Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Kurasch called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioner Jackman and Roupe Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Associate Planner John Livingstone PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of May 22, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the regular Planning Commission minutes of May 22, 2002, were approved as submitted with one correction to page 11. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: Barry ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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 June 6, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ISSUE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – BILL BRECK, 20375 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD: The appeal is to have the Planning Commission reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the removal of two Monterey Pines located at 14480 Oak Street. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a Tree Removal Permit was issued for 14480 Oak Street. • Identified the property owner as Mr. Mitch Cutler and the appellant as Mr. Bill Breck. • Explained that the reasons for the tree removal are beetle infestation and old age. • Added that on April 22, 2002, the City’s Arborist prepared a report on two pines on the subject property and the conclusion of that report was that the trees should be removed. Additionally, another Arborist, Mr. James Scott, who was hired by Mr. Cutler, also recommended removal of the trees. • Said that Mr. Cutler will be required to plant two 24-inch box trees in replacement of the removed trees. Mr. Cutler is proposing oak rather than pine trees. • Stated that staff moved this appeal hearing up two weeks to expedite consideration since there are insurance coverage issues. Mr. Cutler’s insurance carrier is now refusing coverage for any potential damage caused by these trees. Commissioner Hunter asked if the installation of the wall damaged the roots. Added that it is important to consider whether any trees might be impacted when a request to install a wall is received. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the plans indicated installation of a fence and not a wall. A fence in this case would be exempt. However, what was installed was a wall. New plans will be submitted to reflect this change from fencing to a wall. Commissioner Barry asked for the reason for Barrie Coates’ April review. Director Tom Sullivan replied that Barrie Coates went to the site with a City Code Enforcement Officer after complaints regarding tree damage were received. Commissioner Zutshi asked for further information about the role of the wall. Director Tom Sullivan replied that consideration of the wall is not a part of this evening’s hearing. Staff is working with the property owner on that issue separately. Commissioner Garakani asked whether neighbors are contacted prior to approving a Tree Removal Permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 3 Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Code does not provide for such notification. That is one issue to be worked out with the Code Update. Commissioner Barry reiterated that walls require building plans but what had originally been planned for the site was a fence. Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that the wall would be handled under a separate venue. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:20 p.m. Mr. Bill Breck, Appellant, 20375 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga: • Described his home as being the larger white home with columns located on Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. • Stated that the Cutler property is located behind his on a flag lot. • Advised that he speaks on behalf of 14 neighbors, including one who is currently recovering from a heart attack. • Suggested a continuance due to the schedule change, which brought this item before the Commission earlier than originally scheduled. • Stated that Arborist Barrie Coates’ report was misrepresented by staff in that it actually says that the property owner “wishes” to remove these trees rather than “should” remove these trees. • Added that his main issue is why a tree described by Barrie Coates as being in a 90 percent condition of health being removed. • Said that it is unfair to replace a 70-foot tree with a 24-inch box tree that costs only about $350. The 70-foot tree provides visual privacy for five neighbors. • Said that the penalty outlined in the Code for unlawful removal of a tree requires that the replacement value at least match the monetary value of the tree being removed. A $350 tree does not come close. • Pointed out that the tree was damaged due to construction activity. • Reminded that one of the two proposed trees for removal has already been removed. This removal occurred before the Appeal with the City could be filed. • Added that there is no mention of beetle infestation in Barrie Coates’ report although it does state so in another Arborist’s report. • Declared that beetle infestation is not terminal for a tree and rarely kills the tree. • Said that many trees throughout the City have beetles and do not die. • Said that this Tree Removal Permit merits further investigation and findings as to whether the tree is dead. • Reiterated his main points as being the fact that Barrie Coates had ranked the tree as being in 90 percent condition, that he is skeptical of the work done by the second Arborist, that many neighbors are concerned and that other trees were removed from the site without permits. In fact, nearly 20 trees have received damage. Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Breck where his residence is located in respect to the tree. Mr. Bill Breck replied about 40 to 60 feet away. Commissioner Garakani asked how this tree helps provide privacy from that distance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Bill Breck replied that his house is a three-level home with the bedrooms on the upper level. Commissioner Garakani said that on his recent site visit he noticed two oaks on the other side of the proposed removed tree as well as plenty of other trees and does not see a privacy issue. He added that Mr. Breck’s three-story home is more of a privacy issue for the neighbor than this neighbor would be for the Breck property. Mr. Bill Breck reminded that he is speaking on behalf of 14 neighbors. Commissioner Garakani replied that there is nothing in the packet to substantiate that Mr. Breck is indeed representing 14 neighbors. There is just Mr. Breck’s own correspondence. He added that the tree proposed for removal is hindering the growth of a more precious oak tree. Mr. Bill Breck said that he does not believe there is an oak within 25 feet of this pine tree. Commissioner Barry inquired of Mr. Breck, assuming the tree lives a while, what would he like to have happen. Mr. Bill Breck replied that he is comfortable with the provisions of the Ordinance. Commissioner Barry asked what Mr. Breck feels would be fair. Mr. Bill Breck replied something of equivalent monetary value or at least four planter box trees. Commissioner Barry reminded that the applicant is proposing oak trees and asked Mr. Breck if he has any opinion of other tree species. Mr. Bill Breck said that planting more of them is the healthiest thing to do as far as oak trees are concerned. Acting Chair Kurasch asked staff for clarification as to whether this tree is considered as being unlawfully removed. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. He added that three other trees were unlawfully removed on site but this one was not. Acting Chair Kurasch said that the definition of unlawfully removed tree is clear. Mr. Bill Breck said that it is not in the spirit of the Ordinance to replace a 70-foot tree with a $350 tree. Commissioner Hunter said that Mr. Breck’s fight for trees is wonderful and stated that the tree looks perfectly healthy. Asked Mr. Breck’s reaction to concerns about proximity to the home. Mr. Bill Breck said he would defer to Barrie Coates’ opinion as to whether the tree is dangerous. Pointed out that there have been no tree protection fences at all and that he would like to see more conditions to protect trees on site. Mr. Mitch Cutler, 14480 Oak Place, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 5 • Said that the facts speak for themselves and that Barrie Coates’ has told them that the trees should be removed. • Claimed that this whole issue is a fabrication by Mr. Breck, who is unhappy about two easements that run across the Breck property. • Stated that this tree has gone through many legal challenges and that no citation has been issued. • Added that when asked to stop work on the removal of the second pine by Director Sullivan he complied. • Accused Mr. Breck of trying to control his property. • Informed that he has a contract for 10 to 15 trees to be installed. • Clarified that Mr. Breck’s home is 150 feet from the tree and is also separated by a guesthouse. • Said that fencing and landscaping mitigation can be addressed and that he has lawfully cooperated through the appeal process. Commissioner Barry pointed out that staff received a complaint that the wall was in the process of being built that was causing some damage to roots of the trees in question. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied that there is no wall near the pines and only one-and-a-half foot tall footings to support a six-foot wood fence. Said that they have changed their plan to a concrete wall all the way around in order to keep Mr. Breck from his property. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Cutler if it was brought to his attention that the footings were causing root damage. Mr. Mitch Cutler advised that the footings were hand dug in order to be very careful of the roots. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Cutler what species of trees he was proposing to plant. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied canary palm, cypress and oaks, depending on the Arborist’s recommendation. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Cutler if he was aware of Mr. Breck’s appeal when he was removing the first of the two pine trees. Mr. Mitch Cutler replied no. He added that the appeal was filed on Monday at 1:30 p.m. while his tree removal contractor was on site at 7:30 a.m. on that day. He added that City staff came on site at about 1:30 p.m. when they were mostly through cutting down the first tree. However, he had the crew stop when asked to do so by City staff. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that every reference made by Barrie Coates indicates that the beetle infestation was caused by the construction of the wall, which caused root damage. In other words, most of the damage was due to the construction of the wall. Asked what was the intention. Mr. Mitch Cutler stated that these are 60 to 80 foot high trees on the southeast side of his property, which served to cool his house. He pointed out that the home is now significantly warmer as a result of the shade lost. Mr. Bill Breck reiterated that Barrie Coates’ report does not show beetle infestation and rather stated that the tree is very healthy with a ranking of 90 percent condition of health. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Garakani reminded that the Commission is considering whether this tree should be removed at this point. Mr. Bill Breck said that whatever decision is made should be based upon Barrie Coates’ recommendations. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that Barrie Coates has stated in his report that this tree would die within two years. That evaluation is a main reason for Administrative Approval for removal. Acting Director Kurasch reiterated that the paragraph above this statement states that the condition of the tree was compromised as a result of construction activity. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Barry asked Director Sullivan to comment on the dollar amount for the replacement tree. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Section of the Municipal Code quoted by Mr. Breck pertains to unlawfully removed trees. In this case, however, the required replacement is on a one to one ratio. The Planning Commission can change that requirement. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if this is a gray area in that the tree, which should have been protected, was damaged by unpermitted activity and whether this is taken into consideration. Director Tom Sullivan said that the property owner filed a Tree Removal Permit application almost immediately upon receipt of the Arborist’s report and this is not considered an unlawful act. Commissioner Barry said that the conclusion seems to be that the property owner managed to save himself by getting his request in for a permit. Commissioner Garakani: • Suggested that it may not make sense to replant in exactly the same location. • Said that it might be better to scatter the new trees around and that this might deal with Mr. Breck’s privacy concerns. • Added that the tree should definitely come out at this time, as it is not safe. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that unfortunately she agreed and that the tree is too close to the owner’s home and threatens the children’s bedroom. • Said that she would like to see a good size replacement and not a canary palm. • Added that she is sorry this has happened. • Expressed that she is glad to learn that neighbors will be notified in the future of Tree Removal Permits. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is bothered by how the tree got in the condition it is now in but agreed that safety is a good issue. Acting Chair Kurasch said that it seems clear that the consensus is that the tree should come out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Barry: • Said that while she agrees the tree must come out there are a number of issues that need to be considered in the future including what kind of scrutiny the City should require. • Said that even if dug carefully, unfortunately, damage to tree roots is still possible. However, there is no requirement for careful scrutiny for fence footings. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission’s Subcommittee on Trees will work to ensure that the Tree Handout says the same thing as the Ordinance. Commissioner Barry: • Said that she would like to see the size of replacement tree increase and perhaps the number of replacement trees. Additionally, the replacement trees should be indigenous trees that are calculated to provide screening. • Agreed with Commissioner Hunter’s concern about the proposed use of canary palms. However, if 15 new trees are introduced, some could be canary palms. • Stated that these are neighborhood trees that provide an environment. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Expressed agreement with all that has been said here. • Added that she feels badly about the removal of these trees but sees no alternative, as they must heed the evaluation that these trees will die. One tree is already gone and the other needs to come out. • Said that she is concerned about valuation but wants to be careful that what we ask for is supported by Code. • Said that it is reasonable to increase the replacement tree value to more closely match the value of the removed tree. • Said that these trees were killed by activity on site. • Declared that these two neighbors need to be more proactive and less defensive. • Added that this appeal was pretty understandable. • Asked how this will be coordinated with the action underway on the other trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that Mr. Cutler will present a landscape plan for staff review and asked for guidance from the Commission on the size and number of replacement trees. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the replacement trees not be put in the same area in order to prevent overcrowding. Suggested a two-year bond with a two-year inspection to ensure the health of the replacement trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that a bond amount is typically based on the Arborist’s report. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about a bond for 20 percent of the tree value. Director Tom Sullivan said that the bond is released in two years if the trees remain healthy. Commissioner Barry said that she could accept two trees in replacement but larger ones. Director Tom Sullivan gave the next two tree sizes as 36 and 48-inch box. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Barry recommended 48-inch box. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Suggested referring this matter back to Barrie Coates, as the Commission does not have the expertise. • Said that there is no real difference in canopy growth and that larger trees are slower to establish. • Said that she would rather see more trees instead of larger trees and suggested four 36-inch box trees in replacement. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission denied the appeal to reverse an Administrative Decision to allow the removal of two Monterey pines located at 14480 Oak Place and added the following conditions: 1. A bond for two years; 2. The replacement of the removed trees with four 36-inch box trees to be determined with the recommendation of the Arborist and preferably to include indigenous trees that provide screening. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 Application #02-034 (397-06-087) – NEQUIST, 14633 Quito Road: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish the existing 3,821 square foot house and build a new single-story 5,847 square foot house with three car garage. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new 5,847 square foot, single-story residence with a maximum height of 22 feet and demolish an existing 3,821 square foot house. • Reminded that typically a new single-story replacing an existing single story home is handled through an Administrative Design Review but since the structure exceeds the 18-foot height limit, the project requires Planning Commission review. • Stated that the home’s design will minimize the perception of bulk. The new home will be located in approximately the same location as the existing. There will be varying rooflines and a small shed dormer. The home will be integrated with the environment, as there are very mature trees that will be maintained. No protected trees are to be removed. The home will consist of natural earthtone colors. It would be difficult to see the house from the public right-of-way. • Concluded that overall this proposed home is in character with the neighborhood. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Barry inquired whether the topic of impervious surfaces has been discussed and whether anything would preclude the use of an impervious material for the driveway. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Garakani asked if the existing driveway would be retained. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that he believes a new driveway is proposed. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:17 p.m. Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Designer: • Made himself available for questions. • Asked for one change in the Conditions so that the final landscaping plan would not be required to be submitted and approved until final inspection rather than at time of issuance of building permits. • Reminded that there is no site grading proposed and that it is impractical to ask for the final landscape plan at the time of building permit issuance. • Added that he does not usually contract with a landscape contractor until the home is 75 percent completed to allow the landscape to fit into the site with the new home. Commissioner Barry advised Mr. Oakley that it is the Commission itself that asked for earlier submittal of final landscape plans. Commissioner Garakani asked if there is a basement. Mr. Marty Oakley replied no. Acting Chair Kurasch pointed out that the Arborist’s report indicates that there should be no lawn planted beneath the retained oak tree. Mr. Marty Oakley said that one does not typically put lawns beneath oak trees because it is not good for the tree and because lawns do not grow well there. Said that the final landscape plan would clearly show that no lawn will be placed below the oak and will depict the site irrigation. Acting Chair Kurasch advised that this is the reason why the Commission wants to have a final landscape plan submitted early. Mr. Eric Nequist, Applicant and Property Owner, 14633 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Said that they have been removing any ivy that might adversely impact protected trees. • Added that they are also removing a lot of backyard patio. • Assured that there would be no lawn planted beneath the oak tree and said that they are also removing all driveway area beneath the tree. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the proposed pruning of the oak tree. Mr. Eric Nequist advised that this would be done at the request of the Arborist. Acting Chair Kurasch recommended that Mr. Nequist have a certified Arborist do this pruning and that not more than 30 percent should be pruned. Mr. Eric Nequist said that they would be careful, as they want to preserve this tree as it offers privacy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 10 Acting Chair Kurasch agreed that there is a good chance of retaining this tree if they follow the Arborist’s recommendations. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Hunter stated that the owner is well informed and the proposed plan is fine. Said that is sad to see a nice house go but the new home will be good. Commissioner Garakani explained to Mr. Nequist that the reason for early submittal of a final landscape plan is to consider any large construction such as waterfalls and rivers on site. Agreed that it is important for a landscape designer to see the character of the house in order to plan the landscape. Commissioner Barry agreed and said that drainage is a serious concern and landscaping ties into that. It is difficult to get a handle on drainage issues without a landscape plan. Supported use of indigenous trees and asked Director Sullivan if the Commission has any latitude on that matter. Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that the Arborist’s report includes a recommendation list. The Planning Commission usually adopts a Condition to comply with the recommendations contained within the Arborist’s report. • Added that if the final landscape plan submitted for staff review is an upgrade to what is required, staff handles the review. If the final landscape plan is less than required, it would be brought back before the Planning Commission. • Said that another reason for early submittal of a final landscape plan is that this is where it is depicted as to where the utilities and irrigation will go in. Acting Chair Kurasch said that she is in favor of the requirement for early submittal of a landscape plan and does not find that to be an unreasonable requirement. Acting Chair Kurasch Reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:32 p.m. Mr. Marty Oakley: • Said that he understands the reasons given for the early submittal of a final landscaping plan. • Pointed out that the utility trench is shown on the final building plans. • Extended his request for a later submittal of the final landscaping plan as he has already prepared the submittal for building permits and has it ready to submit following the 15 day appeal period in order to avoid delay of that submittal. • Asked for at least 90 days for the submittal of this final landscaping plan. • Said that the only proposed new irrigation would be for new plants and lawn. Acting Chair Kurasch Reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Barry said that she hopes word gets out that the Planning Commission is serious about its requirement for final landscaping plans. However, this is an unusual situation here since so much of the landscaping is already in place. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 11 Commissioner Hunter agreed that the plants are already there. This is not a bare piece of ground. The Commission can be flexible in different situations. In this case, most plant material will stay where it is currently. Commissioner Zutshi asked about the driveway material. Commissioner Barry suggested a Condition of Approval to require the use of pervious pavers for the driveway. Acting Chair Kurasch: • Suggested having the Arborist look at the plan for the driveway. • Proposed added text to Condition 8 to read “before the beginning of construction.” • Stated that this proposed house is very appropriate and has her approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to allow the construction of a new single-story, 5,847 square foot home on property located at 14633 Quito Road with the added Conditions: 1. Removal of ivy; 2. Change Condition 8 to add “before the beginning of construction.” 3. Use of pervious pavers for the driveway, if possible. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Kurasch reminded that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 Application #02-055 (389-06-002) –STURLA, Saratoga Creek Drive: Request for a 36-month time extension to the approval of SDR 99-006, a 2-lot land division in the Professional Administrative Office Zoned District. The property is located on Saratoga Creek Drive, just south of Cox Avenue. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the applicant is seeking a 36-month extension of a two-lot parcel map, which was approved on May 10, 2000. • Advised that this request was filed in a timely manner. • Stated that all agencies have reviewed. • Said that because the project and property have undergone extensive litigation and due to current market conditions, the applicant is seeking another three years to allow conditions to change for the better. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked what the maximum amount of time would be allowed for an extension. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan replied three years. Added that a recent change in State law allows one three- year extension. Extensions used to be for one year at a time. Acting Chair Kurasch asked what the options would be if the map expired. Director Tom Sullivan responded that the parcel would remain a single parcel or the applicant would have to start the process all over again. Acting Chair Kurasch opened and closed the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:45 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission granted a 36-month time extension to the approval of SDR 99-006 for a two-lot subdivision for property located on Saratoga Creek Drive (APN 389-06-002). AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 Application #02-023 (397-06-075) – HILLS, 18588 Woodbank Way: Request for Design Review approval to substantially remodel the existing single-story house. A portion of the existing house will be demolished and rebuilt in approximately the same location. The remodeled portion will include a new 1,438 square foot basement. The total proposed house size with garage and accessory structures will not change. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Said that the applicants are seeking a Design Review approval to substantially remodel a single- story residence. • Added that the floor area ratio would not change. • Said that while this structure is currently legal non-conforming, this proposal would not increase that status. • Said that the proposed home will minimize the perception of bulk and at 22 feet in maximum height this home would be four feet less than the maximum height of 26 feet. • Said that the home will be situated on the same location as the existing home and that the existing landscaping would be retained. • Added that the home will include a varied roof elevation and articulation in the front elevation and will include stone accents. The home will be integrated with the environment due to mature trees and landscaping. The home will incorporate natural earthtone colors and a stucco finish. • Stated that this home will protect the privacy and views of adjacent properties. • Said that a detailed map was provided to surrounding neighbors and no neighbors are directly negatively affected. • Advised that this home meets energy guidelines. Solar heating is currently heating the pool. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 13 • Informed that four trees will be removed although none are in exceptional condition. The Arborist has recommended replacement. • Advised that there is no correspondence and that the applicant has talked with all of his neighbors and each neighbor was shown the plans. • Stated that this home is in character with the neighborhood. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Zutshi asked if it is allowed to have the owners remove a shed in order to extend the square footage of the house. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. This shed is counted as square footage as it is on a slab foundation. It is more than a typical shed. As long as it does not increase square footage overall, it is okay. Commissioner Barry pointed out that there will be 34 percent coverage and proposed the use of pervious pavers to reduce that percentage. Associate Planner John Livingstone deferred this matter to the applicants. Commissioner Hunter asked if pervious pavers are more expensive than concrete. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there is a range of prices available. Commissioner Garakani asked for clarification that this matter is before the Commission only because of its height. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. This project is too high to be approved with an Administrative Design Review. Acting Chair Kurasch asked whether this structure could be reconstructed if burned down. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the site would lose its legal non-conforming status. If more than 50 percent is demolished, it would be looked at as a new project. This proposal is at 40 percent and meets the intent. Acting Chair Kurasch opened the Public Hearing on Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Ron Hills, Applicant and Owner, 18566 Woodbank Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be here. • Said that he and his wife have worked for five years and with four major redesigns to come up with an authentic hacienda design. This has been a lot of effort. • Said that they have tried to make this home design good for the City and the neighborhood. • Advised that they have met all requirements including basements. • Stated that the tree in front appears to have tapped into their water line and is causing lots of problems including damage to the slab floor. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hills if he is willing to improve their 34 percent use of impervious coverage by using pervious pavers on their new driveway. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Ron Hills: • Pointed out that his home is situated on what used to be an orchard pond area. Their home is on clay. The previous owner had to install a culvert across the street to help manage water. They deal with flooding in rainstorms, as the water does not sink. Additionally, the hillside behind them drains down onto their site. Together with their neighbor, they have installed a French drain system. • Declared that they have a real water problem. • Pointed out that he is a former Planning Commissioner and member of the Parks and Recreation Commission so he well understands the review process. • Added that the adjacent neighbor supports his project. Mr. Carl Peterson, 18600 Woodbank Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he has lived here since 1965 and is excited about this new addition to his neighbors’ home. • Said that he liked the proposed design and is looking forward to it. • Stated that his home is set back far off the road and that he will not see this home nor be impacted during construction since big oak trees shield sounds and sight impacts. • Said that he enjoys construction as he is a retired engineer and supports his neighbors. Mr. Ron Hills added that his home would look modest from the front. They are eliminating one building from the property and have met all requirements. Acting Chair Kurasch asked about the use of pervious pavers and whether the driveway is being replaced. Mr. Ron Hills said that they had not planned to change the driveway at this time as it represents a lot of area. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Mr. Hills if he is certain that the drainage problems cannot be corrected with proper engineering. Mr. Ron Hills replied that they have black adobe clay within a couple of feet. Acting Chair Kurasch closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:09 p.m. Commissioner Barry: • Said that Mr. Hills supporting report is a thing of beauty and contains a tremendous amount of information. It should be used as a model for other applicants. • Advised that she had a major issue as to whether or not to treat this application as a new project or remodel. However, staff has said that the necessary findings can be made. • Stated that this is a nice project and she is prepared to support it. Commissioner Hunter: • Asked to see the color board. • Said that the project sounds great and is fine by her. • Thanked the Hills for the beautiful report. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 15 • Added that she is looking forward to seeing this new house in about a year and a half. Commissioner Zutshi said that her issues about square footage have been clarified and that this is a nice house for the neighborhood. Commissioner Garakani said that he is in favor of this application. Acting Chair Kurasch said that she too had problems with this change to an existing non-conforming, as she does not feel that this represents incidental alterations. Commissioner Barry clarified that per Code, this requests meets the definition of incidental as it is less than 50 percent. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow a substantial remodel to an existing single-story residence on property located at 18588 Woodbank Way. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Jackman and Roupe ABSTAIN: None *** NON-PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 5 GATEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES: Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway have been prepared to guide new development in this district. The streetscape improvement plan has been adopted to address improvements with the public street right-of-way to create a new northern gateway to the City. The Guidelines provide direction for the design of mixed-use projects that introduce a component of residential uses within the Gateway district, as provided for in the General Plan housing element. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this is a non-public hearing at which the Commission is to receive a report, ask questions and take testimony. Following that, the Commission should direct staff to agendize this matter for Public Hearing to allow formal notice to property owners. • Added that there has been one piece of written communication received tonight. Mr. Bob Eck, Consultant to the City, Design Studios West, Denver, CO: • Said that he has been working together with Greg Ing Associates out of San Jose. • Said that they have worked to develop draft guidelines for use in conjunction with the Master Plan that includes improvements within the street right-of-way to the cost of $3 million dollars. • Added that the Design Guidelines for the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Gateway are to address development adjacent to the right-of-way, on private property. The direction is for the design of mixed-use development to allow the introduction of residential. • Stated that the Task Force has meet since September and a series of goals were established. The goals address new development and not existing development. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 16 • Added that 17 different development standards were drafted. • Said that both Use Permits and Design Review Approval would be required for Mixed-Use Projects. They would also have to conform with the Residential Design Handbook. Residences would be located on the second floor or at the rear of a parcel. The total FAR could not exceed 50 percent (with an additional 10 percent allowed with the inclusion of BMR units). • Said that setbacks should consider adjacent building locations and the parking requirement should be the same as under the Zoning Ordinance. Private usable space should be provided and a maximum height limit would be 26 feet with the building height based upon the average existing grade. There would be a restriction to a single-story for those sites adjacent to existing single- family residences. • Said that a 30-foot setback along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road would be required to allow a 26-foot height. Additionally, a 26-foot height would be allowed adjacent to existing two-story residences. • Said that solid eight-foot high perimeter fencing would be required and a soundwall and landscape screening to protect single family residences. • Stated that the allowed uses would be local serving businesses and not big-box retailers. • Described Mixed-Use with office use on the second floor adjacent to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Office use on the first floor would require a Use Permit to encourage the dynamic of retail on first floors and office on second floors. No residential development will be included on the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road side. Rather residential uses will be located adjacent to existing residential uses. • Encouraged linkages to adjacent properties on either side to allow circulation. • Stated that the goals for the overall Gateway are intended to encourage mixed-uses and create a strong identity for the entire Gateway with a variety of building sizes and facades, to provide pedestrian friendly access and to promote housing consistent with the City’s General Plan and to allow shared parking where possible. • Said that they are looking to promote retail while encouraging residential uses. Plans include smaller scale and style, residential massing, building articulation to mitigate mass, location of service and trash areas out of sight to the rear, common colors and materials (including masonry, brick and wood), consistent character and monument signage, landscaping and buffering, breaking up massive seas of parking, buffering, fencing screen walls, mitigating impact of lighting to off-site areas and creating consistency throughout the Gateway. Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that he was initially concerned that these Guidelines were to be adopted tonight. • Said that he has a number of reservations. • Stated that he is one of 18 owners of a condominium office building that is fully developed. • Stated that they have concerns over site to site access as their neighbor is a trucking company who used to use their property for truck turnaround and employee parking. They have since chained off the access. • Questioned how these Design Guidelines would be applied to existing structures. Ms. Zoe Alameda-Farotte, 12341 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for their time. • Asked what the impact of these guidelines would be if a catastrophic event should occur to their building such as if it were to burn down. Would they be prevented from rebuilding. • Stated that the Task Force was started in 1995 and focused on road improvements rather than being a broad-based Task Force. • Said that this speaks loudly of zoning changes because it changes from allowed to not-allowed uses. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 17 • Stated that the City needs to notify commercial owners and that she hopes further input is provided by more commercial owners. • Said that this proposal restricts some commercial viability and would restrict redevelopment of current property. • Stated that the scenario provided by the Consultant is based upon three parcels with a total of three to five acres. • Said that these Guidelines would have an adverse effect and asked that they be reconsidered and reworked. Mr. Jeff Walker, 20451 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Said that the public right-of-way improvements are great. They were sorely needed and are greatly appreciated. • Said that he would hate to see money spent on the roadway without also having future improvements to the private properties along that roadway. • Said that these Guidelines would help achieve consistency as there are not currently enough requirements for commercial uses. They will be something that all can tolerate and will provide needed consistency. • Said that a public forum would be a better format to receive public testimony rather than to have more Task Force activity. Mr. John Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in the area since 1965 and was a member of Council in the past. • Said that he participated on the Task Force since 1995 and found there to be a lot of participation on the Task Force, including some business people. • Stated that this is a unique area with lots of housing density. • Declared that this is an opportunity to tie things together and unify and make the area more attractive with some sort of vision. • Stated that there has been excellent help from the consultant and the values of these commercial properties will increase as a result of the roadway improvements. • Said that before there are public hearings, more study and understanding is needed to not just create housing but to create an area. • Stated that the Task Force is passing the baton to the Planning Commission for more work. Mr. Lee Murray, 19466 Miller Court, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided in the area since 1964 and Chairs the Saratoga Arts Commission, of which there were three members on the Task Force. • Said that he got his first look at the Guidelines in May. • Said he is keenly interested in a program to develop community identity, including public art. • Stated that he believes that public art in this area can provide a cornerstone for public art in the City. • Suggested that funding for public art could come from a variety of sources. • Proposed a percentage of fees (from half to two percent) be allocated to the purchase of public art. This is done in other communities including Walnut Creek, Brentwood and others. Acting Chair Kurasch said that this is a good suggestion and encouraged Mr. Murray to bring his proposal in written form. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Murray work with the staff liaison. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter suggested that Mr. Murray provide a sample Ordinance from one of the other communities with this program in place. Mr. Lee Murray said he would be happy to do so. Ms. Sue Mallory, 12258 Kirkdale Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a 30 year resident who has been on the Task Force since 1995. • Provided a copy of the Saratoga News with an letter to the editor on this subject. • Agreed that there is a need to beautify the area and move forward with these Guidelines. Acting Chair Kurasch asked Ms. Mallory what the main problems with the compromises made. Ms. Sue Mallory replied that the median strips were removed from the proposal in some areas. Commissioner Barry asked what way Ms. Mallory would make it better. Ms. Sue Mallory replied go back to business owners to see if open spaces are necessary or could they use intersections. Director Tom Sullivan explained that this compromise has been accepted by Council. If a full median was installed, only right hand exits would be allowed and people would have to go to an intersection to make a U-turn to go back in the other direction. He added that a real effort was made to come up with something that would work for most people. Ms. Zoe Alameda-Farotte: • Stated that the City was wonderful in addressing the business owners concerns about the medians and the compromise was approved by Council. • Said that there was not a large group of commercial property owners present at the Task Force meeting where the Gateway Design Guidelines were reviewed in May. • Requested that the Task Force be reconvened and include more commercial property owners. Mr. John Mallory said that there are different objectives between commercial property owners and residential property owners. Said that staff has done a good job trying to get people to these Task Force meetings. Mr. Bob Eck, Consultant, said that a number of issues have been raised and that the Task Force has tried to address these issues. Commissioner Barry said that speakers tonight have raised questions regarding how to apply these Gateway Design Guidelines to existing properties and buildings. Director Tom Sullivan said that the next step following Public Hearings on the Guidelines would be to turn them into Ordinance language. Added that the principal purpose of the Guidelines is to address redevelopment. Commissioner Hunter sought clarification that no one is proposing to tear this area out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 19 Director Tom Sullivan stated that the street improvements are underway and construction drawings are being finalized. Commissioner Zutshi asked if commercial property owners were notified. Director Tom Sullivan replied that all property owners within 500 feet will be notified of all public hearings. The work to this point was undertaken by a Task Force. Commissioner Hunter suggested an area visit. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that a site visit could be arranged closer to the Public Hearing date. Acting Chair Kurasch suggested that written comments be solicited and that a Study Session might be warranted. Director Tom Sullivan stated that Study Sessions are typically used to introduce projects to the Commission. That is what has occurred this evening as a Non-Public Hearing Item on tonight’s agenda. This discussion was intended to serve the function of a Study Session. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Eck whether there are any lots large enough to accommodate his presented scenario. Mr. Bob Eck replied no. Most are an acre or smaller, which are not viable for the scenario. It would require a combination of parcels. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the scenario is not based upon an actual property but is simply an example used to demonstrate different elements of the design guidelines. Commissioner Barry stated that the scenario really did accomplish that goal. Asked Mr. Eck if he has experience with a community that does not have Redevelopment funds. Mr. Bob Eck replied that most of his experience is through private sector redevelopment. Director Tom Sullivan said that the direction from Council was to bring both portions of the Gateway plan forward together. However, the Commission needs to take that amount of time it feels is necessary to reach a fair agreement for everybody. Ms. Danielle Surden, 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Identified herself as being the City of Saratoga’s Economic Development Coordinator. • Assured that notification efforts of commercial property and business owners were extensive and that she walked the Gateway Corridor three times to personally hand out meeting notices. • Said that she maintains the list and continues to notify of all activity. Acting Chair asked Director Sullivan what happens next. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission must give staff direction. If the Task Force continues work, he encouraged the Commission to appoint two Commissioners to participate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 20 Commissioner Garakani said that the Task Force has been meeting for a long time. Said that it would be nice to distribute the Draft Guidelines so that everyone has the chance to review them and bring up any issues at the Public Hearings. Did not recommend a continuation of the Task Force. Commissioner Hunter disagreed and said there she sees no harm in reconvening another meeting of the Task Force. Acting Chair Kurasch asked if there is funding for another meeting. Director Tom Sullivan said that would not be a problem. Commissioner Barry said that if the Commission’s Public Hearing will occur in September, the Task Force can reconvene before that time. Director Tom Sullivan said that he can make sure that all who attended at least one meeting of the Task Force will receive a copy of the draft guidelines. Commissioner Barry supported one more Task Force meeting with broad notification and handout materials distributed. Acting Chair Kurasch suggested selecting the Public Hearing date. Director Sullivan suggested the second meeting in September. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Tree Subcommittee Acting Chair Kurasch advised that the Subcommittee would like to meet with Director Sullivan. Commissioner Garakani proposed including Barrie Coates. Director Sullivan suggested a meeting with him first before including Mr. Coates as a consultant. Commissioner Barry suggested a Study Session with Barrie Coates or having a presentation from him as part of the Retreat. Design Review Subcommittee Commissioner Hunter said that she has a conflict with the scheduled Design Review Subcommittee meeting. Library Update Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 2002 Page 21 Commissioner Zutshi said that she attended the Library fieldtrip. The project is coming along and in a couple of months the walls will be in place. Commissioner Hunter asked if the completion date is still September 2003. Miscellaneous Commissioner Garakani advised that he would be absent for one month and would miss the July 24th and August 1st meetings. Commissioner Hunter advised that she would miss the first meeting in July. Acting Chair Kurasch commended Director Tom Sullivan for the acceptance of the Housing Element. COMMUNICATIONS Written – Minutes from Regular City Council Meetings of March 20, April 17 and May 7, 2002. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Kurasch adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, June 26, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk