Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-25-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Nagpal called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Schallop Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of May 11, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of May 11, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 2 and 3. (6-0-1; Commissioner Schallop was absent) 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 May 19, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Nagpal 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. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #05-134 (397-17-014) ANDERSON, 19571 Farwell Ave.; - The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to construct a new detached 594 square foot hobby shop and convert an existing 637 square foot detached guest house into a secondary dwelling unit by adding a kitchen. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 15 feet. Design review is required because the total floor area of all structures on the site exceeds 6,000 square feet. Total floor area on the site including the main residence and garage would be 6,683 square feet. The property is zoned R-1 40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a 594 square foot hobby shop and convert an existing guesthouse into a secondary dwelling unit by adding a kitchen. • Stated that the maximum height is 15 feet and would match the existing residence, which is a fairly new residence. • Explained that the parking requirements are exceeded with four garage spaces and open parking available. • Said that no trees would be removed and that Design Review findings can be made. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter questioned allowing the 10 percent additional square footage, which is received as a result of deed restricting the new secondary dwelling unit as an affordable unit if it were ever to be rented, to be added to the hobby shop instead of the second dwelling unit. Director John Livingstone explained that the intent for allowing the bonus square footage is to promote affordable housing in the City of Saratoga. The extra square footage can be added to the main residence or as in this case to the new hobby shop and is not limited to being added to the secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Hunter questioned the requirement for a parking slot for a secondary dwelling unit and asked staff if this is a new requirement. Director John Livingstone replied that this is not a new requirement. A parking stall to serve a secondary dwelling unit has always been a requirement. Chair Nagpal asked if this unit would be deed restricted as an affordable unit. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Chair Nagpal asked if the Commission is considering this application because the total square footage on site exceeds 6,000 square feet. She pointed out that it appears this project already exceeded the 6,000 square foot maximum even before the addition of this new hobby shop. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 3 Director John Livingstone advised that the Planning Commission did review this project site when the main house was proposed. Chair Nagpal asked staff if the project was last before the Commission because the maximum square footage would exceed 6,000 square feet. She suggested this question might best be answered by the applicant. Director John Livingstone said that asking the applicant would be appropriate. Commissioner Rodgers clarified that the issue is the maximum square footage and not the total number of structures on the property. Director John Livingstone advised that this is correct. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Dixon Anderson, Property Owner and Applicant, 19571 Farwell Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he was not clear if the original application included exceeding a 6,000 square feet since his wife brought the new house before the Commission. • Stated his belief that the total square footage was just slightly under 6,000 absent this new hobby shop and no exemption for additional square footage was granted. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Dixon Anderson that he has a very fine looking house and that she is very proud of it whenever she passes it by. She explained that she was a member of the Planning Commission when the house was originally approved. Chair Nagpal said that it appears that this project already exceeded 6,000 square feet prior to adding this hobby shop. Mr. Dixon Anderson said that it was just less than 6,000 square feet before this proposed hobby shop. Commissioner Hunter asked for clarification that no exemptions were received for extra square footage. Mr. Dixon Anderson replied not that he is aware of. Commissioner Kundtz questioned the reasoning for bringing this project before the Commission. Director John Livingstone explained that any residential project that exceeds 6,000 square feet must come before the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the decision of the Commission could be appealed. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Nagpal asked that the record show the arrival of Commissioner Uhl at 7:17 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Hunter said that she has no problem with this request as this is a large lot, has no view impacts, the neighbors have no objection and there is plenty of room at the back of this property to accommodate this hobby shop. She added that this is a lovely house that was built about 18 months ago. Commissioner Cappello expressed his agreement. He said he has no issue although he does generally have a concern with the idea of too many structures on a property. However, this is a large property here and it does not leave the impression that there will be too much happening on this property. Commissioner Kundtz said he has no issues with this request. Commissioner Rodgers said that she has no issues except for the number of structures on a property, in this case four. She stressed the importance to ensure that the buildings blend together on this parcel. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #05-134) to allow the construction of a new hobby shop and convert an existing detached guesthouse into a secondary dwelling on property located at 19571 Farwell Avenue by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #05-024 (397-19-005), LEONARDI, 15360 Bestview Court: - The applicant is requesting Design Review Approval to construct a new single-family residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The project includes the demolition of an existing residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence is approximately 18 feet. Design review is required because the total floor area of all structures on the site exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. The total floor area including the main residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit would be 7,015 square feet. The lot size is approximately 59,000 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (DEBORAH UNGO-MCCORMICK) Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow a new single-story single- family residence and secondary dwelling unit. • Explained that a 10 percent allowance is sought in this case to result in a total of 7,015 square feet. • Described the main residence as consisting of 6,315 square feet and the secondary dwelling unit as consisting of 700 square feet. • Said that the zoning is R-1-40,000 and this lot consists of 59,000 square feet. • Said that there is an attached two-car carport proposed and a four-car garage. • Stated that this is a low profile home and a color board has been provided. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 5 • Added that the secondary dwelling unit would match the main residence and be connected by a covered breezeway. • Said that the existing pool site would be relocated and two pergolas added to either side of the new pool. • Informed that this is an irregular diamond shaped lot located at the end of a road. • Said that the total coverage would be 34.9 percent where the maximum allowed is 35 percent. • Advised that the setbacks and heights meet Code requirements. The total square footage would exceed 6,000 square feet. An affordable housing deed restriction would be recorded for the secondary dwelling unit. • Said that sufficient parking is provided on site with the garage and carport. • Said that neighborhood correspondence has been received expressing concerns over potential runoff from this site. An additional letter was received from the Kisers this morning and has been provided as a table item. Another concern raised was the potential for damage to the private road during construction. • Explained that the City does not have a requirement to repave privately owned roads during the construction process. She added that she has advised the applicant and the neighbor that they need to come to some sort of private agreement regarding this private road. • Said that there are 41 trees on site. Tree #20, a Coastal Redwood, is 80 feet tall with a 40-inch diameter trunk. According to the Arborist’s report, this tree has structural defects. A neighbor had reported that the top of this tree fell on to the house when owned by a previous owner. • Added that the City’s Arborist has identified impacted trees and those suitable for removal. Seventeen trees are to be removed, mostly walnuts and almonds, and the Arborist recommended removal of these 17 trees. • Pointed out that the landscape plan does not include replacement trees and she has placed a condition of approval requiring that replacement trees be incorporated into the final landscape plan and obtain approval by the Community Development Director. • Informed that the replacement value for the 17 trees totals $27,380. If Tree #4, a Redwood located on the north side of the driveway, were to be retained, that valuation amount would be reduced by $9,900. Another tree, a 48-inch diameter Redwood, has a value of $11,500. • Explained that the Arborist’s replacement recommendation for that particular tree consists of either two 48-inch box Redwood trees or one 60-inch box Redwood tree. • Said that the recommended replacement for the Walnut trees would either include one 36-inch box tree or two 24-inch box trees for each Walnut tree removed. • Assured that staff would work with the applicant on an appropriate tree replacement plan. • Said that geotechnical clearance has been included in the Resolution, the parking provided is sufficient and the necessary findings for approval can be made. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked about adding a condition to require the applicant and neighbor to agree on a repair plan for any roadway damage as a result of construction. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said she would defer this question to Director John Livingstone. Director John Livingstone advised that he had consulted with the City Attorney on this issue and was informed that this is a private issue that is outside of the purview of Design Review since this is a private street. The matter of the road maintenance must be dealt with between the involved neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Rodgers asked staff to confirm that nothing can or should be done on that issue. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Hunter said that she has a problem with that position since three years ago another project on Norton Road, also a private road, conditioned the requirement for repairs to the roadway following completion of construction. Director John Livingstone cautioned that this is an enforcement issue, which would require the City to get involved in a private property dispute. Commissioner Hunter urged staff to look at the previous application for the project on Norton Road. Commissioner Kundtz suggested that this issue be raised with the applicant. Commissioner Rodgers said that she just wants it to be clear whether or not this type of condition can be put into the resolution for road repairs on a private road. Commissioner Hunter questioned the recent trend to include carports on residential projects. She pointed out that there is already a four-car garage included and now a two-car carport is also proposed. She pointed out that there is a great deal of coverage on this property. Commissioner Rodgers said that per page 46 of the staff report, there are a total of nine spaces on site. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that several of these are open spaces. The covered spaces are the four garage and two carport spaces. Commissioner Kundtz said that staff report counts out the proposed parking spaces correctly. Director John Livingstone: • Said that carports are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. With some previous applications, the applicants were asked to remove the proposed carport while other carports have received approval. • Stated that staff is interested in receiving Planning Commission feedback on the issue of carports. • Said that it appears that there is a site coverage issue versus carport and floor area of structures. Chair Nagpal pointed out that maximum coverage is 35 percent and asked staff to provide the total lot coverage proposed for this site. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it is just below 34.9 percent. She added that the carport is counted as lot coverage but not as square footage. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that nine cars would appear almost like a parking lot there and that there would be six roofed parking spaces here. • Recounted that about 20 years ago a 48-inch diameter Redwood was destroyed and was valued at $60,000. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 7 • Questioned what message is being sent out to the community by allowing the removal of a 45-inch diameter tree here. Director John Livingstone reminded that the City’s Arborist as well as all other professional licensed arborists use specific standards to place a value on a tree. Commissioner Uhl stated that he has a serious problem with this Arborist’s report and asked if the City’s Arborist is here this evening. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no, the Arborist had another meeting scheduled and had only been asked to attend this evening’s meeting at the last minute. Chair Nagpal restated that 18 trees are impacted and Trees #4 and #20 are large Redwoods. According to Arborist Babby’s report, Tree #20 poses a safety issue. She asked whether this tree would have to come down at this time even if no development were proposed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. Regardless of what is proposed, Mr. Babby feels that damage to this tree is significant and poses some risk. Chair Nagpal asked whether the applicant had expressed willingness to work around that tree if necessary. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes they were until they saw the Arborist’s report. Chair Nagpal pointed out that Arborist Babby says that it might be possible to retain Tree #4. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied correct. Chair Nagpal asked for the reasoning behind the Arborist’s recommendation to remove the one large Walnut that has a tremendous canopy. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that there are defects or wounds on that tree that make it dangerous to retain. Commissioner Hunter said that there are other trees on this property that look more unhealthy than this and questioned whether having the Arborist view the trees on this property in February while they are bare gave a clear indication of the health of the trees. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick informed the Commission that Mr. Babby visited the site four times including the last time in April. Chair Nagpal sought clarification that the replacement recommendation is Olive trees at a ratio of one 36-inch box or two 24-inch box trees for every tree removed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the correct valuation is the target. However, the Commission asked for a more definitive number of replacement trees and the Arborist’s Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 8 recommendation was for one 36-inch box or two 24-inch box trees for every tree removed. For Tree #20, the replacement must be two 48-inch box trees or one 60-inch box tree. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that a lot of tree inventory work has been done on this site. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick explained that staff at this time is trying to control Arborist costs for this applicant as it is very expensive process. Staff asked the Arborist to give his latest recommendations. The Arborist went out and measured the trees on site himself. Commissioner Rodgers asked to what degree damage is assessed and how potential risks from a tree are calculated. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she is not sure she can answer that question. An Arborist looks at a tree and factors risks based on judgment and experience. Commissioner Rodgers questioned whether there is a percentage of risk of danger provided. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the foliage is lush and beautiful. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reminded that a neighbor has recounted limbs falling onto the residence. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether pruning could alleviate risk. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it would have to be topped significantly per the Arborist to reduce risk. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the applicant is the one who pays to have the City’s Arborist visit. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied correct. Director John Livingstone clarified that the Arborist charges the City. The City in turn charges the applicant plus a surcharge. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that it is unusual to remove 18 Ordinance trees from one property. Commissioner Uhl said that there is no credible logic in this Arborist’s report. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick again said that trees are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Uhl said the site couldn’t accommodate the number of trees required for replacement. Commissioner Hunter advised that if space is not available on site, trees could be planted elsewhere in the City. Director John Livingstone agreed saying that there is a Tree Fund. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Cappello asked if the relocation of the pool and bocce ball court was based on preservation of trees and the comparable health of trees remaining or removed for each placement option. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the health and condition of trees was evaluated with the intent of preserving as many trees as possible on site. While a pool was in the initial application the bocce ball court was added later. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he is concerned because it seems like the previous location of the pool and bocce ball court resulted in the removal of less desirable trees than are now recommended for removal. • Asked for the reasoning behind that. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the original location for the pool was more toward the southwest end of the property. It impacted trees of greater value and health than those trees now affected. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that two neighbors have drainage concerns and questioned whether the removal of 18 trees from this property might not increase the problem of runoff. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that impervious surface is what increases run off. Director John Livingstone said that an engineered project controls runoff more than an orchard does. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the logic of taking down natural shade through the removal of trees only to replace it with artificial shade by building pergolas. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that this is the applicant’s request and not staff’s recommendation. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Derek Van Alstine, Project Architect, 716A Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz: • Said he is available for questions. • Stated that hours have been spent putting this project together. • Informed that a number of issues were raised early on in this process for this difficult site that required mitigation. • Said that this is an odd-shaped parcel with a narrow entry. Circulation and emergency access issues had to be considered. Space for a hammerhead had to be incorporated to allow Fire access. • Said that the Arborist was involved at the beginning of the project so that as few trees as possible would be impacted by construction. • Agreed that it is well deserved that the Commission has concerns about the number of trees proposed for removal. • Advised that some trees are very structurally unsound and that he himself was amazed to learn that. Two arborists, the City’s and a private one, came to the same conclusions. • Said that bifurcated trunks were a problem. Topping or cabling might be an option in some cases by Arborist Babby said it is not possible in this instance. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 10 • Assured that a lot of time has been spent on the issue of that one tree. Unfortunately, it is not a safe tree. • Added that they are willing to try to save the tree near the driveway. The driveway itself can be relocated a bit to preserve that tree as well as Tree #10, which is a Walnut located in the back yard, that can be saved by moving the pergola and bocce ball court a bit. • Stated that Mr. Babby is a highly respected arborist in his field. • Assured that they are willing to do what they are able to meet the Commission’s concerns about trees including placement of new trees. • Stated that there may not be enough room to plant all replacement trees required on site. They have no problem replacing some of them off site. • Asked that Commission to take that option into consideration. • Said that site drainage has been mitigated totally using a bio-swale. No run off would occur off site. This is under all best estimates with 50 and 100-year storms taken into consideration. • Assured that the site would be well presented and disturbed as little as possible. • Said that they have no problem patching the road after construction but this private road is not in great condition currently. • Pointed out that three houses on the cul de sac would be rebuilt within the next couple of years. After all construction is completed, the neighbors will all want to repave the road. • Said that a great deal of work has been done to satisfy all concerns. They have redesigned the house completely two times due to information in Arborist reports. They shifted the pool and relocated the structure. • Said that they have tried hard and are willing to keep working but that they hope to receive approval tonight with conditions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine why a carport is needed. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied that it is to provide covered parking for the secondary dwelling unit. It would result in six covered spaces on the property. He said that the carport was a necessary adjunct for the secondary dwelling unit in the event that it is ever rented out. It requires separate parking from the main house parking. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine if they were proposing pavers or concrete for the driveway. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied both. Chair Nagpal restated the concerns being raised by the Commission as including who has responsibility for private road repairs, retaining Tree #4 by relocating the driveway and retaining Tree #10. She pointed out that a lot of the Walnuts slated for removal are not even on the proposed building pad and asked if they could not look at retaining those. Mr. Derek Van Alstine said that there are a lot of reasons behind removal including the fact that some trees are in the path of construction, the health of others is poor and the adverse impacts on the health and canopy of other trees would occur during construction. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 11 Chair Nagpal pointed out that the allowable site coverage is nearly maxed out. She asked if pervious pavers could be considered for the driveway. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied certainly. No question. Mr. Brian Kiser, 19610 Three Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Said he provided a letter expressing his concern about site drainage. • Said he liked the suggestion for using pervious material on this site. • Expressed concern regarding potential damage to the private road and said he was willing to work with the other property owners on the issue of road repairs. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Brian Kiser if there are buffering trees or hedges. Mr. Brian Kiser replied very little although there is an open wrought iron fence. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine if the rear neighbors from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road has signed off on this project. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied yes. He said he would be available for any questions and thanked the Commission for its consideration. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Uhl: • Said he has big concerns regarding lot coverage and FAR. • Said that preservation of trees is important. • Expressed support for inclusion of pervious surfaces for the driveway. • Said he has a problem including six covered parking spaces on this parcel. • Supported the requirement to have an updated final landscaping plan brought back to the Commission. • Pointed out that the applicant is willing to fix the road and to save Trees #4 and #10. • Said that with lots of conditions, there are things that can be done to make this project work and the applicant seems to have neighborhood support. • Said that the project could be conditioned and moved forward. Commissioner Cappello: • Expressed agreement with Commissioner Uhl. • Said he too wants to see lots of conditions and the retention of Trees #4 and #10. • Said he is generally not in favor of carports but would rather see a covered carport over exposed driveway parking. He is on the fence on this issue. • Said that the applicant has been good at working to minimize impacts on healthy trees and has expressed flexibility regarding tree preservation when possible. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that people love Saratoga because of its trees. • Stated her appreciation for this applicant’s willingness to save the English Walnut. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 12 • Suggested use of a pervious surface for the driveway, as there is lots of coverage on this property. • Said that she hopes that the neighbors will come to an agreement together on the repairs to the private road once all three new homes are completed. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she has a lot of concerns about trees. • Stated that she appreciates the efforts to save trees. • Said that it was shocking to see so many slated for removal, many of which are Ordinance sized trees. • Agreed that people do not come to Saratoga for flat surfaces but rather for its significant trees. When trees are to be removed, it must be for the right reasons. • Expressed support for saving whatever trees can be saved. • Advised that she does not like to see an obvious carport that is visible from the road as it sets bad precedent. • Added that a number of trees (four) are sacrificed for this carport and that is a lot. Trees #17, #19 and #21 are lost and Tree #40 would be relocated. • Suggested that this is a large enough lot to provide parking elsewhere where trees are not impacted. • Supported the proposal to save the tree near the rear drive. • Reiterated that she is upset by the number of trees to be affected on this property, including Tree #10 that is to be removed, Trees #9, #22 and #30 which are impacted and the removal of four trees for placement of the bocce court and pergola. • Stated her support for a condition to require pervious surface for the driveway as it is classier in appearance and drains better. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said he supports a conditional approval this evening with the requirement for the resubmittal of a final landscaping plan that includes the replacement trees, final placement of the pergola and site drainage. • Said that the applicant must do his best to maintain the private road to its current condition until all neighbors can work together to replace it once all construction on the cul de sac is done. Commissioner Rodgers asked Commissioner Kundtz if his recommendation is to bring this final landscaping plan back to the Commission. Commissioner Uhl asked staff for its input on this. Director John Livingstone: • Said that the City has opted to have a City Arborist on staff providing expertise and recommendations. • Stated that this is believed to be the most objective view on trees to have a licensed professional arborist who is working on behalf of the City. • Cautioned the Commission against requiring an applicant to keep a tree that has been deemed unsafe by the City’s Arborist. • Advised that the Commission can take one of three actions on this project. One, it can direct staff to work with the applicant on outstanding issues. Two, it can approve this project with the Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 13 requirement to have the landscape plan brought back to the Commission. Three, it can continue consideration of the project to a future meeting. Chair Nagpal said that the outstanding issues appear to be the impervious driveway and the carport. Commissioner Hunter said that her vote is no with inclusion of the carport. Commissioner Uhl said he feels the same. Chair Nagpal stated that the problem with this carport is its visible location. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern with the idea of the City allowing six-car garages. She declared that buildings cover this property. Chair Nagpal asked if the elimination of the carport is required to support this project. Commissioner Rodgers said she could support a carport only if it is not in a visible location. She asked if this feature should be redesigned. Chair Nagpal said that staff could be instructed to work with the applicant to either eliminate the carport outright or relocate it elsewhere on the property out of view. Commissioner Hunter suggested a straw poll of the Commission to see if this motion would pass. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he is on the fence regarding the carport. • Said that there is justification to have a carport if the secondary dwelling unit is ever rented out. This carport would provide covered parking for this unit’s occupant and a guest. • Stated that he would rather see cars parked under a carport instead of left out in the open. • Added that relocating the carport would not save trees. Relocating the carport might save these specific trees but would end up jeopardizing others. • Said he is inclined to support this project with a carport. • Advised that carports are not ideal and he won’t approve them in too many cases. • Added that he would rather see carports hidden. Commissioner Hunter: • Said she takes issue with the concept of designating secondary dwelling units as affordable housing units when everyone knows that these units will never be rented out as affordable. It is a sham. • Stated that carports for every such unit cannot be supported. • Added that if there were to be rented out as affordable units that would be great. Commissioner Kundtz: • Stated his agreement with the comments of Commissioner Cappello. • Said that there is a potential need for renter parking with the secondary dwelling unit. • Said he expects to see a best effort to make this carport more aesthetically pleasing or relocate it elsewhere. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Rodgers suggested another alternative is to reduce the square footage of the house itself. She said that she is unable to make the necessary findings to support the carport. Commissioner Kundtz asked Commissioner Rodgers if she prefers to see the cars parked without a structure. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there is a four-car garage on this site. Commissioner Kundtz said that covered parking would be reduced by two spaces with the removal of the carport. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that eliminating the carport outright would save trees. • Questioned having six covered parking spaces on a site requiring the removal of 18 heritage trees from the property. • Reminded that a key Design Review finding is the preservation of natural landscaping. • Said a good compromise could be reached. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there is 9,000 square feet of driveway area in which to relocated the carport. Commissioner Uhl said that it is fair to ask for pervious surface for such a large area and the applicant appears willing to go with pervious material. Chair Nagpal re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 and asked Mr. Derek Van Alstine if his client is willing to remove the carport from this project. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that Trees #17 and #19 would be saved with the elimination of this carport. Mr. Derek Van Alstine: • Said that they are willing to take a look at it. • Reminded that Tree #40 is to be moved elsewhere on the property. • Added that Tree #19 would have to be removed in any case due to the proximity to the house. • Pointed out that Tree #17 (English Walnut) has only a 25 percent ranking for integrity. • Said that the site is better off with a new box tree planted in a good location and well taken care of. • Added that sometimes there is a better canopy and/or forest with the removal of some trees. Commissioner Uhl: • Asked about the desire for less impervious surface. • Said that with the removal of the carport and adjacent parking area the area could be planted instead. • Stated that he cannot support the carport. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 15 Chair Nagpal reiterated the question to Mr. Derek Van Alstine as to whether the applicant can live with the elimination of the proposed carport. Mr. Derek Van Alstine replied that they do not like that solution but if they have to live with it they will. He compared it with “cutting off the leg to save the patient.” He added that they are willing to consider pervious material for the driveway up to the front of the house but would like to use impervious surfaces from the house to the garage. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not think that all of the driveway should be required to be pervious because this material is not conducive to children living on the property doing such common activities as riding skateboards, skating or playing basketball. Said that with the elimination of the carport she would support a concrete driveway. Commissioner Uhl said that his issue is not necessarily the carport itself but more the amount of impervious surfaces and the preservation of natural landscaping. Chair Nagpal thanked Mr. Derek Van Alstine for considering this compromise. Chair Nagpal re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-024) to allow the construction of a new single-family residence and secondary dwelling unit on property located at 15360 Bestview Court with the following added conditions: • Removing the carport and single space next to it; • Preserving Tree #10; • Preserving Tree #4, if possible; • Requiring pervious pavers for half the driveway with concrete allowed around the garage area; • Relocate the pergola and bocce court; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-266 (517-11-006) PRASAD, 20270 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; - The applicant requests Design Review and Use Permit Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence and detached accessory structure. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 4,319 square feet. The detached accessory structure is a total of 1,125 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 25 feet 9 inches. The gross lot size is 32,049 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 20,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 16 Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Condition Use Permit Approvals to allow the construction of a two-story residence and detached accessory structure. • Explained that the existing single-family residence and detached accessory structure on site would be demolished. The total square footage for the proposed residence is 4,319 square feet. The proposed detached accessory structure is 1,125 square feet. • Described the architecture as Craftsman style with sage stucco and black composition shingle roof. • Said that a Use Permit is required for the accessory structure that consists of a two-car garage and guesthouse that is not a secondary living unit. • Explained that no cooking facilities are allowed in this guesthouse. • Added that the adjacent neighbor was concerned that this unit not become a secondary living unit. • Advised that seven trees are proposed for removal. Some are in poor to moderate condition. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked about the number of trees as well as the fact that several arborist reports were done for this site. Planner Christy Oosterhous explained that there are a handful of arborist reports. At one time 18 trees were proposed for removal and now there are seven. Chair Nagpal asked about the suggestion that the proposed back door at the rear of the guesthouse be replaced with windows. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that she would defer this to the applicant. Commissioner Rodgers asked about access rights to the alley. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that no record of an easement or right of access to use this alley could be found. Commissioner Hunter mentioned that a neighbor, Mrs. Simpson, had concerns about alley access and asked if staff had spoken with Mrs. Simpson. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Nagpal asked if four trees would be replanted. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes, four 24-inch box trees would be planted. Commissioner Hunter asked if these trees would be evergreen. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Adam Rockwood, Project Architect, Rockwood Design, 14554 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 17 • Said that the initial submittal for this project was made in August 2004. • Stated that this is a 32,049 square foot lot with many trees on site. Most of these trees are retained and provide privacy to adjacent neighbors. Of the 33 trees on site, eight are to be removed. One of the eight trees is dead. Of the trees slated for removal, five are Coastal Redwood. Of those five three are in good condition and two are in poor condition. These trees are to be replaced. • Said that the original plan for a secondary dwelling unit was revised so the accessory structure would be a cabana and garage. • Said that the existing accessory unit is located on the property line. • Requested that they be allowed to use the alley for material delivery during construction. Protective fencing required to preserve trees on site would make access to the back difficult. • Said that they are willing to replace the proposed door at the back of the accessory structure with windows if required to do so by the Commission but they want those windows to be operable ones not fixed. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is a history of having truck deliveries access the alley for other construction projects. Mr. Adam Rockwood: • Reported that per a 1980s map, it appears the alley had a street name. • Reminded that the garage now has access to the alley and that garbage is picked up from there. • Said that alley access is a legality issue over easement rights and they can’t prove right now that they have such legal easement rights to the alley. Commissioner Hunter again asked if there has been a precedent in having other homes use the alley for truck access during remodeling projects. Mr. Adam Rockwood reported that his clients’ desired contractor for this project is DeMattei Construction and they may know that answer since they did other projects in the immediate area. Chair Nagpal said that it appears someone on Aloha owns the alley and wondered who has right of use. Mr. Adam Rockwood said that at some point it appears that ownership was transferred from public street to private. The easement rights are unclear. He added that they do not want to open a can of worms for the other neighbors by asking for easement rights. He reminded that the existing accessory structure is on the property line and the new proposed accessory structure is being set back by 12 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Liquid Amber tree would be retained as it offers screening of the proposed balcony. Mr. Adam Rockwood replied yes, the Liquid Amber would be retained. He added that they have tried to address all of Mrs. Simpson’s concerns. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Adam Rockwood to break down the accessory structure between garage and cabana square footage. Mr. Adam Rockwood said it was about half and half or 576 square feet each. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 18 Commissioner Cappello asked if the entry is the two sets of double doors facing the residence. Mr. Adam Rockwood replied yes, these doors face the pool. Commissioner Cappello clarified that while the applicant is willing to replace the door at the back of the accessory structure with windows, this is not their first choice. Mr. Adam Rockwood replied correct. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a great looking house with a great design. He said that the applicants have used a lot of initiative and have worked hard to show sensitivity to neighbor concerns. Commissioner Uhl agreed and said this project has been very well managed. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed and said this would be an asset to the neighborhood. • Added that this project is quite lovely and very nice. • Expressed appreciation for the work with both front and back neighbors. • Stressed the importance of the Commission staying out of the issue of right-of-ways. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that Mrs. Simpson’s concerns that the accessory structure not be a secondary dwelling unit has been handled. • Said that replacing the doors at the rear of the accessory structure with windows can be supported. • Agreed that the balcony does not result in any privacy impact issues. Commissioner Hunter said that she is fine with this project and can appreciate any project that has Julia Morgan type architecture. Chair Nagpal asked staff for input on the issue of the alley. Director John Livingstone said that Condition #3 could either be left in the Resolution or taken out. Commissioner Rodgers suggested leaving it in as it stays neutral on the issue. Commissioner Uhl expressed support for construction access. Director John Livingstone cautioned that this is a private land issue between neighbors. By removing Condition #3 the City would not be pulled into the issue. Commissioner Kundtz said he agreed with staff’s recommendation to remove Condition #3 from the Resolution. Chair Nagpal extended thanks to the applicant and architect for this project. Planning Commission Minutes for May 25, 2005 Page 19 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review and Use Permit Approval (Application #04-266) to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence and detached accessory structure on property located at 20270 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road, with the following amendments: • Replace the door at the rear of the accessory structure with operable windows; and • Eliminate Condition #3; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone advised that a Historic Preservation Training Workshop would be held in the City of Campbell on June 22, 2005. This program will include a tour of the Ainsley House and lunch. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Nagpal reminded of the joint session with Council in July. She reported that a good training session was held in Mountain View on May 19th. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk