Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe Absent: Commissioners Kurasch and Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of March 27, 2002. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the regular Planning Commission minutes of March 27, 2002, were approved as submitted with one correction to page 11. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 4, 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 April 10, 2002 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-01-021, BSA-01-002 & V-01-012 (517-14-080) – HUSTED, Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a two-story craftsman style, single-family residence on a vacant lot. The floor area of the proposed residence and attached two-car garage is 4,810 square feet. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is zoned Hillside Residential. A Variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet. An exception is also requested to exceed one thousand cubic yards of cut and fill. (OOSTERHOUS) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that he has distributed an email from the Samsels and a Kittridge area map, which demonstrates where the Samsel property is located and identifies where Variances for retaining wall heights have been granted in the immediate area. • Stated that the applicants seek Design Review for a new residence, Building Site Approval for constructing on a vacant lot older that 15 years and a Variance required for retaining walls exceeding five feet in height. • Reminded that this is the second hearing of the Planning Commission for this project. Additionally, the Commission held a workshop last week with the applicants and their design team. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the retaining walls in depth. An alternative design was proposed, a double wall with five-foot separations for planting screening landscaping. Also, an option for three walls was raised and the applicant will be presenting exhibits with this concept this evening. • Added that the overall height of the structure has been reduced by two feet, from the previous 26 feet to 24 feet. • Said that discussions are underway to consider eliminating the need for the fire turnaround with its necessary tall retaining wall by utilizing the turnaround on the adjacent property that could serve both sites. • Asked the Commission for the latitude to work with Fire and the neighbors, the Martin-Roses. • Stated that with the area and its topography, staff is able to make the necessary three findings of support for this application, Special Conditions, Special Privilege and Health & Safety. The topography represents a Special Condition. The fact that other Variances for retaining wall heights have been granted demonstrates that this approval would not be a Special Privilege. As for Heath & Safety, the geotechnical report and Fire requirements support this necessary finding. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Roupe asked if it is possible to leave open as a Condition, the requirement to have staff work with the applicant, the Martin-Roses and Fire on the possibility of doing away with the on-site fire truck turnaround altogether with the understanding that the turnaround on the adjacent Martin-Rose property would serve both properties in order to not require the very tall retaining wall at the fire turnaround. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 3 Director Sullivan replied yes. He suggested that the requirement be left as proposed and that the Commission gives direction to staff. Commissioner Garakani expressed support to have staff work with Fire and the other property owner. He added that another possibility is to work out another alternative in case it does not work out. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that one of the other retaining walls in the area at 19 feet high was approved only after appeal to Council. Director Sullivan advised that the biggest issue was drainage and that the Martin-Roses and Samsels have worked out the drainage issues. He added that another retaining wall is 18 feet tall and the remainder he was not sure of the heights other than above five feet in height. Chair Barry asked if these were for road retention. Director Sullivan replied that the 19-foot high wall is located behind the house. Commissioner Hunter advised that she drove up Bohlman and Tollgate Roads and found the story poles on this project site to be very evident. Inquired whether staff went beyond the immediate area to assess the impact of these proposed walls from a distance. Director Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Hunter stated that these walls would impact the neighbors below, particularly the fire turnaround wall. Chair Barry questioned how the fire trucks would maneuver, whether they would go up Kittridge Road. Director Sullivan said that they would go to the Martin-Rose property and turn around, depending on the size of the vehicle the Fire Department sends. Chair Barry suggested an alternative of approving this project with the Condition that the Fire turnaround is eliminated. If Fire does not approve this, there would be no approval of this project. Director Sullivan said that he couldn’t recall such a situation in past experience. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Chuck Husted, Applicant: • Stated that they have done a quality job and brought in professionals with relevant experience. • Said that it is not unusual to need retaining walls in excess of five feet when constructed within a Hillside district. • Assured that the walls will blend into the hillside and appear like natural rock formations. • Said that they have addressed all Planning Commission conditions and are willing to split the walls into two or three, whichever the Commission prefers. • Stated that they have agreed to a Conservation Easement and reduced the height of their new home by two feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 4 Chair Barry asked Mr. Husted if he is agreeable to recording a Hold Harmless Agreement. Mr. Chuck Husted replied yes. Mr. Larry Kahle, Project Architect: • Distributed two drawings. One demonstrates the reduction in roof pitch to lower the house height and the other demonstrates the retaining wall as split into three. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the retaining wall for the fire truck turnaround is not depicted in this new drawing. Mr. Larry Kahle said that was correct. Chair Barry asked who would plant the trees on the property owned by the Martin-Roses. Mr. Chuck Husted replied that there is enough of his property available to plant a row of screening trees near the fire turnaround. Mr. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer: • Discussed splitting retaining walls from one long wall to two shorter walls. Doing so would reduce the maximum height from 20 feet to two 10-foot walls. • Added that it is also feasible to split the wall into three walls. This would result in a maximum height of approximately seven feet, each section separated by five feet for planting. • Said that drainage has been dealt with in a way that protects the Samsel's driveway. Said that it is possible to put in a catch basin and get that drainage for a 100-year flood into an adjacent swale. • Said that the original submittal included a Fire Department turnaround with a retaining wall. A deck turnaround was also discussed earlier in the project. With a deck, one would not see walls but rather columns. Chair Barry pointed out that the exhibit distributed this evening of the retaining walls depicts manicured cement finish. Additionally, it does not give an example of a contour wall and is therefore not very accurate of what was described. Mr. Mark Helton said that they are proposing short vertical walls. Vertical walls minimize the height required. Sloped walls increase the necessary height. Chair Barry sought assurance that the two or three wall configuration would also incorporate shot-crete formation. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. Commissioner Jackman asked if the material will match the soil. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Garakani asked if the contour wall would be used if the wall were constructed in one piece. Mr. Mark Helton said that they could slope back the wall if the Commission so desires. However, this will increase the necessary height of the wall. Commissioner Roupe said that he is assuming that the retaining walls would be vertical since the walls would need to be taller if they follow the contours of the hill. Commissioner Garakani said that it would look more natural if it follows the contours. Mr. Mark Helton again said that if that is what the Commission wants, they can do it. Commissioner Garakani said that pockets could be used for planting, which is an advantage of a contour wall. Commissioner Hunter reminded that cut can be placed behind the wall if it is slanted. Mr. Mark Helton agreed but cautioned that it would be a negligible amount. Commissioner Garakani asked whether with the deck fire turnaround the necessary retaining wall could be cut into two pieces. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. It would represent two 14-foot high walls. Commissioner Garakani suggested a pocket of dirt to plant screening landscaping. Mr. Mark Helton said that they are trying to follow staff’s direction to make the retaining walls as low as possible. Commissioner Roupe said that there is not much distance between the turnaround area and the adjacent property line. Said that this might encroach into the planting area if two walls are utilized. Asked if it is feasible to stay on this property with the screening landscaping with the retaining wall split into two. Commissioner Hunter inquired whether three seven-foot walls are as strong as one big wall. Mr. Mark Helton replied yes. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Planning Commission could be held liable if something were to go wrong as a result of retaining wall failure. Chair Barry reminded that one Condition of Approval is the processing of a Hold Harmless Agreement. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that in her experience on the School Board, they are sued personally. Ms. Heather Rose, 604 Wellsbury Court, Palo Alto: • Advised that $40,000 is the bond amount for residential road bonds. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 6 • Stated that she spoke with Jerry Quilici at the County Planning Office, (408) 299-5731, regarding extending Subdivision requirements to allow road bonds. Commissioner Roupe advised Ms. Rose that an alternative to having a fire turnaround on this project site eliminated and having shared use of her property turnaround has been discussed as a means of eliminating the need for one particularly tall retaining wall. Said that coming to any kind of an agreement would be between her, the applicant and the Fire Department. Ms. Heather Rose questioned when her fire turnaround would have to be completed since the Husted project might actually get built before hers is built. She has to address a landslide area on her property prior to installation of her fire turnaround. Commissioner Garakani asked Ms. Rose for the heights of her retaining walls. Ms. Heather Rose replied between five feet and 11 feet. The tallest wall is located behind her house and will not be visible. Added that she plans to plant more trees on her property including around the location where the Husted turnaround would be located. Mr. Chuck Husted: • Said that the walls will be as limited as possible and will be natural in appearance and not visible from a distance. • Said that he will do everything possible to mitigate the retaining walls from the surrounding area. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Expressed appreciation for the applicant’s congeniality. • Said that she has no problem with using three seven-foot walls. • Cautioned that the 23-foot high wall for the fire turnaround would be visible across the valley. • Stated that the design of this home is very handsome. • Reminded that she was not on the Commission when the other Variances for retaining walls were approved. • Said that in the event that she supports this project, she will also support the road bond. • Said that she could not support the fire turnaround retaining wall. Commissioner Garakani: • Said that the wall in the area is now visible from the neighbor below. • Expressed support for a contour wall. • Supported the deck style fire turnaround. • Said that he would also support putting vegetation within pockets on the wall. • Stated that he would support a Condition that staff works with Fire to eliminate the need for a fire turnaround on this site. However, if Fire does not agree and the turnaround must be installed, he could support either the retaining walls or the deck design fire turnaround. Commissioner Jackman: • Supported the use of either two or three part retaining walls around the house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 7 • Said that the Fire Department would not likely change their requirement for this turnaround. • Said that she does not like the turnaround but if this project is approved it is likely to be necessary. • Said that this building site was pre-graded long ago and is a building site. • Expressed support for the Conservation Easement. • Stated that the proposed house looks good and she appreciates that the house has been lowered in height by two feet. • Said that everyone is doing the best they can to make this as invisible as possible. Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he supports this project. • Added he is comfortable with the design of the home, particularly with the reduction in height by two feet. • Said that he could support the retaining wall in any configuration, be it one large wall, two ten-foot walls or three seven-foot walls. Any option is acceptable. • Said that the retaining wall causing the most concern in the fire turnaround retaining wall. • Suggested that a pier and beam deck is one option. • Supported giving staff the option to work out this best option for the fire turnaround with the applicant, the neighbor and the Fire Department. • Reiterated that he is fully supportive of this project. Chair Barry: • Said that she has struggled with this proposal and its retaining walls. • Stated that an historic drainage problem in this area will be improved by this project which weighs heavily for her. • Expressed appreciation for the work that has gone into developing this proposal. • Supported the lowering of the roof height by two feet. • Stated that the back retaining wall would be located behind the house and drive and would not be seen by anyone. • Suggested that a contour wall would look natural and supported the use of three walls with two separations for screening vegetation. • Said that she would not like to see this project fail simply due to the requirement for the fire turnaround. • Cautioned that the 23 foot high retaining wall for the fire turnaround would take years, if ever, to be screened by landscaping. • Expressed hope that the Fire Chief would agree to the alternative plan to share the turnaround on the Martin-Rose property and would leave this issue to be worked out by staff with Fire. Commissioner Roupe: • Stated that a maximum for the turnaround wall should be called out. The wall should be a split rock simulated wall with screening planting. Additionally, the pier alternative can be investigated so that the best alternative can be worked out. Chair Barry agreed. Commissioner Hunter asked for more information on the trees that would be lost with the installation of these retaining walls. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Roupe pointed out on the plans that three or four redwood trees with a diameter of 12 inches would be lost. Chair Barry said that while these trees are not that large in diameter they are 30 feet high and effectively screen a third to half of where the turnaround is going to be. Commissioner Roupe said that either solution results in those trees being removed. Commissioner Hunter said that she could not support the removal of those trees or a deck turnaround out of consideration for the neighbor. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that someone else is looking at the neighbor’s 23-foot high home. Commissioner Roupe cautioned that the project cannot be approved without some accommodation for Fire Department access. Commissioner Jackman said that the Commission needs to hear from the Fire Chief. She said that she is happy with everything except the turnaround. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the Planning Commission approved the project on Kittridge Road (APN 517-14-080) as proposed with the following changes and/or additions: 1. A two-foot reduction in the height of the residence; 2. Use of a three-part retaining wall on the uphill side with intermittent planting for screening; 3. Staff to look into an alternative to the fire truck turnaround, including the use a deck pier or the total elimination of the turnaround on this property with the proposed turnaround on the adjacent Martin-Rose property to also serve this site; 4. Issuance of a road maintenance bond, at an amount to be determined by staff, as part of the Building Site Approval; 5. Include vegetation to screen the retaining walls; 6. Process a Hold Harmless Agreement to be recorded with the deed, holding the City harmless in the event that failure on this property causes any damage to adjacent parcels and/or the public right-of-way; 7. Process an Open Space Scenic Easement; and 8. Enter into a lower road drainage agreement. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Roupe NOES: Hunter ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that if Director Sullivan is not satisfied with the resolution of the turnaround issue, he would bring the matter back to the Commission. Director Sullivan added that as much significant planting as possible will be used to provide screening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Garakani said that one can see slide activity in the turnaround area. This project will improve that situation. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 Application #02-049 (397-06-069) – BUSH, 18627 Ambleside Lane: Request for Design Review and Variance Approval to replace a detached garage, which was destroyed by fire. A setback variance is requested to replace the 13 foot high, 693 square foot garage within the rear and side yard setbacks. The garage is to be located within 10 feet of the rear and side yard boundaries, which is nonconforming since the required setbacks are 20 feet for the side yard and 50 feet for the rear yard. The property is located in the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicants seek Design Review and Variance approvals to allow the reconstruction of a 693 square foot garage that was destroyed by fire in October 2001. The project site is a 1.3- acre property located on Ambleside Lane. The zoning is R-1-40,000. • Said that this Variance is required due to non-conforming setbacks at 10 feet from the rear and side property lines. The proposed height of the reconstructed garage would be 13 feet, 2 inches, which is the same as before. This height is required to accommodate a workshop area. There are no view or privacy impacts. • Described the findings to support this Variance request as being a Special Circumstance due to the destruction by fire of the former garage. Additionally the slope of the lot and the location of existing structures further support this request. Therefore, this Variance would not represent a Special Privilege. • Recommended approval as the necessary findings of support can be met. Mr. Charles Bush, Applicant and Owner, 18627 Ambleside Lane, Saratoga: • Said that he has been a resident of Saratoga for 19 years. • Declared his surprise at having to appear before the Commission in order to secure approval to simply rebuild his garage, which was originally constructed in 1957. • Advised that his adjacent side neighbor, whose property is closest to this proposed rebuilt garage, does not object to its reconstruction. • Stated that he just wants to rebuild his garage and workshop. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:43 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Dan Banerje, 18594 Vessing Road, Saratoga: • Said that their home is located just behind this site. • Expressed opposition for this Variance for four reasons. • The hillside location and the fact that the fire that destroyed this garage also set trees in their yard on fire. Only because there was no wind that day prevented the fire from spreading to their home. • Stated that the location of this garage offers poor fire truck access. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 10 • Electrical poles run close to the garage location, which adds to the fire hazard. • There is 30 feet of space between the house and detached garage. The one-acre plus lot offers alternatives to this non-conforming placement of the rebuilt garage. • Proposed that an alternative placement of the rebuilt garage be found so that it is not so close to the shared property line. • Pointed out that most household fires start in garages. • Advised that when the Fire Department arrived, they accessed this fire from their home, located behind the subject site. Commissioner Roupe asked for clarification as to the location of the Banerje home. Mr. Dan Benerje replied directly behind the garage. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that the Fire Department accessed through their property. He added that since there were trees engulfed on their property, the Fire Department had to access from their property in order to put out the fire in their trees and prevent the spread to their home. Commissioner Garakani asked the Benerjes if they understand why a Variance is required in this situation. Mrs. Benerje replied due to insufficient setbacks. Planner Ann Welsh: • Clarified that the Variance is required to allow a garage height greater that is allowed with the available setback. A nine-foot high garage is permitted at 10 feet from the property line. A garage greater than 12 feet in height requires a 50-foot rear setback and 20-foot side setback. Any accessory structure greater than 12 feet in height must meet setbacks. • Added that an eight foot high structure is permitted at six feet from the property line and an additional three feet in setbacks is required for every additional foot in height. Mr. Benerje sought clarification that the applicant could have a nine-foot high garage at a nine-foot setback. Planner Ann Welsh: • Said that this would be permitted without a Variance. The only reason this Variance is required is because of the proposed 13-foot height of the structure. Chair Barry added that a 12-foot setback would be required for a 10-foot high garage while the applicants are seeking approval for a 13-foot, two-inch high garage with a 10-foot setback. The alternative would be to bring the garage forward on the property by two feet. Planner Ann Welsh said that there is room to do so but the pad from the previous garage is already in position. Commissioner Hunter asked how this fire started. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Charles Bush said that the cause was undetermined. He added that the only reason the Fire Department first responded at the Benerje’s home was because they had poor maps. A fire truck was easily driven down his driveway when they finally arrived on his street. Commissioner Roupe said that the Commission avoids Variances when it can. Asked Mr. Bush if he is willing to consider a flat roofed nine to 10 foot tall garage. Mr. Charles Bush stated that he is not trying to change what the property was before. He just wants to rebuild what was originally built on the property in 1957. Commissioner Hunter said that she believes that a garage should match a home’s architecture. Mrs. Bush, 18627 Ambleside Lane, Saratoga: • Said that she too would love not to have electrical poles in her yard. • Stated that they should be allowed to have back what they previously had. Commissioner Roupe stated his support for the project as proposed due to historical and architectural compatibility. This is the right thing to do. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Fire Department is now aware of this property’s location and that a new garage will not burn as readily. Chair Barry asked whether this new garage would need to have fire sprinklers. Planner Ann Welsh replied that there were no such requirements from Fire. Director Tom Sullivan advised that a requirement for sprinklers is based upon the size of the structure. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 9:00 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review and Variance approval to allow the reconstruction of a garage on property located at 18627 Ambleside Lane, as presented. AYES: Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Kurasch and Zutshi ABSTAIN: None *** NEW BUSINESS Discussion and direction regarding the polling results for single-story overlay in the Saratoga Woods and Brookview Neighborhoods. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 12 • Advised that Council adopted a Resolution that directed staff to conduct polls of two neighborhoods, Saratoga Woods and Brookview, to consider the adoption of a zoning overlay to restrict homes to one story. • Described the results of the polls as follows: • Brookview Neighborhood: The poll was sent to 328 homes in the Brookview Neighborhood. Of that, 221 responses were received. From the responses, 116 (51 percent) were supportive of the overlay zoning and 105 (46 percent) were in opposition. Of the total polls sent out to the Brookview Neighborhood property owners, the rate of return was 35 percent in support and 32 percent in opposition for a total response rate of 67 percent. • Saratoga Woods Neighborhood: The poll was sent to 401 homes in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. Of that, 176 (66 percent) were in support of an overlay zone and 82 (30 percent) were in opposition of the overlay zone. This represents a 65 percent response rate. • Stated that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether it feels this response is significant enough to move forward with the drafting of the Ordinance to create the single-story overlay zone and conduct public hearings. Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that Council took action to conduct this poll of the neighborhoods to determine the level of interest in having the single-story overlay zoning. Director Tom Sullivan added that Council also directed the Planning Commission to review the results of this poll and make the determination as to whether the results warrant the preparation of a draft Ordinance and the conducting of public hearings. Commissioner Hunter inquired whether an option was included on the poll response card for “Don’t care.” Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Hunter suggested that perhaps a second mailing should be done to those in the Brookview Neighborhood that did not respond to the poll. Director Tom Sullivan advised that some polls came back with no vote marked while others had both support and opposed boxes marked therefore nullifying that response. Commissioner Roupe advised that public hearings will allow all interested parties to have their say. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if they can identify which property owners did not respond. She added that public hearings like this can get ugly and turn neighbor against neighbor. Director Tom Sullivan advised that staff does know which households did not respond. Commissioner Garakani said that he does not feel that public hearings are an evil thing. In fact, he sees the public hearing as a positive event. Commissioner Roupe said there is no reason not to go forward with the process. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 13 Chair Barry asked staff if it would be a big expense to have another poll sent to those property owners who did not respond to the first poll. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff could send a second request to those who did not respond. Commissioner Roupe asked staff if there is any reason not to go ahead with the process. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the only downside is the large crowd drawn to a public hearing. Chair Barry pointed out that there have been many very contentious projects in the Brookview Neighborhood in the past. Commissioner Jackman added that people do not always bother to come to public hearings. Commissioner Roupe said that this depends on how sensitive the issue. Chair Barry said that she supports a second mailing although she does not feel that a 66 to 67 percent rate of poll return is bad at all. Commissioner Hunter said it is important to solicit input from the impacted residents since the overlay zoning will affect what can be done with these properties. Commissioner Roupe said that going forward is not a definitive vote on the final outcome. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for the New Business Item on single-story overlay zone at 9:16 p.m. Mr. Ronald Schoengold, 19000 Saratoga Glen Place, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a representative of the Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association, which has roughly 390 homes. • Stated support for the process for implementing a single-story overlay restriction. • Said that their Association did a lot of advance publicity on this issue, which may be a reason for such a good response to the City’s survey. • Added that even with a single-story overlay zone, should a credible plan be brought forward with compelling reasons to allow a second story, the Planning Commission would still have the option of granting a Variance. • Urged the Commission to move forward with this process. Commissioner Garakani asked what the advantage is to having Variances. Mr. Ronald Schoengold replied that the Variance process is more deliberate and requires more justification and puts the burden on the homeowner to substantiate the second story. Commissioner Roupe agreed that the Variance is a higher hurdle as there are legally required findings necessary to grant a Variance. He added that second stories are typically not additions to existing homes but rather represent tear down and rebuild projects. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Jackman stated that she thought imposing a single-story overlay zone would outright prohibit second stories. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City is required to have a process to allow exceptions. Chair Barry asked if the process would be for an Exception or Variance. Director Tom Sullivan replied Variance. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Schoengold to identify the boundaries for Saratoga Woods. Mr. Ronald Schoengold said that the neighborhood is closer to Prospect Avenue and is bounded by Cox to Saratoga Avenue. The Saratoga Woods Neighborhood includes more than 300 houses. Mr. Steve Blanton, 345 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos: • Identified himself as a representative of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors. • Said that they have seen such overlay districts and typically a supermajority has been required. • Stated that the City should be proud of the response rate it received to its poll. That is an achievement in and of itself. • Agreed that a Variance is a different category of review. • Suggested that this may be more of a two-story Variance area than a single-story overly zone. • Added that this overlay may create more issues than it resolves. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Blanton if he has seen a situation where overlays have faced opposition in court. Mr. Steve Blanton said not to his knowledge. He added that sometimes opinions change and the overlay zone may be less desirable. Commissioner Roupe agreed that such an overlay would greatly change the potential use of a property. Suggested that staff obtain the written legal opinion of the City Attorney. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Blanton which communities he is aware of that have single-story overlay zones. Mr. Steve Blanton replied that their organization encompasses 15 cities. Of those, Los Altos, Mountain View and Palo Alto have such single-story overlay districts. Commissioner Roupe asked whether in those cities the decision was reached by a vote of the people or through the actions of the respective City Councils. Mr. Steve Blanton advised that they utilized a similar process as is being considered here with mail ballots and public hearings to allow public participation. Director Tom Sullivan advised that two cities for which he was previously affiliated use overlays extensively to control heights in order to preserve views. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Roupe asked how long these overlays were in effect and how well they worked. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they worked very well. Chair Barry asked if there has been court challenge. Director Tom Sullivan said there has been none. Commissioner Jackman asked if there is an impact on home sales as the result of the imposition of an overlay zone. Mr. Steve Blanton replied that it is difficult to determine. Commissioner Jackman asked how new buyers are advised of such an overlay zone during the purchase of a home. Mr. Steve Blanton advised that there are disclosure forms prepared by agents at the time of the home sale. Councilmember Evan Baker, 12324 Obrad Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that he is present to speak as a private citizen regarding Saratoga Woods, where he has resided for 25 years including having served in the past as President of its Homeowners Association. • Said that the response to this poll is high, second highest only to the library bond poll, to his recollection. • Said that most of the parcels in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood are about 10,000 square feet and mostly square. Every home would look down on a minimum of four backyards if a second story were to be constructed. • Said that there have been fewer than nine second-story additions to homes in the entire neighborhood and every one of those intrudes on the privacy of their adjacent neighbors’ homes. On the other hand, approximately 12 two-story homes were built by Lohr in such a manner that there was no privacy intrusion. • Stated that he would be recused from voting on this issue when it comes before the Council. • Encouraged the Commission to move forward with hearings. • Declared that the majority of homeowners in Saratoga Woods opposes two-story homes. • Thanked the Commission and made himself available for questions. Chair Barry asked Councilmember Baker for more information on the overlay process. Councilmember Baker advised that few neighborhoods are applicable for a single-story overlay district. Homes have to be on rather small lots to require single-story overlay zones. Larger lots with a second story offer less intrusion on adjacent properties due to greater distances between structures. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that CC&Rs are fairly restrictive and run with the land. Councilmember Baker cautioned that while the Planning Commission may take into advisement the requirements from CC&Rs, they are not required to follow them. The CC&Rs are only as good as their Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 16 enforcement by the Homeowners’ Association. Added that the last two-story addition in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood occurred about 15 to 16 years ago. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for the New Business Item on single-story overlay zone at 9:40 p.m. Chair Barry suggested moving forward to public hearings and going back to those property owners who did not respond to the first polls. Commissioner Roupe: • Supported both actions and stated that the 65 percent return was pretty good. It would only take postage and a little effort to conduct a second mailing. • Stated that there is already a good enough showing to warrant the drafting of the Ordinance and going forward with public hearings. • Said he feels most strongly about the community support from the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood and less strongly for the support of the Brookview Neighborhood. Director Tom Sullivan suggested that the neighborhoods be handled separately. Commissioner Roupe concurred and suggested starting with Saratoga Woods, see how it goes and then go forward with Brookview. Chair Barry wondered if the criteria for Variances should also be reviewed. Director Tom Sullivan stated that the Variance criteria, with its three mandatory findings, are set by law. Commissioner Garakani asked if it is possible not to allow Variances in an overlay zone. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City must have a process in place to allow someone to ask for a Variance. Chair Barry pointed out that the process for Variances is much clearer than it used to be. She added that in the future, should the overlay zone be less desirable, citizens can come back to request public hearings to consider the removal of the overlay zone. Commissioner Roupe supported the use of Variance over Exceptions since they are more restrictive and uniform. Commissioner Garakani said that this would be a good example for other areas. Commissioner Hunter cautioned that some public hearings get ugly. Commissioner Roupe said that the focus should first be on Saratoga Woods and sending second post cards to the Brookview Neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 17 Chair Barry disagreed, saying that the second mailing for Brookview should be delayed until the processing of the overlay for Saratoga Woods is further along. She thanked people for their attendance and input on this matter. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he would have this item scheduled as soon as time allows. COMMISSION ITEMS Ordinance Review – Review of the initial topical areas that the Subcommittee will address. (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan: • Advised that he has distributed a memo with four bullet points: • Building Site Approval Process: Said that this process should be brought out of the Subdivision Ordinance and put into Zoning. Added that this item is number one on the City Attorney’s list. • Variation from Standards: Said that this allows variation of standards without being a Variance, which is an unusual provision. Suggested either establishing limits or doing away with this. • Administrative Hearing Process: Said this is currently done by staff with noticing only to 10 closest neighbors. Suggested setting this up as an actual hearing with the Community Development Director serving as the Hearing Officer. Staff would make reports and neighbors are allowed an opportunity to be a part of a formal hearing process. This action will move the bar up a bit. • Establish a Notification Process for Tree Removal Permit Process: Advised that currently a 10- day appear period is in place but there is no provision for the notification of neighbors of the decision to allow a tree removal permit that might generate an appeal. Commissioner Roupe said that it is a good idea to look for situations where current practices are not based upon written policies. Chair Barry said that she likes the idea of Administrative Hearings. Commissioner Garakani suggested the participation of one Planning Commissioner. Director Tom Sullivan said that with the involvement of a Commissioner, the hearing would no longer be considered an Administrative Hearing. Commissioner Hunter asked what the reasoning is for an Administrative Hearing process. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they offer better participation by the neighborhood and formalizes that participation. Commissioner Roupe stated that neighbors will be more at ease with the results following an Administrative Hearing. Director Tom Sullivan said that he wants his staff to include the same level of Conditions of Approval for Administrative Hearing Items as are currently included in Planning Commission Resolutions. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Hunter asked Director Sullivan what percentage of all applications come to the Planning Commission for action. Director Tom Sullivan replied approximately 20 percent. About 80 percent of all residential applications are dealt with by planners and/or the Building Department. Commercial and Multi-Family projects go straight to the Building Department or to the Planning Commission. COMMUNICATIONS Chair Barry asked staff to follow up on the letter from Mr. Robert Chin regarding a Condition of Approval that has not been satisfied. Director Tom Sullivan advised that he had not seen this letter and would direct his staff to follow up. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, April 24, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk