Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-10-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 10, 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, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of August 27, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of August 27, 2003, were adopted with a correction to page 11. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Schallop abstained) 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 September 4, 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 September 10, 2003 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL #03-035, APPLICATION #03-150 ALAIN PINEL REALTORS, 12772 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: Staff has prepared a resolution of approval for adoption by the Planning Commission following their motion at the August 27, 2003, meeting to permit black lettering and a gold logo for Alain Pinel Realtors, a tenant at the Saratoga Oaks Center. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Director Sullivan advised that the Commission should vote on the Resolution prepared to formalize the action taken at the last meeting relative to the signs for Alain Pinel Realtors for their offices at Saratoga Oaks Center. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution of Approval #03-035 formalizing the approval granted at its meeting of August 27, 2003, to allow an Exception to a Sign Program in order to permit black lettering and a gold logo for Alain Pinel Realtors, for their offices located at the Saratoga Oaks Shopping Center, 12772 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Schallop *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #03-146 (397-19-013) AHN, 19615 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a one-story single-family residence greater than 18 feet in height, which requires Planning Commission approval. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet. The proposed residence, including garage, will be 5,482 square feet. Materials and colors include beige stucco exterior and a brown tile roof. The gross lot size is 42,776 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-40,000 and the lot is triangular in shape. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a one-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 24 feet proposed and resulting in an approximately 5,500 square foot house. • Described the materials as being beige stucco with brown tile roof. The lot is 43,000 square feet and zoned R-1-40,000. The surrounding area predominately consists of lots of one acre or more. No basement is proposed. • Said that the setback is 100 feet from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, which greatly reduces the visibility of this structure from the road. The rooflines are varied, with 20 linear feet at the 24-foot height and 50 linear feet being less than 18 feet in height. • Informed the Commission that following the site visit, the applicant submitted a revised driveway plan that preserves Tree #27, which the Arborist believes can be saved despite root damage that can be mitigated. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 3 • Said that three non-native trees will be removed, which will have but a minor impact on the Urban Forest. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry asked if the roof tiles on the sample board reflect cement tiles. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that she was uncertain. Commissioner Barry asked if staff had discussed the possibility of incorporating pervious paving materials on this property, as there is a considerable amount of impervious surface. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff has not pursued the inclusion of pervious paving. Commissioner Nagpal asked what is the current percentage of pervious coverage. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said she was not sure what the current coverage is but that the proposed amount equals 32 percent. The driveway, which is currently gravel, is proposed to be replaced with pavers on sand. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether the applicant has been made aware of the mitigation measures for the trees. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the property owner wants to save that tree and prefers the revised plan for the driveway. Commissioner Zutshi asked for details on the stages of roof heights. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that the highest point is 24 feet for about 20 linear feet. The next step down is at 21 feet. Next is 18 feet and the garage is 16 feet. Commissioner Garakani questioned whether the issues of bulk and mass are what bring this project to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan advised that under the Design Review Section of the Zoning Code, residences taller than 18 feet are required to be brought before the Planning Commission for public hearing. Bulk and mass are just one area that is taken into consideration. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Young Ahn, Applicant and Property Owner, 19615 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commissioners for their visit to his property. • Said that he has striven to achieve a design that offers good balance and harmony for the neighborhood and assured the Commission that he has consulted with his neighbors. • Advised that all his neighbors are okay with his plan. • Pointed out that 26 feet is the maximum height allowed under the Zoning Code. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 4 • Stated that with the four percent slope on his property, from south to north, the appearance of height of his home from the road would seem to be 16 feet, resulting in an 8 foot difference from the actual maximum proposed height of 24 feet. • Added that there are a lot of trees that screen his site from the road and that there will be a 100 foot setback, with the closest point being the garage, which would be set back 66 feet. The minimum requirement for this setback is only 30 feet. • Assured that they want to make this house better, not worse. • Said that his designer is available for questions. • Informed that he purchased this lot in April and worked for three months to develop the plan. • Said that the driveway is proposed to be constructed of small cellblock pavers. • Stated he would be available to answer any questions. Commissioner Barry suggested that water would not drain through that type of paver. Mr. Young Ahn said that this material is better than concrete. Chair Hunter pointed out that the large trees along Highway 9 are very important and expressed appreciation to Mr. Young Ahn for his work in retaining the large Monterey Pine. Mr. Young Ahn said that he fully agrees with Chair Hunter on this issue. Mr. Tri Hong, Project Architect, said he would be available for any questions. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Tri Hong about the roof tile material and about the possible inclusion of pervious surfaces. Mr. Tri Hong: • Stated that the roofing material is concrete tile. • Advised that the driveway had originally been planned as concrete but that Mr. Young Ahn instead chose to use pavers, which drain better than solid concrete. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Commission can elect to condition the inclusion of pervious pavers for the driveway should it wish to do so. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the width of the entry porch as well as the columns. Mr. Tri Hong replied that the porch is 18 feet wide and the columns are two foot square. Commissioner Garakani stated that the total height of the building, as well as its entry feature, are of concern to him and questioned if they would consider a redesign. Mr. Tri Hong said that this is a widespread house and one wants the plate height to gradually step up. Said it is important to look at the whole picture, not just one element. Pointed out the eight-foot difference from the site of the house to the road, which leaves the structure appearing to only be 16 feet maximum height as seen from the road. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Tri Hong what he considers when describing bulk and mass of a structure. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Tri Hong replied large unarticulated stucco walls and/or two-story structures. Commissioner Garakani asked what the maximum allowable height is for a two-story home. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the maximum overall height for a home is 26 feet, which does not differentiate between one and two-story structures. Commissioner Zutshi asked if attic space is counted. Director Tom Sullivan replied not if attic space is unusable. Vaulted spaces are counted if above 15 feet in height. Mr. Scott Emery, 14780 Live Oak Lane, Saratoga: • Stated that this will be a welcome improvement to the neighborhood. • Described the existing walking path in the area that is used by a lot of people from the elderly to young moms to children. However, this path ends in front of five homes, including this one. • Recounted an experience his wife and her friend had while walking along the portion where the path terminates. They were forced to jump into bushes in order to avoid a car that was driving on the shoulder of the road in order to pass another car. • Suggested that it would be a good step to have the path continue along the frontage of this property. Chair Hunter asked if the path is in place on the parcels on either side of this one. Mr. Scott Emery said that the path alternates on both sides of the street in some areas. Commissioner Nagpal asked if improving the path in front of this property wound connect to the existing path. Mr. Scott Emery replied he was not sure. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that it would connect to the south but would take a few properties up the road before it connects again to the north. Additionally, it might require cutting back of pine trees to install a walking path. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed her thanks to Mr. Scott Emery for bringing this issue of the pedestrian path up for discussion. • Added that her own daughter used to ride her bicycle on Highway 9 about 20 years ago and that she used to be afraid for her safety when doing so. • Said that this is a point well taken and that it is important to develop a consistent path. • Pointed out that many property owners appear to have taken it upon themselves to install a path in front of their property. Director Tom Sullivan: • Pointed out that CalTrans has less right-of-way in front of these few houses than along the rest of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 6 • Advised that while an Ordinance Amendment will enable the Commission to impose exactions with a Design Review approval, this Amendment is effective in October. Until that time, the Commission does not have the authority to impose such an exaction. Mr. Tri Hong advised the Commission that upon consultation with his client, Mr. Young Ahn has no problem installing the path but seeks direction on how big and wide it must be. Assured that Mr. Young Ahn is willing to do so for safety’s sake. Chair Hunter said that this will help although there will still be other parcels remaining without a path. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Uhl: • Stated that this is a beautiful design and the applicant did a great job meeting with his neighbors. • Commended Mr. Young Ahn for going out of his way to preserve the Monterey Pine. • Expressed appreciation for Mr. Young Ahn’s willingness to put in a path, saying Mr. Young Ahn has been more than accommodating. • Said he supports the project. Commissioner Garakani: • Advised that while the design of this home is good, he has a problem with its bulk and mass. • Said he does not want to see more homes that are both wide and tall. • Stated this house is too big and that the entry feature is too wide and too tall. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that this is a nice looking design on a one-acre lot. • Said that the height benefits the roofline and makes the design nicer. • Expressed her support for the applicant’s project with the inclusion of pervious pavers on the driveway, compliance with the Arborist’s recommendations, installation of the pedestrian path and preservation of trees. Commissioner Barry: • Reiterated the importance of the pedestrian path, saying that if this family is willing to lead the way, maybe others will voluntarily do so too. • Added that the path could simply be gravel and that the details should be left to the applicant and staff to work out. • Suggested a Condition of Approval requiring the inclusion of some pervious paving. • Agreed with Commissioner Nagpal about the beautiful design of the house but that the entry stands out as an unnecessarily tall feature. • Added that, however, this house design is proportional and to lower the entry they would have to reduce the whole house and that would gain nothing. Commissioner Schallop expressed his agreement with the comments made by Commissioners Barry and Uhl. Commissioner Zutshi: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 7 • Said that this is a balanced building with its differing rooflines. However, the entrance is huge at 18 feet wide and 18 feet tall. • Suggested that if the entry were to be lowered by a few feet, she would be happy. • Said that this is both a long and a tall house. Commissioner Uhl said that the applicant has designed the house so long because he does not want to construct a two-story structure, having a family member with health concerns that requires living in a single-story home. Director Tom Sullivan said that the plate line of the entry and front of the house do not want to be the same as that would create problems with drainage. If the design of this structure has to be lowered, the whole house must get longer to compensate. Chair Hunter: • Said that this is a nice design that might be long but is also proportional. • Said that since it is built inside a valley, she is not concerned about the 24-foot height. • Thanked the applicant for preserving the Monterey Pine and reiterated the importance of the scenic highway that is Highway 9. • Suggested that the applicant and staff work with CalTrans on the issue of the pedestrian path. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-146) to construct a one-story single-family residence with a maximum height of 24 feet on property located at 19615 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, incorporating the newest recommendations of the Arborist (dated September 10, 2003), with the use of pervious pavers on the driveway and with the applicant working with staff regarding the details of installing a pedestrian path at the front property line, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Garakani ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #03-150 (393-21-006) AT&T Wireless, 13000 Glen Brae Drive: Request for Use Permit approval to install six panel antennas and an equipment enclosure at the location of an existing utility lattice tower near Congress Springs Park along the railroad tracks at Glen Brae Drive and Chardonnay Court. Irrigation and landscaping are proposed. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Use Permit to allow the installation of a six- panel antenna and equipment enclosure on an existing 125-foot utility tower located near Congress Springs Park. The antennas would be positioned 60 feet above grade and would match the tower. The antennas are four feet long, one foot wide and four inches deep. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 8 • Described the equipment enclosure as 19 feet long, 10 feet wide and six feet high. The building materials for the equipment enclosure are earth tone slip slumpstone, which would be covered with creeping fig vines. • Stated that staff, as a result of concerns expressed by members of the Planning Commission during their site visit, is recommending the planting of additional screening landscaping, such as oleander bushes. • Informed that the FCC establishes standards for RF emissions. The RF levels for this installation would fall well below the maximum permissible. • Stated that this installation would be visually unobtrusive and would have less impact than other installations in the City. • Recommended approval with the modification to require the enclosure to be constructed seven-and- a-half feet high, with additional landscape screening and irrigation to support that landscaping. Commissioner Garakani asked if this is the same carrier that has the installation on Cox Avenue. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. The installation on Cox belongs to Nextel. Commissioner Uhl said that the installation on Cox looks terrible. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous reminded that this is a different carrier. Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that the City had required landscaping for the Quito Road installation but that the landscaping subsequently died. Staff had to threaten to bring that applicant back before the Commission for a revocation hearing before the replanting of the required landscaping occurred. • Added that the installation on Cox looks exactly as it was approved and was one that had been denied by the Commission and appealed to Council, which overturned the denial. Commissioner Barry: • Questioned whether this applicant has followed the protocol established by a previous body of Planning Commissioners. • Added that she does not see the coverage of issues such as noise and mandatory testing as well as the upgrading requirement, which requires any facility to maintain state of the art equipment as technology improves. • Asked if that protocol was used in evaluating this application. Director Tom Sullivan: • Replied that he has not seen that protocol and that it is not included within City Code. • Added that equipment upgrades automatically occur, as it is necessary for carriers’ equipment to stay state of the art in order to remain competitive. • Advised that the only potential noise impacts would be air conditioning units but since this is an open equipment enclosure, there will be no air conditioning units associated with this installation. • Reminded that the FCC requires regular mandatory testing. Commissioner Barry asked staff if it would be too onerous to require either six-month or one-year review of this site to assure continued maintenance of the screening landscaping. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 9 Director Tom Sullivan advised that his staff understands that if they bring a cell site forward to the Commission, they own that site and will have the on-going responsibility to assure that it is well maintained. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that landscaping could help alleviate the unsightliness of these towers. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that PG&E is unwilling to have any type of landscaping with any height located near its towers and lines. Commissioner Barry asked whether staff has looked at ways to limit installations and pointed out that it is not clear to her that these new antennas increase coverage. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Rich Hildebrand, AT&T Representative: • Explained that the reason for the six-foot high enclosure is that it is Federally mandated. However, if it were required to be any higher, some of their equipment would not function. • Suggested that it would be preferable for them, if required to construct the seven-and-a-half foot high equipment enclosure to hide some of their equipment, to move some of the equipment (antennas) from the equipment structure onto the tower and keep the cabinet at six feet in height. Commissioner Garakani asked how large this additional equipment is that would have to be placed onto the tower. Mr. Rich Hildebrand replied very small. Commissioner Barry asked if it would be visible from the nearby residences. Mr. Rich Hildebrand advised that this equipment represents new technology that will help locate cell phone users. Commissioner Garakani asked for the dimensions of this equipment. Commissioner Uhl suggested that they appear to be approximately three feet from looking at the plans. Mr. Rich Hildebrand said that they are probably less than one foot. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Rich Hildebrand how often emissions tests are conduction after installation and what sort of monitoring program is in place. Mr. Rich Hildebrand advised that a lot of local jurisdictions require regular testing and they perform that testing as required. Added that their emissions are less than one percent of that allowed under FCC regulations. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Rich Hildebrand if he would be open to regular testing. Mr. Rich Hildebrand replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Uhl asked about incorporating oleanders as screening landscaping and asked Mr. Rich Hildebrand if he has any objection to that requirement. Mr. Rich Hildebrand asked for clarification as to what amount of area would need to be screened. Commissioner Uhl suggested that the whole lot should be hidden from view with this landscaping. Mr. Rich Hildebrand replied that he did not think that would be a problem. Chair Hunter cautioned that since this is public park that is well used by children in the community, oleanders are not a good landscaping choice since their leaves are poisonous if ingested. Director Tom Sullivan advised that something safer could be selected. Commissioner Barry asked about coverage with these new antennas. Mr. Rich Hildebrand said that the installation is intended to meet three objectives: coverage, capacity and new services (locating cell phone users). Commissioner Barry pointed out that the exhibit seems to demonstrate that coverage is already good. Director Tom Sullivan advised Commissioner Barry that this exhibit depicts coverage as it would be with this new installation. Mr. John A. Yfantis, 13135 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Stated that RF levels need to be quantified and that watts or mili-watts should be provided. • Stated that these levels can be detrimental to the health of people and animals. Mr. Meir Levi, 13126 Anza Drive, Saratoga: • Pointed out that the cell phone coverage is poor in Saratoga. • Added that he cannot even use his cell phone from inside his house. • Said that he is just a subscriber and not a part of AT&T. • Said with the GSL technology he will be able to use his cell phone internationally, which is very useful since he travels overseas. • Declared his full support for this application, saying that it is needed. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this is the first such antenna application where there have not been lots of people present in opposition due to safety concerns. Commissioner Garakani replied that it is likely due to the fact that most people now understand that they cannot prevent such installations. Added that he will support this application based upon testimony. Commissioner Uhl stressed the importance of making antenna sites look better as befits the community. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 11 Commissioner Zutshi agreed, saying that while we cannot help but have antennas, they should be worth looking at and somehow beautify the area through screening landscaping. Commissioner Nagpal said she supports what has been said and suggested that RF reports be provided to staff for their files. Commissioner Barry stressed the importance of requiring regular testing after installation. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that annual testing should be required. Chair Hunter said that she is fine with this request since the utility towers are already there and due to the need for cell phone connections. Suggested a native lilac plant in lieu of oleanders, since oleanders are not appropriate for a park where children play and since the native lilac is both beautiful and fast growing. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved Application #03-150 granting a Use Permit to allow the installation of six antennas and an equipment enclosure on property located at 13000 Glen Brae Drive and Chardonnay Court, which is the location of an existing utility lattice tower near Congress Springs Park, with the added requirements that: • Three sides incorporate screening landscaping (park, road and neighborhood side; • That there be regular monitoring of RF emissions on an annual basis; • With the GSL antenna being moved from the enclosure to the tower; and • That a seven-and-a-half foot wall be constructed around the equipment enclosure; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #02-182 (389-14-037) DORCICH ORCHARD SUBDIVISION, 13089 Quito Road: Request for Planning Commission approval of a seven lot subdivision of the 1.97 acre property located at the corner of Quito Road and Martha Drive. The R-1-10,000 zoned parcel would be subdivided into lots ranging from 10,072 square feet to 12,356 square feet. Six of the lots would take access from the proposed private cul-de-sac. The seventh lot would take access from McFarland Street if a lot line change were approved for Lot 3. The existing historic farmhouse would be restored and moved onto Lot 4, which is at the end of the cul-de-sac. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking to subdivide a 1.97-acre parcel into seven lots on property located at 13089 Quito Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 12 • Described the zoning as R-1-10,000. • Informed that the proposed lots would range from 10,000 to 12,000 square feet, with six lots to access a proposed new cul-de-sac off of Martha Avenue and the seventh to have reverse frontage and be accessed from McFarland Avenue. • Stated that the Mitchell House, a farmhouse that has been recommended for preservation by the Heritage Preservation Commission, would be relocated on the property and retained and restored. • Said that this subdivision does not meet the Subdivision Map Act Standards regarding lot shape and street width. The required road width is 45 feet for the right-of-way with 30 feet paved. What is proposed is 28 feet paved right-of-way with the elimination of the right to park on one side of the street as well as on the bulb. • Stated that staff is concerned that this represents a serious reduction in overflow parking that could create an intensification of street parking on the surrounding neighborhood. These concerns can be avoided by meeting street size requirements. • Added that this is not a reasonable deviation from standards in that five of seven lots would not comply. • Recommended denial and that the applicant be directed to revise their plan to meet zoning and design criteria. Commissioner Garakani said that during the site visit the applicant presented several cul-de-sac plans, all of which were worse than this one. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that without topography information, what has been provided in insufficient. Added that there are no irregularities with this parcel that would warrant deviation from the requirements. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification on the street width and reasoning behind it. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh advised that the Fire Department only allows parking on one side of the street if the street width is between 28 and 36 feet wide. A street must be a minimum of 37 feet to allow street parking on both sides of the road. Commissioner Barry asked why staff is not requiring 60 feet. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that this is a cul-de-sac while the 60-foot street is the standard for a right-of-way street. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any discussion had occurred regarding having the street turn in from Quito Road. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh advised that Subdivision Map Act requires that new streets access from lower intensity roadways. Commissioner Nagpal asked if deviation from that rule is possible. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that staff would not so recommend. Mr. Tom Kitwell, Applicant: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 13 • Described the benefits of his project, wherein they are splitting a two-acre property into seven lots with proposed houses to be two-story that will blend with the existing historical farmhouse. • Said that they will preserve the existing historic house, which will be relocated to the center lot. • Added that the anticipated cost of restoration of the farmhouse will be $480,000. • Quashed the rumor that they plan to build a walled and gated community, adding that the only wall would be a sound wall to mitigate sound from Quito Road. • Said that they plan to preserve all Category 1 trees and most of the Category 2 and 3 trees. • Described the proposed houses as being 3,000 square foot. • Said that they initially had a 40-foot road but that both Public Works and Planning staff had recommended a reduction to 28 feet. • Said that there is not enough width for this parcel to expand the road further with six or seven lots. • Added that the only solution for a cul-de-sac accessing from Martha is a 28-foot road. • Took exception to staff’s issue about property lines not being straight or radial to the cul-de-sac, saying that theirs is the only practical solution and is similar to other cul-de-sacs in the community. • Said that the selling price per lot could not be justified if there were fewer lots. • Pointed out that per their calculations there will be 44 parking spaces on the seven lots and 70 spaces available when counting street parking on Martha and Quito. • Said that the project does meeting Zoning and Subdivision requirements and requested approval. • Stated that even if they went with a 37-foot wide street that would only provide about four more parking spaces. Commissioner Barry expressed interest in seeing a schematic of the site when the road was at 40 feet in width. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many lots could be accommodated to meet lot depth requirements. Mr. Tom Kitwell replied four. Commissioner Nagpal questioned the practicality of stacking cars six deep on a driveway. Commissioner Garakani agreed that this would not be practical all of the time. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that this is just a demonstration on behalf of the applicant and is not a practical alternative. Commissioner Uhl asked if it is in compliance. Mr. Tom Kitwell pointed out that the requirement reads “as practical” and therefore this is not outside the letter of the law. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh: • Replied that there are two issues and sets of regulations. • Advised that the Zoning issues are lot depth, width and setbacks. This project conforms to those standards. • Informed that the Subdivision regulations consider the aesthetics for the design of the entire subdivision regarding how usable lots would be and calls for right angles to the street and to the radius of a cul-de-sac. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 14 • Added that this is a flat piece of land with no issues such as streams crossing the parcel. The soils are excellent and there are no restrictions to prevent compliance with subdivision requirements but rather this applicant simply wants an extra one to two lots more than the parcel can effectively accommodate. Commissioner Barry stated that there is no requirement to allow the maximum number of lots. Commissioner Nagpal agreed, stating that there is no requirement for up to 12,000 square foot lots, There could be larger lots. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the minimum lot size required is 10,000 square feet and 12,000 square feet for corner lots. Commissioner Uhl asked why fewer lots were not proposed. Mr. Tom Kitwell said that there would be no profit with only six lots. Seven lots are required to make this a financially viable project. Reminded that they will expend $480,000 in restoring the historic structure. Chair Hunter said that she attended Heritage Preservation Commission meetings and is well aware that the requirement to retain and restore this historic farmhouse was no surprise to the applicant but rather has been made quite clear as a condition for the development of this property over the last several years. Mr. Salim Sagarchi Project Developer: • Explained the drop in real estate prices recently, which resulted in a reduction of their original purchase price from $3.6 million to $2.8 million. • Said that they have worked with the City for over a year now and they have met the Zoning requirements. • Said that he is just now hearing that the road is too narrow and said that it was a recommendation by staff to develop this as a private road. • Said that he is working this project in order to make a living and after two to three years of work his profit margin is only six percent. Chair Hunter asked staff why a private road was recommended over a public road. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh: • Advised that staff had sent correspondence to this applicant recommending the reduction to six lots. The use of a private road is just a judgement call and that they have worked with the applicant for over a year to try and make this project work. • Added that in the past the City has allowed a 28-foot road. • Stated that they have tried to consider all options. Director Tom Sullivan stated that when inclusion of either a public or private road is considered, all impacts have to be discussed. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh advised that there was no discussion of a 28 foot wide road with the proposed seven lots and reminded that her last letter included a recommendation for a reduction to six lots. However, the applicant elected to move forward with their proposal for seven lots. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 15 Mr. Tom Kitwell said that the problem is with the width of the lot when accessed from Martha. The 28- foot wide road is the only practical thing to do. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that comments on design are not being considered this evening. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Commissioner Uhl asked if the Planning Commission would consider each new residence at a future date. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied yes, each structure would come before the Commission for Design Review approval. Commissioner Barry pointed out that with past applications, issues such as trees and building envelopes have been considered during the Subdivision approval. Chair Hunter questioned the viability of a fig tree that is supposed to be doomed. Mr. Tom Kitwell said he was not sure. Mr. Lupe Chavarria, Project Civil Engineer: • Said that this tree, located on Lot 6, could be saved but would need to be trimmed. Commissioner Uhl asked if there are any alternatives to a Martha Avenue entrance. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that a standard traffic impact analysis finds that there is too much traffic flow on Quito to access this new street from that road. Director Tom Sullivan added that it is a clear and practical nationwide standard to minimize the number of driveways and/or streets on major arterials. Commissioner Barry questioned if one entrance could access off Quito. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that the Traffic Consultant has blessed the access off of Martha. Chair Hunter pointed out that a private road is the responsibility of the property owners to maintain. Commissioner Barry advised that when the City’s Circulation Element was revised, it was determined that any future development would be limited by the ability of the surrounding streets to accept the impacts of the development. This was incorporated as a clear policy of the Circulation Element. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Ms. Paula McCarthy, 18566 Martha Avenue, Saratoga: • Identified herself as the neighbor directly across the street from the proposed development and therefore the most impacted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 16 • Expressed her support for the project albeit without any deviation from City Codes. • Said that she knew the late Mr. Dorcich and he was aware that this property would not remain an orchard. • Suggested working with this developer to make this development the best it can be as it could enhance this property. • Said that the fence issue was a huge issue for her, particularly when a six-foot chain link fence was installed on the property line. • Stated that this project will be in improvement and pointed out that houses that cost more than a million dollars would not have six cars parked in front so that parking for this development should not become an issue. • Reiterated her support of this project without any deviation from Code requirements. • Questioned what would happen if this project were not to be approved. • Pointed out that if the property is developed with fewer but larger lots, the result would be very large homes that would not fit in with the immediate area. • Suggested the need to balance the size of lots with the size of homes on those lots. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Paula McCarthy if she would like to see a small park area incorporated into this development. Ms. Paula McCarthy replied yes, if feasible. Mr. James Togami, 18859 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he has resided in this neighborhood for six years. • Stated that he understands the financial position of the developer but, on the other hand, while the developer will build and leave the neighborhood, the rest of the residents are stuck with whatever is built. • Said that seven houses on this property is not very aesthetic nor the best fit for the neighborhood. • Agreed that real estate prices have gone down, which is the current economic reality. However, this project should not be approved simply for the possibility of economic benefit to the developer. A lot of businesses can’t even break even these days. Therefore, there is no reason to approve something if it is not right in the first place. • Stated that a driveway from McFarland will encroach on another house, which he would not like if it were his home. • Said that no one would likely park six cars in a driveway as drivers need to be able to come and go. Therefore, they will likely park on the street. • Asked the Commission not to bend its standards due to financial hardship. Mr. Christopher Ducote, 18569 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Said his property is located behind proposed Lots 3 and 4, which is adjacent to the old house at the moment. • Said he has resided in the neighborhood for 51 years, 20 years in his current residence. • Stated his two concerns include access from McFarland and the plan for two-story homes on these newly created lots. • Said that he essentially has lived with no neighbor for 20 years. • Stated that introducing two-story homes is a big step. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 17 • Advised that the homes in the area were traditionally 900 to 1,200 square feet. With additions over the years, the homes now average between 1,800 to 2,000 square feet not the 3,000 foot average as stated by this developer. • Pointed out the history of accidents along McFarland Avenue where parked cars have been hit. • Stated that plans to access this new cul-de-sac from McFarland would result in severe access problems. Commissioner Barry asked if these accidents have been documented. Mr. Christopher Ducote replied yes, both by the City and Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that there is already one two-story on the block. Mr. Christopher Ducote advised that this was a remodel and not original to the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani asked about cars parked along McFarland. Mr. Christopher Ducote said that he parks cars near the newly proposed street entrance in order to prevent his cars from being hit by passing traffic. Mr. John Yfantis, 13135 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Said that the property was no bought for charity but for profit. • Pointed out that staff has said that Zoning requirements are being met but not Subdivision requirements. • Stated that seven lots is not the way to go. • Suggested that entry from Quito would be fine and that there would be less traffic than before when the fruit stand was operated from this site. • Stated that he knew Mr. Dorcich for 18 years and he wanted this property to remain as it is and tried to sell it as such. • Expressed that he is against this project as proposed. • Said it seems that there has not been clear cut communication between this applicant and the City. • Offered his opinion that rules must be followed so that double standards do not occur. • Reported that there is a record of accidents and that he himself has seen many occur. • Said that he told the City that more lights were needed along McFarland. • Advised that it is the consensus of the neighborhood that seven homes would not be compatible. • Suggested that everyone meet half way. • Said that any entitlement granted to this developer should be available to all in the neighborhood, including the right of two-story homes. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Mr. Don Bonnett, 18612 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he has been in the neighborhood since 1977. • Said that access from McFarland would take from the adjacent house and infringe on that home’s appearance. • Expressed concern over too many two-story homes, saying that there are several in the neighborhood but that he does not want all homes in this development to be two-story. This would not be in keeping with the overall neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 18 • Said that since cars have been parked on the corner, no accidents have occurred there since. It appears that reflector lights from these cars are visible to passing motorists. • Said that he knew Lou Dorchich since 1978/79 and that Lou would have loved his orchard to remain an orchard. Commissioner Barry asked if there is a neighborhood association. Mr. Don Bonnett replied that it is informal and that he has not participated in it. Said he did participate in the effort to have the speed bumps installed. Commissioner Barry advised that the City has an opportunity for neighborhoods to petition for a one- story overlay that would limit homes to a single-story, such as was approved for Saratoga Woods. Mr. Don Bonnett said that he doesn’t mind a few two-story homes, just not all homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Robert Block, 18595 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Agreed with his neighbor. • Said that he does not want a driveway access onto McFarland as it would be unsafe. • Said that six lots on this subdivision would be best. • Stated that the speed bumps were added to slow traffic and having a house here would not be an asset to that area of the street. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Block how he feels about the existing two-story home on his street. Mr. Robert Block replied that it was there when he moved in. Thanked the staff for its good work done here. Mr. Conrad Lynch, 18581 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Identified his house as the two-story previously mentioned. • Questioned whether a lot line adjustment would be required to accommodate this new driveway access from McFarland. • Said that this driveway would be right across from his home and that he does not want it. • Said that he has cars parked on the street as do his neighbors. • Said that there is no room to park on the bend of the road. • Admitted that he was under the impression two-story homes were not permitted and said that if an existing one-story next door to him was proposing a second-story addition, he would object even though he himself has a two-story residence. • Stated that someone from out of their area is proposing to make a profit out of their concerns. Commissioner Barry assured that profit is not part of the consideration under Land Use law. Mr. Michael Bustamante, 18802 McFarland Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that he was part of the Traffic Committee that worked to obtain speed bumps. • Said that the issue with the corner is that it is dark and narrow. • Pointed that the owner of the two-story cannot park in front of his own house because of the bend in the road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 19 • Said that if only six homes are constructed on this parcel, there will be no need from access from McFarland Avenue. • Suggested basements in lieu of two-story homes. • Pointed out that the Belle Grove development should by no means be a reference and/or map to development of this site. Mr. John Yfantis, 13135 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Stated that he did not think the City would allow two-story homes. • Said he was told that second stories would be allowed only if the second floor is offset or if the property owner obtains his neighbors’ support. • Stated that if two-story homes are allowed on this development, he wants the same entitlement for all other properties in the neighborhood. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Said she is 41 years old and that she also knew Lou Dorcich. • Said that per a survey, 82 percent of the people want single-story homes. • Suggested that the Mitchell home be kept in a prominent location on this property and not on Lot 4 that is tucked into the back. • Expressed the importance of having that home as a showplace to the neighborhood. • Said that public safety is a concern. Her nephew rides his bike in the neighborhood and additional development raises safety concerns for the neighborhood. • Asked that construction impacts be minimized during development of this property. • Said that 16 coastal redwoods are plotted but that she only saw 13. Only 4 are expected to live and asked that a way be found to result in minimal impact on trees. • Asked that the architectural style be in keeping with the existing neighborhood. • Asked that any home, be it one or two-story, be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. • Stated that the developer has not communicated with the neighborhood and the residents feel very frustrated. • Recommended a City-sponsored planning discussion about this development. Mr. Tom Corson, 1833 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that Ann Welsh did a great job on the report and that he agreed with all her conclusions. • Expressed disagreement with several items from the Environmental Impact Report. • The impacts on oaks and redwood trees. • The fact that this Mitchell House will be hidden and the orchard destroy runs counter the Item 4A – Cultural Resources. • The development of this property will physically divide an existing neighborhood, counter to Item 7A – Land Use and Planning. This project will divide the El Quito neighborhood and two- story homes within a one-story neighborhood is a bad idea. Additionally, the wall is not a good idea. • Inadequate emergency access is a huge issue and is totally inadequate in this proposal, which would invite disaster. Having a 28 foot road is a bad idea and counter to Item 13E – Transportation/Traffic. • Destroying an entire orchard is counter to Item 15A – Degrade Quality of Environment. Additionally, only 17 trees out of the existing 115 trees would be saved. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 20 • Counter to Item 13B – Cumulative Significant Impacts, this project would mix two-story homes within a one-story neighborhood, which is a bad idea. The applicant is trying to put 10 pounds of stuff into a five-pound bag. • Stated that this project benefits only one entity, the developer. • Recounted his understanding that when this developer wanted to buy the adjacent property that had been refused to be sold to him, he sent in a shell buyer. • Stated that if this is true, this is outrageous. Ms. Paula McCarthy, 18566 Martha Avenue, Saratoga: • Suggested that whatever is decided, please do not take too long because trees are already dying due to lack of care. • Reminded that bigger lots will result in bigger homes. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Expressed her belief that notification of this hearing was inadequate. • Said that the mailing went out August 27th and was received August 28th. The City offices were closed on August 29th and September 1st, leaving little opportunity for members of the community to discuss this project with staff. Mr. Salim Sagarchi, Project Developer: • Advised that he is a Saratoga resident, having lived on Afton Avenue for the last 15 years, which is five minutes away from this property. • Said that he cares about the neighborhood. • Assured that he did not purchase the lot next to the Dorcich property. However, he will be remodeling the house next door for the new buyer, a real estate agent, and that new owner in turn has agree to a 250 square foot lot line adjustment. • Announced that he plans to live in one of these seven homes to be constructed. Mr. Tom Kidwell: • Asked for permission to run a video of road conditions along McFarland. • Pointed out that one big shrub is causing a visual barrier for traffic. • Said that his client has made the effort to meet with neighbors, having had open houses. • Said that they have addressed the issue of the lot line adjustment. • Said that they can live with single-story homes but do require the seven lots. Chair Hunter asked about inclusion of a small park. Mr. Tom Kidwell replied that the project would be unfeasible with both a park and the renovation of the historic house. Chair Hunter asked if basements have been considered. Mr. Salim Sagarchi said he has no problem with single story versus two-story homes. Mr. Tom Kidwell pointed out that Fire has approved their plan and that the CC&Rs would have restrictions against on-street parking. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 21 Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that she has 14 things on her list that require resolution. • Expressed appreciation for the neighbors who showed up. • Said that lots more discussion is required. • Added that single-story homes should be proposed for these lots. • Stated that she feels the Subdivision and Design Review should be combined. Commissioner Garakani said he has trouble with that since the Design Review process could take about 10 months during which time the applicant has to pay for this property. Chair Hunter questioned whether a Study Session would be appropriate. Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff has met with the applicant, owner and Dorcich family. The applicant has been unwilling to consider six lots. Staff is recommending denial. Commissioner Barry asked whether the applicant would have to start over and pay new fees if this project is rejected outright. Director Tom Sullivan said the applicant could appeal to the City Council first. If the denial is upheld, the applicant would pay new fees and bring a new project forward. Fees are on a deposit system charged against for staff time. Commissioner Barry asked if staff is asking for a yes or no decision on this project. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Barry: • Expressed appreciation for staff’s view on this. • Said that she herself had been thinking of a Study Session but staff’s input has changed her mind. • Said that staff does a good job and has put a lot of time and effort here. • Stated that a clear message was given to the applicant, who was unwilling to make an adjustment. • Said that a vote up or down is called for this evening. • Said that she cannot approve this project and is willing to vote on it tonight. Commissioner Garakani: • Said he has some issues including previous approvals for cul-de-sacs much like this one. • Asked that staff and the Commission be sure as to why they are rejecting this project and to be sure the reasoning is consistent. • Stated that if a two-story is permitted in a neighborhood, everyone else in the neighborhood should have the right to have a two-story. Commissioner Schallop asked staff to clarify that the applicant has never submitted a proposal for fewer than seven houses. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied correct. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 22 Commissioner Schallop: • Stated that the Commission must interpret the Code taking into consideration what is a practical use for a property and not what is practical for economic considerations. • Declared that seven parcels on this property will not work and that he cannot approve for seven lots. • Suggested that the applicant be forced to put forward a proposal for five to six lots. • Stated that giving an exception is inconsistent with Code. Commissioner Uhl agreed with Commissioner Schallop and said that this development does not yet meet community needs. Commissioner Barry suggested that a Study Session could be an approach to a new development proposal. Commissioner Zutshi expressed agreement with Commissioner Schallop’s technical analysis. Said that she is supportive of a Study Session and perhaps a continuance but she is not ready to make a final decision at this time. Chair Hunter: • Stated that seven lots is not appropriate and that the parcel off of McFarland is a makeshift lot. • Said that this is a very emotional property for this community and that the neighbors have a right to decide what type of development comes into their neighborhood. • Supported denial with the applicant having the right to appeal to Council. Commissioner Nagpal said that consensus seems to be for six lots or fewer. Mr. Salim Sagarchi said that he would agree to six lots if the decision could be finalized tonight. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is impossible as the Commission does not have an exhibit available depicting a six parcel subdivision. Chair Hunter pointed out that the only proposal before the Commission is for seven lots. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that the applicant be allowed to return with a revised subdivision map consisting of six lots. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Commission’s intent is to continue this item and conduct a Study Session. This will occur after staff has performed an analysis of the six lot subdivision proposal. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission continued Application #02-182 to a date uncertain and directed staff to work with the applicant to develop a six lot subdivision, which will be reviewed with the community at a Study Session before returning to the Planning Commission. If a new six parcel subdivision plan is not submitted within 30 days, this item will be rescheduled for a Resolution of Denial, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 2003 Page 23 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #03-176 (CITYWIDE) - CITY OF SARATOGA: Multiple Zoning Ordinance Amendments updating and expanding Section 15.06: Definitions, of the Saratoga Code. The proposed amendments to Article 15-06 provide for consistency between ordinance requirements and long time practices as well as simplifying the rules. (THOMAS SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan recommended that, due to the lateness of the hour and the time necessary to complete it, Item 5 be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting on September 24, 2003. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan advised that he has just returned from a four day League of California Cities Conference. Announced that the LCC has approved the drafting of a ballot initiative for 2004 seeking a Constitutional amendment to protect the revenues of local government. Stated that the cities and counties are walking in step on this issue. COMMISSION ITEMS None COMMUNICATIONS Written: City Council minutes from Regular Meeting on August 6, 2003. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 10:37 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk