Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Garakani and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of July 10, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the regular Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 2002, were approved as submitted with a minor corrections on pages 7 and 11. AYES: Barry, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: Hunter REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 18, 2002. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Jackman 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). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #02-072 (397-24-073) – RUEHLE, 20075 Spaich Court: Request for Design Review and Use Permit approvals to construct a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861 square foot basement. The height of the structure will be 12 feet and will be located on a 49,800 (gross) square foot lot in the R-1-20,000 zoning district. There is a 4,773 square foot single-story residence on the site. A Use Permit is required because the proposed accessory structure will be located within the rear yard setback. (VASUDEVAN ) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks Design Review and Use Permit approvals to allow a 925 square foot cabana with basement within the 60 foot required rear setback. The cabana would be a maximum of 12 feet high and is proposed at 11 feet, 6 inches from the rear property line. • Described the property as being within the Hayfield Estate development. • Informed that the owners of 18907 Hayfield have raised several issues about potential impacts to their property. As a result of those concerns, staff is proposing that a landscape plan be submitted for this neighbor’s approval. • Stated that to alleviate any concern that this unit could be used as a secondary living unit, a Condition has been added that prohibits any kitchen facilities in this cabana. • Added that staff finds that the cabana compliments the existing home, that it conforms to the Design Guidelines and that necessary findings to support the application can be met. • Recommended approval with the added Condition for neighbor approval of the screening landscaping. Commissioner Kurasch asked what was the nature of the neighbor’s concerns. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied one neighbor, located to the northeast of the project site, has concerns about the height of the proposed cabana. Commissioner Barry asked to what side this neighbor is located. Planner Lata Vasudevan answered the right side neighbor. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the side yard setback has been met. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the side yard setback is 15 feet. Commissioner Roupe asked if the pending Basement Ordinance changes were considered in the review of this proposal and whether any aspect of this proposal is contrary to this pending Ordinance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 3 Planner Lata Vasudevan advised that Council has decided to allow basements under accessory structures but not within setbacks. Commissioner Roupe asked if that is the only issue and that everything else about this proposal was compliant. Commissioner Barry added that existing State Codes governs such things. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the Uniform Building Code standards are what are applied. The single issue that differs from the draft Ordinance is allowing this cabana within the setback. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:17 p.m. Mr. Steve Benzing, Project Architect: • Advised that this is the third attempt to get a pool house on this lot. • Said that when this house was originally approved a pool house was also approved. However, a lot line adjustment occurred and the pool house was switched over to the other side of the lot and that proposal was also approved. Later the location was flipped back to the current proposed location due to Eucalyptus trees that would be impacted if left as it was proposed. • Stated that the applicant contacted the neighbors about three weeks ago and no objections were raised. The house, which will match the existing style of the home, will provide his clients with an area for gatherings along with a guestroom. The basement will house a model toy train collection that cannot be accommodated in the house. The cabana will include a sink, dishwasher and wine area but there is no intention to include a kitchen. • Stated that the original Landscape Architect has been dismissed and that he would assume the duties to complete the landscape plan. Commissioner Kurasch cautioned that the neighbors are looking for screening material such as shrubs. Mr. Scott Petters, 18107 Hayfield Court, Saratoga: • Said that he spoke with the applicants and had a nice conversation. They were very cooperative. • Stated that he is in the process of landscaping his own yard. • Expressed concern for the unknown and there are grade variations that might make this appear to be a very large structure when viewed from his property. He added that there is already a cabana on the property to the right of his. • Pointed out that his is a $5 million dollar house and this concern is a big deal to he and his wife, who is pregnant. • Said that while they are not interested in stopping their neighbors from building their dream he is asking that the Commission hold off on a decision and have a skyline installed to determine the visual impacts of this cabana from his property and allow them seven days to look at this skyline. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Petters if he ever requested this of the owners. Mr. Scott Petters replied that the owners do not reside in this house but their children do. He added that the owners are out of town. Commissioner Barry pointed out that in the past a Condition of Approval has been imposed that requires an applicant to work out a landscape plan to the mutual satisfaction of both the applicant and Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 4 adjacent neighbors. Staff is allowed to negotiate the landscape plan and only refers it back to the Planning Commission if necessary. Asked if Mr. Petters finds this to be an adequate solution to his request for a continuance. Mr. Scott Petters asked if a reduction in height by two feet or a lowering of grade by two feet might be imposed. He added that they themselves reduced the grade on their property in such a manner. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Petters if they also installed a retaining wall. Mr. Scott Petters replied yes and that it ranges from 12 to 30 inches high. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if the cabana proposed would be lower than the house itself. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the backyard is pretty level. Mr. Scott Petters asked what the difference is in elevation grade between the house itself and the shared back fence. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the cabana as proposed is but six inches above finish grade and that the basement and cabana both have only eight-foot ceilings so lowering the building is not possible. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that perhaps the roof could be flattened to lower the structure. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the roof is already pretty flat. Mr. Scott Petters said that he expected the cabana to be six feet higher than the fence and 35 feet long. Chair Jackman said that perhaps this matter would need to be continued. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the Commission would need to discuss the issues of the project before continuing it. Mr. Steve Benzing, Project Architect: • Stated that while the cabana is 30 feet wide, the ridgeline is only six feet long. A very small portion of the cabana will actually be 12 feet high. • Added that the public was noticed and that neighbors were notified. This neighbor only raised this issue in the last couple of days. • Said that if they had been asked to do so earlier in the process, they would have installed story poles but that at this late date it is unfair to request a continuance. • Pointed out that this neighbor (Mr. Petters) has something built in his own backyard already. • Stated that they have met all requirements. • Distributed a site line drawing that he stated was rough and based on some guesswork. Commissioner Roupe asked if the cabana roofline is below and covered by the home’s roofline. Mr. Steve Benzing: • Replied that the neighbor would be able to see the roofline of the cabana. • Asked that the project not be continued. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 5 • Added that if the Commission finds it necessary, they have no objection to installing story poles. Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Benzing for his site line drawing. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner Roupe said he would support this project with the condition that the applicant works to develop a landscape plan that is mutually acceptable to the applicant and neighbor. Commissioner Kurasch asked if such a condition is possible. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, the Commission has done so with past applications. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she finds the cabana to be a bit large but that every effort has been made to integrate it onto the site. Asked that adequate screening be provided. Commissioner Barry said she has the same concern but that the lot coverage will end up at 31 percent when the maximum allowable is 45 percent. Therefore, this request is reasonable. Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Steve Benzing said that as an alternative, his clients would be willing to move the cabana to the other side near the Eucalyptus trees but beyond their dripline. Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any merit to the proposal to relocate the cabana. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the site plan is done as best as it can be done as proposed. Commissioner Hunter stated that if the cabana is built near the Eucalyptus trees, the pool will be impacted and the owners will be back to request cutting them down. With adequate landscape screening this proposal should work out okay. Commissioner Kurasch stated her support for the condition proposed by Commissioner Roupe regarding the landscaping. Chair Jackman said that the project has come this far and the applicant has rights too. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #02-072) to allow a 925 square foot detached pool cabana with an 861 square foot basement on property located at 20075 Spaich Court as proposed with the added condition that a landscape plan be developed between the applicant and neighbors and mediated by staff. The landscape plan would come back to the Commission if a satisfactory solution cannot be worked out. AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 6 ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #02-047 (517-19-040) – SIADAT, 14771 Montalvo Road: Request for Modification of Approved Project to remove two provisions in the resolution for DR-99-006. The applicant requests that the requirement to dedicate and build a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail on their property be omitted from the resolution of approval. The applicant requests permission to allow a five-foot high fence beyond the front yard of the property within the City right-of-way. This is a change of the requirements that a three-foot fence be permitted in the front yard of the property as permitted by Resolution DR-99- 006. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Modification of a Design Review that was granted November 10, 1999. The home is now constructed. The applicants want to have Condition No 5 and Condition No. 11 removed from the Resolution. Condition No. 5 requires a 10 feet dedication for a pedestrian easement to allow access from Montalvo to Vickery. Condition No. 11 limits the fence to be located in the front, within the public right-of-way, to three feet in height. • Stated that staff is recommending that the requirement for the pedestrian access be upheld. • Informed that staff has reviewed fencing along Montalvo Road. Twelve properties have five to six- foot fences. Thirteen properties have no fence or hedge at all. Five properties have three-foot high fences. Therefore, there is no clear precedent set. • Reminded that the Montalvo Road fence would be located entirely within the City’s right-of-way. The encroachment permit for a three-foot fence should be upheld. The Vickery Road fence is within the front yard and a Variance could be granted. Commissioner Barry: • Asked staff to clarify the legal liability issue raised. • Stated that there is no change in liability as compared to having a sidewalk. • Inquired if there is an exaction or taking here. Planner Ann Welsh stated that the application required a Building Site Approval and a tradeoff was made whereas the applicant was given greater floor area in trade for accommodating the pedestrian access trail on the property. Commissioner Barry stated that the legal liability and taking issues have been dealt with. Chair Jackman pointed out that the Commission has received a letter from the applicant’s attorney. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification about the encroachment permit and fencing in the right-of- way. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not apply to property within the City’s right-of-way. The Public Works Department has jurisdiction over those areas within the public right- of-way and issues encroachment permits for any construction activity on that occurs there. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Kurasch asked if this property was previously fenced. Planner Ann Welsh replied not according to records. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are reports of accidents or injuries as a result of this area being unfenced. Planner Ann Welsh said that staff does not have enough history to know that. Added that Caltrans has stated that there is no history in this area and that the pedestrian access path is not recommended. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the flooding issues on the property have been corrected sufficiently. Planner Ann Welsh said that the piping of the culvert addresses that issue. Commissioner Hunter asked if such encroachments for fencing within the public right-of-way are commonly granted. Planner Ann Welsh replied that allowing this is unusual per the Public Works Director. The beneficial result in this case is a lessening of the area that the City will have to maintain. Commissioner Kurasch asked about maintenance issues in the right-of-way, stating her understanding that every property owner is expected to maintain the right-of-way in front of their property. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this varies. Added that most cities expect to maintain the right-of- way. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8 p.m. Ms. Lorraine Siadat, Applicant and Property Owner, 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga: • Stated that she has resided in Saratoga for 23 years and is active in the community. • Said that she seeks to replace a six-foot wood fence with a 5-foot wrought iron fence, which is needed for security and privacy. • Pointed out that hundreds of people visit Montalvo for concerts, driving up their street to access the venues. • Added that the drainage system accumulates about four feet of water in winter months, which is why they are seeking a five-foot fence. • Stated that in her 17 years on this property, she has called the sheriff about 17 times to report accidents. The last time was in April when a head-on accident occurred at the proposed location of the pedestrian access path. • Said that the proposed path would require construction of a bridge to go over the swale that is four feet deep by eight feet wide. The proposed path would send pedestrians blindly onto Vickery and Montalvo Roads. • Pointed out that there are no lights in this area and that there are other safer options for pedestrians. • Added that Caltrans sees no reason for this path and that neighbors oppose the path and support their fence height variance. • Asked the Commission to remove the Condition of the pedestrian access trail and to approve the fence height variance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Roupe stated that there is indeed a point in having the pedestrian trail access easement. With it pedestrians can walk all the way to Downtown Saratoga without having to go onto Highway 9. That’s the point. Commissioner Barry said that there was objection to the original proposed location of the cut through and the Commission, neighbors and applicant reached a compromise agreement and moved the placement of the trail access. Commissioner Hunter said that she uses the path all the time. Commissioner Barry pointed out to Ms. Siadat that she did not object once the placement of the proposed trail access was moved. Ms. Lorraine Siadat replied that the typography of her property has since changed to accommodate the drainage system and questioned who would build the bridge necessary to cross the swale. Commissioner Roupe reminded Ms. Siadat that she knew the culvert would be necessary to deal with drainage issues. Commissioner Kurasch asked for clarification that the newly constructed wood fence would be continued on with the wrought iron fence. Planner Ann Welsh advised that the three-foot fence would meet up with the six-foot fence. Commissioner Kurasch proposed that the Siadats move the fence to the property line to have a six-foot high fence and leave the fence at three feet on Montalvo and Vickery. Ms. Lorraine Siadat said that all the nearby neighbors have five-foot fences. Chair Jackman pointed out that the fact that this proposed fence would be on the public right-of-way is the issue. Mr. Bob Zager, 20292 Calle Montalvo, Saratoga: • Said that he lives uphill from the applicant and is in support of the staff recommendation. • Stated that the pedestrian path is a great idea and will be a benefit to people. • Asked what type of improvements would be permitted within the encroachment area. Planner Ann Welsh answered that the encroachment simply addresses the installation of the fence. If necessary, the City could remove anything at will improperly placed within the public right-of-way. If anything else is desired in the public right-of-way a specific encroachment permit would have to be obtained. Mr. Chris Allen, 20415 Montalvo Oaks, Saratoga: • Expressed his backing for the City plan. • Said that the three-foot fence is a good compromise. • Said that the original plan should be supported. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 9 Mr. James Hawley, Applicant’s Attorney, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel: • Disagreed with the City and Commission’s assessment of liability. • Stated that the proposed pedestrian access trail would be more dangerous than current conditions. Commissioner Barry: • Asked Mr. Hawley if he personally looked at the area in question and found it to be dangerous. • Stated that his clients received the benefits of the agreement and asked how to undo those benefits. Mr. James Hawley replied that he had not personally looked at the area and offered no suggestions about dealing with the benefits received with the original approval. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Hawley what new information he can provide to warrant excusing these conditions. Mr. James Hawley replied the requirement to construct a bridge and potential liability his client faces. Commissioner Roupe stated that the Siadat’s knew the swale was necessary and that this does not represent new information. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:28 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that the issue of the public easement was perfectly clear in 1999 and discussions were held regarding tradeoffs. • Said that the understanding was clear that the easement equaled convenience to the public. • Concurred with staff’s view and added that there is no need to relax the position taken at that time. Commissioner Barry agreed. Commissioner Hunter agreed that nothing has changed to remove the requirement of the easement. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that the applicant has received an encroachment permit and entitlements. • Supported staff on both issues (pedestrian access and fence height). • Pointed out that a beautiful home has gone up and the applicant must keep their bargain. Commissioner Barry read out the condition from page 28 of the report that stated at that the property owners shall dedicate a 10-foot wide easement that shall be improved to minimum City standards prior to final occupancy. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that the owners knew the swale was necessary. Pointed out that the requirement had been that the trail access be installed prior to occupancy. The owners were granted leniency on that requirement and obtained a final subject to a bond. This work should have already been done as part of the overall construction of the project. Commissioner Kurasch said that she has no support for the five foot fence but rather supports conformance with the Public Works requirements. Wondered how many other fences are located within the public right-of-way. Since it is public property, the City has to be careful how it is used. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 10 Commissioner Hunter concurred. Commissioner Barry also concurred. She added that the three-foot fence would be fine and look nice. Commissioner Roupe said that he supports the concept of the three-foot high fence. He added that no new information has been presented to change the original decision and that he will stand by the original decision. Chair Jackman concurred. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission upheld the original Conditions and denied a request for a Modification of Approved Project for 14771 Montalvo Road. AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Jackman allowed Mr. Medhi Siadat to address the Commission. Mr. Medhi Siadat, Applicant and Property Owner, 14771 Montalvo Road, Saratoga: • Declared that his property was a piece of trash before he owned it. • Said that he is being penalized with the limit to a three-foot high fence. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 Application #02-127 – CITY OF SARATOGA, Austin Way: Request to designate all of Austin Way a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway that was built in 1904. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that the Heritage Preservation Commission is recommending that Austin Way be designated a Heritage Lane, creating a Heritage Lane Zoning Overlay. • Advised that 15 communications were received. Three were included in the packet and the remainder distributed this evening. Three were not in support. Two were in support of the preservation of the brick roadway but were not supportive of the 10-foot review area. Ten were in support. • Added that the intent is to protect and preserve the brick roadway. The Heritage Lane designation would allow the City to obtain grants for the preservation and maintenance of the brick road. The proposal is that all of Austin Way be designated as a Heritage Lane. Although the old brick road is not visible along the entire street, efforts will be taken to see if there is any old brick roadway covered up further up the road. • Pointed out that Austin Way is also located across Highway 9 but that portion of the street is located in Monte Sereno and would not be included in this Heritage Lane Overlay. • Informed that Austin Way is named in honor of Daniel B. Austin, who bought the property in 1882 and co-founded a winery. A local school is named in his honor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 11 • Said that the Saratoga segment is one of the few brick paved highways left. • Stated that the project meets necessary criteria and is consistent with the City’s General Plan. • Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to Council. Commissioner Hunter advised that there is already one Heritage Lane, Saratoga Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviews changes to the homes on that street. Asked if that would also be true in this case. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the Section in the Ordinance allows flexibility. On Saratoga Lane the homes are reviewed because these are historic homes. There are no designated historic homes along Austin Way. The only section of these properties that would be subject to review for any major changes is the 10 feet closest to the public right-of-way. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some letters indicate a concern over the impacts of this Heritage Lane Overlay on their homes. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that any significant changes within 10 feet of the road would require review. Commissioner Roupe reminded that there are no historic homes. Added that any fences already in place would be grandfathered and could be maintained and/or repaired. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that Commissioner Roupe is correct. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any additional restrictions on use of property as a result of Heritage Lane Overlay and if the residents would be looking at any additional costs, fees or surcharges. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that there would be no direct costs imposed on the residents. Staff did budget some funds to place new signs commemorating the Heritage Lane designation. Additionally, any future patches would be more expensive for the City to install because the patches would have to be done in brick rather than asphalt. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the right-of-way distance. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that the right-of-way is 40 feet. The brick road itself is 18 to 20 feet wide but the City owns 40 feet. There could be up to 10 feet of City-owned shoulder on each side of the brick roadway. The proposed Heritage Lane designation would add another 10 feet on the private property for review when any major construction is proposed such as walls and fences. Commissioner Hunter suggested limiting truck traffic on this brick road and asked if these large trucks cause damage to the bricks. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that he did not know the answer to that question but that the Safety Commission could look into that matter and consider establishing limits. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the street is used for construction access as well as weekly garbage collection and that these vehicles would have to continue to have access to provide these uses. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 12 Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission is present as well as another member of the Commission. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:56 p.m. Ms. Neema Malhotra, 19088 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Asked whether it is known if this designation would affect property values in either a negative or positive way. Commissioner Hunter replied that the designation adds character and is a wonderful distinction. Informed that this is an original road between Los Gatos and Saratoga. Chair Jackman said that she believes the Heritage Lane designation would probably raise property values. The other street so designated is Saratoga Avenue. Ms. Neema Malhotra asked about additional restrictions. Chair Jackman restated that the only area requiring review is the 10 feet of private property adjacent to the public right-of-way. Commissioner Barry added that the Heritage Preservation Commission would review only major changes. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that driving on brick roads slows traffic down. Mr. Vino Malhotra, 19088 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he is against the proposed Heritage Lane designation because there is no historic significance. There are no structures, homes and/or landmarks on this street. • Added that it is unclear what the City will do to the public right-of-way. • Said that he finds this would create an unnecessary burden of additional review processes. • Suggested limiting the designation simply to the 40 feet of public right-of-way. Mr. Tom Keeble, 19041 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that he has lived on Austin Way for 18 years and started a petition to preserve the brick road several years ago when he began noticing that repairs to the brick road were being performed with asphalt. • Advised that he is interested in preventing repairs of the brick road with asphalt in the future. • Responded to concerns raised about the noise of driving on this road by stating that as long as posted speeds are met, there is no noise impact. Speed driving on the road does increase its noise levels. • Added that the concerns mentioned about wear and tear on vehicles from the brick road do not have merit. The road is but 700 feet long and will not increase wear and tear of vehicles in any significant way. • Pointed out that this is a 98-year-old brick road and that the only thing that has been done over the last 18 years is the painting of double yellow lines twice. • Encouraged the Commission to pass the proposal on to Council with a recommendation of approval. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Keeble if he feels this road is significant. Mr. Tom Keeble replied yes. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. Keeble that she was serving on the Heritage Preservation Commission when he first brought forward his idea to preserve this brick road and thanked him for his efforts. Mr. Willys Peck, 14275 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that he resides on the only existing Heritage Lane. • Stated that this designation involves a trade off. • Said that he does not argue with opponents concerns about the wear on cars but said that if something is worth preserving, doing so can involve a trade off. • Informed that the Heritage Lane designation for Saratoga Avenue came about because of rumors of plans to widen it. Mr. Larry Fine circulated a petition. • Proposed that the Commission preserve this scenic resource which he refers to as the “mellow brick road.” • Added that the inconvenience can be offset by historic value of this roadway. It is worth preserving some pieces of our historical past. • Stated that he was disappointed when Monte Sereno paved over the only existing portion of the trolley tracks there. • Advised that he has lived here all of his life and had ridden the streetcars when they were there. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Peck if he felt that his property value decreased or increased with the Heritage Lane designation for Saratoga Avenue. Mr. Willys Peck replied that he cannot offer an opinion but pointed out that he paid $12,000 for his home in 1951 and it was not so long ago appraised for $1.2 million. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Peck, a long-time member of the Heritage Preservation Commission, whether he has any concerns that the Heritage Preservation Commission and/or City will be difficult with property owners over the 10 feet adjacent to the public right-of-way and what kinds of things they might recommend against. Mr. Willys Peck replied that the HPB would probably not look at much more than fences. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the long-term effect if the brick road is not designated a Heritage Lane. Mr. Willys Peck answered that it would likely be repaved with asphalt and at some point redone altogether. Added that other brick sections along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road have already been taken out. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that people who deal with the Heritage Preservation Commission get the opportunity to speak with Mr. Peck, the Town’s historian. Mr. Deon Glajchen, 19100 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for their time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 14 • Said that he submitted an email and is supportive of the concept to preserve the historic road but has concerns about the 10-foot restriction. • Added that he understands the spirit but is not sure why any restrictions are required for the 10 feet of private property. • Asked what is meant by major construction and whether it would impact plans to enlarge a fence. • Suggested that any proposed restrictions be clearly stated now. • Pointed out that the section of Austin Way across from the Fire Station serves as a parking area for construction vehicles and that is something that should be looked into. • Agreed that sticking to posted speeds would prevent noise issues from driving on this brick road. Commissioner Roupe said that the road itself is 20 feet wide. There is a 10-foot City right-of-way on both sides of the street and the 10 feet directly adjacent on the private property to the public right-of- way would require review for major construction. Agreed that the parking near the Fire Station is unsightly but pointed out that it is not within Saratoga jurisdiction. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that it is in the Caltrans right-of-way. Commissioner Roupe suggested asking Caltrans to post this area as no parking if possible. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Glajchen to be more specific about his plans to enlarge his fence. Added that there may be existing Codes that apply already to his plans. Mr. Deon Glajchen agreed that existing Codes may exist but restated that it may not be necessary to impose additional restrictions on the 10 feet of private property adjacent to the roadway. Commissioner Barry said that having review of the first 10 feet is simply an insurance. Mr. Deon Glajchen said that it would represent a burden on the property owners and that he fails to see the value in such added restrictions. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Glajchen what he sees as being onerous with this requirement. Mr. Deon Glajchen replied that it simply represents additional restrictions that don’t exist elsewhere in Saratoga. Associate Planner John Livingstone clarified that significant changes includes only landscaping, paving or construction. This would not include the planting of annuals but rather structures such as walls. Added that there is already a limit to the amount that can be done anyway as it is within this setback area. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the Heritage Lane designation will allow the City to apply for grants to return Austin Way’s brick road to its original state. Associate Planner John Livingstone assured that the 10-foot review area does not represent an easement and really only affects the installation of fences, colored paving or driveways. It is very limited in scope but is intended to prevent extreme things from happening. Mr. Deon Glajchen asked if the Commission has that jurisdiction now. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 15 Associate Planner John Livingstone replied no. As long as a wall is three feet high or less only a Building Permit is required. Mr. Deon Glajchen stressed his belief that this requirement is too open ended and he still has concerns. Commissioner Kurasch said that there are very limited things that can be done now within that 10 feet other than a wall or fence. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that existing walls or fences would be grandfathered. Mr. Azmat Siddiqi, 19102 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that it is a privilege to be a landowner and to have Austin Way declared a Heritage Lane. • Added that placing a commemorative plaque is a good idea. • Agreed that brick roads do reduce speeds. • Stated that the 10-foot regulations are of concern. • Pointed out that he has a stone retaining wall within this 10-foot area that he wants to replace. • Added that he currently has egress on two streets. His main driveway is on Highway 9. He would rather have the main driveway off Austin Way and seal off the driveway to Highway 9. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that Mr. Siddiqi discuss his plans with Public Works and Planning staff. Chair Jackman advised that this Heritage Lane designation will not change rules for a driveway. Commissioner Barry agreed that this is not a Heritage Lane issue but rather is governed by existing regulations. Ms. Joty Lulla, 19099 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that she supports the Heritage Lane designation but has concerns about the 10-foot extension to the shoulder, which may encroach on existing landscaping. • Said that she has lived here for 20 years. • Declared that the 10-foot public right-of-way has not been maintained to this point and questioned who would pay for improvements. Associate Planner John Livingstone answered that it depends on resources. The City maintains the entire right-of-way. As for existing landscaping, the City would work with property owners. There are a lot of variables. Ms. Joty Lulla: • Stated that the additional 10-foot is bothersome and that she would like to see some specifications about proposed restrictions in use of that 10-foot area. • Pointed out that the road is in dire need of repair as every day another brick comes out. Chair Jackman pointed out that Heritage Lanes have access to grants to finance improvements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Kurasch said that she is in favor of the Heritage Lane designation but questioned the need to be restrictive for the 10 feet of private property. Associate Planner John Livingstone stated that the dimensions given are approximate. Ms. Dawn Glajchen, 19100 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that she supports Heritage Lane designation but has concerns about further restrictions being imposed in the future. Director Tom Sullivan advised that to impose additional changes would require a series of public hearings before the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council before they could be adopted. These would be noticed meetings that have the same bureaucratic process that has occurred with this proposal. Ms. Dawn Glajchen stated that it creates a more difficult process and that she would hate to see more restrictions at a later date. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Glajchen to define restrictions. Ms. Dawn Glajchen said building restrictions including style of architecture. Commissioner Kurasch restated that the proposed Ordinance deals with the road and 10 feet of private property from the front property line. All that it results in is a review of proposed work. Questioned what it is about that review process that results in a restriction. Ms. Dawn Glajchen said that she has a three-foot fence now and she wants a larger fence in the future. Said that this is too open ended and vague and more definition would be in order. Cautioned that it would be easier to place more restrictions later down the line. Mr. Norm Koepernik, Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission: • Said that the intent is not to place restrictions on property but rather to preserve the only brick road remaining in Santa Clara County. • Added that another benefit is the ability to seek State grants. • Assured that there are no major restrictions intended with this Ordinance. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that many in the audience seem to support the concept of preserving the road. Asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if the 10-foot review area on the private property enhances the ability to obtain grants. Mr. Norm Koepernik replied yes. It would give the City more clout with the State. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if he sees any need to intensify restrictions on Austin Way in the future and asked him to describe for those in attendance the process they might have to go through with the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Norm Koepernik said that there would be no intensification in the future and that the Heritage Lane Overlay would not affect the review of people’s homes. The present Ordinance on fencing is already in Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 17 effect. There would be no restrictions on planting. Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission is more user friendly than the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the HPC would not prohibit but rather simply review proposals. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if the HPC is prepared to write up the commemorative signs. Mr. Norm Koepernik replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Norm Koepernik if there are any estimates on the costs to restore Austin Way’s brick road. Mr. Norm Koepernik replied no. He said that all repairs would have to be put back to brick standards and no more asphalt patches would be permitted. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:56 p.m. Commissioner Barry said that Heritage Lane designation has significant benefits and not a lot of down sides. Proposed add the following text to the draft Ordinance, “and subject only to the following…” and “…construction (for example fences, walls or drainage.) Commissioner Roupe stated that he has no problem with the added language. Commissioner Hunter said she has no problem and supports the proposal. Stated that the brick road is wonderful and is a piece of history. Commissioner Kurasch said the term “significant” is a problem for her and needs to be more specific. Director Tom Sullivan suggested “any drainage, fences, walls and paving.” Commissioner Barry suggested using “hardscape” and added that nothing is said about plants. Chair Jackman proposed “significant construction such as drainage, fences, walls and paving.” Commissioner Roupe reminded that existing structures are grandfathered and repairs can be accommodated. Director Tom Sullivan advised that this is in the Zoning Ordinance already. Commissioner Kurasch: • Asked if the requirement for review of activity within the 10-feet of private property would remain or not. She added that she was not sure this additional 10-foot area for review was necessary. • Said that she wants the public to be aware of the action as a positive improvement. Commissioner Barry said that if staff feels it is necessary to have review authority over the 10-foot private property area adjacent to the public right-of-way, she is willing to support them. Said that this Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 18 will help with the securing of grants. This Ordinance is as good as the Commission can get it before passing it on to Council. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to Council to designate all of Austin Way as a Heritage Lane to preserve the existing brick roadway that was built in 1904 with the added text as follows, “and subject only to the following…” and “…that any significant landscape, paving or construction such as fences, walls or drains within 10 feet…” AYES: Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the Subcommittee on Streamlining take up the issue of timeliness in receiving written communications. Chair Jackman said that the Commission can’t read so much material at the last minute. COMMISSION ITEMS Site Visits Commissioner Barry brought up the timing of site visits and asked how 11:30 to 1:30 worked. Commissioner Kurasch said that it was better for her. Commissioner Barry asked if the Commission was willing to try this time one more time. Commissioner Hunter said the timing is inconvenient as it breaks up the day. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the notice for the next site visit has been prepared yet. Director Tom Sullivan replied not yet. Commissioner Barry asked how 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. would work. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission could try 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. for the August 13th site visits. Commissioners’ Retreat Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the dates for the Retreat and asked if it is still planned for a Saturday. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 24, 2002 Page 19 Director Tom Sullivan said that the Retreat is typically held on a Saturday. An agenda is prepared and speakers lined up. Asked the Commissioners to call or email Kristin with bad dates to narrow the potential dates down. Tree Committee Commissioner Kurasch advised that the Tree Committee has meet and gone over issues. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communication items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, August 14, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk