Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Barry Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous, Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of October 8, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 2003, were adopted with one correction to page 8. (6-0-1; Commissioner Barry was 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 October 16, 2003. 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-164 (510-06-013) SIDDIQI, 19102 Austin Way: Request for design review approval to construct a 5,476 square foot one-story residence. The maximum height of the proposed one-story residence is 23 feet. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 and the lot size is 47,045 square feet. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Commissioner Garakani advised the Commission that he would have to recuse himself from consideration of this item as he resides within the 500-foot notification distance from this property. He left the dais to sit in the audience. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a one story single-family residence with a maximum height of 23 feet and a total square footage of 5,500 square feet. Materials include oatmeal colored stucco and shingle roof tile. The zoning is R-1-40,000. • Explained that the property has double frontage and access from both Austin Way and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • Advised that a fence with solid gate will be included along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, located behind the existing bushes. Existing landscaping will screen this house from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The entrance on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road will primarily be a service entrance. • Added that a wrought iron fence and gate are proposed on the Austin Way frontage. • Informed that the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed this project and staff has incorporated their recommendations into the Conditions of Approval. One request of the HPB was to maintain the existing retaining wall as is and to incorporate low-growing bushes along this existing wall so as not to obscure it from view. Additionally, this project must not disturb the brick road on Austin Way. • Said that the applicant is flexible enough to meet these HPB recommendations. • Stated that there is no Tree Removal Permit sought at this time. However, four Olive trees will be significantly damaged and will likely need to be replaced. Required replacement trees would have to be of a native species. • Pointed out two corrections to the staff report. One is to clarify that the proposed residential frontage is on Austin Way. The other is that the roof color is a gray/brown shingle. Commissioner Schallop asked staff for the basis of the HPC jurisdiction. Director Tom Sullivan replied the issue is that the property fronts on Austin Way, a heritage lane. Additionally, there is interest in the existing stone wall located behind the right-of-way. Chair Hunter asked how much of the wall will need to be taken out for the driveway. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied 15 feet. Commissioner Zutshi asked for the maximum allowable impervious surface area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 3 Director Tom Sullivan replied that the maximum allowed is 35 percent while the proposed amount is 23 percent. Commissioner Schallop asked what distinguishes a driveway from a service road. What are the controls, basis or exceptions that would permit a service road. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this reflects a Design Review process and that the Commission could condition the removal of the service entrance gate following completion of construction. Commissioner Schallop asked if this is often done. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are not often properties with double frontages such as this one. Each applicant must be looked at on its own merits. Commissioner Nagpal asked why maintenance of the wall was seen as significant to the HPB. Director Tom Sullivan advised that what Associate Planner John Livingstone reported back to him is that the HPB thought that this wall looked as if it could be historic. Chair Hunter advised that she also attended that particular HPB meeting and the HPB did feel that it looked historical. They wanted plantings to be low so that this wall could be seen. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi, Applicant/Property Owner, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Planning Commission for visiting his property. • Said that he is new to Saratoga, having lived in Los Gatos for the last 20 years with his wife and two daughters, ages 10 and 14. • Said that he is pleased to be in Saratoga, a picturesque community. • Assured that he takes the responsibility of living on a Heritage Lane very seriously and that he is building a family-oriented home that is focused on privacy and being unobtrusive to his neighbors. • Explained that the large setbacks will help blend this home into the neighborhood. • Stated that he has spoken with his immediate neighbors and those across the street. • Said that he asked his architect to design a home that avoids appearing massive but rather to blend into the environment of this neighborhood. • Noted that the City staff has been very kind. • Said that the rear entrance (off Saratoga-Los Gatos Road) is not a regular entrance but rather a service entrance, of value for a couple of reasons. Having a service entrance will allow delivery vehicles to avoid using Austin Way. However, his family will access the property from the main Austin Way entrance. • Added that two other nearby neighbors also have such a service entrance. Commissioner Schallop asked if there are plans for a driveway from the service entrance. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi pointed out that there is no parking permitted on Austin Way and that he is looking for the flexibility of off-street parking for their guests. Reiterated his sincere belief in heritage preservation, such as the brick road on Austin Way. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 4 Chair Hunter pointed out that the existing house currently faces Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and asked for the reasons behind changing the orientation of the new house toward Austin Way. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi explained that they wish to take advantage of the view of the hills that will be gained by facing the house to Austin Way. He added that Saratoga-Los Gatos Road was not safe enough for regular access to this site. Commissioner Nagpal raised the fact that Mr. Azmat Siddiqi has expressed concern about the colored tiles on the wall in front that is proposed by the HPC to be preserved. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi expressed appreciation for the efforts and interest of the HPC but assured that this is not a 100-year-old wall. In fact, it is not very old at all. He added that there are some color tiles included on the wall that are not to his taste. However, if the HPC wants this wall to be maintained, he is willing to comply with their request. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the original plan depicts a stucco wall. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi replied yes. He said that his home designer said that the existing wall would not match the architecture of the new house. He reiterated that whatever the decision, he would respect and abide by it. Thanked the Commission for its time. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hunter expressed hope for a compromise on the wall, adding that the HPC was concerned about using a stucco wall with a brick top. Advised that she cannot support a stucco wall with a brick cap. Commissioner Schallop asked how tall is this wall. Chair Hunter replied three feet high. She stated how proud she is that Austin Way is now designated as a Heritage Lane. Commissioner Nagpal: • Commended Mr. Azmat Siddiqi on his wonderful job working with his neighbors. • Said that this is a great design. • Expressed that she has no concerns with the service entrance from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road as it will take heavy truck traffic off of Austin Way. • Suggested that the applicant be given the opportunity not to have bathroom tile on their exterior wall. Chair Hunter agreed and suggested that a good stonemason could handle and/or fix that problem. Commissioner Zutshi asked what materials are proposed for the service drive. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi: • Said that he has consulted with a couple of landscape designers and that they are anticipating some sort of gravel and widely spaced interlocking stones. • Added that they done want too much pervious coverage but have not yet made a final decision. • Assured that they would not use asphalt. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 5 Chair Hunter asked about the main driveway. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi replied that they are proposing concrete to withstand daily traffic with evenly spaced decorative brick strips. Commissioner Zutshi asked if pavers were considered for the main driveway. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi said that they were considered but found to be beyond their budget. Commissioner Schallop asked about the gate from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi said that it would be a solid gate. Chair Hunter pointed out that some of the existing bushes would need to be removed to accommodate a gate. Expressed the importance of this scenic highway and said that she hopes this gate will be blended into the landscaping. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi agreed with these standards and assured that this gate would blend in with the hedges. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this could be stipulated. • Added that this is a critical area of Saratoga and supported a solid wood gate with bushes around it. • Said that this looks like a great project. • Agreed that Mr. Siddiqi did a good job working with his neighbors. Chair Hunter said that this is a lovely home and wished Mr. Azmat Siddiqi good luck. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission granted a design review approval (Application #-03-164) to allow a new one-story single-family residence on property located at 19102 Austin Way, with the following Conditions of Approval: • The driveway from the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road service entrance shall be gravel with widely spaced stone pavers; • The gate from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road shall be a solid wooden gate that opens inside the property; • Allow the applicant to remove and replace the color tiles currently included on the existing retaining wall while maintaining the character of said wall and working with staff on materials for the wall, excluding the use of stucco, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: Garakani Chair Hunter reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period for this action. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Garakani returned to the dais following the conclusion of Item No. 1 in order to participate in the rest of the meeting. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-221 (386-52-020) FRAZIER (Appellant), MIKL/ESSEX PROPERTIES (Applicant), 20305 Seagull Way; Appeal of Administrative Design Review Application #03-151: A neighbor has filed an appeal of an administrative design review application to substantially remodel and construct additions to an existing two-story residence. The applicant proposes a 1,315 square foot addition on the ground floor and a 93 square foot addition on the second floor. The property is 11,598 square feet and is zoned R-1-10,000. Appellant Frazier has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a “Notice of Intent to Approve.” (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant requested design review approval for a second floor addition, less than 14 feet in height, to include three dormer windows located on the front façade. The total square footage is 3,527 square feet. • Said that a Notice of Intent to Approve was mailed to neighbors on September 9th. Mr. and Mrs. Frazier, who reside on Knollwood Drive, appealed as they feel the additions are significant and would result in a huge home. They are against the trend of huge homes and feel that this home as proposed will make them feel closed in. • Stated that staff finds the additions and modifications to this home to be tastefully designed. • Advised that the applicant’s offer to place trees was turned down by the appellants. • Added that another letter was received on September 27th expressing concerns over impacts on privacy and views. • Said that the applicant had a mock structure installed to demonstrate the lack of impact on views. • Said that on October 14th another letter was received raising privacy concerns as a result of two existing windows. In response, the applicant has revised these windows to two smaller fixed and obscured windows and added two skylights to provide the required natural lighting. • Pointed out that there are already two-story homes in the area and that this proposal does not significantly add to the bulk and height of this home. • Said that staff finds this project will significantly improve the existing home and keep it compatible with the neighborhood. • Recommended denial of the appeal. • Reminded that the decision of the Planning Commission on this appeal is final. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that no landscape plan was provided. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied because this is a remodel. However, she added that she is asking for a landscaping and irrigation plan. Commissioner Uhl asked if conditions can be added for landscaping. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 7 Commissioner Zutshi asked for the existing and proposed setbacks. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the left side is six feet, eight inches. The right side has a portion that intrudes in the required seven foot, four inch setback. Commissioner Garakani asked when the neighbors were notified of these plans. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied the Notice of Intent to Approve was mailed on September 9th. The review period ended September 23rd. Commissioner Garakani asked when staff received the plans and whether neighbors are notified when the plans are first received. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the procedure is to have staff review plans prior to notifying neighbors. Commissioner Uhl expressed concern that the only neighbor comments were negative ones with no positive support. Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that the process is different for an administrative hearing than a public hearing. Applicants are encouraged to contact their neighbors. However, this applicant was more comfortable with the written notice by the City to the neighbors. Chair Hunter pointed out that many people feel that very large homes are being constructed on small properties. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that Code allows floor area based upon lot size. The project is below the maximum FAR. She added that a significant amount of square footage within the existing structure. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this home would go from 2,000 square feet to 3,500 square feet while the letter incorrectly states that the original structure was only 1,300 square feet. Chair Hunter asked if the Fraziers refused additional landscape screening. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied she believes so. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the Fraziers are out of the country. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff was unaware of that fact. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that staff did not receive any notice that the Fraziers were out of the country. Director Tom Sullivan added that there are Code requirements that set the time frame by which appeals must be heard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 8 Chair Hunter said that the letter submitted by the Fraziers would have to represent their position on this matter. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Mark Mikl, Applicant, 12694 Largemont Avenue, Saratoga: • Informed that this home was originally a two bedroom, one bath home of about 1,000 square feet and constructed in the 1950s. In the 1960s, a second story of about 700 square feet was added. • Advised that six children were raised here. • Said that this is a solid workable structure that was well built and well situated on the lot. • Stated that with a façade facelift and a single-story addition at the back of the house, they will create a more livable house with a total of five bedrooms and two and a half baths and a total of 3,100 square feet of living space. This will be a cute little rancher. • Said that he has great respect for the past character of this neighborhood. • Explained that this is a deep pie-shaped lot and the rear setback will be 43 feet while 25 feet is required. • Said he spoke with the Fraziers, who are nice people, but that Mrs. Frazier does not like the way their neighborhood is changing. Her objection is not necessarily to this one house but rather to the impression that what is being built these days represents “McMansions,” leaving Mrs. Frazier feeling crowded in. • Advised that he spoke about planting trees on the back fence line however the Fraziers have a pool near the back property and trees would shade their pool area so they didn’t want trees planted there. • Said that two letters were received from neighbors and as a result he revised his plan to address the issue of the windows. He added that he offered to plant trees to one side neighbor but they did not support the idea. • Stated that he had planned to simply maintain the existing landscaping and assured that this addition would be a great and balanced improvement to the neighborhood. • Asked the Commission to approve his project. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Mark Mikl about his decision to rely on the City’s mailing of notices to neighbors instead of approaching them personally to discuss his project. Asked why that was his choice. Mr. Mark Mikl: • Replied that he thought it would be awkward to solicit support personally, as they might feel that they are giving up rights by supporting his project. • Said that he had thought this proposal would stand on its merits and therefore decided to rely on the City’s noticing process. • Added that there was no problem until the last day of the review period. • Said that with their appeal, the Fraziers simply want to make a statement of their concern that their neighborhood is changing. Commissioner Garakani said that the intent of the Fraziers seems to be a desire change that trend starting with this project. Mr. Mark Mikl said that Mrs. Frazier does not like the stucco Mediterranean style house typically found in South San Jose. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 9 Chair Hunter agreed that it is hard for people to see their neighborhood change. Commissioner Uhl: • Expressed concern that there is no proposed landscape plan. • Said that it appears that this is just an attempt to make money with no concern for the neighborhood and that does not sit well with him. • Added that this is not a neighborhood project. Mr. Mark Mikl: • Disagreed and said that he was raised in the Brookview neighborhood and now lives on Largemont. • Said that in its current condition, this is not a livable structure. • Assured that he will maintain the feel of the neighborhood and the home will have a nice kitchen and family room. • Agreed that he will also “try to make a dollar” with this project. • Added that he could actually see his family living in this home as their current home on Largemont is in a noisier neighborhood due to its proximity to the freeway. • Assured that this will be a great project. Chair Hunter pointed out that the dormers will make the front of the house more attractive and that many aspects of this project are quite attractive. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Mr. Mark Mikl is open to providing screening on the right side. Mr. Mark Mikl reported that those neighbors, the Dings, didn’t want additional landscaping. The Fraziers did not want to shade their poolside area. Added that he has no problem putting in trees. Mr. Gi Wu, 20320 Knollwood Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his opposition. • Said the main reason he selected his neighborhood was for is single-story pattern. • Stated that this project would violate the privacy of neighbors on the side and rear. • Added that there is no reason an addition cannot totally be single-story. • Urged disapproval. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that this house is already two stories. Mr. Gi Wu said that the second floor was only used as attic space. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Gi Wu if his home is similar in style. Mr. Gi Wu replied that his home has a flatter roof and no windows for the attic space. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Gi Wu how he would feel about having additional trees planted. Mr. Gi Wu said that there is a compatibility issue that planting trees does not solve. Added that he has no problems with a single-story addition to this home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the roofline does not change and that no additional height is being added. Chair Hunter pointed out that there would be an additional 93 square feet on the second floor as a result of the three new dormers. Planner Lata Vasudevan reminded that this space is at the front of the house. Commissioner Uhl said that from Mr. Gi Wu’s residence, this would not be visible. Mr. Gi Wu reiterated that the second story was not previously occupied. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the County Tax Assessor considers this to be an existing two-story home. Mr. P.J. Ding, 20297 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address his concerns. • Said that he is an immediate neighbor to this project and has a major concern about privacy impacts as activity on the second floor will significantly increase from previous uses. • Added that the architecture is incompatible with the neighborhood, which is a predominately one- story neighborhood. • Said that he had tried to do a two-story addition himself and was unable to do so. • Asked the Commission to consider all concerns. • Expressed concern about the administrative procedure. • Said that his wife tried to leave a letter with the Planning staff and that they were not made aware of the appeal process available. Thankfully, the Fraziers did know of this right and did appeal. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. P.J. Ding if he is okay with the replacement windows. Mr. P.J. Ding said that he is okay with the obscured windows. Commissioner Zutshi asked staff if the only big windows on the second floor are located on the front elevation. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied correct. She added that there would also be skylights. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. P.J. Ding if his concerns to the plans have been responded to. Mr. P.J. Ding replied yes but that he still has some disagreement with this project. Commissioner Garakani asked if one concern is that if there had been no appeal filed, he would have had no chance to speak up. Mr. P.J. Ding said that this is a concern. Chair Hunter asked Mr. P.J. Ding if he constructed his house a couple of years ago. Mr. P.J. Ding replied correct. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 11 Chair Hunter asked Mr. P.J. Ding what process he went through. Mr. P.J. Ding replied that a public hearing was held where lots of concern was raised against his proposed two-story home. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this hearing was before the Planning Commission or staff. Mr. P.J. Ding replied the Planning Commission. Chair Hunter asked Mr. P.J. Ding how he would feel about having trees along the side property line. Mr. P.J. Ding said he would be okay with smaller trees. He would be concerned if larger trees were planted with the potential that they could fall over on the structure. Director Tom Sullivan reminded the Commission that effective October 3rd, the Design Review Sections of the Code have been improved. Commissioner Garakani asked if such a project such as this one would still be approved through an administrative hearing if there were no objections. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes but added that objections can either be worked out or the project could be appealed. Ms. Jennifer Yu, 20315 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Advised that she went to the City to complain about this project but was unaware of the appeal deadline. • Said that she did not realize that this was a two-story home but rather a home with an attic. • Said that as a two-story residence, it would generate more activity on the second floor. • Pointed out that the original owner had four children and not six as mentioned by the applicant. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Schallop: • Stated that this is clearly a two-story home and how it was used previously is not an issue. • Said that windows in the front do not interfere with views or privacy. • Pointed out that not one neighbor offered screening trees has said that they would be appeased by the addition of trees. Commissioner Zutshi: • Stated her agreement. • Said that she did not see these windows affecting the neighbors. • Agreed that the second story already exists. • Said that a maximum utilization of this site is a bit of a concern. • Pointed out that there are no privacy impacts. Commissioner Uhl: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 12 • Said that this applicant is trying to maximize the allowable square footage for the purpose of sale. • Added that the neighbors have a clear concern against two-story homes in this neighborhood. • Expressed his full support for this appeal. • Said that there is a lot of room on this property. • Stated that he does not like the way this proposal went through the review process. • Suggested that the applicant take another shot at developing something more in context with the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani: • Echoed the comments of Commissioner Uhl. • Said that this should result in a win-win situation for everyone and that the wishes of the neighborhood should be considered. • Pointed out that the neighbors are not happy. • Agreed that he too does not like this process and supports the appeal. Commissioner Nagpal: • Agreed that the process did not work for some of the neighbors but that for the future this process has changed. • Stated that she too is not in favor of “McMansions.” • Added that this particular design on this property is appropriate with most of the square footage inside of an already two-story structure, which results in no impacts on views. • Said that the same character is maintained. • Stated that this property owner also needs to be given the ability to make improvements. • Supported denial of this appeal. Chair Hunter: • Stated that this house is already a two-story and that she does not find an impact. • Agreed that it is hard for neighbors to see change. • Said her opinion would be different if this project were adding a completely new two-story element. • Added that this will be a completely different house with this remodel. • Supported denial of the appeal. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Schallop, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission voted to deny an appeal and uphold the Administrative Design Review approval to allow an addition to an existing home located at 20305 Seagull Way, with the added condition that the landscape plan be reviewed with neighbor feedback and input, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Nagpal and Schallop NOES: Garakani, Uhl and Zutshi ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None This resulted in a tie vote. Upon consultation with staff, it was determined that the appropriate follow up action is to bring this vote back to the full seven-member Commission as a Consent Calendar Item to break this tie vote. Commissioner Barry will be asked to watch the meeting tape prior to the next meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 13 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #03-159 (503-27-029) ESTAHBANATY, 14250 Elva 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. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the demolition of a single- story home and the construction of a 2,876 square foot two-story Mediterranean style residence. Building materials will include stucco and gray roof. • Described Elva Avenue as a mixture of both one and two-story homes as well as many architectural styles. Many of the new homes in the area are of a Mediterranean design. • Informed that the applicant has showed his plans to the neighbors and they have indicated their support. No letters of concern were received about this project. • Said that staff is recommending the planting of screening trees at the back of this property. • Added that there are six trees on the property. One (#3) is on a neighboring property growing at an angle onto this property. Two trees (#2, which is a palm, and #4, which is a cedar) will be removed and require replacement. • Stated that staff finds this project meets requirements and recommends approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked how tall the entry feature is. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the fascia is 15 feet high. Commissioner Garakani asked for clarification on what that means. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied the projection of the roof where the gutter is located. Chair Hunter asked if the 7,000 square foot parcel with a 2,900 square foot home is within allowable standards. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied yes, according to Municipal Code. Director Tom Sullivan added that the project is four square feet from maximum allowable. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty, Applicant/Owner, 14250 Elva Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for making a site visit and staff for their work on this project. • Advised that he has followed the requirements of the City and that he and his neighbors are excited about this project. There have been no objections raised by his neighbors. His son and daughter are excited too. Chair Hunter asked Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty if he has strong feelings about the height of the entryway feature. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty replied no although it is the same as what neighbors have been allowed. Chair Hunter asked about the two specimen sized trees requiring removal. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty said that one is actually on a neighbor’s property growing sideways. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that this is a one-story home within a few feet of maximum allowable square footage. • Said that the only difference between this and the previous one is that no neighbors are raising concerns. • Suggested that it is important to apply the same analysis and critique in order to be consistent. • Added that he has no major concerns about this proposal. Chair Hunter said that having neighbors coming out in opposition makes a difference. When they care enough to attend a public hearing, it should be taken into account. Commissioner Schallop said that the end result should be consistent. Commissioner Uhl said that he completely disagrees with Commissioner Schallop. This project has five to six neighbors in support and the architecture is compatible with its neighborhood. This applicant will live in this home. Commissioner Schallop said that it is dangerous to take into account whether an applicant plans to live in a home they are constructing. Commissioner Uhl stated that this is a great project. Commissioner Garakani agreed, saying that he objected to the last project as it was not a win-win situation. On the other hand, this project has lots of neighbor support and the neighborhood will benefit. Thanked the applicant for supplying a landscape plan. Commissioner Nagpal said that reducing the entry may not actually be a good idea. Said that she likes the design although she is concerned about the size of the house for its lot size. However, she is inclined to support this proposal. Chair Hunter said that while she would like to see the entry feature lowered, she is fine with this project. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the neighbor to the north has any objection to the windows proposed. Mr. Mohammad Estahbanaty replied no. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission approved Application #03-159 granting Design Review Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 15 Approval to allow the demolition of an existing home and construction of a new residence on property located at 14250 Elva Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #03-215 (393-26-040) INGLE, 19817 Braemar Drive: The applicant has filed an appeal from an administrative decision denying approval of a newly constructed retaining wall located within the front yard of the above-noted property. The 55-foot long concrete block wall ranges from 26 inches to 75 inches in height across the front of the property, which is located in the R-1-10,000 district. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is appealing an administrative denial for a newly constructed retaining wall, built without necessary permits. This wall is within City right-of-way, two feet from the back of curb. • Said that a complaint was received. • Informed that the owner had been told to apply for permits. • Said that the result of the administrative review was to require that this wall be lowered to a permitted height of three feet. The wall currently ranges from two to six and a half feet in height. It is constructed on a property with 10 percent slope. • Advised that there may be a basis to support this retaining wall height if a Variance is sought. • Recommended denial of this appeal and that the applicant be required to reduce the wall to three feet in height. Chair Hunter asked if there is a punishment or fine for constructing this wall without permits. Commissioner Garakani suggested that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City red tagged the project. The fact that the contractor improperly constructed this wall without necessary permits is a civil matter between the property owner and his contractor. Commissioner Schallop asked if this property owner can still come back with a Variance application if this appeal is denied. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Ingle, Property Owner and Applicant, 19817 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Declared that he is proud to be a citizen of this country where he is allowed to express his opinion. • Expressed agreement on the importance of discussing projects with neighbors. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 16 • Stated that he spoke with his neighbors over the last two and a half years about the construction on his property. • Said that since the Stop Work Order was issued on his property, he has spoken with neighbors and that they were surprised by the issuance of a Stop Work Order for his property. • Said that he has written support from his neighbors. • Said that there is a natural grade on his property of 10 percent and 15 percent from the road to his house. This lot could be considered a hillside lot. • Said that the base of the house and the top of the retaining wall are at the same level and that this wall holds land/dirt in place. • Agreed that he was in ignorance of the need to get a permit to put in this wall as he had thought that he was simply reconstructing the existing wooden fence. • Assured that he wants to comply with Ordinance requirements as they are what makes this country great. • Said that he understands the need for rules and that these rules work in most cases. However, in this case topography issues offer a reason to support the need for this wall as built. There is a problem with the slope that needs to be solved. His front yard is not safe and they need a wall to protect his four and six-year old children. • Advised that they plan to plan ivy and vines on the wall. • Thanked the Commission for listening to his position and for their site visit. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that Mr. Ingle’s immediate neighbor did an outstanding job with his retaining wall. Mr. Ingle pointed out that their slope is smaller. Commissioner Zutshi asked why Mr. Ingle is not applying for a Variance. Mr. Ingle said that this is a new process for him and that he will do whatever is necessary to achieve compliance. Commissioner Zutshi said that the wall looks bad right now. She added that while she understands Mr. Ingle’s need for a retaining wall, Code does not allow it as it is currently constructed. Mr. Ingle reiterated that he does not yet know all of the steps required. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the original plan depicted a stepped down or terraced approach and it appears Mr. Ingle was told by his contractor that it would be too expensive. This wall was to replace the previous wood plank wall. Mr. Ingle agreed that the price quoted for the wall as depicted on the original plan was higher than what was ultimately installed. Chair Hunter advised that Code requirements limit front yard walls to three feet in height. She added that the Ingle children could actually hurt themselves if they were to fall from the house side of the wall to the ground below. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Ingle what his objection is to the requirements of the Planning Department. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 17 Mr. Ingle said that the restrictions don’t comply with the needs of his property. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the wall be brought back. Mr. Ingle suggested that once the greenery is growing on the wall, the wall will fit right in. Commissioner Garakani questioned who would maintain the ivy when it overgrows onto the street. Mr. Ingle replied that he would see to it that the ivy does not grow into the street and added that there are many different kinds of ivy available. Ms. Susan Speedy, 19833 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she lives right next door and is okay with this wall. • Added that once it is covered with ivy, it will look good. • Stated that it is an improvement over what was there before. Mr. Jonathan Ing, 19834 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Said that the wall is a good thing to have as it protects the street from dirt and mud. Once landscaped, it will be good looking and will be okay. • Said it is not fair the amount of sleepless nights this issue has caused his neighbor, Mr. Ingle. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if a complaint was received. Planner Ann Welsh replied that an anonymous complaint was received. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Nagpal asked if replacing like with like would require a permit. Planner Ann Welsh replied that any retaining wall requires a permit. Up to fifty percent of a non- conforming wall can be replaced. Any more than that and a new permit is required. Removing and replacing a wood retaining wall with concrete requires review and approval. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the physical location of the wall has changed also. Commissioner Schallop sought clarification that the issue of a Variance is not before the Commission this evening. If the appeal is denied, the applicant can apply for a Variance and it would be brought back to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Uhl asked why the issue of a Variance was not brought forward tonight. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the filing fee for a Variance is $1,500 and comes with no guarantee of approval. The Administrative Review fee is $150. Chair Hunter: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 18 • Stated that she is sorry that this has happened to Mr. Ingle but that something approved by the Commission represents a precedent. • Said that the City has Codes and rules for front yards to prevent people from walling in their properties. • Added that this wall was installed without permits and represents an open and shut case. Unfortunately, in this instance too many things went wrong. • Said that the Commission has to think about the rest of the City. If not, everyone will simply ask for forgiveness. Commissioner Garakani reminded that a Variance is an option. Chair Hunter agreed that seeking a Variance is possible. Commissioner Uhl asked what is wrong with bringing the wall down to the allowed three-foot height. Commissioner Garakani said that they would have to go with two offset walls. Commissioner Uhl said that there are alternatives that are very workable and that the Commission cannot set precedent here. Chair Hunter added that the only time higher walls are allowed is when a property is located on a major thoroughfare. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said the issue is not the appearance of this wall but rather the need to not set precedent with this wall. • Added that it is great to see the neighbor support. • Recommended denial of the appeal and that the applicant either comply with the three foot height or seek a Variance for a higher wall. Commissioner Uhl expressed support for a two stepped, three-foot wall. Mr. Ingle: • Said it is necessary to allow exceptions to general regulations. • Pointed out that this is a new procedure to him. • Said that the Commission should consider specific needs of each property. Commissioner Garakani explained to Mr. Ingle that the Variance process is the means for considering exceptions to Code requirements. The Commission must go by its laws. Commissioner Uhl said that Mr. Ingle can apply for a Variance. Chair Hunter reminded that since he would have to pay the $1,500 filing fee for a Variance application, he might be better served in spending that money to make his wall conform. She added that the contractor should have known that permits were required for this wall. Commissioner Uhl said that while Mr. Ingle can apply for a Variance, it is a risky proposition as Variances are tough to obtain. It is simply another procedure available. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 19 Chair Hunter suggested that Mr. Ingle speak with his contractor. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission denied an Appeal (Application #03-215) and upheld the administrative denial of a retaining wall that exceeds the maximum allowed height of three feet, on property located at 19817 Braemar Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Commission Training: Director Tom Sullivan advised that plans are underway to schedule Commissioner Training. Two potential dates are Monday, December 8th, or Tuesday, December 9th, at 5 p.m. He asked the Commissioners to respond to him on their availability for these dates. Topics will include issues such as the Brown Act and Open Meeting Act requirements, etc. COMMISSION ITEMS Oak Trees in Distress: Chair Hunter asked staff what can be done about a couple of 300-year-old Oak trees that appear to be in distress. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City Arborist has been directed to look into the matter and offer suggestions on what might be done to save these trees. Heritage Lane – Austin Way: Commissioner Garakani questioned why Item #1 was sent to the Heritage Preservation Commission when one of the Conditions for establishing Austin Way as a Heritage Lane was that no additional requirements would be imposed on property owners as a result of said designation as long as they don’t touch the brick roadway. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that this matter be discussed further another time. He added that even if there is no direct cause to send something to HPC, they are offered the opportunity to review any project and offer recommendations if there is perceived to be some issue of an historic nature. COMMUNICATIONS Written: City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on September 17, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 2003 Page 20 MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk