The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-27-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, and Rodgers Absent: Commissioner Uhl and Schallop Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous, Associate Planner Ann Welsh, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan and Code Enforcement Officer Jana Rinaldi PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of April 12, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 12 2005, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-2-1; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl were absent and Rodgers abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communication Items. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 21, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director John Livingstone announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b); 10 days for Conditional Use Permits. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #05-094 – Appellant – SORDEN – Property Owner – CHEN (397-16-056) – 14118 Shadow Oaks Way: Appeal of approved Administrative Design Review application 04-307 to demolish the existing home and construct a 3,702 square foot home with a 736 square foot garage. The height of the new home would be 17 feet, 10.5 inches. The lot size is 19,724 square feet and is located in the R-1-20,0000 zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant has appealed an Administrative Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 3,702 square foot home with 736 square foot garage. The proposed home consists of beige stucco. • Informed that the appellant lives across the street from this property and wrote a letter indicating his concerns that was included in the staff report. The appellant provided an additional letter yesterday during the site visit. • Explained that staff has drafted an additional condition that would limit the height to three feet for any landscaping at the front corner portion of the property to prevent any blind corner conditions at the corner of Shadow Oaks Way and Woodview Lane. • Stated that the proposed home meets the City’s requirements. • Said that staff has prepared a draft resolution and recommends that the Commission adopt this resolution denying this appeal and upholding the Administrative Design Review approval. • Advised that the Planning Commission’s action on this request is final. • Provided a technical correction to page four of her staff report so that the stated date is November 15, 2004, instead of 2005. Commissioner Hunter asked why the existing wrought iron fencing could not be retained. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that during construction of a new home, opaque construction fencing with a six-foot height is required to obscure the construction site from the immediate area. The existing wrought iron fence is not opaque. Commissioner Hunter clarified that this fencing would not be allowed to be retained any way. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jim Sorden, Appellant, 14091 Shadow Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for hearing him out, saying it was an honor to appear before them. • Reported that he had been asked by his neighborhood to act as their spokesman and/or scribe. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 3 • Informed that his neighborhood is a mixture of both young families and retirees, many of which could not attend this hearing. • Stated his hope that this Commission cares about this neighborhood full of lawns, trees and shrubs. The homes in this neighborhood were originally built at about the same time. • Declared that he has a passion for safety at that corner of Shadow Oaks and Woodview. • Reported that cats have been killed on that corner, including his own. Additionally, his son was in an automobile accident near this corner and was nearly killed. • Said that he was surprised when construction fencing appear at this property across the street from his. • Reiterated that this is an area of lovely streets with similar homes that are different but still the same. The Shadow Oaks Tract was built in 1955 but no single builder built more than two homes in this tract. • Added that anyone that has rebuilt in this neighborhood has rebuilt in the same style. He added that he rebuilt his own home a few years ago but it does not look new. Rather, it fits in the character of the existing neighborhood. The home next door was also rebuilt identically to the original home and has the same feel. It has the same look, feel and architectural integrity as when originally constructed. • Pointed out that in this neighborhood people are out walking their dogs all day long. This is a gorgeous street. • Stated that his issue with this project is the setback distance. • Opined that while on the plans, the setback from Shadow Oaks is stated as 22 feet, he measures it as 18 feet, which would create a visual impairment from the street. • Said that there is a six-foot high wood fence to be located from Woodview. • Explained that the front of this proposed new home has been moved from Shadow Oaks to Woodview. • Stated that there was some confusion with addressing in the notifications, using both 14110 and 14118 Shadow Oaks. This confusion is one reason why people were not properly notified. • Said that he finds the existing wrought iron fencing to be fine but does not understand why construction fencing is required. • Said that this creates a blind corner. Drivers cannot see around this house especially as cars are likely to be parked near the front door, along the street. • Stated that this new home is two-and-a-half times larger than the original and is seven feet higher. It goes from its current 15-foot height to a 22-foot height. The house, at the proposed 113.5 feet in length, is also twice as long as most homes in the neighborhood. • Said that this home is located as close to the front as it can get. The proposed stucco and faux stone are not compatible to the predominate use of wood. • Declared that he and his neighbors care about their neighborhood’s appearance and safety. Commissioner Hunter questioned the 22-foot setback confusion. Mr. Jim Sorden reported that a staff member that is no longer with the City approved this project. He said that the side yard setback stated on the plans is at 22 feet but is actually only 18 feet. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the applicant came forward with his neighbors to discuss his intentions to rebuild his home as part of the design process. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Jim Sorden advised that he had tried for six months to see if anything was planned after he saw a surveyor working on site in July. Said that no attempt was made by the applicant to contact the neighbors and the neighborhood was aware of plans only when the construction fencing was put up. Commissioner Rodgers asked where Mr. Jim Sorden measured the side yard setback. Mr. Jim Sorden: • Advised that the architect is the one who provided the 22-foot setback measurement on the plans but it appears that the architect did not measure from the point that was closest to the property line. • Said that this proposed structure is big and bulky and would be real close to the street. Commissioner Rodgers asked if anyone measured to verify the setback. Mr. Jim Sorden said he had done so using a laser level. Chair Nagpal asked staff about the setback requirement. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that as explained on Page 3 of the staff report, this is a substandard lot width. The required exterior side yard setback, along Shadow Oaks Way is 20 feet. The side yard setback from Woodview is 10 feet. She added that bay windows are allowed to protrude into a required setback by up to two feet. Mr. Vince Kubo, 14121 Shadow Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Explained that he has lived in this neighborhood since 1990. • Stated that he served as a police officer for 30 years including traffic enforcement. • Said that there is potential for a blind intersection situation at this corner. • Suggested that this home be place far enough away so as not to create a blind intersection because as currently proposed it would create a blind intersection. • Said that while progress cannot be stopped, public safety issues must be paramount. • Suggested the inclusion of either a Stop Sign or posting a reduced speed sign at 15 miles per hour to alleviate any impacts. • Asked the Commission to endorse that suggestion to the City’s Safety Committee. • Reminded that the feel of this neighborhood incorporates large front yards. • Reiterated his belief that this new home would encroach on the intersection. Commissioner Kundtz asked Mr. Vince Kubo if the community’s CC&Rs are relied upon and reviewed on a regular basis by members of the community. Mr. Vince Kubo replied no. There have been no continual neighborhood meetings. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Vince Kubo if, in his opinion, the existing home is placed satisfactorily so as not to create a blind intersection. Mr. Vince Kubo said that it is borderline. There is lots of existing foliage so there is not a clear and unobstructed view. But it meets the spirit of the law. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Virginia McPherson, 14171 Woodview Lane, Saratoga: • Stated that she lives three houses away from the project site. • Said that she is glad that someone is taking an interest in updating this home as this corner is the entrance to their street. • Said that her primary concern is the safety of that corner at Shadow Oaks and Woodview. • Reported that there are seven children under the age of 10 living on the street and playing on the street. • Said that this corner is already an issue with the overgrown foliage. • Stated that neighbors are careful and drive slowly in this area but that the corner should be open. • Pointed out that the current front entrance for this property is on Shadow Oaks. The proposed home has a proposed front entrance at the corner. This would result in people parking at the corner to be near the front door when visiting this property. • Said that having cars parked there would create a visibility problem for the neighbors that walk and ride bikes. • Asked that the safety of this corner be assured. Ms. Rachel Frame, Project Designer: • Said that she planned this structure and is representing the property owners. • Thanked the Commission and staff for their patience with this project. • Reminded that this is the third time this project has been heard. It has been approved twice. • Assured that she and her clients are very concerned with fitting into this neighborhood. They have proposed a single-story home with no basement that meets all City standards. • Added that they plan to clear out the corner area of brush and open up visibility and the existing wrought iron fencing is coming down. • Said that her clients want to keep as much natural landscaping as possible on this parcel and trees will be protected during construction. • Advised that the existing turnaround driveway would be eliminated and less impervious surface would be contained on site. • Reminded that the Planning, Building and Public Works Departments have already approved this project. • Stated that she expects that the Commission will approve this plan again this evening. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Rachel Frame where the front of the proposed house is defined. Ms. Rachel Frame replied on the corner. Chair Nagpal asked Ms. Rachel Frame if the front is considered to be on Shadow Oaks or Woodview. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that where there is the shorter lot line, which in this case is Woodview. Director John Livingstone said that there are three different items to consider, the Zoning Ordinance, site design and the Building Official, working with Fire, who assigns addresses The front door itself can be put wherever the property owner likes and not necessarily on the designated front elevation. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Hunter questioned that nothing requires the front door to be located at the front elevation of a house. Said that traditionally, front doors are found at the front elevation. She asked how that happened. Ms. Rachel Frame said that the way the lot is configured here, it makes more sense to put the front door where they have placed it, at the corner. She added that she believes it is illegal to park on a corner and that the Safety Committee could have that curb painted red to prevent such parking. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Rachel Frame for the purpose of the six-foot high fence to the right of the front door. Ms. Rachel Frame replied that this fence is located 30 feet away from the street and is intended to create privacy for the rear yard. Without this fence there would be complete visibility into the back yard. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the CC&Rs prefer a lower fence. Chair Nagpal asked if plan sheet C-1 reflects an accurate representation of the proposed fence placement. Ms. Rachel Frame replied correct. Commissioner Hunter clarified for Ms. Rachel Frame that the Planning Commission has never yet considered this project because it was lower than 18 feet in height and as such underwent Administrative Design Review. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the proposed fencing materials. Ms. Rachel Frame replied redwood. This is to match the existing fence on the other side of the home. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Rachel Frame if it would be possible to move this house back toward Saratoga Avenue so as not to be so close to that corner. Ms. Rachel Frame advised that they are trying to save mature existing trees along the driveway. These trees would have to be torn down to relocate the house. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that moving the house back would be one way to alleviate the neighborhood concerns. Ms. Rachel Frame pointed out that the difference in front setback for the new house is only two feet closer than the existing house’s front setback. Commissioner Cappello said he does not see it that way. Ms. Rachel Frame said that that existing house, from the front corner closest to Woodview and Shadow Oaks, is 47 feet from Woodview. The new home would be 45 feet from Woodview. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Cappello said he does see what Ms Rachel Frame is saying now. Ms. Caron Whitacre: • Said that she is very concerned about blind spots. • Advised that she has two teenaged drivers, including one new driver. • Said that she has warned them to be very careful at this corner as there is lots of traffic from Redwood School in this neighborhood. • Stated that her second concern is the proposed size of this house. • Reminded that this is a nice rural neighborhood and the existing ambiance needs to be kept the way it is. • Said that the new neighbors should be able to remodel as others in the neighborhood have done but should match the existing neighborhood. Ms. Fleur Kettmann: • Said that she often walks the streets of Saratoga. • Said that the size of this house is of concern as it clashes with the beautiful and unpretentious architecture of the existing homes. Mr. Jie Chen, Applicant and Owner of 14118 Shadow Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commissioners for holding this hearing. • Said that they have taken lots of time to consider safety issues. • Assured that they will be cleaning up the bushes in order to open up visibility at the corner. • Pointed out that a neighboring fence is located just two feet from the street. • Said that Saratoga is a beautiful City that he loves. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the side of Mr. Chen’s new home would face Shadow Oaks. She asked Mr. Jie Chen if there would be any type of screening between the house and street. Mr. Jie Chen replied that there would be landscaping. Mr. Jie Chen assured that there would be no fence along this side frontage facing Shadow Oaks. Mr. Jim Sorden, Appellant: • Thanked the Commission for this evening’s hearing of his appeal. • Declared that the bulk and design of this home does not fit within this neighborhood. • Said that the front of this house should be on Shadow Oaks. • Pointed out that all other homes in the neighborhood are set back between 50 and 70 feet away from the street. • Stated that if it is true that this project has been approved twice by the Planning Department, he is outraged. How can it be approved if the neighbors never heard about the proposal. • Reminded that this is a dangerous intersection and that Dr. Chen and the City would be responsible if a blind intersection is created and someone is subsequently hurt there. • Added that he does not want to see any more dead animals there or endangered children. • Advised that he has worked with the Safety Committee in the past. • Added that a stop sign would not needed if this house is correctly positioned on this lot. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 8 Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that staff has looked at this plan and found the setbacks to be based upon Code requirements. • Suggested that safety requirements could be imposed in cases such as a corner lot. • Asked if any other codes other than Planning regulations are considered. Director John Livingstone said that each application is considered on a case-by-case basis. There are standard setback requirements and the applicant is meeting all such standards. He added that findings must be made for approval and/or denial of this request. Chair Nagpal reminded that approval or denial is based upon Design Review findings. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that neighbor concerns appear to be threefold. First is traffic and safety. Second is the aesthetics of the proposed home. Third is the Code Requirements such as setbacks. Chair Nagpal suggested handling each of the issues separately, staring with safety issues. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that there is a safety issue with the placement of the front door at the corner. • Said that there is a natural tendency for visitors to park on the street nearest the front door. • Said that in her opinion it is unfortunate not to have the front door facing Shadow Oaks. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that it is hard to make assessments based upon safety. • Agreed that a home that would leave the entire corner unobstructed would be safest. • Said that he finds it hard to find this particular home design and placement to be unsafe. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the Commission has been told that this project meets the City’s minimum standards. • Said that she is not sure the necessary view triangle is provided here. • Reminded that this is not supposed to be a high-speed street. • Suggested that something be done to keep the landscaping and walls low near the corner. • Said that she is fine with the project. • Stated that she is trying to understand how people come out of Woodview onto Shadow Oaks. • Said that by keeping things lower than three feet, the visibility from the corner should be clear and may be acceptable. • Said she is aware that there are requirements regarding how far people park from a corner. Commissioner Kundtz said he couldn’t separate the size and density of the home with safety but that managing the shrubbery can possibly mitigate the safety concerns. Chair Nagpal agreed that safety is a very serious consideration but that this Commission could not do a whole lot with what has been said. The Commission must consider Design Review issues. Added that this new home is not significantly closer to the corner than the existing home. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she knows this house well as her child played there often as a youngster. • Said that this neighborhood is a beautiful one and that house designs have stayed the same in this entire neighborhood. She agrees with Mr. Sorden’s assessment of that fact. • Said that with the side elevation facing Shadow Oaks and the maximum height of 17.5 feet, she does not find this proposed height for this home to be too much for this neighborhood. • Stated that she would like to see some redesign since when a large number of neighbors have a problem with a project in their neighborhood, she hears them. • Said that what is seen is a very long side view of a house as one enters Shadow Oaks. She would like to see the house moved back on the lot instead of a 113.5 foot side yard elevation located right on the street. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that the home does not appear to be excessive when compared to others in the neighborhood. It does not appear to be bulky. • Added that this seems to be a lovely home that would fit into this neighborhood. There are other homes in the neighborhood that also have a newer look. • Reiterated that he has no issues with bulk. Chair Nagpal sought clarification from staff that the Woodview elevation is the front and that the Shadow Oaks elevation is the right elevation. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. Commissioner Rodgers: • Called out the building materials as stucco with stone veneer and wood shutters. The side elevation (along Shadow Oaks) consists of stone veneer beneath stucco, as does the front elevation (along Woodview). • Pointed out that design guidelines call for articulation when houses are long. This house design provides that articulation. • Said that while she wishes the house’s frontage faced Shadow Oaks, it meets the requirements regarding bulk. It is not much taller than the existing home. Chair Nagpal: • Said that she too prefers the concept of frontage on Shadow Oaks. If so, the side elevation would be along Woodview. • Said that the project includes articulating rooflines, stone veneer and shutters. The intent of the Design Review findings has been met. • Advised that it would be difficult to make the findings necessary to deny this design. • Stated that she tends to support staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are no similar turret type entryways in this neighborhood. Chair Nagpal asked what the height is for that feature. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 10 Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 17 feet. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that usually entries are limited to 16 feet in height. Commissioner Cappello reminded that the turret is recessed in such a way as to minimize its impacts. Additionally, no one from the neighborhood raised the issue of this turret. While it is an unusual entry for this neighborhood, if neighbors found it objectionable, objections would have been raised. Commissioner Rodgers said that this is a remarkable neighborhood with remodels that have been consistent with original designs. She added that the turret is tucked in and is actually not very visible from Shadow Oaks. Chair Nagpal suggested moving on to the third issue. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stated that having a six-foot high fence along Woodview Lane is not necessarily compatible. This is not a neighborhood that closes off front views with six-foot high fences. Commissioner Kundtz said that from his perspective this is a lovely designed home. While it includes features that are seen elsewhere in Saratoga, some of those features may be inconsistent with this neighborhood. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission voted to deny an Appeal and uphold the Design Review to allow the construction of a new home at 14118 Shadow Oaks Way, with added conditions to: 1. Fences shall be as represented in Plan Sheet C-1, with six-foot redwood fencing to be located 30 feet away from the street; and 2. Temporary construction fencing shall be open chain link, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello and Nagpal NOES: Hunter, Rodgers and Kundtz ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None This motion failed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission considered the denial of an Appeal and to uphold the Design Review to allow the construction of a new home at 14118 Shadow Oaks Way, with added conditions to: 1. Fences shall be as represented in Plan Sheet C-1, with redwood fencing not to exceed three feet in height along Woodview Lane; and 2. Temporary construction fencing shall be open chain link. Commissioner Rodgers withdrew this motion. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 11 Chair Nagpal re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jai Chan: • Advised that this fencing is to create privacy and is located 30 feet from the front property line. • Reminded that the existing wrought iron fencing is to be removed. Mr. Jim Sorden: • Stated that having the new home located 25 feet closer to Woodview is a significant impact. • Added that he did not believe that the home could not be moved further back on the lot. Chair Nagpal re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission voted to deny an Appeal and uphold the Design Review to allow the construction of a new home at 14118 Shadow Oaks Way, with added conditions to: 1. Fences shall be as represented in Plan Sheet C-1, with six-foot redwood fencing to be located 30 feet away from the street; and 2. Temporary construction fencing shall be open chain link, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: Hunter and Kundtz ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None The motion passed and this action is final. *** Chair Nagpal announced that she would need to recuse herself from Agenda Item No. 2 as she lives within noticing distance. She turned the gavel over to Vice-Chair Rodgers and left the dais and Council Chambers. Acting Chair Rodgers assumed the gavel and began Public Hearing Item No. 2. Director John Livingstone took a moment to introduce the City’s new Code Enforcement Officer, Ms. Jana Rinaldi. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #05-099 (397-15-018) California Farmers’ Market Association, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue: Request approval for a Conditional Use Permit allowing the California Farmers’ Market Association to hold a Farmers’ Market in the parking lot area of West Valley College, Saturdays year round. (JANA RINALDI) Code Enforcement Officer Jana Rinaldi presented the staff report as follows: Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 12 • Advised the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Farmers’ Market to be held in Parking Lot #3 at West Valley College. • Explained that this market used to be held at Saratoga High School but that location is no longer available after May 14th. • Said that the applicant is hoping to establish at West Valley College effective May 14th. • Described the market as being held every Saturday with 40 to 65 vendors. The applicant has secured an agreement with West Valley College to lease Parking Lot #3 for a market to be held from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. with 87 stalls. The maximum allowed number of vendors would be 72. • Explained that outside markets are not listed as allowed uses in R-1 zoning districts under City Code. However, the Community Development Director may make the determination that certain types of activities are compatible as a community function. • Advised that a trained market manager will be on site from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. • Said that noise mitigations include keeping the market separated from the residents on Allendale. Set up is not to begin until after 7:30 a.m. There would be no amplified music allowed. Live music will be permitted but it cannot be amplified. Free parking will be available with a total of 200 spaces being set aside for this market. • Reiterated that the market hours are from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. each Saturday beginning May 14th. Again, set up cannot begin until 7:30 a.m. • Advised that the required findings can be found in the affirmative and recommended approval. Commissioner Kundtz asked for verification that set up could not occur prior to 7:30 a.m. Code Enforcement Officer Jana Rinaldi confirmed that fact. Commissioner Rodgers asked where the vendors would be prior to 7:30 a.m. Code Enforcement Officer Jana Rinaldi deferred this question to the applicant. Acting Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Doug Hayden, Applicant and President, California Farmers’ Markets Association: • Thanked the Saratoga-Los Gatos School District. • Explained that the market has outgrown its Saratoga High School location and is graduating and moving on to West Valley College. • Thanked staff, particularly Jana Rinaldi. • Assured that a market manager would be on site at 7 a.m. to serve as a sentry to make sure that no one from the Farmers’ Market is on site until 7:30 a.m. • Said that they would be sensitive to traffic and will use A-frame signs to direct traffic away from Allendale and to the main college entrance on Fruitvale. • Stated that this is a fabulous site for their market with room to grow, restrooms on site and available shade. • Said that he looks forward to moving this market to West Valley College effective May 14th. Commissioner Hunter said that it was nice to see Mr. Doug Hayden back before the Commission in happy circumstances. She added that she likes the inclusion of live music at the Cabrillo Farmers’ Market and finds such markets to be real community events. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Simon Zarrin, 13751 Harleigh Court, Saratoga: • Explained that he lives about a half mile away from the campus and has for the last six years. • Said that he bought into what he thought was a quiet cul-de-sac. • Said that his neighborhood is impacted by lots of traffic for both West Valley College and Redwood School. This traffic parks in his cul-de-sac. • Stated that he wants to support a Farmers’ Market but is concerned about impacts, such as noise and traffic, on his neighborhood. • Said that while this market may start out small, it could grow larger in time. • Suggested that good intentions are not always enforceable. • Reiterated concerns of traffic, noise and future growth. Mr. Cyril Tang, 19127 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he lives right across the parking lot from the college, next to the church and has lived in this home for 16 years. • Stated that he enjoys peace and tranquility, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays when college is out of session. • Pointed out that Allendale is busy during the week and that Saturdays and Sundays are the only days when there is peace. • Stated his concern regarding noise and traffic impacts as well as the safety for people out walking. • Said that he was not sure that expansion could be controlled in the future. Acting Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Cyril Tang to clarify where his home is located in relation to the area proposed for this Farmers’ Market. Mr. Cyril Tang said that it is located next to the church and cautioned that traffic impacts on Allendale cannot be controlled. Acting Chair Rodgers pointed out that the proposed location of the market is at the corner of Allendale and Fruitvale. Ms. Joy Tsai, 19225 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga: • Reported that her home is located right near the theatre entrance at West Valley where she has lived for 15 years. • Pointed out that Villa Montalvo started out small and is now very busy. Things that start out small tend to grow into a larger activity. • Stated that she wants the Planning Commission to be aware of noise impacts on the neighborhood. • Cautioned that people will use Allendale to access this Farmers’ Market. • Said that she supports the college activities from Monday through Friday but that she expects Saturdays and Sundays to be quieter. • Said that customers will be there at 8 a.m. as she has seen that occur at the Saratoga High School market. Mr. Lyle McCarty, 19235 Harleigh Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he lives close to the area being discussed. He and his wife have been in this neighborhood for 33 years. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 14 • Pointed out that he has read that the residents near Saratoga High School have been dissatisfied with the impacts of the Farmers’ Market on their neighborhood due to noise, traffic and odors. Acting Chair Rodgers asked Mr. Lyle McCarty if he has any suggestions to prevent these problems. Mr. Lyle McCarty said that those in charge of the Farmers’ Market should be aware of these potential impacts and prevent them from becoming a problem. He cautioned that people might end up parking on Harleigh Drive to patronize the market. Acting Chair Rodgers pointed out that there would be free parking on campus for market customers. Mr. Lyle McCarty asked for clarification as to where the parking and market would be located. Commissioner Hunter replied at the corner of Allendale and Fruitvale, near the bus stop. Code Enforcement Officer Jana Rinaldi reiterated that there would be 87 parking stalls dedicated to market customers at no cost to them. Mr. Brett England, 13896 Yerba Santa Court, Saratoga: • Advised that he is a 10 year resident of the area and lives directly across from the bus station. • Explained that there are eight homes in his cul-de-sac. • Added that in the 10 years he has lived here, there have been substantial changes. In 1998/99 changes were made to the bus stop. While it used to be one stop, he was turned into a huge transfer station. In 2001, VTA constructed an operators’ facility, which is a cinder block toilet facility. VTA and the City worked to relocate the original proposed placement of this facility. • Said that the neighborhood is supportive of the Farmers’ Market with concerns over safety and logistics. • Pointed out that the proposed location, Parking Lot 3, is located close to the bus stop, Allendale Avenue and to Redwood Middle School. • Suggested that Parking Lot 4, located to the south of Lot 3, has better access and is a bigger lot. It is situated between two entrances and would cause little conflict with residential uses. • Pointed out that there are 10 children residing on his cul-de-sac. • Said that there is no parking permitted on his cul-de-sac on weekdays and that he would like to see this restriction extended to weekends too. • Said that although signage is to be used to direct traffic away from Allendale onto Fruitvale, he would still suggest that the market be located on Parking Lot 4. • Stated that the neighborhood looks forward to having a Farmers’ Market nearby particularly if it is moved south and further away from residential uses. • Pointed out that Fruitvale is a four-lane divided road while Allendale is simply a two-way road. Access would be improved if Parking Lot 4 were selected. Commissioner Hunter asked if more traffic on Allendale might not result from moving over to Lot 4. Mr. Brett England said no, less traffic would use Allendale. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 15 Acting Chair Rodgers pointed out that Lot 4 is the next lot over, further from Allendale. She asked if the use of orange cones helps control traffic and parking on his cul-de-sac. Mr. Brett England said they use cones on weekends when neighborhood children are riding their bikes on the court. While they might help, he continues to encourage traffic using Fruitvale. Ms. Kristie Liddie, 20275 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is sorry to see the Farmers’ Market leave Saratoga High School. • Reported that it has been nice to go over to the market and was a very pleasant experience with great food. • Said that such a market is an embellishment to the community and allows neighbors to talk with neighbors. The market brings people together and is a nice event. • Said that it would be nice to have the market at West Valley College so Saratoga can still have a local Farmers’ Market. • Reiterated that the market encourages community bonding and that she would hate to see it go. Commissioner Hunter stated that she absolutely agrees with Ms. Kristie Liddie’s comments. Mr. Ted Macauley, 13791 Serra Oaks, Saratoga: • Said that he just found out about the market’s relocation to West Valley College and thinks it is a great idea. • Questioned why the market must leave Saratoga High School. Is it their choice? • Said he would like to hear from more neighbors near Saratoga High School. • Expressed support for locating the market at Parking Lot 4, which is further up Fruitvale. • Said that a church is going in near his home and questioned why he was not informed. Is noticing distance 500 feet. Commissioner Hunter: • Replied yes, noticing distance is 500 feet. That’s why the Chair could not participate in this evening’s hearing on the Farmers’ Market as she lives within 500 feet of the campus. • Reported that the Farmers’ Market was located at Saratoga High School for nine years. There were noise and traffic issues as it was located on a much smaller space. • Added that there are now too many things happening on the high school campus, including the swim center, sports and a Chinese school. Mr. Ted Macauley asked if other alternate sites were considered. Commissioner Hunter said that West Valley College offered the market an opportunity to not have to charge for patrons to park. Mr. Ted Macauley asked how he might reach neighbors near Saratoga High School to discuss impacts with them further. Acting Chair Rodgers suggested that Mr. Ted Macauley could read meeting minutes on line from a recent meeting at which the market was discussed to obtain names and addresses of nearby neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 16 Commissioner Hunter assured Mr. Ted Macauley that he would really enjoy the experience of attending the Farmers’ Market with his young children. Mr. Bill Cooper, 14503 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Explained that increased activity at Saratoga High School was the primary problem with new baseball fields and the PAL Center. The school needed its facilities for educational events. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the overall parking available at Saratoga High School is probably less than 200. At West Valley College there are miles of parking spaces available. Mr. Bill Cooper reminded that the Farmers’ Market did not work out when it was at the Village due to parking constraints. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Bill Cooper how Parking Lot 3 was selected and use for that space granted by the College. Mr. Bill Cooper said he would defer this question to Mr. Hayden. He reminded that WVC had issues regarding Saturday uses on campus. Mr. Doug Hayden: • Said he had taken notes during the public hearing and wanted to respond to questions raised. • Explained that the issue on use of Parking Lot 3 versus Parking Lot 4 is that by law the college is required to charge for use of its parking. By law, the college had to delineate parking spaces for the proposed Farmers’ Market and 200 spaces were determined to be sufficient. The market will pay the college for use of 200 spaces for each week’s market. • Added that the parking for the market needed to be located away from the Saturday on-campus activities as there are still students on campus on Saturdays. The college didn’t want the market too close to where its students park because those students would use up the Farmers’ Market free parking and the school would lose its parking revenue generated by those students on Saturday. • Reminded that at Saratoga High School, the Farmers’ Market was originally held at the location where the PAL Center was later constructed. When the market had to relocate on that campus, it was located much nearer to residential uses with less adequate parking available. Prior to relocating on campus, the market never had any noise issues and/or complaints. The noise issues only arose when it was located closer to residents. The combination of uses on site, which included football games and swim meets helped to create the neighborhood parking issue. • Assured that they would have no amplified music and don’t envision any noise issues at WVC. The location of the market is well buffered by the 10-foot berm. • Reminded that since the college is in session on Saturday, there is existing traffic. • Added that the main college entrance off Fruitvale is the best parking available from that direction. He added that he did not think that Allendale would be used much as a means to reach the market. • Stated his belief that the market would generate no more than 120 to 150 cars. • Informed that 132 neighbors were surveyed and letters were sent. There were 49 responses of which only two were negative. • Assured that the Farmers’ Market would not become a problem for the WVC area. He does not envision any problems to this area. If problems come up, he wants to hear about it so he can take care of it immediately. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 17 Commissioner Cappello asked about smells such as fish when the ice used to keep it cool during the market is thrown out afterwards. Mr. Doug Haden said that the fish vendor has packaged fish product and takes his used ice off site. It is illegal to dump this ice since it was used to preserve raw food product. Acting Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that this market would be wonderful for this community and offers so many positives. • Stated that there may be some negatives but that the benefits would outweigh any possible negatives. • Stated that he was in favor of the Farmers’ Market at this location. Commissioner Hunter: • Reminded that when someone lives near a school, particularly a taxpayer owned facility, they can expect community type events such as this to occur on campus. • Reported that she lives near a school and loves the sounds of joy that emanates from that nearby school. • Declared that the community is lucky to have a facility such as West Valley College, which is such a beautiful facility that has offered its Parking Lot 3 for this Farmers’ Market. • Stated that it is an incredible and exciting thing to have this Farmers’ Market in Saratoga and that she looks forward to going to it. It will be a real asset and the activities are only occurring at the middle of the day and won’t impact adversely. Said this market is a fun thing for the whole community. Commissioner Kundtz: • Agreed that the asset of this market outweighs any liabilities. • Expressed appreciation for the articulate comments from the neighbors. • Assured that Mr. Doug Hayden will not want to have to move the market again and will do his best to mitigate any impacts. Acting Chair Rodgers: • Reported that she had attended a Statewide Planners’ Conference a couple of weeks ago and had mentioned the plans for relocation of this Farmers’ Market. • Advised that many people expressed astonishment that we were having a problem finding a location for this Farmers’ Market. • Commended West Valley College and the sponsors of the Farmers’ Market. • Pointed out that if problems arise, there will be someone there on site to deal with issues as the occur. • Reminded that if imposed conditions are not met, this market can be reviewed again. • Stated her hope that the Commission and the applicant have met the concerns raised by the neighbors. • Opined that this is the best location that could have been found for this market in this community. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 18 • Stated that reviewing the required findings and the imposed conditions can assure that this project is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #05-099) to allow a weekly Saturday Farmers’ Market at West Valley College at 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: Nagpal Director John Livingstone mentioned that there is a 10-day appeal period on this action. *** Acting Chair Rodgers returned the gavel to Chair Nagpal who returned to the Council Chambers and dais following completion of Agenda Item No. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-274 – MetroPCS (397-30-053) 13650 Saratoga Avenue (Saratoga Library): The applicant requests Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the site of the Heritage Orchard and Saratoga Library along Heritage Lane. The project consists of the installation and operation of one antenna concealed inside a new flagpole. Related equipment cabinets will be installed in the area of the existing trash enclosure. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that MetroPCS is seeking approval for a wireless facility at the Heritage Orchard and Saratoga Library. • Informed that one antenna would be located within a new flagpole that is 48 feet high. The base of the flagpole is 11 inches wide and the top portion is 7-inches wide. • Explained that the existing trash enclosure at the Library would be enlarged to house the supporting equipment cabinets. • Advised that both the Library Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this proposal. • Said that someone from Kerwin Ranch Court had submitted correspondence citing concerns about potential interference from this equipment with equipment they use. • Assured that this antenna is using a different frequency and there would be no interference with the surrounding neighborhood. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked if other places or types of installation were offered. Planner Christy Oosterhous: Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 19 • Advised that staff had explored different locations for the supporting equipment cabinets but that those other options interfered with the architectural lines of the building or with views from the building. • Added that other installations considered created complications with need for trenching and/or drainage issues. • Said that the project applicant could elaborate on these issues. Commissioner Nagpal said that the trend for antennas in flagpoles or fake trees is an interesting phenomenon. She expressed concern about the idea of 50-foot tall flagpoles all over Saratoga. Commissioner Kundtz asked the purpose for an illuminated flagpole. Planner Christy Oosterhous reported that the HPC brought the issue of the United States Flag Codes. If an American flag is left up overnight, that flag must be illuminated. Another option is to take down the flag every evening. Commissioner Hunter asked who would pay to have this flag lighted. Commissioner Rodgers asked who preferred the option of illumination. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that there is no preference per se. The option is to illuminate at night or removed the flag at the end of each day. Chair Nagpal asked for verification that this flagpole would be painted dark brown. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied correct. Chair Nagpal asked if the HPB prefers to have the flag illuminated or is this just required under the Flag Code. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that this illumination is required if the flag is to be left up after dark. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Telly Presley and Jennifer Estes, Representatives, MetroPCS: • Said that they are asking for a Conditional Use Permit that complies with both zoning and land use policies. • Explained that the Library Commission is fully supportive as indicated at a June 2004 meeting. • Advised that they had looked at several sites in this area and this is the best site available. It will be unobtrusive. • Thanked staff, particularly Christy Oosterhous as well as the members of the Library staff. • Said that they were available for any questions and request approval of this application. Chair Nagpal asked what other provision would be made if the flag were not to be illuminated but rather required someone to take the flag down each day. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 20 Ms. Jennifer Estes said that it is up to the Library as to whether the flag is to be raised and lowered each day. Everyone involved is simply working to respect national guidelines regarding flag etiquette. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Reminded the Commission of a scientific study that she had provided previously about mice exposed to cell phone frequencies that had hemorrhages in the brain as a result of the microwaves. • Reported that she won’t be able to go to the Library, just after voting to support the library bond issue. • Pointed out that many people chose not to go to the Theatre building at West Valley because of all the cell antenna installations at that theatre. • Asked that the City not sell out its library with this installation. • Stated that she is outraged that this is even being considered. Chair Hunter advised Ms. Cheriel Jensen that with the Telecommunications Act, the Commission does not have the authority to consider safety issues. Ms. Telly Presley: • Advised that screening landscaping would be provided. • Said that an independent licensed engineer has verified that this installation is 5,800 times below the FCC allowed RF exposure levels. Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commission is permitted to discuss but cannot turn down an installation based on safety issues. She asked if there is room for other carriers on this property. Ms. Telly Presley said that there is room but that other carriers would have to apply with the City for their respective Conditional Use Permits. Commissioner Hunter asked how many carriers are possible on this site. Ms. Jennifer Estes replied that this Planning Commission would control expansion on a case-by-case basis. Assured that they could accommodate co-locations. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that MetroPCS has coverage levels that do not go as far as some of the other carriers. Other carriers have more extensive coverage area per installation and therefore require fewer locations. Chair Nagpal pointed out Condition #10 that requires a Landscaping Maintenance Agreement. Ms. Jennifer Estes added that there would also be a Landscape Bond posted. Chair Nagpal asked if the independent RF study found that exposure levels were within reason. Ms. Jennifer Estes replied yes, it met exposure levels based upon its height. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hunter: Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 21 • Expressed surprise that both the Library Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission accepted this expansion of the trash enclosure that would be extended by 210 square feet. • Pointed out that the landscaping installed does not get that high and that the site would consist of a big, enormous flagpole too now, which sounds most unattractive. • Reminded that this Commission did not get the opportunity to look at the Library plans. • Said that she would support this application due to the support offered by the Library Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission. Chair Nagpal asked Commissioner Hunter if she could recommend landscaping that could better screen this enclosure. Commissioner Hunter said this screening landscaping needs to be taller and more substantial than what is there. Planner Christy Oosterhous suggesting that bushes could be installed right against the enclosure and pointed out that the orchard trees will mature and offer better screening in the future. Commissioner Cappello: • Expressed agreement with Commissioner Hunter’s comments. • Agreed that extending the trash enclosure further is not very sightly and would be even more obvious. • Said that he is surprised that the HPC didn’t comment regarding the extension into the orchard. • Said that it would be nice to have a five-year plan for each carrier. Director John Livingstone said that this issue is just one of about nine Ordinances to be updated. This list would go to Council in June in order for these proposed updates to be prioritized. Chair Nagpal asked about lighting. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said she had questions both about lighting and the equipment enclosure. • Stated that she would prefer to see the flag taken down each night and not include lighting. • Said that this is an alternative in available flag etiquette as opposed to lighting the flag. • Advised that she is not happy with the extension of the “big brown box” that is located in front of the library. • Questioned whether larger orchard tress can be required. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that the trees that must be removed and relocated to accommodate this installation should be replaced with larger trees. Director John Livingstone cautioned that a specific process was undergone to determine specifically what types of trees would be planted in this Heritage Orchard. He suggested an alternative such as installing a lattice with flowering evergreen shrub or vine, such as Jasmine to help camouflage the enclosure from view. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 22 Commissioner Kundtz: • Stated that he supports having an overall strategic plan. • Said that proliferation is what concerns him. • Suggested that it is the Library’s decision as to whether to rise and lower the flag each day versus illuminating the flag and leaving it flying at all times. • Add that he has no preference. • Opined that having the American flag flying makes a positive statement that he could ascribe to. Chair Nagpal: • Thanked Ms. Jensen for attending this hearing. • Said that this is a difficult decision to make but that the FCC has jurisdiction on RF emissions standards. • Expressed support for including taller landscaping to screen the enclosure. • Agreed that the flag equals a nice visual. Commissioner Hunter said that the Library Commission would have a problem with including a lattice feature as that would not be in keeping with their building’s architecture. Chair Nagpal suggested leaving that issue to staff. Commissioner Hunter said that since both the Heritage Preservation Commission and Library Commission support this request, she too would support it. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (Application #04-274) to allow the placement of a wireless facility consisting of one antenna concealed within a flagpole and a related equipment cabinet to be located within the existing trash enclosure that is to be enlarged at the Heritage Orchard/Saratoga Library located at 13650 Saratoga Avenue with the following amendments to the conditions: That Conditions 11 and 13 be amended to offer an alternative to lighting fixtures for the flag as long as flag etiquette is honored; That Conditions 14 to 16 be amended to require further screening to hide the equipment/trash enclosure with landscaping; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Ms. Joan Pizani, Director of Recreation: • Joined the audience as the vote was being finalized. • Clarified the issue of the flag and its illumination. • Reported that the Library Commission wanted a flagpole but had no manpower available to raise and lower it each day and made that fact clear. • Said that the illumination allows the flag to remain out. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 23 • Added that MetroPCS would be replacing this flag when it gets worn, approximately every six months or so. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #05-118 – BHATIA (503-16-026), 13228 Pierce Road: Request for Modification of Approved Plans. The applicant is requesting to increase the height of the structure from the approved height of 24 feet, 6 inches, to 25 feet, 6 inches. The project is under construction and a redesign of the roofline is requested due to the excess height. In addition, minor changes such as revised widow locations and a gable roof on the rear elevation are requested. There are no changes proposed to the square footage, which increased from a 2,814 square foot single-story to a two-story 4,553 square foot home. The gross lot area is 21,052 square feet and the parcel is zoned R-1-40,000. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for the Modification of Approved Plans. • Described the subject property as being zoned R-1-40,000 and consisting of 21,052 square feet. • Explained that the project was approved at a maximum height of 24 feet, 6 inches. The applicant seeks to extend the maximum height by one foot to 25 feet, 6 inches. • Reported that this home is currently under construction and Building staff issued a Stop Work order when it was determined that the home’s roof was not being constructed according to plan. • Added that the applicant must secure this Modification in order to remove the Stop Work order. • Said that staff is recommending approval of this Modification to allow the maximum height of 25 feet, 6 inches. • Said that neighbor input includes one neighbor that prefers the current height and wants to see no increase in the maximum height. • Reported that staff prefers to see a peak roof and recommends that this project incorporate a peak roof versus the flatter roof that has been built. This is due to aesthetics and better function of the peak roof. • Said she was available for any questions. Commissioner Hunter asked what are the small additional changes that are also being sought. Planner Ann Welsh said that they want to add a window to a side elevation, change the roofline in the back on the first floor and change the color very slightly. Commissioner Hunter asked if all of these changes have been done already. Planner Ann Welsh replied no, the window has not yet been added. Commissioner Cappello asked staff to elaborate on why they prefer the peak roof to what has been installed. Planner Ann Welsh replied that it is standard preferred building practice not to have a flat room because they tend to leak more. Using a flat roof is not a recommended building practice. Additionally, a peak roof is more aesthetic. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 24 Chair Nagpal pointed out that a 25 foot, 6 inch high roof is still six inches less than the maximum allowed height and the intention for this change is to result in an improved project. Planner Ann Welsh said that it would address both an aesthetic and construction concern. Reported that there are also neighbor concerns to be considered. One neighbor likes it as it is now and does not want to see the height increased. Commissioner Kundtz asked why a Stop Work order was issues when the overall height is less than the maximum allowed. Planner Ann Welsh said that it was not being constructer per approved plans. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out the increase in ceiling height to nine feet for the first floor that had received Administrative approval. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Thomas Lu, Project Architect: • Stated that they are here to get the roof issue resolved. • Said that the decision is based upon good design. • Reminded that the project was originally approved at the Administrative level. Later the obtained approval to raise the first floor ceiling from eight feet to nine feet high. • Said that the planned roof pitch was 5 and 12. The contractor modified the roof height before staff official approval was received. • Said that he designed this house with a tile roof. With a flat roof, the tile roof won’t look good or be as structurally sound. • Stated that it would be an unfortunate design feature if this flat room must stay. Commissioner Rodgers restated that after the original design approval, the applicant came back for an adjustment to allow nine-foot ceilings on the first floor. She asked if the applicant had not at that time assured staff that the home would still be finished according to the approved plans, including maximum height. Mr. Thomas Lu said that the contractor ended up switching from a 5 and 12 roof to a 4 and 10 roof pitch to compensate for the change in the first floor ceiling height. Commissioner Rodgers stated that she has a problem seeing a project approved and later come back seeking changes. This owner came back and later put in something that was not allowed. She asked Mr. Thomas Lu if there was no way to anticipate that an additional overall height of one foot would be required to accommodate the additional interior ceiling height and still maintain the 5 and 12 roof pitch approved? Mr. Thomas Lu said that the contractor adjusted the pitch to accommodate the added ceiling height. Commissioner Rodgers stated that she feels a sense of obligation to the neighbors to hold this project to the approved maximum height. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 25 Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Thomas Lu when he realized that the maximum height would be exceeded. He said that it appears both the owner and architect were aware of that fact. Mr. Tomas Lu said that it was not their intention to build a flat roof. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that without the City having issued a Stop Work order, this project would have been finished with a flat roof. What was being built was satisfactory to them until it was discovered to be incorrect according to approved plan. He asked if changing the roof pitch was the only option at that time. Mr. Thomas Lu replied yes, since the height approved was 24 feet, 6 inches. Ms. Karen Bhatia, Property Owner and Applicant, 13228 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Said that they had no option but to reluctantly switch to a flatter roof design. • Declared that they want a roof that is structurally sound. To incorporate a peak roof, they only need to increase the maximum height by one foot. They are still not asking for the maximum of 26 feet. • Stated that they would appreciate the Commission considering the long-term effects of a flat roof on their new home. Mr. Hans Stellrecht, 13200 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is located to the east of this property. • Reminded that height had always been a sensitive issue and had been worked out. • Said that this is a nice design and that he was less unhappy once he saw the roofline as it is now. He would like to see it left as it is. The flat portion is less visible from Pierce Road. • Said that he can understand what they tried to do by increasing the interior ceiling height but he would not like to see the overall building height increased. • Reminded that mitigation landscaping was required with the approval and that this required landscaping is not shown on the plan currently and should be there. • Reiterated that he likes the roof as it current is constructed because it is not a big deal from Pierce Road. He added that the record should reflect the mitigation of trees. Chair Nagpal asked Mr. Hans Stellrecht if the roof were to be peaked would it change his view any or have impacts on him. Mr. Hans Stellrecht replied yes. Planner Ann Welsh read into the record a letter left by Ms. Tina Liddy, 20275 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga, who is speaking out on behalf of her mother, Aleta Westphal, who lives at 13216 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Stated that the proposed height of 24 feet, 6 inches had not sounded so tall until it was seen constructed. This is a huge house on a small lot. • Expressed concerns about the condition of the driveway since construction began. This property has a right-of-way easement on Ms. Westphal’s driveway that was granted when the properties were built. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 26 • Said that construction trucks are destroying this driveway and often block access to and from the driveway that is shared by both homes. • Questioned who would pay for repairs to construction damage. Planner Ann Welsh: • Clarified that there is a 20-foot right-of-way on Ms. Westfal’s property. • Said that when a project is reviewed, staff requires a title report to show that the applicant has the right to use a shared driveway. • Said that the impacts of construction on this driveway could be addressed through Conditions of Approval. Mr. Thomas Lu reminded that they are only asking for one additional foot in height. This added height would not be visible from Mr. Hans Stellrecht’s home and would create no significant impact. Chair Nagpal asked Mr. Thomas Lu if they are willing to return the driveway to its pre-construction state. Ms. Karen Bhatia said that the driveway they are using is one for which they have a right-of-way easement. It is always in the same condition, which is not very good. They have created no additional damage to the driveway. Chair Nagpal asked Ms. Karen Bhatia if there is a shared maintenance agreement. Ms. Karen Bhatia replied no. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Hunter said that she thought applicants were required to repair any damage to streets after completion of construction. Planner Ann Welsh said that this is a private right-of-way. If repairs are added as a Condition of Approval, it is typical to establish a pre-construction condition of a road. The same person who established that condition is the same person who would later evaluate the post construction condition of the same road. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it is too late to add this requirement to the Conditions of Approval. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. It would just have to be added to the draft Resolution. Director John Livingstone added that when an approved project comes back for approval of Modifications the Commission could look at other items. However, there is a line between City enforcement and involvement in a Civil matter between neighbors. Commissioner Hunter asked about the issue Mr. Hans Stellrecht raised about required screening trees. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the landscape page identifies that additional required items are included in the Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 27 Chair Nagpal reminded that it had been conditioned that after framing the applicant was to have a discussion with the neighbor regarding landscaping. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff to verify that during the administrative review where the increase in ceiling height on the first floor was raised from eight feet to nine feet, did staff receive assurance that there would be no impact on the maximum height of the home. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. She had been told that they would be able to reconfigure the internal structure without impacting the maximum height. Commissioner Rodgers said that this fact bothers her. The height of this home was an issue and this is a sensitive site. Chair Nagpal questioned whether a one-foot increase in overall height is going to impede anyone’s views. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she does not like being put into this sort of position after the applicant made representations in order to get their approval for interior changes. They have built anticipating that an additional foot would be approved. • Stressed the importance of installing the approved screening landscaping as soon as the roof is framed. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated his agreement. He too does not like being in this position. • Said that the impact on the neighbor is hard to assess but it is possible that some additional view will be blocked for the neighbor. • Advised that he is inclined not to approve. • Agreed that the flatter roof is not functionally as ideal but it is still functional and acceptable at this point. The impact on the neighbor requires more consideration. Chair Nagpal said it is easy to get to the point during construction where changes are required but it is a difficult decision to allow this change. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he too agrees with Commissioners Rodgers and Cappello. • Reminded that the approved changes to interior ceiling heights were based upon no overall extension of the final approved building height. • Said that he feels the Commission is being leveraged into doing something it is not comfortable with. Chair Nagpal asked if this project were to have come before this Commission at a height of 25 feet, 6 inches originally, would it have been approved. Commissioner Hunter replied no. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 28 Commissioner Rodgers replied no. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission approved a Modification of Approval Plans (Application #05-118) without allowing an extension of height to 25 feet, 6 inches, without staff’s recommendation to peak the roof and requiring the landscaping conditions to take place immediately upon continuation of construction of this project, on property located at 13228 Pierce Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz and Rodgers NOES: Nagpal ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #04-216 – BARNES (397-05-055), 14377 Old Wood Road: Request for Modification of Approved Plans. The applicant is requesting to keep, as a second dwelling unit, a 1,450 square foot portion of the 2,476 square foot home that was required to be demolished as a condition of design review approval of the 6,037 square foot new home constructed on the lot. The lot is zoned R-1-40,000 and the lost size is 49,701 square feet. The proposed second dwelling unit houses a three-car garage and 650 square feet of living space. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for a Modification of Approved Plans for property located at 14377 Old Wood Road. • Described the zoning as R-1-40,000. • Reported that the applicant received Planning Commission approval in November 2001. The applicant received conditional final occupancy two years later. • Said that there are two issues here. One is the request to keep a portion of the original house that is slated to be demolished. The other is for the Planning Commission to determine the amount of floor area to be allowed under a density bonus for a second dwelling unit. • Reminded that the Zoning Ordinance has been revised to allow second dwelling units as a permitted use. There is a 10 percent density bonus for the second dwelling unit if it is deed restricted as an affordable unit in the event that it is ever to be rented out. • Said that this property is maxed out in square footage at 6,200 square feet. The proposed density bonus is 640 square feet. The applicant would have to reduce the size of the original house to meet the second unit requirement. • Stated that staff is recommending that the applicant comply with the maximum 10 percent density bonus. • Said that staff is recommending that the Modification be approved with the requirement that the garage be redesigned as a carport. Commissioner Rodgers clarified that the Ordinance requirements for second dwelling units is based upon State Law. She reminded that the City’s Housing Element addresses this as well. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 29 Planner Ann Welsh said that State Assembly Bill 1866 went into effect in January 2003. It mandated that an Administrative process be used for review and approval of second dwelling units. It prohibited standards except for issues such as heights, lot coverage, floor area and setbacks that could be imposed. Prior to adoption of this State Law, second units required a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hunter asked if the 10 percent density bonus is not required under the law. Planner Ann Welsh replied that some bonus provisions are required. Chair Nagpal sought clarification that with a one time 10 percent increase in density, the applicant must meet all other requirements. Planner Ann Welsh said that the 10 percent coverage and FAR as well as all other requirements are maintained. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Andrew Barnes, 14377 Old Wood Road, Saratoga: • Reported that State Law on second units changed during his project’s construction. • Said that staff had refused his application for a second dwelling unit twice. • Reminded that Code allows up to a 1,200 square foot second dwelling unit. • Advised that they would cut this building down in size to 650 square feet. They are asking for an additional 10 square feet from the allowed 640. • Adding that he wants an enclosed garage rather than a carport and is asking for approval of an enclosed garage for his collection of cars. Chair Nagpal thanked Mr. Andrew Barnes for waiting until 11:30 p.m. to hear his request. Commissioner Hunter reminded that this original house was not a second unit. Mr. Andrew Barnes said that it makes sense to keep it and use it as a guesthouse or when his kids return. Commissioner Rodgers said that the State Law encourages cities to add more second dwelling units. She asked Mr. Andrew Barnes if he were okay with a carport. Mr. Andrew Barnes said that he prefers a garage but is willing to consider a carport but wants guidance on what that means. Commissioner Rodgers asked if calculating the 400 to 1,200 square foot second dwelling unit is not including the garage. She asked Mr. Andrew Barnes if he were willing to put in a glass ceiling in the foyer so that space would not require being double counted due to excessive height. Chair Nagpal said that this request is to grandfather an original dwelling into a second unit. The intent of the grandfather clause is for original second units and not original living units. Suggested that the foyer issue raised by Commissioner Rodgers regarding the need to double count that space is a viable one. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 30 Mr. Terry Martin, Project Architect, 45 E. Main Street, Unit B, Los Gatos: • Said that he has had multiple projects in Saratoga and this is his first time before the Planning Commission. • Said that all they are asking for is clear, clean and concise directions. • Reported that they have been arguing this issue with staff for the last five to seven months. • Said he is available for any questions. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Hunter joked that anyone who sat through five hours of public hearings before their own hearing takes place deserves an extra 10 square feet. Said that staff can explain the requirements for a carport. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the architecture of the house should be used to create the carport. The three-car garage should not be excluded from the overall building area counted. Therefore a carport is a good solution. • Said she was fine with the additional 10 square feet based upon the aesthetics of the house. Commissioner Cappello said he has no issue with the additional 10 square feet and it appears that there are no neighbor issues. Chair Nagpal said that the maximum square footage is 6,200 plus 620 square feet. Would this project as proposed go over that total? Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. She added that this total couldn’t arbitrarily be exceeded without a Variance. A Variance has not been advertised. Chair Nagpal said that as long as the overall total square footage does not exceed 6,820 square feet there is no site coverage issue. Planner Ann Welsh said that the applicant could reconfigure the house to eliminate 10 square feet internally, perhaps by removing an internal wall. Commissioner Kundtz said that he agrees the project must meet coverage limits without need for a Variance. Chair Nagpal re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. Andrew Barnes said that this requirement is anal. In reality additional units from 400 to 1,200 square feet are allowed. Chair Nagpal explained that the issue is overall site coverage. She added that the glass ceiling proposed by Commissioner Rodgers is a real option so that the foyer space would not have to be double counted. Chair Nagpal re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 31 Commissioner Cappello said he feels for the applicant for having to remove 10 square feet and have a carport instead of the garage he prefers. Chair Nagpal reminded that staff has offered recommendations. She asked staff if there are ways to allow 10 additional square feet. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. The noticing was not for a Variance. A Variance would require additional fees and noticing. There is a way to reconfigure the floor area internally and would not be that onerous to do so. Commissioner Cappello asked if this request should be denied tonight and Mr. Andrew Barnes could file for a Variance. Planner Ann Welsh said that the Commission could condition a revised plan. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission approved a Modification of Plans (Application #04-216) approving staff’s recommendations and including a change in the original Condition of Approval that required the demolition of the original house, allowing the retention of a portion of the original home on property located at 14377 Old Wood Road as a second dwelling unit with three car carport as long as overall site coverage is accurate at 6,820 square feet or less, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Design Review Board: Director John Livingstone advised that at the last Council meeting, Council forwarded the Design Review Board issue to the Planning Commission for review. Chair Nagpal suggested that a Study Session would be the best format to discuss this issue. Director John Livingstone advised that there is no Study Session set on May 25th and one could be set for 5 p.m. that evening. Cell Site: Director John Livingstone advised that the cell site has been called up to Council. Alternatives to Improve Village Parking: Planning Commission Minutes for April 27, 2005 Page 32 Director John Livingstone advised that this issue would also come back to the Planning Commission. Pending Study Sessions and Commissioner Training: Director John Livingstone reminded that the Study Session with the City Attorney would be held on May 11th at 5 p.m. Planning Commission training will also occur on May 19th in Mountain View. Another Study Session has been set for June 8th with the City Arborist. It was discussed and decided that this session would be cancelled and rescheduled for later in the summer. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Rodgers advised that she attended the League of California Cities Conference and would report in more detail at a later date. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk