Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-2004 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Zutshi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Chair Hunter and Commissioners Garakani and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 14, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 2004, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-3; Chair Hunter and Commissioners Garakani 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 January 22, 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 2 *** CONSENT CALENDAR – ITEM NO. 1 CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & GENERAL PLAN CONFORMINTY FINDING: The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the additions to the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program are consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there is no specific staff report except to advise that the Planning Commission previously acted on this item. Council subsequently added three additional items to the CIP. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission found the additions to the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program to be consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-201 (503-48-029 and 503-48-028), located at and adjacent to 21170 Big Basin Way: Request of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the City of Saratoga’s Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 403-48-028. (Continued from January 14, 2004.) (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council the request by LAFCO to adjust the Saratoga Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels. • Described the zoning as Residential and the General Plan designation as Hillside Residential. • Stated that the reason behind this change is to give the City of Saratoga a sphere of influence over future development of this property. Without the Urban Service Area Boundary designation, the County is not required to provide the City of Saratoga with notice of pending development applications. • Stated that the proposed addition to the Urban Service Area Boundary is consistent with the City’s General Plan and LAFCO’s policies. • Informed that the property owner’s attorney has provided a letter that has been distributed to the Commissioners this evening. • Recommended approval of this proposed Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Barry asked staff to clarify what it takes to bring a property into the Urban Service Area Boundary. Associate Planner John Livingston replied that said properties must be contiguous to the City and a resolution be adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Barry restated that there are no specific requirements other than being contiguous to a City’s boundary. Commissioner Nagpal asked for verification that the City has received no current notice of pending property development. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to confirm that under the Urban Service Area Boundary, these property owners would not have to comply with City of Saratoga design guidelines but rather the City is just given the opportunity to provide comments to the County on potential development. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked why Land Use Policy 5, regarding development compatibility, is included in the report. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that if these properties were to be annexed into the City of Saratoga, the City’s design review polices would ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties and uses. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the issue of annexation would come before the Planning Commission or before City Council. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the issue of potential annexation would be considered by the City Council. Commissioner Schallop asked if the only way the City has any influence is if it were to directly receive notice from the County. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the City sometimes gives comment to the County. Sometimes they listen and act upon the comments provided. Director Tom Sullivan said that the relationship between City and County staff is better today than a few years ago. Commissioner Schallop asked if the City has yet considered the possibility of annexation. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Schallop asked if the attorney’s reference to a 50 percent rule is accurate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 4 Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. This could change however with ownership changes or more properties being considered for annexation at one time. Commissioner Schallop asked if structures built on this property would be visible from the valley. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are many parcels far from the City of Saratoga’s sphere of influence where structures constructed are clearly visible. Commissioner Schallop asked staff what cost is incurred in bringing the proposal for additions to the Urban Service Area Boundary forward. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied just staff time. Commissioner Schallop asked what triggered this interest. Director Tom Sullivan replied City Council. Acting Chair Zutshi asked for further clarification regarding the attorney’s letter and the comment that annexation cannot occur without their consent. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that this statement depends upon certain variables. Director Tom Sullivan added that without those possible variables, that comment is generally true. Commissioner Barry asked staff if the County has any position on the idea of bringing this property into the City of Saratoga’s Urban Service Area Boundary. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the County is supportive of all cities annexing property as much as possible. The County is a social service oriented agency and not property development oriented. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. David Britton, Property Owner, 21170 Big Basin Way: • Identified himself as owner of 10 acres of property under consideration this evening. • Apologized for the delay in getting his attorney’s letter in to the Commission. • Said that it is important that the Commission know that adding his property to the Urban Service Area Boundary would not benefit the City of Saratoga as the only way for the City to have any influence would be annexation. The City is unable to annex properties without the consent of 50 percent of the property owners. Both the Brittons and the Englishes would protest annexation. • Recommended that the Planning Commission deny inclusion of their property into the City of Saratoga’s Urban Service Area Boundary. • Assured that he plans to appear before Council when they consider this proposal. • Asked if his previous correspondence was included in the Commission’s staff report. • Said that he is not against what the City is trying to accomplish, just that he is not exactly sure what it is the City is trying to accomplish. • Questioned the reasoning for the City to spend its money when it would receive no benefit. • Listed the likely scenario to be first, Urban Service Area; second, annexation into the City and, finally, merging of property to Hakone Gardens. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 5 • Pointed out an entire paragraph regarding the expansion of Hakone Gardens. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. David Britton what his specific concerns are. Mr. David Britton replied that if annexation occurs before he is able to sell his property the new owners would be under City jurisdiction and not County jurisdiction. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that it is probably not even possible to secure annexation under these conditions even if annexation is attempted. Mr. David Britton asked why even change the Urban Service Area Boundary. The County may not care but the property owners do care. He added that he is required to disclose this possibility as he is trying to sell his property. He is required to make it clear as to what a new owner can expect. Ms. Sara Louise Freitig English: • Said that she was so upset at the last meeting she ranted. • Said that they were never noticed about the Council meeting in August where this issue was first raised. Their first notification came on December 23, 2003. • Stated that they do not know how this issue came before Council and that this process is damaging the ability of the Brittons to sell their property. • Accused that someone is trying to stop the sale of this property. • Reminded that City representatives who visited the property in August told their agent that the property might be purchased for Hakone. • Stated that the notices sent are prejudiced regarding Hakone being next door to the property under consideration. • Declared that she does not want to have her property annexed into the City of Saratoga as the land has a better value under County jurisdiction. • Advised that this vote would have some adverse meaning to them. It would actually be damaging to be included in the Urban Service Area Boundary. It would be detrimental to the sellers of this property. • Expressed concerns that this process is reminiscent of Police Powers of the State and compared it to lands taken from her ancestors in Europe. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Schallop asked staff whether the Commission’s action on this matter is simply a non- binding recommendation to Council. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the only thing on the table at this phase is the possibility of inclusion of these properties to the City of Saratoga’s Urban Service Area Boundary. There is nothing under consideration regarding annexation and that the potential of annexation is not an automatic progression. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that annexation would not be possible without 50 percent of the property owners agreeing to it. Director Tom Sullivan agreed but said that property owners and laws change all the time. Acting Chair Zutshi pointed out that Council would consider this item and these families could speak to the Council at that time. Director Tom Sullivan added that after Council takes action, the next process would be before LAFCO. LAFCO makes the final decision. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this designation would give the City a chance to have a seat at the table when the County discusses development of this property. This is valuable to the City. Said that she is concerned about hillside development and the amount of cement that is added to hillside properties. She would like to see the City able to comment. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that the City could actually choose to comment on development at any time. The only real difference is that the City will received public hearing meeting notices. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City receives the County Planning Commission agenda but has never received their Design Review agenda or their Grading Review agendas. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Hakone is automatically noticed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the City would be notified as the property owners of Hakone Gardens. Again the City currently only gets the County Planning agendas and not the rest. Commissioner Barry pointed out that another important issue is the fact that the County is not in the business of design guidelines. The City is invested in the character of the neighborhoods and hillsides. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that people buy County properties for that reason, there are less stringent requirements. Commissioner Barry said that annexation is not being voted upon. The only benefit is the opportunity to comment on the future development of these two properties. There would be no control to stop development but just to register a comment on the proposed development. Commissioner Schallop reminded that that option exists right now. Commissioner Barry said not practically speaking. Commissioner Schallop said that the concern he has is the timing as some interest seems to be there for Hakone Gardens. Said he is not sure what the trigger is for this action. Director Tom Sullivan said that when the City realized the property was on the market it was also clear that potential development might of this property might be eminent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Barry reminded that the property has been on the market for two years. The City did not just jump on this process immediately upon its being put on the market. Additionally, the County encourages this action. Said that despite how it might seem, there are no nefarious motives here. It seems pretty straightforward to have a design review voice. Commissioner Schallop said that the City could speak anyway. He added that it is not clear that annexation is coming next. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that the possibility of annexation was of concern to her as well. However, she considers this process to be simply an issue of Urban Service Area Boundary in order to get design review opportunities. • Said that she does not agree that Hakone Garden is a strange link, it is a logical link. • Stated that the County’s land use capabilities are at issue and would provide the City the opportunity to provide comments when this property is developed. • Reminded that the annexation would require participation by the landowners and would not occur without agreement of a majority. • Advised that she is inclined to support the Urban Service Area Boundary adjustment. Commissioner Barry suggested that the sentence in the Resolution regarding possible annexation be removed. Director Tom Sullivan said this could be done. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-201, recommending that Council approved the proposed expansion of the City of Saratoga’s Urban Service Area Boundary to include APN 503-48-29 and 503-48- 028 with the removal of text indicating the possibility of future annexation from said Resolution, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan: • Restated that the Commission has taken action to adopt a Resolution recommending approval to Council with the stricken language that refers to possible future annexation. • Advised that this matter would now go on to Council for Public Hearing for which the property owners will be notified by mail of the hearing date. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #03-267 (397-19-024) – MUELLER (Appellant), 19351 Athos Place: The City denied a tree removal permit for three Eucalyptus trees located at 19351 Athos Place. The property owner has Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 8 appealed the denial. The trees are located in the side yard, toward the front of the residence. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the City denied a Tree Removal Permit for three Eucalyptus trees located on the side yard along the left property line and fence. The property owner has appealed that denial. • Said that the City Arborist has since inspected the trees and found them to be in good to fair condition but in poor structural condition, which supports their removal. • Added that the adjacent neighbor has provided a letter in support of the removal of these three trees. • Recommended that the Commission conducts a public hearing and takes appropriate action. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the initial denial and asked if the lack of opinion on the economic enjoyment of the property is important. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the inspector thought this was not a relevant criteria in this situation. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the Arborist’s report mentions the poor trimmings/cuts made on these trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that when such trees are topped, new sprouts become limbs that are weak and therefore can more easily fall off in weather and wind. Acting Chair Zutshi asked if these trees are a special species as had been implied during the site visit. Commissioner Nagpal reported that Chair Hunter had thought it might be an unusual species of Eucalyptus during the site visit. She asked if the Arborist believes that replacement with three trees is a sufficient mitigation for the removal of these three trees. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. John Nance, 19363 Athos Place, Saratoga: • Said he is the adjacent next door neighbor, to the north, and has lived here since 1968. • Reported that the Muellers are the fourth owners of the neighboring property. • Advised that these trees were planted in 1967 or 1968. • Said that he emailed his support of this request and was disappointed that the Tree Removal Permit was denied. • Asked if the Commission saw his email in which he outlined his reasons to support the removal. Commissioner Nagpal assured Mr. Nance that his email was included in the staff report packet. Mr. John Nance: • Stated that he still believes what he originally wrote. • Said that his main concern is fire hazard as these types of trees burn furiously almost immediately upon ignition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 9 • Said that he is fearful that if there were to be a fire these trees would present a large fire hazard. • Advised that over the last 35 years, he has cleared debris from these trees off his driveway, which runs along the property line, next to these trees. There is debris every season and he cannot put a car in the driveway for 20 minutes without finding drippings on the car. Oil from the trees stain cars and the driveway. • Added that the tree has resulted in cracks in his driveway. • Informed that he has inadvertently been the water source for these trees every time he hoses down his driveway to clean the debris. • Pointed out that there are many trees in this cul-de-sac and that these trees do not have any significant aesthetic value to the neighborhood. • Said he hopes the Commission will recommend approval for removal of these three trees as there will be no negative consequences by their removal. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Mr. Nance if any branch has fallen on his property causing damage. Mr. John Nance replied once when the tree was being trimmed. However, smaller branches fall all the time. Commissioner Barry pointed out that there is no recommendation in the staff report as to where the replacement trees ought to go. Asked Mr. Nance if he has any suggestions. Mr. John Nancy said he hopes that there are no tall trees replaced along their shared property line. He added that his neighbor has a nice large property and he leaves placement of the replacement trees in their hands. Ms. Cindy Mueller, Appellant, 19351 Athos Place, Saratoga: • Expressed concern that these trees represent a major safety and liability concern. • Said that she has owned her home for three years and had the trees maintained by a tree company at a cost of $800 per year to trim and top each tree. However, she has learned that this regular trimming is actually hurting the structural integrity of the trees. • Added that there is no other way but to trim these trees. If not, they grow outward, over rooftops. • Informed that the Arborist has recommended trees but that there are not appropriate for this same location. • Advised that she would like to have time to review a landscape plan for appropriate location of the replacement trees as part of a planned extensive remodel of their home. • Said that there are lots of trees on the property, they are completely surrounded by trees. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Mueller what time frame she would require to figure out the replacement location for the new trees. Ms. Cindy Mueller said she is not sure. They need to rebuild the fence, find an architect and go through the design review process with the City. This may take a year or more from what people tell her. Assured that the trees to be removed are not a rare species per the Arborist. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner Nagpal expressed support for flexibility in the replacement schedule and asked staff for a recommendation. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff generally tries for three months but that there is no hard and fast rule. If an extension is requested, it can be granted. Staff will keep a record and check back. Commissioner Nagpal said the most compelling reason to support removal is the Arborist report. Criteria No. 1 is met. Said that she is leaning toward supporting this Tree Removal Permit. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that this is the least controversial Tree appeal he has heard so far. • Said that he relies heavily upon the Arborist report and the Arborist feels that Criteria No. 1 has been met. • Stated that with replacement trees and flexibility on the City’s part on the timing of the replanting, he can support granting this appeal to allow the removal of these trees. Commissioner Barry expressed her agreement and said that she appreciated the comments by Ms. Mueller that pruning contributed to the damage of these trees. Said that she is comfortable with the Planning Department tracking future replacement of these trees. Acting Chair Zutshi said that she had thought these trees looked nice originally but that the Arborist report influenced her position. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that if a City inspector has a doubt, they are told to rule in favor of saving the tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted an appeal (Application #03-267) to allow the removal of three Eucalyptus trees located at 19351 Athos Place, allowing the property owner some flexibility in the timing of planting replacement trees to coincide with a pending major residential remodel, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #03-092 (397-19-024) – CHU, 19554 Three Oaks Way: Request Design Review Approval to add 1,504 square feet to the existing 3,169 square foot house with an existing 434 square foot garage for a total floor area of 5,107 square feet. The addition includes a new 1.007 square foot second story addition to the existing house. The gross lot size is 40,140 square feet and zoned R-1- 40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 11 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the addition of approximately 1,500 square feet to an existing 3,000 square foot house for a total of 5,000 square feet. One thousand square feet represents a second story addition. • Reported that the impervious surface of this property exceeds the maximum allowable. The owners will remove the existing driveway, about 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. • Described building materials to include redwood board and batten siding, stone veneer base at the front façade and a brown roof of weathered composition shingle. • Explained that the proposal meets Design Review guideline policies that include integration with the environment, planting of new trees, protection of the privacy of adjacent neighbors, no view impacts and no trees to be removed. • Advised that 15 15-gallon oaks will be planted as well as six 24-inch box trees. • Stated that no negative correspondence has been received and that the neighbors have been shown the plans. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry asked what the lot coverage would be. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied 42 percent of net. The existing coverage is 57 percent. Staff is supporting the proposal with the reduction of impervious surface from 57 to 42 percent. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this percentage still does not meet Code standards. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. However, these are existing conditions that the applicant is reducing. Commissioner Barry asked if anything else could be made pervious. Director Tom Sullivan said that the new driveway is interlocking pavers. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about existing conditions. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the lot currently has 57 percent lot coverage. The applicant is removing approximately 5,000 square feet of this coverage. While 35 percent coverage was the goal, the applicant inadvertently based their percentages on gross instead of net. Staff is supportive since the applicant in theory could just leave it as is since it is an existing condition. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification that some of the new square footage is on the first floor. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes, about 500 square feet. The remaining 1,000 square feet is a second floor. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that the applicant does not have to meet lot coverage standards with such a remodel. Associate Planner John Livingstone said not if it is an existing situation. It is considered to be a legal non-conforming situation that is not being made worse. Commissioner Nagpal said that the lot coverage is actually improving from 57 to 42 percent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan added that it cannot be allowed to get worse per Code. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Mark Robinson, Project Architect: • Said he was available for any questions. • Said they have tried to do whatever possible regarding excess paving. • Pointed out that most of the addition is second story with a small first floor addition at the back of the house. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether pavers could be incorporated around the pool. Mr. Mark Robinson said that planned material is flagstone. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Barry said that understanding the issues, she is fine with the proposal. The design is articulated and interesting. She will support it. Commissioner Nagpal supported the comments of Commissioner Barry. Commissioner Schallop did also. Acting Chair Zutshi said that the applicant has done a wonderful job. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-092) to add 1,504 square feet to an existing 3,169 square foot home on property located at 19554 Three Oaks Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Nagpal reported that Phyllis from the Heritage Commission is seeking volunteers for the Mustard Walk. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 13 There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Acting Chair Zutshi adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk