Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-1998 Planning Commission Minutes• C[TY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COVI~]ISSiONT MI\i;TES ~~`EDNESDAY. OCTOBER 28. 1998 Civic Center, 137'7 Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga. CA Regular iV]eetin~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bernald. Kaplan, ~tartlave, Page. Patrick and Chairman Pierce Absent: Commissioner Viurakami Staff: Director ~t~al,ren and Planner Ratcliffe Pledge of Allegiance 1linutes -October 14. 1998 On a motion by Commissioners Bernald.`Kaplan the Commission approved the October 1=1. 1998 minutes with the following, amendments: Pa_e 3. Para~Traph 9, replace the word his ~~ ith stripes Page 3. last paragraph. second sentence amended to read: "She ~°°°•„•~~°•~~'°~' said that tFie-t+se-pe~+i~ke Ce~~~nzissiet~ in-t'~~ should a restaurant:'deli be proposed in the firture that it return to the Commission for use permit review and approval. - Pa~~e 9, paragraph ~], last sentence. replace the «ord ~ ~~ ith mountains. The motion carried 6-0 (Commissioner Vlurakami absent). Oral Communication No comments ~~ere offered. Report of Posting agenda Director ~~~algren declared that pursuant to Government Code ~=19~~3.2. the agenda fior this meetin~~ «as properl~• posted on October ?3, 1998. y Technical Corrections to Packet Director ~t~algren informed the Commission that there is one correction to the Packet. Item 3, the project description for the basement should be corrected to read 600 square feet. CO\SENT CALE\DAR 1. DR-98-035 (397-~0-003) - REYES, 1~17~2 Via de Marcos: Request for Design Review approval to add 166 square feet to the first floor. and ~ 10 square feet to the second toor of an existin<T x.38=] square foot single-store residence on a ~ 1.600 (uet) square foot lot. 1lasimum building height is proposed to be 20 PLANNING COMMISSION M;~CJTES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 2 - feet. The site is located ~yithin an R-]-}0.000 zonin~~ district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ON A ~~IOT10N BY COhIM1SSIONERS PATRICK`BERNAL.D. THE CO~il~11SSION ON A 6-0 VOTE WITH C01~1hIISSIONER ~1UR.~KAV11 ABSENT. APPROVED CONSEI~~T CALENDAR ITE~1 I. PUBLIC HEARI\GS 2. LP-98-010 & V'-98-01~ (379-25-0~1) - AHIIADI_aN, 14301 Saratoga ?-venue: Request for Use Permit appro~~al to construct a=100 square foot detached aara~e in the rear yard setback as close as 4 feet from the rear and side propem~ lines. Variance approval is requested to allow a second floor dormer window to be built to the edge of the existing building line at 4 feet from the neighboring propert.- line which l 1 feet is the required setback and to allow a small addition off the rear to match the existin~7 building line at 4 feet ~rhere 6 feet is required. The Variance also includes a request to alloy a chimney to be located nyo feet from the property line where three feet is required. The plans include a 339 square foot addition to the second Floor and a 1 1? square foot addition to the first floor of the existing 1,446 square foot residence. The site is 7.00 square feet located in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. CONTINtiED FR01~i 10/14/98 TO RE-ADVERTISE PROJECT). Director «`algren presented the staff report. Commissioner Bernald inquired as to the procedure for this item should the Commission be «~illins to support the dormers but not the chimney'? Director «'algren responded that the chimney request could be separated from the approval and that it can so be clarified b~~ a specific condition in the resolution for the variance. Commissioner Martla~e asked what t~~pe of fireplace is being proposed? Director ~l'algren responded that it was his belief that an open wood burning fireplace with a gas insert is proposed and that it w•as not a zero setback fireplace. He said that a has chimney fireplace could make a difference in the setback requirements. He said that the chimney could be pushed in further into the structure or that it could be relocated. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Bob Schwenke, representing the applicant. addressed the letter received from the ~~~in,rone neighbors expressing concern that a fireplace is proposed to be located within 2 feet from the property line. He said that the fireplace is to be a prefabricated wood burning fireplace w°ith a spark arrestor. He said that the proposed fireplace location is the only location that would provide some means ofyisualization ~yithin the layout of the first Ioor. Commissioner Kaplan asked ~1r. Schw•enke if his clients would be a~~reeable to makinn the fireplace a gas only burning fireplace, in which case.. there would not be a problem with setbacks. iV1r. Schwenke responded that his clients ~yould prefer a wood burning fireplace as this is the only fireplace proposed for the home. Relocating the fireplace to another part of the structure would affect what is proposed for the attic or upstairs area. FIc said that the only Bonner that is of significance is the one located on the left-hand side of the building. This is the only encroachment ~yhere the variance would be required. 7~he other dormers are setback away from the propem• line and would not affect the existing setback requirements. COV1~~11SSiONERS PATRICK%K.4PLAN MOVED TO CLOSE Tl-iE P[:BL1C HEARING AT 7:=14 P.NI. Commissioner Paae stated that in light of the letter received. he would support moving the fireplace into the wall PLANNING COMMISSION M~TES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 3 - or making the fireplace gas burning only. He said that he could support maintaining= a three-foot setback for the fireplace versus the need for a ~~ariance. Conunissioner 1\~lal-tlage concurred «ith Commissioner Page that the only' issue relating to this item is moving the fireplace. She commended the applicant for raisin, and saving the home. Commissioner Patrick concurred ~~ith the comments expressed by her fellow Commissioners. She said that the only thin, that could make this design better is a basement but noted that a basement is not being= proposed. Commissioner Bernald commended the applicant for the work being done to save the home. She stated that she has a problem «°ith a fiireplace t<vo feet from the propern~ line. She said that she could support the fireplace if a direct vent was being used. Commissioner Kaplan stated that if the applicant ~~ants to install a vas burning fireplace. it can be left at its proposed location. She Said that she could not approve the fireplace as proposed and recommended that it be moved to the other side of the home or pulled into the home if it can meet code requirements. Chairman Pierce stated that he appreciated the work being done to the home. He said that he could support a bras Ollly bUl'nlllg fiireplace because a fireplace at a t~l°o-foot setback .vas too close to the adjacent property. Commissioner Patrick said that she found it incredulous that movin=the fireplace another foot «•ould make a big difference in preventing tires or children playing around it. Directo-- V1'algren clarified that absent the variance application. athree-foot setback ~~ould be acceptable and in conformance ~.ith code. He said that the Commission has the authorin~ to impose conditions on this project as a result of the ~°ariance that goes beyond minimum code standards. Chairman Pierce said that if the chimney could be designed to meet code requirements. he could support a «ood burnin`J fireplace. CO~li~1ISSIONERS PATRICK..%ti~LARTLAGE ~~IOVL-D TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NOS. LP-98-O10 A)\D V-98-01=1. AMENDING THE CHIh1NEY L..OCATION l-O REQUIRE :1 THREE-FOOT SETBACK FKON1 TI-IE PROPERTY LI\E. THE MOTION CARRIED ~-1 ~'~~ITH COtii~1iSS10\ER BER\ALD VOTI\G NO AtiD COMMISSIONER ~]URAKAVII ABSENT. 3. DR-98-036 (510-03-011) - BEA\', 1,310 Pepper Lane: Request for Uesi~n Review approval to demolish an existing single-store residence and accessory structure and construct a 6,2=I0 square foot sin_=le-store residence ~~ ith a maximum height of 26 feet on a ~ 1,8 i0 (net) square foot lot. :fin existing 600 square foot basement is to remain. The site is located ~i°ithin an R-1-=10.000 zoning district. (CONTL~II,tED FROItI 10/14/87 AT THE AYYLICA\iT'S NEQUEST). y Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 7:~2 p.m. William Bean_ applicant. informed the Commission that three gas burning fireplaces are proposed with one designated as a wood burning fireplace. CO~iN1ISSl0NTERS PATRICK`KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PLBLIC HL- ARI\G AT 7:~=I P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MI~[JTES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 4 - Commissioner Kaplan stated that the design was suitable for the site. Therefore, she could support the application. Commissioner Bernald said that this was one of the most exquisite desiUns reviewed by the Commission in a long time and that it was well suited to the site. She said that she could support the application. Commissioner Patrick said that colors are bland but acknowledved that it ~;°as a taste item. She wished that designs of homes did not maximize the allowable square foota~Te for the sites. She said that she has no objections to what is being planned but wished that the home did not have to be quite so big. Commissioner L]artlage concurred with the positive comments expressed. She appreciated the efforts of the applicant to be sensitive to the trees and liked the details of the chinuieys. Commissioner Pa,e stated that he liked the desi~*n of the home. Chairman Pierce said that he liked the stone desi~_n and felt that it was refreshin? to have a design that utilizes material other than pure snicco. y y COti1~11SSIONERS PATRICK%BERNALD 1~]OVED TO APPROVE RESOLE"CIO\ NO. DR-98-036. THE i~1OTT0\ CARRTED 6-0 (CO~]MISSTONER i\i[~RAKA~II ABSE\T). ~. DR-98-020 (397-27-020) - PARDE\, 20~3~ «'alnut Avenue: Request for Desisn Review approval to demolish an existing 1,282 square foot single-store residence and construct a ne~~ ? 2i6 square foot two- story residence with a 698 square foot basement on a 9.372 square foot lot. The existing X60 square Coot garage is to remain. The proposed maximum building height is 26 feet. The site is located within and R- 1-10.000 zoning district. Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report. She informed the Commission that correspondence has been received from ~1argaret ~l~halen expressin`T concern with the accuracy of the site plan and that she is requesting that a surrey be performed on the site. Staff felt that this was a reasonable request and has included this as a condition of approval. She said that staff also received three letters from adjacent neighbors in support of the project as follows: John and Cind~~ Kerr. 14160 Victor Place; Grover B. Steel, 20=110 ~~'alnut Avenue: and ti~]ikc Parley. 20431 Walnut Avenue. She said that staff feels that the tindin~_s can be made to support the application and recommends approval of the design review application. Commissioner Kaplan said that she noticed a fireplace in the basement. directly below- the one located in the famil~~ room. Planner Ratcliffe said that a condition in the resolution of approval states that only one wood burnin~a fireplace is allowed, noting that it was a stacked fireplace. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Jim Pardee. applicant, stated that he has gone through a great extent to make the home compatible with the neighborhood. He said that he originall~• proposed to stack the second floor on top of~ the original home.:11ter discussions with staff: it w-as decided that this .yould not be the desi<Tn that .yould be best suited for the neighborhood. It is now proposed to demolish the ezistins home and center a ne~y home on the lot and construct a compatible home to the neighborhood. He requested Commission approval as he has followed the guidelines requested b~~ staff. He said that composite rooting material will be used. PLANNING COMMISSION MIQ[JTES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - ~ - Chairman Pierce said that he was contacted by 1\1rs. ~t`halen this morning who expressed concern with sunli;ht being affected b~~ the design of the home. Mr. Parden stated that Mrs. ~~`halen's kitchen window is located toward the rear of her home. He said that ti1rs. Whalen has a magnolia tree that sits outside her kitchen window and that he has three lane trees that sit on his property line. `~lar~=aret C. «`halen. 141=10 Victor Place, expressed concern ~~ith solar access. She said that she has just one large ~~~indow. She submitted a site plan to the Commission that depicts the location and the size of the window. She said that the ~{~indow .vas located t~yo-thirds of the w~av back from the front of the home and that it is directly across the side doo~lvav of the Pardon's home. She said that there is a hvo-store home on Victor Place and a hyo- storv home on the other side of the Parden home. She requested that a serve} of the property be conducted because of the concern of the fence line. Commissioner Bernald informed ~1rs. ~?~~halen that a survey of the propern~ has been included as a condition in the resolution. b9 r. Parden stated that he ryas confident that qtrs. Vl`halen's kitchen window is located within the last flour or five feet of the rear of his home. He said that Llrs. ~'l`halen's side door and his door are lined up and that qtrs. ~~`halen's kitchen window is about live or six feet toward the rear of his lot. He stated that the second story is the furthest setback of the home. He clarified that both fireplaces are has burning. Elsbeth ticwfield. architect. clarited that the area under discussion is the west wall of the new home and the east ~.~all of qtrs. ~t`halen's home. She said that the entire Parden home is being moved to the east. Therefore, the home will be further awa~~ from Mrs. ~Vhalen's home than it is currently. Therefore, the second stop- ~yould be ei~,~ht feet more to the east. She said that it is the east li~~ht to ti1rs. VVhalen's home that is being discussed. This is the least likely orientation to have a sirtniticant light impact. She said that the whole footprint of the home is sli;htl~~ smaller than the existin~* home because she was forced to reduce it in order to have a second story. She did not believe that the home would have a big impact to ~Irs. ~~'halen. COViI~tISSIONERS PATRICk%BER~IALD MOVED TO CLOSE TI-IE PUBLIC HEARi~G AT 8:14 P.M. Commissioner hlartlaae stated that it appears that ti1rs. ~~`halen's concerns have been noted and included as part of the resolution. She said that she liked the design as it is appropriate for the neighborhood and the fact that the home has been moved away from Mrs. ~?~'halen's home is a consideration. Therefore, she could support the application. Commissioner Patrick felt that Mrs. ~'l~halen will find that she will have more light than she had before. She felt that the design ryas a nice one. Commissioner PaUc felt that a ~,reat job was done with the design of the home and felt that ~lrs. «`halen will be happy when the ne~y home is built. Commissioner Bernald felt that the home would be a nice improvement and that this was an appropriate design for the nei~_hborhood. She recommended that the ~_ara,e incorporate the same exterior finish as that of the home on tw`o sides. She stated her support of this application Commissioner Kaplan concurred ~yith the comments expressed by the other Commissioners. She concurred with the adjustment to the gara~~c as recommended by Commissioner Bernald. PLANNING COMMISSION M~TES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 6 - Chairman Pierce stated that it was his opinion that Mrs. l~`halen would bare as much light if not more ~yith the building being moved eight feet further aw°ay from her propert}. Also. the second story is oriented in such a manner that it will not have a direct impact on 1~1rs. ~~'halen's window. He said that this is a good project. one that he could support. including the survey Of the property. COti1M.ISSIONERS BERNALD.`PATRICK ~10VED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-020 «`ITI-I THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION TH:~T ~~'OL~LD REQLIRE THE S:1~1E SIDI\G OF THE HOYtE BE APPLIED TO THE NORTH AND EAST SIDING OF TI-IE GARAGE, lJPON CO\FIRMATIO\ BY STAFF. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0 ~~'I"fH COVi~I[SSIONER MI:RAKA~91 ABSENT. Director ~Val~~ren recommended that a,enda items ~ and 6 be considered as a single staff presentation and a single project~discussion eveu though then are nvo separate and individual applications. This recommendation is being made because the t.yo applications are adjacent t0 each other and are proposed to be accessed from the same roadway. 5. DR-97-001, BSA-98-015 & V-98-013 (517-14-080) - EL-K.~RiLH, 20887 Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site approval to construct a x.7-12 square foot t~~`o-story residence ~~°ith a maximum heir*ht of 26 feet on a vacant ~.0 % net acre lot. A 20-foot «~ide private road would be constructed to access the subject property and a seconded lot beyond this property. Variance approval is also requested to allow the near structure to be located within the required building setbacks, as measured from the ed~7e Of the private access road right-Of-~iay. "fhe site is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. C. DR-96-070 & BSA-98-01=1 (517-1=1-087) - CL KAREH, 20897 Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review and Buildin~7 Site approval to construct a 7,19=I square foot nyo-story residence with a maximum height of 26 feet ou a vacant ?. i2 net acre hillside lot. A 20-foot ~yide private road ~yould be constructed t0 access the subject propert~ and one other lot. The site is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Director ~'l'algren presented the staff report for agenda items ~ and 6. He said that there were constraints associated with the development of the sites and that the applications have been processed cautiously be staff (i.e., geologic soils stability. preservation of the existing ye~aetation and visual impacts to offsite views once roadway and structures are constructed). He said that these applications have been in for some time (under two r°ears). He said that the extended review has been due t0 the follo.ving reasons: • The city's requirement for the issuance Of a Certificate Of Compliance for each parcel t0 yerif~ that they are recorded building sites of record. He said that the applicant recently received the Certificate of Compliance; • The area of time-consumin~~ was the receipt of the <*eologic and geotechnical clearances on the ri•o parcels. He said that these clearances have been conditionally granted ~yith requested clarification on fe« construction details: • The projects have `gone through significant desi~,n chan~~es throu~7h the cit_y's standard design review process to meet the city's hillside design criteria: and • I~he difficulty in gettin~* sufficient plan details to be able to bring the projects before the planning COmIIIISSIOR. PLANNING COMMISSION )TES OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 7 - Director \1`al~_ren felt that it would be useful to bring this item before the Commission and to allow the commissiai to visit to the site and have the ability to provide any additional comments that ma~~ be appropriate before proceeding= to request additional information on these projects. The items that need to be submitted are the follo«-ing: 1) all trees within proximity of the proposed development and roads{~av improvements are to be identified by size and species. indicating which are to remain or be removed: 2) grading plans and cross sections to be verified for accuracy and to include a complete set of plans that would indicate the full extent of any soils or geologic repairs or improvements that ~+ould need to be made to both development sites and to the roadwa.~; 3) break down of house grading versus road and driyew'ay grading; =1j details of how the drive«~av access to parcel 87 would be reduced and pervious surfaces to meet the zoning ordinance and the Measure G initiative of the X8.000 square foot limitation. Staff recommends that this item be continued to \ovember 10 to receive these documents or to l~bvember ?~. He said that one or both of these meetins dates could be used as a study session. He said that statf~ has received additional letters from those attached to the staff report which site road maintenance. site run off and erosion concerns. l~hree additional letters have been received and distributed to the Commission this evening from Don and Pat Lake, l X330 Kittrid,e Road, expressing their concerns with site run off and erosion protection measures; Barbara Dolbeck, 20780 Kittrid_e Road, siting her support for the application to extend sanitary sewer up to the property and thereby making it available to other residents along Kittrid~e Road; a joint letter from David Ritter and Shawn Taheri. Belnap ~~'ay_ requesting that Kittridge Road be extended from this site over to the other side of Kittridae Road to the east to mitigate fire safet.° concerns. He said that the fire district has reviewed this project and they have not made this a condition of approval. ~1r. Titter and dlr. Taheri further noted that there is a small triangular piece of property within the counri~'s .jurisdiction that they feel may be part of parcel 87. The concern is that this piece be included as part of parcel 87 to ensure that it is not split off in the future as a separate building site. He said that this would require annexation of the piece to the city but that it could be done as a condition of project approval. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearins at 8:1$ p.m. Rick Hartman, project architect, presented the Commission with a history and background on the parcels. He informed the Commission that the property owner determined that four homes need to be built in order to afford the installation of a sewer line up the mountain. He informed the Commission that t~~o lou are located in the county but within Sarato,a's sphere of influence and that the Commission is reviewin~_ nyo city lots. He said that it took approximately a year to go through the annexation process for the two counh~ parcels due to the ~eolo~y involved. Ile said that the City of Saratoga decided that the}-did not want to annex the nvo parcels. Therefore, he had to start the application from scratch in the cotu~ty. It is hoped to have a hearing with the county in December. Ile said that four homes are proposed to share in the expense of the sewer line. If the four homes are not included. he could not continue with the project. He said that getting the sewer line up the hill was the crux of the process. I [e said that the next issue w•as that of ;eologv and that he has spent several months with Cotton Associates to review the ~=eolo~_y of the properties to investi~,ate whether there are major slides under the home and whether the concerns can be mitigated. He said that this took a lot of time but that the issues have been resolved. He said that he ~~ould a~~ree to submit the information requested once advised what items need to be submitted. He said that a neighborhood meeting was held over a year and a half afro and that plans and a model were presented to the neighbors. There was discussion regarding establishing a homeowners association to maintain the road. notiu~ that a homeowners association does not exist to maintain the road. He felt that the four homes will come with a lot of construction. stability. grading, and drainage to correct the problems on the site. He will need to go back to see what erosion problems occurred since last year. ti]r. Hartman said that when this application was originally submitted, the staff planner assi~Tned to it worked ~i~ith him for about three to four months before leaving the cite. Director ~~'algren took over the applications. He reconunended that the project be reassi~=ned to another planner as Director ~~`al~Tren is a busy individual. He said PLANNING COMMISSION M~TES OCTOBER 28. 1998 PAGE - 8 - that he was just informed as to the items that need to be submitted when he received the staff report. He said that he was happy to submit these items. Commissioner Bernald asked ho~y the planning director's busy schedule was keeping Mr. Hartman from designins and submitting the items necessary to the hillside slopes. She said that ~1r. Hartman has not responded to issues other than the five-foot retaining ~~•all. notin, that the Commission will be needing much more information than what was being presented. Chairman Pierce said that the entire commission visited the site and looked at all trees. the area and terrain. He said that the commission became familiar with the parcels and that the Commission will provide comments and give direction following the receipt of public testimony. Director VValaren said that he has been involved with the project since it was first submitted as the supervising planner. \t'hen he took o~°er the project. he provided the applicant in w~ritins ~~°ith the specific details that .ere being requested. He took exception ~yith the comment that staff has strung out this process and not made it clear to the applicant what items need to be submitted. Bob Samsel 1 X300 Kittridge Road. informed the Commission that his properly is adjacent to and directh~ belo~ parcel 87. F.le expressed concern with debris falling, down the gulh~ onto his property and the potential new problems that ma}' arise with the grading of the large flat area on the new- parcel. Since movin~~ to his site in 1992. he has had major problems with the loose road fill that is filling the gully`. He said that the first slide that he encountered completely blocked his drive~yav and that he had to hire a hauler to remove ~0 yards of dirt. After many more slides. he hired another hauler to move 200-300 yards of dirt. He said that the previous owner of parcel 87 was made aware of this problem but that nothing ever happened. These concerns were brought to the attention of the new• owner at the neighborhood meetin=. Ile said that in reviewing the plans. nothing ryas seen that addressed the gully. Regardin`J the current replacement road that crosses the ~_>ully, he said that an old ~yood retaining wall is located to the side of the Gully that is ready to collapse that ~. ill result in additional cubic yards of dirt that will eventually end up in his driveway. He expressed concern that the runoff does not concentrate and go over the edve and become a danger to the hill directly above his home. He requested that run oft be sent to the gully west of his property. He stated that he would no longer foot the bill to clean up debris. He requested that the city ensure that these items are repaired as part of the approval. Tom Gross,'_0877 Kittridge Road, said that he is the adjacent neighbor to the lower lot. I-le said that in 1996_ he met with the property o~yner expressing concern with the small private road that is shared by 20 individuals.:A neighborhood mcetin; was held in September 1996 attended b.~ 18 families. The nci~hbors ~~ere informed b~~ the property owner that the road would be as good if not better than when the project started. He said that he found the owner to be an honest man and that he trusts that he will do what he states he will do. He a,ain stated his concern for the fragile road that provides access to 20 individuals. ~'l"hen it rains. contributions need to be made by the neighbors to clean the debris. He requested that the City of Saratoga make sure that the road is taken care of. I.~l. Ferrar. 20860 Kittridge Road. stated his support of this t~~pe oP development. However. he expressed concern with the health and welfare of Kittridge Road. I-Ie noted that the City of Saratoga considers Kittridge Road a private road which means that the upkeep, maintenance and repair of the roadway are the responsibilit. and expense of its residents. Should the city issue a permit to build a road that requires the use of the roadway with heave equipment that the property owner takes full responsibility for restoring the road upon completion of construction or that conditions are attached to the permit that ~yould require the builder to do so. Man Grebene, 1~~79 Belnap, an area residait for'-~ years, informed the Commission that his propem~ backs up PLANNING COMMISSION M~TES OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 9 - to parcel 8?. He concurred ~~ ith the comments contained in Mr. Ritter•s letter. He said that the plain concern to him is the ~ isual impact of a ~ er~~ large ?,200 square foot home. Vtr. Hartman. clarified that the County 1=ire Department is concerned ~+ith the road. He said that the road ~iidth ~~aries from 1'- to 1~ feet in some areas. There are plans at the count~° to impro~~e the road and to widen it in sORle areas to ensure that the fire department can access the area.11so, it has been requested that a fire access through the two count~~ properties be prop idcd and connect to Belnap. I-le said that a full set of impro~•ement plans ha~~e been submitted to the count~~. C0~1~~11SS10\ERS BERNALD%KAPLAN ~10VED "f0 CLOSE "fHE PI;BL[C HEARI\G :1T 8:52 P.M. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the Commission has re~~iewed mane difficult applications and that this application falls among them. She said that the Commission kno~~s that staff spends mane hours working ~+~ith applicants and that they go the extra mile to bring the commission good workable projects. She felt that the Planning Commission works diligentl~~ ~~ith the applicants and gocs the extra mile. often holding study sessions before its regular sessions to meet with the applicant and the neighbors. She acknowledged that this is a time- COllSUlnlllg process but that she has ne~~er seen an application that has taken n~o years. l'et_ the Commission does not have a project that it can rote on with am knowled~~e of «°hat is to occur to the area. She said that she was disheartened to hear that county staff is going to permit an 18-foot road to be cut in the middle of the property. She said that the mission that the Commission has been charged ~+ith is to preserre the ambiance that people find makes Saratoga what it is. The semi rural atmosphere is one that the Commission is charged to make sure is maintained. Commissioner Kaplan recommended that the Commission first deal with access to the site as there is no entrance to the property that is suitable. She said that the road will nccd to be extended the entire length of the property. She did not know where a road would be installed to get a fire truck up the hill. The hill would need to be cut on one side with the construction of massi~•e retaining structures. She said that plans ha~~e not been submitted to pro~~ide the commission with the necessary information. She felt that the gull~~ addressed by the neighbors w•as a devastation. noting that plans wcre not submitted to inform the Commission as to what is to be done with the gull. She said that she has a bias about building homes in landslide areas. She asked ~~°hat is to be done with water runott•(drainage necds to be addressed). She said that the under~_row•th now hides the trail and the building pads. If cut away. it will open up ~~iews not only across the ~alle~~ but to the neighbors in the surrounding area. She asked the len~ath and hei~Tht of the retaining wall to be constructed to hold up the road and also the retaining walls that would hold the hill from the homes'' She noted that the building site for the first parcel is on a plateau. She said that the outline of the home is located to the edge. She said that one cannot build out to the ed~*e of a cliff as a structure would need to be placed underneath it to hold up the home. She did not know where the dri~ewa~~ access to the home will be sited. She said that fire chief has indicated that he cannot access the lot. much less turn around and get out. She 1-elf that the proposed home on the parcel at the top of the hill would be too large and too risible. She said that the application needs to be redesigned with greater details pro~~ided. She does not know if an EIR will be necessary at some point. She said that sometimes conductins stud. sessions and hearings are futile. She felt that it would~be better to deny the application as there is not enough information to ~~ote on and felt that the homes were inappropriate. She said that she has worked ~i°ith staff for o~ er six ~~ears and knows that staff works ven~ hard and roes the extra nlilc. She said that staft• does not only review home designs. but re~°iew~s the several plan and perform other assi~_nments. She did not belie~~e that staff is responsible for the delay. Commissioner Bernald concurred «-ith all of Commissioner Kaplan's comments and concerns. She said that she has only heard excuses and that facts were not presented this e~enin~77. She felt that over the two-.ear period. staff has identified the issues with the applicants. To come in this e~~ening and degrade staff was not acceptable. She PLANNING COMMISSION M~TES OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 10 - noted that trading plans have not been submitted. She expressed concern with the use of retaining walls and that she did not see the retaininv walls identified in this area. She expressed concern with soils' stability and the destruction of the v°e~=etation by landslides. if was her belief that there would be improvements with the sewer but in no way would that or the impro~°ement of the road counter act what would happen to the property. She felt that the site was user developed. The fact that a ?.000 square foot home is proposed and to be built to the edge is abominable. She noted that the trees have not been properh~ identifiied and noted that there is a tremendous amount of vegetation and history of run off and soil instability associated ~.•ith the site. As she has seen a total lack of attention to plan details and the lack of necessary attention to the conditions of the site. she could not support moving forward with the applications. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the comments expressed b~~ Commissioners Kaplan and Bernald. She felt that the homes were too big and visible. She felt that it appears that homes were designed and then placed on sivnifiicant special sites.:1t the site visit. she .vas surprised that an architect .vas not able to design what is necessary for sites like this. She said that she would not approve the homes on these sites. Furthermore. she would not approve homes ~yithout plans for the stability and safety of the sites. Commissioner ~Iartlave concurred with the comments expressed. She did not believe that the homes are the least bit site sensitise. To say that if you cannot get sewer. the whole project noes done the hill is stating the obvious. The goal in a good design is to become part of the segetation and not destroy the segetation. In reviewing the plans, she felt that it appears that the vegetation is highly at risk. Commissioner Pave stated that his concerns base been expressed. He said that at last night's Council meetinv. the Council heard that the problems that were lixed by veologist ten years ago have now fallen apart and that FC~i:1 has been called in to fix the problems. Therefore, eservone is paying for these problems. L-ie agreed that the design was not site sensitise and that it does not fit in. Even though the project meets setback requirements. sometimes one needs to look where one is building a home and take it into consideration. Therefore, he would not support the proposals. Chairman Pierce said that the neighbors, both in letters and public testimony, have expressed concern rewarding water runoff, water erosion and landslides. IIe felt that it w•as conceivable that positive things could be done to limit some of the problems. He felt that a sewer line would benefiit all of the neighbors. However, he did not know how the work will be done as it appears to be an incredibly difficult project. He said that the road is an issue as a number of trees will need to be removed. Also. of concern is the road width and the use of retaininv? walls. He felt that both homes were over designed. He said that he would support ;isin~g the applicant the opportunity to return with some very carefulh end=ineered drawings with calculations on the number of trips that would be required. how much soil is to be removed, how many retaininv walls will need to be constructed and how many trees are to be removed. Commissioner Bernald stated that the applicant has had two years to proceed with this project, and that they have yet to put this project together. She recommended that the Commission show the applicant ho.+ strongly the Commission feels this evening as this may be the only action that will make an impression on the applicant. She felt that the applicant needs to start oscr from scratch Chairman Pierce clarifiied that he was not recommending a continuance for the benefit of the applicant as he was for the neighbors. He said that this could potentialh be a benefit for the entire area. For this reason, he would be willing to continue the application. Commissioner Patrick said that there is not enough information to resiew. She recommended that the applicant PLANNING COMMISSION Ml'!~UTES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 11 - start over as there are issues of how- mane truck loads of dirt are going to go through town. She felt that there was a significant prohlem and felt that the applicant needs to understand that they need to restart the process. Commissioner Kaplan said that these applications have been in the cite for a Iona time. She recommended that the Commission direct the applicant to resubmit an application ~i•ith filing fees paid again for a brand ne~~ project. Commissioner Patrick asked staff if there were different code requirements from an application filed two Vicars a~?o and a current application? Director ~~'aloren responded that there have not been any substantive zonin~a ordinance amendments that ~i•ould affect a project in this zonins district. He stated that the types of modifications that the Planning Commission is su~7~estin~~ are much broader than ~~ere su`=gested in the staff report. If the Commission feels that the homes are over developed. new home designs would need to be submitted. This ~yould result in several months of dela~~. Given the fact that the applications have been submitted for t.vo ~~ears already, the cite needs to be concerned with the Permit Streamlinin, Act requirements. He said that it would be in the city's best interest to have the applicant start the applications ane~r• rather than keeping the application open for several months. COl~1MISSiONERS K.4PLAN BERNALD 1~IOVED TO DENY RESOLLTION NOS. DR-9?-001. BAS-98-01 & V-98-O1 ~ AND DR-96-0%0 & BAS-98-O1~. THE `MOTION CARRIED ~-1 ~~~ITH CHAIRMAN PIERCE VOTING NO AND CO'v11~1ISSIONER ti1L~RAK.AiVli ABSL-NT. 7. UP-98-009 & V-98-(118 (386-~6-008) - P);CK, 12250 Paseo Cerro: Request for Ilse Permit approval to construct a X28 square foot ~7arage. ~~ith a maximum height of 1? leet located within the rear yard setback 6 feet from the rear propcm~ line. A Variance is also requested to allow a 6-foot setback from the side property line. The site is 10.920 square feet and is located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report and stated that staff can make the findings to recommend Commission approval of the use permit and variance applications. Commissioner Kaplan asked where the new tree is to be planted. Planner Ratcliffe said that the location of the new tree was not specified but that it is to be planted somewhere on the propem~. She informed the Commission that the applicant does not feel that there was enou~~h room to plant the tree on the propem~. Commissioner Kaplan said that the applicant indicated to the Commission that the garage is to be shifted directly behind the house and not quite as far into the side yard. She asked if the tree could be planted in the back corner of the lot. Planner Ratcliffe said that she would need to consult the arborist regarding the size of the tree and to determine if there was sufficient room for the tree at this location. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicant has spent ~9,~00 and «hether this amount includes the installation of an oak tree`? Planner Ratcliffe responding that the total Iandscapin~T and irri~_ation requested ~~as at a cost of ~9.~00. She said that the applicant has installed. plants, irri~_ation and labor at a cost of S8,9i8 to date. This does nut include the cost for the installation of an oak tree as the applicant does not feel that the oak tree ryas necessary. Commissioner Patrick asked if it is a common practice to cut down a tree and then allow a propert~° owner to re- landscape the yard in lieu of replacing a tree? Director ~~~alaren said that the primary objective when a tree is removed with or withotrt a permit is to provide PLANNING COMMISSION RTES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 12 - replacement landscaping of native trees back onto the site. In this case, the applicant requested relief from the requirement that $9.00 worth of native trees be planted on his propem as concern was expressed that the property could not sustain that number of trees. Regarding the rear yard area. he a~7reed that there is no room for a large tree within the rear yard of this property. The issue is whether the landscaping provided is adequate. He said that he spoke to the property owner and that staff agreed to consider a compromise landscape replacement. The question this evening before the Commission is whether what has been achieved to date is sufficient or is there still a need to provide some native landscape replacement on site to be included in the front yard. He stated that ornamental trees. la~yns, and groundcovers ~.erc installed and that no native landscaping materials were installed. Commissioner `lartlage asked if it is known who started the removal of the tree and asked how the city deals with this problem? Shc asked if a licensed arborist or tree cutter w~cre utilized. If so. were these individuals fined as well as the applicant or does the applicant assume full responsibility? Director ~t`alaren stated that he did not recall who was hired to remove the tree. I~Ie said that the propcrt}~ o~~ncr assumed full responsibility. Commissioner ~fartlage asked if there is room on the property for a lame tree. noting that the tree was located in the area where the garage is proposed. Director ~~`algren said that there is no room for a tree with the construction of a ;ara~~e. Commissioner Bernald asked if it was usual to accept self-employed mark up of plants and materials at ~0%? She said at the site visit, the applicant and the commission discussed the possibility of donating a tree to a park or some other location. She asked if this was a possibility? Director ~~~algrcn said that an individual does not have to be a licensed arborist but that they are suppused to receive a business license and have it on file in order to remove a tree. He said that it is not typical to receive a self-employed mark up of plants and materials. I-le said that staff and the applicant came up with a reasonable and cooperative solution. He said that it would be possible to donate a tree as a program has been established where individuals can donate a tree to the city's parks department. Through coordination. the tree could be planted in an area that is ctu-rently being maintained and irri~sated. Chairman Pierce opened the public hearing at 9:?8 p.m. Stephen Peck, property owner, acknowledged that a mistake was made in the removal of the tree without benefit of a permit. He said that donation of a tree to the city would be the appropriate thin~* to do as the property does not contain sufficient space to accommodate a large tree. Commissioner Bernald asked who cut the tree? dlr. Peck said that a friend of his helped cut down the tree. Commissioner Bernald said that at the site visit it was noted that ~1r. Peck .vas shifting the gara~>e more to the right. closer to the pool than what is indicated on the plans. i`1r. Peck responded that he did not propose shining the garage any further than indicated on the plans. Commissioner Kaplan asked why the substitute planting was not native as called for. Mr. Peck said that what was installed is spelled out in the planting list submitted to staff. Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the cost of a ~8-inch box tree? Mr. Peck said that a =l8-inch box tree would cost approximately S 1,300. PLANNING COMMISSION M~TES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 13 - Director ~'b`algren said that staff reviewed the landscape plan receipt but that staff could not werifi the costs to am degree of accuracy. 1-le reiterated that the issue is whether the landscaping .was a reasonable replacement value for a healthy oak tree valued at 59,00. He said that the requirement for a X18-inch box replacement tree ~~~ould double the value of what has been installed. 1-Ie said that the applicant has been assessed a fee for the removal of the tree. Commissioner Martla<~e asked if it «ould be reasonable for the city to supervise this project close)}` to make sure that everything <~ocs according to plan? hlr. Peck said that he ~~ould a~=rce to ~~ork closel~~ ~~~ith staff fibr the construction of the ~ara~ae. COM~IISSIO\L--:RS BER\~LD.~P1GE ~1O~'fD TO CLOSF THE P[:BLIC HEARING ;~T 9:=1~ P.~t. Commissioner Patrick said that she was offended by the action to remove a tree ~iithout benefit of city review and approval. She did not like the fact that a tree .vas hacked and then allowed to be removed because it had been killed. later to be stated that a garage can be built as the tree no longer exists. She said that she would prefer to plant a tree in the rear ofthe property and eliminate the garage. Commissioner iViartlave understood the desire for a garage. Ho«•eyer. she was troubled by the removal of the tree. Commissioner Pa`Te felt that it ~~as deplorable that a tree .was removed «ith the ultimate goal of buildin;_, a garage. He also understood that there could be an ignorance of law. He noted that a fine has been paid and that three of the neighbors have the same garage design. He felt that the offer to plant a tree in an area where it will be maintained is an admirable solution. f le felt that more damage than =ood would be done if required to plant a tree in the back nor front yard as there is not much room. In IiRht of ~~°hat has been done and the fact that t~yo wrongs do not make a ri~Tht. he could support this application. ~ y Commissioner Bernald said that the improvements made to the property have enhanced the neighborhood. She felt that the landscaping installed by dir. Peck is lovely. She said that with the garage. vehicles being parked in front of the home would now be parked in the back of the home. This being said. she could approve the ;arage. She recommended that the Commission require the planting of one. if not two, replacement trees in the cih~. Commissioner Kaplan said that the ~ihole purpose of Sarato,~a's tree ordinance is to maintain the canop}` in the various neighborhoods. She noticed that the home next to 1`~lr. Peck has nwo lar~_e, almost dead pine trees ~;~hich will eventualh~ be removed. Therefore. this area .ill be treeless and that this is not the character that Saratoga .wants. She asked staff if there is a diffierent native tree that can be planted on the corner behind the ~ara~,e if the ~aarase is mowed a foot or two forward to accommodate the tree? She felt that somethin~* should be planted to replace the removed tree. Director ~t~algren did not feel that there was a feasible location behind the garage to accommodate a native tree. He felt that there may be room next to the garage between the garage and the pool for a different t~ pe of tree that does not grow as large as a coast live oak. Shiftin`= the garage closer to the home would not provide enough room to plant a si~niticant tree. He noted that the value of a =18-inch box native tree is approximately 5,000. He felt that this number may be high in terms of what you can buy. This is a good number to keep in mind in terms of the overall replacement value of the landscaping. He said that the city could plant a tree into an area that is cun•ently maintained. at a cost to the cin-. Commissioner Patrick said that given the information provided to the Commission by the applicant, he has spent PLANNING COMMISSION Ml!![.JTES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 14 - approximately S3.700 in landscapin_ to enhance his home. including concrete. She felt that the applicant is 5.800 short of what he .vas requested to spend to replace the tree. She said that she «°ould support four. 36-inch boxed trees bein; planted somewhere in the community. She said that she ~.ould want to see a tree planted on this property. Commissioner Bernald noted that a large oak tree exists on the property with a pine tree in the front of the property. Chairman Pierce felt that the Commission ~.as intruding on what has already been worked out with staff and the applicant. He did not believe that it was appropriate for the Commission to attach additional conditions. I-le noted that the applicant has offered to donate a 48-inch box tree to the cin in lieu of the remaininU money that he owes as part of the arransement. He felt that it was appropriate for the Commission to accept or reject this offer. He said that he did not see an.' malice on the part of the applicant. noting that he is a new resident to the cite. He asrees that mistakes are made and that a reasonable price has been paid for the mistake. He said that he ~~ould like to see a 48-inch box oak tree or a couple of appropriately priced oak trees planted somewhere else, allowing the property owner to plant additional fruit trees in his backyard that would be smaller. Commissioner Kaplan said that it is part of the Couunission's obligation to review applications. She said that Director ~t%alsren does a tine job in representin; the city's interests. She said that the Commission was asked to look at the whole project and that it became apparent that the propem- owner did not spend the sums that were required and that the Commission was trying to find a way to get back the value of the oak tree that was lost. She said that she would support planting an appropriate tree somewhere in the city for the benefit of the conununit.~ with the plantingT of~additional fruit trees on dir. Pecks property. COM~9ISSIONERS P1GE%BERNALD ~IAUE A ~IOTIO\ "TO APPROVE RESOLUTION \O. UP-98-009 AND V-98-O1 ~ ~t%ITH A CO\DITiON THAT ONE OR MORE TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED 1N A PUBLIC PLACE B1SED ON STAF1='S RECOti9MENDA"LION. THE ~lOl-ION CARRIED ~-1 ~~'ITH COMMISSIOtiER KAPLA\ VOTI\G NO AND COMi~1ISSIONER 1\~lURAKAMI ABSE\'T. DIRECTOR ITEI<iS No Director's items were noted. CO~1~~IISSlO\ iT)C~IS Minor Modification of approved Tentative Subdivision map: BOISSERANC - FRANKLIN AV.E\1/E Director ~t~algren informed the Commission that this item will require a modification to the tentative subdivision map previously approved b~ the Commission. The requested modification is to reconti~ure or reassess how the required setbacks are to be applied to lots ? and 3. 1-Ic said that the applicant found that home and the ~araQe would not fit in the envelop of lot .i. Staff is still requiring a 30-foot easement be recorded along Saratosa- Sunnvvale to maintain the greater degree of setback. ~fith this agreement. staff would be supportive of the modification. THE COM~•IISSlO'~~ CU'~~CI;RRED Vb'ITH STA1~1='S RECOMMENDATION AND ~I-00K NO ACTION ON TI-IIS 1TEl~i. PLANNING COMMISSION M1~UTES • OCTOBER 28, 1998 PAGE - 1 ~ - Commissioner Pave informed the Commission that it was his understanding that the li.htin~a in the auditorium is to be redone starting the day after the l'hanksgivin~, weekend. It will take lour to five «°eeks to complete this work. He requested that staff update the Commission on this work. Commissioner Bernald inquired about the newspaper stands in ti-ont of the Cali building attd on the curb on Bi~_ Basin ~~`a~~. She requested that staff report to the Commission regarding moving the stands in front of the Cali buildin~a and eliminating the stands that are located at the corner ofBi~ .Basin ~~'av. Commissioner Bernald indicated that she attended a Parks and Recreation town hall meetin~7 last night resardin~, the ~~tarshall Lane field. She said that there ~~°as a great deal of support for the development of the field for the Quito Little League for a farm and teeball. She said that there are a number of individuals who live on Marshall Lane. Raven.~~ood and Vlarilvn Lane who are already impacted b~ traffic in the area. One of the issues raised last night .gas the traffic impact associated with fora- «•eek ni~,hts of practice and names bein; pla~~ed all da~~ on Saturdays. She asked if the cite has the ability;"funding to perform a traffic calming study to address an already existing problem with safety and the high traffic volume on 1\taril~•n. Ravenwood and Marshall Lane`? .4s the adjacent school has become a magnet school that is held in hi`Jh regard, it is brim=in`T in a lot of tratitic. much of the traffic coming from outside Saratoga. She requested that staff report to the Commission regarding this issue. Director ~'1'algren said that staff receives a number of these requests and that these requests are referred to the Public Safety Committee. He said that it is hoped that future consideration not be liven until traffic calmin`= requests in Saratoga are considered b~~ the Public Safety Commission. Planning= Commission and the Cite Council in the review of the Circulation Element nest springy,. Commissioner Bernald expressed concern that this may be a case of putting the cart before the horse if the field is allowed to be used for Quito Little League in the springy= and that there is no one jurisdiction that is ovcrscein~~ this issue. She recommended that all views by the Public Safety Committee. Parks and Recreation, Plannim~ CoInmISS1On and City Council be unitied.~coordinated and that traffic impacts to nei`_hborhoods be studied. especiall~~ in this confined area with limited access and parking spaces. Commissioner Kaplan reported on the following: - :1t the last Plannin~~ Commission meetin~~. she a~~reed to serve on an oral board to intervie~~ candidates for the cite clerk position. Shc felt that it ~~as a ver~~ interestinv and productive process. She said that the candidates ranked by the oral board will be interviewed by the Cite Stan=er. - She attended a joint meeting oti commissioners at a Cin~ Council meeting. She said that the room utilized for the meeting was less stressful and far more con~_cnial to interacting with individuals, noting that the lishting ~~as much better. She recommended that the room be utilized if at all possible. At said meeting. she used an outline prepared b~~ Director ~falgren and addressed the following: circulation element. executive summar~~ for the General plan, adult business ordinance, downtown development round table, identification of major developments (i.e.. Sisters of Notre Dame, Sobrato development, etc.). Director ~~`algren said that the downtown development round table was a project that was suggested by council members some time a`_o as a result oti a discussion that srew out of the vibrancv~ and success of the Village at a Council retreat. It is proposed to conduct meetins with surrounding residents and merchants. and potential developers:%kno~~n developers to consider what is it about Sarato`~a's plan for the Village or ordinance that may discourase more vibrant retail and diverse development versus the construction of townhomes at the Village. It PLANNING COMMISSION M~TES OCTOBER 28, 1998 n ~~as suggested that it may- be useful to get a broad group of indi~~iduals that may ha~~e an interest in the Village Plan. Commissioner Kaplan said that there w°as discussion last eight ~~~ith the Heritage Planning Conunlssx)n and the fact that neither they nor this commission has an~~ authority because the Do~~nto~~n Village plan has not been codified. She said that beyond deli=*n revie«•. the cin does not ha~~e a historic district in the Village. Director ~'l`al~_ren said that stafifi ~~ill mail out the outline referenced h.' Commissioner Kaplan to the Plaunin~7 Commission this «~eek. CO1~Il~IUNICATIONS «'ritten Cite Council Minutes dated October 7. 1998 Notices for Plannin_r Commission h~leeting of No~•ember 10. 1998 ADJOURNMENT TO NEYT iy1EETI\G There bein~~ no further business. Chairman Pierce adjourned the meeting at 10:0 p.m. to Tuesda~~, November 10, 1998. Ci~~ic Theater. 13%77 Fruit~~ale A~cnue. Saratoga. CA. ~IINLTTES PREPARED AND SUBti11TTED BY': Irma Torrer_ Minutes Clerk