Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 14, 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, Rodgers and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Schallop Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Planning Intern Suzanne Thomas and Planner Therese Schmidt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of August 24, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of August 24, 2005, were adopted with changes to pages 8, 9, 12 and 14. (4-0- 1-2; Commissioner Schallop was absent and Commissioners Rodgers and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Kathleen Casey-Coakley, Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated her belief that the City is failing the downtown area, particularly in view of some of the demolition being allowed. • Said that she cannot believe that Starbucks is being allowed into the downtown and that she is ashamed of that fact, as Starbucks does not belong in the Village. • Opined that while Los Gatos has become a mall, Saratoga should not follow suit. • Said that the redwood siding on the home at 20626 Komina should be preserved, as stucco is inappropriate. Commissioner Hunter agreed that it was a historic home. Director John Livingstone advised that staff is working with the application on that particular project including an evaluation of historic significance. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 2 Chair Nagpal asked staff if this item would come before the Commission or be handled at the Administrative level. Director John Livingstone said he believed it would come before the Commission but until the application is deemed complete he cannot be sure. Chair Nagpal asked if the project would also go before the Heritage Preservation Commission. Director John Livingstone reiterated that the application is currently incomplete thus the handling of it will depend on the information provided. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 8, 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). *** CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-020 (389-05-021) - LOVOI, 19152 De Havilland Drive: - Approval of Resolution 05-035 granting the appeal filed by property owner to remove a Canary Island Pine. Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the attached memo with resolution requires Commission action with a motion and vote. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 05-035 granting an appeal and overturning the Administrative decision denying the removal of a Canary Island Pine tree on property located at 19152 De Havilland Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Uhl, Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Rodgers NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 3 APPLICATION #06-078 – Commercial Historic District (CH-1 and CH-2): - The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 231, establishing a moratorium on new Personal Service Businesses on the first floor in the CH-1 and CH-2 districts. The City is proposing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that will regulate the placement of Personal Service Businesses in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts. The amendment will specify the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for new Personal Service Businesses at the first floor level. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is proposing an Ordinance Amendment that pertains to the establishment of Personal Service Businesses in the downtown Village. • Reminded that Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance in 2002 that established a moratorium on establishment of any new Personal Service Businesses for an initial 45-day period. Council later extended that for one year in 2003 and then extended it again for a second year 2004. That last extension will now expire in October 2005. It cannot be extended another time. The time provided has allowed staff the opportunity to develop permanent amendments to the Zoning Code for CH-1 and CH-2 Districts. • Said that the moratorium prohibited the establishment of Personal Service Businesses at any business location in the Village that takes front access directly from Big Basin Way. • Clarified that the definition of Personal Service Businesses needed to be more clearly defined and expanded to include other types of uses. • Reported that the Town of Los Gatos recently amended its Code and created a comprehensive list of uses. Staff is proposing a similar list. • Said that Personal Service Businesses should include any use that sells any personal service including barbers, beauty shops, piercing and tattoo businesses, psychics, dog grooming, etc. It would not include uses such as travel or insurance agencies, law or other office uses. • Added that it is easier to classify if this category encompasses any business that provides any type of personal service. • Said that while the moratorium outright prohibited the establishment any new Personal Service Businesses from establishing in the Village along Big Basin Way during the period it was in effect, the purpose of this Zoning Amendment for the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts is not to limit competition but rather to avoid any over-concentration in order to ensure a balanced mix of business uses in the Village. Personal Service Businesses are essential but also the purpose of Commercial Zoning Districts is to provide a healthy mixture of retail and office uses for the convenience of the public. • Stated that by requiring such businesses to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, findings must be made to find the proposed use to be consistent with the General Plan. This Zoning Amendment enables the Planning Commission to evaluate each prospective Personal Service Business on a case-by-case basis. • Reminded that the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts are in the Village. Personal Service Establishments will continue to be allowed by right in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CV (Commercial Visitor) Zoning Districts. • Said that an over-concentration of Personal Service Businesses limits or excludes other retail opportunities, which runs counter to the City’s Economic Development Program. This proposal is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 4 • Recommended that the Commission review the proposed text and adopt a resolution recommending Council to take action to amend the Zoning Ordinance for CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts regarding requirements for establishing Personal Service Businesses. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that there are several attorneys serving on this Commission but that they are not to function as attorneys but solely as Commissioners. Commissioner Uhl asked for clarification on the CN and CV Zoning. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that CN is Neighborhood Commercial and CV is Visitor Commercial. Commissioner Uhl asked if those two zones are included in this amendment. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no. The Urgency Ordinance was established only relating to the Village. Commissioner Cappello asked when these amendments, if adopted, would expire. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the Urgency Ordinance would expire on October 14, 2005. One it expires, the Code as it is currently written goes back into effect unless amended. Commissioner Cappello asked for the time period for any approved amendment. Director John Livingstone clarified that an amendment approved by Council would be permanent unless action is later taken to change it. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that this Commission would be forwarding a recommendation to Council. She asked staff if it is believed that the prevalence of service based businesses is believed to have caused a decline in viability of the Village. Director John Livingstone said that the intent of the Ordinance Amendment is to avoid that. Commissioner Cappello clarified that this amendment would not outright prohibit Personal Service Businesses but rather require a Use Permit be processed through the Planning Commission. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. She reminded that the provisions would apply only to those businesses in the Village that are located, or take access from, Big Basin Way. Director John Livingstone: • Reiterated that the Amendment would not prohibit or outlaw any uses but simply turn them into Conditional Uses. • Added that this provision is focused on the Village because it is a unique area with different zoning than the rest of the City. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 5 • Reminded that the Amendment simply requires Personal Service Businesses to undergo similar review requirements as other uses in the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning District that requires Use Permits such as restaurants. • Said that this review process allows the Commission to consider the big picture of the Village. Commissioner Cappello asked if existing uses would be grandfathered and, if so, for how long. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that if this amendment is adopted existing Personal Service Businesses are classified as legal non-conforming. That means that they are legally established pre-existing uses that would not be permitted to be established under current guidelines without a Use Permit. If such a legal non-conforming Personal Service Business were to be sold, that use could continue unless the use is abandoned for more than 90 days. At that time, the legal non-conforming status expires and a Use Permit process would be required to re-establish any new Personal Service Business at that location. Chair Nagpal reiterated that legal non-conforming uses could continue to operate but if that use is discontinued for a prescribed period of time it could not be re-established without a Use Permit being processed. Planner Lata Vasudevan agreed and added that if an existing Personal Service Business were to intensify its uses, that intensification would also require a Use Permit. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the new owner of a grandfathered use would remain grandfathered as legal non-conforming. Director John Livingstone said that if the use were considerably different from what it had been, that would trigger the requirement for a Use Permit. He reminded that a Use Permit runs with the land. It is not unusual for an older business to be non-conforming since they can often pre-date zoning designations. Commissioner Hunter said that she was sorry to read in the staff report the statement that the Village struggles as it is not true in 2005. She added that processing a Use Permit is more expensive that the current requirement for a Personal Service Business owner to simply obtain a business license. Planner Lata Vasudevan reported that a business license costs about $100 while a Use Permit costs $2,500. Commissioner Hunter added that it also takes four to six months to process a Use Permit. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that it depends on the department’s workload and the completeness of any application submitted. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Curves business in the Village would have required a Use Permit if this amended zoning were in effect at the time it established there. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 6 Planner Lata Vasudevan said yes since it does take access from Big Basin Way via a courtyard. Commissioner Hunter asked if coffee businesses would also require a Use Permit. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that restaurants already require Use Permits. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff for clarification that the Commission is not obliged to make the finding that the Village is in decline. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not want to see anything included that states the Village is in decline as it is not true. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that there is no statement in the draft resolution but could be added. Chair Nagpal asked staff how many Personal Service Businesses there are in the Village. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that through an informal walk about, she counted about 60 Personal Service Businesses that ranged from fitness, cleaners, day spas, and hair and nail salons. Commissioner Hunter said that this requirement for a Use Permit makes it tough on new owners. Commissioner Cappello said he agrees it is an obstacle. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said that it is important to preserve the Village, but she feels sorry for any new business owner and therefore has mixed emotions on this matter. Commissioner Cappello said that it seems to be creating obstacles for those seeking to open new businesses in the Village but he can also understand that there is less space for other types of retail businesses in the Village if there are too many Personal Service Businesses. He said that he would support the Ordinance Amendment. Commissioner Uhl said he too would support the Amendment. He reminded that this Amendment does not preclude these uses but requires a Use Permit to be processed. He suggested that the process be the less burdensome process possible. Stressed the importance of the Village. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that some sort of control feature has to happen. He said he would support this Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Rodgers: • Questioned the expectations for the Village. Is it retail or convenience to those in the area? If it is retail, then the Commission should support the Amendment. If it is convenience, then the Commission should not support the Amendment. • Said that she questions the relationship between the number of Personal Service Businesses and the perceived decline of the Village. • Added that if that were the case, she would expect to have seen an increase in retail establishments during the time that the Moratorium has been in effect. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that every other use goes through the Use Permit process and that this Ordinance Amendment simply closes that loophole. This way all proposed land uses are considered for the Downtown. Commissioner Rodgers asked what conditions would need to be in place in order to allow and/or deny a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Uhl said that same ones as were used for Starbucks. Commissioner Rodgers asked what would be a basis for denial. Commissioner Uhl said safety or consistency with the City’s General Plan. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that the General Plan does encourage retail uses. Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out that findings could be made that a proposed use for a proposed location is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. A good mix of uses provides choices for people coming into the downtown. Another finding could be made that a proposed location is a safe one for that proposed use and the use would not be injurious to the vicinity. Another finding could be that a proposed use is in compliance with the Zoning and enhances the mix of uses. Chair Nagpal: • Said that this proposed Amendment does three things. It extends the intent of +the Moratorium, expands the definition of Personal Services Businesses and adds any retail business with personal services as a use that requires issuance of a Use Permit. • Said that this is reasonable, as one does not want an over-concentration of Personal Service Businesses in the Village. • Stated that she can support this Amendment but she too is concerned about the cost to new businesses. • Reminded that restaurant uses already are required to obtain a Use Permit to establish in the Village. • Said that she would support this Amendment as stated in order to support a healthy mix of businesses in the Village. Commissioner Hunter questioned the wisdom of a vacant space versus having someone in that building. However, right now there are no vacancies. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 8 Commissioner Rodgers said that she lives near the Village and likes having Personal Service Businesses located nearby. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that women love to patronize salons in the Village because it is so beautiful. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Application #06-078) that will regulate the placement of Personal Service Businesses in the CH-1 and CH-2 zoning districts and will specify the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for new Personal Service Businesses at the first floor level along Big Basin Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Uhl NOES: Rodgers ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #05-029 (397-20-94) DEXHEIMER 14574 Horseshoe Court: - The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential and rezoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for the approximately 31,292 square feet (0.72 acre) rear portion of a vacant lot to conform with the existing designation and zoning of the front portion of lot. The applicant also requests design review approval to construct a two-story, single-family residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit on the lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit is 7,700 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The net lot size is approximately 100,751 square feet (2.31 acres) 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 there are three components to this application, a General Plan Amendment to amend the density from Low to Very Low Density, a Rezoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1- 40,000 and Design Review to allow the construction of a new home. • Reported that the Commission will forward a recommendation to Council who will take final action on the General Plan and Zone changes. • Explained the reason for the General Plan Amendment. She said that this is a very large site that is two parcels under the same ownership. Parcel 1, consists of 1.9 acres and has an existing home on it. Parcel 2, consists of 1.6 acres, and is a vacant lot. There are a number of trees located in the front portion of the vacant lot that are beautiful Oaks. Additionally, there is Wildcat Creek running through that parcel. With the current zoning, setback requirements make this parcel difficult to develop with a residence while retaining these beautiful trees. With a Lot Line Adjustment, the owner will borrow land from one lot Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 9 to allow an area that is developable with required setbacks while preserving these Oak trees. • Informed that the Lot Line Adjustment is an administrative level process. • Stated that if this application were approved, Lot 1 would continue to conform to all required setbacks. • Said that it is difficult to have different zoning designations for these two lots. • Explained that the General Plan document is adopted as a blueprint for land use, circulation, open space and housing issues. A General Plan is generally updated every 10 years. However, amendments to the General Plan are allowed as needed. The General Plan in Saratoga has not been amended in 10 years. Amendments are not taken lightly but rather are carefully considered. • Stated that this General Plan amendment makes sense here. The required findings for both the General Plan and Zoning Amendments can be made. • Reported that zoning cannot be downsized unless it can be proven that this downsizing is not reducing housing opportunities. • Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to approve a General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Very Low Density and a Zoning Change from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000. • Assured that these changes result in a consistent pattern in this area. Chair Nagpal suggested that the Commission pose any questions regarding the General Plan and Zone Change prior to the continuation of the staff report on the issue of Design Review. Commissioner Cappello asked if Council does not approve the General Plan and Zone Change and the Commission has taken action to approve the Design Review, what would happen. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that there is a condition for the Design Review Approval that states that this approval is contingent upon the final approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Lot Line Adjustment. She added that the applicant will also be required to go to the Santa Clara Valley Water District to satisfy any requirements about developing in the proximity of Wildcat Creek and provided written documentation of this compliance to the City of Saratoga prior to issuance of a building permit. Director John Livingstone reiterated that any Design Review Approval is based upon General Plan and Zone Change approval. If these changes were not approved, significant changes would be required in the Design Review application. Commissioner Cappello asked if the Commission must approve the General Plan and Zone Change prior to considering the Design Review. Chair Nagpal asked staff if the City had asked the applicant to submit their Design Review application at this stage. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes and no. In reality the applicant was ready to apply last December. Staff felt that it is easier to understand the constraints of this parcel and Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 10 the need for the General Plan and Zoning Amendments if a Design Review Application is reviewed at the same time. Director John Livingstone said that this allows the Planning Commission to look at the big picture and the applicant to undergo one process instead of two. This is typically how such an application would be handled. Chair Nagpal asked why development would be difficult without these changes. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the Lot Line Adjustment would allow a second living unit and pool on Parcel 2. Without these General Plan and Zone changes, the current setback requirements would result in a house for Lot 2 having to be constructed exactly where the nice Oak trees are located. Without these changes and under current conditions this is essentially not a buildable lot. Chair Nagpal pointed out that this is an irregularly shaped lot. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that the rear setback is the one that creates the most problem. She added that SCVWD wants to see any home that is built within 50 feet of a creek. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Wildcat Creek has gone over its banks. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that a neighbor has already mentioned that fact. Commissioner Cappello asked if there are two Lot Line Adjustments required. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no, just one. The existing line would simply be relocated. There is one property line now. With the adjustment it will be moved. Chair Nagpal asked Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick to continue with her report on the Design Review application. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick continued her report as follows: • Explained that the applicant would construct a two-story single-family residence, a garage and a secondary living unit. • Said that the applicant is seeking the 10 percent bonus floor area that is allowed if the applicant processes a deed restriction that dedicates the second unit as a BMR (Below Market Rate) rental unit in the event that unit is ever to be rented out. • Described the proposed residence as being contemporary and post-modern. It incorporates stucco, wood and a metal roof. • Said that there is a mixture of traditional and contemporary architecture in the immediate area. • Reported that staff initially had concerns about this proposed contemporary architectural style. However, it was determined that this home would not even be visible from the street. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 11 • Reminded that this proposal is designed so as to preserve as many of the mature Oaks as possible. They are removing only one Oak and it is not in great shape. Another tree, a Black Pepper, is also to be removed and is also in poor condition. • Said that a pool and patio area is also included and the required parking is provided. Most of the driveway will be pervious pavers. Minimal cut and fill are required so a geotechnical report was not necessary. • Stated that staff believes that this project meets all Design Review guidelines. • Reported that all seven adjacent neighbors were notified and that calls were received from four people, two of who are immediate neighbors and two of whom are from the vicinity of the project. One neighbor, who was unable to attend this evening, is in support of the project but has parking concerns during construction. Another neighbor had screening concerns and that issue has been worked out. The Wertzes from 19965 Douglas Way were concerned about privacy issues. The applicant is willing to add screening landscaping. Drainage concerns were raised. Two other calls came in with questions but no specific comments. • Recommended Design Review Approval. Chair Nagpal asked for the color board. Commissioner Kundtz asked about a response from the owners at 14552. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that the owners of that property are the applicants themselves. Commissioner Rodgers complimented Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick on a wonderfully complete staff report. She asked about the requirements imposed by the Fire Department. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the Fire Department has agreed that what is proposed is acceptable. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there are not special Fire Department requirements for a heavily wooded site such as this one. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied on site circulation and parking, which are provided. Director John Livingstone clarified that standard Fire and Building Code requirements are imposed but are not outlined in the Resolution in order to streamline it. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that 50 people were sent notification and only four replies were received. That is helpful information. She pointed out that metal roofs are not typically seen in Saratoga and asked why it is proposed here. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that issues of bulk and mass are evaluated while specific materials typically are not. She said that she was initially concerned about use of metal roofing but given the location it is not an inappropriate choice and it is not visible from the street. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 12 Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. David Wilson, Project Designer: • Explained their process for developing this site with minimal impacts on the existing Oak trees. • Stated that there is one footprint available to them in order to preserve these trees. • Said that this is a contemporary design for Brian and Lauren Lee. • Reported that they have always assumed that the proposed Lot Line Adjustment would be necessary. If not, the site would require removal of nice trees or a Variance on existing setback requirements. • Described the home as consisting of stucco clad pavilions with side and metal roofing material. • Stated that they had been unaware of any impacts on the Wertz property but they are willing to add landscaping screening to mitigate those impacts. • Said he was available for any questions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. David Wilson about developing near Wildcat Creek. Mr. David Wilson said that they would be 50 feet away from the creek and are not worried about it. There is an existing swale and two additional catch basins with eight-inch pipes are proposed for site drainage. These requirements will be confirmed by the project Civil Engineer prior to construction. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the roof metal coloring. Mr. David Wilson said that they are flexible on which of the three presented metal roofing samples they are willing to use. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. David Wilson if he knows the reflectivity value of the three options of metal roofing material. Mr. David Wilson replied not right now but he could obtain that information at a later date. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that the metal used be as dull as possible. She also questioned the inclusion of a security gate at the top of the driveway. Mr. David Wilson reported that the gate at the top of the driveway requires inclusion of a Fire Department issued lock box. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. David Wilson for the rationale behind including such a security gate that would block view of this house from the street. Mr. David Wilson reminded that there is no view of this house from the street but added that the requirement for this gate came from the Fire Department. He complimented the Commission for its practice of visiting project sites as a group the day prior to the public hearing. This is s a practice other cities should emulate. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Richard Wertz: • Stated that most issues have been covered. • Reported that he just found out about this hearing this week. • Said that he has lived above this site for the last 10 years and warned that a flood plain goes through this property. • Expressed concern about site drainage as the area does flood. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Richard Wertz whether he desires landscaping screening. Mr. Richard Wertz replied yes. His is the closest property facing the back of this proposed new home. It would be nice to be able to maintain privacy from his lot. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Wertz if his property is located to the north of the project site. Mr. Richard Wertz replied yes. Mr. Paul Germeraad, 14606 Horseshoe Court, Saratoga: • Said that he is a neighbor and has had no chance to see the proposed plans. • Pointed out that this neighborhood is a single-story ranch style neighborhood with no fences and no gates. • Said he is concerned about this two-story even though it is not within view from the street. • Expressed concern that it could set a precedent for the area. • Reminded that there are CC&Rs for this area. • Urged the Commission to reject this application. Mr. David Wilson: • Reminded that this is a very unusual lot. • Said that if forced to use the existing lot line, they would be forced to remove a beautiful element from this parcel, the Oak trees in order to build a home on the property. • Said that this request is a down zoning. • Pointed out that the home proposed falls within height limitations and that only a small portion of the home would actually be at the maximum height of 26 feet. • Said that this project conforms to the spirit of the land and the area and would have a minimal impact. They will mitigate any impacts. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Uhl asked staff about the noticing for this item. Director John Livingstone replied that it is a 10-day notice. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that staff might want to do an earlier public notice mailing. • Said that this looks like a great project that has been well thought through and with a lot of time spent upon it. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 14 • Supported the concept of preserving the Oak trees by use of a Lot Line Adjustment. • Stated that the proposed architecture is both unique and interesting. • Opined that this represents a special situation and he fully supports this request. Commissioner Kundtz: • Agreed that this is a very creative solution to a very complex problem. • Said that there are not a lot of two-story homes in the Horseshoe area; however, this site is a depressed bowl lot that helps mitigate the impacts of a two-story home on the area. • Recommended approval and wished the applicant well through the Council process. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that this is a difficult lot that requires a creative design to preserve its trees. • Reminded that the new home would not be visible from Horseshoe Court. • Stated that this lot is adjacent to other large lots. • Recommended adding conditions to: o Require the restriction of construction parking to on-site. o Provide natural landscape screening for the neighbor to the north. o Return to the Fire Department for a discussion on the requirement and/or necessity for a security gate. If not required that gate should be eliminated from the proposal. Commissioner Hunter: • Reminded that this area has two remarkable two-story historic homes. • Agreed that this is a very interesting architectural design. • Urged the use of the darker roof material. • Stated that the proposed gate is uncalled for in this area. • Supported the requirement for screening for the neighbors. • Pointed out that a colony of woodpeckers resides on the property. It is extraordinary. She saw six to eight during the site visit yesterday. • Urged the property owners to enjoy observing these woodpeckers on their property with their children. Commissioner Kundtz joked that having these woodpeckers residing on site offers an argument for not going with a wood roofing material. Commissioner Hunter said that she would support this project. Commissioner Cappello: • Agreed that the Lot Line Adjustment is appropriate in this case as a means to save trees. • Stated that the applicant did an outstanding job minimizing impacts on the neighbors. • Supported the suggestion to go with as dark a roof as is possible. • Disagreed that this would be the only two-story in the area given that one of the historic houses nearby is also a two-story. • Cautioned that the Commission might not approve the next proposed two-story for this area if it is not appropriate. In this particular case, he is not concerned with this home being two-stories. • Supported the provision of additional screening for the Wertz property. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 15 • Stated that everyone has done a great job, including Planning staff. Chair Nagpal: • Agreed with Commissioner Cappello. • Said that while she is not excited about amendments to the General Plan, she can support one in this case as it supports a better project. • Agreed that no precedent would be established with this approval. • Stated that she struggled with the proposed metal roofing material and supports the darker color. • Said that she too does not support the security gate and does support additional screening landscaping. • Suggested one of the Commissioners offer a motion. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick suggested that the Commission handle this project through three motions. One motion is for the General Plan Amendment, the second motion is for the Zone Change and the third motion is for the Design Review Approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Very Low Density Residential for property located at 14574 Horseshoe Court, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from R-1-20,000 to R-1-40,000 for property located at 14574 Horseshoe Court, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Chair Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to construct a two- story, single-family residence, garage and secondary dwelling unit on property located at 14574 Horseshoe Court, with the added conditions: • The applicant shall submit a revised plan to the Community Development Director with the darker roofing material that has a minimum reflectivity; • The applicant is required to landscape screening at the corner of the lot near the Wertz property; Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 16 • The Community Development Director is to check with the Fire Department to determine if the security gate is required for this location and, if not, to eliminate that gate from the proposal; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 Commissioner Hunter advised that she resides within noticing distance and would have to recuse herself from this application. She left the dais. APPLICATION #05-204 (517-13-033) - ROBERSON, 16208 Cuvilly Way: - The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a one-story single-family residence and a second dwelling unit on a vacant lot. The total floor area of the proposed residence and attached garage is 6029 square feet. A 591 square foot second dwelling unit is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet. The maximum height of the second dwelling unit is 17 feet. The gross lot size is 42,166 square feet and the site is zoned R-1 40,000. (SUZANNE THOMAS) Planning Intern Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new single-story single-family residence with attached garage and a secondary dwelling unit. • Described the new home as consisting of 6,600 square feet with a maximum height of 23 feet. The parcel is .93 acres. • Pointed out that color renderings have been posted behind the Commissioners. • Said that the proposed second dwelling unit and parking provided meets Code. • Explained that existing Walnut trees on site has been rated as being in bad to fair condition. Removal of all but one is recommended. Redwoods, Coast Live Oaks and ornamental trees would be planted. • Described materials as including stucco, stone accents and clay roof tile in earth tone colors. Copper gutter accents are proposed. • Reported that the neighbors have been shown the plans and no negative responses were received. Supportive responses from all but two neighbors were received. • Said that this project is consistent and recommended approval. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a security gate. Planner Suzanne Thomas replied no. There is a requirement from Fire that if there were to be a gate, it could not be less than 14 feet wide. However, no such gate is proposed. Commissioner Uhl asked if all neighbors were notified. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 17 Planner Suzanne Thomas replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that copper accents are not shown on the color board. Since this is a designated hazardous fire area, she asked if the Fire Department reviews and conditions the outdoor wood fireplaces and pizza oven. Director John Livingstone reported that such installations are over-the-counter through the Building Department and Fire does review them. Commissioner Uhl asked about the trees. Planner Suzanne Thomas said that some are dead and others are in poor to fair condition. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Park Miller, Project Designer: • Advised that their goal was to design a home that offers a low profile design that is compatible and comfortable to this site. • Said that this home is single-story with a variety of room heights and using light wells. The roof forms are low with a nice and varied texture using reclaimed clay tile in earth colors that include buff and terra cotta tones. • Said that the project site offers good privacy to this home and to adjacent properties. • Said he is available for any questions. • Assured that the property owner checked with Fire on the issue of the outdoor pizza oven. Commissioner Rodgers asked where copper would be used. Mr. Park Miller said the gutters and downspouts. Commissioner Rodgers asked if they would develop a patina over time. Mr. Park Miller replied yes. Mr. Roberson, Project Applicant, advised that he had tried to find anything on the web pertaining to Code requirements for his outdoor pizza oven and fireplace. He assured that he is prepared to provide any required fire protection measures. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Kundtz said that this represents his first time visiting this area. It is a great place and this proposal is consistent with the spirit and intent. He supports this application as submitted. Commissioner Rodgers said that this project is nice and there is no reason not to support it. Commissioner Cappello said that all findings can be made and this is a nice design. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 18 Commissioner Uhl agreed that this is a nice project. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-204) to construct a one-story single-family residence and a second dwelling unit on a vacant lot located at 16208 Cuvilly Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: Hunter Commissioner Hunter returned to the dais following the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 4. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #06-015 (397-04-026) - FORMICO, 14456 Sobey Road: - The applicant requests Design Review Approval for a detached, single-story, second dwelling unit/cabaña. Design review is required because the allowable floor area on the site exceeds 6,000 square- feet. The maximum height of the proposed structure is 14.6-feet. Total floor area on the site including the main residence and garage would be 6,642.5-feet. The gross lot size is approximately 61,855 square feet and is zoned R-1-40, 000. (THERESE SCHMIDT) Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to construct a 949.5 square foot secondary dwelling unit. • Explained that Design Review Approval is required in this case since the maximum square footage on site would exceed 6,000 square feet, going from 5,600 square feet currently to a total of 6,642.5 square feet. • Reported that a Very Low Income Deed Restriction would be filed for this secondary dwelling unit in the event that this unit is every rented. • Said that the placement of the footprint of the house was shifted by three feet following the recommendations in the Arborist report. This change has already been incorporated into the plans. • Stated that the neighbors were notified and no issues were raised. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. John, Project Designer, JF Building Design, said he would be available for any questions. Commissioner Kundtz asked if any bridge enhancements would be necessary or is it strong enough to handle the weight of construction equipment entering the site. Mr. John replied that there is another access route. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 19 Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Cappello asked if the movement of the structure saves a tree. Planner Therese Schmidt advised that only one tree would be removed from the site and it is not an Ordinance sized tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06-015) to construct a detached, single-story, second dwelling unit/cabaña on property located at 14456 Sobey Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Mailing Chair Nagpal asked about the issue of mailing. Director John Livingstone advised that most notices go out way in advance of the required 10 days. He advised that he would direct staff to give mailings an extra week. Fire Requirement for Security Gate Commissioner Kundtz expressed his surprise that the Fire Department would impose a requirement for a security gate on a project. Director John Livingstone assured that he would look into this matter and report back to the Commission. Upcoming Study Session on September 15th Director John Livingstone distributed an agenda for the next Special Study Session to be held on Thursday, September 15th, at 9:30 a.m. The Session will be held in the Arts & Crafts Room and will be on the issue of Village Parking. Commissioner Cappello advised that he is unable to attend. Chair Nagpal asked how long the Study Session might run. Director John Livingstone replied that it depends on the attendance and issues raised. Planning Commission Minutes for September 14, 2005 Page 20 Advance Planning Prioritization List Director John Livingstone distributed a list that prioritizes the advanced planning items that are underway by his department. The Annexation process has been expedited by the State for a short time. Council has expressed interest in two county pocket areas. One pocket consists of 104 acres and about 42 parcels and is located on Prospect near the Country Club. The other pocket consists of Austin Way and Hidden Hill Road that equals about 20 acres. Commissioner Rodgers asked if existing conditions on these current county parcels would be grandfathered once annexed into the City of Saratoga. Director John Livingstone replied that anything that was done with a permit but does not conform to Saratoga Code would be considered legal non-conforming conditions. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Nagpal expressed her appreciation for everyone’s involvement in today’s meeting. Commissioner Hunter said that she is happy that Director John Livingstone comes on the bus with the Commission during site visits. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk