Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, November 23, 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 Schallop Absent: Commissioner Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick and Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of November 9, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 9, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 9,11,19 and 20. (6-0-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 17, 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). Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING: The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the proposed 2005-06 Capitol Improvement Program is consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. Chair Nagpal asked if any of the Commissioners wanted to pull this item from Consent and discuss it in public hearing. Commissioner Hunter said that she did. Mr. John Chebone, Public Works Director, provided the staff report as follows: • Explained that each year the City updates its Capitol Improvement Program, which is a five-year document that plans the expenditures for the projects on the list. • Reported that the first CIP was prepared in 2001 and has been updated each year since. The current CIP is the 2005/06 Update. • Stated that there are two public hearings before Council. Between those two public hearings before Council, the CIP is brought to the Planning Commission to make the determination that the CIP is consistent with the City’s General Plan. • Said that CIP projects are maintenance projects for parks, roads, etc. • Stated that the projects of the CIP are matched to goals, policies and implementation strategies from the General Plan that are applicable. Commissioner Hunter asked for an explanation about the meaning of sphere of influence. Mr. John Chebone said that the definition could be found in the General Plan. He added that the City has an Urban Service Boundary as well as areas designated as being within a Sphere of Influence. These are properties in County jurisdiction over which the City receives notices for any proposed projects to review for conformity to City standards. Commissioner Hunter expressed appreciation for the inclusion of the terms “Preservation” and “Heritage” more than 15 times in the General Plan. Mr. John Chebone said that almost all elements have that information and/or definition as preservation of its heritage is important to the citizens of the City of Saratoga. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that an item on tonight’s agenda would deal with the preservation of a riparian corridor. Mr. John Chebone agreed that this issue is important to the City. Commissioner Rodgers said that some of the categories assigned to projects do not seem to fit. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 3 Mr. John Chebone said that since only basic information is provided for each project it might not always be evident how the categories assigned actually do fit. In other cases, there are no categories specific enough to apply to a particular project in the CIP. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it is worth the effort for the Commission to attempt to more closely match projects in the CIP to corresponding goals and strategies from the General Plan. Mr. John Chebone replied that only if the Commission feels that a project is in direct conflict with the City’s General Plan. If the Commission feels comfortable enough, they should just go with the categories assigned by staff. Commissioner Cappello clarified that the Commission’s role here is not to shoot down or change projects in the CIP but rather to find consistency with the General Plan. Mr. John Chebone added that any member of the Commission could participate in the Council’s public hearing and offer input on changes and/or additions to the CIP. He added that it is often grass roots efforts that get items added to the CIP. Commissioner Kundtz asked who deals with fiscal impacts. Mr. John Chebone replied Council. He pointed out that not all of the projects included on the CIP are currently funded. He added that there is a detailed spreadsheet available that he would be happy to email to any interested member of the Commission that offers fiscal impacts. Commissioner Kundtz said that it was not necessary since the Commission is considering consistency with the General Plan rather than funding for these proposed projects. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing on the CIP. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing on the CIP. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution finding the projects of the 2005/06 Capitol Improvement Program to be consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-060 (410-39-012) LLOYD – 15130 Quito Road: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to the conditions of approval of the original Subdivision Map as approved by Resolution No. DR-00-045 to allow certain encroachments in the creek riparian setback area, subject to mitigation. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking amendment to a Condition of approval for a previously approved Subdivision Map that was originally approved in 2001 creating three lots for property located at 15130 Quito Road. • Reported that at the time of approval, there were no specific requirements for riparian corridor setbacks. • Explained that the Commission required that an assessment be prepared by a Biologist Consultant to establish mitigation recommendations. When the study came back, the quality of this riparian corridor was ranked as low to moderate. Since that time, the applicant has cleaned up the area that includes the creek and vegetation around it. The Commission imposed an additional setback of 50 feet to the standard required 50-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) setback. This was intended to provide additional protection for wildlife. At that time, the Map was approved and no encroachment on this entire100-foot area was allowed. • Added that the City revised Ordinance 14-25.065 and now allows for consideration of an easement into a riparian corridor. • Said that the Map approved in 2001 became a Final Map and construction began on the homes on two of these three lots. • Explained that the front portion of the lots is steep so the building area is located at the center. • Reminded that the secondary setback from the riparian corridor is 50 feet. • Added that the lots on the either side don’t have this additional setback of 50 feet and are allowed to put in improvements with permits. Therefore, these three lots are more restricted than any others around them. • Reported that the applicant approached staff regarding the installation of a pool and asked permission to encroach in the secondary riparian area. • Advised that staff and the consulting Biologist considered a pool in this area to be minor. However, the City Attorney was also consulted and recommended that this item be brought back to the Planning Commission to see if it concurs with that determination. • Said that staff is recommending that the Commission amend the Condition of approval imposed for this Tentative Map as it relates to Design review issues for development in the secondary riparian corridor. Staff is proposing that the Condition be amended to reflect what current language of the Ordinance allows. • Stated that a copy of the approved map has been provided. • Explained that encroachment would be handled through the processing of a Building permit. • Stated that if amended, staff can process requests by applying the new Subdivision Ordinance standards to this previously approved Parcel Map. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Hunter said that this is very confusing and asked if staff is proposing to make the easement smaller. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that the Biologist recommended how the riparian corridor was established and the line varies. She reminded that the Design Review Ordinance does have a minimum 50-foot setback from the top of bank. This is due to requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District to maintain the integrity of the creek banks. Commissioner Hunter questioned whether there is potential for the placement of a second unit on this riparian corridor for Lot C. If so, would this be handled at the counter rather than through public hearing? Director John Livingstone: • Replied that yes a second unit would be handled at staff level and might be allowed to encroach into the secondary riparian corridor if this amendment to the Condition for the Map is approved tonight by the Commission. • Pointed out that there is a double riparian setback in this case that is very restrictive. Amending that would bring this property more in line with the current Ordinance. Chair Nagpal said that she is presuming that any encroachment would only be allowed in the secondary riparian corridor and not the 50-foot corridor required by SCVWD. She asked about required mitigation. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that mitigation would depend upon the level of encroachment, spacing and type of trees. Commissioner Kundtz reminded that the Stevens memo speaks to the adequacy of the easement. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that the recommendation is not to eliminate the corridor but only to allow encroachment upon review. Chair Nagpal asked if this pertains just to Lot B. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that it would apply to each of the three lots in this subdivision, Lots A through C. Commissioner Cappello asked if adjustments would be made on each lot. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that the amended condition would allow the consideration of adjustments if requested. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Tentative Map had become a Final Map. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. She pointed out that construction could only have begun if the map were final. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Rodgers asked why the Tentative Map was being modified with this action. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that the City Attorney recommended that the conditions imposed on the Tentative Map be amended in that they pertain only to Design review, which are not a part of a Final Map. Director John Livingstone explained that the Conditions are what are being amended and not the map itself. He pointed out that the secondary riparian lines are not depicted on the final map itself. Commissioner Rodgers asked if any other subdivision located along a creek could also ask for an amendment. In other words, is this action precedent setting? Chair Nagpal said that it would depend upon whether specific conditions such as this were imposed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reported that there are not many like this out there. Director John Livingstone added that the current Code offers the Community Development Director the opportunity to determine whether encroachment can actually enhance or protect a riparian corridor. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that most houses today have guesthouses behind while these three do not. She asked what could happen to Lot C and whether it might include a guesthouse in the future within this riparian setback. She expressed concern with a blanket approval for all three lots. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she has no specific information about what is planned for Lot C. She said that taking a blanket action on all three lots will avoid the need to come back before the Commission with each lot. She said that a second unit could be proposed in the future. Director John Livingstone pointed out that second unit applications are handled at staff level. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick suggested that perhaps the applicant could respond as to what the plans are for Lot C. Director John Livingstone cautioned that a second living unit could be added to each of these lots. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reminded that Lots A and B have sewer easements over which cannot be built. Lot C also has a sewer easement that bisects the back yard. It would be tough to fit a pool without this amendment to the secondary riparian setback on that particular parcel. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Commission is interpreting the Ordinance that pertains to creek protection easements or is it at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Director John Livingstone said that the Commission is not interpreting that section but is looking at a specific condition of approval that was imposed prior to the adoption of this section and allowing that condition to be modified to more closely match the current Ordinance and give the Community Development Director some flexibility. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reminded that on top of the customary 50-foot riparian corridor required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City adopted an additional easement. Staff is recommending that a qualified biologist must support any proposed encroachments into the secondary easement area. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bill Hirschman, Applicant’s Representative: • Said that he is representing the developer and two other property owners. • Advised that their Landscape Architect is also available this evening. • Expressed appreciation for the great report provided by staff. • Reiterated that they are asking for an amendment to a condition of approval for the Tentative Map that deals with design elements rather than the easement itself. • Explained that the designs for Lot A and Lot B are complete. Lot A includes a pond. Lot B has a corner of the swimming pool that would need to encroach on the secondary riparian corridor easement. • Said that they have no intention on applying for other structures on site at this time but don’t want to eliminate the possibility to do so in the future. • Said that it is important to note that improvements provided would include mitigation measures on each lot. This is very important when talking about precedent setting. Appropriate mitigation must be provided. • Asked for approval. • Reminded that this setback is a compound setback. First, Santa Clara Valley Water District has its 50-foot setback to protect the creek banks. This is a second 50-foot setback. • Assured that this request is not taken lightly. Commissioner Cappello asked if the mitigation proposed is primarily the planting of trees. Mr. Bill Hirschman said the mitigation landscaping would consist of a combination of trees, grasslands and other naturally occurring landscaping materials. He said that one element is blackberries. He assured that the materials would be selected through consultation with a biologist. Commissioner Rodgers said that the first 50-foot setback is already required to be maintained as a riparian corridor and questioned the offer of mitigation in this area that is already required to be maintained for encroachment into the secondary corridor. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Bill Hirschman reminded that the mitigations proposed are those of the consulting biologist. The existing riparian corridor was graded as very low quality. This offers a perfect opportunity to raise that level and offers the most appropriate place for increased natural landscaping. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the General Plan talks about the maintenance and improvement to riparian corridors. Mr. Bill Hirschman said that actually they are not required to do anything further to the original riparian corridor. They have done the entire repair required under the conditions of approval. What is proposed is in addition to that and would equal 7,000 square feet of new planting. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that the driver for this request is the desire for a pool without requiring that pool to be so close to the residence. • Announced he could support this amendment. • Suggested that it might not be unreasonable to have subsequent construction decisions for Lot C brought back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rodgers: • Concurred with Commissioner Kundtz. • Said that she would like to see exactly what is planned for Lot C before any approval is given. • Said she is not comfortable trading a pool for additional planting on other lots. • Said that mitigation should stay on the same lot and outside of the main 50-foot SCVWD riparian setback area. • Said she is not comfortable going back to a previously approved subdivision and amending the conditions imposed by another Commission but she is willing to listen. • Stated that this appears to be setting a precedent. • Reiterated that the General Plan requires the improvements of riparian corridors. • Stressed that she is firm on the need to bring Lot C back to the Commission if any plans to encroach come up. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that there are lots of creeks in Saratoga and people often talk to her about the creeks and construction that occurs near them. • Stated that she considers herself to be an environmentalist. • Said that she has no problem with the pond on Lot A and wished she had visited Lot C. • Said that she is reluctant to approve this. • Reminded that the Commission in place in 2001 made a strong effort to protect the creek and that she feels they are now being asked to back off on that goal. • Expressed pride in the actions taken by the Commission in 2001. Commissioner Cappello: Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 9 • Said that staff handling this issue is adequate. • Stated that he does not think that this is an issue of protecting the creek. That is done through the SCVWD’s 50-foot easement. • Added that he believes that the habitat is increased through these proposed mitigations and he tends to favor them. Chair Nagpal: • Explained that she works in the environmental field and assured that placing mitigation outside of a specific lot is not an unheard of concept. Mitigation within the three-lot subdivision is acceptable. • Said that her concern was with the arbitrary red line and the fact that the original 50-foot corridor could have been sufficient. • Pointed out that the biologist has said that this offset increases habitat. The new habitat improves and protects the riparian corridor. • Said she can support this amendment to the conditions. • Agreed with the need for more information on Lot C and that she would be more comfortable knowing what will happen there. Commissioner Rodgers asked about impacts and responsibility of future owners. Chair Nagpal asked staff to clarify that the restrictions run with the lot. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes. Chair Nagpal asked how staff could be sure that this habitat is maintained. Director John Livingstone replied real estate disclosures notify future owners of their obligations. Chair Nagpal asked if the conditions of approval run with the property. Director John Livingstone said that staff would make sure the required plantings are installed. Once in place, they will thrive on their own. Commissioner Cappello asked staff if it would automatically investigate if Lot C were to bring a request to the City that requires encroachment into the secondary riparian corridor. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that staff researches file information with every application that comes in to determine established standards and conditions. They also look at the Tentative Map and specific requirements for each specific lot. Director John Livingstone pointed out that now records are being maintained digitally in Laserfiche and that historic records should be completely scanned within the next three years to allow electronic research to quickly occur. Commissioner Rodgers said that the owner of Lot B had told her that they were made aware of the Tentative Map restrictions when they bought this property. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Kundtz asked if the owner of Lot C would be required to bring any proposal to the Planning Commission. Director John Livingstone replied that unless staff finds something that triggers the need to bring it back before the Commission, it would not be required. Commissioner Rodgers asked Director John Livingstone if he needs the discretion to be able to handle all three of these parcels. Director John Livingstone replied that it is his preference that the change in this condition applies to all of this subdivision. Chair Nagpal asked about the potential for a structure on this easement on Lot C. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it would be difficult to put anything on Lot C without this change. Chair Nagpal asked if Design review criteria must be met for anything proposed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied absolutely. Commissioner Rodgers stressed the obligation to protect the riparian corridor. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that there is no mechanism to require improvements. Owners simply cannot do anything next to the creek without going to SCVWD for permission. This riparian corridor must be left in as natural a state as possible. Commissioner Rodgers asked how improvements are enforced. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied through the conditions, which requires a landscape plan be provided to the Community Development Director. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission approved an amendment (Application #06-060) to the conditions of approval of the original Subdivision Map as approved by Resolution No. DR-00-045 to allow certain encroachments in the creek riparian setback area subject to mitigation on property located at 15130 Quito Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal and Schallop NOES: Rodgers ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-176 (503-16-050) KOENIG, 13071 Pierce Road: The applicant requests modification of plans for a two-story single-family residence as approved by Resolution No. 05-002. These changes would include an approximate 600 square foot addition to the basement and minor exterior changes to the home. The site is zoned R-1-40,000. Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a modification to the plans for a two-story home on property zoned R-1-40,000 that consists of approximately 55,000 square feet. • Explained that the original two-story home and cabana were submitted in June 2004 and approved by the Commission in January 2005. • Stated that since the Commission imposed the conditions, any changes needed to be brought back for approval of a modification. • Outlined the proposed changes as including an approximate 600 square foot addition to the proposed basement, the relocation of the cabana and changes to the exterior window and style and the addition of shingles to the dormers. The basement would be located beneath the entire footprint. • Reported that the amended plans were provided to the neighbors and no comments were received. • Assured that the project would be constructed as originally noted except as modified tonight. • Said that the project satisfies all findings. • Stated that the modification does not create any unreasonable interference with privacy and views. The basement does not create any sort of impact. • Said that the project satisfies all zoning requirements and recommended approval. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Walter Chapman, Project Designer: • Thanked Planner Suzanne Thomas for her assistance. • Explained that the Soils and Structural Engineer recommended that the entire basement and foundation system be implemented to deal with potential settlement issues. • Said that he had been unaware that these somewhat minor changes would result in the need to return to the Commission until they submitted their plans to Building. • Stated his availability for any questions. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the condition to work with the neighbor to the north regarding planting materials has been met. Mr. Walter Chapman said that they were waiting until the rough framing came up to determine what and where this landscaping should be placed. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Rodgers asked for an explanation on California framing. Mr. Walter Chapman said that it is a technical term and represents a type of roof framing system that was developed following World War II that helps expedite construction. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Kundtz said that it makes sense to construct the full basement and foundation system and he supports this request. Chair Nagpal asked what brings this matter back to the Commission. Planner Suzanne Thomas replied the exterior modifications and other changes to the approved plan. Commissioner Rodgers suggested added text to page 9 to read “… and will not therefore affect privacy of the neighbors.” Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission approved the modification of plans (Application #04-176) for a two-story single-family residence as approved by Resolution No. 05-002, including an approximate 600 square foot addition to the basement and minor exterior changes to the home on property located at 13071 Pierce Road, with the added text to page 9 to read “… and will not therefore affect privacy of the neighbors,” by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-379 (503-26-009) TRAN, 20840 Fourth Street: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence is 2,449.4 square feet. A 1,454 square foot basement is proposed. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 23 feet. The gross lot size is 5, 177 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. This item was continued from the July 27, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a two-story single-family residence and the demolition of the existing single-story home. • Described the total floor area as 2,449 square feet with a basement. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 13 • Reminded that this item was continued from the meeting of July 27, 2005, to allow the applicant to revise plans to address neighbor concerns. • Stated that staff finds that the necessary findings to support can be made in the affirmative. • Recommended approval. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Kiet Tran, Applicant and Property Owner, 20840 Fourth Street, Saratoga: • Thanked staff and the Commission. • Said that he has been working to address the comments raised at the last meeting. • Stated that he bought this property with the intent to construct a two-story home and managed to design a house to meet Ordinance requirements. • Pointed out that no Variance is required. • Requested approval and pointed out that staff is supportive and is recommending approval. • Reiterated that this project meets all requirements. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Kiet Tran if the changes made since the July meeting address the neighbor concerns and whether any feedback regarding sufficiency of these changes was received from the neighbors. Mr. Kiet Tran said that his neighbors want a single-story house. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Kiet Tran if he had any further conversations with his neighbors and/or are there still concerns. Commissioner Rodgers asked which neighbor was concerned about view impacts. Mr. Kiet Tran replied the neighbor across the street, Mrs. Garcia. He said that he has tried to minimize blockage of her view. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the story poles have been modified since the last meeting. Mr. Kiet Tran replied no. Ms. Sherry Kraule, 20750 Fourth Street, Saratoga: • Identified herself as living next door. • Said that she did not want to see a second story next door due to loss of sunlight and privacy concerns. • Stated that the proposed trees would also block sun and views in the future. Additionally, if these trees lose their leaves in the winter, they would no longer serve to screen. • Said that she spoke with Mr. Tran about the concept of placing bedrooms in the basement space of his home but he said he did not want bedrooms in the basement due to the darkness, which she finds ironic since his home would render her home darker with loss of natural light. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 14 • Pointed out that another nearby house has three bedrooms located in the basement with windows that allow adequate light. • Reminded that the City’s Design Guidelines call for the avoidance of unreasonable views and privacy impacts. • Stated that if allowed, this two-story home will make them feel like they are in a hole since there is already a large two-story on their other side. • Suggested that without a second story the Trans could still have a big house. • Pointed out that Mr. Tran plans to sell this home in two to three years and yet her quality of life would be disrupted forever. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Sherry Kraule when the home on the other side was built. Ms. Sherry Kraule said that it occurred about three to four years ago and that she has learned from that experience about the need to speak up at public hearings. Commissioner Cappello reminded that at the last meeting the Commission urged the applicant to work with the neighbors and asked Ms. Sherry Kraule if any of her issues were addressed. Ms. Sherry Kraule said that she didn’t want a second story period. She said that while Mr. Tran tried to reduce his second story it does not resolve their issues. Commissioner Cappello asked if there was any back and forth feedback and discussions with the Trans. Ms. Sherry Kraule replied no. Chair Nagpal asked Ms. Sherry Kraule if there is any ground to meet on the issue of a second story. Ms. Sherry Kraule said that once the story poles were in place she realized the impacts of this second story. She added that the Trans could put in a beautiful single-story house on this property. Chair Nagpal asked for feedback on landscaping. Does she want trees? Should they be evergreen? Is there a preferred maximum height? Mr. Eric Kraule, 20850 Fourth Street, Saratoga: • Stated that with trees they will feel like they are living in a cave. • Stressed that they do not want to see a second story here. Commissioner Hunter cautioned that a single-story house could still be as tall as 26 feet. Ms. Sherry Kraule said that even so, with a single-story house there would be no window overlooking their property. Mr. Dave Garcia, son of Esperanza Garcia speaking on her behalf, 20845 Fourth Street, Saratoga: Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 15 • Stated that this home would take from the views enjoyed from his mother’s home. • Said that the second story windows would invade their privacy. • Added that Mr. Tran never made an effort to discuss any design changes with his family. Commissioner Rodgers asked where the photographs provided by Mrs. Garcia were taken from. Mrs. Esperanza Garcia replied from her front porch. Mr. Ken Schulz, 15001 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he lives behind this property. • Described this proposed house as a poster child for a monster home. • Pointed out that the setbacks are within inches of the maximum allowed. • Said that he is concerned about having a second floor, which would block views. • Said that there had been no contact from Mr. Tran. • Stated that a proposed picture window in the master bedroom of this new home would overlook his backyard. • Said that this is the largest possible legal home on a 5,000 square foot lot and results in a tunnel effect. • Stated that he does not view Springer Avenue as being “urbanized” and that he loves to see deer and trees and not second story homes in his neighborhood. • Stated that the rights of existing views and quality of life should take precedence over new homes. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Ken Schulz to identify his property on the location map. Mr. Ken Schulz said that he is on the mountain side looking at the Garcia and Tran properties. Right now he does not see roofs but he does see the temporary story poles. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this is on the east side of the back triangle. Mr. Ken Schulz replied yes. Mr. Raza, Project Designer: • Said that they have worked on this project since last year. • Pointed out that the City established the Ordinance requirements and that their design is based upon these Ordinance requirements. • Stated that the second floor has been offset and only one window is located at the back. • Said that they would plant trees. • Pointed out that the Garcia home is only 10 feet from its property line. • Assured that he had previously spoken with Mrs. Garcia. • Asked that Commission to approve this application tonight or deny it and offer them the opportunity to appeal that action to Council. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 16 Commissioner Cappello: • Said that this is a tough call. • Stated that this neighborhood is in transition regarding second story homes. • Said that this project is very difficult to accept due to privacy impacts. • Added that this does represent a good example of a monster home with a huge amount of square footage on a relatively small lot that creates huge privacy impacts. Chair Nagpal asked Commissioner Cappello to identify findings that cannot be made in support of this project. Commissioner Cappello: • Said the bulk and height compatibility are two that come to mind. • Stated that he cannot support this project, as the findings cannot be met. • Added that he does appreciate the efforts made by the applicant but that they were not enough to make him comfortable approving this design. Commissioner Hunter: • Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Cappello. • Said that a 5,000 square foot lot is very small and that this is also an odd shaped piece of property. • Expressed agreement that the basement area can supply bedrooms to this home. • Stated that as proposed this project would have an enormous impact on the neighbors. • Reiterated concerns about bulk, mass and privacy impacts. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed with the comments of Commissioners Cappello and Hunter. • Pointed out that the finding requiring the avoidance of unreasonable interference with views and privacy cannot be made in the affirmative. • Said that this is a tight lot that is triangular and with tiny setbacks although it is a legal lot. • Said that the home would only be six feet away from the property line, 11 feet for the second story and 25 feet away from the neighbor across the street. • Stated that she cannot make the necessary Design Review findings. • Added that this project is not compatible with the neighborhood due to bulk and height. Other remodels and/or new homes have been done more sensitively to blend into this neighborhood. • Pointed out that the design guidelines states that creating a hole effect with a smaller home located between two larger ones is not good design and that the design must be more sensitive to the neighbor in the middle. • Said that this is a neighborhood in transition and that she would approve a second story that is more sensitively designed. Commissioners Schallop and Kundtz said that they had nothing further to add. Chair Nagpal reiterated that the issues raised include interference with views and privacy, bulk and height compatibility, design techniques and this irregular lot. Planning Commission Minutes for November 23, 2005 Page 17 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission DENIED Design Review Approval (Application #04-379) to allow the demolition of an existing one-story residence and the construction of a new two-story single-family residence on property located at 20840 Fourth Street, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone: • Reminded that there is no meeting on December 28, 2005. • Scheduled a Study Session for December 14, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. to discuss a proposed townhome development with 25 units off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter announced a Commission Party for staff to be held on Friday, December 9th at 5 p.m. 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 9:26 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk