of the design review irrespective of whether the home was designed to be a one or two story structure. He recommended that Condition 1 be amended to so reflect. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Commissioner Asfour asked staff regarding its opinion about restricting the new home to one story. Planner Walgren responded that staff would not normally restrict the home to a one story structure on a parcel of this size. Staff would normally recommend restricting a home to one level if it was an infill development where single story homes existed. He stated that should the Commission wish to restrict the home to a one story structure, that the map so be conditioned. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the Commission had discretionary review over the lot line? Planner Walgren responded that the Commission has discretionary review over the parcel map and the variance request. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Mrs. Nagpal, applicant, informed the Commission that she would not object to placing the existing home on the city's heritage resources list. She indicated that the reason for the request before the Commission was to allow for the construction of a home for her parents. She felt that the parcel was large enough to accommodate the lot split and that care would be given to preserve the existing trees. Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Nagpal if she would want to have future neighbors look into the swimming pool area should the new home be sold in the future? He asked if there were other alternatives to the request. Ms. Nagpal responded that she would have preferred the lot to be configured a different way but that the engineers felt that the proposal before the Commission was the best solution. Other alternatives would require variances that she would be uncomfortable requesting. She indicated that a two story home may be proposed on the new parcel to preserve the existing trees. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the size that is being considered for the new home? Ms. Nagpal responded that the size nor the design of the new home have been discussed with her parents so as not to raise their hopes. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:17 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that normally, a property owner should be able to do what is considered to be in their best interest. However, she indicated that she had a problem with the request before the Commission as the property does not lend itself to two separate lots based upon the configuration of the house and the location of the swimming pool. She felt that a lot split would create a problem in the future should the family no longer occupy the home. She stated that she could not support the request. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he could support a different lot line for the second lot, PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 7 - recognizing the fact that the first home was to be preserved. Commissioner Asfour stated that, generally, he supports the desires of individuals to build on their property and sympathized with the applicant's request. However, he recommended that alternatives be explored. Commissioner Pierce concurred with the comments as expressed by the other Commissioners. It was his belief that the property owners purchased the 2.5 acre site for the existing, beautiful home. He indicated that he would be inclined to approve a larger guest home on the property that would fit within the constraints of the neighbors. He stated that he was opposed to the lot split as requested. Commissioner Patrick also indicated that she was opposed to the lot split. She felt that the existing home was sited beautifully on the property. She felt that once the parcel was split, you would loose control over the entire site, including design considerations. She stated that she could support a guest residence. Commissioner Abshire stated that he agreed with the comments as expressed by his fellow Commissioners. He indicated that he opposes the request because it would create two meandering lots and with the fact that the existing adobe home was sitting in the middle of the parcel that it was designed for. Commissioner Asfour recommended that the public hearing be reopened to determine if the applicant would consider a continuance of this item for the purpose of reviewing alternatives. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff worked with the city's civil engineer on several different map alternatives before bringing this request to the Commission. The proposal before the Commission was the only alternative that met city standards. He indicated that staff spoke with the applicants about considering a larger accessory structure such as a guest house, noting that a guest home could not be used on a permanent basis. He also noted that City code does not allow for a variance of a secondary dwelling greater than 800 square feet. Chairman Murakami indicated that he was initially opposed to the request. However, he indicated that he could support the applicant's request based on the information provided by staff. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Asfour asked staff as to the maximum size of a guest home that would be allowed with or without a variance, excluding a kitchen facility? Community Development Director Curtis indicated that a guest house would be subject to design review and that as PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 8 - part of the design review consideration, the Commission can review its size. He reiterated that the purpose of a guest house was for temporary quarters. He indicated that a larger guest home could be considered as an alternative as long as it is designed so that a kitchen facility cannot be accommodated in the future. Planner Walgren indicated that the existing home was approximately 6,200 square feet and that even though it remains a single parcel, the maximum cumulative square footage that can be constructed is 7,200 square foot. Therefore, the guest home could not be larger than 1,000 square feet unless the Commission grants a variance from the allowable building floor area. Commissioner Pierce asked staff if the City had provisions for a granny unit. Community Development Director Curtis responded that secondary dwelling units are permitted to a maximum of 800 square feet with no variances allowed by code. Ms. Nagpal noted that the two lots, as proposed, conformed to city standards. She stated that she has considered the possibility of having neighbors living next door and that the request would be something that she would have to live with. She indicated that she would like additional time to discuss this issue with her family, staff and the Commission. She informed the Commission that alternative plans were considered and that it was her understanding that the alternatives did not meet setback requirements. Commissioner Siegfried stated that a possibility exists for the creation of two legal lots. Perhaps, then the Commission could consider approving a variance in setback, to accommodate a better situation. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her belief that the Commission was requesting that the applicant consider a guest residence in the appropriate location that would provide a place for her parents to reside on the lot. The Commission would be willing to consider latitudes which would allow the maximum lot coverage to be exceeded. She indicated that she was opposed to the lot split. Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not support the lot split as she did not support meandering lots. She stated that she would like to retain the lot as a single lot and that she would consider the approval of an accessory structure. Ms. Nagpal indicated that this was a legitimate lot split as setbacks and other code requirements were being met. She asked how the application could be modified to address the Commission's concern. She indicated that a guest home would be a concern because it would not allow for a kitchen facility. She indicated that she was not asking for anything special and that the only variance requested would be for the existing home. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting to PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 9 - allow the applicant to consider the comments expressed this evening. Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the tentative parcel map request before the Commission was a discretionary action and that the division of land must still meet the intent of land planning and development of the area, even if the request meets all technical code requirements. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATIONS SD -95 -009 AND V -95 -014 TO MARCH 13, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Community Development Director Curtis asked if the only alternative that would be acceptable to the Commission was a guest house without a kitchen? Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not oppose the lot split if it can be designed in a different way to allow the integrity of the existing structure to remain the same, even it requires the approval of a variance. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was not opposed to a lot line split so long as a condition was stipulated that would restrict the size of the home on the second lot. Planner Walgren informed the Commission that it could place restrictions on the new parcel relating to the new home to be built (i.e., design, location, height and square footage, etc.). Community Development Director Curtis stated that should the Commission approve a lot split with recorded restrictions, that the only way the condition(s) could be amended was to return to the Commission for the approval of an amendment. 4. UP -95 -008 - KOLOTOUROS; 20201 MERIDA DR.; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a residential zoning district. The subject property fronts onto Merida Dr. and abuts Prospect Rd. to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (cont. from 2/14/96 to late hour; City review deadline is 7/22/96). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He stated that the continued use of the business would not be compatible with the nature of the residential district and does not meet the criteria that is necessary to approve a conditional use permit. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the use permit request. He informed the Commission that a letter was included in the packet that was unsigned in opposition to the request. Also, letters were distributed to the Commission this evening from neighbors supporting the continuation of the operation and one additional letter in opposition to the request. Commissioner Asfour indicated that it would have been beneficial to hear from the two PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 10 - adjoining neighbors and that he would not consider the unsigned letter in opposition to the request. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Maria Kolotouros, wife of the applicant, furnished the Commission with photographs of the area. She stated that she hoped that the Commission had the opportunity to read the letters in support from the neighbors. She also hoped that the one anonymous letter received would not carry as much weight as the letters from the neighbors in support. She stated that any noise generated by the use would be drowned out by the constant noise from the freeway. She indicated that there has never been a violation of the Fuel Storage Ordinance. The violation addressed by staff was due to the removal of the underground fuel tanks. She apologized for not informing the City of the removal of the tanks. It was her belief that the constant fumes from the freeway was a much bigger problem than the use of the trucks. She informed the Commission that it has been difficult to find commercial property to park the trucks and if a lot was found, they could not afford the rental price. Commissioner Asfour asked Ms. Kolotouros how long her family would be requesting renewal of the use permit? Ms. Kolotouros responded that her husband was at a retiring age and that once he retires (approximately seven years), the business would cease. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she was not opposed to individuals maintaining home offices and other kinds of home occupations. She asked why the business could not be conducted out of the home and that the trucks be parked in a different location. Ms. Kolotouros indicated that she could not afford the rental fees required to park three trucks. Jim Kolotouros, son of the applicants, spoke on behalf of his father. He informed the Commission that his father wished to thank the City for allowing him to maintain the family business for 25 years. He indicated that in a few years this use would cease due to the retirement of his father and that neither of the sons plan to take over the business. For the past ten years, the family has actively and aggressively searched for an alternative place to park the trucks. As this was a small business, it has always been prohibitively expensive to find the funds to lease a parking space. He indicated that his family has worked hard over the past years to address concerns raised and that they have tried to be good neighbors. He felt that the individual who wrote the anonymous letter did not understand the situation. He requested that the Commission take into consideration those comments of the neighbors in support of the use. His family would continue to address any issues or concerns that may be raised. He requested that the use be allowed to continue for a short while longer. Commissioner Patrick asked why Mr. Kolotouros (father) could not park the trucks where he commutes to work. Jim Kolotouros responded that most places do not allow for truck parking and that rental costs were prohibitive. Peter Kolotouros, elder son of the applicants, indicated that he did not receive a copy of the letter of concern received this evening. He indicated that his family would address any PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 11 - issues of concerns expressed. He informed the Commission that there were few places that would allow trucks to park due to zoning restrictions and that the business has been reduced from eight trucks to four trucks. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:09 P.M. Commissioner Siegfried recollected that the City allowed the Kolotouros to park their trucks at this location until such time that the freeway opened. He remembered that this property was once used as farm property with farm equipment stored on site. Therefore, the City justified the parking of the trucks on a short term basis. He stated that he could not support the continued use in a residential area. Commissioner Kaplan commended Mr. and Mrs. Kolotouros on raising two fine sons. She indicated that at the site visit, she was immediately struck by the gasoline fumes and noticed that there was a broken truck left on site. She acknowledged that the property was located adjacent to Highway 85 but that the issue was the use on this property. She noted that the applicant has stated that the trucks could not be parked elsewhere due to zoning restrictions. She asked why the City was being asked to violate its own zoning regulations. She stated that normally she would not put much credence to an anonymous letter. However, she could understand that there are situations where neighbors do not want to precipitate an argument with a neighbor. Therefore, she would give credence to the anonymous letter. She stated that she could not support the use permit. Commissioner Patrick acknowledged that this business has been around for a long time. She indicated that she also smelled fumes at the site visit. She stated that as years went by, it was noticed that the trucks kept being parked closer and closer to the home and that the trucks were know being parked in the driveway. She indicated that she could not support the continuation of the use. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he drove by the property and observed that the site appeared to be well cared for. He agreed that the time has ran out for the continued use of the property as a business. With the completion of the freeway, he could not see any reason to grant the use permit. Commissioner Abshire noted that the Kolotouros family has conducted a successful business over the past several years. However, the use was incompatible with the area and the neighborhood. He felt that the time has run out for its use and that it was time for the family to change the operation. Chairman Murakami stated that he respected the family for all the time that they have been in this area. He felt that the time has come for this business to let go and cease the operation in this location. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 12 - Commissioner Asfour indicated that he has driven by the business for the past 13 years and that the applicant should be commended for maintaining a clean operation. He indicated that he was inclined not to approve the request. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK NO. UP -95 -008, DENYING THE USE UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PERMIT. THE MOTION CARRIED Community Development Director Curtis indicated that whether the Commission's decision is appealed or not and if the appeal is denied by the City Council, continued operation would result in violations and that citations would be issued. However, staff would work with the applicant to give them a reasonable time to correct the violations. THE COMMISSION RECESSED AT 9:15 P.M. THE COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Asfour recommended that items 5 and 6 be combined as one public hearing with a vote being taken separately. 5. DR -95 -054 - MAXIM INVESTMENTS; 28000 AUDREY SMITH LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,037 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 51,054 sq. ft. hillside parcel. The subject property is lot #1 of the Audrey Smith Subdivision and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. 6. DR -95 -052 - MAXIM INVESTMENTS; 28021 AUDREY SMITH LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,759 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 44,893 sq. ft. hillside parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is lot #4 of the Audrey Smith Subdivision and is located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on agenda items 5 and 6. He noted that Lot 1 would require the removal of three ordinance protected trees. Their removal was anticipated when the map was approved for this subdivision. The remaining thirty ordinance protected trees would be retained. The City arborist has provided a replacement value for the trees to be removed and that this condition has been incorporated in the resolution of approval. Also, the city arborist's measures for tree protection, including the relocation of utility lines, modifications of lawn areas, etc., have also been incorporated as conditions of approval. The issues relating to lot 4 were similar and were primarily related to tree protection matters that have been incorporated in the conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of both design review applications. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Bill Hershman, 1190 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, applicant, informed the Commission that Mr. McKay, project designer, was present to answer any questions which the Commission PLANNING COMMISS.' MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 13 - may have. He noted that a comment was made regarding illegal grading that occurred on lot 4. He clarified that the grading of lot 4 was not illegal and that the Engineering Department was aware of the grading. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the pool to be built on the corner lot located on Audrey Smith Lane could be pulled away from the back hill and located closer to the house without hurting the trees? Michael McKay, project designer, informed the Commission that he was the designer for both homes under consideration. In response to Commissioner Kaplan's suggestion regarding the relocation of the pool, he indicated that the pool was sited to minimize any impacts to the trees and to minimize grading. If the pool was to be relocated closer to the house, there would not be a separation between the home and the pool. He indicated that he would be willing to minimize the impact of the lawn and the pool to the existing trees. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that a condition be added that would prohibit the parking of vehicles underneath the trees. Mr. McKay stated that he would not object to the added condition as recommended by Commissioner Kaplan. Commissioner Asfour stated that the homes were nicely designed. However, he expressed concern with the three fire places proposed on lot 1 and recommended the elimination of the fireplace located in the dining area. Mr. McKay requested that the Commission approve the three fireplaces and that he would agree to install a gas fireplace in the dining room. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would not object to the installation of a fire place in the dining room as long as it was a gas fireplace and that it could not be converted to a woodburning fireplace. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioners Asfour and Kaplan. She indicated that she had no problem with the design of the home. Chairman Murakami stated that the drawings submitted were not complementary to the design but that viewing the colored renderings helped define the articulation of the home. Brad Wells, 20316 Calle Montalvo, informed the Commission that he was affected by lot 4 of this development. He indicated that his lot sits below lot 4. The fact that the home is proposed as a two story home, it would create a three story appearance. He requested that additional screening be required to provide a visual barrier between his home and that of lot 4. He informed the Commission that a water problem exists and that the was not sure if the problem was created by this subdivision. He hoped that by placing the swales towards the storm drain would mitigate the problem. He informed the Commission that a large amount of water runoff comes down Montalvo Road and that the issue of the storm drain PLANNING COMMISS. MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 14 - at the corner of Montalvo and Calle Montalvo were discussed with the City Engineer. He requested that the Commission assist with improving the water management in the area as his efforts have been futile to date. Mr. McKay stated that he would be willing to work with Mr. Wells to address his drainage and landscape screening concerns. Mr. Hershman informed the Commission that drainage had been provided in the back of lots 4, 5 and 6. He indicated that grading has not been completed but that the facilities have been installed. He agreed that there has been significant change in water runoff because the water from the streets were being diverted to the creek. He acknowledged that the drainage system has not been completely installed because the swales and the grading of the back yards have not been completed. It is hoped that when the grading was completed that it would mitigate the surface runoff. Commissioner Asfour asked staff who was responsible for ensuring that the drainage system was functioning properly and had adequate capacity? Planner Walgren responded that this was the first time that planning staff was made aware of Mr. Well's concern. If it is a public storm drain system, it would be the City's responsibility to keep the drain clear. He indicated that between this subdivision and the completion of Vine Street up above, it remedied the long standing historical drainage that has been occurring on these steep hillside lots for many years. Mr. Hershman informed the Commission that in addition to the surface swale, an underground drainage pipe system has been installed that would divert water to the creek. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan reiterated her recommendation that the pool be relocated off the hill. Chairman Murakami felt that the proposed location would be better for the protect of the existing trees. Commissioner Abshire stated his concurrence with Commissioner Kaplan's recommendation to relocate the pool closer to the home. Commissioners Siegfried and Patrick recommended that the location of the pool be left to staff to ensure that the property is kept in tact and the trees protected. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK AMOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -054 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: CONDITION 5 AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A CHAIN LINK FENCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES AND THAT NO PARKING OF VEHICLES SHALL BE ALLOWED ADJACENT THE TREES; AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION PLANNING COMMISS.' MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 15 - THAT STIPULATES THAT THE FIRE PLACE IN THE DINING ROOM SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO GAS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -052 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: CONDITION 5 AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF A CHAIN LINK FENCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TREES AND THAT NO PARKING OF VEHICLES SHALL BE ALLOWED ADJACENT THE TREES; THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT STIPULATES THAT THE FIRE PLACE LOCATED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM BE RESTRICTED TO GAS; AND THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 7. DR -95 -053 - GREBENE;15479 BELNAP WAY, Request for Design Review approval to construct a 554 sq. ft. first and second -story addition to an existing single -story residence. The subject parcel is 1.09 acres and is located in a Hillside Residential zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the County Environmental Department has reviewed the request as well as all applicable safety utility providers and that the requested addition has received their endorsement. He informed the Commission that a letter has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer located two parcels down slope from this proposal requesting that consideration be given to the location of the second story addition so that it does not look down into their pool area. He noted that the second story addition was located on the interior side of the property and would not be looking down on the adjoining property. Therefore, the Sawyer's concern should be addressed. Commissioner Asfour asked staff if there were any other alternatives to preclude a "box on box" appearance? Planner Walgren responded that there were other options and noted that the single story addition would be restricted to a degree because of the slope on one side, the driveway turn- around on the interior side, and the septic tank in the yard area. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Karen Grebene, applicant, informed the Commission that the balcony setback was the best alternative that could be designed and that it would be the least obtrusive. Commissioner Abshire asked Mrs. Grebene if the addition would be painted the same color as the existing home. Mrs. Grebene responded that the color to be used would be a different tone of brown. She stated that she did not want the home to be noticeable from the valley. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:01 P.M. PLANNING COMMISS' MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that at the land use site visit, the house was not visible from any location. She indicated that she would not normally agree to approve a "box on box" design but noted that no one would be able to see the home. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -053. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reported on the following: - He would be distributing the final version of the work program as well as the distribution of an article entitled "Quit the Blame Game" from a planning magazine. - At the recommendation of the Planning Commission and as discussed at the recent Planning Commission/City Council joint meeting, the Council has indicated that the Commission does not need to attend future City Council meetings. - At the last Council meeting, the Council approved the Odd Fellows development with minor changes (the elimination of the purchase of a fire truck; required a donation of $12,000 towards the purchase of a fire truck; required the purchase of a 35 foot ladders subject to the Fire Chief's approval). Regarding the timing of cottage constructions, the Council felt that if the open space was recorded, it would only allow the construction of cottages or something similar to the cottages within the footprints. If other buildings were built before the cottages were constructed, the neighbors would still have open space. He stated that there was a concern that if the development agreement expired, that the open space would go away. He indicated that this was not the case and that the open space would remain in place forever and that the only way that the open space would change was to have it rescinded by the City Council, following public hearing(s). Four items are scheduled for the Commission's March 13 meeting. - A work session is scheduled for Wednesday, March 13 at 5:00 p.m. Staff to establish a process to inform individuals that a work session has been scheduled should a preliminary review by the Planning Commission/Architectural Review Committee be requested. At the Commission's retreat, the Commission agreed to hold a second work session if necessary, if individuals wished to have the Commission review projects. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Kaplan indicated that she attended the City Council meeting and found the meeting to be interesting. She stated that it was her belief that the Council agreed to allow the Commission to conduct work sessions in lieu of a formal Architectural Review PLANNING COMMISS. MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 1996 PAGE - 17 - Committee meeting. Community Development Director Curtis stated that Commissioner Kaplan's statement was correct. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission set aside every 2nd and 4th Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. should a work session need to be scheduled. Commissioner Asfour requested that the Commission be furnished with a notice should a work session meeting be scheduled or cancelled. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Earl Burke re: Christa McAuliffe School 2. City Council Minutes dated 2/3 & 2/7/96 3. Planning Commission Public Notices for 3/13/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. to 5: 00 p.m., Wednesday, March 13, 1996,EOC Center, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PCO22896.SAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE FEBRUARY 14, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - 1/24/96 COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 24, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - Page 2, last paragraph, line 6 amended to read: "...everytime the issue comes up, .................................................... ............................... a: r .................................................. ............................... it is ifidieated that a park is to be built and aequifed ............................ . - Page 3, paragraph one, first sentence amended to read: "...wouldhave developed —ate been:: a public park 3or .... " - Page 3, paragraph 4, last sentence amended to read: "He felt that the Williamson Act was a very important part of the City's inventory and that fifty percent of Saratoga's open space is- covered by the Williamson Act wi'd —th would disappear over the next 10 years '`' ': <» °'' �l­:: <. begs >�f<�l���k�p�zas<�d.....x... a .. . - Page 11, paragraph four amended to read: Commissioner Abshire noted that sew ........................ of the residents of the existing dd Fellows facilities were Saratoga ems ......... g g x����1�t. He asked if these ^mss- rent< hrrcar-rzv�7—�Q-Irpfessed an ifiter-est in s a! living �s t?vQld.:; a:.;;:.;: Axle:.;: a.; ;:;<4.€17.;;x.;:;�t:.;:.;:.;t:. - Page 12, last paragraph amended to read as follows: "Commissioner Asfour stated - ................................................. take ><a#e<p %tj: that it was his understanding of the comments that have been :.::.::.::.::.::.;:.;:. ;:.;:.;:..........:.:..:..:.... . expressed by the Commission regarding the 10.5 acre site was that the landscaping along the border of the project would need to be installed immediately upon receipt of approval, and that of the cottages be constructed at the same time. If not, tlrat- ............ there3cI:: be some assurance that what is approved for the project is-all ............ ...... will: be constructed.... " 'PLANNING COMMISSI FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 2 - MINUTES THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 9, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR -95 -045 - GLENROCK BUILDERS; 14118 SARATOGAAVENUE, Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,302 sq. ft. single story residence on a 22,685 sq. ft. parcel located within the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. The subject property is the front parcel of a 2 -lot subdivision approved in April of 1995 (cont. from 1/24/96; City review deadline is 6/1/96). Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan requested staff clarification regarding the height of the home. Planner Walgren clarified that the conditions of subdivision approval restricted the building height to a 22 foot single story structure and that the home proposed was at 21.5 feet. Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), indicated that the colored renderings presented this evening were quite effective. He stated that at the last meeting, discussion was made about how the roof line and the walls were to be articulated to reduce the appearance of mass and how projections were made on the building to eliminate blank walls. He acknowledged that the design would be an acceptable one were it located on another site and not on Heritage Lane. He expressed concern with the use of stucco material. He indicated that in February 1995, the HPC reviewed the subdivision and architectural plans for the two sites. Six recommendations were made at that time, one recommendation being on the design of the house. He quoted from the HPC minutes as follows: "Encourage the retention of craftsman elements such as wood shingles and exposed beams in the future two story design. Also suggested was utilization of natural earthtone ' 'PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 3 - colors for the homes." He indicated that the intent was not to reproduce an accurate craftsman home but that there be use of some of the elements that constitute a craftsman design (i.e., use of wood, wood combinations, brick and /or stone. He indicated that the Planning Commission needs to consider in its decision whether this building, as proposed, was appropriate for Heritage Lane and whether it was sensitive to the historical background and features of Heritage Lane. Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Peepari if the house used wood siding instead of stucco, would that address Mr. Peepari's concern? Mr. Peepari responded that the use of wood siding may address his concern but that it would depend on the details to be used. He stated that his objection was the use of stucco which would give the appearance of a plain design. He felt that as long as Heritage Lane was designated as such, every attempt should be made to maintain that inappropriate buildings not be approved. Commissioner Pierce indicated that he drove along Heritage Lane and that he observed the existence of several older stucco homes. Mr. Peepari stated that there were newer homes that were of stucco material. He felt that continuing the approval of stucco homes would not destroy Heritage Lane. As the public hearing was continued from the last meeting, Chairman Murakami invited the applicant to address the Commission. Rocke Garcia, applicant, informed the Commission that his architect was present this evening to address the Commission. He pointed out that this project appeared before the HPC and that it received unanimous approval. He stated that he also drove down Heritage Lane and found that there were an equal amount of stucco homes as there were wood homes. Blair Barry, project architect, informed the Commission that he has a background in historic preservation and that he was aware of some of the nuances in areas and streets that have been designated as heritage lanes. He stated that he was committed to designing a project that offered some diversity and texture to the street and the community. Earthtone colors are to be utilized to make the home compatible with its surroundings. He informed the Commission that stucco was a widely used material in the 1920s. He indicated that large stucco faces were used as backdrops for espaliated plant materials to soften the house. He did not believe that the house would appear to be massive. He felt that the Commission would be pleased with the character of the stucco -style home, with accents being achieved through the use of landscape and other materials. Commissioner Abshire asked if the trellis as depicted in the colored renderings were to be part of the architecture or part of the landscaping? Mr. Barry responded that the renderings were designed to show that there is design to a blank stucco wall. If the Commission felt that the use of the trellis element was important, the he would agree to include the trellis. Commissioner Kaplan asked Mr. Barry if he had reviewed the design of the first home 'PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 4 - before undertaking this project. Mr. Barry responded that he also designed the two story home. He noted that the two story home had a different footprint and mass to it. He indicated that he designed this home to be a lower, single story profile and to keep it true to the 1920 craftsman - style. He stated that he did not want the two homes to look identical so he looked for variety and texture in the design of the two homes. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she liked the design of the home. However, she concurred with Mr. Peepari that it does not belong on Heritage Lane. She was hoping that the applicant would have returned with a design that fits more with what is considered to be a "craftsman" style of design. She felt that if Saratoga Avenue has been designated as a Heritage Lane, then the City needs to start some place to recreate that atmosphere. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he felt that this was a well designed home and that he could not find anything about a stucco home that would not make it fit in with the other homes located on Heritage Lane. The home, as designed, has a lot of articulation and he felt that it would be a real attribute. Commissioner Asfour indicated that at the last meeting, he did not have a problem with the design and that he does not have a problem with the design at this time. Chairman Murakami stated that he was not convinced by the architect that the use of stucco was absolutely necessary in the design. He did not object to the mass and articulation of the home. He stated his agreement with Mr. Peepari that the use of siding would assist the design as he felt that the design gives it the appearance of a tract home. For that reason, he indicated that he was inclined to deny the request. Commissioner Pierce reiterated his comments from the last meeting and stated that he liked the design, use of the stucco exterior, and found its use to be appropriate. He indicated that he would vote to support the request. Commissioner Patrick stated that she had no objection to the use of stucco. However, there were aspects in the design of the home that does not match what she considered to be a 1920 flavor of home (i.e., garage door looks like a 1970 tract home). Even though it was a nicely designed home, she could not support it at this location. Commissioner Abshire stated that he was used to stucco. However, in this location, the home would be replacing a wood siding building. He acknowledged that Saratoga has a lot of stucco buildings but that along Saratoga Avenue, there were a lot of wood framed buildings. He felt that the design was good and indicated that he could approve the design if a landscape plan comparable to the plans displayed this evening were included as part of the approval. 'PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that as a matter of policy, she did not believe that placing landscaping against a house does what architectural changes are suppose to accomplish. Chairman Murakami indicated that he agreed with the comments of Commissioner Kaplan and felt that the use of landscaping would be covering up something that would still be the same. Commissioner Siegfried felt that if the project was conditioned to include the use of trellis and landscaping, it would be acceptable to him. He noted that the use of stucco has been a California style since the 1900s. He did not see any reason why this project could not be approved with the condition as recommended by Commissioner Abshire. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -045 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TO INCLUDE THE USE OF LANDSCAPE/ TRELLISES - TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, ABSHIRE, PIERCE, SIEGFRIED; NOES: KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK; ABSTAIN; NONE; ABSENT: NONE. 2. DR -94 -042 - SKOV; 14970 SOBEY ROAD; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 536 sq. ft. first story addition and a 769 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 4,154 sq. ft. single story residence with a detached garage and recreation room. The subject property is a 45,389 sq. ft. parcel located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He noted that correspondence has been received from the up slope neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson. They cited their concerns as being located above this property and that the 23 foot tall addition would obstruct their view. Also received was correspondence from the property owner directly down slope. Staff's analysis, prior to receiving these letters and visiting the property, was that the massing of the home, the addition and the orientation of the windows and living areas would not impact the neighboring property owners. He noted that one of the conditions in the resolution requires that the east facing upstairs windows be either obscured or be upper level windows so that there would not be a view problem between the two property owners. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Camilla Skov, applicant, stated that she did not believe that the addition would seriously impact any of her neighbors. She informed the Commission that the neighbors down slope have expressed concern that the addition may impact the value of their property as well as invade their privacy. She indicated that she would be willing to plant materials acceptable to the neighbors to address their concerns. 'PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 6 - Diana Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, informed the Commission that she previously requested an addition to her cottage. The addition was approved by staff, later to be rescinded due to the 18 foot height. The requirement for the addition was modified to met city standards. She felt that after 20 years at this location, her view was now being threatened by this proposal. She indicated that this was an area of single story homes and felt that the addition would set a precedent for others to follow. She requested that the Commission deny the request because her view shed would be blocked and that her property would be devalued. Richard Anderson, 14971 Quito Road, stated that he would not agree to have 44% of his view obstructed so that another neighbor could have a view. He indicated that he moved to his site for its view. He felt that the addition was inappropriate as it would allow an increase in roof height to an already prominent roof line. He felt that there has to be a justification why other property owners can usurp other individual's views. He could not see any justification for approving this request. Richard Pouliot, 14976 Sobey Road, informed the Commission that he resides below the proposed site. He did not believe that a second story addition was appropriate as the second story addition would be facing directly into his backyard. He stated that he would agree to consider other alternatives that would be less obtrusive. He felt that there was enough room in Ms. Skov's property to place an addition. Also of concern to him were property value impacts. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff to indicate what view would be seen from the deck. Planner Walgren clarified that the deck would be looking at Mr. Pouliot's property and that the second story deck would be 8 to 10 feet higher than that of the first level deck. He noted that the home is proposed at 23 feet in height and that 22 feet was the typical height for a contemporary single story home. Chairman Murakami asked if there was any way that the house could be built at a one story level to accommodate the extra square footage as he perceived the lot to be built out and severely constrained by the hillside. Planner Walgren responded that the site was constrained due to topography and the required building setbacks. He noted that the addition could be placed on the front lawn area but doing so would eliminate the front yard area. Commissioner Abshire stated that he hates to see development come between neighbors. He stated that he could not support the upper level deck as it would be invading the neighbor's privacy. Commissioner Patrick felt that the topography in the area creates the problem and that anything built in this area was going to look down to the Pouliots' yard. She stated that she PLANNING FEBRUARY PAGE - 7 - COMMISSI MINUTES 14, 1996 did not see an initial concern of view blockage from the Anderson's property and that they would still have the same view. She indicated that she was inclined to approve the request as proposed. Commissioner Pierce felt that it was unfortunate that the properties were situated the way they were. He noted that the short setbacks would not exist if the homes were sited side by side. Because of this fact, he felt that the Commission needs to take a serious look at the second story addition. Commissioner Asfour indicated that at the site visit, it was his belief that anything built would be visible. He stated that the only way he could approve this request would be if the second story deck was eliminated. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he visited the site at the request of Mrs. Anderson so that she can show him how her view would be impacted by the addition. He stated that he did not believe that the second story addition, given its proportions, would impact the Anderson's view. He stated that he would defer the issue of eliminating the upper level deck to the Commission. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that in viewing the site from various angles, she did not find the second story addition to be objectionable. She felt that the size of the addition was modest and that it may improve the house and give the homeowners an opportunity to clean up the property. Also, the addition would enhance not only the subject property but that of the neighbors. She did not believe that the addition would impact anyone's life style and that she could support the addition as submitted. Chairman Murakami stated that at the site visit, it was noticed that the lot was constrained as far as where an addition can be placed. Legally, the owner was within the limits to construct the addition at the height being requested. He indicated that he understood the concerns as expressed by the Andersons. However, he would support the request with the elimination of the upper story deck. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN / ASFOUR MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUESTING A RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE ELIMINATION OF THE UPPER LEVEL DECK. Ms. Skov stated that she would not object to the elimination of the second story deck. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR / KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -95 -042, AS CONDITIONED BY STAFF WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE SECOND STORY DECK. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -2 WITH COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 8 - PATRICK AND PIERCE VOTING NO. The Commission recessed at 8:36 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:48 p.m. 3. GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004 - INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS; 14500 FRUITVALEAVE.;The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application requests for General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review approval have been heard at several Planning Commission public hearings. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project and recommended for certification by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Odd Fellows' representatives are now requesting that the City of Saratoga enter into a Development Agreement with Odd Fellows to assure that upon approval of the project they may proceed with the project in accordance with existing rules and regulations (cont. from 1/24/96; City review deadline is 3/6/96). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that the development agreement has been noticed for tonight's meeting and that it was prepared by the applicant's representative. The development agreement would allow the applicant a 10 year window period to build out as the applicant feels that this time period would be necessary for a project of this type and scope. In exchange, the applicant would offer the city the following: 1) a guarantee that there would be an open occupancy availability to all seniors; 2) program to provide early notification to Saratoga seniors of unit availability; 3) allows for perimeter landscaping adjacent to Crisp Avenue to be installed prior to commencement of construction of the buildings; 4) open space easement; 5) proposed additional drainage improvements beyond what the scope of the impact of the project; and 6) a guarantee that should the project be approved, that the 11 units proposed on the 10.6 southern acres would be developed. Planner Walgren recommended that the public hearing be opened on the development agreement and that the development agreement be discussed. Should the Commission find the development agreement acceptable, staff would recommend that the development agreement, the general plan text amendment, the use permit and the design review applications be forwarded to the City Council for approval. He informed the Commission that the State's Permit Streamlining Act requires that local jurisdiction complete its review of projects such as this one within a one year period. He indicted that this project would be nearing that one year time limit (March 6, 1996). Planner Walgren read into the record correspondence received from the following individuals: Jeffrey Schwartz, San Marcos Road, (summarizing eight topics of concern, many of which deal with the procedural review of this project); Linda Callon with the law firm of Berliner Cohen, representing the Odd Fellows (addressed the fact that a letter was received from the Law Offices of William D. Ross, representing the Fire District, contesting the EIR PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 9 - requirements and conditions of approval which would require the purchase of an aerial fire truck for the Fire District. Being challenged was the connection of the impact that the project has and that of providing a fire truck), and a letter from William D. Ross (supporting the Fire District's request for the fire truck). Also distributed to the Commission this evening was a packet of information containing a series of correspondence between the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks addressed to Mayor Jacobs, responded to by City Manager Peacock and a second letter from the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks addressed the water quality of the creeks as well as the City Manager's subsequent response to that letter. Planner Walgren indicated that the author of the letter, Mr. Whetstone, performed storm water quality tests at various outfall locations below the property and raised concerns regarding the water quality at the Odd Fellows site. Planner Walgren noted that some of the drainage systems came from adjacent development and not from the Odd Fellows' site. He informed the Commission that City Attorney Riback has reviewed this information and was prepared to answer any questions which it may have. Commissioner Kaplan asked staff where this new information would fit as the Commission has already reviewed the final EIR? Planner Walgren responded that the letters address hydrology to a degree but that primarily, the letters are commenting on the level of bacteria in the storm water found downstream and contesting that it was not properly addressed in the EIR. City Attorney Riback clarified that the letters were addressed to the Mayor and that this would be included as part of the City Council packet. In the interest of full disclosure, the City wanted to make sure that the Commission was made aware of these correspondence. He indicated that they have been responded to by City staff. It was the City's belief that the response was more than adequate, that the issues raised were dealt with adequately in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and that there was no need to further consider this matter other than as described in the City Manager's letters. Commissioner Abshire asked staff if exhibit "A" consists of the 22 pages of plans that were included in the Commission's packet. Planner Walgren indicated that the 22 pages of plans were to be identified as exhibit A. Commissioner Abshire requested that the applicant identify the changes that have been made. Planner Walgren clarified that the changes made to the plans were refinements to the plans to make them consistent with the changes that were made at the November public hearing. At the November public hearing, the Commission requested that the applicant address the various plan revisions (i.e., taking the cottages off the hilltop, reversing the roadway, eliminating the fire access road). Those changes were incorporated in the site plan but that the changes were not made consistently throughout the entire plan. Commissioner Kaplan noted that exhibit A was not the exhibit A to the development agreement. Planner Walgren clarified that the development agreement contains its own exhibits A, B and C which are separate from the staff report. 'PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 10 - Commissioner Kaplan noted that exhibit C was not included as a part of the development agreement and asked what exhibit C was? Planner Walgren informed the Commission that staff did not receive a copy of exhibit C but that the description of exhibit C states that it is supposed to be a map that identifies the open space easement. He informed the Commission that the open space easement is shown on the plan set distributed to the Commission. Staff recommended that the open space easement be expanded along the entire drainage system and not just along the west edges as shown on the set of plans. Chairman Murakami noted that the public hearing remained opened from the last Commission meeting. Linda Callon, representing the Odd Fellows, requested that the Commission take action on the general plan amendment, use permit, design review and development agreement. She indicated that the Odd Fellows would like to provide more senior housing in Saratoga. A partnership is now being sought with the City through a development agreement to provide senior housing. The development agreement would give the Odd Fellows time to build out the project so that the approvals are valid for a longer period of time than the two years that is generally given in the use permit and design review approval. She informed the Commission that the development agreement was structured after the development agreement that was granted to Greenbriar in April 1995, including a few modifications. She indicated that this project was special to Saratoga as it fulfills the Housing Element objective for senior housing and diversity of housing among seniors and Saratoga residents. Ms. Callon indicated that the last part of Exhibit B of the development agreement identities how the 10.6 acre parcel is to be developed. She indicated that an initiative is attempting to affect this part of the project. She indicated that Odd Fellows would agree to construct all of the duplex units on the 10.6 acres or that part of the duplex units would be constructed and that at that time, an easement would be dedicated that would restrict development on the rest of the property so that it follows the master plan. She identified a third option as being that if it is found that there are some reasons for not developing the cottages as part of phase I, that there would be a dedication of a private open space easement. This easement would either restrict future development to the master plan design of duplex units or an easement would be dedicated to restrict the 10.6 acre to the general plan and zoning that currently exists. She felt that this requirement would alleviate the fear expressed regarding future requests for intense development. Ms. Callon requested that the Commission modify the following conditions contained in the use permit /design review resolution: Condition 2.f. talks about asking the Odd Fellows to show a good faith effort to obtain an easement across 100 foot of property on San Marcos Road in order to combine the two private roads at the intersection of Fruitvale. She requested that this condition be deleted because the EIR did not find any significant effects even though it acknowledged the peculiar intersection. She indicated that the Odd Fellows did not have a good working relationship with their neighbors. She would not be PLANNING COMMISS' MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 11 - able to explain to her clients as to what is meant by a good faith effort. She noted that the City could condemn the property or request that both property owners dedicate an easement. Condition 52 - She acknowledged sending a letter to staff requesting relief from part of the condition which requires the purchase of a fire truck for the Fire District (as part of phase II). She noted that the EIR states that the Fire District originally wanted a prorata share of a paramedic or medical personnel. The factual analysis of the EIR indicate that there were 37 calls from the Odd Fellows in the year that it was analyzed and that there were 786 calls in the City. Of the 37 calls, only 4 calls were related to fire calls and that the remainder of the calls related to either a medical response or service call. The EIR concluded that it was a potentially significant impact to have an increase of 134 units on site and that it was fair to require some kind of medical response on the property. Instead of the requested 24- hour life support service personnel, the Fire District was now requesting that the Odd Fellows purchase a fire truck. She did not believe that there was anything in the fact analysis that states that there was a connection with what this project is proposing and the need for a new fire truck. She indicated that she received a letter late this afternoon from the Fire District which explained the laws that sets out when the Fire District can request items. She stated that facts have to support the legal analysis and that she did not believe that it does. She requested that a portion of the condition relating to the purchase of a fire truck be deleted as it is estimated to cost approximately $300,000+ to purchase a fire truck. The number of units to be increased is only 134. The purchase of a fire truck would add a $2,500 per unit cost. Condition 59 - She sent a letter to the City addressing the Odd Fellows picking up the defense cost for the City should there be a law suit filed against the City. She indicated that this matter has been addressed in the development agreement (paragraph 16, page 9). She requested that this condition be deleted or that the condition be amended to read: "To conform with Development Agreement, Section 16, page 9). - Condition 60 is a liquidated damage provision that states that if the Odd Fellows is in violation of the conditions, that damages are to be imposed on a daily basis. She requested relief from this condition and that it be replaced with the standard condition which would allow for a public hearing to determine if there is a violation of the use permit and to determine whether the city would modify the use permit or revoke the use permit. Commissioner Asfour stated that he appreciated the fact that the applicants came up with a hydrology plan for the area and acknowledged that this plan was more than what is required by the applicant to improve the existing neighborhood. He referred to the following sections of exhibit B of the development agreement: paragraph 2 - he noted that only a one week notice was being recommended prior to release of information. He recommended that the time be changed to 15 days. He referred to the last line of exhibit PLANNING COMMISS' MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 12 - B and noted that the applicant was requesting deletion of conditions 3, 4 and 6. He recommended that condition 3 be deleted because this condition should have been completed by that time (landscaping is to be installed immediately). Commissioner Kaplan noted that the discussion on the fire truck has been going on for a long time and that an objection was not previously raised by the applicant. Ms. Callon indicated that she did not come into the project until late in the process and that she was not aware of this requirement until it was listed as a condition in November. She indicated that she met with the Fire District and requested that the condition be deleted. She informed the Commission that this issue has not be resolved. Commissioner Patrick asked if the Odd Fellows would be responsible for defending the City if a third party sued the City for any action taken by the City relating to the Odd Fellows development (paragraph 16 of the development agreement)? Ms. Callon responded that the Odd Fellows' counsel would select the attorney who is to defend the City unless the City elects to use separate counsel. City Attorney Riback indicated that Ms. Callon representation of paragraph 16 was his understanding of what was the intent of that paragraph. He informed the Commission that this paragraph was negotiated in the Greenbriar Development Agreement and that it was intended to protect the City's interest and to assure that the City does not end having to expend a great deal of funds to defend the applicant. City Attorney Riback further clarified that the development agreement has a requirement for an annual review. It is at this point in time that issues relating to non - compliance are raised on the part of the developer. He indicated that he did not object to the deletion of condition 60. He indicated that the defense and indemnification was what was critical to the City. The developer would normally want to have control as to who defends the City. This was an issue that the City can take issue with. Commissioner Asfour asked City Attorney Riback regarding the two parallel roads and whether the Planning Commission could request condemnation of land and force the two roads to be merged? City Attorney Riback indicated that in the case of a subdivision map, there are provisions that states that a subdivider is to obtain the property interest of someone else's property. If it cannot be obtained, the City is required to move forward with condemnation if the condition is to be met. In this case, there is no such requirement in state law. The best that the City can do is to request that a good faith effort be made. He indicated that if the City really wanted to merge the two roads, that the City would need to condemn the property and make it a public road as property can only be condemned if it serves public interest. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the condition, as worded, requires that the applicant make a "good faith effort". If there was a hazard, she felt that the individuals residing on the other side would be more than happy to have somebody help them to improve a safety hazard. She stated that at this time, she would not be agreeable to force the Odd Fellows PLANNING COMMISS' MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 13 - to do more than send a letter requesting an easement from the neighbor(s). She asked if there was more to this condition than the issue of "attempt "? City Attorney Riback did not believe that there was more to this condition than to have the Odd Fellows make a good faith effort. Susan Masiello, 19271 San Marcos Road, addressed the drainage problem on her property. She indicated that two of her property lines have been excavated because of trees and shrub problems. Ten days ago because of the storm, the drainage ditch was within two to three inches of overflowing and that the back drainage ditch was currently overflowing. She noted that the Odd Fellows' site has two culverts that dump water into her yard. When she noticed the second culvert, she contacted the city because she thought it was a plumbing problem. City staff inspected the site and that she was told that the water came from a spring located on the side of the hill on the Odd Fellows site. She expressed concern with the bacteria associated with water bound streams. She stated that she has noticed an increase in the mosquito population. She expressed concern that additional buildings at the Odd Fellows site would flood her yard and family room. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the mosquito problem in Santa Clara County was a vector control problem as the County has ceased to mitigate the mosquito problem. Sara Stephenson, 12491 Jolen Court, stated that she was representing the League of Women Voters. She read a letter from the League in support of the provisions of Senior Housing in Saratoga. The League supports General Plans and zoning ordinances that facilitate the development of housing for seniors; supports undertaking ongoing evaluations of senior needs and housing restrictions; supports changes in local government regulations to reduce the cost of housing and encourages the construction of rental units. Based on these positions, the League encourages the City to facilitate and approve the plan for development of the Odd Fellows property. She indicated that the League does not take a stand on an issues unless it was studied. She informed the Commission that the League has studied the need for senior housing and that the League feels very strongly that this request needs to be facilitated. Chung Park, 14642 Via de Marcos, expressed concern regarding the cottages that are to be located along the road located to the left of the site plan. He noted that a in previous document, he recalled seeing only half as many units proposed. The number of cottages proposed and their closeness lends itself to a sardine type of a look. He felt that the cottages would be incompatible with the overall atmosphere and the look and feel of the neighborhood. He requested that the landscape buffer be extended along the bottom of the map depicted in consideration of the neighbors located at the bottom as well as the neighbors located to the left of the property. William D. Ross, attorney representing the Saratoga Fire Protection District, indicated that his remarks would supplement those of the written communication. He informed the Commission that it was the District's position that condition 52 dealing with the aerial fire PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 14 - truck was justified by substantial evidence. He pointed out that it was not the District's burden of proof to establish this once the issue is verified and that the burden of proof was that of the applicants. He noted that the issue was first raised on June 13, 1995 by the Chief in the draft EIR. This resulted in a response to comments which are designated as SFG 1 -8 contained in the response to comments portion of the final EIR. It was his belief that the applicant's representative first met with the District regarding condition 52 on February 2, 1996 and that the representative indicated that the Odd Fellows would not be willing to buy a fire truck. He referred the Commission to Public Resources Code, Section 21177 A and B which recognizes the District's obligation to raise this issue. Mr. Ross felt that there were some critical facts that the Commission should be made aware of and that all matters to be addressed by the applicant would have to be substantiated. It was his belief that the Chief's analysis of June 1995 as well as those of William Maxwell, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District, attached as exhibit A, analyzed the methodology employed by the District to come up with the requirement for an aerial fire truck. It was believed that the characteristics of this project as proposed, justifies the purchase of the apparatus for the Fire District (i.e., doubling of senior population, characteristic of the footprint of the facility, the limited access to the facility, and the ability to have the aerial capability to rescue seniors from potential hazards). He did not believe that the applicant has a problem with the Advanced Life Support (ALS) requirements as contained in condition 52. He stated that the District's records for the calendar year 1995 shows that the existing facility accounts for over 10% of the medical assistance to the District. He noted that there are several General Plan policies regarding senior housing. It was his belief that the correct policy for determining consistency with the General Plan contained in the General Plan Guidelines (page 212) issued by the Governor's Office (1990). Specifically a project can be found consistent with the General Plan if it meets all of the goals and policies of the General Plan. Pages 26 and 47 of the Safety Element clearly indicates that access is a major concern. Mr. Ross indicated that the District neither favors nor opposes the project but that if it is to be approved, it is believed that condition 52 is essential. Should condition 52 be deleted, it would create a problem with the sufficiency of the final EIR because response to comment SF #1 indicates that this is a significant effect on the environment. Should the City approve the applications, it would be appropriate to add condition 52.1 which would stipulate that the applicant is to comply with all of the provisions of the State Building Codes which include the Uniform Fire Code because of the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 18938B. This condition would clarify the obligations and whether permits for authorization are discretionary or ministerial in the future. He felt that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the need for an aerial apparatus as this was a unique facility. The district does not want to appear before the City in years to come to justify why some incident occurred at this facility. Commissioner Siegfried asked Mr. Ross what was so unique about this facility as compared to a three story condominium located in the downtown area. Mr. Ross responded that the EIR states that there are significant development concerns from a fire safety stand point PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 15 - capability and with the composition of the residents of the facility (seniors). He indicated that there were no other facilities proposed with limited access. He stated that he did not contest that there would be an incidental benefit to the balance of the city and that this would be the fifth 1500 GPM apparatus in the District. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Commission recommended certification of the EIR to the City Council and that it included the requirement of a fire truck. She asked the City Attorney if this was the time to reopen the EIR. City Attorney Riback responded that the EIR was not being reopened by discussion of this matter. The Commission was dealing with the question of whether this particular mitigation measure should be imposed as a condition of approval, or whether it should not be required or whether there was a middle ground between the two options. He did not believe that it was inappropriate to deal with this issue at this time. Commissioner Pierce asked if Mr. Ross agreed with the estimated cost for the fire apparatus as being $300,000. Mr. Ross agreed with this estimate based on the statements made this evening. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the additional cost associated with an aerial feature? Mr. Ross responded that all fire apparatus manufacturers would state that it was not an additional cost. Commissioner Asfour stated that this requirement seemed to be a form of extortion. He asked why this has become an issue at the 11th hour? Mr. Ross directed this question to the applicant as this requirement has been in the public forum since June 1995. The requirement was applicable to this facility and that the district does not view this as being an issue of an extorsion for the reasons previously stated (not wanting to explain why the District was not able to save a resident). City Attorney Riback stated that the issue that is dealt with in the EIR was not the purchase of a ladder or aerial fire truck but that of making one available. If a fire apparatus is made available through the Los Gatos Fire District and a mutual aid agreement exists between Los Gatos and Saratoga Fire Districts or between the City and other Fire Districts, that may well satisfy the requirement of having an aerial fire truck available to respond to any incidents that may arise on this property. Mr. Ross indicated that he was familiar with the Mutual Aid agreement. The agreement states that only upon availability when not needed in the jurisdiction of origin would the fire apparatus be made available. There were no guarantees that this issue can be addressed. Commissioner Asfour noted that it was stated that there were four apparatuses in the district. He asked if this would be the only apparatus with an aerial ladder? Mr. Ross responded that this would be the only apparatus that would have the aerial capability and that the other fire apparatuses have side ladder capabilities. Commissioner Siegfried noted that there was at least one, three story building in Saratoga. He asked Mr. Ross if he was indicating that the District could not service the facility with PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 16 - the existing equipment? Mr. Ross responded that the existing structures could be serviced based on the characteristics of the building. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Road, felt that staff's advise to the Commission was wrong with regards for the need of an instant approval. He felt that the development agreement was an exercise to circumvent an initiative. The development agreement would not afford the protection that has been discussed for several months. He felt that it was a one sided agreement. The applicant can allow any of the agreed upon provisions to lapse and then return to request development at a higher density on undeveloped portions of the land. The senior access agreement was not well defined and does not offer true protection. The City has lost the open space that was to be preserved in previous approvals. The open space is now going to be an easement over what is left of the riparian corridor. He noted that one of the huge massive structures would be built into the riparian corridor. He addressed water quality and noted that the findings of the "Friends" were 2.5 times that of the federal limit. If the Odd Fellows project is approved, there would be an increase if the City allows intensification of the use. He noted that drainage plans were not provided. He indicated that the neighbors support the fire district's request. If the City was going to ignore the General Plan and allow three to four story structures in the middle of residential neighborhoods, he requested that the City makes sure that the fire department has what it needs to access the structures. He did not know why there was a rush to get this request to the Council. Other cities have development plans for large projects that go on for more than a year if an extension is secured. If an extension is not authorized, the project is denied. He felt that the Odd Fellows would go through months not telling the City that they have any intentions of buying a fire truck, leaving it in the agreements and than come forward at the last minute. He hoped that the Commission continues its deliberation to make this project work. Dom Richiuso requested that the City ensure that whatever is agreed to in the master plan is what is built out over time, making the master plan irrevocable. One way to ensure that the master plan is build out as approved is to provide for an open space easement anywhere where it is not buildable to prevent further development in the future. He did not know why the City had to give up things to the developer in return for a 10 year buildout. He addressed paragraph 4.2 (term of the agreement); 5.1 (if there is to be a change in the future, there need not be a public hearing and that the public would not be aware of proposed changes); 7.3 (moratorium not applicable - this was a way to circumvent this issue; it does not belong in this agreement); and 9.3 (no such operating memorandum shall constitute an amendment to this agreement requiring public notice or hearing - this was an example of what has happened in the past, keeping individuals in the dark). He indicated that exhibit B addressed only the 10.6 acres, specifically items 3, 4, and 6. He recommended that the entire project be included, not just the 10.6 acres). The last paragraph located on the last page states: "...maytake any action necessary to effectuate the intent of this paragraph. It was his interpretation of this section that if something changes, there can be an increase in density. He felt that the development agreement contained several loop holes. He could not understand why the city could approve the development agreement as it does not do anything that the city wants it do. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 17 - Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, acknowledged that the draft development agreement was submitted by the applicant's counsel and that it does not necessarily reflects the city's position. He addressed the "cancellation by mutual consent" and the use of a consent calendar without proper notification being given. He felt that the public should be included in some fashion in those provisions. Regarding exhibit B, item 3, page 1, it refers to a perimeter landscaping. He felt that the entire perimeter of the property should have the benefit of a landscape buffer because the view corridor would be impacted all around the property. Regarding the open space easement, he felt that it should be ensured that the 20- 30 acre site does not include additional development outside the building areas. He recommended that an open space easement also be required under section 6.a. should the project not develop as is stipulated under section 6.c. Commissioner Asfour informed Mr. Borelli that any item on a consent calendar can be removed from the consent calendar by the Commission or the public. The fact that an item is on a consent calendar does not mean that the item is being slipped under the carpet. Mr. Borelli commented that had the adjacent residents been notified of the material change that was accommodated under the consent calendar of phase III of Rogers and Brook, he could assure the Commission that the residents would have packed the chambers and raised their concerns. He requested that if there was a major material change being contemplated, that the neighborhood be notified, and that it not be placed on a consent calendar. Bob Finocchio, 19160 Crisp Avenue, stated that he would not enter into this type of an agreement as it does not protect the City. He felt that the ten year term for the contract was too long. He felt that if the applicant could not afford this development, the applicant should not apply to build this development. He asked what were the remedies should the applicant not follow through with the provisions of the agreement? He inquired as to the successors' ability to modify the project in the future. Ms. Callon indicated that the development agreement was fashioned after the development agreement entered into with Greenbriar. It was believed that the development agreement would give the Odd Fellows some security that they can build the project and at the same time to provide the City with some benefits that it may not otherwise have. She explained that the reason for the timeline was due to the time that was needed to get state approval for the skilled nursing facility. She noted that it takes 12 to 18 months to build a skilled nursing facility and that the rest of the facilities would not take as long to build. Construction of the project would not be more than a two to three year process. Regarding the Fire District's condition, she apologized for addressing this concern at this late of a date. She indicated that it was a condition of approval that was recently brought to her attention. She did not believe that the facts support what has been suggested to the Commission. The fact was that only four fire calls out of 700+ have occurred. The EIR states that the Fire District has three Class A 1500 GPM engines at this time. The agreement also states that not only is there a mutual aid agreement through the county but in fact there is an automatic aid agreement with the neighboring cities (Los Gatos and Cupertino). She felt that whatever fire protection was being provided was being made available through the 'PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 18 - automatic aid agreement. She noted that further build out was restricted by the General Plan and zoning. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26 P.M. Commissioner Asfour asked the City Attorney if there was a way for the City to grant an extension to the one year Permit Streamlining Act limit? City Attorney Riback responded that an extension must be agreed upon by the applicant and that the maximum extension that can be granted would be for a three month period. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the Commission review the development agreement sequentially. Commissioner Siegfried asked City Attorney Riback how binding this agreement would be? He indicated that the neighbors have requested that should the Commission approve the request, that it is done with. He did not get that sense from this agreement that this would be accomplished. He asked if there were other things that the City could do to ensure that this proposal would be the ultimate development that would be allowed on the site? City Attorney Riback indicated that he was not aware of any agreement or any other approvals that can be made that would be irrevocable so as to guarantee that the project is going to be built as approved. He indicated that the applicant has the right to build or not build the project. The applicants have agreed to record a private open space should the cottages not be built in response to this concern. He stated that there were no guarantees that the applicant would follow through with an approval after it is received. Comments on the development agreement Page 2, Section 4.2, Term of the Agreement - Commissioner Kaplan noted that Ms. Callon has suggested that the 10 year period be retained because all of the preliminary approvals would cut off their right to build on a normal two year build out. She asked if there could be a revision to this section that stipulates that the initial processing of the application was not counted (the project is put on hold until the application is approved and that the project is ready to obtain permits, giving the applicant five years to develop from that date). City Attorney Riback indicated that there was nothing to prevent the city from amending the section as recommended by the Commission other than the applicant's failure to agree to the amendment. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he did not have a degree of comfort with this agreement. He noted that the 1982 master plan was to be the final development of the land, noting that it is now 1996 and that it is being suggested that this was to be the final master plan with no further requests for development other than what is being presented. He felt that a penalty should be built into the agreement should the developer not build according to the master plan. City Attorney Riback agreed that there were no guarantees that the project would develop as proposed. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 19 - Commissioner Asfour asked if the agreement limits the applicant to three options as listed in Exhibit "B "? City Attorney Riback responded that the agreement would limit the development potential of the site for the term of the agreement. He noted that the penalties for not proceeding in the manner as stipulated in the development agreement would need to be agreed upon by the applicant. City Attorney Riback noted that a question was raised with regard to Section 5.1- The right to develop and the phrase that states that "any amendment to any of them shall from time to time be approved pursuant to this agreement." He noted that state law stipulates that development agreements can amended and that an amendment may not occur unless it returns to the Commission and City Council through the public hearing process. Commissioner Patrick indicated that the term of the agreement means that the City and the developer are bound by the agreement for a period of time. She indicated that the agreement does not state that construction needs to take place. Commissioner Abshire noted that the developer has agreed to mitigate any drainage problems in the area regardless of whether this project develops or not. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the major concern was that of the 10.6 acre site. He felt that there has to be some way to tie down what is being developed in such a way that it becomes over and done with. The neighbors basic concern as to the overall project was that City and the developer do something that gets that 10.6 acre developed one way or another. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that he has stated at worksessions and at previous public hearings that the only way to guarantee that the 10.6 acres be developed was to require that the cottages be built. The question was that of how this can be. accomplished. He indicated that there exists a planning term known as "leap frog development" whereby you skip over undeveloped land. In this case, the City could require as a condition of approval that the construction and occupancy permit issuance on the 11 cottages be secured prior to the issuance of any other permits. Paragraph 6.2 - Uniform Codes Applicable, Commissioner Kaplan noted that the Fire District's attorney indicated that there were new fire standards. She noted that one item was not included in the paragraph relating to state permits for the health facilities. She suggested that should the applicant attempt to be certified for Medicare and for MediCal, that the applicants need to obtain state and federal approval (no mention to federal programs). City Attorney Riback indicated that the agreement could be amended to include reference to federal programs as well as reference to the Fire Codes. Paragraph 7.3 - Commissioner Asfour requested that City Attorney Riback interpret this paragraph. City Attorney Riback indicated that the intent of this paragraph was to clarify what is already a law. He stated that when a development agreement is issued, it vests rights to the developer to build a project in accordance with the standards in effect at time of approval. It was his belief that this provision was intended to respond, in part, to the PLANNING COMMISSi MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 20 - initiative. He noted that the initiative exempts projects that already have vested rights. The development agreement is a form of a vested right. Even without this paragraph, the state of the law was such that the development agreement would provide a vested right to allow the applicant to move forward regardless of the initiative. The purpose for inserting this paragraph was to clarify and emphasis this position. Paragraph 7.4 - Commissioner Asfour felt that there was language missing from the end of the paragraph. He recommended that the following be included at the end of the paragraph: "in no way affect or impair DEVELOPER'S vested rights under Agreement S IQ as >< ei? ro: ec : �s:icCPM>lete:d:: >:fln:::� me:" or something to that affect. g .:.::::::::::::::::.:PJ::. . F.... :: g Chairman Murakami agreed that paragraph 7.4 was opened ended. He asked if this paragraph could be amended? Commissioner Asfour asked if the vested rights expire with the expiration of the term of the agreement? City Attorney Riback responded that it would. Commissioner Kaplan noted that paragraph 7.4 contains language that the Commission objects to regarding the developer's right to build but not the obligation to develop the property in any order. She recommended that the language as suggested by Community Development Director Curtis be included in this section which stipulates that cottages are to be built prior to the issuance of other permits for the remainder of the facility. Commissioner Asfour stated that he supported Commissioner Kaplan's recommended modification. However, he did not believe that this modification would be acceptable to the applicant. He felt that the language would need to be drafted and returned that would be acceptable to both parties. He recommended that language be included in exhibit B that would stipulate that should the cottages (not be built within a designated period of time, an open space easement is to be designated. He asked if this was a legal modification. City Attorney Riback responded that this recommendation was feasible, noting that this recommendation was different from what the Community Development Director's recommendation. Commissioner Patrick suggested that the Commission recommend the provisions to the City Council as an either or provision (the applicant is to build out everything, that the 11 cottages be built, or that should the cottages not be built within a specified time frame, the land is to be preserved as open space. City Attorney Riback indicated that the Commission could recommend alternatives to the City Council as to how it would like to see this project phased. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it was her understanding that the applicant would reserve the area around the riparian corridor as open space as well as the area located to the west. PLANNING COMMISS, MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 21 - Planner Walgren clarified that there were two open space easements. One of the easements was a requirement of project approval for the entire length of the drainage corridor. The applicant's agreement would be that if the applicant only builds part or none of the cottages, that they would record an open space easement around everything on that 10.6 acre parcel that would otherwise be open, restricting development. It was his belief that the applicants were indicating that they would either build the cottages or that if the cottages were not built immediately, that an open space easement would be recorded. Commissioner Asfour expressed concern that should the applicant wait 10 years and if nothing is built, the City would have no recourse. Ms. Callon noted that paragraph 7.4,relating to the timing of development, was not an open ended paragraph. City Attorney agreed with the comments of Ms. Callon and noted that paragraph 7.4 references paragraph 5.3 and the additional conditions as set forth in Exhibit B. Chairman Murakami informed the applicant and the public present this evening that the Commission would not be able to consider agenda items 4, 5, and 6 this evening due to the lateness in the hour and that the Commission would be continuing these items to the Commission's next meeting. 4. UP -95 -007 - CONGREGATION BETH DAVID; 19700 PROSPECT ROAD, - CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION; 12033 MILLER AVENUE, Request for a joint Use Permit to allow Congregation Beth David and the Church of the Ascension to participate annually in the "Faith in Action" Rotating Shelter Program during the months of June and August respectively. The program offers shelter, meals and employment assistance to a maximum of 15 transitionally homeless adults. The facilities are located directly adjacent to one another in the R- 1- 10,000 residential zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. SD -95 -009 & V -95 -014 - NAGPAL; 19101 VIA TESORO CT.; Request for Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a 2.46 acre lot with an existing residence into two separate building sites. The residence would be retained on Lot 1 and a new single - family residence would be built on Lot 2. Variance approval is requested to allow the existing residence to maintain a nonconforming front yard setback. Though the structure's front setback is not changing, a Variance is necessary to allow the lot to be created. The subject property is located within an R -1- 40,000 zoning district. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 6. UP -95 -008 - KOLOTOUROS; 20201 MERIDA DR.; Request for Use Permit approval to allow a nonconforming commercial trucking business to continue within a residential zoning district. The subject property fronts onto Merida Dr. and abuts Prospect Rd. to the north and Route 85 to the east. The parcel is 20,878 sq. ft. in size and is located in an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 22 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /ABSHIRE MOVED TO CONTINUE AGENDA ITEMS 4, 5, AND 6 TO ITS FEBRUARY 28, 1996 MEETING. Paragraph 9.3 - Operating Memoranda. City Attorney Riback noted that reference was made by a speaker regarding paragraph 9.3 relating to the Operating Memoranda. He indicated that the intent was to provide the normal standard operating procedure whenever there are minor clarifications or modifications to be made to the large project during the course of the project. Staff would need to decide whether the modification was minor or whether it has to return to the Commission or City Council for action. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that public hearing consent calendar items are noticed in the paper. However notifications are not mailed to the adjacent residents unless the item is advertised as a public hearing. Commissioner Asfour requested that staff make sure that any modifications for this project be placed on the public hearing calendar to address the residents concern about notification. Commissioner Kaplan asked about the examples as listed in paragraph 9.3. If you go from a skilled nursing to an assisted living, she felt that this was a dramatic change. She asked why these were considered insignificant alterations to the project? City Attorney responded that these were examples submitted by the applicant and that the applicant wanted this particular language inserted. He recommended that the Commission ask the applicant the rationale for this section. Commissioner Kaplan felt that this language gives the applicant the option to amend the original plans. If the Commission agrees to a congregate care unit and that at a later date, the applicant wants to convert it to an assisted living quarters, she did not believe that it could be approved and recommended that it be stricken. Commissioner Patrick felt that this paragraph appears to state that the applicant can change those uses that cannot be seen from the outside. She felt that it should be made clear that the City does not expect that the cottages be suddenly changed to a dormitory. She felt that the language may affect density in the "for the instance" portion of the paragraph. She recommended that this section be deleted. City Attorney Riback indicated that this paragraph was submitted by the applicant to help clarify what this paragraph is intended to mean. If the language was not consistent with what the Commission wants to see, he recommended that the Commission delete this section. Commissioner Kaplan did not support the retention of the last sentence of paragraph 9.3 because it would authorize the City Manager to execute an operating memoranda without Council approval. City Attorney Riback stated that staff already has the ability to approve minor clarifications or modifications that do not affect density, intensity of use, bulk, mass, size, architectural design, etc., and would be similar to a field change order. PLANNING COMMISST MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 23 - Commissioner Kaplan felt that this sentence goes beyond a change order. She did not believe that an operating memorandum authority should be given to the City Manager without City Council approval if a procedure was already in place to deal with change work orders. She did not believe that it should be expanded. City Attorney Riback recommended that paragraph 9.3 be deleted should the Commission not feel comfortable with this provision. Paragraph 11.2 - Annual Review Process. Commissioner Asfour noted for the record that during the break he discussed with the attorney the last two sentences which reads: "Unless the City Council elects for the matter to be heard at a public hearing, the hearing shall be conducted by the Council as a non - public hearing. The burden of proof of good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement shall be upon the DEVELOPER. " He noted that the Commission has indicated that it would recommend public hearings on this project and that it be ensured that any recommendations that are made by the Commission are applied throughout the agreement and that it contain no conflicts. Paragraph 11.3 - Termination. Commissioner Asfour asked City Attorney Riback if modification and termination of the agreement was a two way street? City Attorney Riback clarified that this section was contained in the Greenbriar agreement and that he argued for its retention because it gives the City the authority to terminate, cancel or modify the agreement if the applicant was not operating in compliance with the agreement after being notified. Paragraph 11.5 - Fee for Annual Review. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that this section be amended to require that the fees to be collected would recover all costs associated with normal procedures so that the City does not have to make up the difference if the cost is higher. Paragraph 16 - Attorney's Fees and Cost. Commissioner Patrick asked if a provision should be included that stipulates that the city can select a different attorney should it find itself in conflict with the attorney selected by the applicant. City Attorney Riback responded that this would be subject to a written consent by the City. Paragraph 17.1 - Right to Assign. Commissioner Abshire asked if the City has the right to approve the company that the project is assigned to or can the City reject the assignment? City Attorney Riback informed the Commission that the applicant requested the deletion of this provision but that the City could reinstate the provision. Commissioner Kaplan noted that at one point, someone asked why this agreement was requested for a period of time and that it was not binding on its successors. She noted that paragraph 18 indicates that the agreement runs with the land. So whomever may buy the Odd Fellows' project, is bound by this agreement. She pointed out this stipulation to the public. PLANNING COMMISST MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 24 - Paragraph 19 - Bankruptcy. Commissioner Patrick asked if this was a valid paragraph? City Attorney Riback responded that the intent of this paragraph was for the City's benefit. Exhibit B Section 1 - Residency Criteria. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the criteria as listed under Section 1 relating to the residency criteria be tightened. She noted that this subsection gives first preference to individuals residing on the property. She recommended that a new subsection b. be added that would read: "Second preference will be granted to other Saratoga residents for a period of thirty days ". The existing subsection Lb. is to be relabeled as subsection l.c. Section 3 - Perimeter Landscaping by Crisp Avenue. Commissioner Patrick recollected that the Commission specified landscaping that was to be installed along Crisp Avenue because it would not be affected by any construction. She indicated that Crisp Avenue was not being given preference but that the Commission was trying to accommodate construction and the road. She was not aware of any landscaping that would be installed otherwise that would not be affected. Chairman Murakami and Commissioner Asfour recommended the installation of additional screening along the northern boundary of Chester Avenue. Commissioner Abshire noted that Mr. Park requested that landscaping be installed along Via de Marcos. Commissioner Asfour noted that installation of landscaping along Via de Marcos would be damaged due to construction. Chairman Murakami asked staff if the Commission's suggestion regarding landscaping should be addressed in this document at this time or should it be addressed at time of design review. Community Development Director responded that the Commission can, at this time, identify what part of the phasing the landscaping is to be installed. Should a problem with installation be identified, the issue would return to the Commission for its review. Section 4 - Open Space Easement. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he would like to see the open space easement expanded as addressed by Planner Walgren in his opening remarks. Not having seen exhibit C he was not sure what was being referred to under this section. At the request of Commissioner Asfour, Planner Walgren identified the location of the open space easement as following the ridgeline, taking in part of the upper drainage system. This is consistent with where the open space easement was recorded for the previous Rogers and Brook Phase III. Staff recommended that the open space be recorded on the other side of the drainage system, including both sides of the riparian habitat. He indicated that there was not a requirement to include Via de Marco in the open space easement at this time. However, an open space easement would include the western portion of Via de Marco should the cottages not be built immediately upon approval of phase I. 'PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 25 - Section 6 - Phasing. Community Development Director Curtis clarified the options available under Section 6 as being: 1) the applicant can construct the 11 cottages and receive occupancy permits prior to the issuance of building permits for new buildings; or 2) if the 11 cottages are not built within the 10 year term of the development agreement, that the remaining portion of the 10.6 acre site would revert to open space with the exception of the building envelopes. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not want the agreement to prohibit the upgrade of the existing facilities. Commissioner Siegfried felt that the applicant should be allowed to complete phase 1 which includes upgrading the existing buildings and the construction of the new skilled nursing facility. Nothing else would be allowed unless the cottages are built. If phase I is not built out, the applicant would not be allowed to build the new apartment unit(s). Commissioner Asfour requested that reference to condition 3 located on the last paragraph, last sentence of the second page of exhibit be deleted. The Commission noted the comments were expressed on drainage. City Attorney Riback stated that although the comments were received following the close of the public review period relating to drainage, the City looked into this matter. The City contacted the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. According to both of these agencies, the EPA standards referred to by Mr. Whetstone were not relevant to water quality health issues. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she has reviewed the correspondence and stated that she was satisfied that the concerns expressed were addressed by the City and that according to the final EIR, the concern would be mitigated. Planner Walgren acknowledged that the timing of the project was stated as a condition. He indicated that the normal review procedure would be to have the applicant request a grading permit from the city, this would activate the grading and drainage plan for the entire development. He indicated that staff was satisfied with this procedure. City Attorney Riback indicated that staff has noted the changes as recommended by the Commission to the development agreement and that staff would prepare a redlined version of the changes that were made by the Commission. Aerial Fire Truck Chairman Murakami felt that there was a safety liability. He noted that equipment of this type was needed. Commissioner Siegfried recommended that the requirement of the aerial truck be retained and forwarded to the City Council. However, he recommended that factual information be PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 26 - furnished to the City Council. Commissioner Asfour stated that he was disturbed by the fact that this issue was being presented at the eleventh hour and that he was displeased with both sides. However, he would agree to forward this issue to the Council. Resolution No. GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004 Condition 2. f relating to verification of a good faith effort to acquire and record a reciprocal vehicular ingress /egress easement to join the two private parallel roadways, Commissioner Kaplan stated that she hoped that both parties recognized the safety concern. She felt that there would be a mutual benefit if there was some cooperation given from both sides. She felt that as long as a good faith effort was made, she would be satisfied that the condition was met. Condition 59 - Liability and Enforcement - to be deleted as it is covered under paragraph 16 of the development agreement. Condition 60 relating to noncompliance with the condition of the use permit and liquidated damages to be deleted (Commissioner Asfour indicated that he discussed this condition with the City Attorney and noted that this condition was covered in the development agreement). COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /ASFOUR MOVED TO FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NOTING THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: Development Agreement Paragraph 9.3-Operating Memoranda to be deleted. Paragraph 11.2 - Annual Review Process. Amended to require that the annual review process be a duly noticed public hearing. Paragraph 11.5 - Fee for Annual Review. Amended to reflect that the fee to be collected for the annual review is to be the prevailing rate (amount not to be specified). Paragraph 17.1 - Right to Assign. Amended to reflect that the City has the right to reject the assignment. Development Agreement - Exhibit "B" Section 1 - Residency Criteria. PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 27 - The addition of a new subsection Lb. to read: "Second preference will be granted to other Saratoga residents for a period of thirty days" The existing section Lb. to be relabeled as section 1.c. ....................... ............................... Section 3 amended to read: "Perimeter landscaping by Crisp Avenue Section 4 - Open Space Easement amended to read as recommended by Planner Walgren. Page 2, last sentence of the last paragraph amended to delete reference of condition 3. Section 6 - Phasing of the project to allow renovation of existing structures and construction of new health center. Before any other new development, the 11 cottages must be finalized or open space easement recorded. The intent is to guarantee that the only development on the 10.6 acre site is to be cottages. THE COMMISSION ALSO APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. GPA -94 -001 AND RESOLUTION NO. UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -001, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, THE USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS, DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO RESOLUTION UP -94 -001 AND DR -94 -001: Deletion of condition 59 - Liability and Enforcement. - Deletion of Condition 60 - Noncompliance with any conditions of the user permit shall constitute a violation.... " THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Community Development Curtis informed the Commission that the applicant has requested that this item be advertised before the City Council next week. As there has to be a quick turnaround of information, including the minutes, staff would be furnishing the City Council with minute excerpts from the recording secretary. The minutes forwarded to the City Council will be stamped draft as the Commission will not have seen them or approved them. Commissioner Siegfried noted for the record that the issue of compatibility has been raised repeatedly. When you look at the issue of compatibility of the apartment units, one would need to indicate that the apartment units are compatible with the public facilities that exist today which preexisted any of the residential property around it and that the duplex units were compatible with the residential property. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSIONERS CONCURRED WITH COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED'S STATEMENT REGARDING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS y a "PLANNING COMMISSI MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1996 PAGE - 28 - COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 1/9, 1/17, 1/22 & 1/23/96 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 2/28/96 Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 28, 1996, Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA Respectfully Submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PCO21496. SAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick, Pierce, Siegfried Late: None Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Riback ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - 1/10/96 January 10, 1996 COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 10, 1996 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 8, last paragraph, line 3, replace the word empansive .. ............................... with ? 5I.V...E'. Page 12, first paragraph, line 11 amended to read: "...that retaining the General Plan #'!'l would be of benefit to . .. ........... ............................... the community as the property is surrounded by a cyclone fence...." THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 -3 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: ASFOUR, MURAKAMI, PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 19, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 2 - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008; TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA HILLS RD.; Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels totalling 5.1 acres to be reclassified from an Open Space- Outdoor Recreational designation to Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassified from an Agricultural designation to R -1- 40,000 and R- 1- 12,500. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single- family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract is included as part of the project description. This application was heard by the Planning Commission at the 1/10/96 public hearing but failed to pass by a 3 -1 vote (Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell and Murakami absent) . General Plan amendments require a majority vote of the total membership of the Commission. The proposal was therefore continued to the 1/24/96 meeting for reconsideration of the vote. -------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. He noted that at the January 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, there was a 3 -1 vote in favor of forwarding to the City Council approval of the general plan amendment. As a general plan amendment requires 4 affirmation votes of the majority of the seated Commissioners. He indicated that there were not four affirmative votes given to carry the motion. Therefore, the Commission continued this item for reconsideration by the full Commission. He indicated that the public testimony portion for the applications has been closed. He indicated that it was his understanding that the two Commissioners who were not present at the January 10, 1996 meeting have since listened to the tapes of that meeting. He recommended that these two Commissioners enter into the record any comments that they may have on the project and that the Commission reconsider the vote taken on the general plan amendment request. He further recommended that the Commission proceed with its discussion and consideration of the zoning ordinance amendment and the tentative subdivision application. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he read the minutes and listened to the tapes from the last meeting and that he was apprised of the situation. He indicated that he was not pleased regarding the manner in which this project came to the Planning Commissioner via the City Council. However, he indicated that he would base his decision on the facts presented. He indicated that development of this site has been before the City for a number of years and that every time the issue comes up, some people want it to become a LAI PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 3 - park. He felt that if the energy that was spent in opposition to this project was spent in raising funds, that the site would have been a public park by now. He noted that the request before the Commission was not for a park. He indicated that he was satisfied with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared and approved for the site and that he would have voted to forward its certification to the City Council had he been present at the last meeting. Regarding the status of the property under the Williamson Act, he stated that when someone enters into a contract, he would like to have the individual (s) live up to the terms of the contract. However, he recognized that in a few years that this site would come out of the Williamson Act and that early release from the contract would not make that much of a difference. If the property is removed from the Williamson Act Contract, he felt that the City would benefit substantially from its, removal from the Williamson Act. Therefore, he indicated that he would support forwarding a recommendation to the Council. Chairman Murakami stated that after reading the minutes and participating in all of the study sessions on this item, he had some mixed feelings about the project. However, he understands that this is a unique piece of land and that the location does not lends itself to be a practical place for a park as far as its accessibility to all Saratoga residents. He could not see having the land sit for five years with the hope that someone would come along and help fund this park in the manner that the Friends of Nelson Garden would like to see happen. He stated that the Friends of Nelson Garden have not presented evidence that this could be a possibility. Therefore, he would like to see the request forwarded to the City Council and to see the land improved from its current state. He indicated that at time of design review, the City would make sure that whatever is built is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that he too was satisfied with the EIR. Had he been present at the January 10 meeting, he would have voted to forward its certification to the City Council. Commissioner Kaplan noted that corrections would need to be made to Resolution No. SD.95 -008 upon its adoption. Commissioner Abshire indicated that the decision that is made tonight would be a land mark decision. He stated that if the City supports its recently adopted open space element, that the element contains some clauses that specifically states that there is to be an avoidance of pre- cancellation of Williamson Act property. He indicated that he has not seen or heard of a need for expensive, executive homes in Saratoga. He did not believe that this project justifies accelerating the already rapid decline in Saratoga's open space inventory. He felt that the Williamson Act was a very important part of the City's inventory and that fifty percent of Saratoga's open space is covered by the Williamson Act and that it would disappear over the next 10 years because of cancellations PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 4 - already requested. Commissioner Abshire stated that a well organized teaching demonstration garden would be preferred over executive homes on this property because it could bring to the City many historical amenities and that it would provide for the education of future generations, in addition to preserving open space. He recognized that much has been said about the uncertainty of finding financial support to purchase and to operate the property as a garden. He felt that it should also be acknowledged that the purchase of substitute open space by the City is not a sure thing as the supply of suitable open space in Saratoga is limited and fixed. For the reasons stated, he would vote to deny approval of GPA -94 -003. He felt that the Community Foundation may benefit financially by waiting a few years and Saratoga may also benefit if a few more years were made available to find a garden benefactor. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GPA -94 -003. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /PATRICK MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO -94 -002. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. Commissioner Kaplan recommended the following amendments to Resolution No. SD -95 -008: - Condition 2, last paragraph (page 6 of the staff report), be amended to restrict vehicle parking underneath the trees. Condition 28, last paragraph, line three (page 12 of the staff report), be amende to read: "...appropriate illustrations, and submitted to the City to k;? reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant...." - Condition 34 (page 13 of the staff report) amended to read: "All funds required by the Memorandum of Understanding to be .. paid to the City of Saratoga fit !pez the City era ... .::...:..:...:::::::::::::. granting approval of a final Subdivision Map...." Community Development Director Curtis clarified that the general plan amendment and zoning amendment are recommendations of approval to the City Council. He indicated that normally, on a vesting tentative subdivision map, the Planning Commission would be the reviewing authority as the final decision maker unless the applicant appeals the decision to the City Council. He noted that the EIR was prepared for the general plan amendment, zone change, and the vested tentative map as well as the cancellation of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Williamson Act contract. He indicated that staff would recommend that the Commission forward a recommendation to approve the subdivision map to the City Council so that all the applications go to the City Council as a packet, along with the certification of the EIR. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SD -95 -008, INCORPORATING THE AMENDMENTS AS STATED BY COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, KAPLAN, MURAKAMI, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: PIERCE; ABSENT: NONE. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission and the public that these applications have been advertised and would be considered by the City Council at its meeting of February 7, 1996. 2. DR -95 -051 - BEAM; 18843 MONTEWOOD CT.; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,881 sq. ft. single story house in order to construct a new 5,985 sq. ft. single story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is a 41,075 sq. ft. parcel located within the R -1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Kaplan asked if the resolution of approval included a condition which would require the use of impervious material for the driveway and whether the city arborist's recommendations regarding paving were included in the resolution of approval? She asked if the interlocking pavers were of impervious material? Planner Walgren clarified that the interlocking pavers were shown on the plan and that the pavers would allow water to permeate and to allow ventilation of the roots. As interlocking pavers were depicted on the plans, this would address Commissioner Kaplan's concern. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Scott Cunningham, project designer, stated his concurrence with the staff report and that he did not find that the arborist's conditions unreasonable. He indicated that the proposal was for a 20 foot, single story residence and that the design matches the adjacent single story, ranch -style properties. He indicated that the floor area was exceeded by 126 feet. He noted that there was a portion of the roof that would be greater than 18 feet in height. He requested that the Commission approve the design of the home and indicated that he would comply with the City arborist's pre - construction and post- construction recommendations and conditions. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 6 - 7:52 P.M. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR -95- 051. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). 3. DR -95 -045 - GLENROCK BUILDERS; 14118 SARATOGA AVENUE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,302 sq. ft. single story residence on a 22,685 sq. ft. parcel located within the R -1- 20,000 zoning district. The subject property is the front parcel of a 2 -lot subdivision approved in April of 1995. -------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that at time of the approval of the lot split, there was discussion whether the existing residence, listed in the City's Heritage Resource Inventory, could be retained as part of the lot split. Ultimately, it was determined that it could not be retained and that the map was approved with the restriction on the front parcel to limit a large structure. He noted that at time of map approval, the Planning Commission approved a two story home for the rear parcel (parcel 2). He noted that the single story proposed this evening was different in terms of style and massing. He indicated that the design was approved by the City arborist and that tree protection measures have been incorporated in the resolution. The project was also reviewed and supported by the Heritage Preservation Commission with the provisions of additional landscaping. He informed the Commission that staff also required an additional 10 foot landscape easement adjacent to the 10 foot public right -of -way which would provide for a 20 foot permanent landscape parkway. He indicated that Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, was present to answer any questions which the Commission may have. Commissioner Kaplan indicated that the minutes of the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting do not indicate whether the design of the home was considered by the Preservation Commission. Bob Peepari, Chairman of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), indicated that by the time he arrived at the HPC meeting, this item had already been reviewed. He stated that the HPC supported the project but that he did not have knowledge as to the discussion that was undertaken by the HPC. Regarding the landscaping, he noted that the landscape plans called for three coast live oaks and that the HPC requested the planting of two additional coast live oaks. Chairman Murakami asked Mr. Peepari if he would provide the Commission with his opinion on the design of the proposal. Mr. Peepari indicated that his opinion would be his personal opinion and that it would not be related to the Heritage Commission. Commissioner Kaplan asked if Mr. Peepari had an opportunity to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 7 - review the approved two story home located on parcel 2 and the proposal before the Commission (parcel 1). She indicated that at the time of subdivision approval, it was required that the buildings blend in or look "traditional ". She also asked if Mr. Peepari had an opinion to offer. Mr. Peepari indicated that he would prefer to see some wood siding material used on the building. He did not believe that the proposed design would fit in with the character of the historic lane. Had he been present at the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting, he would have inquired about the details of the proposal (i.e., details of the aluminum windows, the color of the stucco). He recommended the a combination of materials be used to make the design fit in (i.e. use of wood shingles or brick). He felt that there were too many plain stucco buildings being built in Saratoga (i.e., Kerwin Ranch). Commissioner Patrick noted that this area has been designated as a heritage lane. She asked if the designation meant anything to the city's architectural style along the heritage lane? Mr. Peepari responded that no standards or regulations exist for designated heritage lane areas but that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviews designs to ensure that they fit in with the existing older buildings. Chairman Murakami opened this item to public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Rocke Garcia, Glenrock Builders, informed the Commission that he utilized the same architect for both of the structures. He indicated that he worked closely with staff on the proposal for the front elevations. He indicated that he did not attend the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. However, the Heritage Preservation Commission voted unanimously to approve the architecture. He indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions which the Commission may have and indicated that he felt that the house meets the heritage criteria. Commissioner Asfour asked Mr. Garcia as to the material of the window framing? Mr. Garcia responded that the window frames are to be made of aluminum but that they would be vinyl coated, giving the appearance of a wood look (softer feel). Commissioner Kaplan asked if the west elevation portrayed a straight, up and down wall or was there some depth to the elevation? Mr. Garcia indicated that a lot of articulation was used in the design of the home. Planner Walgren clarified that the west elevation depicts the pitched gable roof proposed to be at 22 feet in height and noted that the roof design was not a sheer elevation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 8 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that the reason that the Commission requested that the plans for parcel 2 be displayed was to determine if there was compatibility in the look of the two houses in this subdivision. She did not feel that the two homes were compatible and therefore could not support the design. Mr. Garcia stated that the use of stucco would provide for a softer feel. He indicated that he hired architects who have the ability and the knowledge of what would be the appropriate design for the property. He stated his support of the architect's design. It was his belief that there were both wood and stucco homes on heritage lane, with no predominance of one or the other. Chairman Murakami stated that he would prefer the use of wood siding as he did not like the use of stucco and that he would not be prepared to move forward with the design as proposed. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that one would see the articulation of the front of the house in contrast to the longest part of the home. He noted that the north elevation depicts the articulation all the way to the back to the longest part of the home. He stated that he understood the concern of the use of wood siding but that he felt that there was plenty of articulation used and that it would not cause a problem viewing the home from Saratoga Avenue. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was not sure whether the design of the home was appropriate for heritage lane. However, she did not believe that the design would fit in with what her understanding of the heritage ambiance was to be. Commissioner Kaplan and Chairman Murakami concurred with Commissioner Patrick's comments. Commissioner Abshire stated that he appreciated what the architect was trying to achieve. However, from the heritage lane stand point, he felt that there should be some break up in the use of stucco (i.e., the use of brick or wood). Commissioner Pierce indicated that he liked the way the lots were laid out (side by side) . He did not believe that the two homes need to be identical. He stated that the heritage preservation of the street has not been explained to him such that the design does not fit in. He indicated that he could support the design unless someone can point out some specific problems with it as far as the heritage preservation lane goes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 9 - Commissioner Siegfried concurred with Commissioner Pierces' comments. In reviewing the plans, he felt that there was a tremendous amount of articulation in the roof. He felt that the views from the heritage lane would not be obtrusive. Whether the material was to be wood siding or stucco would not make that much of a difference. It was his opinion that this was a well designed home. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the approval of parcel 2 reflected the ambiance that the Commission wanted to see along heritage lane. Commissioner Asfour stated that he did not have a problem with the design as requested. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /KAPLAN MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASKING THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO REDESIGN THE PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Mr. Garcia requested that this item be continued to allow the presence of his architect to explain the design of the home. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /KAPLAN MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DR -95 -045 TO FEBRUARY 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0) . Commissioner Siegfried stated that it would be helpful if the applicant submitted elevation plans that provide a sense of how the house would look from Saratoga Avenue. 4. GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001 & DR -94 -004 - INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS; 14500 FRUITVALE AVE. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows has submitted a Master Plan application to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. The application includes General Plan Text Amendment, Use Permit and Design Review requests to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Phase I of the proposed Master Plan includes the remodel of the I.O.O.F. Home, the expansion of the Villa apartments and the removal and replacement of the Health Center. Phase II represents Odd Fellows' long term plans for the property, which includes two new apartment structures and 19 single - story duplex cottages. The proposed Master Plan would result in an overall net increase from 170 to 307 housing units and from 68 to 99 nursing beds (cont. from 12/13/95; City review deadline is 3/6/96). -------------------------------------------------------------- Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report. He informed the Commission that the applicant was present this evening to respond to the comments expressed at the January 9, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 10 - worksession meeting. Some of the issues to be addressed include phasing of the project, site plan, improvements, and ultimate project build out and its timing. At the worksession, the Commission requested that the applicant consider altering the phasing of the project and to provide a guarantee that the project would be built as proposed, if approved. Linda Callon, attorney for the applicant, stated that she has reviewed the issues presented thus far and that the issues to be addressed this evening were as follows: Phasing of the prof ect : It has been concluded that the project could not be built all at once. She indicated that the design of the 10.6 acre parcel and the phase I approvals would be completed as part of phase one. It is proposed to either construct 11 cottages on the 10.6 acres or to build three cottages near the skilled nursing facilities. She indicated that either of these alternatives could be financed. - Ten year time frame for completion of the project: She indicated that the applicant would be requesting a 10 year time frame for the approval of the project. She indicated that she has spoken to the architect as well as potential construction persons and financing advisors. She indicated that the issue that she has heard from the neighbors was that there would be continuous construction, spread out over a ten year period. She stated that the actual construction for the entire project would be a two to three year period, spread between phase I and phase II approvals. She stated that the reason for the 10 year period to receive all of the approval was for the purpose of orderly construction of the project. She stated that it would take up to two years to receive f inal design and the rest of the approvals necessary from outside agencies. Once the approvals are in place, there would be a two year down period where nothing would occur. Following that, construction of Phase I which include the cottages which would take a year and a half or more to construct. The skilled nursing facility would take the longest time to construct (12 -16 months) . She indicated that the second phase should not be as difficult to obtain the approvals necessary for the project in terms of actual construction time. A buffer of time was needed in construction and financing in case the market changes dramatically or interest rates rise. Occupancy for Saratoga residents: It is planned to have the project open to the general public. The Odd Fellows would agree to offer first choice of the facilities to existing residents. The Odd Fellows would also agree to offer direct marketing efforts to Saratoga with notification to the City, senior organizations, and the local newspaper of the availability of services before the information is released to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 11 - the general public. Development Agreement: She indicated that a development agreement could be entered into by the applicant and the City to address the concern of the 10 year approval time - frame. The development agreement would offer to address some of the questions that have been raised (i.e., phasing of the project, development on the 10.6 acre site and the cottage units). The development agreement would also address other issues that were not required by the project and that were not addressed as part of the EIR (i.e., landscaping to be installed early on near Crisp Avenue, landscaping of Chester Avenue to occur as part of phase I; recordation of an open space easement at the western boundary of the 10.6 acre parcel, and the recordation of a view protection corridor easement). Ms. Callon requested that the Commission provide her with any final comments that it may have. The comments would be presented in final form to the Commission at its February 14 meeting. It has been requested that a public hearing also be scheduled on February 14 on the development agreement. Final action before the City Council has been scheduled for February 21 with final action to be taken by March 6, 1996. She noted that the last date that the City has to act on the project is March 6, 1996. Commissioner Asfour stated that the Commission has expressed concern that the 11 cottages be built out. Building a portion of the cottages at a time would not resolve the initial concern and that it has been recommended that the majority of the construction be completed at one time. Ms. Callon indicated that it was her understanding that some of the neighbors did not want the property to come back to the city at a later date for a more intense development proposal. She indicated that it was not being stated that the entire 11 cottages would be completed as part of phase I. She stated that the Odd Fellows would propose to construct the 11 cottages as part of phase I or that a portion of the cottages would be built as part of phase I and that it would set the pattern for the development of the rest of the project. Commissioner Siegfried asked if all of the public improvements could be installed up front to address the neighbors, concern, irregardless of the number of cottages that are to be built so that the neighbors and the City would know that only the "in -fill" would need to be constructed. He stated that for 17 years, he has heard from the neighbors that whatever is approved for the site that it be the last approval and that there be no further development intensity possible. Ms. Callon responded that if it was required that all of the public PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 12 - improvements be installed up front, that the entire project might as well be built out. She noted that a problem that may occur would be the passing of a voter initiative or court challenges. She stated that whatever is agreed to, that it would be requested that the agreement be amended on that portion of the project pertaining to the cottages should they not be allowed to be built. She informed the Commission that the applicant could not install all of the public improvements at one time because it would be costly and that there would be nothing to rent out against that cost. Commissioner Pierce asked if the open space easement would have public access? Ms. Callon responded that no public access is proposed to the open space easement as it is to be a scenic easement only. Commissioner Abshire noted that residents of the existing Odd Fellows facilities were Saratoga residents. He asked if these residents would have priority over other Saratoga citizens? Ms. Callon indicated that the existing residents would have the first opportunity to move into the units that are to be made available. Chairman Murakami requested that there be some assurance or fairness in the process that Saratoga citizens be allowed to reside in the facilities. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he recollected that development adjacent to the church on Saratoga Avenue received a density bonus for a senior housing project. The City required that advertisement be conducted exclusively in Saratoga for the first 60 to 90 day period. He recommended that the same effort be made in the initial marketing period to ensure that the citizens of Saratoga have first opportunity to apply for the facilities. Ms. Callon indicated that Commissioner Siegfried's recommendation was one that the project was willing to offer as part of the development agreement. She also noted that this project would allow the City to meet its Housing Element goals to provide different types of housing opportunities. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the applicant has looked at the question of access (i.e., the parallel road of San Marcos Road and the access road)? Ms. Callon responded that the studies that were reviewed through the EIR process did not identify Commissioner Siegfried's concern as being a significant impact. She noted that the two roads were private ones. She stated that it was her experience driving down the roads that the right and left turn patterns coming out of San Marcos would not be changing and that the additional development would not be utilizing San Marcos Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 13 - Commissioner Siegfried felt that the apartment units and the houses would create additional right turns coming out of the Odd Fellows, project twenty feet /yards from San Marcos Road. He expressed concern with the fact that there were two streets close together that would result in left and right turn conflicts. Ms. Callon did not believe that the concern would be exacerbated by the fact that the other private street would have any more traffic. She noted that the traffic projected for this project would not be significant as this was a senior project. Commissioner Patrick requested further clarification regarding the construction time frame. Ms. Callon indicated that it would take two to three years to build the two phases (12 -16 months for the skilled nursing facility and whatever number of duplex units to be built as part of phase I and 12 months of construction for the second phase of the project). Commissioner Kaplan asked why all of the cottages could not be built at the same time as it has being indicated that there was a market for these type of units? Ms. Callon responded that financing would dictate what portion of the project would be constructed. Commissioner Siegfried asked if phase II would consist of the two apartment buildings and if so, would the two apartment units be built at one time or would they be built in two phases? George Ivelich, project architect, indicated that it was his guess that both apartment buildings would be built at the same time. Commissioner Siegfried asked if phase I would consist of the skilled nursing facility, expanded apartments, the renovation of the old building, and the cottages and whether phase II which would consist of the two apartment buildings, be constructed all at once or would the apartments be built as two phases from a marketing stand point. Mr. Ivelich stated that the apartments would consist of 50 units each. He indicated that it would be nice to have the flexibility to construct according to the market. If the market is strong, than the entire project would be built out. Chairman Murakami asked if a study has been completed regarding the demand for this type of facility. Mr. Ivelich responded that from the publicity that has resulted from the hearings on this project, there seems to be a lot of interest in the project which gives a good feeling that the market is sound enough to construct the entire project. Commissioner Asfour told the applicant that it was his understanding of the comments that have been expressed by the Commission regarding the 10.5 acre site that the landscaping along PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 14 - the border of the project would need to be installed immediately upon receipt of approval, and that all of the cottages be constructed at the same time. If not, then there needs to be some assurance that what is approved for the project will be constructed. If these concerns were not addressed, he felt that there would be a waste of the time at the February 14 meeting. Commissioner Kaplan asked the City Attorney if the City could require that the applicant complete the construction of the cottages whether they be built all at once or in phases? City Attorney Riback responded that the City could not require that the applicant complete the construction of all the approved cottages. He felt that what was being suggested by the Commission was that the applicant be required to install other improvements concurrently. It was his opinion that physical construction was the only way that one can assure that the entire area is either going to be built out or not. Ms. Callon offered as an alternative that there be an easement recorded that would preclude some other design at a later date instead of having construction restricted. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that an alternative would be to approve the 11 cottage units and that should only a few of the cottage units be built, the remaining part of the site would be reserved as a scenic easement. Ralph Borelli, 19301 Pinnacle Court, indicated that a letter he and Dom Richiuso was included in the Commission's packet. He addressed the issue of restricting land entitlement by means of an irrevocable development agreement. As long as the development agreement is cast in stone and could not be changed, the easement restriction would be acceptable to him. He requested that a landscape buffer be installed along the southwesterly side of the property similar to that being proposed along Crisp and Chester Avenues. He invited the Commission to come into the neighbors yards and look at the specific view corridors in order to make an informed decision. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR GPA -94 -001, UP -94 -001, AND DR -94 -0048 TO ITS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 1996. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7 -0). Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the applicant was proposing a public hearing regarding a development agreement and that it would be advertised for the Planning Commission's February 14 meeting. He stated that the applicant has indicated that there is a March 6, 1996 "drop dead" date in order to meet the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act and that a public hearing has been scheduled for February 21 before the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 15 - Planner Walgren indicated that the applicant would need to submit additional information before this item can be considered on February 14 and that the applicant has been made aware of those items. Commissioner Siegfried requested that the City Engineer provide the Commission with some input as to whether the two parallel streets would create a conflict. Commissioner Asfour further requested that should the two parallel streets be found to be in conflict, that the City Engineer identify proposed solutions. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission as to the upcoming meetings as follows: - Tuesday, February 13, 7:30 p.m. a joint work session with the City Council - Wednesday, February 14, 5:00 -7:00 p.m. worksession meeting, adjourning at 7:30 p.m. to a regular meeting (no February 6 worksession meeting) COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioners Abshire, Pierce and Kaplan indicated that they were planning to attend the Planning Commissioners Institute. Community Development Director indicated that he would take care of the arrangements for hotel and transportation accommodations. Chairman Murakami indicated that the Tree Committee Pamphlet was left in tact by the City Council. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes dated 1/3/96 Oral City Council PLANNING COMMISSIC MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1996 PAGE - 16 - ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 13, 1996. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk IT \PC012496.SAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Regular Meeting --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vice- Chairwoman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Abshire, Kaplan, Patrick, Siegfried Late: None Absent: Asfour, Caldwell, Murakami Staff: Community Development Director Curtis, Planner Walgren and City Attorney Faubion Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance . Minutes - 12/5/95, 12/13/95 & 1/2/96 December 5, 1995 COMMISSIONERS ABSHIRE /KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 5, 1995 MINUTES AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 2 -0 -2 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI. December 13, 1995 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK / ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 13, 1995 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: Page 7, last sentence, replace the word "k-nob" with " "' . - Page 15, line one, replace the word "reviewed" with " yWe" and the deletion of the following sentence: "Goingar-oun&dtesite- ,- yoare- aft basin -e€Ahe- origiFW- building and- tliat-4he-.siftwoold- not- ine-rease. " THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 2 - Januaryy 22. 1996 Commissioner Abshire stated that the work session minutes of January 2, 1996 correctly reflected his comments that the Nelson Garden was a useful garden and that the response to comments talks about the site as a park. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /ABSHIRE MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 2, 1996 MINUTES AS WRITTEN. THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -0 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ABSHIRE, KAPLAN, PATRICK; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: SIEGFRIED; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 5, 1996. Technical Corrections to Packet Planner Walgren informed the Commission that there was one correction. The correction pertained to Public Hearing Consent Calendar, Item 1, condition lc. Said condition should be expanded to read: "Automatic sprinklers shall be installed throughout the future residences on each lot or as otherwise required by the Saratoga Fire District pursuant to the Uniform Fire Code. " CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SD -91 -004.1 - WIRNOWSKI; 20140 MENDELSOHN LANE; Request for a one - year extension of a Tentative Map approval to subdivide a 40,920 net sq. ft. site located in an R- 1- 20,000 zoning district into two parcels of 20,000 sq. ft. and 20,920 sq. ft. in net site area. 2. SD -89- 016.2 & LL -89 -006.2 - ARNDT TRUST; 13397 SOUZA LANE; Request for a one -year extension of a Lot Line Adjustment and Tentative Map approval to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 2.18 acres into six lots, ranging in size from 11,372 sq. ft. to 16,828 sq. ft. The subject property is located within the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 3 - 3. SM -95 -004 - REYES; 14742 VIA DE MARCOS; Request for Site Modification approval to construct a pool and associated patio paving. A request is also made for exemption from the hillside district fencing regulations to allow the area of enclosure to exceed 4,000 sq. ft. The parcel is a 1.18 acre site located within an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK /SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 -3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. DR -95 -037 - CAMPAGNA; 13888 DAMON LANE; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,521 sq. ft. two -story residence on a vacant 1.26 acre parcel in the HR (Hillside Residential) zoning district. The subject site is a double frontage lot which abuts both Damon Lane and Albar Court. The proposed driveway will access the property from Damon Lane. Planner Walgren presented to the staff report. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan indicated that at the land use visit, a large oak tree was noticed on the corner of the adjacent property. She asked if a provision was included to protect the tree so that it is not impacted? Planner Walgren responded that the city arborist's map depicts protective fencing around the large oak tree. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Michael Rowe, Britt -Rowe Partnership, indicated that this was the third house designed for this site. Originally, a two story home was designed with access being taken from Albar Court. It was determined that the driveway would exceed 15 % slope. The civil engineer proposed bringing a large amount of fill material to make the driveway conform to Saratoga codes. This proposal would result in taking the height of the building from the existing grade rather than from the new fill grade, eliminating the potential for a two story home. His clients elected to design a one story home, to be accessed from Albar Court. Two weeks prior to the public hearing, the city's geotechnical report and the applicant's soils engineer discovered a problem with ground stability. A meeting was held with the City Engineer and planning staff. It was determined that the home could not be built up to the soils stability line, but to within 50 feet of that line. The house was required to go all the way down the hill and was not allowed to be sited in the middle of the property. A house has been designed to take access off of Damon Lane where it intersects with Teerlink Way. He indicated that staff encouraged the applicant to obtain an egress /ingress easement from the neighboring property because of the safety concern associated with accessing the site at the intersection of Damon and Teerlink Way. He informed the Commission that the easement was not obtained and that the driveway was located at the only location it can be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 4 - without causing any problems to the intersection. He indicated that with the exception of the 1,000 cubic feet of grading, the house was designed so as not to necessitate a need for a variance. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he appreciated that this was a difficult lot. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she was concern with fire codes. She asked if the fire places were to be gas or wood burning ones? Mr. Rowe responded that the homes would be gas equipped where allowed. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan indicated that it would be her preference that all fireplaces be gas burning. Commissioner Abshire asked what steps were being taken to prevent mud slides as it has been determined that the site has been found to be unstable. Mr. Rowe indicated that a small retaining wall is proposed and that for the upper portion of the site, it would be landscaped to mitigate landslide (surface level treatment short of rebuilding hillside). THERE BEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:47 P.M. Commissioner Patrick indicated that she would also prefer that the fire places be equipped with gas. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR- 95 -037. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI ABSENT). 5. V -95 -013 - KELKER; 13783 FORTUNA CT.; Request for Variance approval to legalize a room addition constructed approximately 18 years ago without building permits. The Variance is necessary because a portion of the structure encroaches 9 ft. into a required 25 ft. rear yard setback. The parcel is 16,147 sq. ft. and is located within an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented to the staff report. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Paul Kelker, applicant, thanked the Commission for taking the time to review the request. He indicated that it has taken two decades to correct this issue. He stated that he tried to resolve the issue by adding 90 square feet to his property which was not viable and that the variance before the Commission was his only recourse. He requested Commission approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 5 - THERE BEING NO FURTHER INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:52 P.M. Commissioner Abshire noted that no comments or complaints have been received in the past 18 years and that he would be inclined to go along with the request. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he did not have a problem with the variance and did not want to tie the variance to the fact that the situation which necessitated the variance occurred over 18 years ago. Because of the configuration of the lot and the fact that this was a minor encroachment into the rear yard setback, he could support the request. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan concurred with Commission Siegfried's comments and stated that she did not feel that longevity was the issue. She indicated that she had a concern as to whether or not the addition was constructed according to City codes. She stated that she could approve the variance based on the configuration of the lot and that the addition meets city code requirements. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V- 95 -013. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL, AND MURAKAMI ABSENT). 6. GPA -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -95 -008; TRINITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; 20851 SARATOGA HILLS RD.; Request for General Plan Amendment to allow two parcels totalling 5.1 acres to be reclassified from an Open Space - Outdoor Recreational designation to Residential -Very Low Density and Medium Density. Request includes associated Zoning District amendment to allow the two parcels to be reclassified from an Agricultural designation to R- 1- 40,000 and R -1- 12,500. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval is requested to subdivide the two parcels into nine single - family lots. Tentative cancellation of the properties' Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract is included as part of the project description. An EIR has been prepared and made available for public review and comment for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented the staff report. He indicated that the primary focus this evening was that of the final EIR. He stated that all comments recorded during the two public meetings as well as the written correspondence submitted during the 45 -day review period have been responded to by the environmental consultants in the final EIR and were contained in Volume 3 of the EIR. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened, public testimony be taken, and that unless new evidence is presented that alters the environmental determination of the final EIR, staff would recommend accepting the final EIR and that the Commission recommend its certification to the City Council. Also recommended was approval of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments and Commission approval of the vesting tentative subdivision PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 6 - map, contingent upon the other actions being accepted by the City Council. Laura Worthington- Forbes, Michael Brandman and Associates, stated that she was the project manager for the preparation of the draft EIR and the response to comments. She indicated that the environmental issues that were examined in the draft EIR included: land use, traffic, aesthetics, earth resources, hydrology and historic /recreational resources. As a result of the environmental analysis, the EIR identified potential significant impacts as follows: the potential loss of one native oak tree on lot 1; subsurface soil conditions that would impact the structural integrity of the structures; the potential for ground shaking on the site; and the potential for drainage impacts to the 100 year storm. She stated that each of these potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the implementation of mitigation measures that were identified in the document. She further stated that there were residual impacts that following the implementation of those mitigations measures were identified as significant or unavoidable. Ms. Worthington - Forbes indicated that the draft EIR was circulated on November 22, 1995 through January 5, 1996. During the public review period, there were two Planning Commission workshops and public hearings. She noted that no written comments or oral testimony received after January 2, 1996. She stated that City staff and the City Attorney have thoroughly reviewed all of the comments as well as the testimony received on the draft EIR and that it has been determined that there are no new issues or no new significant information that has not been previously presented. All issues, since the review of the draft EIR, have been addressed in the draft EIR or in the response to comments document before the Commission this evening. As provided for under Section 15088.b of the CEQA guidelines, the focus of the response to comments is only on the disposition of significant environmental effects that were raised on the comments provided. Detail responses on the merits of the project were not included in the document. She indicated that the issues raised during the public review process identified the following primary areas of concern: consistency with the General Plan, on -site and off -site drainage, retention of the site as an agricultural preserve or heritage park, consistency of the project with the surrounding land uses, the site's geotechnical constraints, and the loss of open space. She stated that these issues have been responded to in detail, particularly responding to the Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger letter. She referred the Commission to pages 2 -38 through 32 -52 of Volume 3 which provides the responses to comments as identified above. She indicated that the purpose of tonight's hearing was to take public testimony on the final EIR. Commissioner Abshire noted that the letter from Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger pointed out that the General Plan states that "the City shall encourage the use of the Williamson Act contract." It also, states that the General Plan discourages the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts as much as possible. He indicated that the response to this statement in the final EIR was devoted primarily to agricultural and commercial uses. He stated that it was his believe that the intent was that the Nelson Gardens be used as a demonstration garden, and was not intended to be used as an industrial /commercial use. He stated that Saratoga was no longer looking at agricultural uses but that it was looking at preserving open space. He was not sure that this issue was addressed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 7 - in the final EIR. Ms. Worthington- Forbes stated that it was the intent of the policy, as stated in the Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger letter, to protect the provisions of the Williamson Act contract which stipulates the preservation of lands for agricultural uses. She did not believe that the policy distinguished between the agricultural uses for commercial /agricultural production versus agricultural uses such as natural orchards or open space and conservation. The intent of the policy was to protect a productive, agricultural use and not necessarily to protect a Williamson Act contract that is not currently being utilized as productive agricultural uses. Commissioner Abshire felt that the Williamson Act contract was placed on the property for the purpose of retaining a garden -type use as opposed to a commercial /agricultural use. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the General Plan was amended and the zoning changed when the property owner entered into a Williamson Act contract. He did not believe that it was intended to retain property as viable agricultural uses but for the purpose of recognizing the property as open space. He noted that the site has not been listed in the Parks Master Plan. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Allen Pinn, Pinn Brothers, representing Trinity Development, stated that the project was started in 1988 with two public hearings being conducted. Two additional public hearings were conducted in 1995 along with two study sessions on this same property. He indicated that this was now the seventh hearing on this proposal. He requested that right to reserve his comments following the receipt of public comments. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan informed the public that the Commission has discussed the draft EIR. The focus this evening would be on the adequacy of the responses to the questions that were raised at the January 2, 1996 public hearing by both the public and the Commission. She indicated that the Commission was not reopening the entire conversation of the EIR. She stated that an application for a park on this property was not before the Commission this evening. She requested that the public focus on the adequacy of the responses to the comments raised in Volume 3 of the final EIR. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, indicated that she evaluated Volume 3, the responses to external comments. She raised four points as follows: 1) the document continues not to address the concerns to issues that have been raised both verbally and in writing. These were the same issues that were brought up during the review of the draft EIR. Volume 3 does not provide additional research nor new information to evaluate the original issues of concerns (i.e. page 2 -46, hydrology and drainage - no effort has been made to interview the neighbors to discuss the problems with drainage). 2) There are references made in Section E -6 that the city is mandated to develop land to be consistent with surrounding development. It was her belief that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 8 - this statement was incorrect. The surrounding land is zoned for single family homes. Thus, the area should not be developed into multi- family or commercial uses but that it should be developed as a community, educational park or a vacant piece of property to be consistent with the General Plan for that area. 3) The EIR refers to a 1960 General Plan as a proof of a point (Section E). It was her belief that the existing General Plan has a newer date than that. 4) The traffic pattern study is incorrect. She did not believe that you could equate peak traffic patterns for a community garden with peak patterns for residential homes. Peak traffic patterns for a community garden would be at non -rush hour times, putting less stress on the neighborhood than a nine home traffic pattern would. She felt that the City should evaluate what would happen with a community garden by asking individuals who have experience with a community garden. She requested that the Commission not take action on the Final EIR until it has adequately addressed the public's concerns. She felt that it was the Commission's job to preserve the character of Saratoga. Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, stated that he prefers to have the site retained as an educational park and that he endorsed the comments as expressed by Ms. Waltonsmith. As Dr. Stutzman was out of town, he agreed to inform the Commission that Dr. Stutzman also supported Ms. Waltonsmith's comments. Commissioner Kaplan noted that the letter submitted by Dr. Stutzman has been responded to in the final EIR. Betty Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, stated her support to Commissioner Abshire's comments. She stated that in 1981, this parcel was chosen as a demonstration area for its beauty. She indicated that the Friends of the Nelson Garden worked hard in the early years to maintain the site because of its educational value. She indicated that when the City celebrated its 25th anniversary, the City chose Nelson Gardens to be on display and be opened to the public. Mr. Pinn echoed the responses that Ms. Peck made, specifically her recurring theme over the debate over the use of this property. He indicated that a park site has been tried with no success. He indicated that a letter had been found dated 1988 from Frank Nelson written to William Henlock, Jr., Director of the National Park Service and read the letter into the record. The letter indicates that it has been difficult to dedicate the land for public use because of liability insurance, cost factors, and other problems. It was felt that it would be in the best interest of the Foundation to sell the property and to use the proceeds for charitable purposes. Mr. Pinn felt that keeping the property in open space benefits very few individuals because of its locality as compared to the many who can benefit from the sale of the property. It was recognized that the property should be sold because it was too expensive to maintain. He felt that the City Council recognized this fact when it entered into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This MOU would allow funds to be applied to the balance of the parks within the City of Saratoga by developing this property as well as providing funds to the Community Foundation which benefits community organizations. He felt that it was time to pass PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 9 - the benefits of this land to more individuals than just the neighbors who have had the benefit of open space for 20 plus years. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the public hearing this evening was to receive comments on the adequacy of the final EIR as well as to receive comments on the related land use applications. Philip Boyce, 21000 Boyce Lane, indicated that he has been involved with the Community Foundation. He acknowledged that it was time to develop the property and that thoughtful development needs to be considered. He felt that the Pinn Brothers thoughtfully planned for development. He felt that development of the property would allow for monies to -be given to the City, to be used effectively and recycled back into the community. He requested Commission support of this proposal. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that the Commission discuss the EIR, take action on the final EIR and then pursue its discussion on the project. Commissioner Abshire stated that he reviewed the EIR and felt that it was nicely prepared from a technical and environmental stand point. He did not see any reason why this property cannot be developed from an environmental stand point. He indicated that he personally had an eversion to hillside property with slopes over 30% because of the possibility of landslides. However, the civil engineer feels that these lots are buildable. He therefore would support the environmental report. Commissioner Patrick stated that she was prepared to certify the EIR as it addressed the issues that needed to be addressed and that the response to comments were satisfactory. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he was more than satisfied with the EIR and felt that it addressed the issues adequately. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan felt that the responses had been adequately addressed and that she would support certification to the City Council. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he missed the last two hearings on the draft EIR. However, he has read the minutes and all the documents associated with this item. He felt that he had sufficient information to make a recommendation on this item. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 10 - MURAKAMI ABSENT. Community Development Director noted that the Commission conducted a public hearing simultaneously with the final EIR and recommended that the Commission discuss and make motions on the land use applications. Vice - chairman Kaplan noted that Resolution No. SD -95 -008 contains a typo that needs to be corrected on page 13 (last paragraph, replace the word eater with eti basins. Commissioner Abshire stated that the General Plan supports the Williamson Act and that it discourages its cancellation. In this case, the request is for an early cancellation of the Williamson Act. He did not question the City's right to do this. However, if the City was going to allow for the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, it should have a good reason for doing so. He asked if the development of more new expensive executive homes was something that was needed in Saratoga? He did not believe so as the schools were already impacted. He was not sure if the proposed houses were needed and asked if these new homes were worth given up open space for? If the land was to be used for senior housing or low cost housing, the City can make a strong case in changing the land use designation from open space to residential. However, he was not sure a strong enough case has been made to change the land use designation. He recognized that Mr. Nelson was a kind gentlemen who thought of the future. However, he felt that Mr. Nelson made a mistake in placing this property under the Williamson Act because it did not work. Although Mr. Nelson made an effort to donate this land for public use, he could not find any one to match his donation. He was sorry that this has happened and for the people who tried to make this use work but have not been successful in their efforts. However, in spite of this, he felt that this was a big action to request early cancellation of the Williamson Act, an act that would need to be explained to historians. It was his belief that the City needs to seriously consider what is being done here. He asked if the City of Saratoga was behind their General Plan? He did not believe that the City was if it continued with the approval of this development. For this reason, he indicated that he would vote no on changing the land use designation and zoning applications. He indicated that he was sympathetic towards the efforts made by the applicant but that he did not feel that this was the right time to consider the request. City Attorney Fabian indicated that she wanted to comment on Commissioner Abshire's comments because it raised a very important issue. She stated that a question would need to be asked. That question being whether this amendment would set a precedent and whether there were other properties that are currently under the Williamson Act that have similar circumstances that would cause the Commission to set in motion a landslide of similar requests. Or, on the other hand, is the situation before the Commission so unique that it feels it would not set a precedent. She felt that it would be helpful to articulate any questions which the Commission may have regarding the policy that has been addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 1.1 - Commissioner Siegfried inquired as to the penalties that would be levied for early cancellation of the Williamson Act. City Attorney Fabian explained that the non - renewal of a Williamson Act contract would result in the tax benefits being phased out during a period of time. Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract would result in penalties that would result in back taxes having to be paid. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan requested clarification as to City Attorney Fabian's comment regarding the need for a "super majority" of the Commissioners present this evening to act on the General Plan amendment or adoption of a General Plan. City Attorney Fabian clarified that a positive vote on a recommendation of approval would require a majority of the Commission (body), not just the majority of a quorum. Therefore, it would take the four votes of the four Commissioners present this evening to make a recommendation on the General Plan amendment. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan asked if it would be prudent to take a vote on the General Plan amendment request at this time to see how the vote would result or should the Commission continue these applications to allow the presence of a full Commission? City Attorney Fabian indicated that it would be a good idea to hear what each of the Commissioners have to say. Commissioner Patrick stated that she supported the request the last time it was before the Commission and that she was inclined to approve it again. She noted that California encourages /subsidizes agricultural uses in the state. However, she did not believe that this site was a working farm, noting that it was a small parcel. There was no one willing or able to continue its use as a non -profit use. She indicated that the farm was in need of extreme repair. If agricultural was to be undertaken, the site would need to be stripped and than restarted all over again. She felt that the City of Saratoga needs to evaluate what kind of open space it can continue to maintain and keep. Also, the quality of open space needs to be evaluated. She felt that the failure to maintain the site as open space was a good reason to amend the General Plan. She felt that the quality of open space needs to be considered as a General Plan policy and that it needs to be reviewed for its benefit. She felt that this site only benefited the neighbors. Because of the sites proximity to an existing park and its lack of agricultural interest at this time, she indicated that she would support the development of the 9 building sites as well as the General Plan amendment. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he has been involved with this issue off and on for several years. He stated that it was his belief that the intent of the City of Saratoga was to abide by the General Plan, noting that it was just that, a general plan with guidelines for the future, one that changes. He felt that this was a unique 5 + acre site surrounded by residential property. It has been noted that the site is adjacent to an existing park and the fact that the site is not used very PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 . PAGE - 12 - much. He felt strongly about protecting open space to the extent that the City can do so but that it has to be recognized that this is a small piece of property, completely surrounded by residential properties. He stated that there was an attempt by the neighbors to purchase the property with no success. Just because the City made a mistake in placing this land under the Williamson Act, he did not believe that it was fair to have the neighbors not allow the property to be removed from the Williamson Act and to maintain it as open space at the City's expense. He felt that the property should be developed in a manner that is compatible with the neighborhood. The City will be given a large fee to be used on City parks. He felt that the design review process would ensure that the homes are compatible with the existing homes. He noted that the property owner would be penalized with back taxes for early Williamson Act cancellation. He did not believe that retaining the General Plan designation would be of benefit to the community as the property is surrounded by a cyclone fence, the garden has not been taken care of for many years and that the site has become an eyesore. He supported moving forward in a meaningful fashion as he did not believe that a precedent would be set as this was no longer a viable piece of land for working agricultural land uses. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan concurred with the comments as expressed by Commissioners Siegfried and Patrick. She felt that it was time to move forward with the request as a request for a park was not before the Commission. Commissioner Abshire agreed that it has been almost 25 years since this issue has been trying to come to fruition, but that he felt that miracles do happen. He felt that maybe in another five years or so, someone would be able to preserve the open space and the historical significance of the site. He stated that he would like to leave this possibility open. Community Development Director Curtis recommended that action first be taken on the General Plan Amendment as it requires a "super" majority vote. If there was not a 4 -0 vote, he recommended that the Commission make another motion to continue these applications to the January 24, 1996 meeting to allow the presence of the other Commissioners who were absent this evening. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. GPA -94 -003. THE MOTION FAILED 3 -1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: KAPLAN, PATRICK, SIEGFRIED; NOES: ABSHIRE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR, CALDWELL, MURAKAMI. COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 24, 1996 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING A SECOND VOTE ON THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 WITH COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR, CALDWELL AND MURAKAMI ABSENT. City Attorney Fabian was excused from the remainder of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 13 - 7. GPA -95 -002 - CITY OF SARATOGA; The Saratoga Community Development Department is initiating a General Plan map correction for the parcel of land identified as APN 517 -36 -008 (Miller, 15001 Bohlman Rd.). The City's current map shows this parcel as being a part of Hakone Gardens, a City park, and designated as Open Space - Outdoor Recreational. This one -acre parcel has had a residence on it since the late 1800's and is not identified as a park site in Saratoga's Parks and Trails Master Plan. The park designation for the property appears to be a mapping mistake made when the City's General Plan map was updated in 1987. The correct General Plan designation for this parcel is Residential -Very Low Density. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project pursuant to the terms and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Planner Walgren presented to the staff report on this city- initiated General Plan Amendment. Staff recommended that the General Plan Map be corrected to designate the parcel as Residential, Very Low density and that this recommendation be forwarded to the City Council along with the Negative Declaration for the General Plan map correction. Should the Commission vote in favor of this correction, this item would then go to the City Council for action just prior to hearing Mr. Miller's request for lot line adjustment, General Plan and Zoning designation boundary amendment which has been put on hold pending this correction. He informed the Commission that Mr. Miller, the property owner, was present this evening to answer any questions which it may have. He clarified that the request before the Commission was to correct a map mistake that appears to have occurred in 1987, removing the public park designation off of a private parcel that is developed with a residence. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Ray McMaines, 15015 Bohlman Road, adjacent property owner, furnished the Commission with a letter which addressed his concerns. He informed the Commission that during the October 24 public hearing relating to the lot line adjustment, that it was determined that a mistake in the General Plan existed. He requested that the Commission consider his submittal of November 30 that it was his belief that the lot line adjustment approved by the Planning Commission did not conform to Article 1450 which briefly states that the resulting two new lots were substantially different in zoning and that the statute requires that the parcels be created from like zones. It was also his belief that the approval of the lot line adjustment was a correct action in light of the General Plan/zoning designation and that the approval was in violation of the General Plan. He felt that the Planning Commission's October 25 decision would have been different had this discrepancy been brought to light at that time. He requested that the lot line adjustment be stayed until such time that the issue is fully resolved. Kristina McMaines felt that the Commission made a decision based on insufficient and /or incorrect information, noting that the land is designated as open space. She furnished the Commission with a letter written by Judi Craik. She requested that the open space easement be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 14 - corrected. She indicated that it was her recollection that the evening that the Commission considered the lot line adjustment request, the Commission questioned if it had jurisdiction on the request. However, the Commission approved the lot line adjustment based on the fact that the lot conformed to the General Plan. But at the City Council meeting, it was found that the site was designated as open space. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan acknowledged the last comment made by Mrs. McMaines but also noted that staff has indicated that the open space designation was a mistake. THERE BEING NO FURTHER INPUT, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:08 P.M. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff requested an interpretation from the City Attorney regarding the action taken by the Commission in October and how this request is to be considered this evening. He indicated that the City Attorney had advised staff that the Commission does not have to reconsider the previous applications but that the City can take action to correct the mapping inconsistency. He explained to the Commission how the mapping inconsistency occurred. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan requested that staff clarify the easement issues as raised by the McMains. Planner Walgren indicated that the easement that the McMaines brought up on the second page of their letter shows an open space easement being recorded through the adjacent parcel which was once designated as a park and thought to be annexed to the Hakone Gardens. The open space easement is not similar to designating a parcel as a park site. Open space easements are recorded through all of Saratoga's subdivisions and that they protect steep terrain, land slides, creeks, or quarries. They are designed to be "no build zones" and that they are easements placed on private property. The McMaines were referring to the open space easement that is recorded on the adjacent subdivision. Therefore, there is no correlation between that easement as the easement would be retained irregardless of the action to be taken on the lot line. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. GPA -95 -002 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION CORRECTION AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Community Development Director Curtis reminded the Commission of its Friday, January 19, 1996 retreat to be held from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. An agenda and backup material would be made available to the Commission on Tuesday. He informed the Commission that Mark Pearce would be in attendance at that meeting. He indicated that the following items PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 15 - are scheduled for the retreat: "Orchids and Onion" tour Discussion regarding the Design Review Task Force's recommendations regarding the process for Administrative Design Review Discussion on cellular antennas and ordinance policies recommended by the City Council Review of Commission meeting schedules and work programs. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Abdullah - DR -95 -015; 14755 Aloha Ave. Request for minor modification of approved architectural plans. Planner Walgren presented the request for minor modification to increase the height of an approved second story addition to an existing single story home to allow the lower ridgeline of the structure to increase in height from 19 feet to 20 feet. He indicated that the Commission considered this request at its last public meeting. He noted that Mr. Abdullah was not able to attend that meeting and is now requesting that the Commission reconsider his request. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan asked if the neighbors were notified about this request? Planner Walgren responded that the neighbors were notified prior to the December 13 meeting, noting that none of the neighbors were in attendance at the meeting. He informed the Commission that a second notice was not sent out and that throughout this period, no phone calls or inquires from neighbors were received regarding this change. Asim Abdullah indicated that he was requesting the minor modification because it was discovered that there would be a one foot drop in ceiling height from the existing structure and the proposed addition at the entrance of the home. He stated that the modification would have minimal impact on the neighbors and that it would not impact the design of the home. Commissioner Patrick noted that the request would change the pitch of the roof. Commissioner Abshire noted that the drawing depicts an increase in height of the gable over the front door. Mr. Abdullah indicated that in order to keep the design consistent, the roof would need to be raised and that this was the simplest way, structurally, to correct the situation. Vice - chairwoman Kaplan asked if the modification would change the height of the roof. Planner Walgren responded that the entrance was not a factor but that the overall ridgeline height would be raised by one foot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1996 PAGE - 16 - Commissioner Siegfried asked what would be the perception of the pitch of the roof? Planner Walgren responded that one of the reasons that staff was supporting the project was that if the addition had been drawn this way originally, the Commission would not have been able to notice the difference between the 19 foot versus the 18 foot height. He felt that it was still proportional to the rest of the proposed residence. As explained by Mr. Abdullah, the pitch will not increase, but that the "pony wall" beneath the roof eave was being raised by a foot. Therefore, the pitch of the roof would not change. BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE REQUESTED MINOR MODIFICATION. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Abshire indicated that the City Council considered the Butler appeal at its January 3 meeting. At the request of Chairman Murakami, he attended the meeting to support staff and the Commission's action. He stated that Mr. Butler hired Virginia Fanelli to represent him. He indicated that the resulting vote was 4 -1 in support of the appeal. ri en 1. City Council Minutes dated 12/20/95 2. Planning Commission Public Notices for 1/24/96 Mill City Council ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 19, 1996, Saratoga Country Club, 21990 Prospect Road, Saratoga, CA. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk 1T \PC011096.SAR I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Work Session Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Murakami called the work session meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Commissioners Present: Abshire, Asfour, Kaplan, Murakami, Patrick Commissioners Absent: Caldwell, Siegfried Staff Present: Community Development Director Curtis, Assoc. Planner George White and City Attorney Kit Faubion Chairman Murakami informed the public that the Commission would continue discussions relating to the Nelson Gardens Draft EIR. Commissioner Abshire indicated that he received a call from Betty Peck who made a strong plea to retain Nelson Gardens as a useful garden. Dr. Stutzman, 15195 Park Drive, submitted to the Commission a copy of his comments from the last meeting. He indicated that Ms. Peck was the individual who started the community foundation and that Nelson Gardens was supposed to be retained as a park site. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, stated her concern regarding the additional wording in the EIR and the fact that no new test data has been provided. She referenced page 4.1 -16 indicating that it states that there are no alternative sites. She stated her disagreement with this statement and felt that there should be dialogue of alternative ways to protect the Nelson Gardens as a park and as an educational garden. Page 7 -6 contains a list of areas that are going to be developed and that they are no longer to be considered as alternatives. One of the sites mentioned was the 6.9 acre Spaich property. It was unclear to her whether this parcel was being developed. It seemed to her that there were errors in the EIR and felt that the EIR was only focused on the development of the property and that there was no discussion of alternative sites nor alternative ways to use the property. Laurel Impett, urban planner for the law firm of Shute, Mahaly and Weinberger, indicated that she was speaking on behalf of the Friends of the Nelson Gardens Foundation. She indicated that the Friends of the Nelson Gardens Foundation were concerned about development of the site, given the historical importance of the site and its value as open space. She stated that the law firm submitted comments to the City in August to alert the City of the firm's opinion that a project of this magnitude could not be approved based on an initial study /negative declaration. She indicated that the firm was pleased that the City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Upon review of the EIR, it was her belief that it did not contain additional information other than what was contained in the initial study previously prepared. She felt that the City had gone through the motion of preparing an EIR without undertaking the analysis necessary to truly inform the public and the decision makers about the environmental impacts associated with development of the site. She summarized some of the issues contained in the letter dated January 2, 1996 distributed to the Commission as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 2 - A concern that the EIR concludes that this project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The EIR comes to this conclusion despite the numerous goals contained in the General Plan which calls for the preservation of private open space in the City. The General Plan states that "the City shall maintain and where possible, improve the existing inventory of public parks attempting to achieve five acres of open space per thousand population by the year 2001." The development of a residential subdivision on the Nelson Gardens site is directly in conflict with the policies, goals, and standards of the General Plan. Yet the draft EIR does not find this impact to be significant. The EIR fails to contain sufficient information regarding geotechnical impacts. While the EIR identifies numerous constraints to the geological constraints of development of the site such as the presence of a stress fault and the identification of a large fault located approximately a mile away from the site. The EIR fails to describe the implementation implications of building homes directly adjacent to these geological hazards. The EIR's traffic analysis is flawed as the document relies exclusively on a level of service (LOS) analysis to gage traffic impacts. The LOS service analysis is not appropriate for this particular location since the LOS analysis only gave the number of cars that can pass through this particular intersection in a given point of time. She felt that this type of analysis was more appropriate for downtown San Jose or San Francisco to determine where grid locks are occurring, but that in a semi -rural residential neighborhood such as this one, an adequate traffic analysis would measure residents' perception of the impact of street traffic on daily activities (i.e., walking, bicycling, playing in the street, maneuvering in and out of a driveway). Because the EIR relies on an inappropriate traffic analysis method, it incorrectly concludes that traffic impacts are insignificant for this project. The EIR fails to disclose the existing flooding problems in the neighborhood despite the fact that numerous residents have complained about flooding of their basements. The EIR acknowledges that flooding has occurred but that the EIR preparers never surveyed the residents in the area to get an idea or to determine to the extent of magnitude of flooding. The EIR also fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives. It only identified two alternatives and dismisses those alternatives because they are considered to be infeasible. The EIR does not consider an alternative that would include fewer homes on the site. It does not include an alternative which would include the preservation of a portion of the site. She felt that at a minimum, the EIR should include an alternative which would restore Nelson Gardens to its originally intended use. The development of a community garden would result in significantly fewer environmental impacts (i.e., traffic, hydrology and geology). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 3 - Donald Macrae, 20679 Reid Lane, stated that the property was envisioned to be used for an environmental park, a nature conservative park, a learning and historical park, or an educational park. It was not to be a busy park such as a ball playing park. The ad hoc committee envisioned it to the reestablishment of an apricot orchard to demonstrate what the fruit industry was like. Also envisioned was locating small animals on the site that would not be disturbing to the community (i.e., rabbits, pigs, sheep, etc.) or that explanation of the handcrafts of times past to show the growing of vegetables, native shrubs and plants, herbal plants, sitting area for seniors to meditate, and/or that the underground creek be reestablished. He felt that a heritage, natural park was needed in Saratoga. He was supportive of retaining the natural heritage and that he would hate to see it disappear. He noted that Frank Nelson wanted to save a piece of the property so that individuals would know what the property looked like (historical significance). Jeff Wyatt, representing Trinity Development, indicated that the applicant volunteered to complete an EIR and felt that the report was thorough. He stated that he was familiar with the comments of the ad hoc committee. Ne noted that the lots were reduced from 10 to 9 lots and reduced to 1.5 or 1 acre lots. He recognized that everyone would like to see a park in Saratoga but that it was not feasible. He indicated that the seller would be willing to make a contribution to the City's park fund and that the funds would go a long way to preserve parks. He requested continued support for the project. Commissioner Kaplan requested clarification of page 4.1-6 which talks about zoning. She indicated that she did not understand the comment contained in the section referring to Exhibit 4.1 -2, existing zoning designation. The section states that there are two parcels but that the project is one parcel and that the two parcels are zoned agricultural. The last sentence states that "The single family residential uses must be located on a 2.5 acre site for each dwelling. She asked if this section pertained to the existing agricultural zoning district requirements? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the comments as referenced by Commissioner Kaplan pertained to the existing agricultural zoning district requirements. Commissioner Kaplan asked if it was known if there were other areas that have mixed zoning (i.e., residential zoning districts surrounded by commercial zoning districts, other than a school or public facility? She felt that clarification may be needed in that paragraph regarding the statement that is applied to the agricultural zoning language. Community Development Director Curtis responded that there were other agricultural zoning districts (agricultural preserve) which are in the Williamson Act Contract surrounded by residential lots. The Greenbriar project was a project that was not surrounded by one zone and that there were no properties that are zoned commercial that are completely surrounded or isolated by residential zoning. He informed the Commission that the public hearing was to comment on the draft EIR. He recommended that discussion relating to zoning issues be deferred until such time that the actual project is reviewed by the Commission. Q. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Patrick stated that it was her understanding that the Nelson Gardens was under the Williamson Act prior to obtaining the General Plan designation as single family residential similar to the surrounding properties. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the site received its General Plan/zoning designation at the time the property owner entered into a Williamson Act contract. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was anything about this property that makes it historically significant; she did not see anything of historical significance with the site itself. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the historic inventory retained by the City identifies this site because of its previous use and its longevity as an orchard in its relationship to the area. The inventory does not indicate that the structures on the site are of historical significance. Commissioner Patrick indicated that Mr. Macrae has identified several alternatives uses for the site. She asked if his recommended uses would be appropriate ones? She was not sure if would be feasible to have children traverse the site. Community Development Director Curtis responded that should the site become a publicly owned facility, the city would need to purchase the site and develop a park plan for the site. The park plan would identify all the potential land uses for the site. Commissioner Patrick asked if there was a general consensus as to the cost of a park per acre that is publicly owned and the cost for its maintenance? She also asked as to the number of individuals who visit a city park. Community Development Director Curtis responded that the Parks /Maintenance Director prepared a study as to the cost per acre for park purchase and maintenance. However, he did not have those figures this evening nor the number of individuals who visit a public park. Commissioner Asfour asked if the property was released -from the Williamson Act, what zoning designation would be applied to the site? Community Development Director Curtis responded that the zoning would be retained until such time that a request to amend the zoning designation is requested by the property owner. Chairman Murakami stated that he did not recall if there was information available to determine the cost to establish a park. Community Development Director Curtis noted that there were three alternate sites identified in the EIR and that staff would respond to this comment. Chairman Murakami requested that staff respond to the suggestion that the City use a neighborhood traffic analysis as the standard measure of traffic levels. Commissioner Patrick noted that in the previous EIR reviewed by the Commission, the LOS was used as the standard method of traffic measurement. Community Development Director Curtis indicated that the two traffic indicators are "trips per day" and "LOS ". Typically, the LOS is a standardized perception. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1996 PAGE - 5 - Dr. Stutzman commented that the DEIR states that the land, as it exists, is not productive for the City of Saratoga and that having 9 homes built on the property would be productive. He asked how much it would cost the city to maintain the infrastructure, the utilities and all the other services that would be required to maintain each house in Saratoga. If having 9 houses is going to be an additional source of income for the city of Saratoga, how does it happen that with all the homes in Saratoga that the City is experiencing problems with finances. He felt that it would cost the City more to maintain the 9 homes on the hillside than it would cost to maintain the park by volunteers and the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick noted that the EIR does not make mention to the maintenance of the Nelson Gardens by volunteers and felt that this should be addressed. Ms. Waltonsmith suggested that staff speak to Betty Peck and to the other individuals who maintain the City of Saratoga's community garden to determine the number of individuals who visit parks. She also indicated that the neighbors have agreed to maintain the gardens but that they were told that they could not maintain it. Mr. Wyatt indicated there is an insurance liability and that the property is privately owned. Commissioner Kaplan noted that section 2 -16 speaks to hydrology and drainage and that a column in section 4.5-c (water quality preservation during construction and level of significance after mitigation) states "less than potential ". She noted that "less than potential" was not a defined term. Laura Worthington Forbes indicated that this was a typo. Commissioner Kaplan noted that a typo existed on Page 2 -13 (catch basin). She indicated that a proposal was not before the City for a community garden but that if was, she could support it. Community Development Director Curtis stated that based upon the information received this evening and written comments, as well as the comments received on December 5, would be responded to and would then become the final EIR. He informed the Commission that a public hearing has been scheduled for the project on Wednesday, January 10 to review the final EIR. The Commission will be asked if it feels the EIR is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED ITS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NELSON GARDENS DRAFT EIR AT 8:15 P.M. The Minutes clerk was excused from the remainder of the work session meeting. Respectfully submitted, Irma Torrez Minutes Clerk MPC0102961 SAR