Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2004 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 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, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Associate Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of November 10, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 10, 2004, were adopted with corrections to pages 2, 9, 17 and 20. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Hunter and Uhl abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Ray Muzzy, 19518 Eric Drive, Saratoga: • Reported that he submitted a letter dated November 27, 2004, to the Commission and asked if it had been received. • Stated that he is asking the Planning Commission to look at the Use Permit for the Church of the Ascension regarding the parish house constructed. • Said that light fixtures were indicated on the plans for this parish house but that shielding or voltage levels were not documented. • Asked the Commission to take another look as the City has Ordinance restrictions on illumination impacts off site. • Opined that these lights are not consistent with this residential community. • Reported that neighbors have contacted the church directly to no avail. • Pointed out that they are just asking that the church decrease and/or reduce the wattage of the light bulbs and/or provide shielding. These are reasonable requirements. • Added that the neighbors are also asking that landscaping be incorporated to help screen. • Stated that he believes the Commission has jurisdiction over Use Permit issues more so than the Code Enforcement staff. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 2 • Asked that this matter be checked into for consistence, again saying that he feels it is just a matter of changing out light bulbs and adding shields. These efforts would make a huge difference to the adjacent residents. • Said that they would appreciate any help. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if they had any comments on this request. Chair Garakani advised that this matter would be discussed with staff as a Director’s Item later in the agenda. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 2, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan 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. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #04-128 & #04-132 (LOTS 1 & 6) SAGARCHI, 13089 Quito Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval for two single-family homes on the site of the former Dorcich Orchard, which was approved for a six-lot subdivision on November 12, 2003. The proposed homes are designed to be compatible with the style of the historic farmhouse, which is being moved and restored on Lot 5. The homes are one-and-a-half story structures with a maximum height of 24 feet, 3 inches. The floor area of the homes is 3,608 square feet. The property is in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (ANN WELSH) These two lots are continued from the Planning Commission Meeting on November 10, 2004. Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for Lots 1 and 6 of a six-lot subdivision on the former Dorcich Orchard, located at Quito and Martha. • Reminded that three additional Design Review Approvals were granted on November 10, 2004, for this subdivision, while Lots 1 and 6 were continued to this evening’s meeting as the applicants were asked to revise the two homes situated at the entrance of this new cul-de-sac to create a more gradual transition from single-story homes in the immediate area to the new two-story homes inside this new development. • Added that the applicant was asked to design these two homes with a lower profile and a partial two-story element. The two homes before the Commission this evening have the same design but Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 3 different façade details. The homes’ appearance of bulk has been minimized through varied rooflines and materials uses. Commissioner Zutshi asked the previous height for these two units. Planner Ann Welsh replied that they were originally 26 feet and have been reduced to a maximum height of 24 feet, 6 inches. Commissioner Hunter asked if this evening’s action is the end of the line for these approvals. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Lot 5 would not be coming before the Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked about the fig tree. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that this tree is on Lot 5, which is not under consideration this evening. Planner Ann Welsh stated that the applicant is proposing to move the historic farmhouse to Lot 5. Later a second phase will be processed for Lot 5 to include a new garage with a new master suite above it. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Applicant and Owner: • Said that three of his homes have been approved and these two required design modifications. • Assured that he has worked hard to meet the requirements of the Planning Commission. Three to four different variations were discussed with staff in order to reach this compromise. • Stated his belief that he has done everything possible to reduce the bulk and height and expressed his hope that the Commission would approve these last two homes tonight. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Salim Sagarchi if the fig tree would be removed prior to moving the farmhouse to Lot 5. Mr. Salim Sagarchi: • Replied yes. • Added that they have been able to save some more trees. Trees to be removed are not important trees but rather fruit trees. There is nothing he can do to save the fig tree, as it is located right in front of the old house. The only way to move and preserve the house is to cut down this tree. Commissioner Hunter lamented the loss of this very old tree. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that Southern Live Oak trees are spelled out on the plan but that Spanish Live Oaks are the native species required. She asked if use of Spanish Live Oaks is still planned. Mr. Salim Sagarchi replied yes. Planner Ann Welsh said that this requirement could also be spelled out in the Conditions of Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Rodgers thanked Planner Ann Welsh for that suggestion. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Salim Sagarchi if he had reduced the square footage in these two redesigned homes. Mr. Salim Sagarchi replied that they had not reduced square footage but had reduced height. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the 24-foot height proposed is still as high as a two-story home and asked why the square footage was not reduced. Mr. Salim Sagarchi said that while it is true that a 24-foot height could represent a two-story home, it could just as easily represent a single-story home in some architectural styles. He added that the idea was to eliminate the appearance of bulkiness. Commissioner Uhl asked for the upper floor square footage before as compared to now. Planner Ann Welsh: • Reported that this is the same house with a redesigned roofline to reduce the bulk. • Added that they wanted to retain the Craftsman style of architecture. • Pointed out that with this new roof design, the home appears much less bulky from the side elevations. • Stated that it had been difficult to come up with a solution at 1.5 stories that still retained the desired Craftsman style. Accomplishing this would have been easier on a sloping lot. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed regret at missing the last meeting when this project was discussed. • Pointed out that when the Dorcich property first came up before the Commission, the audience was full. Now no one is present in opposition. • Stated that she would support what has been submitted. Commissioner Schallop asked if this revised design addresses what had be requested by the Commission at the last meeting. Commissioner Nagpal: • Reported that some had wanted single-story homes in these two lots. • Added that others were concerned with the preservation of the fig tree but that issue is not before the Commission this evening anyway since it is located on Lot 5. • Said that the proposal for one and a half story homes on Lots 1 and 6 was intended to help provide a transition from the existing neighborhood to this development. • Said that she can see the effort has been made to minimize bulk and that the architectural changes made have achieved that goal. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the house is set back on the sides that are facing the road so that the appearance is of a one-story structure near the road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 5 Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that it was difficult to visualize how to incorporate a one and a half story home with traditional Craftsman style and features. Chair Garakani said he has no problem with this proposal. Commissioner Hunter said that the historic farmhouse details would be copied. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that a number of neighborhood meetings were held so that due diligence has occurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approvals (Applications #04-128 and #04-132) to construct two new one-and-one-half story homes on two lots located at 13089 Quito Road, with the added condition requiring the planting of Spanish Live Oaks, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-358 (503-69-002) – AMINI, 13815 Pierce Road, Request for Modification of Approved Plans: The applicant is requesting a modification to the plans that were approved on October 9, 2002. The modification involves to the façade, which add 15 windows and alter the pitch of the roof along the rear elevation. The location of the driveway and front yard landscaping is also the subject of review. No floor area change is proposed to the approved structure, which calls for a 5,993 square foot two-story residence with a 2,379 square foot basement on a 1.759-acre lot located in the Hillside Residential District. (ANN WELSH) Associate Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Modification to plans that were approved by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2002. Stated that at the time that the house design itself was originally approved, consideration of the driveway was left undecided pending further review by the City’s Arborist. • Explained that the proposed modifications involved changes to the façade that include additional windows, 8 new columns, three door relocations and Styrofoam formed stucco trim details around arches, windows and doors. • Stated that the driveway proposed is 14 feet wide. • Said that staff prefers the originally approved design of the residence without the added columns and windows but that there is no strong basis for denial. • Advised that the new rear windows do not impact privacy. • Said that the Via Regina Road Association has asked that a Condition of Approval be added that precludes access from this site to Via Regina Road. Staff has added that Condition, which was already included in the original Design Review Approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this Condition has already been imposed. Planner Ann Welsh explained that the Via Regina Road Association just wanted it spelled out again in this Resolution. Commissioner Hunter said that there are 16 windows in the front elevation itself, which is a lot of windows. She asked what is meant by Styrofoam details. Director Tom Sullivan explained that the Styrofoam is glued onto the structure and stucco is place over it. It is a more economical way of achieving details in the stucco and fairly commonly used. Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff reluctantly supports this application. Planner Ann Welsh replied that there are no design guidelines that limit the number of windows allowed. It is more a matter of taste than a Design Review issue. Chair Garakani asked what the function is for these windows. Planner Ann Welsh replied to bring light into the home. Chair Garakani asked if bathrooms require functioning windows. Director Tom Sullivan replied that if there are no functioning windows, a bathroom is required to have mechanical ventilation. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the proposed columns and whether they were recessed. Planner Ann Welsh replied that they are not recessed but rather protruding. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Commission is permitted to look at the gate or just the shape of the driveway. Planner Ann Welsh said that while the gate is part of the application, there is no permit required for a gate. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mike Amini, Applicant and Owner, 13815 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Stated that there are no privacy impacts with these changes. • Reported that he went back and spoke with all of his immediate neighbors as follows: o 13810 Pierce Road – They had no issues except not to touch the trees at the front. o Right Side Neighbors – Did not want windows on the right side overlooking them. With that, they are okay. o 13862 Pierce Road – No problem as there are so many trees to screen. o Mr. D’Angelo – Showed him the added windows. He had no problem. o 21200 Pierce Road – Wanted no fence at the back to block deer passage. o Mr. Walker – As long as construction does not occur at the same time as his own construction, he was fine. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 7 o Mrs. Rush – Mentioned that the front elevation was too tall prior. It is now 2.5 feet lower. o Fire Department – driveway width and angle requirements are met. o City Arborist – Try to save as many trees as possible. They will use pier and beam construction to prevent tree damage. • Said that his neighbors are happy and supportive. • Said that the home has had windows added to the front. This is because the dining room was relocated from the front to the rear of the home and the living room was brought to the front. Added windows bring in natural light required in a living room. • Said that the columns are decorative and the use of Styrofoam details is common. Chair Garakani pointed out two windows and asked if the rooms they serve are bathrooms. Mr. Mike Amini said that these are bathrooms for his kids, which need air and light. He added that they could be frosted glass to give privacy. Chair Garakani pointed out that the Arborist should be present when the driveway is put in. Mr. Mike Amini said that he would follow what the Arborist dictates. He added that he already agreed two years ago that no access to Via Regina would occur from his property and that he does not understand why the issue has come up again. Commissioner Zutshi said that a circular driveway is a better design for access to a busy road. Mr. Mike Amini reported that his driveway design allows for parking for parties. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the building colors. Planner Ann Welsh reported that a really nice color rendering was provided. Mr. Mike Amini advised that the home would be beige with red tile. Commissioner Uhl said that this applicant has taken the time to meet with all of his neighbors with his changes as well as working with the Planning Department. This is a good design. Chair Garakani pointed out the vegetation at Pierce Road. Planner Ann Welsh said that this vegetation is a really important element and the reason for the Arborist’s participation. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern between the ornate stucco additions versus the number of windows proposed. Commissioner Hunter said that she remembers the original approval for this site and said the Commission approved a nice design. These changes are not in keeping with Pierce Road. It is more obvious because this home will be very visible. It is a long lot with 15 windows on the front façade. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 8 Chair Garakani pointed out that these 15 windows are on a first floor. Commissioner Hunter said that the original design was more pleasing. This is too ornate for the countrified road and won’t fit in. Chair Garakani reminded that this house is already approved. Planner Ann Welsh added that what is before the Commission are the changes. Commissioner Hunter said that she does not mind the changes to the side and rear elevations but does not like the changes to the front elevation. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this creates something that is not compatible with the neighborhood as far as the front elevation impact. These small windows break up the front design and she has trouble supporting them. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that the additional windows and detail elements don’t impact the bulk and height and it does not appear as if there is a basis to not approve these changes. Chair Garakani agreed. Commissioner Rodgers said that she has no problem with the changes to the back and side elevations and no problem with the added front windows. However, she would support taking out the ornamentation details as opposed to the windows. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that there have been no neighbor concerns raised. Commissioner Hunter asked if this item was noticed. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that there is no neighbor present this evening to object. Commissioner Hunter reminded that this is a visible house on Pierce Road. Commissioner Uhl said that there are a lot of new homes along Pierce Road. Pierce Road is evolving. Commissioner Hunter agreed that old homes have been torn down there for a long time only to be replaced with larger more ornate homes. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the porch feature would obscure many of the front elevation windows. Chair Garakani said that the reasoning for the windows has been made and is not really an issue. Removing the Styrofoam details can soften the look. Commissioner Uhl said that the overhang creates a setback for many of the windows. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 9 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission approved a Modification to the approved plans (Application #04-358) for a home to be constructed at 13815 Pierce Road with the added Condition that no access to Via Regina occur from this property, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Hunter, Nagpal and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-068 (503-27-074) MALLADI, 14345 Springer Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence. The project includes the demolition of an existing one-story residence. The total floor area of the proposed two-story residence and garage is 3,368 square feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet, 6 inches. The lot size is 10,265 square feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence and demolish an existing single-story residence. • Reported that the total FAR would be 3,368 and the maximum height 24 feet. The lot is 10,200 square feet within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. • Explained that the building line staggers back or steps away from the street and the second story is set back, which minimizes the mass and bulk. • Said that there are no second story windows on the right elevation. • Stated that the erected story poles have demonstrated that this home would interfere with views of the hillside from the kitchen and family room of the neighboring residence. Therefore, the applicant has revised the project, moving the footprint by five feet and pivoting the structure by four feet to the rear property line as well as lowering the structure by one foot. These efforts also result in the preservation of an additional Redwood tree. • Explained that the revised plan requires a Variance by two feet for the front portion of the garage and second story to the rear. Director Tom Sullivan explained that the Variance issues would have to be advertised prior to approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the story poles reflect these changes. Commissioner Hunter said that she visited the site and didn’t notice if the poles had been changed. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Variance for the garage equals the house being the same size. She asked if the Variance would still be required if the house were to be reduced in square footage. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the turret features are an imposing Mediterranean feature that does not appear to be compatible with this neighborhood. Planner Christy Oosterhous: • Pointed out that this is a double frontage lot with more of a presence on the street. Other lots in the neighborhood are long and narrow. • Said that more than adequate setbacks are provided and the garage is not prominent. • Explained that the turret elements are not massive or bulky. • Stated that this is not a tract style home. Chair Garakani asked if the garage could be constructed as a detached garage at the back of the lot. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that people lose their back yard space with detached garage structures located at the rear of their lots and are reluctant to do so. Commissioner Schallop asked if there is precedent for approving a Variance when required for Design Review in order to justify privacy. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Rodgers stressed the importance in trying to maximize the preservation of views. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this house is only on paper right now. It is easier to change the design on paper versus violating rules. There are ways to do this project without a Variance. Commissioner Zutshi questioned the size of the home two lots down. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that Parcel 72 consists of .22 acres. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Malladi, Applicant and Owner, 14345 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that they are trying to optimize their back yard. • Assured that they have followed all the rules and met with their neighbors. • Said that they also put up story poles, which demonstrated that one viewpoint is impacted by his proposed home. • Said that most neighbors are supportive. • Stated that they may not actually need a Variance on the right side but may need a Variance for the second floor rear setback by about two feet. • Added that they may be able to complete the project without any variations. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a Variance would still be required if the round turret feature were to be reduced and moved back. Mr. Malladi said that it is very close but might require a Variance by perhaps two feet. Chair Garakani said this house is hard to visualize. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Uhl said that revised story poles would help. He added that there are not a lot of two- story homes in this area. Mr. Malladi disagreed saying that there are lots of them. Commissioner Hunter agreed saying that almost one-third of them appear to be two-story homes. Chair Garakani said that the two-story aspect is not an issue but rather the overall bulk of the structure. Commissioner Schallop asked if the applicant would support changes to reduce the view impacts on the neighbor’s kitchen without necessitating a Variance. He asked the applicant if he is willing to go back and reach a compromise. Mr. Malladi said that he looks forward to doing that. Said that he still has some allowance available at the back. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Malladi if he received any input from his neighbors after the story poles went up. Mr. Malladi replied no. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that Bedroom #2 on the second floor is jutting out by about two feet. Suggesting that reducing the size of that room would mean it does not require a Variance. Asked Mr. Malladi if he is willing to do this. Mr. Malladi replied yes. Ms. Carole Amos, 14320 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Stated that she resides across the street and that her husband, Logan, wrote a letter. • Said that this looks like a beautiful home but also looks massive. • Pointed out that this is a rural street where bigger homes are softened by Oak trees. This is not possible with this particular lot. • Said that the prevalent architectural style tends toward Cottage and Craftsman styles. • Said that there are no view issues from her own property and suggested that the bulk be softened. Mr. Clint Rosenthal, 14433 Wildwood Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the public hearing process. • Said that while this proposed house is beautiful, this neighborhood is more rustic and rural while this home is modern and stark and located on an open part of the street. • Stated that there are no view impacts for his property. • Said that he does not feel like this project fits into this neighborhood. • Suggested that the neighbors could get together to discuss concerns further. Mr. Dennis Ryan, 14325 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: • Said his property is adjacent to the project site. • Thanked the Commission for this opportunity to voice concerns. • Said that the story poles were put back up today reflecting the changes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 12 • Stated that while there is some relief from the view impacts, it is still not what he had been looking for. While the view from his kitchen was about 95 percent eliminated originally, now the view impacts are reduced by 15 to 20 percent. • Said that this is a large structure. If the home were not so massive, relief from the amount of mass could occur and also the need for a Variance could be eliminated. Mr. Malladi: • Stated that the size of his proposed home is pretty common. • Advised that the setbacks on his home would be better than others existing on the street. • Said that the view issue has been somewhat positively resolved and assured that he would preserve as much of the views as possible. • Thanked the Commission for its consideration. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Malladi if the new story poles reflect the rotation of the home. Mr. Malladi said that the new poles reflect the setbacks and rotation. Chair Garakani asked why there was no reduction in mass. He suggested that Mr. Malladi go back and work further with staff to address concerns raised by neighbors and the Commission. He asked Mr. Malladi if he would support a continuance. Mr. Malladi said he would appreciate more guidance and that he could understand the need for a continuance. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hunter: • Reminded that Springer Avenue is a historic section of Saratoga, constructed at the turn of the last century. It is a different area because of this historic element. • Reported that these homes were used as summer cottages for people from San Francisco. • Stated that she has a lot of concern regarding the bulk and design, specifically the turrets. • Said that she would like to see more work put into this design and some sort of agreement reached with the neighbors. • Said that this home would dominate this street even with some additional redesign. • Encouraged redesign and sensitivity to the City’s historic areas. Commissioner Zutshi asked how the front should be changed. Commissioner Hunter replied that it should be softened. More work should be done to this home. Chair Garakani encouraged the Commission to provide direction for staff and the applicant. Commissioner Zutshi stated that this home is bulky from the street and would require a reduction in size. The view impacts should be less than 30 or 40 percent for the neighbors. However, the style of the front of the house is a personal choice. Commissioner Nagpal: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 13 • Agreed that there is the need to soften the bulk and preserve the Ryans’ view. • Said that she does not support a Variance for this site as no special circumstances exist that supports it. • Said that staff could work with the applicant to soften the turrets. • Stressed that this is a bulk issue rather than a square footage issue. Commissioner Schallop: • Stated his agreement with Commissioner Nagpal’s comments. • Reported that he used to live on Springer Avenue. • Said that he looked at the story poles and found that the views from the kitchen at the Ryan home would be compromised by this new home. • Said that effort should be made to make this design compatible. • Pointed out that this is a large lot, with 10,000 square feet. A well-designed home could be less intrusive on this lot. • Stated that he is looking for compatibility with the neighborhood. • Said that specifically, he wants to see a compromise reached regarding the Ryans’ views. • Added that this applicant does have the right to develop his lot. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed with the points made by Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop. • Said that the applicant is applying for a Variance to accommodate the Ryans’ view but that she cannot find any special circumstance to support such a Variance. • Said that the proposed changes could help preserve some of the view from the kitchen eating area. • Stated that softening the front of the house to make it more compatible also appeals to her. • Stressed the need to have a home that is compatible while preserving the views. This should occur without a Variance. Commissioner Uhl agreed. Chair Garakani: • Said that he sees this as a beautiful design that looks good. • Added that the issue is that the proposed house is big for the lot and that bulk and massing issues comes into play. • Said that the tower elements are not compatible with this neighborhood and the appearance of these tower elements should be softened. • Asked staff if this is sufficient direction to move forward. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that a motion be made to continue this item. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of a Design Review request (Application #04-068) on property located at 14345 Springer Avenue to a date uncertain, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 14 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #02-281 (503-31-067) SHENG, 21794 Heber Way Request Design Review Approval and Variances for the front and side yard setbacks to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 6,483 square feet, which includes the 726 square foot three-car garage. The gross lot size is 6.06 acres and zoned Hillside Residential. 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 for a new two-story home to be constructed on a vacant lot. • Explained that Variances for front and side yard setbacks would also be required. • Described the proposed structure as consisting of 6,483 square feet, including a 726 square foot three-car garage. • Said that the maximum height would be less than 26 feet. • Stated that the parcel consists of 6 acres and is zoned Hillside Residential. • Reported that the homes in this area vary in design, while the majority of them are stucco. • Said that the applicant is proposing smooth trowel stucco with true divided light wood windows, a slate roof and cultured stone accents. The colors are all natural earth tones. • Stated that this project is consistent with required Design Review findings. It is not within a view corridor and has no impacts on neighbors. It would be built into the hillside. The closest home is 70 feet away. The proposed garage faces the neighbor’s garage. No protected trees would be removed. The proposed landscape plan provides for 28 native trees. • Advised that 17,000 square feet of this property would be disturbed with the construction of this home while the remaining 5.5 acres would remain undisturbed open space. The home would be built into the hillside. The slate roof blends into the hillside. • Said that the applicant is proposing Variances for the front and left side setback. To approve the Variances, the Commission must make all required findings. o Special Circumstances – This finding can be made, as this lot is unique, consisting of a small portion of the lot that is available for placement of the house, while being an unusually large lot. Stated that a majority of the neighborhood and single-family development has 30- foot front yard setbacks and 20-foot side yard setbacks. Code now requires a percentage of the lot to develop required setbacks. These setbacks would be five to seven times larger than the other setbacks in the neighborhood. This is one of the last remaining vacant lots in this area. Strict interpretation of the setback requirements would result in a smaller home than is typical. o Must not be the Granting of a Special Privilege – This finding can also be made as another lot received a front yard setback Variance in 1996. o Must Not Be Detrimental to Health, Safety & Welfare – This finding can also be met. This Variance allows the building to be located in an area on the property with the lowest available slope. Pointed out the table in his staff report. There are two other homes with more than 6,000 square feet and three with more than 5,000 square feet. Therefore, this proposal is for a home that is smaller than some of the existing homes in the immediate area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 15 • Said that this home has a very traditional design and modest appearance. The setback is 93 feet, while a majority of homes in the area have much less of a setback. • Said that this modest home has a slate roof with 28 new trees to be located on side. The home would be built into the hillside and would be much less noticeable than others in the area and on the street. This home would blend into the hillside and become one of the least visible homes in the area. • Stated that the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan and includes a one-story entry. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the applicant could subdivide this lot. Planner John Livingstone replied that it would be difficult. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the setback requirements would be different if this property were to be divided. Planner John Livingstone replied that this is true but that there are a lot of issues in order to qualify for a lot split. He agreed that if the property could be split, the setback requirements would change. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that if no Variance were to be granted the building footprint would consist of only 1,100 square feet. Planner John Livingstone replied that some sort of Variance must be granted. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any of the properties included on the staff report table also has an open space easement. Planner John Livingstone replied yes, 21719 does. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is a significant portion of that parcel. Planner John Livingstone replied he was not sure. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the buildable areas for those lots. Planner John Livingstone said that this is a hillside area with slope. The majority of the homes in the area were constructed in the 1980s, one in the 1990s and now this lot. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the sizes include garages on the provided table. Planner John Livingstone replied yes. He added that 10 emails received on this project were provided to the Commission. Commissioner Rodgers reported that she had received phone calls from neighbors regarding this item. All of the Commissioners advised that they too had received phone calls. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 16 Mr. Steve Sheng, Applicant and Property Owner, 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga: • Advised that he had obtained a Variance on the adjacent lot that he also owns. • Explained that he purchased this lot in 1990 and has been working on this applicant for the last 14 years. • Said that a Geologist’s report was finally approved in 2000. • Said that he is trying to build a home on property with geological constraints and that he has tried to do something that is compatible with the area. • Pointed out that this is a 6-acre lot and that almost none of the house would be visible as is demonstrated by the story poles. • Said that he is trying to comply with City rules and to accommodate neighborhood concerns. • Introduced his architect. Mr. Steve Nelson, Project Architect: • Thanked Planner John Livingstone for an incredible job. • Said that with the situation on this lot, they have to have a Slope Variance. The slope is 33 percent. • Stated that with the Variance, they would have a 2,004 square foot buildable area. • Said that as designed, the house would require both a side and front setback Variance. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the balcony. Mr. Steve Nelson replied that it is located on the side and has no view on neighboring properties. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Steve Nelson if moving the garage to the other side had been considered. Mr. Steve Nelson said that egress would be more difficult. He added that the garage would become the front of the house and would face the court. He added that public areas face the neighbor’s garage directly. Ms. Nancy Kundtz, 21790 Heber Way, Saratoga: • Stated that she is representing 14 families. • Said that there is nothing to recommend this project as it is too big by 50 percent and destroys privacy. It is not an asset. • Added that the proposal does not conform to Codes and Regulations. • Pointed out that the applicant bought a piece of land that should not even be a legal lot since 5.5 acres are dedicated as open space. The applicant knew this fact when he bought this parcel that only a half an acre was buildable and the site had geologic problems. • Said that preserving the hillside is important. • Advised that there is no room for trees to be planted along her side property line to help screen the garage from view. • Said that this proposal requires three Variances for three sides of the house. • Added that this home would result in the privacy of her property being ruined. • Stated that there are no special circumstances to support this proposal. • Informed that a neighbor with the same sort of lot built on her lot in 1988. They were restricted to a 3,100 square foot maximum house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 17 • Reported that this applicant never spoke with the neighbors and it would have saved time if he had done what he was supposed to do as far as neighbor outreach. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Nancy Kundtz what privacy impacts are created. Ms. Nancy Kundtz: • Said that she would be looking at a three-car garage without any screening. This garage would be facing her living room and two bedrooms in her home. • Stated that she bought this land in the late 1980s predicated on privacy so that no one is in anyone else’s line of site. Chair Garakani pointed out the high cost of land today and questioned her proposal for just a 2,800 square foot home on this parcel. Ms. Nancy Kundtz said that a home of that size recently went on the market for $3 million. Said that taking away privacy equals devaluation and creates a noise violation. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Nancy Kundtz how large her garage is. Ms. Nancy Kundtz replied that she has a three-car garage. Her home is the only one in the area that consists of 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked Ms. Nancy Kundtz what her setbacks are. Ms. Nancy Kundtz said that part of the driveway is an easement to the rear lot. She was required to push her house back when she built it so she has a rather small back yard. Commissioner Rodgers asked if a trellis would alleviate her concerns over the balcony. Ms. Nancy Kundtz replied no. Her concern is all about noise impacts. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the key issue is view impacts or noise impacts. Ms. Nancy Kundtz replied both. The garage looks directly at bedrooms in her home. She is concern about noise intrusion and the lack of opportunity for adequate screening landscaping to obscure this garage. Mr. Rocky Hill, 21760 Heber Way, Saratoga: • Reported that the Planning requirements changed when he was in the midst of developing plans for his parcel and he had to reduce his home. • Said that there is no real area available between the proposed garage and the road for screening landscaping. • Said that he too would have liked to have obtained Variances for his property but there was no chance of that at the time he was developing his lot. • Stated that this discrepancy seems unfair. • Said that the impacts on the neighborhood do not seem fair. • Reminded that all who purchased land in this area knew that there were limited building areas on each parcel. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 18 Chair Garakani asked Mr. Rocky Hill when he originally viewed the plans for this project. Mr. Rocky Hill replied that he thought this proposed house looked beautiful but it was only upon seeing the story poles in place that he realized the actual impacts on the neighborhood. Ms. Danielle (Denny) Alff, 14185 Teerlink Way, Saratoga: • Said that she owns the other comparable lot to this one, consisting of 6 acres with 5.5-acres being an open space/scenic easement. • Said that she built in 1988. Her home is a 3,100 square foot home. She had originally proposed a 3,400 square foot home but the Planning Commission said it was too big and bulky and impacted the neighborhood too much. • Said that she used strong environmental ethics and built her home of wood, incorporating skylights, and kept the house very low and inconspicuous. • Encouraged the Commission to look at this proposal very carefully and thanked them for their efforts. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Danielle Alff if she has views of this site from her property. Ms. Danielle Alff replied no. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this proposed home would destroy the sense of community. Ms. Danielle Alff replied that this is an extremely large house and that all the neighbors are united in their opposition to it. Mr. Heber Teerlink, 21910 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that the Commission is between a rock and a hard place in evaluating the interests of two parties. • Said that he has three areas of interest: Neighborhood, having both his first name and family name representing this area as street names and assisting in the marketing of homes. • Stated that homes that are not situated appropriately to one another can devalue both. • Said that a 6,500 square foot home is proposed. The size is not as important as the footprint and visibility of this home. For this area, 6,500 square feet is out of norm. • Recommended that the setbacks and square footage be reduced and that a planting strip be provided between the two driveways with an 8 to 12 foot high hedge to soften impacts between the two homes. Ms. Cindy Teerlink and Ms. Susan Denicolo, 21810 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Stated that they are here this evening in support of Nancy Kundtz and her views. • Said that privacy is the biggest issue at the Teerlink Ranch development. Mr. Steve Sheng, Applicant and Owner: • Pointed out that the garage is 76 feet away from the Kundtz home. • Said that he did talk with the nearby neighbors. • Said he is willing to move the driveway and plant as necessary. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 19 • Said that there is no way to move the house due to the geological concerns but that he can do mitigations regarding privacy. Chair Garakani asked what mitigations Mr. Steve Sheng proposes. Mr. Steve Sheng said he could move the garage back by five to six feet, reduce the house by 300 square feet so that it is the same size as Nancy’s house. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Steve Sheng if he is open to planting trees between the two properties. Mr. Steve Sheng replied yes, he is open to recommendations. Commissioner Zutshi asked about a sound wall. Mr. Steve Nelson said that a sound wall was never proposed but landscaping screening was. He asked for help on the setback issue. The setbacks allowed would dictate the size of the house. He said that part of the redesign depends on the setbacks supported. Commissioner Uhl said that he agrees the house is beautiful and the issue is size. Mr. Steve Nelson said he could reduce the house to 6,100 square feet. However, no matter what, they will need a Variance. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the Setback Variance versus Slope Variance. Mr. Steve Nelson said that with the 33 percent slope, the building area is just 1,100 square feet and 600 square feet would be the garage. This scenario requires a large second story. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the balcony. Mr. Steve Nelson said that he is willing to eliminate the balcony but that it faces the rear of the lot. However, if it is an issue, it can be removed from the plan. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the house cannot be moved on the site due to geological issues. Mr. Steve Nelson replied correct. The buildable area is limited due to the proximity to faults. Commissioner Hunter asked if the project was denied since 1990 when the land was purchased. Mr. Steve Sheng replied no. He has been working under the same application and filing fees all of these years. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this size house was not allowed in those days. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 20 Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that while there are CC&Rs, the Planning Commission does not enforce them and reviews compliance with Design Guidelines only. Commissioner Uhl asked staff if the table figures for square footage include garage space in all cases. Planner John Livingstone said that he researched this data using microfiche and previous staff reports. He said that the figures should all be inclusive of all countable FAR, including garages. Chair Garakani pointed out that the applicant is willing to reduce the size of his home and provide screening landscaping. However, it appears that the balcony is considered to be a privacy impact issue for a neighbor. Commissioner Nagpal said that it appears that no matter what a Variance is required for this property owner to build anything on this property. Said that when considering the choices between a Slope Variance and Setback Variance, the Setback Variance makes more sense. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that the hardest thing for the Commission to do is to be consistent, particularly with Hillside projects. • Reported that the she has voted no for proposed Hillside projects on Pierce and Bohlman Roads. • Said that these hillsides belong to everyone in Saratoga and what is constructed on them affects us all. • Suggested that if a neighbor were to propose such a project next door to Mr. Sheng, he too would object. • Stated that this is an enormous house and that she cannot support a house of this size on this property. Chair Garakani asked Commissioner Hunter if she is recommending a reduction in size. Commissioner Hunter replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal said that the impact is bulk and not just overall square footage. Commissioner Uhl stressed the importance of avoiding impacts on views and privacy. Chair Garakani suggested that the project go back to staff for additional redesign. Commissioner Schallop said that the Commission should address the Variance issue. Planner John Livingstone asked that the Commission identify the portions of the structure that it finds bulky and requires change. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that when considering Slope versus Setback Variances, it worries her more to pull soil out from a hillside property. • Stated that the setbacks requested by the applicant are closer in line to those setbacks existing in the neighborhood. • Advised that she supports Setback Variances versus Slope Variances. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 21 Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the setback to the neighbor’s house be increased. Planner John Livingstone suggested that Plan Sheet P-1 offers a good perspective for this current conversation. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that increasing this setback from 20 feet would automatically reduce the square footage. Chair Garakani added that this would also offer more room to plant screening landscaping. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that there are lots of properties with similar circumstances that were developed without Variances. Chair Garakani said that this applicant needs a building pad larger than the currently allowed 1,100 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers said that setbacks and overall size are issues. Commissioner Uhl said that the setbacks should be greater than proposed by the applicant on the sides. Commissioner Schallop said that the setbacks were based upon 5.5 acres of which 5 acres are open space. Commissioner Uhl said that he understands the need for a Variance in this circumstance but that the Commission does not have to be too loose as to how big this Variance is. He suggested redesign with a smaller footprint. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commissioner Uhl to be more specific about smaller footprint. Commissioner Uhl said that the applicant should go back to the drawing board with a smaller footprint and less need for a Variance. Planner John Livingstone said that the proposed setback from the garage is 25 feet and Commissioner Uhl is proposing something along the lines of 45 feet. Commissioner Uhl said that he wants the Variances to be as tight as the Commission can go while still allowing this property owner to develop his property. Chair Garakani suggested this go back to staff. Commissioner Zutshi suggested a 35-foot side yard setback. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that an arbitrary compromise might not actually be helpful. Planner John Livingstone asked if the Commission has any feedback on the location of the garage. Commissioner Zutshi said that it appears to be in the right location. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 22 Chair Garakani agreed that it would be tough to rotate it. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the neighbor does not want it there. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that back-to-back driveways and garages appear to be the preferred development pattern. She added that if the garage were to be placed at the front, both houses would face a garage. Commissioner Uhl said that a community meeting is required. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that discussion with neighbors is needed. Commissioner Rodgers said that while a meeting with neighbors might be helpful, it should not be required that every neighbor be consulted. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that the applicant must be given clear guidance so that the applicant, neighbors and staff all understand. • Stated that it appears to be the consensus that the Variance for both front and side yard setbacks is needed to allow development of this legal lot. • Said that the chart in the staff report is helpful and that what is presented does not seem unreasonable in comparison. It is only 500 square feet larger. • Suggested a compromise in the size of the proposed home so that it falls within 5,000 and 6,000 square feet. Chair Garakani suggested a 10 percent reduction. Commissioner Hunter said that it would still be too big. Commissioner Schallop said that he had no concern with the architectural design, saying that the placement of the garage and the balcony issue appearing to be resolved if the applicant is willing to consider the proposed changes. Commissioner Nagpal said that the issues are landscaping, setbacks and neighbor-related issues. Commissioner Uhl expressed support for offering the opportunity for neighbor design review but not to require neighbor approval, just the opportunity to see the proposal. Commissioner Schallop agreed that it is a problem when the applicant and neighbors don’t interact. Chair Garakani said that a 15 percent reduction in square footage would bring the total down to 5,500 square feet. Commissioner Uhl said he did not want to pick a number arbitrarily. Commissioner Nagpal said that the neighbors should be clear of its priorities. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 23 Chair Garakani pointed out that some of these concerns would have been worked out if this applicant had listened to staff’s recommendation to work with his neighbors. Agreed that some reduction in square footage is required. Commissioner Rodgers said that she would leave how much of a reduction open to the applicant and his architect to consider. The end result should be within the average range of homes in the area. Pointed out that everyone likes the design. Commissioner Uhl said a great guideline is to make sure this home is consistent with the houses in the area. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of Design Review (Application #02-281) for a new two-story house proposed on property located at 21794 Heber Way to a date uncertain, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #03-168 (397-28-028) – BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, 14010 Alta Vista Avenue: Request Design Review Approval and a Variance for the front setback to build a new two-story house on an existing vacant lot. The proposed structure will be 2,385 square feet as determined by the Planning Commission. The proposed floor area includes a 420 square foot two-car garage. The structure will also have a 797 square foot basement. The gross lot size is 8,721 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. 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 for a new two-story single-family residence on a vacant lot with a Variance for the front setback. • Described the proposed home as consisting of 2,385 square feet with a 420 square foot two-car garage and a 797 square foot basement. The maximum height would be less than 26 feet. • Explained that the lot is 8,721 square feet. • Stated that the applicant had sought an extension for a previous approval. However, upon review of the proposal, staff noticed that a Variance would be needed. The applicant redesigned their project. • Said that the Craftsman architectural style is predominate in this area. This home would use smooth stucco on the first floor and siding on the second. A 50-year composition shingle roof is proposed. • Said that the project meets Design Review findings as there are no adverse views impacts as there are no visible neighbors to the rear. The second story is stepped back on all sides and there are varying rooflines. No protected trees will be removed and two new 24-inch box trees would be planted. Existing large Oak trees provide screening. • Said that the first finding can be made that this is a unique lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 24 • Added that the second finding can be made in that there are two large Oak trees in the middle of the lot to preserve and that only a small portion of the house protrudes into the required setback. • Said that the project is not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. • Reported that the Commission must also make a Floor Area Determination. • Explained that this proposed home consists of 2,385 square feet. The adjacent homes are 2,256 and 2,242 square feet respectively so this proposed home is consistent and within range of its neighboring structures. • Said that the proposal conforms to the General Plan. • Recommended Design Review Approval, granting of a Variance and establishment of a Floor Area Determination for this project. Commissioner Uhl asked if Lots 25 and 28 had the same minimum requirements. Planner John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Uhl asked if those lots had also received Variances. Planner John Livingstone replied no. Additionally, no Floor Area Determination was sought for the other lots. Reported that there are several issues with the prior staff report. Director Tom Sullivan added that different staff prepared the report. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. David Britt, Project Architect, Britt-Rowe: • Thanked staff for its work. • Stated that this is now a better house than originally approved as it is more sensitive to the trees on site. • Said that they have moved the basement six feet further from an existing tree. • Said that problems with the design have all been changed and this proposal conforms better to Saratoga’s guidelines. • Stated that he was available for any questions. Chair Garakani asked if neighbor input was obtained. Mr. David Britt reported that this same property owner owns most of the surrounding parcels. He added that there were few neighbors when doing the five-lots below this one. Added that this setback was never an issue with any neighbors. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that a letter of wholehearted support was received. Commissioner Rodgers asked how future owners of this home could be made to respect the intent to preserve this tree. Mr. David Britt said he was unsure, perhaps a title restriction. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that a Tree Permit would be required for removal of any trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 25 Mr. David Britt reminded that this is the 10th new house constructed in this neighborhood and that trees have been properly protected during construction. Planner John Livingstone said that there is generally good compliance with the Arborist’s tree protection recommendations during construction. Commissioner Zutshi asked about imposing a deed restriction. Commissioner Uhl asked what size home could be built on this lot without a Variance. Mr. David Britt replied that there is no set Floor Area Ratio for this house. Planner John Livingstone advised that since this is less than a 5,000 square foot lot, the Planning Commission determines the size of house permitted on a case-by-case basis. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Uhl stated that Variances should be rare and there were three presented tonight. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that special circumstances findings are required to support a Variance. Commissioner Uhl said that this particular request does not concern him as much as others do. Director Tom Sullivan assured that approving a Variance does not set precedent. Variances are adopted on a case-by-case basis. They are approved individually, one request at a time. Commissioner Uhl said that Variances should be avoided whenever possible. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Commission has not seen a lot of Variance requests in the last year and a half. Commissioner Hunter reported that City staff tells applicants that a Variance is not easily obtained. Commissioner Zutshi said that this Variance helps preserve old Oaks on this site. Commissioner Hunter said that due to the odd shape of the lot and the preservation of Oak trees, she could support this Variance. Planner John Livingstone assured that at the front counter staff shies away from Variances, which are difficult to support when developing a vacant lot and for which State law sets the required findings. Commissioner Nagpal indicated that she could support this Variance. Chair Garakani asked if there are any design issues. Commissioner Hunter said that this design was nicely done. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2004 Page 26 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval, a Variance for the front setback and made a Floor Area Determination (Application #03-168) for a new two-story house to be located on property at 14010 Alta Vista Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission meeting on December 22, 2004, has been cancelled. • Announced that Council has adopted an Urgency Ordinance. Buildings receiving final occupancy from December 2004 onward cannot make changes or additions to what was approved without necessary processing and public notification. In January 2005, Council will grant a 10.5-month extension to this Urgency Ordinance. Another one-year extension is possible thereafter to allow time to draft and adopt a permanent amendment to the Municipal Code. • Distributed a copy of his resignation letter and advised that this is his last meeting with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nagpal extended her appreciation to Director Tom Sullivan for his leadership and guidance. The Commissioners extended their best wishes to Director Tom Sullivan and said he would be missed. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Garakani asked Director Tom Sullivan what should be done with the issue raised under Oral Communications. Director Tom Sullivan replied that staff should contact and work with the Church on the issues raised. COMMUNICATIONS City Council Minutes from the Regular Meeting on October 20, 2004. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk