Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 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, Schallop and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Associate Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of December 8, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of December 8, 2004, were adopted with corrections to pages 5, 10 and 20. (6-0-1; Commissioner Zutshi was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Associate Planner John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 6, 2005. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Associate Planner John Livingstone 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 for Design Review and ten (10) calendar days for Use Permits, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #04-150 (397-15-018, 397-14-022, 397-13-030) METRO PCS, West Valley College, 14000 Fruitvale Avenue: Request for Use Permit approval to install three panel antennas and an equipment enclosure at the theater building on the West Valley College Campus. The theater building is currently utilized by several wireless facilities. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for the installation of three panel antennas and an equipment enclosure at the West Valley College theatre building. The antennas will be on the exterior of the building, at roof level and will be 60 feet high. The enclosure consists of a concrete pad that is 10 feet by 6 feet with 6 foot high fencing. The enclosure would be located at the rear of the building. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if there is a limit to the number of antennas that can be accommodated at this site. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there might be an RF emissions issue if too many antennas are combined within one location. Commissioner Nagpal sought assurances that the emissions study conducted takes into consideration the cumulative effects including existing and proposed antennas. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. The emissions study was based upon the antennas from seven carriers. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Presley, Representative and Applicant for MetroPCS, stated that she was available for any questions. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Presley if she has plans for other sites in Saratoga. Ms. Presley replied yes. One is under consideration for placement at the Saratoga Library. She added that their equipment is small with little area necessary to accommodate it. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit to allow the installation of three panel antennas and an equipment enclosure at the theater building on the West Valley College Campus located at 14000 Fruitvale Avenue, by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 3 AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-370 (503-68-013) CHRISTENSEN/ROSSI, 14111 Palomino Way: Appeal by Christensen of an administrative decision to approve an outdoor kitchen/wall and deck as an unenclosed accessory structure within six feet of the side property line on the Rossi property located at 14111 Palomino Way. The property is located in the Hillside Residential District and the lot size is 45,716 square feet. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this action is an appeal of an administrative decision to allow an outdoor kitchen/wall and deck with outdoor kitchen, a gas grill, pizza oven and icemaker. • Reported that work had begun on this project until a complaint from an adjacent neighbor resulted in a “stop work” order being issued on September 21, 2004, for construction without permits. • Stated that on November 24, 2004, the Community Development Director made the determination to approve this construction pending revised plans to lower the wall. • Said that the neighbor filed an appeal of that decision on November 24, 2004. • Advised that a 1993 permit had been issued for an exterior deck that was 24 feet by 20 feet. The actual deck was constructed 10 feet longer. No final inspection was obtained and that permit expired. • Informed that this recent administrative decision was made based upon the assumption that the deck in question had been legally permitted. • Stated that staff is recommending that this appeal of that decision be upheld and that plans be revised to comply with Code requirements. • Said that the deck was built around protected trees (Oak and Redwood) and the Arborist should review the impact of this deck on these trees. The barbecue should be moved from the side yard setback, which does not permit a barbecue any closer than six feet from a side property line. Commissioner Hunter asked if this item would also go on to Council. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied no. An administrative decision’s appeal ends with the Planning Commission. The next option would consist of Civil Court action. She added that when the Commission makes initial decisions, those decisions could be appealed to Council. Chair Garakani asked staff to confirm that tonight’s decision is final on this matter. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied correct. Chair Garakani asked staff to clarify how finish grade differs from natural grade. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that the Zoning Ordinance does not define finish grade. That is why this is such a difficult topic. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Building Code says that the finish grade is that which complies with the approved plan. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that this is a reasonable interpretation. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that this is consistent with how staff has viewed finish grade. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Jim Christensen, Appellant, 14055 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a 20-year resident of Saratoga, five years on Palomino Way. • Said that this situation has an impact on his home life and investment in this property. • Stated that the action to overturn this administrative decision should be taken by the Commission. • Advised that he can view this structure from every living space and recreational space on his property. • Said that this structure violates the 20-foot setback of Hillside Residential zoning. • Added that if this administrative decision were not overturned, this type of structure would be classified as an unenclosed structure elsewhere in the City of Saratoga. • Suggested that the Arborist needs to review the impacts on the protected trees, that the window located in the center of the wall needs to be removed and that the barbecue needs to be moved. • Pointed out that this deck looks like a two-story home, overlooking their property. • Advised that he and his 14-year-old daughter are no longer comfortable using their spa. • Disagreed with the decision that this 10-foot high wall can be considered an unenclosed garden structure. • Declared that he did not buy an acre of property to live next to a freeway quality wall. • Said that this decision to allow this structure was a disservice to his family. This structure is a multi-use structure that results in a higher intensity of use. • Stated that the administrative decision was not consistent and that this structure should have automatically been prohibited. • Restated that this structure has had a negative impact on his family and their guests as it disturbs their privacy and has view impacts. • Pointed out that the 1993 permit for this deck was never finaled. • Said that if a complete review of the facts had been done, the fact that this deck was non- conforming would have been discovered earlier. • Suggested that this structure should have required design review approval and not been accepted as an unenclosed garden structure, which this is not. • Reminded that this intensity in use so close to a property line is not allowed. The rear yard is a more appropriate location for this use, not a side yard. • Said that an outdoor kitchen structure should be considered within a public hearing forum rather than at an administrative level. • Reiterated that this structure has resulted in an invasion of privacy and view impacts from his property. It devalues his property. • Said that a use of this nature only belongs in the rear yard setback. It represents very similar or greater use than many other types of enclosed structures. • Said that he questions allowing a wall/kitchen structure with 10 foot-high walls. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 5 • Urged the Commission to protect trees, to enforce the Codes that pertain to decks, to require the relocation of the barbecue and removal of the window in the wall. • Asked the Commission to follow the regulations of the Design Handbook as this current situation sets an incorrect precedent for all residents in Saratoga. Chair Garakani thanked Mr. Jim Christensen for the packet of information provided at the site visit. Asked if the window has since been removed since he did not notice it during the site visit. Mr. Jim Christensen said that this window was covered by a black tarp at yesterday’s site visit. He assured that it is still there and overlooks his pool and spa. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that while the plans depict an optional window, the recommendation is that no window be included. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jim Christensen if he has a written copy of his comments made this evening. Mr. Jim Christensen replied no. Mr. Ron Rossi, 14111 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Stated that nothing has changed with his deck. • Assured that there never was a functional window planned for this wall but rather an opening to be filled with obscured colored decorative glass. The window was never intended to be a see-through window and they had told the Christensens that fact. • Added that when the Director required the lowering of the height of this structure, most of this opening was lost. • Said that he has resided on this property since 1978 and that there was a forest of bamboo separating the properties so there were no views from one property to the other. There were never any noise or smell impacts from the two properties. • Advised that they recently took out this bamboo as it had become invasive and posed a risk to the Oak and Redwood trees. They replaced the bamboo with three large specimen Redwood trees and a Maple tree. • Said that they are prepared to accept any condition and/or record a covenant on his property to require the planting of screening landscaping as well as life-long maintenance of said plantings to remain the responsibility of him and/or any future owners of his property. He added that he was also willing to plant, at his cost, any additional screening trees on the Christensen property. • Said that they are willing to relocate the barbecue. • Said that permanent landscaping is the only solution. • Stated that staff overruled the Director’s decision following his departure. • Reported that he attempted to call Planner Ann Welsh but received no call back until after the staff report had already been mailed out. However, Planner Ann Welsh spent a lot of time working with the Christensens. • Stated that he has a right to equal input from staff and that that Director’s determination was correct. • Pointed out that the deck was in place since 1980 as part of the swimming pool. • Showed an aerial photograph from 1989 that showed the pool and deck. • Said that a neighbor who could not be here in person this evening sent a letter of support. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 6 • Stated that the staff report provided by staff was biased and erroneous. • Said that the deck in its present configuration was built under a permit. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Ron Rossi when the aerial photograph he provided was taken. Mr. Ron Rossi said that he had it in his office. Commissioner Nagpal asked how he knew the date of this photograph. Mr. Ron Rossi: • Said that he removed a stairway from the deck in 1992 that was still in place at the time this aerial was taken. Therefore, the photograph had to pre-date 1992. • Stated that finish grade equals when construction is finished. With natural grade, no one could have a deck, as the deck would slope. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Ron Rossi if his beginning construction without permits was simply an oversight on his part. Mr. Ron Rossi: • Said that similar approvals are granted all the time in Saratoga. • Said that initially, they were simply going to cover the deck with tile and didn’t think that a permit was required for that work. • Added that they also hired someone to remove the bamboo that had become invasive and realized that with that removal, they could now see in to the pool and spa area of the neighboring property. • Reminded that he had a permit with the City for the family room that was under construction at the same time. Building staff was coming by the house all the time to inspect that project so he would never have knowingly undertaken additional work on his property that required a permit without obtaining that permit. Commissioner Rodgers reminded Mr. Rossi that five years ago he had represented neighbors who had a dispute and was able to bring forward a resolution to Council. Asked if he was unable to broker such a resolution with the Christensens. Mr. Ron Rossi said that he would love to. He said that he had tried to come up with a solution with the Christensens, as he is a big advocate of mediation. Reminded that his offers included a landscaping easement, provision of screening landscaping and the relocation of the barbecue. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that these two homes are located very closely at that point and that the Christensen home is oriented toward the Rossi home. Mr. Ron Rossi reminded that his deck was not previously visible from the Christensen property because of the screening provided by the bamboo on his property. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that this is a very large structure that is very visible from the Christensen property. Asked if there is any way to re-orient this structure. Mr. Ron Rossi: • Reported that their barbecue has been located at this spot forever. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 7 • Added that the use has not intensified as they have been using this area for years and that an added icemaker does not make this area into a kitchen. • Reminded that there has never been a noise problem from his property and that he is willing to have any kind of reasonable noise restrictions imposed upon him. Commissioner Rodgers asked if anything else can be done to screen this structure and whether he is willing to have restrictions on the hours of use. Mr. Ron Rossi said that he is willing. He added that they have already lowered the structure and installed landscaping that will grow quickly to screen this structure from the neighbor’s view. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Ron Rossi if there is another location on the property that can accommodate this use. Mr. Ron Rossi: • Replied no, there is no other place. • Added that this deck area is situated right off their kitchen. Moving it would be costly and less convenient to use. • Reminded that they have used the deck area in this way for the last five years. • Said that they can see their neighbor’s house from their kitchen. • Agreed that landscaping is the solution and reminded that he is willing to record a covenant to retain responsibility to provide this landscaping. • Pointed out that such a covenant is enforceable. Mr. Park Miller, Architect, 327 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos: • Advised that he has worked with Mr. Rossi several times. • Said that he was called by Mr. Rossi following the issuance of the “red tag” stopping construction. • Said that there is a solution available that is beneficial to all. • Reminded that the objective for Mr. Rossi is to repair his deck and improve the privacy between the Rossi and Christensen properties. • Said that Mr. Rossi consulted with Planning staff and was advised that this could be considered an unenclosed garden structure, as it is an unenclosed decorative wall and terrace and sits in a garden. • Said that there are limitations to the use of an unenclosed decorative structure and they made adjustments to the plan and submitted it to staff. They were told that this was an issue for consideration by the Community Development Director. The Director found that this application conformed as an unenclosed garden structure but that the neighbor appealed that finding. • Stated that the staff report has made additional recommendations and Mr. Rossi finds most acceptable. • Said that the wall cutouts were simply decorative. • Said that there are two options to consider. One, the structure as a whole is an unenclosed garden structure, no different than a gazebo. Two, a retaining wall up to three to four feet is permitted. It can then be backfilled and the deck placed on finish grade. • Showed a photograph as an example of proposed landscaping consisting of vines and trees. • Reminded that there is no intensification of use. The use would be the same as before. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that a wall does not normally include a window but rather serves as a physical barrier between two properties. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Park Miller replied that the wall addresses immediate privacy needs. Commissioner Nagpal asked if forming a physical barrier is the goal for this wall. Mr. Park Miller replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Park Miller if he has evaluated locating this elsewhere on the Rossi property. Mr. Park Miller said that he became involved after the fact. He is trying to help find a solution. He added that the way the Rossi house is configured; this area represents an activity node between the kitchen, deck and pool. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Park Miller if he was involved when the deck foundation was placed. Mr. Park Miller replied no. Chair Garakani asked if the vegetation in the sample photograph would require full sun. Mr. Park Miller replied that this photograph is simply intended to serve as an example of what kind of screening with landscaping is possible. Mr. Paul Mehus, 629 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, pointed out that every site is different. This is not a classic side yard as the Rossi house is angled on this property. Mr. Todd Johnson, Appraiser, 85 College Avenue: • Said that Mr. Rossi hired him after learning that the Christensens were having an appraiser determine negative value impacts on their property as a result of this structure on the Rossi property. • Said that he inspected the deck and saw it from the Christensen property perspective. • Reminded that previously, bamboo on the Rossi property provided privacy for both the Christensen and Rossi properties. • Pointed out that the wall will be landscaped and maintained to mask the appearance of the unenclosed garden structure on the Rossi property from view on the Christensen property. • Disagreed that the structure was visible from every room of the Christensen home and assured that landscaping would substantially reduce views of this unenclosed garden structure located on the Rossi property. • Reported that it is his conclusion that there is no diminishing of property values for the Christensen property. Some privacy was lost with the removal of the bamboo and the unenclosed garden structure will serve to reduce noise impacts. • Added that the Mr. Rossi is prepared to provide all required screening landscaping for both properties. • Advised that with the covenant agreed to by Mr. Rossi, the Christensens are assured landscaping maintenance. • Added that such an installation would be permitted in Monte Sereno. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that at a hearing in December, many spoke out against having walls in the hillsides as being offensive. Mr. Todd Johnson said that with the landscaping this wall will not be visible and therefore would have no impact at all. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that in the Hillside zoning district, a property owner could enclose 4,000 square feet area of their property. Ms. Dana Rogers-Burns, Real Estate Agent, 12600 Easton Drive: • Said that the Rossi home is beautiful and enhances the neighborhood. • Opined that the deck is charming. • Suggested that the structure proposed is a benefit to both properties and that with the proper landscaping, this visibility will soon go away. • Said that Mr. Rossi’s willingness to impose a covenant on his property is a brave thing to offer and is a benefit to the neighbor next door. • Said that she hopes this can be resolved. • Pointed out that different amenities are desired these days. She said that she finds lots of pizza ovens and elaborate landscaping. • Reiterated that this will be a benefit to both parties. Commissioner Rodgers stated that Ms. Rogers-Burns might have a different perspective if she were showing the Christensen home. Ms. Dana Rogers-Burns replied that this is a structure more than a traditional wall and would be landscaped away from view. Mr. Rob Posadas, 14141 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Said that this structure is viewable from his property too but that he is looking forward to its completion as he expects that it will be beautiful. • Said that it is common to see outdoor barbecue areas such as this and that they improve the feel of a neighborhood. • Stated that this would be impressive and encouraged its approval. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Rob Posadas if he would feel the same if he lived on the Christensen property. Mr. Rob Posadas said he would like it even more if he lived on the Christensen property. He said that he lives further than the Christensens do and would want landscaping to screen it from view. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Rob Posadas if he is the rear yard neighbor to the Rossi property. Mr. Rob Posadas replied yes. Ms. Rina Pieters, 14178 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Said that she has known the Rossi family for 25 years. • Assured that the end result would be beautiful. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 10 • Stated that they are considerate people who will take their neighbor’s interests into consideration. Mr. Kirby Miller, 14098 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in the neighborhood for 33 years and his kids played together with the Rossi children. • Identified himself as an acoustics professional. • Said that the general rule of thumb regarding noise is to avoid any sight of line between the source and the observer. • Stated that the potential source of noise is better off the more obstructed it is from view. • Declared that the Rossis are great neighbors. Mr. Bob Weaver, San Jose: • Stated that he once lived on Palomino Way. • Said that it is unfortunate that everyone is here this evening spending time on this issue. • Agreed that both families feel strongly about their respective positions on this issue and that a solution is required. • Suggested that there is no problem or conflict that cannot be resolved and that the give and take that comes with mediation could better deal with this situation. • Said that the Rossis are great neighbors and have a beautifully landscaped property. Ms. Mariola Ilnicka, 14174 Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived in the neighborhood for 13 years. • Stated that the Rossi yard is always beautiful and appealing to the neighborhood. • Said that she would support such a structure and assures that it will be a beautiful addition with the proposed landscaping. Mr. David Rossi, 1205 Normandy Drive, Campbell: • Identified himself as the Rossis’ son. • Pointed out that the way this lot is configured, the house is built down into the hill. Lots of property on the site is unusable. • Stated that the deck is located next to the kitchen and his family has used this deck for most of his live, since 1980. His parents since 1975. • Said that they have put in a deer fence and effectively screened it with landscaping to hide it. • Reported that the property line landscaping between the Christensen and Rossi properties has been maintained by his mom for the last 30 years while trees have died on the Christensen property. • Said that this proposed use does not represent intensification of a use as it has been in place since 1980. • Suggested that emotion is getting in the way and that he is not sure what the Christensens want. • Reiterated his belief that the Christensens do not maintain the property line and that this unenclosed garden structure will actually serve to increase their privacy. • Said that the Christensen home slopes further down than his family’s home, as their land is set lower. • Said that he looked for a definition of kitchen and found one that says that it consists of 220 power and full-sized refrigerator, which he found to be rather a vague description. Ms. Lillian Fromer, Palomino Way, Saratoga: • Said that she is a one-year resident. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 11 • Stated that she envies the Rossi garden and has a straight on view into it. • Added that the Rossi family is quiet. Mr. Jim Christensen, Appellant: • Advised that this is not a neighborhood dispute with the Rossis. • Added that the only issue he finds disappointing is when the Rossis say that they talked with them. • Stated that a wall in a rural area is unacceptable. • Pointed out that if there is an appearance that homes are too close together, some potential buyers simply walk away. • Agreed that he has spoken with staff a significant number of times regarding this situation. • Advised that in order to do so he waited in line, signed in and met with staff. • Said that he had one meeting with Ann Welsh in January. However, the Director never returned calls to him. • Informed that he has owned this home for five years and agreed that there have been no noise concerns in the past with the Rossis. • Pointed out that staff had rejected the proposal by the Rossis and the matter went to the Director for consideration. The Director overturned staff’s denial based upon a meeting with Mr. Rossi. • Said that this structure has a negative impact on his property and would set a precedent by being classified as an unenclosed garden structure. Instead, this is an outdoor kitchen that has adverse impacts on privacy, views, intensity of use and property values as a result of having it located six feet away from his property. • Added that there are no other comparable structures in the Hillside zoning district that is located so close to the property line. • Reminded that this impacts the value of his home. • Advised that this is not about landscaping mitigating design flaws. Rather, site use is the issue. • Stated that to resolve existing Municipal and Residential Handbook compliance issues, the Arborist needs to review impacts on the protected trees, the optional window depicted on the plans needs to be removed and the barbecue needs to be relocated near the pool. If this barbecue is portable, it can stay. If not, it should be moved. • Said that the deck encroaches into the setback and is actually an existing non-conforming deck. It is more than 11 years old and a Class V deck, which now should be scheduled for elimination, as there is no proof that there is a legal permit. • Said that the whole deck as it now exists is not how it was depicted on the plans. It is much larger. • Stated that concentrated use is a big issue. Rear yards are where people are to gather, not side yards. • Cautioned that this is a precedent-setting decision in calling this an unenclosed garden structure as if it were like a trellis. • Said that the impact is like allowing a kitchen in the side yard. • Stated that landscaping is not intended to mitigate design problems, which include privacy and bulk impacts. • Reminded that this structure is visible from the main rooms of his home, including the master bedroom. • Described this structure as a freeway style stucco sound wall. It decreases property values and landscaping won’t fix this issue. • Reiterated that this structure decreases his family’s enjoyment of their home. • Stated that when he bought this home, he expected 20 foot setbacks not a freeway-style wall located just six feet from his home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 12 • Pointed out that he pays higher property taxes for living here in a rural area. Chair Garakani asked if there was a lot of screening provided before by the bamboo. Mr. Jim Christensen replied yes. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Jim Christensen if he was aware that the deck was there on the Rossi property. Mr. Jim Christensen said he did not know for sure. However, what he sees now is something higher than ever seen before. Chair Garakani said that privacy would be an issue when people are standing on this deck without the proposed landscaping. Mr. Jim Christensen reminded that the aerial provided by staff shows an overhead trellis and not the deck extension as it exists today. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff to explain the comment by Mr. Christensen regarding the Class V non-conforming structure that should be scheduled for elimination. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that this applies to non-conforming structures. However, the assumption is that this deck is a legal non-conforming structure so this rule does not apply. Associate Planner John Livingstone added that forcing owners to remove non-conforming structures is difficult. A draft has been prepared that proposes to removed this language from the Ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a physical barrier such as this could be construed as a fence. Associate Planner Ann Welsh replied that since this structure is not an enclosure, it does not apply. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a protocol that determines when such an application is handled administratively as opposed to being brought to the Commission. She asked if the Commission could make Design Review findings. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that the Ordinance doesn’t address this. If the Director feels it is beyond his/her scope, than the Director has the option to bring a request before the Planning Commission for a decision. Since this item was so contentious, staff thought it was important to bring this item to the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal said that in clarification, upon looking at the Ordinance as it pertains to accessory structures, it appears that the Director could have brought this item to the Commission. Associate Planner Ann Welsh added that it could be determined that such a structure requires a Use Permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 13 Commissioner Schallop: • Said that this is a complicated issue and he appreciates hearing both sides. • Stated that the removal of the bamboo highlighted what is going on with this structure. • Said that even thought construction is already underway, this item should still be considered as if it is an original permit review prior to construction. • Called out three potential arguments. One, this is a legal non-conforming and previously existing deck with no record provided by the City or the owner. Two, the Director approved this project as an unenclosed garden structure, which is not a proper interpretation, in his opinion. Three, the issue of finish grading, which he interprets to be based upon an approved plan. • Said that in looking at the equities of this situation, he visited both sites today. • Advised that clearly there are impacts on the neighbor’s views as a result of this structure, which is visible from their yard. • Pointed out that most property owners would not want to be looking at this structure from their yard. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stressed the importance of balancing the impacts on these two neighboring properties. • Reminded that this is a rural atmosphere in a Hillside Residential zoning district, which is different from the flats of Saratoga. Instead people expect views of trees and wildlife, one of the reasons for the development of Hillside Residential regulations. • Pointed out that the Design Guidelines caution against using landscaping to cure architectural problems. • Described several problems with this wall structure including height, setback, noise and line of sight. • Said that there are other ways to deal with noise outside of installing a large wall, including regulating hours of use and notification of neighbors. • Stated that she is concerned about what kinds of applications are approved and stressed the importance of having plans before the City prior to construction beginning. • Stated that she did not believe this structure can appropriately be categorized as an unenclosed garden structure, which are ornamental and decorative structures that are no closer than six feet to a side yard property line and shall not exceed 8 feet in eight. Examples of unenclosed garden structures are open, not solid walls, no kitchen structures. Therefore, a semi-enclosed kitchen is not a garden structure. Rather it should fit the types of structures already listed. • Said that she does not see the need for something that high, while it may be nice when viewed from the Rossi property. However, the architect could probably come up with a more creative solution. • Stated that she would not have approved this deck as it stands and that since a retaining wall issue is not before the Commission, it is not appropriate to consider one. Chair Garakani asked Commissioner Rodgers if she does not believe this qualifies as an unenclosed garden structure. Commissioner Rodgers said no, it does not serve the same or similar function as any of the other listed unenclosed garden structures. Chair Garakani asked if she feels this is a structure. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 14 Commissioner Rodgers said she is not sure but she knows it does not qualify as an unenclosed garden structure. While it does not have to be defined specifically as a kitchen, it clearly is not an unenclosed garden structure, as it does not fall within the descriptions in the Code. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed with Commissioners Schallop and Rodgers, saying that this is very difficult and that an entire neighborhood is here. • Said that she too has difficulty fitting this structure into the unenclosed garden structure category and reminded that barbecues are not allowed within six feet of the side yard setback. This use is even more intense that a simple barbecue. • Said it is difficult to agree to this structure and use within a side yard setback. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed with Commissioner Nagpal. • Added that although the neighbors appear supportive of the Rossis, when looking at this structure from the Christensen property, they are very directly affected. Unfortunately, it appears this matter has put a wedge into this neighborhood that she hopes can be resolved. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that being on the Planning Commission can be a very difficult thing. • Advised that the Commissioners are volunteers with differing professions. She has previously sat on the School Board. • Said that from the Christensen property, this structure can be seen very clearly and it does impact them tremendously. • Advised that mistakes were made. • Suggested Cherry Laurel as a shrub that is rapid to grow. • Said that she hopes all of these neighbors can get along and thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. • Announced that she plans to support the staff recommendation to uphold this appeal by the Christensens. Commissioner Uhl: • Apologized for missing the site visit. • Said that the City has regulations and Codes to avoid these types of situations. • Said that from looking at the Code, he would never have approved this if it were coming before the Commission as a new application. Chair Garakani • Said that both sides are affected. However, the Rossis have had this deck and enjoyed it for a long time. • Said that with the removal of the bamboo, everything suddenly become more visible. • Said that when good vegetation has grown in, the Rossis can come back and re-apply. However, at this point, this structure cannot be allowed. • Stated that if this item were before the Commission prior to being constructed, it would not be approved as it is. This is too much for this area. • Pointed out that even if the wall comes down, the deck will still be there. There will still be a barbecue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 15 • Reminded that a six-foot high wall is allowed at the property line and Mr. Rossi is not required to plant any screening landscaping. • Agreed that the wall does not look too good right now. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that an outdoor fireplace is not a good idea in the Hillside district. Associate Planner Ann Welsh advised that an at-grade fireplace is allowed but that barbecues are not permitted in a side yard setback. Chair Garakani said that he would prefer to have these neighbors work together to come up with a solution. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned an administrative decision made by the Community Development Director to approve an outdoor kitchen/wall and deck as an unenclosed accessory structure within six feet of the side property line on the Rossi property located at 14111 Palomino Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Garakani advised that this action of the Commission is final. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-176 (503-16-050) KOENIG, 13071 Pierce Road: Request Design Review Approval to build a new two-story house. The proposed house will be 5,404 square feet. The proposed floor area includes a three-car garage. The structure will also have a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 54,198 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The maximum building height of the residence will not exceed 26 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new two-story house with 5,404 square feet and a three-car garage, a 360 square foot cabana and a 1,996 square foot basement. The maximum height will be less than 26 feet. • Described the parcel as consisting of 54,198 square feet in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. • Stated that the homes in this neighborhood vary in age and design with no consistent pattern. • Said that the project proposes horizontal wood siding, which is similar to that used across the street. • Informed that this project is consistent with Design Review findings and with the Residential Design Handbook as it incorporates varying rooflines, horizontal siding and bay windows that add character and help reduce bulk. • Said that two protected trees would be removed, an apple and a palm, and would be replaced with trees of equal value. Seven new trees are proposed. • Recommended approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 16 Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Walter Chapman, Project Designer: • Advised that his clients, the Koenig’s, submitted plans five years ago that were denied due to perception of mass. • Said that he has come up with solutions to the issues raised at that time by rotating the mass away from the neighboring property. The windows face to the front and back yards. • Said that the primary use of the home would be to the south side of the property, including the garage. • Stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Hunter asked if Mr. Chapman was the designer five years ago. Mr. Walter Chapman replied no. Commissioner Hunter asked if the neighbor who had concerns is the right side neighbor. Mr. Walter Chapman replied yes. Their concerns were loss of sunlight. To alleviate that concern, they have moved the second story to the other side leaving more of the first story element closer to their side. Commissioner Hunter pointed out a letter from Mr. Weldon that sounds as if he is still not happy. Mr. Walter Chapman said that Mr. Weldon might have comments this evening. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Walter Chapman if he is aware of Mr. Weldon’s letter. Mr. Walter Chapman replied yes. He added if this house were limited to being a single-story, there would be more house located at the shared property line with the Weldon property. He assured that he has taken their concerns into consideration as much as possible. Ms. June Weldon, Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Stated that she can’t stand the arguing any more and that they have decided to stop fighting this. • Said that they do not want a two-story next to them but won’t dispute it any further. • Said that after the framing is completed, the two sides would determine where additional shrubs are needed. This has been agreed to with the Koenigs. • Said that this will be an enormous house that will look into their three bedrooms. However, it is nicer than the previous design. Mr. Walter Chapman said that they have agreed to plant to the Weldons’ specifications and have a handshake agreement with them as well as having placed that condition on the plans to document that agreement. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that Pierce Road is going through a change. It has large parcels and people who buy them are tearing down and putting up new houses. • Said that this house design is good looking. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 17 • Said that there are wonderful oleanders on site that will help screen and that this is likely to be less intrusive than the Weldon’s may fear. • Said that she has no objection to this request. • Stressed that it is difficult for people to see change in their neighborhood and reported that lots of people have approached her to express their concerns for the Weldons. • Added that denying a two-story is hard to do. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new two-story house on property located at 13071 Pierce Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that Council discussed scheduling Planning Commission training, particularly Design Review training, perhaps in combination with another city. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that an agenda be developed for the upcoming joint session with Council. Commissioner Hunter: • Agreed that the upcoming joint Council/Planning Commission meeting set for February 16th is crucial. • Stated that she would like for the Commission to have input on what type of design review training is proposed for the Commission and suggested that this training occur after April when the new Commissioners come on board. She reminded that three seats are up for appointment this year. • Asked staff to place an item on the next Planning agenda to allow the Commission to further discuss potential agenda items for the joint session with Council. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Garakani suggested that the site visits be returned back to the previous 3:30 p.m. time. Commissioner Schallop said that first thing in the morning is best for him. Commissioner Uhl agreed that 7:30 a.m. would be a good time. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that staff could accommodate 7:30 a.m. site visits. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 12, 2005 Page 18 Chair Garakani suggested that the next site visit occur at 3:30 p.m. to allow staff the time to ensure that an early morning schedule would not adversely impact counter coverage if these visits were to be moved to 7:30 a.m. in the future. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk