HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-2003 Planning Commission Minutes
MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 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 Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi
Absent: Commissioner Uhl
Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meetings of March 26 and April 23, 2003.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of March 26, 2003, were
adopted with minor corrections to pages 8, 10 and 13. (4-0-1-2; Commissioner Uhl
was absent and Commissioners Nagpal and Schallop abstained)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the
Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 23, 2003, were
adopted as presented. (6-0-1; Commissioner Uhl was absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
There were no Oral Communication items.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on May 8, 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).
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #02-248 (517-08-042) – KATZ, 20665 Lomita Avenue: Request for Design Review
and Variance approvals to demolish the main structure and construct a two-story home. The existing
562 square foot detached cottage at the rear of the site will remain. The proposed home will be 2,661
square feet and will have a maximum height of 23 feet. The applicant is seeking two Variance
approvals for the proposed new home: (1) to exceed the maximum allowable floor area for all structures
on the site; and (2) to encroach within the required setbacks. The site is 7,570 (net) square feet and is
located in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. (LATA VASUDEVAN)
As she resides within the public hearing noticing area for this item, Chair Hunter recused herself and
turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Zutshi, leaving the dais to sit in the audience.
Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval and two Variances to allow the
demolition of an existing home and the construction of a new single-family residence. A cottage at
the back of the site is to remain. The new home will consist of 2,661 square feet with a maximum
height of 23 feet.
• Described the two Variance requests. The first is to allow the project to exceed the maximum
allowable floor area ratio by 569 square feet. The second is to allow the structure to encroach into
the sideyard setback in two locations.
• Said that there are required findings for Variances including the need to make the finding that there
are special circumstances that would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others in the
same zoning. Staff was unable to make this finding and therefore cannot recommend approval of
the first Variance to exceed FAR. Staff finds that the existence of the cottage on the property does
not constitute a hardship.
• Stated that the applicant is willing to have the second unit (cottage) counted as an affordable
housing unit and could receive a 10 percent square footage bonus if the unit is designated as “below
market rate.” That bonus could support a total square footage of 2,606 square feet.
• Stated that the second Variance request, to allow the structure to encroach by one foot into the
required six foot setback on the first floor and by one foot into the required 11 foot setback for the
second floor. Again, staff cannot make the case for the finding of special circumstance. Therefore,
there is no reason to support the exception to the setback requirements as the design of the home
could be modified.
• Advised that staff finds the overall architectural design of the home to be fine, however, since staff
cannot make the necessary findings to approve the design as it is, staff is recommending denial of
the entire application.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that one of the Ordinance amendments, to be discussed as the next
item, would remove the penalty for heights above 18 feet. Asked how much allowable FAR could be
gained with the removal of this penalty.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 3
Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that the total allowable would be 2,661.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that if the sideyard setback issue is taken care of, there would no
longer be the need for extra square footage.
Acting Chair Zutshi pointed out that the proposed changes are not applicable today.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the applicant must comply with existing Ordinance provisions.
Reminded that even without a penalty for heights over 18 feet, this applicant must still redesign.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if having the deed restriction dedicating the cottage as a BMR unit and by
eliminating the encroachment into the sideyard setback would allow the project to proceed without any
Variance.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Barry asked if removing square footage from the site from the gross lot area as a result
of a right-of-way might be one reason to support the Variance.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He added that it is a common occurrence to deduct easements from
gross site square footage.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is any evidence that the cottage is historic.
Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that the applicant has done research on his own. No document from a
licensed historical architect has been located to verify historic status of the cottage.
Commissioner Schallop asked whether, even if the cottage were determined to be historic, it would be a
basis to find that fact as a special circumstance.
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied no, the cottage still represents habitable useable floor space.
Commissioner Schallop asked if there has been any precedent.
Director Tom Sullivan replied not to his knowledge.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the cottage were to be deemed historic, would it have to be retained.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the issue is whether they can build a reasonably sized dwelling
on this property.
Acting Chair Zutshi expressed confusion over height on drawing A-7. Asked if it is counted to finished
natural grade.
Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the section drawing shows the actual height on A-8.
Acting Chair Zutshi asked what is considered grade.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 4
Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the height is measured from the roof straight down.
Director Tom Sullivan added that the measurement is taken from the highest point of the house and
goes down to where the natural grade is at the building edge.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out two broken lines on page A-8 and asked for the difference between
the right and left side. Asked how to measure, from the highest point or the lowest point.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that per the Zoning Code, height is measured from the highest point to
natural grade.
Commissioner Schallop commended staff for the detailing of projects in the vicinity having Variances.
Asked about one on Oak Street.
Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that per Code, there are two different setbacks for sideyards set on
corner lots. One for the exterior sideyard (6 feet) and one for the interior side yard (19 feet).
Commissioner Schallop questioned why the project on Oak was granted a Use Permit instead of a
Variance.
Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that Code requirements have since changed from Use Permit to
Variances.
Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. David Britt, Britt-Rowe Architects, 108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos:
• Advised that this project has undergone two years of careful planning to address the unique site
features, including the fact that there was the cottage on the property, which lead to the Variance
requests.
• Stated that the cottage is detrimental to the FAR figures and having the existing cottage on site is
resulting in the necessity for a two-story home instead of a single-story home.
• Said that the existing sideyard setbacks are pretty narrow.
• Pointed out that this is a neighborhood of historic homes and that they have been sensitive to the
neighborhood.
• Added that Dr. Katz met with his neighbors quite frequently and worked on privacy and
compatibility issues.
• Complimented staff on a professional job and stated that it has been a pleasure working with them
on this project.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. David Britt what is preventing them from simply demolishing this
cottage.
Mr. David Britt replied that it is the desire of the Katz’s to keep the secondary living unit on their
property as it has historic significance to the Katz family.
Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. David Britt to help address what issues merit being considered
special circumstances for this lot in order to justify the Variance requests.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 5
Mr. David Britt:
• Replied that there are so many constraints to the lot, the cottage, not wanting to get to close to the
cottage with the new home, wanting to improve existing setbacks and improving the neighborhood.
• Added that Ordinance protected trees become an issue and the structure could get closer to those
protected trees with a different layout.
• Advised that the natural grade of the site does slope to the rear, which allows for minimizing
grading.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that in the staff report, it is stated that the applicant could get the
house it wants without reducing the interior square footage.
Mr. David Britt agreed that an opportunity to fall within FAR would allow them to make modifications.
Commissioner Garakani said that approving Variances, one foot here or there, are not warranted when
there are redesign options that would allow the structure without need for Variances. Added that when
staff is trying to work out the design to eliminate the need for Variances, the applicant should try to do
so.
Acting Chair Zutshi pointed out that staff has recommended that the applicant get their cottage
reviewed for historic significance. Asked if they have had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. David Britt replied that Dr. Katz had contacted a historical architect but decided not to pursue the
matter. He agreed that such a designation would not change the Variance request. They are willing to
designate the cottage as a BMR unit to take advantage of the 10 percent bonus in square footage.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. David Britt if he has considered redesigning the home to come in by
one foot.
Mr. David Britt said that it is impossible to design a 2,606 square foot home under these site conditions
as a single-story structure. However, a two-story with 2,606 square feet is possible.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. David Britt if he is proposing to make the structure taller.
Mr. David Britt replied no. He added that they are however adamant about not doing a single-story
structure. Said that they could redesign without the need for the one square foot encroachment
Variance.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that they could adhere to setbacks and not require a Variance.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the project would meet requirements if there were no cottage.
Mr. David Britt replied yes.
Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. David Britt if he were contemplating a redesign to meet the
requirements without the Variances.
Mr. David Britt replied yes.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 6
Dr. David Katz, Owner/Applicant, 20665 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that it appears that the architectural design has been deemed appropriate and that the issue is
the Variances.
• Advised that he has resided in this home for nine years, since he began work at Kaiser.
• Said that his family has become a part of the neighborhood and his wonderful neighbors are present
tonight in support of his application.
• Said that this is a small community.
• Stated that when they decided they needed a larger home than the existing 1,060 square foot home
for their family that includes both a 13 year old and a 14 month old daughters, they thought about
what to do and decided they wanted to stay in this neighborhood.
• Stated that they are proposing 2,660 square feet, which includes a 410 square foot garage, leaving
2,250 square feet of living space. The cottage is required to serve as guest space. Additionally, his
wife feels that the cottage will serve their daughters in the future as a transition from leaving home
and going out on their own.
• Said that drawings that fit within the setback allowances resulted in an 1,800 square foot home.
• Suggested that the spirit of the Ordinance is to deal with lot size.
• Assured that they do not want to detract from their neighborhood with a big building.
• Pointed out that the cottage is set back behind the house and behind a hill and is not visible form the
street or from other homes except for one neighbor behind to the east. Those neighbors have given
their support.
• Said that the Variance for the first floor is only a portion of the building. The Variance for the
second floor is only for two-thirds of the way.
• Said that the minimal Variances required is the reason they went forward with their application.
• Stated that they are trying to create something that they can live with for the next 30 to 40 years.
• Said that he hopes the Commission will see their application in a positive light.
• Informed that he was unaware of the height penalty until just yesterday.
Commissioner Schallop said that it appears the penalty for heights is on its way out and that the project
will be given a bonus for BMR designation for the cottage.
Dr. David Katz said that he has confidence in his architect’s ability and assured that they do not want to
corrupt the Victorian design. Questioned how much time might pass between now and when the
Ordinance changes eliminating the penalty for heights above 18 feet would go into effect.
Commissioner Nagpal asked staff for an idea on timing, how this could work, when the Zoning changes
might be adopted and whether this project should be continued.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that there are a couple of different avenues that could be taken. The
applicant could seek a continuance until Council acts on the revisions and then come back to the
Planning Commission. The applicant could withdraw the Variance requests and the Commission could
then grant the Design Review Approval, subject to the revised plans that meet all requirements. Lastly,
the Commission could deny the Variances and the applicant could then appeal to Council.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that in the past the Commission has crafted motions that set out
guidelines to allow an applicant to work with staff. If the negotiations between the applicant and staff
are not successful, the project is later brought back before the Planning Commission.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 7
Commissioner Schallop stated that the decision should be based upon the Ordinances as they are today.
Questioned what option is best.
Director Tom Sullivan said it depends on what the applicant wants to do.
Commissioner Nagpal reminded that a denial would give the applicant the opportunity to appeal to
Council.
Commissioner Garakani suggested that the applicant consider reducing the size of the cottage to free up
the necessary square footage needed for the new home.
Dr. David Katz said that they have plans to update the cottage with a new roof, paint. Reduction would
not help achieve compliance since they are over on allowable square footage by the same amount as the
entire square footage of the cottage.
Commissioner Schallop asked Dr. Katz for his preference on the options outlined by staff.
Dr. David Katz asked that these options be restated.
Director Tom Sullivan said one option is to continue the application (with the applicant’s concurrence)
until the Zoning revisions are finalized. Another option is to have the Planning Commission deny the
Variances and allow the applicant to appeal that action to Council. Another option would be to deny
the Variances and approve the Design Review application subject to the revision of plans. The project
would have to comply with all Code requirements when the plans are submitted for Building permits.
Commissioner Barry told Dr. Katz that the Commission has the desire to assist him but believes the
project can be made to fit within the guidelines. Said that it would be helpful to hear his preference for
which action he would like to see taken.
Dr. David Katz said that he appreciates this courtesy extended to him by the Planning Commission.
Mr. John Holt, 24690 Oak Street, Saratoga:
• Stated that he sent in a letter supporting this project.
• Said that he has the same size lot, 50 feet by 100 feet, with a side street on one side.
• Pointed out that one foot can make a big difference when designing a house.
• Said that he restored a 100-year-old house. While it may have been easier to simply tear it down
and start anew, he preferred to renovate.
• Advised that he would like to see this project go forward and that maybe rules have to be bent a bit.
Mr. Bob Himmel, 20670 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that he lives across the street.
• Stated that the Katzes have given great care when designing their home and consulted all the
neighbors. They were very careful about trees and took a community-acceptable approach.
• Said his two-story home was built in 1957.
• Declared that this would be a real addition to the neighborhood and that the project was responsibly
put together.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 8
Mr. Roland Van Krienkin, 20655 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said that it looks like this will be a nice house and that privacy has been taken into consideration.
• Said that the trees are being preserved and that he is very happy with the design.
Ms. Jill Hunter, 20606 Lomita Avenue, Saratoga:
• Said she knows the Katzes well and that they care about the history of their cottage.
• Stated that it is thought that this cottage once housed fruit pickers.
• Declared that this cottage is a wonderful thing.
Mr. David Britt said that they believe the best solution and approach would be for the Commission to
deny the Variance requests and grant the Design Review approval.
Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. David Britt if he believes that there are any Variances approved in
the vicinity that would justify one in this case.
Mr. David Britt replied that the neighborhood consists of many very old buildings and that many of
these buildings, if built today, would not be approved. Additionally, since they are so old, there are no
records to prove Variances.
Dr. David Katz pointed out that per the neighborhood map, two homes have a second story within five-
foot setbacks.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that sideyard setbacks were amended this past summer.
Commissioner Nagpal asked whether this project would have been approved before those changes went
into effect.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Variances would still be required under the previous setback
standards.
Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Barry:
• Commended the Katzes for their work with their neighbors.
• Stated that the architectural design is fine.
• Said that privacy has been taken into account and the home does fit into the neighborhood.
• Supported staff’s position on the Variances.
• Said she is fine with Option 3 as this would save the applicants the most time.
Commissioner Nagpal:
• Expressed appreciation to the Katzes and their neighbors.
• Said that she likes the architectural design and that it is great. The home will fit the character of the
neighborhood.
• Said that she struggled with the findings for special circumstances in this situation.
• Supported the Design Review approval and denial of the Variances.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 9
Commissioner Schallop expressed support for Option 3 and asked staff if this action is consistent with
the drafted Resolutions.
Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He said that revised Resolutions would be provided as Consent
Calendar items at the next meeting.
Commissioner Schallop:
• Thanked the Katzes for their work with their neighbors, saying this interaction is exactly what staff
and the Planning Commission likes to see happen.
• Said that he struggled but that the necessary findings for justifying a Variance could not be made.
• Reminded that the issues run with the land.
• Pointed out that one foot on a five-foot setback equals a 20 percent encroachment to that setback.
• Said that Variances sets precedence for others and must be carefully considered.
• Said he is not convinced that he heard specific findings necessary to meet these Variances and he
would not support the Variances.
• Expressed support for Option 3.
Commissioner Garakani:
• Thanked the applicants for a great job.
• Said that the house design is nice and he likes the look.
• Said that he appreciates the work done with the neighbors, which resulted in 100 percent neighbor
support and no objections to the design. This was very well done.
• Said that he might support a Variance for the sideyard setback due to the narrowness of the lot but
not with the cottage.
• Said perhaps issues will be resolved with Ordinance amendments.
• Stated he would not support a Variance for exceeding allowable square footage.
Acting Chair Zutshi:
• Stated that the design is great and there is good neighbor support.
• Said that she could not support the Variances but rather supports Option 3, which gives the
applicant time and leeway.
Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission could make the denial for the Variances “without
prejudice.”
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes.
Commissioner Barry said that the applicant would not have to pay additional fees to return with these
applications.
Director Tom Sullivan explained that this is not the meaning of without prejudice. The applicant could
come back with a similar request but a without prejudice designation does not serve as a fee waiver.
Commissioner Barry said that she believed that denials would result in additional fees but a denial
without prejudice would not require additional fees.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 10
Director Tom Sullivan replied that coming back represents a new application. Advised that tonight’s
action should include three resolutions so that Commissioner Garakani can support the one Variance
request for encroaching into required side yard setbacks.
Commissioner Garakani asked if the applicant has to appeal.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that they don’t have to but can within 15 days after the Resolutions are
adopted at the next meeting.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the
Planning Commission denied two Variances and granted a Design Review
Approval (Application #02-248) to allow the construction of a new two-story single
family residence at 20665 Lomita Avenue, with the requirement that the plans
submitted for Building permits will be in compliance with all Ordinance
requirements, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Uhl
ABSTAIN: Hunter
***
Chair Hunter returned to the dais and assumed the gavel.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
APPLICATION #03-052 (CITYWIDE) – CITY OF SARATOGA: Multiple Zoning Ordinance
Amendments updating various sections of the 15-12: R-1: Single Family Residential Districts, 15-45:
Design Review: Single Family Dwelling and Chapter 14: - Subdivisions. The proposed amendments to
Article 15-12 provides for consistency between ordinance requirements and the long time practices as
well as simplifying the rules. The amendments to Article 15-45: Design Review provides streamlining
and clarity. The amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance updates the Director’s title and removes
references to the Building Site Approval process. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM
APRIL 9, 2003)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this item represents multiple Zoning Ordinance amendments for the Single Family
Residential District, Design Review of Single Family Ordinance and Chapter 14 – Subdivisions.
• Said that the purpose for the update is to bring consistency between the practices and written Code
and to make the Ordinance clearer in order to better enforce and understand.
• Said that the update will take out some Ordinances that were put into the Code in 1992 to restrict
the size of dwelling units.
• Stated that it is the consensus of staff that penalties are not a good way to obtain good design.
Design guidelines are the better way.
• Advised that the Subdivision Ordinance is being amended to remove the references to Building Site
Approvals, which were created to give the ability to impose exactions for approvals. There are
provisions that allow reasonable related exactions with the Design Review approval process. This
update cleans up some of those problems.
• Said that n Page 3, text is being added to clarify “one second dwelling unit or one guest house.”
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 11
• Advised that the State of California took away City and County authority to regulate nursing,
rehabilitation and childcare homes serving fewer than six.
Commissioner Schallop suggested that a definition be developed for clients.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Suggested, “six persons being cared for at the facility,” as a positive definition of clients.
• Said that the section allowing commercial parking lots in residential areas is being stricken.
• Said that the section requiring a Use Permit for a secondary living unit must be stricken because
State Law now precludes the City from prohibiting secondary living units.
• Said on Page 10, 15.12.100A will have new text that establishes a Use Permit process to allow
greater building heights to maintain architectural style on larger lots.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is a maximum height permitted.
Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, 30 feet. Added that the applicant would have to provide quality
architecture and each situation is subject to a Design Review and Use Permit process.
Commissioner Barry suggested an additional step of citing the design handbooks.
Director Tom Sullivan said that he was not sure which one to site yet but specific references would be
cited.
Commissioner Nagpal expressed concern about citing as what is good now may be changed later.
Director Tom Sullivan said that we don’t want to tie people’s hands but rather let them select their
architectural style.
Commissioner Schallop asked Director Tom Sullivan if he were concerned over the potential battle of
references.
Director Tom Sullivan replied it’s possibility. Said that he hopes to work out those issues between
applicants and staff.
Commissioner Barry said that an idea of specific references would be helpful.
Chair Hunter said that this was a concern when she was on the Heritage Commission.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that this is for the main dwelling on the two largest residential
zoning lot sizes. Recommended changes to page 10B from 12 feet to 15 feet and from 15 feet to 20
feet.
Chair Hunter said that she would like to have specific references.
Director Tom Sullivan suggested that it be based on “best available information/documentation at the
time.” This can always be brought back and amend a sentence into this.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 12
Commissioner Nagpal said that this is meant to give people the opportunity to come up with something
architecturally interesting. The Planning Commission would still have the authority to say no. Agreed
that listing specific resource references would be a good idea.
Director Tom Sullivan reminded that there would still be a hearing process where the Commission can
say no.
Commissioner Barry sad that it is a time-consuming process to change the Code and what is put in now
will probably last a long time.
Director Tom Sullivan agreed to put specific reference documents in.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested perhaps a list of documents that can be amended without changing the
Code.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Suggested “consistent with resource documents maintained by the Community Development
Department and approved by the Planning Commission.”
• Struck item 8 from page 11. Said that more simple language would prohibit unenclosed storage of
personal property in residential zoning districts.
• Added text to page 13 providing clarification on how site area is calculated.
• Advised that the floor area penalty outlined on page 15 will be removed, which called for 1.5
percent penalty for every foot above 15 feet.
• Informed that percentage setbacks will be taken out and rather will have known setbacks.
• Said that how the top of creek banks are determined will be clarified.
• Said that references to Residential Design Guidelines will be included in 15.45/55. Additionally,
the requirement will be strengthened regarding building with the slope of the land rather than
coming in for an exception. The project would have to request a Variance or preferably better
design.
• Said that the Design Handbook’s title would be correctly listed and the text added, “Copy shall be
kept on file in the office of the Community Development Department adopted on November 2,
1998, by City Council.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if there had been changes since adoption in 1998.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied no.
• Said that references to Building Site Approvals are to be stricken.
• Added that the only purpose to have this in the Subdivision Ordinance is to exact more public
improvements. That is an unacceptable. The time to do so is with Design Review approval.
• Identified page 17, item 8, as it pertains to Reconstruction and Significant Expansion. Said that
while Design Review requires a Public Hearing, staff is struggling with projects that come in as a
remodel/addition but per plans most of the existing structure is being demolished. If
alteration/demolition/reconstruction plans represent more than 50 percent of the exterior walls,
these applications will be treated as a new structure.
• Reminded that there is no opportunity for neighbor participation if approval just requires a building
permit.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 13
Chair Hunter related that this is a similar situation that occurred to friends of hers when their neighbors
did a major remodel.
Director Tom Sullivan said from now on, these major remodels would either come to the Planning
Commission for a full Public Hearing or be approved Administratively by staff.
Commissioner Garakani asked for clarification between a remodel and new house and why the
distinction is important to the applicant.
Director Tom Sullivan replied for reasons such as to avoid talking about their plans with neighbors as
well as to avoid reassessment of the property.
Chair Hunter pointed out that schools do not get fees from remodels while they do get fees when there
is new construction.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Discussed noticing for Administrative Design Review.
• Said that currently the 10 closest neighbors are noticed.
• Added that staff recommends noticing a larger area based on a square foot radius rather than more
arbitrarily identifying 10 nearest neighbors. Staff is recommending a 250 square foot noticing area.
Commissioner Nagpal asked when this noticing occurs.
Director Tom Sullivan replied within days of an application being filed.
Commissioner Zutshi asked what if the subject lot is huge.
Director Tom Sullivan replied that the measurement would be from the parameters of the lot.
Commissioner Barry said it would also be useful to send out a notice when approved.
Director Tom Sullivan advised that the notice sent sets a specific time frame with the deadline for
comment. If nothing is heard, the application is approved on a stated date in the notice.
Commissioner Barry pointed out that approval notification only goes to the applicant, providing them
with their appeal rights. Said that it would be clearer to give the neighbors the notice of appeal
information.
Director Tom Sullivan said that such noticing about the 15-day appeal period is not provided to
neighbors for items heard by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Barry suggested that a solution is a change to the notice and not a change to Code but
rather procedure.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Pointed out page 18, whereas the time in which people can review Administrative Design Review
and appeal decisions would be extended by five days.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 14
• Said that at the bottom of page 18, item 5, Section 15.45.050, the list of items to be submitted with
an application will be cleaned up. A great number of items to be submitted with the Design Review
Application will be added.
• Suggested an added Condition for an applicant to keep storm water on site or explain why that
cannot be done.
Commissioner Garakani suggested a handout to show applicants how to work with neighbors as well as
explaining the Design Review process.
Director Tom Sullivan said that notifying neighbors for an Administrative process is faster than for
Public Hearing items going to the Planning Commission because those items coming to the
Commission are more complex and take more time to prepare.
Commissioner Garakani stressed the importance of notification to neighbors as well as educating the
public on what to consider when evaluating a proposed project.
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the number of appeals has dropped off dramatically since his
arrival. There have just been two appeals. One being the Fire Station and another Planning
Commission decision that was upheld by Council last week.
Commissioner Barry credited the planners for this change.
Commissioner Nagpal had a question about fees and deposits.
Director Tom Sullivan said that there are fees for Arborist, Use Permit and Geology. Otherwise there
are deposits on account. When an applicant has been billed for 80 percent of their deposit, they are
notified.
Commissioner Nagpal asked if the project goes over the deposited amount without the applicant’s
knowledge.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Replied no. He said that the planners keep track of how much time is charged to a project and what
work has been performed for each project.
• Said that language regarding Administrative Design Review standards will be strengthened.
• Pointed out Page 20, Off-Site Improvements, whereas the list from A to H shows improvements
typical to any development.
Commissioner Nagpal suggested adding Item I for Fire Flow Requirements.
Director Tom Sullivan:
• Said for the Subdivision Ordinance, three basic amendments are proposed. One to eliminate
Building Site Approvals, changing the title of Planning Director to Community Development
Director and making the text gender neutral.
Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 15
Commissioner Schallop thanked Director Sullivan for his report.
Commissioner Zutshi inquired about 36-month extensions per page 28.
Director Tom Sullivan clarified that three years is the total amount of time for a map approval. Added
that the State of California has taken some authority away from cities for the timing of maps. During
times of recession, blanket time extensions are granted through the State Legislature. Design Review
approvals are being raised from two to three years due to the complexity of building on some of the
sites and also due to the uncertainty of the economy.
Commissioner Zutshi said that things will be easier for the Planning Commission as a result of these
amendments and thanked Director Sullivan.
Commissioner Barry stated that these amendment represents a tremendous amount of work and would
be a great step forward.
Director Tom Sullivan reported that the next section to be brought forward would be definitions, one of
the most important aspects of the Code.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the
Planning Commission accepted Application #03-052, as corrected, to amend the
Zoning Ordinance, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Uhl
ABSTAIN: None
***
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the City Manager’s memo regarding locking the facility following
meetings. Said that this does not apply to the Planning Commission as he assures that this lock up
occurs prior to his departure following a meeting.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Project Numbers
Commissioner Barry asked about the application numbers and the fact that the number gives no
indication as to what type of application it is.
Director Tom Sullivan said that staff could identify the type of application on the front page of the
report to solve this concern.
Further Comment on Item #1
Commissioner Schallop:
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Page 16
• Asked if he could make a comment on Item #1 from this evening’s agenda.
• Pointed out that the standard required setback had already been reduced, as a result of this being a
narrow parcel, from 10 to 6 feet.
• Said that the only reason for the request is to separate the home from the cottage.
Heritage Preservation Commission
Chair Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission would like to have a joint meeting
with the Planning Commission this Fall. Added that she attended a dinner with the Historical
Foundation where the hosts were in period dress and role playing persons from Saratoga’s history.
Library
Commissioner Zutshi informed the Commission that the official date for the Library Opening is June
21st.
COMMUNICATIONS
Written
City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting on March 19, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:47 p.m. to the next
Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 2003, at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk