Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-2004 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 28, 2004. As there was not a quorum available of Commissioners present at the January 28, 2004, meeting, the adoption of the minutes for that meeting was deferred to the next regular meeting on March 10, 2004. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of February 11, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 11, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 3,4,6 and 8. (5-0-2; Commissioners Barry and Uhl were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 19, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 2 *** CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-269 (397-03-057) ASHJAY, 14403 Sobey Road: Request for design review approval to construct a ground floor addition of 303 square feet to an existing 5,346 square foot home. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.060(6), design review approval is required because the proposal will result in a total floor area of all structures on the property of more than 6,000 square feet. The property is 55,989 square feet and is zoned R-1-40,000. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking design review approval to allow a 303 square foot addition that will match the existing Mediterranean architectural style with stucco and roof tiles to match. The maximum height would be 16 feet. • Explained that the applicant will be removing a tennis court, cabana and small shed and that there are current additions underway as approved at staff level. • Added that the current 303 square foot addition requires Planning Commission’s design review approval as the gross floor area would exceed 6,000 square feet. • Said that no ordinance-protected trees are impacted and that conditions were imposed to protect existing trees during the removal of the tennis court, cabana and shed. Additionally, a final landscape plan must be submitted for approval by staff. • Advised that the existing property frontage and one sideyard streetside fencing and gates are in violation of Code as they exceed the allowable three-foot maximum heights. The existing frontage fencing ranges from four to six feet in height and there is also a six-foot high trellis structure located at the corner that also conflicts with Code. • Stated that a permit search found approval for a three-foot high masonry wall with five-foot pilasters from 1989. • Informed the Commission that no negative comments were received from adjacent neighbors. • Recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution approving Application #03-269 with the condition that existing fencing is brought into compliance with Code prior to final. Chair Hunter asked staff why the tennis court and cabana need to be taken out. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the allowable impervious coverage is exceeded if the tennis court, cabana and shed were to remain. Commissioner Garakani asked when staff approved the remodel currently underway. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied Fall 2003. Commissioner Garakani asked why the fencing violation issue did not come up at that time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 3 Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan explained that an administrative review is performed over the counter with no site visit. Rather, it is based upon presented plans. Chair Hunter added that this is especially the case for a single-story home less than 6,000 square feet. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan added that there was no mention of any fencing on the application reviewed for the administrative approval. Commissioner Garakani asked if there has been a site visit since the administrative approval. Director Tom Sullivan replied that building inspectors have visited the site. He added that he has been told that previous interim staff may have approved the fencing without any substantiating documentation. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether there was an existing fence on this property prior to the 1989 permit. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that she did not know. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the applicant would be required to comply with the fencing requirements if tonight’s request for the 303 square foot addition is approved but never constructed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that code enforcement occurs on a complaint basis. To date, there has been no complaint. Chair Hunter asked for clarification that if no complaint is received this fencing can stay. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Mike Amini, Representative for the Ashjays: • Said that he has a copy of the permit from 1989 that was for a concrete base with pillars. • Stated that they have complied with every requirement of the City regarding floor area. • Advised that the previous owner sold the house with these fences in place and told the Ashjays that all necessary permits had been obtained. • Pointed out that the neighbors like this fence and support its retention. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Mike Amini how high the permit states the fence may be constructed. Mr. Mike Amini replied that the permit does not state the height. Chair Hunter asked staff when the most recent Fence Ordinance was passed. Director Tom Sullivan replied 1987. Commissioner Nagpal asked when the new owners purchased this property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Mike Amini replied about 15 years ago. Commissioner Nagpal said that she recalls this house having a pretty high fence even before this one was installed. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the decorative side and front are not stucco but wrought iron. Mr. Mike Amini said that he raised the issue of the fence with all neighbors and none had problems with it. Chair Hunter pointed out that when a property owner comes to the City for any new permits, it comes to the attention of staff if fences are too tall and that three foot is the height allowed for property frontage fencing per Ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Ashjays are willing to compromise. Mr. Mike Amini said that they prefer to keep the fence as it is and would rather skip the 300-foot addition over removing or lowering this fence. Chair Hunter advised that they could have a taller fence if set back further on the property. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Garakani: • Pointed out that there are similar height fences and walls on other properties. • Said that this is an existing condition over 15 years. • Stated that he has no objection to this fence or to the 300 square foot addition. Commissioner Zutshi said that she has no objection to the 300 square foot addition but does support staff on the issue of the fence height compliance. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she is concerned about the fence being in violation of Code requirements. • Said that by allowing this fence to remain, it sends the wrong message to other property owners. • Restated her memory of there being a fence of similar height on this property even prior to this current fence. • Pointed out that the neighbors are comfortable with this fence and that no one has expressed concern. • Stated that she is not excited about the aesthetic look of this fence. • Supported staff’s recommendation to bring the fence into compliance. Commissioner Schallop asked how far the setback would be to allow the fence at this height. Director Tom Sullivan replied to the setback line. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan added that the setback is 30 feet on Sobey and 25 feet on the side street. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Schallop: • Said that he does not see a reason to allow an exception. • Added that Code does not read that fence height exceptions are allowed “if neighbors say it is okay.” • Said that the fence issue must be addressed and that he is comfortable with staff’s recommendation. Chair Hunter asked if there is a statute of limitations. Director Tom Sullivan replied prior to 1987. Chair Hunter restated that if a fence were installed after 1987, it must be in compliance with current Code. Commissioner Garakani asked when it might be considered a non-conforming structure. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this is not a structure but a fence. Chair Hunter asked what if a fence were built prior to 1987. Director Tom Sullivan replied that then nothing could be done. Chair Hunter: • Pointed out that the Commission has made people take down walls and fences they were too high. • Said that the issue of fencing height becomes an issue during the design review process for new permits. • Said that what is there exceeds what is allowed and that whoever built it went higher than they should have. • Supported staff’s recommendation. Director Tom Sullivan explained that the applicant could elect to appeal the action of the Commission to Council. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is existing language in the draft resolution concerning the fence. Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan pointed out Condition #1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-267 to allow a 303 square foot addition to an existing residence at 14403 Sobey Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: Garakani ABSENT: Barry and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Chair Hunter reminded that this action could be appealed within 15 days. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Garakani explained that his no vote is simply because he does not support the Condition of Approval imposed to bring the existing fence into compliance with current Code. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Design Review Section updated the thresholds for when projects need building permits, administrative review or Planning Commission review. Mr. Mike Amini asked whether they would still have to correct the fence if they give up on the 300 square foot addition. Chair Hunter replied no, not unless a complaint against this fence is received by the City. Mr. Mike Amini said that it does not make a lot of sense since they obtained letters of support from the surrounding neighbors. Chair Hunter said that these letters indicated that no one from the neighborhood is likely to complain against the fence. She reiterated the possibility to appeal this action to the City Council. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-273 (503-27-036) ESTAHBANATY, 14241 Paul Avenue: Request for design review approval to demolish the existing home and construct a 2,876 square foot two-story residence with a maximum height of 24 feet. The property is 7,500 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish an existing home and construct a new 2,876 square foot two-story home. • Described the proposed home as having a maximum height of 24 feet and using gray roof tiles and beige stucco finish. • Stated that the neighborhood consists of a mixture of architectural styles. • Added that the homes in this neighborhood are close together. • Advised that the applicant has showed his plans to the neighbors and that only positive comments have been received. • Said that screening trees would be installed to mitigate privacy impacts and existing trees on the site will be retained. • Stated that the project can meet the necessary design review findings for approval. • Recommended approval. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty, Applicant and Owner, 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga: • Informed that the previous tenants had lived on the site for 28 years and little had been done to this property over the years. • Advised that everyone in the neighborhood is happy to see a new home constructed. • Assured that additional trees would be planted for privacy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Nagpal said that there were nice comments received by the neighbors. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty said that the neighbors are very excited. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation for the opportunity to visit the other house on Elva that was constructed by Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty. Commissioner Garakani said that this will be an improvement to the neighborhood and represents an excellent design for the lot. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that for this lot this is the only way to go and that this new home would be replacing an eyesore. Chair Hunter said that this home would be great and its addition would be very exciting for this street. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-273 to allow the demolition of an existing home and construction of a new 2,876 square foot two- story residence on property located at 14241 Paul Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #04-002 – Rezoning Various Parcels for General Plan Consistency (517-22-004, 517- 20-016, 517-20-021, 517-19-082, 517-19-083, 517-19-084, 517-19-085, 517-18-018, 517-12-020, 517- 12-022, 517-12-021) Various Owners: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue, 20170 Bonnie Brae, 28010, 28020,28021, 28011 Audrey Smith Lane; 14931 Vickery Avenue, 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Avenue: A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD (Residential Low Density), 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. These parcels are currently zoned R-1- 40,000, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The RDL designation in the General Plan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-1-20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Information regarding the proposed rezoning is available at the Community Development Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. (ANN WELSH) Chair Hunter recused herself and stepped down as she lives within noticing distance of this project. Vice Chair Zutshi assumed the gavel to serve as Chair for Item No. 3. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 8 • Advised that staff is recommending the rezoning of 11 parcels from R-1-40,000 to R-1-20,000 in order to maintain consistency between the General Plan and Zoning. • Described the parcels as ranging from between 23,000 square feet to 74,000 square feet and located on Hill Avenue, Bonnie Brae, Audrey Smith Lane, Vickery Avenue and Lomita Avenue. • Stated that the impact on these properties would be minimal and only one parcel is significantly impacted, the 74,000 square foot parcel on Hill Avenue. • Stated that this Zone Change would allow subdivisions into 20,000 square foot lots if no environmental restrictions exist. • Added that this action is proposed just to maintain consistency, which is required under State law. • Said that the General Plan is mandated to be the guiding document and that staff is proposing rezoning as the means of addressing the inconsistencies between the General Plan and Zoning for these 11 parcels. Commissioner Nagpal thanked staff for driving the Commissioners around in order to see all of the lots. Asked for clarification that any subdivision would be required to meet all requirements. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked if every neighbor to each of the 11 parcels impacted had been noticed. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that a very thorough mailing occurred and that she personally had checked the mailing lists and maps. Approximately 150 people were notified of this hearing. Staff made the best effort. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if any written comments were received. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that she received questions over the phone and at the counter but had received no written petitions or letters. Acting Chair Zutshi asked what types of concerns were raised over the phone and at the counter. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that some who called or stopped by the office were actually impacted property owners who wondered if their property development prospects would be limited by this change. Other adjacent property owners were concerned as to whether their neighbors’ property could be subdivided as a result of this Zone Change. Others simply asked why this proposed change was even coming about. Acting Chair Zutshi asked staff to explain how this discrepancy came to the attention of staff. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh: • Reported that one property owner was at City Hall to question what he could do with his family’s property. At that time staff realized that the zoning was R-1-40,000 while the General Plan Land Use Map said that the property could be developed at two units per gross acre, which is consistent with R-1-20,000 zoning. • Explained that the City Attorney advised staff that the Zoning should be amended in order to match the General Plan. These are apparently map problems that were never caught. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Nagpal asked how it would be addressed if existing homes are larger than would be allowed under the R-1-20,000 zoning. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh advised that Audrey Smith Lane parcels would lose some allowable square footage but that many of the properties have slope and creek issues, which already reduce allowable square footage. Director Tom Sullivan added that if an existing home is larger than would be allowed under the R-1- 20,000 zoning, that home would be considered to be legal non-conforming. Acting Chair Zutshi clarified that nothing would happen to these existing homes. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Garakani asked what if someone wants to add square footage. Director Tom Sullivan advised that they would have to meet current square footage standards. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Robert Zager, 20292 Calle Montalvo, Saratoga: • Stated that people have invested in homes that were consistent with zoning. • Added that if these properties are to be rezoned and possibly subdivided, this would increase housing density and also affect forestation. • Suggested that the right answer to these existing inconsistencies would be to conform the General Plan Land Use designations for these properties to the current zoning rather than changing the zoning to conform to the General Plan. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if this option is possible. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this is not the action prescribed by State law. The General Plan reflects a broader brush than individual lots. Amendments would require reviewing the entire Land Use Element. Changing the zoning is the best way to cure the problem of inconsistencies between General Plan and Zoning for these 11 lots. Mr. Matthew A. Crosby, 20308 Calle Montalvo, Saratoga: • Advised that he is against the proposal to rezone the properties on Audrey Smith Lane. • Pointed out that Audrey Smith Lane was developed recently. • Added that at the time the proposed development was discussed, property owners on Calle Montalvo were concerned about density. In negotiations with the developers of Audrey Smith Lane, it was agreed that these would be one-acre parcels. Changing that now ignores the history of that development. Development on Audrey Smith Lane went through with one-acre lots not half- acre lots. • Stated that this is a unique perspective to this particular issue. • Suggested that the Planning Department take Audrey Smith Lane out of consideration for this Zone Change since these homes are already developed with approximately $4 million homes, which are not likely to be demolished and rebuilt with two homes. However, the neighbors don’t event want that prospect to exist. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Crosby how large the lots are on Calle Montalvo. Mr. Matthew A. Crosby replied they are one-half-acre lots. Ms. Cheriel Jensen, 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Stated that density changes impact flood conditions that create concerns where there were none before. • Asked about the potential tax impacts with the Zone Change. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is no tax implication unless something new is built or the property subdivided. Ms. Cheriel Jensen: • Suggested that if these properties were to be rezoned, the environmental review should go at the beginning. • Said that conformance with the General Plan has nothing to do with just numbers. Other elements are also impacted. • Pointed out that development of cul-de-sacs used to be limited to just five homes. This standard is important in the hillsides. • Added that zoning is more specific because of slope. • Reminded that an Initiative was passed for the Western Hills that resulted in the rezoning of the whole thing. The group that supported that action had thought that existing zoning was sufficient to handle the issues of the Southern Hills. • Said that she visited and reviewed the 11 properties proposed to be rezoned here. • Pointed that faults lace throughout the area. • Stated that the area was zoned for one-acre lots to avoid landslides. • Said that she would like to see this process die as it is not advisable. • Declared that she does not want to add density to this area. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Ms. Cheriel Jensen if she has any documentation. Ms. Cheriel Jensen said that these actions occurred in the early 1960s. Mr. Vince Borelli, 20200 Hill Avenue, Saratoga: • Pointed out that he was here two weeks ago. • Said that he lives next door to 20152 Hill Avenue, which is proposed for a Zone Change. • Advised that he has never received a single notice of this pending action. • Added that rezoning has the potential of adding traffic to the area. • Expressed his opposition to the rezoning, saying it is not the right thing to do and is not in the spirit of Saratoga. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Vince Borelli for his suggestion on what else can be done to correct this situation. Mr. Vince Borelli suggested that impact studies should occur. Voting on this issue tonight is just wrong. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 11 Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that any action by the Commission is advisory to Council. Ms. Rosemary Albreck, 20190 Winn Road, Saratoga: • Said that she is against this action and wrote a letter to that fact. • Stated that this proposal was a surprise to them. Director Tom Sullivan advised that current staff is not sure when this error occurred and could go as far back as the 1960s. Ms. Rosemary Albreck asked why no one was notified. Director Tom Sullivan said he cannot answer as he was not with the City at that time. Mr. Gary Smith, 20152 Hill Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its efforts. • Said that he has a Title Company document from 1957 and came to the City in June 2003. • Stated that all he knew was that his parents were aware their property could be subdivided. • Added that he is not sure if he will stay on this property much longer and that he has a high motive in getting the right to subdivide. • Said that their property has been surveyed. • Pointed out that if this property were to be subdivided laterally, from the road no one would see the second lot. Additionally there is complete access from both sides. • Added that the creek is several lots away from his lot. • Said that he has lived on the property since 1976 and shares the spirit of Saratoga and has been a member of the Chamber of Commerce since 1996. Mr. Vincent Borelli said that drainage is an issue as there are no storm sewers in the area. Water ends up on the road. Every lot must have drainage. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal said that while it sounds like State law mandates consistency between the General Plan and Zoning, she is against rezoning these 11 properties to R-1-20,000 in principle. Suggested a change to the General Plan instead. Director Tom Sullivan replied that such action cannot be taken tonight. If a majority of the Commission supports that alternative, such a review of the General Plan would have to be on a broader base than these 11 lots. Commissioner Nagpal said that there have been a lot of concerns and impacts raised this evening. Asked staff how many of these 11 parcels could possibly be subdivided as a result of this Zone Change. Acting Chair Zutshi asked if the Commission has to support the change for all 11 lots. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they could forward their recommendation on a site by site basis. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 12 Acting Chair Zutshi stated that the Audrey Smith Lane lots were divided in a consistent manner and are fine as is without changing the zoning to R-1-20,000. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that there appears to be a consensus about Audrey Smith Lane. • Said that she was okay with the Zone Change for Lomita and Vickery Avenues. • Added that for the rest, she is leaning toward evaluating more closely regarding possible subdivision or pursing possible General Plan changes. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that individual parcel analysis requires engineering data that is not currently available. Such data is generally generated at the owner’s cost when a property is proposed for development. Stated that he would prefer that the Commission forward a recommendation of approval or denial for these Zone Changes. Acting Chair Zutshi pointed out that since the Audrey Smith Lane properties are newer, the data may be available. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that said information may be on microfiche. Commissioner Garakani said that such data should be looked at in order to make a sound decision. Commissioner Schallop: • Reminded that State law requires consistency between the General Plan and Zoning. • Agreed that people buy property based upon zoning. • Expressed concern that amending the zoning now might be a taking for some. • Suggested that this may be a case of the tail wagging the dog with this problem. • Proposed sending this issue on to Council asking them to consider a General Plan Amendment rather than upsetting the current owners with a Zone Change. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #04-002 recommending that Council not take action to rezone 11 parcels but rather recommending that the City review the Land Use Map of the General Plan to achieve consistency, leaving the existing zoning as it is, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Uhl ABSTAIN: Hunter Chair Hunter returned to the dais and resumed the gavel. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #03-183 (CITYWIDE) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishes development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 13 Saratoga. A mixed-use development is one that has commercial or office along the street frontage and residential uses in the rear or on a second floor. This proposed amendment implements Program 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that in an on-going effort to implement the Housing Element, this Zoning Ordinance Amendment would establish a mixed-use zoning district. • Explained that 50 units are proposed in the Housing Element over a seven-year period in the form of mixed-use residential units located over office/commercial uses. • Advised that currently all commercial zones allow multi-family residential as a permitted use. • Added that with this proposal, a maximum of 50 percent of the building area could be developed with housing, with the remaining 50 percent required to be developed with office or commercial uses. • Said that he does not envision this ever being a big deal but added that about two-thirds of the City’s commercial zoned properties have been eaten up by with residential development. • Stated that the maximum residential densities would be 20 units per net acre. One acre would consist of half housing/half commercial/offices. • Said that there is a provision in the Housing Element and this proposed element that allows coverage and FAR to be increased with the inclusion of BMR units. • Said that individual units are limited between 850 square feet for a one-bedroom apartment and 1,250 square feet for a three-bedroom apartment. This restriction is to keep rents affordable. • Recounted that when the State’s representative visited Saratoga during the Housing Element Update process, all the condominium units shown were selling in the $1 million range. • Said that through the Design Review and Use Permit process the Commission would be able to grant a boast. • Advised that the proposals would have to adhere to residential design guidelines. One requirement is that all unit share private useable open space. • Added that the proposed mixed-use district identifies and recognizes that mixed uses must protect privacy of adjacent residential uses. Commissioner Garakani sought clarification that the 10-unit maximum does not include commercial spaces. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there would be stores in front at street level and residential units in the back or on top. He added that it is not going to be easy to develop these apartments. They will have to carefully design both the commercial space and apartments. Chair Hunter asked if mixed-use would be encouraged by staff if Downtown redevelopment projects were proposed. Director Tom Sullivan said that what is recommended for Downtown is stores at the sidewalk, participation in the parking assessment and as rich a sales tax generating use as is possible. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the residential components are only to be rental units. Director Tom Sullivan said that the business owner could live there. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 14 Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-183 recommending that Council adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing development standards for mixed-use developments in the Commercial and office zones of the City of Saratoga to implement Program 1.2 of the Saratoga Housing Element of the General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded the Commissioners of the League of California Cities Planners Institute beginning on March 31st. He asked the Commissioners to submit any conference expense receipts for reimbursement. • Announced that the meeting of March 24, 2004, would be cancelled. • Reminded the Commission of the March 17th meeting with Council. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Hunter advised that she attended the County’s Heritage Preservation meeting from whom the City is seeking a $500,000 grant. She also attended the Business Development Group’s meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Proposed Winery at 19265 Monte Vista Drive Director Tom Sullivan advised out that the property owner of 19265 Monte Vista Drive is seeking a license to sell their wines. This request does not quite meet Ordinance Requirements and staff is asking for the Planning Commission’s guidance. Commissioner Zutshi asked where this winery is located. Director Tom Sullivan replied that it is located on Monte Vista Drive on a relatively flat piece of property. The equipment is already there and these owners have been making wine as a hobby for a long time. Commissioner Schallop asked what is changing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 25, 2004 Page 15 Director Tom Sullivan replied that ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) has a variety of permits ranging from amateur to a commercial use where selling of wine can occur. The owners want to turn this hobby winery into a retail winery with off-site sales. He added that a Use Permit is one avenue. The Commissioners all agreed that a Use Permit is the best way to evaluate this proposal. 14651 Big Basin Way Director Tom Sullivan pointed out Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous’ memo updating the Commission on the project at 14651 Big Basin Way. This is now a smaller project. Council Minutes The City Council minutes from Special Meetings on January 24, 2004. Swenson Project Commissioner Schallop asked staff for an update. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the hiring of an EIR Consultant must be authorized by Council. Thereafter scoped public meetings will be held. He added that the project would go to the people for a vote as Council does not have the authority to increase density per Measure G. Corinthian House Chair Hunter mentioned hearing that the Corinthian House would be taken over and redeveloped. Director Tom Sullivan advised that escrow closes tomorrow (February 26, 2004). ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 10, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk