Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-14-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 14, 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, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop Absent: Commissioners Kundtz and Uhl Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick and Associate Planner Therese Schmidt PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of November 23, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 23, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 2 and 5. (5-0- 2; Commissioners Kundtz and Uhl were 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 December 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). Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-049 – Adoption of Negative Declaration and Zoning Text Amendment for Saratoga Village parking: The City of Saratoga proposes a Zoning Text Amendment that would relax all parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zones until such a time that new development or intensification of uses equals to or exceeds the parking surplus as identified in a recent parking study. An Initial Study has been prepared for this proposed text amendment and no comments were received during the initial study public review period. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the City of Saratoga is the applicant. • Said that staff is proposing two Text Amendments to the parking requirements for the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts. • Explained that in April 2005, Council requested that the Planning Commission consider modifying the parking requirements for the CH-1 and CH-2 Zoning Districts. Consequently two study sessions were held, one in August that was held in the downtown fire station and the second in September that was held in the Community Center at City Hall in order to obtain public input. • Stated that staff has crafted an Amendment that would suspend the parking requirements for new development or expansion of existing business uses in the Village until the combined uses take up the existing surplus of 93 spaces available at peak times. • Reported that a survey was conducted that determined that normally there are 93 spaces unused in the Village. • Said that staff is proposing allowing new construction and uses to utilize up to those 93 spaces without requiring the provision of any new spaces. • Said that there are four parking districts and one area is not within a parking district. • Stated that one space is allotted for every 350 square feet of gross floor area ratio. This ratio is consistent with Parking District 3, which is the most restrictive parking district. • Said that staff has researched and determined that this ratio is comparable to other cities. • Added that this Text Amendment is proposed to be in place for three years to serve as an incentive to encourage growth of business uses in the Village by getting the benefit of a reduced parking requirement. • Said that this proposal is consistent with the General Plan. • Recommended the adoption of a Resolution and supporting Negative Declaration for this Text Amendment. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the study used to determine that there are 93 spaces available at any given time was done in 2002. Director John Livingstone: • Said that a majority of spaces were in District 3, with nine on the street. All are in the downtown area. • Explained that the City’s Traffic Consultant felt that with the downturn in the economy, peak parking usage would not have increased but rather would have stayed the same or decreased and they used the 2002 Parking Study in its analysis. Commissioner Hunter reminded that in 2002 there were six vacant storefronts. Now there are only three. Director John Livingstone said that there could be a slight flux depending upon the types of tenants and/or intensity of uses. There is a constant flux between vacancies and types of uses. Commissioner Hunter asked how it was determined that 93 spaces could support an additional 30,000 square feet and if was even possible for the Village to add that much new square footage. Director John Livingstone said that not all additions would be in new storefronts but rather some would result from intensification of existing uses. He said that approximately seven buildings with 5,000 square feet each could either be achieved with small additions or new structures. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the allocation of these spaces would be on a first come first serve basis. Chair Nagpal pointed out that it would not have to be seven buildings and that the allocations would be whoever comes first. Director John Livingstone said that a large restaurant would absorb more spaces. Allocation of parking ratios requires a combination of features. He added that it is hoped that this action to relax parking requirements might help to stimulate the Village during the three-year period it is in effect. He added that the allocation of 93 spaces is the maximum that could occur in the three-year period this amendment is in effect. Commissioner Hunter asked if this might result in three-story buildings in the Village. Director John Livingstone reminded that this Ordinance would not change the current height limitations for the Village but just parking considerations. He reminded that the maximum allowable height for the Village is 30 feet. Commissioner Hunter said that she is happy to see that cities such as Lafayette and Orinda were used as comparables to Saratoga rather than some others that could have been used. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Schallop asked if other cities used this technique to stimulate growth and was the effort successful. He asked how the three-year duration for this was established. Director John Livingstone explained that it takes time to get project financing together, hire an architect, draw the plans and submit them to the City. It can generally take a year or longer, two years depending on the size or need to assemble parcels to create a lot large enough to develop. Three years was the maximum time frame suggested. Chair Nagpal asked if the three-year period requires Planning Commission final approval to have occurred. Director John Livingstone said that it is the time period during which a project must be deemed complete. He added that new structures for the Village would come before the Planning Commission. Chair Nagpal said that she wants to see this stimulate growth and questioned staff as to the maximum amount of time it might take to get a project through to the Planning Commission if it is a complex one. Director John Livingstone replied between six months and one year. He said that projects usually go back and forth between staff and the applicant. Being deemed complete during the three-year effective period is the key as opposed to obtaining a final approval. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that a number of other solutions in addition to this amendment were suggested and asked if any of them were currently in progress. • Listed some of the proposals as including the re-striping of some areas of Lot 3 and improved signing of Lot 1 near the Saratoga Inn. • Added that it was only recently that she realized that there was public parking available near the Saratoga Inn. • Said that it was also considered that increasing signage and lighting might be useful to make availability of public parking more clear to the public and help alleviate crowding. Director John Livingstone: • Said that this is one part of an overall concept to help stimulate activity in the Village. • Reported that Commissioner Hunter is a participant on the Village Committee that is looking at the rest of the picture. • Added that this is but one piece of the puzzle that can be activated more quickly. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she has reviewed the legal documents. • Stated that most of the extra spaces are in Lot 3. • Explained that the City has the power to modify use of those spaces under current conditions. There are cross easements that help improve the parking lots. • Reported that bonds were previously issued. All improvements have now been made and the bonds were paid off. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 5 • Said that she believes that it is legally sufficient as to the appropriateness of action proposed for tonight. • Stated that she assumed that the City Attorney has or would approve. Chair Nagpal said that she has a question about the 93 spots and how it is calculated when assigning them out to a specific use. Director John Livingstone: • Explained that staff tracks spaces based upon square footage. Each space is worth so much square footage. It is the same equation. • Gave an example that if a business had a current requirement for one space and wanted an intensification of use that required two more spaces, than two parking spaces or 700 square feet would be allocated from the available 93 parking spaces or 32,000 square feet in new commercial tenant space. • Reiterated that both intensified uses or new construction would be evaluated against this available parking. Chair Nagpal asked about the potential of having one large tenant coming in that would require all available parking to be assigned to it in order to support its use. Director John Livingstone replied that the answer is the same and consists of the number of spaces required times 350 square feet to equal the anticipated maximum of 32,000 square feet of new or expanded uses in the Village. Chair Nagpal asked if there are not different parking requirement numbers based upon use. Director John Livingstone said that there is a blanket ratio for parking for a restaurant. If not within a parking district, that ratio for a restaurant is one space per 75 square feet that would be calculating using the 350 square foot ratio per parking space assigned from the 93 available. He assured that everyone would be on the same even playing field and the parking would be calculated against the number of spaces per ratio. Commissioner Rodgers said that instead of the old terminology a square footage translation is now being used to fill all of the available allocation. She said that this would not stop new applications from being considered after this time period and/or after the 93 spaces have been allocated. However, those new uses would be required to have a full out parking survey prepared. She questioned if it is fair to burden one business for that sort of expense. Director John Livingstone said that when the allocation is close to being assigned out and if another business feels there is still ample parking to accommodate their use, they would still have the opportunity to prove that fact but would have to pay for a study to prove there is sufficient available parking. Projects began within the original three-year time frame would continue through the processing even after that time period has ended. Commissioner Rodgers asked how much such a study could cost. Director John Livingstone replied that he is unsure. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some businesses paid for parking including some who have spent more than $150,000. Questioned why this proposal is fair. Director John Livingstone said that this proposal is intended to open opportunities across the board for a limited time period to help stimulate the Village. Everyone benefits from more activity in the Village. Commissioner Hunter questioned the viability of a large supermarket in the Village with no new parking provided. Director John Livingstone said that lots of downtown businesses do not have readily accessible parking where customers can pull in directly in front of said business. That is the nature of a downtown that is a row of attached businesses. Patrons park in one area and walk to one or more destinations in the Village. Chair Nagpal asked if it is conceivable that one business could take up all 93 spaces. Director John Livingstone replied that it would be possible if they could assemble enough parcels to create a project large enough to absorb all 93 spaces. Commissioner Schallop said that this scenario is unlikely in the Village within the three-year time frame. Commissioner Rodgers: • Advised that she has spent a fair amount of time reviewing documents behind Parking Districts 2, 3 and 4. Information on District 1 was not readily available. • Said that each District was developed to create a large lot behind businesses with uniform spaces, lighting and improvements. • Reported that the City issued bonds, paid fair market value for land behind the buildings and enacted cross easements should be obtained. • Said that the City retains easements and ownership and can do as it pleases with these lots as long as it is consistent with public policies. • Added that in 1988, 31 spaces were made available for sale and no one availed themselves of that opportunity and it closed. That was more than 15 years ago now. Director John Livingstone advised that two letters of support were provided as desk items this evening. One is from a business owner and the other from a property owner. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jim Rosenfeld, 14219 Okanogan Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he owns 14471 Big Basin Way, location of the International Coffee Exchange. • Advised that he made a $459,000 contribution to the parking district. • Said that was in the past and we have to now look forward. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 7 • Stated that this proposed amendment is a progressive idea that moves the Village in the right direction to help motivate better buildouts and help close up gaps with new storefronts. • Said that it is essential to create a critical mass of retail as the Village is currently too small. • Added that his property is built out but that the driveway near Tapioca Express is not needed and could be built out. • Said that the City offered a matching funds program that resulted in several small improvements. That was a very successful venture. • Stated that this is a major opportunity. • Agreed that there is no concern that parking is saturated at this time. That is not an issue. • Reported that he has lived here for 60 years. • Opined that the linchpin is the Buy and Save property where a major store such as Whole Foods or Andronico’s could be located. That property is key to a viable Village. Commissioner Hunter asked where people would park for such a store. Mr. Jim Rosenfeld replied underground. Ms. Annette Casabonne, 20120 Herriman Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that she is a property owner on Big Basin Way and used to be a vendor there. • Said that relaxing parking requirements will help create a good marketing mix for the Village. Mr. Michael Shadman, 14190 Victor Place, Saratoga: • Said he also owns property on Big Basin Way and Highway 9. • Said he is happy to see that a study was done that determined that more than 90 spaces were available in the Village. • Stated that this shows that the Village is underdeveloped and that a mix of uses is needed. • Said that the three-year limitation with the Ordinance amendment may create a problem and suggested that it be based only on parking limitations rather than three years. • Added that this would avoid any problems if the 93 spaces were not committed within three years time. • Stressed his preference to limit this relaxed parking standard only until the available spaces are assigned and not to a three-year time frame. • Said that this offers a proposed road map for future development and that the three-year time frame is really meaningless. • Thanked the Commission and staff. • Said that this is a good start and he hopes to see this action approved tonight. Mr. Bob Cancellieri, 14860 Cody Lane, Saratoga: • Said that he owns the Saratoga Market and Tapioca Express. • Advised that he paid over $300,000 over a period of 15 years and also bought property rights. • Said he liked the concept of underground parking as mentioned by Jim Rosenfeld. • Asked for clarification as to which areas of town are CH-1 versus CH-2. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 8 • Said his own feeling is that the City should stick to the formula we have now. • Stated that having Starbucks is a step in the right direction. • Reiterated that underground parking is more of an answer and that he does not see using other people’s property as a sign of progress. Commissioner Rodgers said that it appears that Mr. Cancellieri has some development rights that he purchased without using. Mr. Bob Cancellieri said that he feels like he is being penalized since he chose not to develop it. Commissioner Rodgers said that if he has development rights, Mr. Cancellieri is excluded from the 93 spaces limitation and can still develop when he is ready to do so. She asked staff if this assumption is correct. Director John Livingstone replied that she is correct. He added that Mr. Cancellieri might want to wait three years to see what happens. Ms. Shirley Cancellieri, 14860 Cody Lane, Saratoga: • Said that the comments made by Commissioner Rodgers bothered her in that the City can do whatever it wants to do. • Stated her impression that the Commission has already made up its mind and that no one is listening to public comments. • Said that she has a problem with City, State and Federal government and does not feel that she has a say. • Said that the City Manager Harry Peacock had told them that they were the only smart ones to buy development rights. • Stated that when someone is given something without paying for it, they don’t appreciate it. • Reminded that they have given to the parking district and did not build. • Reiterated that it appears the Commission has made up its mind already. • Said that she has an 1,800 square foot building right now and should be given another 1,800 square feet. • Said that they deserve to get something for paying money all those years. • Said that she would like to build studio apartments in the area like those at Santana Row and could use more room. • Reminded that they put in a lot of money. • Pointed out that Whole Foods and Starbucks can afford to pay for parking. Commissioner Rodgers: • Assured that no one’s mind is made up. • Said that she had reviewed the letter of advice from the City Attorney who made the determination that this is something the City can do. • Advised that right now this is a planning matter being considered by the Commission. Council handles policy matters. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 9 • Stated that Ms. Cancellieri’s situation is unique and may require individual negotiations that she may want to refer to Council. Ms. Shirley Cancellieri said that she was pessimistic. Commissioner Rodgers apologized for giving that impression. Mr. Eugene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Said that his building is part of District 4 and in the CH-2 District. • Said that this proposal will help preserve historical buildings on Big Basin Way. • Reminded that an Ordinance prohibiting personal services was recently adopted. • Stressed the need for good circulation, getting through Big Basin Way, and having buildings look similar front and back. • Stated his hope that this lowered parking requirement would spark growth of goods and services needed in the Village. • Cautioned against building another Santana Row but rather fill in the vacancies on Big Basin Way. • Said that with this Ordinance, staff and issuance of Use Permits, the City will be able to put together a very unique Village. • Stated the need for one or two great shops that are unique to Saratoga and the Valley. • Said that there is no problem with over utilization or intensification. • Said he and his wife are hoping that the Commission will approve this Text Amendment and they look forward to seeing what happens as a result over the next three years. Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: • Informed that his office is located on Big Basin Way. • Stated that he likes the tone he hears from the Commission and its good level of cooperation. • Said that this comes down to the vision of Saratoga into the future. This is a major step in the right direction to advance the Village. • Said that he too purchased development rights but said that voting for this Text Amendment is a step in the right direction. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Nagpal said that she still questions the concept of a large project that could take up all of the available spaces. She asked if the Commission could regulate this through the Use Permit process. Director John Livingstone said that while the concept is possible it is also fairly remote. He added that a large project would also be required to undergo environmental review. He said that smaller projects are already starting to have interest in this Ordinance before it even goes through. Chair Nagpal asked if there are any pending projects. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 10 Director John Livingstone said that so far one has expressed interest. Commissioner Schallop: • Informed that he had received a call prior to this hearing from Mr. Zambetti. • Said that Mr. Zambetti’s comments this evening were well said. • Said that he views this Text Amendment as a low cost mechanism to drive investment in the Village in a manner that has been successful in other towns. • Said that property owners in the Village are interested in this opportunity in the next few years. • Added that he can understand the feeling from some that this is unfair to those who spent on parking districts but pointed out that they have the same rights as anyone else to take advantage of the relaxation of parking requirements during this three-year period. Chair Nagpal asked Commissioner Schallop what he thinks of the three-year time frame. Commissioner Schallop said that Mr. Zambetti had recommended five years but he was satisfied with staff’s recommendation and rationale for a three-year period. Chair Nagpal said that the traffic study was old. She added that the time frame is because of a desire for this to create a quick impact. Commissioner Schallop added that this could always be renewed or extended. It can be looked at from a long-term standpoint. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that the reason for the limit to three years is to serve as an incentive to take rather quick action to help increase investment in the Village. • Said that this amendment offers a way to allow for quick development without major studies or investments. • Said that the three-year time frame gives time to look at other options, traffic patterns and determine the Village’s atmosphere into the future. • Said that she lives just beyond the Village and goes through there several times a day. • Declared that she loves the Village. • Said that she has noticed an increased and improved vitality in the Village over the last few years. • Reported that she too received a call from Mr. Zambetti and wanted that fact in the record. • Pointed out the two written letters of support received this evening • Expressed disappointment that there are not more regular citizens present tonight to speak to this issue but it is clear that the business and property owners here are in support. • Announced that she is willing to recommend Council’s approval of this Text Amendment. Commissioner Cappello: • Reminded that two study sessions were held on this issue. • Said that options were weighed carefully and negatives and positives evaluated. • Said that this proposal is a good first step to the revitalization of the Village but is not the only thing that needs to be done. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 11 • Stated he is in favor of this Text Amendment and likes the three-year limitation since activity is needed fast. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that this is an enormously disturbing decision. • Said that she knows property owners in the Village very well and knows Saratoga very well. • Identified herself as a preservationist. • Cautioned that the City must be careful what it hopes for as it may end up with a Village that it does not want. • Pointed out that two Commissioners are absent tonight. She is sorry that they are not here to express themselves on this issue. • Said that if the Village ends up looking like any other downtown rather than the unique and picturesque place we now have, she will be upset with herself. • Said she would not and could not support this Text Amendment because the Village means too much to her. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the design standards are not changing with this action. The same level of review would occur. Commissioner Hunter said she questions the fact that there are 93 spaces available. Recounted that she recently went to Buy & Save twice in one day and could not find parking. When her family goes to dinner on a Friday night, they have problems finding parking. Chair Nagpal asked if a tighter time frame would make this better. Commissioner Hunter said that she wants to see the results of the citizen survey before supporting this action. Chair Nagpal said that this is a step to stimulate activity in the Village. Commissioner Hunter: • Questioned if there is any proof that this would actual stimulate growth of the Village. If people come to the Village and find no place to park, do those people not go elsewhere? • Pointed out that just a year ago there was talk about lack of parking in the Village. Chair Nagpal said that it would be better to have too much traffic coming to the Village than not enough. She asked if Commissioner Hunter disagrees with the 2002 Parking Study. Commissioner Hunter: • Replied no, it is too old to rely upon. • Said that she spoke with a Village business owner who said that business is thriving. • Advised that the citizen survey is a 24-minute long telephone survey and it might be rare for people to be willing to take that amount of time to participate. • Encouraged people to respond to the survey takers. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 12 Chair Nagpal: • Said that she believes the Village can use more diversity and revitalization. • Suggested that this is one avenue to do so. • Expressed support for this Text Amendment to relax parking requirements for a three-year period. • Explained that Fehr & Peers has determined that the 2002 Parking Survey is sufficient. • Assured that no one’s mind was made up prior to this hearing and that she was somewhat hesitant about the three-year time frame. • Said that two years would be good and could be extended if necessary. • Added that the others seem to think that three years is reasonable. • Said that a tight time frame is needed to make sure impacts are positive. Commissioner Rodgers said that one, three and five-year options were offered. She asked for feedback from staff as to why three years is the time frame supported by staff. Director John Livingstone: • Reiterated that people have to get financing, hire an architect, have plans developed and then have their project deemed complete by the City. • Said that this process can take a year or longer. • Added that restricting this amendment to a one-year time frame is too risky. Applicants would likely feel too rushed to accomplish everything necessary in that time. • Said that three years is hopefully the middle of the road time frame that is comfortable for applicants while still sparking prompt action. • Reminded that getting a commercial project through the system takes time. Commissioner Schallop asked if there should be a cap on the number of spaces that one business can have allocated from the 93 available. Chair Nagpal asked about the noticing for this hearing. Director John Livingstone explained that a large ad was published. Notices were mailed both to property owners and business owners in the affected area. Commissioner Hunter said that the business owners are clearly in favor and it would be odd if they were not. Commissioner Schallop said that a lack of interest by business owners would have indicated that this is not a means of achieving the goal of revitalizing the Village. Chair Nagpal pointed out that this public hearing received lots of notice. Commissioner Hunter replied that ads about parking are largely ignored by the average person. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of a Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 13 Negative Declaration and a Zoning Text Amendment (Application #06-049) that would relax all parking requirements in the CH-1 and CH-2 zones for three years or until such time that new development or intensification of uses equals to or exceeds the parking surplus as identified in a recent parking study, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Kundtz and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Chair Nagpal asked staff when Council would consider this item for final action. Director John Livingstone replied January 4, 2006. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #05-097 (503-26-005) Lam/Wong, 20880 4th Street: The applicant requests design review approval to demolish a single-story, single-family residence and to construct a two-story, single-family residence. The total floor area of the proposed residence is 3,366 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 10,500 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish a single-story, two bedroom, one bath residence with attached garage and construct a new two-story residence with attached garage. • Explained that the proposed residence would consist of 3,366 square feet where 3,370 square feet is the maximum allowed. The maximum height is 25 feet, 9 inches. The lot consists of 10,500 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. The property has an average slope of six percent. • Described the proposed architecture as Contemporary Mediterranean/Spanish Revivalist. • Said that the second story is stepped back in excess of the minimum requirements. The applicants are proposing a landscape plan that includes two 24-inch box Japanese maple trees. Of the eight trees on the property, three or Ordinance size, two of which remain unaffected by this project. One tree, a plum, is to be removed and has been ranked as not being in good condition. The arborist has recommended a mitigation tree to be located at the rear of the property. • Said that the architecture in this area includes a mixture of single and two-story homes. • Stated that this home has been designed to address privacy issues and minimum bulk. The project underwent geotechnical review and received geotechnical clearance. • Said that this project is compatible with adjacent homes. • Explained that privacy concerns have been raised regarding a balcony proposed on the second story rear at the corner that is proposed for providing air and light ventilation for the rear of the house. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 14 • Explained that the applicant and the property owners from two doors down have met and reached a satisfactory solution that includes partially closing off one side of the balcony to prevent views over to that neighbors property. Both sides are present to be able to talk about that agreement. • Cautioned that enclosing the balcony too much may create an FAR issue. • Said that a letter was received today from Mr. Ken Schulz who lives at 15001 Springer Avenue who has a concern about the height of the building and the potential of blocking his view of the hills from his house. • Stated that one balcony is proposed at the front of the house facing the street with no privacy impacts. The balcony to the rear was of concern to a neighbor two properties over not the adjacent neighbor. • Said that the setback to the rear property line is 52 feet, which is fairly large. • Said that no significant view issues have been raised. Commissioner Cappello asked staff to clarify the impacts if the balcony were to be enclosed and at what point would that space be counted as floor area. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that if it were to be 60 percent enclosed it would be counted. With two open sides this is okay. The solution reached is to have the side of the balcony facing the neighbor with a privacy issue dealt with through the addition of a screen that blocks view onto her property from this balcony. Commissioner Cappello questioned how to safeguard that this element is incorporated into the project. Chair Nagpal asked if the Commission would have to know the exact changes. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said the Commission could offer specific direction to the Community Development Director. Commissioner Hunter asked the size of that balcony. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick deferred a response on that question to the project architect. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Patrick Lam, Property Owner and Applicant, 20880 4th Street, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in this home for 12 years, since 1993. • Stated that many of his neighbors have rebuilt their homes during that time. • Explained that his home is small and consists of only about 1,000 square feet. • Thanked his architect for a nice design. • Said that on behalf of his family, he also wanted to thank his neighbors for their support. • Read from a letter from adjacent neighbors, Brad Johnson and Paul Kass, who cannot attend tonight’s hearing but are in support of this proposed new home. The letter stated Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 15 that there were no adverse impacts and that the project would help improve property values in the neighborhood over time. • Reported that an agreement has been reached and that for the back bedroom windows non-transparent film will cover the glass from the bottom to above eyesight area. On the balcony, non-transparent screening will be installed to prevent views onto this neighbor’s property. This will not be full wall height but will block views of that neighbor’s home from his balcony. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Patrick Lam for the size of this balcony. Mr. Patrick Lam replied 6 feet by 12 feet. Commissioner Hunter said that this is quite large. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that Sheet A2.2 of the plans outlines the balcony. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that as long as three openings remain on this balcony perhaps that side of the balcony could be completely closed off to achieve this goal of privacy. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this house includes three balconies not just two. Chair Nagpal said that the only one with any issues raised is this one for the back bedroom. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it is 11 feet by 8 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Patrick Lam if he would be willing to make the balconies smaller. Mr. Patrick Lam replied that it depends on how small. Commissioner Hunter said that the balcony for the master bedroom is looming over a single- story home located on the other side. Mr. Patrick Lam: • Said that he guessed that he could make this one smaller. • Said that Mr. Ken Schulz is the neighbor who has submitted a letter outlining privacy concerns. However, Mr. Ken Schulz is not a direct neighbor. There is another neighbor between the Schulz house and his. • Pointed out that they are utilizing a 50-foot setback where only 35 feet is required. • Said that there are large trees and more trees would be planted in the southeast corner of the property. • Distributed some photographs and the agreement drafted between him and his neighbor for mitigations to the balcony to alleviate her privacy impact concerns. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the two fireplaces and whether they were wood burning or gas. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 16 Mr. Patrick Lam replied gas. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that Code restricts a home to only one wood-burning fireplace. Mr. Patrick Lam said that he wants to use gas for his fireplaces. Ms. Doris Branzich, 20896 4th Street, Saratoga: • Stated that she is not a newcomer to this neighborhood and that she was born and raised in Saratoga. • Said she has resided in her home for 57 years and has seen lots of changes. • Expressed her appreciation for the wonderful neighbors that the Lam/Wong family has been during the last 12 years. • Stated her support of the design plans that are considerate and accommodating. • Reported that these plans were shown to her in advance. • Said that this new home will add beauty and increase value to the neighborhood. • Stated her hope that this design will be approved by the Commission tonight as she wants to keep these good neighbors. • Said that the neighbor on Springer is not near, adding that they are the ones who look at the mountains from their street, not them. It is ridiculous for them to object. Ms. Yvonne Forcier, 14401 Elva Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that her home is located at the corner of 4th Street and Elva Avenue, directly across from Mr. Patrick Lam. • Explained that her home is two-story and was built in 1969. • Said that she has been in this neighborhood since 1945 when her parents built their home. • Said that she has received notifications of public hearings over the years but never attended a meeting until now. • Said that improvements help this neighborhood. • Said that the neighbor with privacy concerns due to the balcony lives two houses away. • Said that she pulls her blinds down at night to assure privacy. • Stated that this new home would be an asset to the neighborhood and is a very beautiful design. • Pointed out that there have been lots of changes in this neighborhood all for the better. • Reiterated her opinion that for someone living in a two-story house two houses away to complain about privacy impacts is ridiculous. • Stated her hope that this home is approved as Mr. Patrick Lam deserves this as he has worked hard on his proposal. Ms. Diane McCarthy, 20860 4th Street, Saratoga: • Explained that this is a high-density neighborhood with narrow substandard lots. On top of that the street is on a grade that highlights the impacts on homes up hill. • Said that she built her house six years ago and went through the same review process as the Lams and had to address the same privacy impact issues. To appease her downhill neighbor’s privacy impact concerns, she had to obscure the windows overlooking that neighbor’s house. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 17 • Stated that the Lam’s house would overlook the adjacent neighbor and into her home two doors down into a large picture window. • Added that the proposed house would also block some view. • Said that the problem is the line of sight view that overlooks their home. • Advised that Mr. Patrick Lam has been cooperative and that the other neighbors who have spoken this evening don’t understand her concerns. • Stated that she wants the modifications to the balcony and windows facing her home to be written into the approved project, with the windows to be obscured up to six feet to prevent views into her home. Commissioner Cappello asked if the only issue is with the balcony in Bedroom #1. Ms. Diane McCarthy said that this balcony would have line of sight into her house. She said she is simply asking for the same consideration for her that she had for her neighbor when she constructed her home a few years back. Mr. Patrick Lam said that he respects privacy, which is why he was willing to work with Diane McCarthy. Both sides agree and he is happy to provide the necessary screening. Commissioner Schallop asked staff if they had reviewed this solution and felt that this is an appropriate solution. Director John Livingstone replied that the solution is fine as far as Code is concerned. He said that if there were three walls and a roof, the balcony space would have to be counted as floor area. In this situation there are two open walls so that won’t be a problem. He added that these amendments to the project could be conditioned. Commissioner Hunter asked how the requirement for obscuring film on the window could be guaranteed for Ms. Diane McCarthy. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that it would be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Hunter asked what if there are future owners of this home. If the film is removed, could the McCarthys complain for enforcement of this condition. Commissioner Rodgers supported having the specific material for the screening worked out with staff. Mr. Patrick Lam said he was willing to work with his architect, Diane McCarthy and staff. He said he is happy to do the same to his windows as Diane did to hers. Commissioner Hunter asked about the paint trim color as being gold. Mr. Patrick Lam said that it is a Kelly Moore paint and is not gold. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter said that she is concerned at having two large balconies on such a small property. She added that in her five years on the Commission, they have tried to keep balcony sizes down in bedrooms. These are particularly large. Chair Nagpal said that nothing has been said against the master bedroom balcony. Commissioner Hunter said that it is rather large and could accommodate furniture for seating. It is a major balcony for a small property that effectively can become a full outdoor room. She added that this house would be visible from Canyon View Road. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that the Commission has asked for reductions in balconies in the past. She asked if the screening on the Bedroom #1 balcony would still be necessary if that balcony was reduced in size. Commissioner Hunter said she is speaking of another balcony. Commissioner Rodgers asked if Commissioner Hunter is proposing a reduction in the Master Bedroom and Bedroom #1 balconies. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she is reluctant on balconies. • Stated that there are differences between this application and the one heard on November 23rd. Tonight’s lot consists of 10,000 square feet while the lot discussed at the last meeting was only 5,000 square feet in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. • Said that there is room for articulation on this larger lot that was not available on the previous smaller lot. • Stated that this home is further set back from the adjacent properties and is located further from the street. • Advised that she does not have the same concerns here that she had with that last project. • Added that the balconies do need to be reduced significantly. • Stressed the importance of specifically referencing the limitation to one wood-burning fireplace. Chair Nagpal asked about the obscuring of the balcony. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is not fond of obscuring film and does not like to impose that requirement. However, if this applicant is willing to do so, she is willing to go along with their agreement. If the balcony were reduced in size, it might reduce the need of a side wall. Chair Nagpal said that usually balcony reductions are done as a result of neighbor concern. She expressed concern that this proposed reduction is arbitrarily being done here. Commissioner Rodgers: Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 19 • Said that the balcony for Bedroom #1 has a neighbor complaint and she likes to address neighbor complaints. • Added that while there have been no complaints over the Master Bedroom balcony, it will overlook the uphill neighbor. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he applauds the applicant’s efforts to address neighbor concerns. • Thanked Mr. Patrick Lam for his efforts. • Said he has no issue with balconies or with blocking the view from the balcony for Bedroom #1 as long as it meets Code requirements and is proportional to the home. • Reminded that there are no neighbor concerns except Mr. Schulz who is too far away to result in privacy impacts. • Stated he is in favor of this project. Chair Nagpal asked if the next-door neighbor signed a letter of support for this project. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that that neighbor is Ms. Doris Branzich who spoke this evening in favor of approval. Chair Nagpal: • Agreed that balcony changes have usually been done in response to concerns raised. • Said she proposes leaving the balconies as they are especially since a deal has been worked out that addresses the concerns raised concerning the Bedroom #1 balcony. • Commended the efforts of Mr. Patrick Lam to work with his neighbors to resolve concerns. • Asked staff if they have enough direction on this issue. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes, the Commission’s position is clear but specific direction from the Commission is helpful. She reminded that the proposal includes a portion of windows to be obscured to block views of the neighbor’s property. Chair Nagpal said that she hates to approve obscured windows but since the applicant is willing she will support that solution. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #05-097) to demolish a single-story, single-family residence and to construct a two-story, single-family residence on property located at 20880 4th Street with the provision that the applicant assure privacy screening from the balcony in Bedroom #1 using a finished wall in a similar style to the house and use of obscuring windows using stained glass for those windows overlooking the McCarthy property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Kundtz and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 20 Commissioner Hunter explained that she is voting no because she cannot support such an enormous balcony. Commissioner Schallop said that he usually agrees but not in this case since there is no specific complaint by neighbors calling for the removal of these balconies. He said questioning the inclusion of large balconies is important since balconies can essentially become added square footage and perhaps get past allowable maximum square footage. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that future owners could try to enclose this balcony completely thereby exceeding allowable floor area ratios. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #06-037 (397-10-020) CHEN, 8357 MONTE VISTA DRIVE: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to demolish a single-story, single-family residence and construct a 6,098.6 square foot one-story single-family residence. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 21 feet. The gross lot size is 1.02 acres and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish a 2,389 square foot, single-story residence and construct a new 6,099 square foot one-story single-family residence with attached two-car and one-car garages and a swimming pool. • Explained that the Zoning Code requires Design Review Approval when the total combined square footage on site exceeds 6,000 square feet. • Reported that since this house is less than 50 years old, it is not identified as a cultural resource. • Added that this project is exempt from CEQA. • Reported that no complaints have been received. • Said that the project includes a number of fireplaces, including one outdoors. Only one fireplace is wood burning. • Described this new home as a single-story with a maximum height of 20 feet, 11 inches. • Said that there are 26 Ordinance size trees and approximately five Modesto Ash would need to be removed. Per the arborist report one tree, a White Birch, is in ill health. The applicant agrees with the recommendations of the arborist report and is willing to bond the trees on site. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked if the pool would affect any more trees. Planner Therese Schmidt replied no. The inclusion of a pool was always in the plan but was inadvertently left out of the resolution. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the large tree in front is being preserved. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 21 Commissioner Hunter said that she is surprised that the trees slated for removal were not marked before the Commission’s site visit. Planner Therese Schmidt said that she neglected to do so and apologized for that omission. She said that she would defer to the applicant to answer specific questions about trees on site. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are two houses nearby with essentially the same design style. Planner Therese Schmidt replied essentially but with some differences. This house is sympathetic to this neighborhood. Chair Nagpal opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Project Architect: • Said that this home is different but with similar mass and style as two other homes nearby. • Said that the trees being removed are located behind the existing structure except for one near the pool and one at the front. • Added that they are clustered within the new building area at the rear. Commissioner Hunter asked if these trees would be replaced. Mr. Chris Spaulding said they are proposing to. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the original tree bond amount calculated by the Arborist was $140,980. That amount was adjusted down to $103,580 with the agreement to comply with Arborist Babby’s requirements. The Arborist has outlined replacement trees as 24-inch box. All replacement trees must be in place to the satisfaction of Arborist Babby before the tree bond can be released. Mr. Chris Spaulding pointed out that the trees are not removed because of the house but because of the removal of the old pool. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the mailing list for the hearing notice is wrong and includes properties on the other side of town from this property. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the wrong mailing list was attached to the report but the notice was properly sent to the correct list. Ms. Jill Chen, Property Owner and Applicant: • Said that she personally went to every neighbor with her plans and none had questions. • Stated that some neighbors were hard to reach but all are okay and signed the letters of support for her project. Chair Nagpal closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Planning Commission Minutes for December 14, 2005 Page 22 Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the Arborist Report dated September 9, 2005, recommended a higher tree bond. Planner Therese Schmidt said that at the time the bond amount took into consideration the neighbor’s trees. With additional mitigation measures to ensure the well being of those trees, the Arborist reduced the bond amount. Commissioner Hunter said that she is very grateful to be able to say yes to a project tonight. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #06-037) to demolish a single-story, single-family residence and construct a 6,098.6 square foot one-story, single-family residence on property located at 19358 Monte Vista Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Schallop NOES: None ABSENT: Kundtz and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director John Livingstone: • Reminded that there is no meeting on December 28, 2005. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Ad Hoc meeting today where they are slowly going through the Village Guidelines. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Nagpal adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk