Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-2003 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 24, 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 and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of September 10, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 10, 2003, were adopted with minor corrections to pages 7, 14 and 21. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. David Mighdoll, 13664 Ronnie Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he represents five to six residences surrounding 13641 Ronnie Way with concerns about a construction project currently underway on that property. • Advised that the neighborhood concerns have been raised with staff in both the Building and Planning Departments. • Implored that something be done immediately. • Said that the issues include bulk and height of the new structure. • Added that the plans approved had errors regarding natural grade by one-and-a-half to two feet. • Said that there have been lots of problems with this project right from the start and said that the developer is trying to get away with things. • Pointed out that the maximum height approved was 16.5 feet and that this 4,000 square foot basement includes three bedrooms. • Declared the height is one-and-a-half feet higher that the pre-existing grade resulting in neighborhood concerns about the bulk and building height. • Said that they received no response to their complaints to the City staff. • Requested immediate action to stop construction and to assure that nothing taller than 16.5 feet above natural grade is ultimately constructed. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 2 Commissioner Zutshi asked what stage of construction has been reached. Mr. David Mighdoll replied that as of today, the framing above finished floor is being installed. Commissioner Zutshi asked if it could be clearly seen that there is a difference in natural grade between this house and its neighboring properties. Chair Hunter asked staff to reply. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he had the Building Official contact the developer. A surveyor has found that the project is consistent with the approved plans. The developer knows he is required to build according to the approved plans. An investigation of what is the natural grade is underway. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. David Mighdoll if he is comfortable with the steps outlined by Director Tom Sullivan. Mr. David Mighdoll replied no, he is not comfortable. Said that while some issues have been addressed through the Planning Department, they did not catch this problem. He added that it is clear that the pre- existing grade is not correct on the plans. Emphasized that the maximum height is to be 16.5 feet. Chair Hunter pointed out that this project does not come before the Planning Commission as it falls below 18 feet in maximum height. Director Tom Sullivan clarified unless appealed. Chair Hunter asked if this represents an appeal. Director Tom Sullivan replied no, it is beyond the appeal period. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is a Code Enforcement action. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. David Mighdoll if the neighbors were notified of this project when it was originally proposed and whether they were able to look at the proposed plans. Mr. David Mighdoll replied yes. He added that everyone was happy with the maximum height being at 16.5 feet above the natural grade. However, there has been a falsification of what the natural grade for this site actually is. Commissioner Garakani stated that staff would look into this matter. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that it seems that staff will look into this situation but wondered if Mr. David Mighdoll is concerned that this is not happening fast enough. Mr. David Mighdoll replied yes, pointing out that they raised concerns two months ago. Agreed that the City has a great staff and that Director Tom Sullivan had directed the Building Official to look into this matter and get back to him. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the natural grade has to be established. Chair Hunter asked Director Tom Sullivan what can be done with this item since it is not a part of this evening’s agenda. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that staff is moving forward with the gathering of information. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is any way this matter could come back to the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan replied no, there is no jurisdiction for this to come back to the Commission but that he would report back if the Commission so desired. Cautioned that this issue has now gone way beyond Oral Communication interactions. Mr. David Mighdoll said that in conclusion he feels the City is culpable and that several of his neighbors have already contacted legal counsel. Cautioned that if progress continues, these problems will have a snowball effect. Commissioner Barry said she would like to suggest agendizing this matter either as a Director’s Item or for a Study Session. Pointed out that this is the second project where the issue of height has arisen when a basement is involved. Questioned how this can be prevented. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the mechanisms to prevent problems are already in place. Commissioner Barry said that she would like more understanding although it is clear that there are things in place. Director Tom Sullivan said that he would bring to the Commission at its next meeting the checklist used. 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 18, 2003. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Hunter announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 4 APPLICATION #03-116 (397-26-002) RAISSI, 14195 Saratoga Avenue: Request for design review approval to construct a two-story residence, a detached second dwelling unit, a detached three-car garage and a basement, which is to be located under the main residence. The maximum height of the residence is 21 feet, 8 inches. The proposed floor area of the main residence is 2,380 square feet. The project includes the demolition of two existing buildings, a one-story residence and a detached garage with living space. The property is zoned R-1-12,500. The property is located along Heritage Lane and the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed and approved the proposal. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a two-story residence, detached second unit, a detached three-car garage and a basement under the main residence. • Described project materials as including beige wood shingle siding including stone veneer on the main residence and second dwelling unit, slate roofing and copper down spouts. • Explained that a Design Review approval was granted by the Planning Commission in July 2000, after two public hearings, and subsequently expired. The Commission had required several revisions to the original plan including the inclusion of clearstory windows on one side elevation, wood shingle siding instead of stucco and the reduction in driveway area. • Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission has found that this proposal would have no negative impact on the Heritage Lane. • Said that the appearance of mass is reduced with the reduction of the second story and the maximum height being less than 22 feet. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the second unit includes a full kitchen. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes, the second unit includes a kitchen, living room and bedroom. Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that the Commission is conducting Design Review and that the use of the secondary dwelling unit is not up for discussion as the State has removed the issue of allowing secondary units outside of the public hearing process. Chair Hunter said that the secondary dwelling appears to be about 600 square feet. Commission Barry pointed out that a second dwelling unit would normally have a kitchen. Commissioner Zutshi said that she thought only one kitchen is permitted for a single-family residential property. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that this is unless there is a second dwelling unit. Reminded that the State of California has removed the authorization of these second units from the public hearing process. Commissioner Barry reminded that the City could still perform Design Review. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Nagpal asked for the reasoning behind the previous Planning Commission requesting clearstory windows on the left side of the house. Questioned whether it was the result of neighbor concerns. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the Commission imposed that condition out of potential privacy impacts without neighbors themselves raising the issue. Mr. Dick Finnegan, Project Architect: • Said that they initially submitted in 2000 and conformed to all Planning Commission requests. • Said that they moved one setback by one foot to meet updated requirements. • Added that another new requirement was to have a geotechnical review, which was also done. • Described this as a non-typical Saratoga lot, as it is narrow and deep. • Said that he has tried to design this like a small estate. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked if the driveway was to be 15 feet wide. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that it was initially 20 feet wide and reduced to 16 feet at the 2000 hearing. Advised that they have not altered the original plan except for the one setback. Commissioner Barry said that she met with Mr. Sam Raissi, the property owner, who expressed willingness to dedicate the second unit as a BMR (Below Market Rate) unit. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that he has no knowledge of that fact. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the Arborist has recommended that the old driveway be removed by hand around Trees #7, #12 and #15. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that the owner is willing to comply with that requirement. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Condition of Approval for the driveway is for a minimum 14- foot wide, which is the minimum standard set by the Fire Department. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Dona Tobiason, 14130 Squirrel Hollow Lane, Saratoga: • Stated that her property backs up to this one. • Said that her main concern is the potential impacts on the surrounding oak trees. • Questioned what procedures are in place to ensure that the Arborist’s tree protection requirements are met during construction and how to make sure that the driveway removal around the trees called out in the Arborist’s report, which must occur by hand, actually does. Chair Hunter said that the City staff supervises the compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval. Director Tom Sullivan: • Stated that the Conditions call out the requirements during construction. • Said that City inspectors make regular trips to the site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 6 • Pointed out the issuance of a tree bond and the Arborist’s requirement for protective fencing. • Assured that all these requirements become a part of the Building permit and are enforced. Commissioner Uhl urged Ms. Dona Tobiason to report any violations she might notice to the City. Ms. Dona Tobiason asked if City staff comes on site on a daily basis. Chair Hunter replied yes. Director Tom Sullivan said particularly in the early stages of a project. Ms. Dona Tobiason stated her belief that this developer has had previous problems. Director Tom Sullivan said that he is not aware of any past problems. Commissioner Barry said that sometimes it is the neighbors to a construction project that are the first to notice changes or problems. Asked Ms. Dona Tobiason to be observant and to contact the City if anything improper is noticed. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the City’s Code Enforcement, Planning Department or Building Department would be appropriate contacts. Commissioner Zutshi asked about after hours contacts. Director Tom Sullivan said the Sheriff’s Department provides the City’s Police services. Chair Hunter reiterated her suggestion for neighbors to keep an eye out. Ms. Dona Tobiason stated that this is a narrow lot with lots happening. Chair Hunter said that the Architect has assured that the trees would be protected. Commission Uhl asked about the bond amount at $70,000. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Dona Tobiason if she has seen the plans that depict the profile of the building, which will be facing her property. Ms. Dona Tobiason said that the living room and deck will overlook her property and questioned the setback distance. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that there is a 110-foot distance from the rear of the residence to the rear property line. Commissioner Barry pointed out that usually once a design review is granted the project architect is no longer involved during the construction. Mr. Dick Finnegan: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 7 • Agreed that he has no formal contract to supervise the project during construction but also pointed out that over the last 50 years, there have been no problems with his projects. • Said that the Arborist’s report is very specific. • Pointed out that most trees are on adjacent properties rather than on this one. Chair Hunter pointed out that this does not always make a difference when it comes to the potential for tree damage during construction. Commissioner Nagpal questioned whether the neighbors on Worden Way were approached. Mr. Dick Finnegan said that the owner made the contact with surrounding neighbors and that he is not certain that the adjacent house on Worden Way is even occupied. Commissioner Barry asked staff if the property owner has agreed to dedicate the second unit as BMR. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Barry asked if any square footage bonus was allowed. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Barry asked if staff is aware as to whether this property would be owner occupied. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Barry asked if it is known who the contractor for this project would be. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hunter: • Stated that this is a lot of building on a long and thin lot. • Reminded that a big cedar tree would need to come down for the driveway. • Pointed out that this lot is on the Heritage Lane and is hidden from the road. • Said that the design is pleasing and there appears to be no neighbor objection. • Added that this is a very large house on a small property. Commissioner Schallop: • Stated that he sees no reason to deviate from the previous Commission’s approval. • Said that it is unfortunate that there could be impacts to exceptional oaks near the granny unit but these impacts can be minimized with the Arborist’s recommendations. Commissioner Barry: • Agreed with the previous comments that this is a lot of house on this property. • Agreed with the findings of the Heritage Preservation Commission. • Said that the appearance would neither be big or bulky from the front of the property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 8 • Expressed support for a Condition of Approval to increase the percentage of the tree protection bond or some other financial incentive for the owner to ensure the protection of the surrounding trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could indeed increase the bond percentage. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the site has a lot of hardscape and questioned how drainage issues are addressed and where water goes. Director Tom Sullivan directed the Commissioners to Condition of Approval 6, which addresses site drainage. Commissioner Barry asked if this Condition is met prior to issuance of building permits. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct, to the satisfaction of both Building and Planning staff. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she agrees with the comments of the other Commissioners. • Said that she remains concerned about the left side elevation, finding it not to be the most attractive of elevations. • Stated that she would rather see normally placed windows with adequate landscape screening. • Added that while the adjacent parcel to that side may currently be uninhabited, it would have neighbors living there in the future. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the use of clearstory windows was deliberate since there is only a six-foot setback at that side. Commissioner Nagpal stated that this elevation looks like a prison wall. Chair Hunter said that the property owner is perfectly happy with those clearstory windows, which are in two bedrooms. Commissioner Barry suggested that fast-growing screening landscaping be added on the Landscape Plan for that side of the property. Commissioner Nagpal said she would feel more comfortable with that additional landscaping. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out the Landscape Plan from the plan set. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous pointed out that there is no provision for screening on the left side in the current Landscape Plan. Commissioner Barry suggested a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to add screening landscaping on that side as long is it does not require the removal of existing landscaping. Director Tom Sullivan proposed language that “requires landscape screening in a manner that does not remove existing trees.” Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Uhl said that there appears to be lots of building on a small lot and that he has concern for the trees. However, the neighbors have seen the plans and support this proposal. Chair Hunter pointed out that most of the trees are located on the property line, far from the construction area. Commissioner Uhl stated that he wants to increase the bond percentage as well as require more landscape screening to reduce the bulk of the structure from the left side. Commissioner Nagpal asked what percentage of bond is proposed. Commissioner Uhl deferred to staff for a recommendation. Director Tom Sullivan proposed 50 percent. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this would result in a bond of $35,000 based upon the $70,000 valuation in the Arborist’s report. Commissioner Garakani reminded this project was originally approved two years ago. There may be new neighbors now. Asked staff if surrounding neighbors were notified of this hearing. Chair Hunter replied yes. Commissioner Schallop asked if the Commission is being consistent with the bond amount imposed. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the Arborist’s report for this site was prepared in 2000. Things have changed since then. Commissioner Zutshi asked what a current day value of these trees might be. Chair Hunter pointed out that this Commission is very pro tree and takes the protection of trees very seriously. Commissioner Barry agreed that this Commission is establishing a track record of being tough on tree requirements. Things to take into account in this case are the fact that this property is located on a Heritage Lane as well as the concern that the trees are located on neighboring properties and require careful protection. Commissioner Zutshi agreed and expressed support for the 50 percent bond amount. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-116) to allow the construction of a two-story residence, a detached second dwelling unit, a detached three-car garage and a basement, which is to be located under the main residence on property located at 14195 Saratoga Avenue with the following additions to the Conditions: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 10 • Increasing the tree protection bond percentage to 50 percent of the total valuation to ensure the protection of the trees on this site and at the property lines during construction; and • Requiring additional landscape screening on the left/west side elevation in a manner that does not remove any of the existing trees, 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. 2 APPLICATION #03-195 (510-01-003) QUICKE, 19892 Mendelsohn Lane: Request for design modification to a previously approved project. Specifically, the modification is to the tower element, which is at the rotation point of the structure. The plans approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2000, had smooth exterior walls with no window glazing. The height of the tower element has increased and there are now windows. (TOM SULLIVAN) (Applicant requests this item be continued to meeting on October 8, 2003.) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is currently out of the country and staff feels it is best to wait until his return to proceed with this application. Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 and this item was continued to the meeting of October 8, 2003. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 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 presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that these general definitions appear at the front of the Zoning Ordinance, definitions that the Planning staff deals with on a daily basis. • Stated that four planners and two City Attorneys have reviewed and amended this draft. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any substantial change between this draft and the report distributed at the last meeting, which was continued to tonight’s meeting. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. This report is the same one. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 11 Director Tom Sullivan: • Ran through the list of definitions, pointing out those that were amended as well as new definitions that have been added. • New definitions include: Access, Accessory Structure, Accessory Use, Apartment Unit, Application, Application for Development, Architectural Features, Architectural Style, Attic, Development, Sight Triangle, Off-Site Storage, Variance, Vested Right, Zoning Map. • Amended definitions include: • Alley • Approving Authority – added legislators • Attached (minor modification was made to the definition to require a shared structure such as a common wall, etc.) • Creek Bank (definition was reworded to read better) • Day Care Facility (definition was changed from six children to eight persons. Director Tom Sullivan advised that State Law has changed allowing eight when previously it was six) • District (definition was substantially changed) • Dwelling (definition was amended to include “permanent or portion of a permanent building”) • Family (definition changed to include household help) • Floor Area (definition was changed to take out any confusion) • Garage (definition clarified to require “a permanent roof and enclosed on four sides”) • Height (definition has been made simpler and more straightforward, more of a formula, a mathematical solution and allowing the Community Development Director to use the best information available, such as surrounding neighborhood, topography, survey monuments, trees, etc.) • Home Occupation (definition was cleaned up) • Impervious Surface (definition additions of gravel and concrete) • Institutional Facility (the Commission recommended the removal of the prohibition of on-site retail since senior care facilities often sell toiletries as a convenience to its residents) • Lot Line (minor change) • Loading Facility (minor change) • Manufacturing Zone (definition removed outright since there are no such zones left in Saratoga and the term does not appear in the Saratoga Code) • Non-Conforming (struck one sentence that made no sense) • Nursing Home (minor change) • Plan Line (removed definition. This term was used in the 50s and 60s but is now considered to be a taking. A plan line is no longer designated without an easement.) • Quasi Public Use (includes churches, hospitals and educational services) • Second Unit (the definition was removed from this section as it is included in the Second Unit Ordinance. Commissioner Schallop also pointed out a missing period at the end of the definition sentence for this item.) • Setback (modified) • Slope (no change) • Stable (modified slightly) • Street (definition explains that driveways serving four or fewer homes are not streets but private driveways) • Wall (defined as six feet or more) • Yard Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 12 • Variance (the Commission recommended adding text “and any other requirements” and “by City Council on appeal.”) • Vested Right (definition includes the fact that requirements are frozen in place when an approval, such as a Vesting Tentative Map, is granted. Once approved, the City cannot change its rules/requirements for that approval) Chair Hunter opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve multiple Zoning Ordinance Amendments updating and expanding Section 15-06: Definitions, of the Saratoga Code, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Barry asked that the Commission’s appreciation of the Planning Staffs’ and City Attorneys’ efforts and work in amending these definitions be formally recorded in the minutes. Commissioner Nagpal wanted to commend Building staff for their work done on site. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan: • Announced that a neighborhood meeting is scheduled to discuss the Orchard Project. This meeting will occur in the Community Room at the Library on Monday, September 29th. • Asked the Commission if it still wanted a Workshop on the Orchard Project. (Note: After discussion amongst the Commissioners and quick look at a draft proposed subdivision with a reduction from seven to six lots, it was decided that a Workshop is not required at this time.) • Announced that Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous has scheduled a Study Session to review preliminary plans for a small inn. This Study Session will occur on October 22nd at 5 p.m. Sandwiches will be provided. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter said that last night’s meeting was very insightful. She announced that Council discussed the Tree Ordinance and that a second reading is set for October 15th. Asked staff to distribute a copy of the revised Tree Ordinance to the Commission prior to the second reading so that changes made since the Commission sent it on to Council can be studied and understood. Director Tom Sullivan agreed to forward the revised draft to the Commission. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 2003 Page 13 None. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk