HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1998 Planning Commission Minutest~ J
CITY OE SARATOGa
PLA\\ING COI`1MISSIO\ i\'(INUTES
TI;ESDAY. NOVE~~IBER 10. 1998
Civic Center. 13%77 Fruitvale Avenue. Sarato_a. CA
Regular i~leetin~T
Vice-chairwoman Bernald called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call:
Present: Commissioners Kaplan, ~Iurakami, Page. Patrick and Vice-Chairs{oman l3ernald
Absent: Commissioner Martlase and Chairman Picrcc
Staff: Director ~l~alaren and Planner Bradley
Pledge of Allegiance
I<linutes -October 28, 1998
A motion was made and seconded to approve the October ?8, 1998 minutes with the folio.+in~ amendments:
- Paae 8, paragraph 2, last sentence. replace the word with than.
- Page 8, paragraph 7, line ~. replace the word r°~,~~ ~~~ith residents.
- Page 10, paragraph 1. line 7 amended to read: "amount of vegetation and history of run off and soil
instability associated with the site ... "
- Page 10. paragraph =1, line 2. replace the word ~ ~~ ith Council.
- Page I ~. paragraph ?amended to read: "Commissioner Bernald inquired about the newspaper stands in
front oi~the ~ Cali building on the curb on Bia Basin S'l'av. She requested that staff report haelT to the
Commission regarding moving the stands in front of the ~ Cali building ... "
- Paae 1 ~, paragraph 3, replace the word's with ~1arshall Lane.
- Paae 1 ~, paragraph 3 amended to read: "...night was the traffic impact associated with tour week nights of
practice ... As the adjacent school ~• ° has become a magnet school that is held in high re~7ard .. .
She requested that staff report l to the Conunission regarding this issue."
- Paae 1 ~, para~~raph ~, line 2 amended to read: "...is allowed to be used for Quito Little League in the
spring and that there is no one jurisdiction that is overseeing this issue?"
The motion carried ~-0-1 .vith Commissioner 1~lurakami abstaining and Commissioner `iartlage and Chairman
Pierce absent. y
Oral Communication
No comments were offered.
Report of Posting Agenda
Director ~'l`algren declared that pursuant to Government Code ~~9~=}.3. the agenda for this meetin<~ was properly
PLANNI\'G COMNiiSSION 1~1I~TES
NOVEMBER 10. 1998
PAGE - 2 -
posted on \ovember 6, 1998.
Technical Corrections to Packet
CO\SENT CALF\DAR
1. DI2-97-001, BSA-98-015, & V-98-013 (517-1=1-080) - EL-KAREH, 20087 Kittridge Road: Request for
Design Review and Building Site approval to construct a 4.?42 sq. ft. two-store residence with a maximum
height of 26 fit. on a vacant ~.0? net acre lot. A'_0 ft. wide private road «~ould be constructed to access the
subject property and a second lot beyond this property. Variance approval is also requested to allo~l~ the
new structure to be located within required buildin~~ setbacks, as measured from the edge of the private
access road right-of-wa~~. The site is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTI\L~ED
FROi<i 10/28/98 TO PREPARE AND ADOPT DE\TIAL RESOLUTIO\S).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. DR-96-070 & BSA-98-01=i (517-14-087) - EL IZ~12EH, 20897 Kittridge Road; Request for Design
Review and Building Site approval to construct a ?.194 sq. ft. two-store residence with a maximum height
of 26 ft. on a vacant ?.?? net acre hillside lot. A ?0 ft. ~i~ide private road would be constructed to access
the subject propern• and one other lot. The site is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district.
(CO\TTI\TUED FR01•I 10/28/98 TO PREPARE AND ADOPT DENI_AL RESOLUTIONS).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A110T1ON ~~':1S i~1;aDE AtiD SECONDED TO APPKOVE CONSL\T G4LE\D:AR ITE~4S 1 & ~'. THE
~10TIOti CARRIED 4-0-1 ~~'ITH COMMISSIONER Mt;RAKAtiIl ABSTAINING AS HE ~'l"AS NOT
PRESENT :'1"T THE OCTOBER ?8. 1998 ~1EETING AND COMMISSIONER YIARTLAGE A\D CHAIRVIA\
PIERCE ABSENT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. DR-98-041 (503-58-031) RUPAREL, 20668 Seaton Ave.; Request for Design Review approval to
partially demolish an existing 3,018 sq. ft. sin~~le stor~° residence and construct a new 3,38 sq. ft. tw`o-
stor_v residence at 21 ft. in hei~7ht. maintaining an existing 1.023 sq. ft. basement. The site is 1?,946 sq. ft.
and is located in an R-1-1?.~00 zonin_=district.
Planner Bradley= presented the staff report.
Vice-chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 7:3~ p.m.
qtr. Ruparel. applicant, informed the Commission that he presented the design of the home to the neighbors and
that the.' were in support of the project.
Tom Sloan, project architect. addressed the dormer window .which is being addressed this evening. He furnished
the Commission with photo~araphs of the sn-eetscape. Eie did not believe that there ryas a privac}~ impact to the
adjacent nei~~hbors.
Commissioner Patrick inquired as to the metal balcony and railings. l\1r. Sloan said that the balcony and railings
are located on the south elevations. He said that a parapet wall is proposed "ith a metal ;rab rail located at the top.
He said that his clients are happy with the design. includin~~ the use of Dutch sables. dir. Sloan stated that
architectural styles arc very eclectic these days and that he did not believe that there ryas such a thing as purity in
architecture anymore. He said that he did not have an architectural style for the proposed design. He said that the
PLAN\TING COMMISSION 1~I~TES •
NOVEMBER 10. 1998
PAGE - ~ -
reason for not clipping all five cables .vas at the request of the neighbors.
Tone Chu. 138=I1 Taimvorth 'lyenue. stated that raising the roof by three feet will block the beautiful mountains
located to the rear. He said that he can see the home's first floor ~~•indo„s and the doors. He expressed concern that
his backyard would be exposed to the second story windows, impacting his privacy and would eventually affect
the value of his home.
Grace Chu. 138=11 Tamworth Avenue. informed the Commission that she recently moved into her ne~a home in
September 2i. 1998. She stated that h9 r. Ruparel invited her and her husband to meet with him to discuss his
proposal. ITnfortunatcl_y, she was not available to review the plans. She concurred with the concerns expressed b~
her husband.
Richard ~4ayeur, 1383? Tam~~°orth Avenue. said that his top front w•indo~~s o~°erlook ~•ir. Chu's lot. He said that he
could not see the swimming pool but that he could see the top of his roof. He indicated that he and his wife like the
design of the uvo-story home and felt that the proposed design would add a great deal to the neighborhood b.~
upgrading the site. He appreciated the time that Mr. Ruparel took to speak with him and his wife to inquire if there
wfere any objections to the design. He supported the plans as sho~yn. Resarding the viable, he stated that he likes
pointed gables but that he understands that the proposed gable satisfies the concern of the neighbor across the
street.
Adele loos, ?068 Seaton Avenue. informed the Commission that she is an original owner of a home in the
subdivision and resides directly across the street. She stated her support of the design as presented. She said that
she has been assured that the design will fit into the neighborhood, noting that Ytr. Ruparel has been good about
contacting all the neighbors, modifft•ing the design to please some of the neighbors. She recommended that the
Chus plant tall shrubs to provide additional screening and create privacy. She requested that the Commission
approve the desi~=n.
~Ir. Ruparel clarified that he started reviewing these plans with the neighbors four or five weeks ago. He noted
that only one front window is proposed. He said that he spoke w ith 1~tr. Rasmussen oft Sunday morning and that he
acknowledged that a window could have been depicted on the plans that he overlooked. He informed the
Commission that the home is skewed to the right and that it is not directly in front of Mr. Rasnuissen`s home. He
said that he would like to accommodate ivlr. Chu if possible. He said that l~Ir. Chu raised his concerns only a fe~~•
days a~~o and that he could not change the design for him. He offered to pay for am' trees that her. Chu ~yould like
planted in his backyard to address his privacy concerns.
A '~IOTIO?sl VAS MADE AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PI:BLiC HEARING AT 7:~~ P.~1. THE
MOTION CARRIED ~-0 ~'l~I-fH COb•iM1SSIONER ~~1ARTL:'1GE ;-1ND CHAIRMAN PIERCE ABSENT-.
Commissioner ~lurakami felt that the applicants have :..'one throu~?h extraordinary steps to cooperate ~yith their
neighbors. In this case, he does not see a problem with the physical layout of the home as far as intrusion or
blocking view sheds. He said that he did not have any objections to the design of the ,sables. He suggested that the
applicant be giyeu a choice regarding the gables and that they not be restricted to the Dutch type of roof edges in
the front which he felt detracts firom the style of the home. He stated that he was willing to approve the project as
submitted.
Commissioner Kaplan felt that the property owner did a good job in the public relations aspect of the process. She
said that she does not see an issue of privacy with the window. She said that a sink=le story home can he designed to
be taller than atwo-story home. She stated that she did not like the clipped gables. She said that she could support
the gable as originally designed as you cannot please everyone. She said that she was not thrilled with the use of
PLANNING COMMISSIO\T MITES •
NOVEMBER l0. 1998
PAGE - 4 -
the columns and did not understand the reason for their use. She stated that she would support the design. allowinc
the applicant his choice of clipped or full cables. y
Commissioner Page agreed that the applicant did an admirable job ~~~ith the neighbors. He said that he drove b~ the
site three times this week to look at the imposition that the home may have on i~1r. Chu's privac~~. He said that he
could see that there may be a little line of sicht but did not believe that it would be sisniticant. Also the existin;
trees will crow and that in time. the concern will be nonexistent. He recommended that the applicant be consistent
in his choice in the design of the Tables.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not like the clipped gables and recommended that they be peaked. She
said that she would vote acainst the application if the gables are not all peaked. She said that she did not object to
the second story desicu.
Vice-chairwoman Bernald commended the applicant for workinc with the neighbors. She stated that she
appreciated the 21-foot height limit of atwo-store home and that she did not believe that the second story was out
of place. She felt that the applicant made a good case this evening in showing that the home is offset from viewing
the Chu's s~+immin~~ pool area. She did not believe that the Chu's ~.~ould lose money in their home. She stated that
she did not support the columns located in the front entrvw~av as she did not believe that they were substantial
enough to hold the cable above it. She recommended that the applicant work with staff to widen the columns and
incorporate the clement so that it appears as one unit. She felt that the entryway needed to be grounded a little bit.
She stated her preference for the pointed gables and recommended that the applicant consider the pointed sables as
the V6'angs mad not live at their residence for a lon~T period of time and that she wanted that applicant to be happ~°
with the design of their home. She stated that she could support the request but recommended that the applicant
work with staff to chance the columns.
A h1OTION VI~aS ~IaDE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE RESOLLTIO\ tiO. DR-98-041. ~~~ITH ADDED
CO`DITIONS THAT Vl~OULD REQUIRE THA"f THE ;1PI'LICANT ~~`ORK ~~~ITH STAFF TO: 1) Ati~lEND
THE FRO\T ENTRY~?I~AY TO ~~`iDEN THE COLUMNS; AND 2j 1~1ODIFY THE GABLES TO REQC;IRE
MORE TRADITIONAL POINTED GABLES TO ti~IAINTAIN COMPATIBILITY. THE l~]OTION CARRIED 4-1
~~`ITI-I COMMISSIONER PAGE VOTII~~G \O AND COMMISSIONER i\1ARTLAGE AND CHA1Ri`tAN
PIERCE ARSE\~T.
=~. DR-98-039, ~`-98-007 & LTP-98-013 (397-24-011) - HO~?~'><1ILLER, 202=147 La Paloma A~•e.; Request
for Design Review approval to add a 710 sq. ft. second story to an existing 1.800 sq. ft. single-story
residence. Lse Permit approval is required to allo~+ the reconstruction of a detached scrag=e ~iithin the
required rear yard area. Variance approval is required to allow the setback in the second floor to be 6 ft.
on the richt side where 20 ft. is required. The existing right side setback is non-conformin`_ at 6 It. where
1~ ft. is required fior corner lots. The propert~ is 7.00 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-10.000 zoning
district.
Planner Bradlee presented the staff report.
Commissioner ~turakami recommended that in the future that staff mark ~~hat the standard setbacks are in the
dra.ving as it would help the Commission in its review of pn~jects.
Vice-Chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
John Howmiller, applicant. stated that he has reviewed the staff report and concurred with staffs recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION iVI~TES •
NOVEMBER 10, 1998
PAGE-5
Sandra Paim. project architect, stated that she felt that her clients did a great job in ~yorking with their neighbors to
receive their constructive criticism and to obtain their endorsement of the project, includin;__ ~yorkins with the
adjacent developer, Mr. Pinn. She informed the Commission that Mr. Pinn has offered an easement to allo~+ the
applicant to access the garage. She said that the new `aara~e brings the propert~• up to code with the requirement oi~
t~yo car-covered parkin~T spaces. She said that she tried~to meet the spirit of the design standards as much as
possible. noting that the home ~~as designed under a separate set of zoning restrictions. She felt that the
architectural sn~le w•as appropriate for the neighborhood as it tits the existing cottage-craftsman-stele architecture
with the use of wood sidins. shinsles. etc.
Commissioner ~lurakami noted that the bottom of the house uses siding while the upper floor utilizes shin~7les. I-ie
asked if this was a matter of style for this project? ~1s. Paim said that it is t~ pical for craftsman style bunsalo~~~s to
use a mix in siding materials.
tile, Cald~~~ell. 20201 La Paloma_. informed the Commission that she resides do.+n the road from the Flo~ymiller's
propem•. She said that her family resides in a larger two-story craftsman bungalow. She stated that she is in
complete support of the Howmiller's application as they have shown tremendous respect and care in developing
their application and that the unique constraints that the~~ confronted on the property supports the variance request.
She said that the applicant has shown respect for the historic nature and the architectural character of the
nei~_hborhood, making sure that the.' had shared the desi~~n with the nei~_hbors.
A h1O"[-ION ~~~AS :MADE 1NU SECOI~'DED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HL:1Rl1~'G. THE 1~1OTION C~~RRIED
~-0 ~~~ITH C0~IMISSIONER 1\~1aRTLAGE AND CHAIR1~lA\? PIERCE ABSE\T.
Commissioner Page felt that the applicant did an excellent job in keeping the architecture of the neighborhood. He
felt that the variance could be supported due to the nature of the lot and the existing structure that the applicant had
to work ~yith.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she did not have a problem with the proposal but stated that she «-ould like to see
a basement incorporated in the design. She said that her onl~~ concern was that the house located next door ~~ould
be located between t«-o store homes. I-foweyer. she suspects that this propem owner ~~ould soon be requesting a
two-store addition. She commended the Pinn Brothers for ~rantin~ an easement for a d--ive~yav. She felt that the
project «ould be a good addition to the neighborhood. ~ y
Commissioner 1~lurakami stated that he also liked the desivn. I-le noticed ho~y narro~~ the lot is and the constraints
that exist to build on the site. He said that it was difficult to understand the dra~i•ings as far as the roof profiles go.
After looking at the lot and the design of the home, he said that he has no problems ~yith the proposal.
Commissioner Kaplan felt that the Commission can make all the necessar~~ findings for the variance as stated in
the resolution of approval. She advised the applicant to keep an e~~e on the existin~* oak tree as someone ma~~
dama~*e or remove it. She recommended that the applicant follow the directions of the City arborist in order to
protect the oak tree.
Vice-chain.~oman Bernald stated that she enjo~~ed the site visit and felt that the applicant has a beautiful site. She
also recommended that the applicant protect the oak tree. She said that it has been recommended that three,
twent~~-four inch box or equivalent value trees be placed in the area. She said that she ~.~as not sure if this ~yould be
possible. She asked staff ~i°hat should the Commission be recommending to address this concern?
Director ~~`algren informed the Commission that staff included equivalent values. He said that a single, lane box
size tree would have the same monetary value arrived at by the city arborist.
PLANNING COMMISSION tiiI!'OTES •
NOVEMBER 10. 1998
PAGE - 6 -
After receiving, staff's explanation, Vice-chairwoman Bernald stated that she could support the application.
A i`1OTION ~~aS i`~IADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE R.ESOLI:TION I~'O. ~'-98-007. l'HE ~1OTI0\
C:IRRIED ~-0 ~~'ITH COti1~tISSIO\ER M;1R"fL;~GE .<~\D CHAIRtitA\ PIERCE ABSEN"f.
A ~]OTION ~~~ AS l~~IADE AND SECONDED TO 1PPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-98-039. THE MOTION
CARRIED ~-0 \~'[TI1 CO~I~IISSIO\ER MARTLAGE AND CHA]R1~1A'~ PIERCE ABSENT.
~1OTION VAS 1~•LAUE A\D SECONDED TO APPROVE RESOLi-T[O\ 'PTO. i?P-98-013. TI-IE ~1OTI0\
CARRIED ~-0 ~~`ITH COMMISSIONERS Y]ARTLAGE :1\D CHAIR~IA\ PIERCE ABSENT.
~. DIt-98-004, SD-98-002 & LP-98-003 (503-25-014) - Za1~IBETTI, 1=16=15 13ig Basin ~'~'ay-; Request for
Desi~7n Review appro~°al to construct two ne.v townhouses totaling, ?,074 sq. ft. and 3.317 sq. ft. each.
Subdivision approval is required to divide the property into three lots (one lot for each of the two units and
a third lot for common space). Use Permit approval is required to allow residential development in the
CH-? zonin~~ district .~ ithout a commercial component of the project. Dedicated public open space is also
a requirement of approval. The site is 16.160 square feet.
Planner Bradley- presented the staff report.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that she did not believe that this project meets the intent of the General Plan and the
Village Plan. She recommended that this issue be addressed at this time or at a study session.
Vice-chairwoman Bernald asked if there will be access From other lots that will become available as development
occurs.
Director Vl'al~,ren said that it would be diftlcult to state that there will never be another access to the creek from an
adjoininv parcel If a substantial development is proposed on the lower terrace of the property, it would be subject
to a wildlife biology=ical assessment. He felt that there w•as little likelihood of further development potential of the
property.
Vice-chairwoman Bernald asked if there would be any limitations on the hours that would apply to this project for
the safety of the residents due to public safety and vandalism issues?
Planner ~~`algren responded that staff has not included this concern as a condition. He said that this concern can be
considered as part of the use permit resolution to state the hours of accessibility be posted on access suns. He
clarified that althou~,h parks tend to close at dusk. he said that this is not a public park but that park standards can
apply to this application. He said that the ordinance relating to the pedestrian open space is specific to the Sarato~=a
Village and that it was tailored to apply to commercial development. He said that the ordinance is being applied to
this project even thou`=h it is not a commercial project because it is a requirement of the commercial historic
zoning. Therefore, this is a hybrid situation and that the solution was a staff suR,estion to meet the 20°% pedestrian
open space requirement of the Village zoning.
Vice-chairwoman Bernald opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m.
Gary Kohlsaat. project architect, stated that ~yhen the applicant and he first looked at the project. it was sought to
integrate a small commercial portion for an office as a mixed use along with the residential use. Even thou~7h the
site is located in a commercial zonim~ district. he felt that the site was better suited for residential development. He
PLA\\'ING COYINIISSION NI~TES
\OVEMBER 10. 1998
said that the problem he faces in trvin~, to fit commercial development in this area is the parking requirement. He
said that the project barely satisfies the required ~ parking= spaces for the rn~o, three-bedroom units. He said that the
nature of the site made it difficult to develop. noting that the lot is fairh~ flat for a good portion but that it drops
down rapidly and then noes down to the creek area. Therefore. the development area is extremely limited. He
noted that residential development surrounds the propem. including proposals for residential development just
past the site. Addressin~_ the architecture, Ntr. Kohlsaat said that he worked hard to make the desi,n tit in with the
neighborhood. The architectural character is that of a craftsman stele home. He tried to desiUn the home to make it
look like a single family dwelling. with garages not bcin~7 seen ti-om the street. The front yard w°ill be landscaped
typical to that of a single famih~ home. He said that he ~~°orked around the oak trees located below the site. He said
that he was reluctant to go along with the requirement of providin~~ a pedestrian open space easement. A variance
to this requirement w•as contemplated as the requirement does not make sense for this property. He expressed
concern with individuals living in these uniU havin~_ individuals ~~°alking down the side of their homes to the creek
area. He stated that he would suppor[ a pedestrian space located in the front of the propem• in conjunction with the
street.
Commissioner Kaplan said that in looking at the west;left side orientation as ~~ell as the right side- east orientation
of the back of the structure, it appears to be a tall, three store structure.
qtr. Kohlsaat responded that this is a problem that the Commission will face because architects draw in elevations.
~~`hat the Commission sees is the true elevation of the building as opposed to a perspective. He said that in a
perspective, a nyo-store structure «°ill be seen with a skirt wall below. He addressed the roof structure and the
volume that are over the basement. Ile said that there is not a legal floor area. Therefore. it is not technically a
three-story building.
Commissioner Kaplan referred to page ~-?, the balcony located off the master bedroom of the upper level floor
plan of unit B looking toward the street. Shc felt that the visual seems to go directly into the bathroom of bedroom
3 of unit :~. She expressed concern with the privacy issue.
Mr. Kohlsaat clarified that there are no windows that would look into unit :1 from the balcom~. The small window
on unit ~ is designed to provide li;ht and ventilation, noting that a solid wall is proposed.
Commissioner Page requested clarification about the lo~yer level bedrooms on [;nit B and asked if they are
considered basements? ~1r. Kohlsaat responded that the lower level bedrooms of l~nit B are considered basement
units. He indicated that construction of the units would not occur before April 1 ~. noting that this is a sensitive
hillside site.
Commissioner I'a~Je asked if N1r. Kohlsaat had any other suggestions to the pedestrian open space requirement?
Nlr. Kohlsaat responded that he does not have suggestions to the pedesn-ian open space requirement. He said that
he would agree to provide a pedestrian access to the creek- but not a picnic area. He said that the applicant wants
the area to be accessible to its residents.
Lee S. Grey. 1=1=198 Sprinter venue. President of the Saratoga Homeo~yners Association. requested clarification
regarding the notice of hearing that made reference to a third lot for future development. He said that he spoke to
Planner Bradlee w•ho indicated that the third lot has been ~~ithdrawn. noting that the staff report states that
subdivision approval is required to divide the property into three lots. He asked if construction ~.ould be allowed
on the third lot in the future? He read into the record a statement from the Homeowners of Saratoga Oaks
Development stating? that they have reviewed the site plan and the exterior elevations for two tow~nhomes .
submitted b.' the developer. [t is fielt that the planned use of the propem is appropriate and tasteful if the number
of units is limited two rather than three as originally thought. It is important and necessary that the health of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MITES •
NOVENIBER 10. 1998
PAGE - 8 -
stream and the wildlife habitat be preserved. He said that as a 23-year area resident, he has not seen a requirement
for public access in this area. He did not envision individuals buying these expensive units only to have the public
Qo buy the homes to have a picnic in the homeowners' back yards.
Director ~~l'al~Jren responded that you cannot say for certain that the lower portion ol~the property has absolutely no
development potential. if there was a proposal for the lo~.er half of the propem~. it would return to the
Commission for further revie~r~. He said that it was his belief that there is no development potential on the lo~~er
portion of the site. If the property owner chose to do a lot line adjustment and merge the property with an adjoining
parcel to create a lar~aer project. there may be the possibility of further development. However, if the public open
space is recorded, it would tie the lower portion of the site to the upper part. Therefore, he sees very little chance
of any development potential of the lower end of the site.
Mr. Kohlsaat responded to the issue of future development. He said that it was thought at one point that there
could be a vehicular easement through the adjacent property to the west. He said that he has tried to discourage his
client from considerin~> further development due to the "nature" located below. He said that if someone buys the
two lots. they w-ill «ant to kno~~ if an~~thinv will be built on the third parcel. He said that the request for the third
lot has been w•ithdra~yn at this time. but that he could not give assurance that this request ~~°ould not be raised again
in the future.
A yIOTIO\ ~~`AS MADE AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PLBLIC HEARING. TI-iE MOTIO\ CARRIED
-0 ~~~ITH COM~~IISSIONER I~IARTLAGE A\D CHAIRM:IN PIERCE ABSENT.
Commissioner Patrick noted that it is being requested that the Commission approve athree-lot subdivision. It was
her understandin~T that if a three-lot subdivision is approved, two lots would be built upon and the third lot would
be left up in the air. She asked if this means that the third lot would be a buildable lot''
Director Vl'algren responded that in any tow•nhome deyelopment..ou ~~ill have a certain amount of units plus a
common space. This three-lot subdivision does not imply that there is a third le~~al building site. The third lot is the
common space that will be owned by tw`o future homeowners.
Commissioner Kaplan noted that a very sensitive wooded, riparian corridor exists. She asked if there was a way to
protect this area from encroachment by the homeo~~ner(s)`?
Director ~~~alUren responded that if the public open space requirement is not part of the approval. a similar open
space easement could be recorded along the creek bank and a location to be determined b_v a wildlife biologist
based on the ~~reatest value of protecting the riparian habitat.
Commissioner Kaplan felt that there were mam° issues associated with the applications before the Commission.
She said that the City has a historic document. the General Plan and the Village Plan. She said that someone sat
down 10-I1 years ago and considered the concept as to what is to {{=o in this area. She said that she was not
comfortable with taking action and spot zoning this area. She recommended that the Commission discuss how it
will handle this issue.
Commissioner Patrick noted that this area is already zoned residential and that the property owner can leave the
home as is with individuals residing in the home without a commercial use.
Director ~?l`al_ren said that Sarato~,a has very little land zoned commercial. To allow this area to develop as
residential gives up another opportunity for a minimal amount of commercial development. On the other hand the
Villa~~e flan referred to by Commissioner Kaplan did not restrict residences from being developed in the Village
PLANNIl`'G COMiV11SSION MI~GTES •
\'OVEMBER ]0. 1998
PAGE - 9 -
but encourages a mix of commercial and residential uses subject to conditional use permit approval by the
Plannin~_ Commission.
Commissioner Patrick felt that it was an interesting and intriguing idea to have the pathway to the creek. She said
that she would like to see how the open space pedestrian easement will work. Rather than placin~_> restaurants and
buildings that block off the creek and have it empty. she felt that it would be interestin_ and a good idea to have
individuals use the creek. She said that she did not oppose the residences as then already exist. She felt that the
townhomes were nicely designed and would enhance the area rather than take away from the rest of the Villa_e.
Slte stated Iter support of the project.
Commissioner Pad=e stated his concurrence ~~ith Commissioner Patrick. F{e lelt that the pedestrian open space
easement was a creative idea. However, he expressed concern ~;-ith the public safety aspect. He recommended that
the Public Safety Commission or the Parks Department assess «°hat it will take to patrol the creek area as it could
create havoc for the residents.
Director ~Valgren informed the Commission that it could try out the pedestrian open space for a year to see how it
works. If it results in a constant enforcement problem, the Commission can reconsider the open space requirement.
if the problem became severe, it could revert to a private open space easement.
Commissioner Pa,e did ^ot recommend that time restrictions apply to the open space because the residents would
not be able to use it durin~* certain parts of the da~~ if restricted. To address Commissioner Pave's concern, Director
~t`algren recommended that '`public' access be restricted.
Commissioner ~~lurakami stated that he liked the pedestrian open space concept and would like to see how it
works.:1s far as the commercial aspect, he said that it .yould be nice to see some commercial capability in the
front. As far as the design. he felt that the design can be improved. especially the front elevation. I-Ie understands
that the design would be a vast improvement of what exists today. How°ever. there is something about the front
elevations that bothers him as the size of the structure does not look right. Also, the right side elevation bothers
him as it appears to be too tlat. He said that he understands the constraints of the lot and that he was sure that staff
reviewed the different alternatives with the architect. He stated that he does not like the front design for this size
structure. Therefore. he could not approve the project. v
Commissioner Kaplan stated that her initial reaction was that the public access would not ~~°ork. She air=reed with
Commissioner Murakami that the cast side elevation gives the appearance of a hotel as it is a large solid wall. She
said that the Commission may not be getting a Ilayor of~ ~yhat is going on from the dray+ings. As presented. the
building looks massive and therefore, she could not support it.
Vice-chairwoman Bernald stated that she also did not like the right side elevation. She did not believe that there
was enough architectural relief provided to break up the elevation. She said that she has ;tearer concern with the
public access and the area below. She was not comfortable with leaving it as "let's see what happens and then go
back to it.~' She stated that she was concerned about the General Plan and other issues. She stated that she would
prefer to discuss the issues in a study session to work out the issues.
A MOTIO\ ~~'AS MADE AtiD SECO\DED TO REOPEI~T THE PLBLIC HEARI\G. THE MOTION CARRIED
-0 ~V[TH COMMISSIONER VIARTLAGE AND CHAIRMAN PIERCE ABSENT.
Director ~l`al~ren informed the Commission that the first available study session meetin~_ date is Tuesday.
tiovember 3=1.~ 1998. This meeting could be set for either 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. before the 7:30 p.m. public
hearing. As an alternative, he said that the public hearings could be held at 7:30 p.m. to be followed by the study
PLANi~ING COMy1ISSlON ti111~TES
NOVEMBER 10. 1998
PAGE - 10 -
session. He said that the issues on the easement lansua~e are straight forward and that there ~+•ere some ~~ood ideas
presented this evening**. Staff could be prepared to include these suggestions in a resolution. He felt that the
architect has been asked to look at the right side. east elevation al-ticulation and that he can present schematic
drawings at the November'_-=1 meeting. IIe recommended that the Planning Commission refer to the Village Plan
and that the Commission go through the policies in the document and be prepared to discuss whether this project is
consistent with the Village Plan.
Commissioner Kaplan requested that staff invite former Commissioner Siegfried or other resource persons to
address the Commission on the Village flan.
A il10TI0\ «`AS 1~1ADE AND SEGO\DED TO CO\'"I~I\LE THE PUBLIC HE:IRING FOR THIS ITE~1 TO A
NO~`ENIBER 2~. 1998 STUDY SESSION FOLLO~VII~TG THE REGUL:IRLY SCHEDI;LL-D MEETItiG. THL-
~10TION CARRIED ~-0 ~~'ITH C0~IMISSIO\ER MAR"I~LAGE AND CH;~[R~1AN PICRCE ABSEtiT.
DIRECTOR 1TE1~1S
Director ~t`aLren updated the Commission on the following:
Scheduling for the theater lightin~~ dill not affect the scheduling of the auditorium. Vl`ork will begin right
after the lust public hearing in December and is scheduled to be concluded before the first Planning,
Commission public hearing in .Ianuar~~, noting that the second meeting in December has been scheduled.
He was asked to follow up on the news racks in the Village. He said that the cite manager's office is aware
that there are other new racks in the Village beyond the area to be provided for permanent racks and that
the cite manager`s office is followin~~ up on this issue. He said that it is not clear at this time whether all
the permanent racks have been installed as of vet.
Chairman Pierce contacted him this afternoon requesting that he share with the Planning Commission that
he is hosting the annual Christmas party this year as Plalllling Commission Chair. Chairman Pierce asked
that he inquire it Wednesday. December 16 is a good day for the Christmas parn~. Director Vl%algren said
that one of the problems with this date is that traditionally. the chair invites Council !Members to the party.
This date .would conflict with the Cite Council's regular meeting. He said that Chairman Pierce will review
alternative dates but requested that the Commission indicate if December 16 is a good day. He
recommended that the Commission contact Chairman Pierce and indicate what days are ;ood.
Status of the Argonaut Shoppin`7 Center. Site demolition activities are under~yay. He said that it was shock
to see what the site looks like now- that the trees have been demolished. 1=1e presented the Commission
with the approved landscape exhibits that were revie~yed by the Planning Commission and the Cite
Council. He identified the back trees that were to be retained. I-Ic said that a condition of approval stated
that the landscape plans were appropriate. However. measures needed to be taken to protect. retain or
incorporate as many- on-site trees as possible. This ryas primarily relative to the fronta~~c trees. During the
plan check process. their landscape architect contacted the city and stated that it etas their belief that the
stone pines should be removed based on their nature and their tendency to drop limbs. The
appropriateness of these trees over a parkin`, area were questioned and that it was requested that they be
allowed to remove these trees.
Director ~'l~al~~ren informed the Commission that the city's arborist concurred with the proposal and the
comments that these are top heave trees that are prone to tipping Dyer, particularly if their root base is cut
PLANNING COMMISSION 1V1~TES
NOVEMBER 10. 1998
PAGE - 1 1 -
•
away. He said that the trees were alloy+ed to be remo~~ed based on this inlonnation. The plans indicate the
quantities of new- trees that are to be planted as a result of project approval. lie clarified that the interior
trees are proposed to be ornamental and flowering trees which are appropriate for the interior ofi a parking
lot. IIc said that staff is not accepting the ten ornamental trees proposed to be planted aloe<, the
streetscape. Staff is working with the city arborist to require the installation of•three times as mane trees as
«•ere on site in terms of lame box size trees. The arborist will be consulted resarding the selection of the
tree species to ensure that the cite is getting healthy species of trees. including plantin~7 ;roups of coast
redwoods and incorporating a coast lire oak in order to retain the tree canopy that one sees as one drives
down Saratoga-Sunm~vale Road into the Village.
Commissioner Kaplan said that a couple of meetings ago, there was discussion regarding the merit of
installing healthier. easier to transplant smaller trees.
Director ~~`algren said that Commissioner Kaplan has a valid point. If the arborist is advising on the
selection of the trees. it was his belief that the city could yet large sized. healthy trees installed that do not
take several years to replace the canopy that was lost. }-le said bonding may be required to ensure that the
trees survive in order to give the cite a recourse to replant trees that do not survive at the developers
expense. especially for the street trees to be planted along the fronta~c of the property. He said that the
removal of the eight stone trees was approved because they were not appropriate for the location and that it
is proposed to plan for the planting of trees that will do well for the next several Mars.
C0~11t1ISSION ITEMS
Vice-chairwoman Bernald asked if there arc: any approvals for the Oak Street School remodel and the addition that
is to be added onto the school that is on the City's IIistoric Register that was built in the 1800x? She felt that the
citizens of Saratoga have worked hard to maintain this site and the architecture. She is hoping that the new
building will preserve some of the historical features.
COl\i1~iUNiC AT10NS
«~ rittcn
- City Council )\]inutes dated October ? 1, 1998
- Notices for Plannin~a Commission 1~lcctin~r of November?~_ 1998
AllJOURN1~iENT TO \EXT MEETING
There bein~~ no further business. Vice-chairwoman Bernald adjourned the meeting at 9:~0 p.m. to Tuesday.
November?=1, 1998, Civic Theater. l.i7i' Fruitvale :venue, Saratoga. C:4.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Irma Torrez
Minutes Clerk