Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 9, 2005 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl Absent: Commissioners Schallop and Zutshi Staff: Associate Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 26, 2005. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 26, 2005, were adopted with corrections to pages 2 and 5. (5-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Zutshi were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Associate Planner Ann Welsh announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 3, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Associate Planner Ann Welsh announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-272 (503-80-001), SHANKAR, 22461 Mount Eden Road: Requests for Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house on a Santa Clara County parcel, which abuts the City boundary and is proposed for annexation to the City. The lot is to be developed as Hillside Residential and contains 1.89 acres and has a 28 percent slope. The proposed house and garage would be 5,842 square feet with a 533 square foot second dwelling unit and a 1.908 square foot basement. The maximum height of the residence is 25 feet, 10 inches as measured from the natural grade. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to build a new two-story residence on a 1.89-acre parcel located within County jurisdiction on Mount Eden Road that is proposed for annexation into the City. • Described the proposed home as consisting of 5,842 square feet with a 1,908 square foot basement and a 533 square foot second dwelling. The maximum height is 25 feet, 10 inches from natural grade. • Said that the materials include a beige stucco and Spanish clay tile roofing. • Stated that the property has been pre-zoned Hillside Residential and includes a 28 percent average slope. • Explained that neighbor input includes concerns regarding site drainage, placement of the driveway, impacts on privacy and appearance of bulk. • Advised that the Department of Airports and Roads reviewed the issue of the driveway placement on behalf of the County and supports the proposed placement of the driveway. • Said that privacy impacts are addressed through the inclusion of a landscape buffer at the mutual property line. The rear of the property would incorporate a berm in order to minimize the impacts of the façade. • Added that additional efforts to minimize bulk include a reduction to a three-car garage. The north and east elevations have a low profile. • Reported that an Equestrian Trail will be dedicated to the City. • Said that the Design Review findings could be made with the requirement for landscaping for privacy. The natural landscape would be preserved and four trees on site would be transplanted elsewhere on the property. • Said that the impervious coverage would be 13 percent. • Advised that the bulk and height of this home is compatible to similar neighboring properties and that the findings can be made as revised. • Said she would be available for any questions. Commissioner Hunter asked how the water would be drained from the site and where the concerns were regarding site drainage. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that the neighbor to the south is concerned regarding site drainage. The applicant revised one drain channel along the southern property line so that drainage is diverted to Mount Eden Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Rodgers asked about the Equestrian trail. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that the trail is in the vicinity of the existing driveway. Commissioner Rodgers asked if staff has a specific recommendation regarding the proposal to reduce the size of the balcony and by how many feet that reduction should be. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that staff recommends it be cut in half. As proposed it is 25 feet and staff is recommending a reduction to 12.5 feet. A line of sight impact study would be needed to best determine the final size of this balcony. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this study has been done. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied not yet. Commissioner Hunter expressed concerns about including fireplaces in Hillside zoned parcels due to fire danger concerns. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that nothing in Code prohibits fireplaces. Chair Garakani added that spark arresters eliminate fire concerns and added that the applicant has shown the line of sight impacts. Commissioner Nagpal asked where the condition is in the draft resolution that pertains to the maintenance of a sight triangle by keeping trees pruned. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that this requirement is included on the drainage and grading plan. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a maximum height for fireplaces. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that the Zoning Ordinance does not address this. Fireplaces are not regulated by height limitations. Fireplaces are considered outdoor unenclosed accessory structures. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the requirement for a berm. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that this requirement is included in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that palm trees are proposed to line the driveway and reminded that the Commission has a preference for native species. Palms are not native. She questioned whether use of palms could be precluded. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. The Commission has required use of native landscaping. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether the materials of the second unit would be consistent with the main residence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 4 Associate Planner Ann Welsh reported that the applicant has revised the second unit to have similar roofing and stucco façade. Chair Garakani asked about the garage. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that it would become a carport. Commissioner Uhl said that generally the limits on size and height are not pushed to such limits as they are in this case. This home comes across as very large and he asked what is driving this since maximizing is generally discouraged. Associate Planner Ann Welsh reminded that this applicant obtained County approval for a much larger home than this one. The City subsequently elected to annex this site into the City and the applicant had to scale down the height and floor area of his proposed home. She added that she has tried to reconcile the County and City requirements. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the applicant had any idea that this property would be annexed into the City. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that the applicant had a County approval for their proposed house. She added that the original location of the home was in a less conspicuous location on this lot but based upon geotechnical studies, the new home had to be relocated elsewhere on site. She reminded that this is a three-year project. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the County had approved the original placement on the property. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. The original application for this new home was situated on the existing footprint. The City’s geotechnical consultant asked for information about the original placement and a map showed slides towards the existing footprint and toward Mount Eden Road. Both the City’s and the applicant’s geotechnical consultants agreed that this new location is better for the new home. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the County approved tonight’s design. Associate Planner Ann Welsh reminded that the home approved by the County was larger than this one. The home was reduced when it was redesigned to meet City requirements. Commissioner Nagpal said that it might be appropriate to give allowances when a decision to annex occurs after the design review process has already started with the County. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that this was an unfortunate situation for this applicant. When this applicant began his process the City’s mindset was against annexation. Now there is a different mindset, which supports the concept of annexation and the City is now aggressively pursuing annexation for adjacent contiguous properties. This owner got caught up in this change of policy. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the line of sight study has been looked at. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 5 Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied no, it has not yet been seen. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern for privacy impacts to the neighbors to the south and pointed out that Policy 3, Techniques 1 and 3, prefers and/or requires use of evergreen vegetation for privacy landscaping. Associate Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the line of sight study shows that the second story window would not be visible with the installation of a 16-foot high tree. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Robert Aviles, Project Architect: • Stated that this is a tough site geographically and that this property has a long history in the County. • Reminded that a large home was previously approved by the County for previous owners of this property but was not built. Instead, he designed an addition to the existing home. • Advised that the Shankars purchased the property and went to the County. The County told them they could either modify the existing approval or let it expire. In the interim, the City started annexation proceedings and the City’s Hillside Residential Ordinance was adopted. • Said that the original location of this proposed house was on the existing footprint, which was much steeper and effectively screened the garage. The current site of the home is on a less steep slope causing a portion of the garage to be located above grade and therefore counted as floor area. A five-foot wall with berm could help hide the garage but is not possible under the Ordinance. • Said that this project complies with City requirements on this difficult site. It is his job to meet the wishes and needs of his client. • Pointed out that there are quite a few larger homes in this area. Commissioner Hunter said that the 25 foot wide balcony has an impact and questioned whether the requirement to reduce it would have an impact on the project. Mr. Robert Aviles said that this balcony was included at the request of the Shankars as there is not a lot of level outdoor area on this property. This balcony creates outdoor located space right outside of the family room. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that more appropriate outdoor level space could be located near the pool. She asked the architect how he felt about reducing the length of the balcony. Mr. Robert Aviles said that as long as the reduction still allows room to back vehicles from the garage without hitting the support columns. Commissioner Rodgers asked if it were possible to widen the balcony while reducing the length. Mr. Robert Aviles replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers asked if markings had been made on the ground where the balcony would be located. Mr. Robert Aviles replied he was not sure. Mr. Shankar was willing to do so but they didn’t think it was necessary following the site visit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Rodgers questioned what impacts a wider balcony would have on the outdoor fireplace. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the impacts of the Design Review Guidelines and Hillside Zoning Ordinance on the issue of slope. Mr. Robert Aviles said that the slope is less than 10 percent at the new location of the home. That is part of their dilemma. He advised that in 1980 he helped develop the original Hillside Residential Guidelines for the City of Saratoga. He advised that all massing for this project are compatible with the guidelines and complies with the suggested techniques. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that there are only two windows from the front elevation. Mr. Robert Aviles said that one is a large family room window and the other is a clearstory window located above the staircase. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern that the proposed paint color, Navajo White, would be too visible on the hillside. She asked what was the reflectivity of that paint color. Mr. Robert Aviles said that it has a light reflective value of 62. He added that they would be glad to work on the issue of color and suggested that the Commission give a maximum reflectivity limit and they could have a color that is more tinted or muted to stay within that limit. Ms. Cheri Keenan, 22215 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that she has resided here for 30 years and has seen a lot of changes over that time and attended lots of Planning Commission meetings. • Said that the theme at these Planning Commission meetings has been the perception of bulk. • Pointed out that this is a very large house with a true height of 36 feet, 6 inches that is being called only 26 feet. • Added that from her property she will look upwards at this garage with two stories of home located above it. • Advised that her home is only 26 feet high. • Questioned who would be responsible for keeping the trees trimmed and weeds down near the new driveway. • Informed that this is a very dangerous portion of the road. • Said that there is a track record in the City that conditions of approval are not always followed and/or met and that the City’s staff is very busy. Once a project is finaled, nothing can be done. Mr. Paul Scole, 22301 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said his property is adjacent to this site, on the western end, and is the most affected. • Stated that this project does not blend well into the area and he has concerns. • Said that the story poles installed do not represent a good depiction of what this house would look like on this site. • Said that the proposed driveway location is not a good idea and pointed out that every year there are accidents at that curve in the road that can be verified by accident reports. • Stated that the drainage issue is of concern as he lives on the downhill side of this lot and experiences lots of storm water. Once a year, they experience a flood on his property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 7 • Expressed the importance of landscaping and screening, through the use of fast growing evergreen materials and perhaps a wrought iron fence with ivy growing on it. • Advised that good design is more important than screening the house. • Pointed out that palm trees are not consistent with this neighborhood. • Said that his greatest concern is that this home is designed too big. It is a three-story house overlooking his property. The western and southern elevations equal a massive building that is 36- and-a-half feet tall. The three story western elevation invades privacy and is visible from the entire neighborhood. One cannot find a similar three-story home in the entire area. • Said that he is also concerned about the proposed floating deck out front as it would overlook his property and that the proposed fireplace on that deck looks like a smokestack on a ship. • Suggested that no attempts have been made to minimize the privacy impacts and the visual impacts on the neighborhood. • Asked the Commission to help this neighborhood with this matter. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Paul Scole what happens when it rains hard. Mr. Paul Scole said that there are two gullies on this property. However, over time, people have thrown debris into the gullies and they overflow and flood his property. Mr. Robert Aviles, Project Architect: • Stated that he understands the concerns of the neighborhood. • Said that they would alleviate the drainage problem. • Reported that the County at one time put in a culvert for drainage on this property but later filled this culvert in with gravel at the request of the previous property owners. • Assured that they will divert drainage flow to drains. • Stated that the second unit on the Scole property is within 10 feet of this property line and it would be screened with landscaping. • Said they are trying to make something that is the best for everyone. • Said that the story poles depict the highest ridge and the footprint. These poles cost $4,000 to install. • Reiterated that this home has been designed per Code requirements and the privacy issues can be dealt with through landscaping. Chair Garakani asked about the moving of four Oak trees. Mr. Robert Aviles: • Expressed concerns about the Arborist report recommendation to relocate these trees. • Said that digging up and relocating a Valley Oak Tree results in a less than 50 percent chance of survival for the moved trees. • Added that the City is imposing a $72,000 bond for these trees and that it will cost anywhere from $3,500 to $6,000 to move each tree. • Suggested that a condition be imposed to replace any removed trees rather than relocating these trees, a task that leaves him apprehensive as far as potential for success. • Added that the previous owners kept the trees along the road maintained and it is in the Shankars’ best interests to continue that maintenance for liability reasons. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the complaints regarding the west side elevation design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Robert Aviles said that design is subjective and that he does not agree with the neighbor who says that this is not a well designed home. However, he respects that person’s right to his own opinion. Commissioner Hunter asked about the height of 36 feet. Mr. Robert Aviles reminded that the measurement standard based on average slope is set by the City’s Ordinance. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that this home is just two inches below the maximum allowed height and the house is not tucked in at all. Mr. Robert Aviles replied that he has 25 years experience as an architect and that there is no rule against going to the maximum allowed heights. Mr. Udaya Shankar, Project Applicant and Property Owner, 22461 Mount Eden Road, Saratoga: • Reminded that he started work on this project two years ago and that he had been under the impression he was operating under County conditions when he purchased this property. • Said that later the City decided to annex his property, which he did not want to have happen. • Said that subsequently he had to change his plans before even submitting them to the City of Saratoga for review. At that time geological issues were raised. • Said that lots of engineering work was done to determine the driveway placement and the County approved an encroachment permit for this driveway. A site survey and line of site survey were prepared. • Reported that he too is concerned with issues of safety as he has 10 and 12 year old children. • Assured that he would make sure the low-lying branches are keep cut back to ensure visibility from the driveway. • Said that the fireplace and outdoor balcony were needed outdoor space accessed from the house. • Stated that between 14 and 16 trees are proposed to serve as screening. • Disagreed with comments that this is a three-story house and pointed out that each level is staggered. • Informed that he has worked for more than two years and expressed his appreciation for Ann Welsh’s efforts. • Stated he hoped that approval could be obtained for his home. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if there is any room for compromise on the issue of the balcony. Mr. Udaya Shankar said that they have addressed the neighbor-raised issues of drainage and screening. He stated that he would have no problem with moving the outdoor fireplace to a corner. Chair Garakani asked how about moving this fireplace to the other less visible terrace. Mr. Udaya Shankar suggested that a bit of give and take must occur here. He has to dedicate the Equestrian trail and is okay with that requirement and added that they have addressed all issues. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if his preference this evening would be for a final decision or if he is amiable to a continuance to allow him time to address issues raised. Mr. Udaya Shankar said he has worked two years already but that he had no problem working further with staff. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if he is willing to reduce his balcony. Mr. Udaya Shankar replied he would prefer not to do so. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that he might not lose any square footage if the balcony is widened at the same time it is shortened in length. Mr. Udaya Shankar said that his concern is more structural. He reminded that he needs to be able to back out of his garage. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that developing such a complex property raises difficult issues. A lot of work must be gone through prior to signing papers to purchase. • Urged that this project be sent back for further work, as there are lots of issues still to resolve. • Suggested that the home be tucked in more, that the balcony is too obtrusive and the house is out there in full view from the valley. • Stated the need to make this house more compatible with the property. It needs more work. • Reminded that this home would be here for the next 100 years or more. Commissioner Uhl seconded that opinion, saying that the Design Guidelines are clear and this project is pushing the limits on four out of six guideline limits. Said that while he feels compassion for this property owner, he does not agree that the perception of bulk for this home has been adequately minimized. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. She expressed empathy for these owners and suggested the need to provide very specific guidance and a promise of a fast return to another Planning Commission meeting. Chair Garakani asked if this applicant had requested annexation. Commissioner Hunter said that this is not a concern for the Planning Commission. Annexation was a decision of the Council and that decision to annex this property does not represent a call to lower development standards for this property. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the drawings have not yet been updated to reflect the amended conditions. Associate Planner Ann Welsh reported that the City has 60 days to decide on a course of action and tomorrow represents the 60th day. It is up to Mr. Shankar as to whether he wants a final decision this evening or is willing to accept a continuance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Rodgers: • Said she was hesitant to support this current design. • Stated that this house would give the perception that it is larger than it is on this hillside property. • Agreed to the need to specify conditions including the second unit materials, the omission of the palm trees and the inclusion of the berm. • Added that the location of the driveway is not of concern to her. • Stated that she would like to see issues raised this evening addressed. Commissioner Uhl stated that this design is pushing the Design Review Guideline limits too much. Chair Garakani suggested that more specific direction be given on the reduction desired on mass and bulk. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that the applicant be asked if he supports a continuance. Commissioner Uhl said that this applicant is pushing the limit on too many things. He needs to pull back on some instead of reaching the maximum allowed under Code. He may be meeting Code limits but he is not achieving the required Design Guideline findings. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that she believes that even with conditions as proposed by staff, this design does not appear to meet the expectations of the Commission, which appears to be asking for a complete redesign. Chair Garakani reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if he is willing to accept a continuance to allow him time to work further on revisions to his proposal. Mr. Udaya Shankar replied absolutely. Commissioner Hunter stated her confidence in Ann Welsh’s ability to understand what the Planning Commission is asking for. She stated that the Commission likes neither the fireplace nor the size of the balcony. Chair Garakani asked whether the applicant could be compelled to work further with staff and obtain final approval through staff. Commissioner Hunter replied no, this item must come back to the Commission for final approval. Commissioner Uhl said the Commission is not asking for a complete redesign. This house just needs to be less bulky. He recognized the benefit of the Equestrian trail to the community. Mr. Udaya Shankar: • Said that some of the proposals are not yet depicted on the plans. These changes would help tuck the house more into the hillside. • Stated his confidence in working out issues with staff. • Asked the Commission to consider approval with conditions as he does not want to waste the Commission’s time or his own. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Nagpal questioned whether a study session might be in order. Chair Garakani pointed out that after approval, a study session does not mean anything. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that it might take approximately one month to get back on the agenda. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Udaya Shankar if he supports bring this project back before the Commission. Mr. Udaya Shankar said he has no problem with that. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that it is easy to get on the first meeting in March if the architect can get the revised drawings done on time for that meeting. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the issues must be addressed including the fireplace and the color of the house. Commissioner Nagpal asked about meeting again either on February 23rd or March 9th. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that there is not time to advertise this item for February 23rd. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her understanding of the difficulties the Shankars have gone through. Mr. Udaya Shankar pointed out that the City’s Code dictates how a building’s height is measured from average slope and suggested that if this standard is not acceptable to the City should change its Code. Commissioner Nagpal advised that the review process takes into consideration Design Review findings as well as policy guidelines. Associate Planner Ann Welsh reminded that there are constraints on the footprint and where this house can be built on this site. She added that she took into consideration the fact that this applicant had to go through review through both the County and the City when she was reviewing this proposal. Commissioner Nagpal said that amendments to the design need to be incorporated into updated drawings. Mr. Udaya Shankar advised that he never wanted to be annexed into Saratoga and this annexation is costing him time and money. He added that he feels like a guinea pig of the whole process. Commissioner Hunter said that it was a very difficult property he bought. Mr. Udaya Shankar replied that it was not difficult under the County’s jurisdiction. Commissioner Nagpal expressed empathy with the Shankars over their difficulties in obtaining their approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 12 Chair Garakani stated that he wants this applicant to have the house he wants as well as to protect the interests of his neighbors. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that this is a very difficult piece of property. Chair Garakani re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Garakani asked about the potential for installing a wrought iron fence at the front property line for safety. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that this would require a Variance. Commissioner Hunter reminded that in the Hillside Residential zoning district, one could only fence in a pool area. She reminded that this is horse territory. Chair Garakani said he was advocating a fence behind the trail. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether this fence would have to be a separate hearing. Associate Planner Ann Welsh said that it could be incorporated into the March 9th hearing if the applicant wants to apply for a Variance. However, only 4,000 square feet can be enclosed in the Hillside zoning district. Commissioner Rodgers outlined the required changes prior to the next hearing: • Revise the balcony to reduce its length by half. • Reduce the height of the fireplace to four feet or eliminate it or relocate it from the balcony. • Process a deed restriction for the second unit qualifying it as a low-income housing unit. • Ensure that the second unit is consistent with the materials and design of the main residence. • Utilize native plant materials in the landscaping. • No high reflectivity in paint color. • Use screening landscaping that is evergreen and eliminate the use of any palm trees. Commissioner Hunter stated her complete confidence in Ann Welsh’s ability to help achieve these changes with the applicant and architect. Commissioner Uhl reiterated that this project is pushing the limits in every way. They cannot ask for everything. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Design Review application for a new two-story house on a County parcel, which is proposed for annexation into the City, on property located at 22461 Mount Eden Road, to the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 9, 2005 Page 13 *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk