Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-23-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Barry, Hunter and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Planner Christy Oosterhouse, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Ann Welsh APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of January 9, 2002. As there was not a quorum present eligible to vote on the January 9, 2002, Planning Minutes, the vote will carry forward to the February 13, 2002 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 17, 2002. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director 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 January 23, 2002 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-01-034 (503-20-061) – BARKATULLAH, 20520 Verde Vista Lane: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,134 square foot residence and construct a new 4,320 square foot two-story residence with a 1,771 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure will be 22 feet. The 21,778 square foot parcel is zoned R-1-12,500. (VASUDEVAN) Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,134 square foot residence and the construction of a new 4,320 square foot two-story residence with a 1,771 square foot basement. The maximum height will be 22 feet. The property is zoned R-1-12,500. • Described the proposed house as a contemporary style home and distributed a colored elevation and color board. • Informed that this applicant has worked with his neighbors and that a letter of support has been distributed as a table item this evening. • Added that one neighbor originally had concerns about views and privacy impacts but those concerns have since been resolved. • Pointed out that there are a large number of trees on this property. The Arborist’s report has been revised and the location of the driveway has been altered to retain tree #30, a coastal redwood. • Said that staff is conditioning a final landscape plan prior to issuance of building permits. • Said that this project complies with design guidelines and is compatible with the neighborhood in style, proportion and height. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe questioned a statement on page five of the staff report that says that the large front setback and mature trees would mitigate the perception of height and bulk. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that the setbacks for this home are larger than the older setback standards used when other homes on the street were built. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the plans do not identify which of the fireplaces is wood burning and which are gas. Planner Lata Vasudevan assured that a condition will be included that states that only one wood- burning fireplace is allowed by Code. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Gulon Mahzad, Project Architect: • Said that he would be available for any questions. • Said that this contemporary style matches this neighborhood and that they have saved as many of the trees on the property as was possible, following the recommendations of the Arborist. • Added that they have met all setback and height limitations. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she visited this site yesterday and that her main concern is the number of trees proposed for removal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Gulon Mahzad, Project Architect, said that they had inquired about reducing the front setback in order to preserve some of the trees but are unable to do so. Commissioner Kurasch said that it might be possible to grant a Variance to the front yard setback. Mr. Gulon Mahzad said that that concern was raised early. Acting Chair Jackman asked what the total number of trees is for this property. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied 32 trees were impacted. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that other homes on the street are located closer to the street. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the other homes are approximately 25 feet from the front property line. Director Tom Sullivan elaborated by saying that this lot was created in 1999 under new rules for setbacks. Commissioner Garakani expressed concern that this change in setback might actually disturb the look of the neighborhood and asked how many trees would be impacted if the house location were moved. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that tree #26 could be retained. However, staff explored the possibility of a Variance and was unable to make the necessary findings for support of such a Variance. Director Tom Sullivan added that the shape, topography or some physical condition of the lot is necessary to support such a Variance both per Code and State Law. Commissioner Garakani said that the proper use of land is very important and that having a smaller front setback would give the property owner the use of a larger back yard. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the new house next door also meets the new setback requirement of 44 feet. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether homes that might be remodeled or rebuilt would have to conform to these new setback standards. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the legal setback requirements are based upon what was in effect at the time a particular lot was created. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that when staff refers to trees being “impacted,” that means removed. Asked if the pine trees are designated for removal. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that the Arborist has not designated the pine trees for removal however the final landscape plan would be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Kurasch pointed out two balconies on the plans, one in front of the garage and the second to the rear and said that they provide the potential for privacy impacts. Mr. Azam Barkatullah, Applicant and Property Owner, 20520 Verde Vista Lane, advised that his neighbors to the rear want to have the pines removed and replaced with evergreen trees. They are proposing redwood trees in replacement. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that this house is proposed at the maximum allowable. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that this is a fine house with a good design. • Said that it is important to make it clear that the landscape plan must be finalized prior to issuance of building permits. • Expressed support for this application. Commissioner Garakani: • Pointed out that a neighbor’s letter addresses concern that a walnut tree (#42) could be damaged during construction. Acting Chair Jackman advised that, per the Arborist’s report, a protective fence will be placed around tree #42. Commissioner Kurasch: • Reiterated her main concerns as being the appropriateness of the size and design of this house. • Offered that one solution would be the scaling back of the home. • Said that the setback issue is confusing and that she could support moving the house away from the London plane tree. • Commended the applicant for his work with his neighbors. Commissioner Garakani asked staff if the Commission could make findings for support of a Variance to move this house forward on the site. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Acting Chair Jackman clarified that a Variance does not appear to be in order and that there will be replanted trees on this parcel. Commissioner Kurasch added that there is still potential to scale back this house. Acting Chair Jackman pointed out that the trees slated for removal are located at the center of the available building envelope. Commissioner Garakani added that this house, at only 25 percent lot coverage, is actually a reasonable size for this lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 5 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved DR-01-034 to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 20520 Verde Vista Lane as proposed. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-98-046 & UP 98-015 – AZULE CROSSING, 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: The applicant requests Planning Commission approval for existing exterior lighting at the residential portion of the Azule Crossing development located at Harvest Lane. (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval for existing exterior lighting at the residential portion of the Azule Crossing development. • Added that the lighting proposal is identical to that reviewed by the Commission for the commercial portion of Azule Crossing. • Said that staff is recommending the removal of one fixture (#51412). • Informed that due to some vandalism, staff provided temporary authorization for this installation until final Planning Commission approval could be secured. • Added that since the lights were turned on a week ago, no complaints have been received. Commissioner Roupe reminded that there had been considerable debate about the commercial lighting plan. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that there was a memo from the planner that outlined the concerns as being scale and frequency and the importance of keeping glare from impacting the adjacent residential uses. Commissioner Roupe remembered that the Commission had deferred the matter back to staff for final approval. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is correct. Commissioner Garakani asked when the temporary approval was issued. Planner Christy Oosterhous advised that staff authorized PG&E to turn the lights on a week ago. Director Tom Sullivan added that the fixtures had already been installed and staff had to advise the applicants that Planning Commission approval would be required. Commissioner Kurasch said that she thought the project had but one owner. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 6 Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the commercial and residential portions of this project are separately owned. Director Tom Sullivan added that the project was bifurcated. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the two owners do talk to each other. Commissioner Kurasch asked what the requirements are for glare or coverage. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that staff refers to accepted industry standards and that this installation falls within the acceptable range. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:41 p.m. Mr. Dave Krasowski, Representative, Classic Communities: • Said that their application was submitted in November 2000 but that most of the planning staff around at that time have since left. • Said that complying with staff’s recommendation to remove one fixture is not a problem as long as the fixture on the commercial side is left on all night. If not, the lighting in that area would be inadequate. Commissioner Roupe suggested that it might be better to keep this fixture on the residential side and remove one from the commercial side. Director Tom Sullivan said that alternately the applicant could find another location for this one fixture. Commissioner Kurasch suggested placing this fixture on the corner near the arbor feature. Mr. Dave Krasowski: • Said that they want to ensure that the lights stay on all night. • Added that he can work this out with the commercial property owner. • Stated that taking out a fixture altogether is a lot easier than relocating that fixture. Commissioner Garakani suggested that smaller lighting be placed on the fence. Mr. Dave Krasowski said that staff finds that one fixture to be redundant and that there is not the need for more light in that area. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the Commission take staff’s recommendation to remove the one fixture with the understanding that the light fixture on the commercial portion stays on at night. Director Tom Sullivan said that if no agreement to that condition can be made, staff will leave this one fixture as a matter of public safety. Acting Chair Jackman asked Mr. Krasowski if he would like to see that fixture retained in the interest of public safety. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Dave Krasowski replied yes. Commissioner Garakani asked staff to clarify their reasoning for removal of this one fixture. Planner Christy Oosterhous said that this recommendation is in response to the Commission’s previous concern regarding frequency of fixtures, mainly aesthetics. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she take issue with another fixture, #51413, located on Harvest Lane. This light pole is located between Lots 15 and 16. The placement is right outside the windows and is in conflict with the tree. There is no aesthetic logic for this location. • Suggested the move of fixture #51413 to the other side between Lots 14 and 15, outside the garage. Commissioner Roupe suggested moving fixture #51413 across the street. Mr. Dave Krasowski: • Said that the fixtures as placed are evenly distributed. Moving that fixture would lessen the lighting for Lots 6 and 7. • Pointed out that the light being case is down and forward and the placement is such that the impact is less across the street. Commissioner Roupe expressed support with staff’s recommendation to remove one fixture. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch said that she supports Commissioner Roupe’s suggestion to move the fixture across the street. She questioned whether the tree planted near this fixture would adversely impact in the future. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that within 10 years, the tree and lighting fixture might be in conflict as currently placed. Planner Christy Oosterhous offered that she actually thinks that the tree canopy would grow over the light fixture over time. Director Tom Sullivan added that he was not sure the space for this coast oak is large enough to accommodate this tree over time and there is the option to move that tree. Commissioner Kurasch asked if this is within the Commission’s purview. Acting Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Dave Krasowski: • Stated that it would not be a better situation if the fixture is moved across the street as it would then be right in front of Lot 5. • Agreed that they could relocate or replace the oak tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Garakani asked about moving two lights. Mr. Dave Krasowski pointed out that there are bedrooms over the garage that would be impacted by the move. Said that the fixtures were placed so as to cast light on the street and away from buildings. Acting Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8 p.m. Commissioner Garakani expressed support for staff recommendation to remove fixture #51412 as well as the relocation of the oak tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved the existing exterior lighting for the residential Harvest Lane portion of the Azule Crossing development (DR-98-045 & UP-98-015) on property located at 12340 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the added Conditions: 1. To remove fixture #51412; 2. To relocate the oak tree behind fixture #51413; and 3. That the applicant work with the commercial property owner to ensure adequate overnight lighting; AYES:Garakani, Jackman and Roupe NOES: Kurasch ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 DR-01-023 (503-23-016, Lot 1) – SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Lot 1: Request for Design Review approval to construct a one-story craftsman style single-family residence on a newly established 18,569 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three-car garage is 4,206 square feet with a basement area of 994 square feet. The maximum height of the house will be 18 feet. The site is zoned R-1-15,000. (WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to construct a 4,206 square foot single-story residence with a maximum height of 18 feet and a 994 square foot basement. • Described the lot as 18,560 square feet gross and 18,309 net. • Said that the proposed home is a craftsman style that is compatible with the Julia Morgan home located within this subdivision. The home is L-shaped and includes a cross-gabled roof and attached garage. The home fronts onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Outlined the major issues, which include: • a non-conforming rear yard setback of 12 feet; • the requirement for a 43.5 foot front yard setback; • privacy issues for the adjacent neighbor to the north whose home is located six feet and 10 inches from the property line and whose kitchen, bedroom and bathroom windows require measures to ensure privacy; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 9 • the fact that the light wells on the north side fall within the setback for which the City’s policy has been not to permit; and • The need to establish a maintenance agreement for the planted streetscape that was required with the approval of this subdivision. • Advised that staff is recommending approval of this residence with the elimination of the non- conforming rear yard setback, the assurance of privacy for the neighbors and the conformance of the light wells. Commissioner Roupe: • Agreed that the terrace feature does encroach and needs to be brought into conformance. • Suggested that the house be move forward but questioned whether that would impact trees. • Asked staff how they suggest this project could be brought into conformance. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied that the house would only need to be moved to the east by eight feet. Commissioner Roupe said that there are a lot of beautiful trees. Director Tom Sullivan added that the move of the structure should be subject to review by the Arborist and that the reduction of the terrace should bring the project into compliance. Commissioner Roupe asked about the light well issue. Director Tom Sullivan said that since his tenure as Community Development Director in May 2001, the interpretation of the Codes is such that light wells are no longer permitted within setback areas. Commissioner Roupe suggested either eliminated the light well altogether or moving the house sideways. Commissioner Kurasch: • Asked why the retaining wall is required for the driveway. • Suggested conditioning minimal retaining walls on this project and that the use of retaining walls be eliminated where possible. • Questioned the best way to phrase that condition. Director Tom Sullivan said that the Commission’s desire is clear and suggested adding the language “pursuant to the approval of the Public Works Director.” Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:17 p.m. Mr. David Britt, Project Architect: • Thanked staff and made himself available for questions. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Britt how he could bring the terrace into conformance. Mr. David Britt replied that he thought the house could be left as proposed and simply not attach the terrace to the home but rather construct basically a patio instead. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 10 Director Tom Sullivan cautioned that if the terrace/patio is above grade it represents a structure within the setback but if it is constructed at grade that it is not an issue. Commissioner Roupe added that steps would be required to access the patio from the house. He asked Mr. Britt how he proposed to deal with the light well issue. Mr. David Britt replied that this is a new issue for them. Added that there is a 12-foot side yard setback and nine feet between the fence and light well which seems a good dimension. Commissioner Kurasch clarified that this light well represents a structure within a setback. Acting Chair Jackman clarified for Mr. Britt that in the past the Code in this respect was not always enforced completely. Suggested that the house be moved forward and angled to solve the problems. Commissioner Roupe questioned whether there was any other area of the basement more appropriate for the light well. Acting Chair Jackman suggested that the basement be placed under the garage with the light well to the right. Mr. David Britt agreed that this would be possible. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the long look of this home and asked why a second story was not considered in order to create a smaller footprint. Acting Chair Jackman said that this single story design is a good solution to preventing privacy impacts on the neighbor above. Mr. David Britt agreed that this is a key reason for the single-story design and said that there is still plenty of opportunity to relocated the basement to satisfy the setback policy. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff is willing to work with the applicant to work out the location of the light well. Commissioner Roupe said that the condition could be included that the light well will not be located within the required setback. Mr. David Britt said that the slight adjustment to the location of the house or the relocation of the basement or a combination of the two would solve these issues. Acting Chair Jackman asked staff for suggestions on how to phrase that condition. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could direct staff to work these issues out with the applicant. Commissioner Roupe clarified that the issues to be worked out include the terrace, light well and the maintenance agreement for the streetscape. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 11 Assistant Planner Ann Welsh reminded that 63 feet of frontage for this Lot must be planted with streetscape landscaping. Acting Chair Jackman inquired whether there would be a homeowners association for this project. Mr. Larry Schuck, Property Owner/Applicant: • Promised that the maintenance agreement issue is still to be worked out. • Listed one possible solution by having each owner responsible for 25 percent. • Said that another option is to have the property owners responsible for any streetscape landscaping in front of their respective lots, specifically Lots 1 and 4, which seems to be the most straightforward. Acting Chair Jackman asked if there is a map that shows all lots. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied no since this evening’s hearings are for the Design Review of each individual parcel. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the open space is a common parcel owned by the four lots. Added that it would be necessary to have one single point of contact. Commissioner Kurasch how to ensure the continuity of the streetscape. Director Tom Sullivan replied by conditioning that this occurs prior to issuance of building permits. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the applicant work with Public Works to eliminate any conflicts with tree #12 and the retaining wall. Mr. Larry Schuck said that he could probably eliminate that retaining wall completely. Commissioner Roupe said that the elimination of that retaining wall should be included in the conditions of approval. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:38 p.m. Commissioner Roupe said that with the added conditions to deal with the terrace, light well, streetscape maintenance and the elimination of the retaining wall, this is a nicely designed house that fits well and for which he has no other reservations. Commissioner Garakani asked what the neighbors’ concerns are and what will solve them. Assistant Planner replied that buffering trees would solve the concerns of the neighbors. Commissioner Garakani suggested moving the house to the east by eight feet because he was very concerned over the fact that the proposed patio is beneath the canopy of a very beautiful tree. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that moving the house that way would place three eight-inch oaks at risk. Added that this still may be a reasonable trade off and that he did not have a problem with that suggestion. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Garakani said the house could also be moved forward four to five feet. Commissioner Roupe agreed that this is a good suggestion. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the 60-inch oak is a rare and majestic tree. Commissioner Kurasch agreed and said that this is a $50,000 tree. Acting Chair Jackman reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:42 p.m. Mr. Larry Schuck said that this proposal might be in conflict with the recorded map. Commissioner Roupe disagreed and stated that as long as the project meets Code required setbacks there is no conflict. Acting Chair Jackman reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:43 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Tentative Map is wrong. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that when the subdivision occurred, conceptual plot plans with measurements for a proposed structure were included but are not cast in stone. They are able to move the proposed structure as long as the structure remains consistent with Code requirements. Commissioner Kurasch: • Agreed that moving the structure would minimize conflict with exceptional trees while the smaller trees now impacted could be replaced if necessary. • Suggested that the elimination of the retaining wall be subject to the Arborist’s review. • Said that she would support the move of the house eight feet to the east, which eliminates the light well conflict. Director Tom Sullivan assured the Commission that staff has the overall direction needed to work with the applicant. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR-01-023) to allow construction of a new residence on Lot 1 at 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the added Conditions: 1. That the house be moved by approximately eight feet to the east and in a southerly direction to the extent possible to eliminate light well conflicts with the required setback, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director; 2. That the landscape plan be approved, including the elimination of the retaining wall subject to approval by the Arborist and Public Works Director; 3. That a contract for the streetscape maintenance agreement by finalized prior to issuance of building permits with a single point of contact. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 13 ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 DR-01-024 (403-23-016, Lot 3) – SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Lot 3: Request for Design Review approval to construct a two-story craftsman style single-family residence on a newly subdivided 19,456 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and detached two-car garage is 3,891 square feet, with a basement area of 1,140 square feet. The maximum height of the house is 24 feet. The detached garage is proposed at 14 feet, 6 inches in height. The site is zoned R-1- 15,000. (WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a two-story, 3,891 square foot residence with a 1,140 square foot basement and a maximum height of 24 feet. The lot is 19,546 gross square feet and 17,812 net square feet. Included is a 15-foot high, detached garage. • Described the house as a craftsman style structure in keeping with the Julia Morgan home nearby. Architectural features include cobblestone veneer and cedar shake shingles. • Pointed out the major issues which includes the front yard setback and tree #36 which is at issue with the location of the house. The Arborist has suggested that the structure be moved to the south by seven feet. Another issue is the balcony on the second floor at the rear of the house, which could impact privacy of the neighbors. Additionally, the streetscape maintenance issue also applies. • Recommended approval subject to moving the house to the south. Director Tom Sullivan said that even with the clarity to the Zoning Ordinance that must occur to more firmly establish the interpretation for setbacks for two-story homes, this project conforms to both the old and proposed interpretations. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh added unless the house is moved. Director Tom Sullivan said that this could be resolved although it make take an adjustment in the placement of the house. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff how they propose to deal with the privacy impacts from the balcony. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied perhaps landscaping for screening. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the balcony from the ground. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh replied approximately 12 feet. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that it would take a 24-foot high tree to screen this balcony. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 14 Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:00 p.m. Mr. David Britt, Project Architect: • Said that he has reviewed staff’s recommendations and is happy to move the house. • Pointed out that the 15-foot height for the garage is required to keep the roof pitch consistent with the house. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Britt how he would propose to solve the potential privacy issues resulting from the rear balcony. Mr. David Britt replied that he felt it could be mitigated through landscaping or the installation of a roof over it. Commissioner Roupe said that he would support landscape screening over the elimination of the balcony. Commissioner Kurasch asked for the size of this balcony. Mr. David Britt replied that it is 10 feet wide and three feet deep. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that the neighbor has not expressed concern. Suggested that the City, applicant and neighbor meet to resolve issues if there are any. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the process of involving neighbors was incorporated in this project. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that this is an older application, which did not require the same level of neighbor input as current projects require. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that with staff’s suggestion to move the house to the south, this house fits on the lot well and that she had no objection to the design and, in fact, prefers this one to the one on Lot 1. • Said that she is in favor subject to conditions that include the requirement for the landscape plan and maintenance agreement. Commissioner Garakani agreed that he too was in support of moving the home to the south. Commissioner Roupe asked if the garage height issues are handled. Director Tom Sullivan said that the height of the garage is addressed in the Resolution. Commissioner Garakani said that the height of the lower gable should perhaps be the same as the gable on the garage. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed stating that the proportions are well worked out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 15 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR-01-024) to allow construction of a new residence on Lot 3 at 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the added Conditions: 1. That the house be moved to the south, per staff’s recommendation, to eliminate conflict with protected trees; 2. That a landscape plan, using native species, be finalized prior to issuance of building permits; 3. That a maintenance agreement for the required streetscape landscaping be finalized to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; and 4. That a meeting be held between the neighbor, applicant and staff to work out any privacy impacts from the balcony, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 5 DR-01-025 (503-23-016, Lot 4) – SCHUCK, 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Lot 4: Request for Design Review approval to construct a one-story craftsman style single-family residence on a newly subdivided 18,560 square foot parcel. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached three-car garage is 4,016 square feet, with a basement area of 1,344 square feet. The maximum height of the house is 18 feet. The site is zoned R-1-15,000. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval for a single story, 4,016 square foot house with a 1,344 square foot basement and an attached garage. The maximum height is 18 feet. The lot is 18,560 square feet gross and 18,120 square feet net. • Described the proposed residence as a craftsman style using cobblestone and cedar shingle. • Said that the main issue is the non-conforming roof over the porch, which is within the setback, the inconsistent fencing, light wells within the southern setback and the need for a maintenance agreement for the required frontage streetscape landscaping. Additionally, there is a five-foot pathway with trees and the question remains as to who would maintain that area. Finally, there are potential privacy impacts for the neighbors to the south and west. • Recommended approval with conditions to eliminate the non-conforming rear yard and to assure the neighbors’ privacy. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the rear yard non-conformance. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh pointed out that the front yard is inaccurate and the rear yard is non- conforming. The solution is to move the structure to the east toward Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 16 Commissioner Roupe asked staff how it determines the height of a retaining wall. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the wall is measured from the finish grade to the top of the wall. Assured that staff will review the approved grading plan. Acting Chair Jackman asked if the neighbors were contacted. Commissioner Garakani asked if permission was received for the retaining walls. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the approved grading permit from the Public Works Department also approved the retaining walls. Added that no materials were conditioned for these walls and the City cannot go backwards to add those conditions now. Acting Chair Jackman restated that the Commission couldn’t change that approval now. Commissioner Roupe added that this could be addressed with landscaping. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the path to the open area is kind of steep and five feet wide and expressed concerns over potential impacts on the surrounding trees. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that Barrie Coates has recommended elimination of that path. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that since this provides access to the open space, this path might be required. If eliminated, it may be in conflict with public access to open space. Asked why the trail was needed anyway. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to clarify the fencing issue. Assistant Planner Ann Welsh said that in one location of the plan, it reads no privacy fencing while in another location on the plan, it reads redwood fence. Acting Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:22 p.m. Mr. David Britt, Project Architect: • Stated that this was the most difficult house to design as there were lots of issues. • Said that the best solution for the terrace issue is to eliminate that element from the design and address it as a patio instead rather than moving the house. • Pointed out that they did not want a garage that faces onto the street. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the privacy issues on the rear and south side property owners. Mr. David Britt advised that the previous project planner, Allison Knapp, requested a fence to deal with privacy issues. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height of the retaining wall on the south side. Mr. Larry Schuck, Applicant and Owner: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 17 • Said that all retaining walls have already been approved as has all site grading. They were all engineered by a licensed civil engineer. • Added that the retaining walls are state of the art. Commissioner Garakani asked for the height as the neighbors should know that fact. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that as shown on the map, the walls are five feet high. Acting Chair Jackman explained to Mr. Schuck that the policy now is to have applicants work closely with neighbors. Mr. Larry Schuck said that this is the third hearing and the neighbors were notified of each. Assured that they have no problems with the neighbors and that he is on the site all the time and available to the neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the retaining wall is not yet constructed and asked how they will be buffered and landscaped. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that the first wall is only 18 inches high and the neighbor has a six-foot high fence. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Schuck if he would have a landscape plan. Mr. Larry Schuck replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch asked about the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Larry Schuck reminded that this walkway has been approved via Resolution and he has already bonded for the pathway. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the path represents a walkway to Lot A. Mr. Larry Schuck advised that there is a 20,000 square foot open space area available. A stone walkway, set in soil, will be used to access that space. He added that they would be submitting landscape plans for each lot. Commissioner Kurasch said that these issues are important to her and that she would either like to see the elimination of that pathway or construction at grade per review by the Arborist. Mr. Larry Schuck reminded that this is not part of Lot 4. Commissioner Roupe asked if the purpose of the path is to provide access to the open space for Lot 4. Mr. Larry Schuck added that the access is also for Lots 1, 2 and 3. Commissioner Garakani expressed concern for the 60-inch oak. Mr. Larry Schuck assured that the stone walkway is at grade per the Arborist’s recommendation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 18 Acting Chair Jackman reminded that the walkway is a separate lot. Director Tom Sullivan added that it is included on the plans for this parcel. Added that they are due to get a construction landscape plan and will judge the landscape plan against Barrie Coates’ requirements. Assured that the guidance is crystal clear to staff. Acting Chair Jackman reminded that the Commission is not approving this walkway tonight. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that the walkway is part of the Commission’s purview and that staff had brought it up as an issue for consideration. Director Tom Sullivan clarified that staff brings up any potential issues for consideration. Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for the maintenance agreement for the streetscape frontage and asked about materials for the frontage walls. Mr. Larry Schuck said that this is shown on the Tentative Map. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be landscaping for the wall. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that former Director Walgren recommended submitting a landscape elevation plan for a fence to screen this subdivision from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. This was approved in October 2000. Said that he would submit a landscape plan to assure the privacy to the south. Commissioner Garakani asked about the fence and gate. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that former project planner, Allison Knapp, requested that the fence and gate be included with the landscape plan. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that while some of the retaining walls are installed, others are not yet installed. Asked if Mr. Schuck has any problem with using cobblestone facing for the walls. Mr. Larry Schuck replied that lots of ivy would be used. Added that the cost is high to place stone face on walls. However, it could be considered for the portion facing Lot 4 as part of the landscape design work. Acting Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Roupe: • Pointed out that the rear porch issue has disappeared with its elimination by the applicant and replaced with a plan to use a patio instead of a terrace feature. • Said that the fencing will be part of the landscape plan. • Said that while he worries about the path it is not a part of this lot and that by taking the Arborist’s guidance as absolute directives, he leaves this to the discretion of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Kurasch stressed the importance for the frontage maintenance agreement. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 19 Director Tom Sullivan added that one agreement for all frontages is important. Commissioner Kurasch expressed support for the recommendation to incorporate cobblestone facing on the north side wall. Acting Chair Jackman cautioned that this might be fairly expensive. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the applicant has agreed to do the portion of the wall facing Lot 4. Commissioner Kurasch said that with the elimination of the terrace, the submittal of a landscape and fencing plan and the strong recommendation for a minimal path within the tree drip lines or even the complete elimination of the pathway, she can support this proposal. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR-01-025) to allow construction of a new residence on Lot 4 at 14221 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with the added Conditions: 1. That the rear terrace be eliminated; 2. That the fencing issue be addressed with the landscape plan prior to issuance of building permits; 3. That the maintenance agreement for the street frontage be a common effort with the other lots; and 4. That the front facing of the retaining wall, as facing into Lot 4, be faced with stone compatible with the architecture of the property. AYES:Garakani, Jackman, Kurasch and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry, Hunter and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Jackman advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS There were no Director Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Subcommittees Acting Chair Jackman distributed revised basement guidelines. Commissioner Roupe suggested that this material be emailed to each Commissioner to allow feedback, as he would be gone for the next meeting on February 13, 2002. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2002 Page 20 COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communication Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Jackman adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, February 13, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk