Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Page Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planner Mark Connolly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January 24, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission minutes of January 24, 2001, were approved with no amendments. (5-0-0-2; Commissioners Bernald and Jackman abstained, as they were not in attendance at this meeting.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Gene Zambetti, 14575 Oak Street, Saratoga: • Advised that he was present as a representative for his mother, who resides at 13920 Loquat Court. • Advised that there is a proposal for a 3,300 square foot house with a basement on his mother’s street, a street on which the existing homes average only 2,000 square feet. • Expressed concerns that the City does not have a complete Storm Drain System or under- grounding of utilities. • Suggested that the City should take care to collect fees for the under-grounding of utilities, improvements to the Storm Drain System as well as Park & Recreation fees. • Added that garages for these larger homes should also be larger and the driveways should be longer to provide adequate off-street parking. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 9, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Advised that he is recommending two additions to the Director Items. One is a request from the Heritage Preservation Commission and the second is consideration of a review and amendment to the guidelines for staff approvals of minor modifications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-011, SD-00-001 & V-00-018 (517-08-008 & 016) – TRAFALGAR, INC., 14612 Big Basin Way & 20717 St. Charles Street: Request for Design Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Variance approval to allow the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into six lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and two additional common area lots. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new two-story townhouses with garages will be constructed at the rear of the site. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second story condominium would face Big Basin Way. The Big Basin Way portion of the site is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street portion is zoned R-M-3000. A rear yard setback variance has been requested for a building on the CH-2 portion of the site. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Stated that this is the second time this project has come before the Planning Commission, the first time being at the last meeting on January 24th. • Advised that the noticing for this evening included a Variance that had not been properly noticed previously. • As a result of a Study Session held earlier this evening, staff is recommending a continuance of this item to the meeting of March 14, 2001. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:51 p.m. Ms. Betty Feldheym, 20184 Franklin Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that she was in attendance at the Study Session. • Added that she is impressed with Mr. Gamble’s efforts and would like to see this project proceed. • Said that this proposal will expand the community and its tax base and that it is a good idea to incorporate residential uses above commercial uses. • Added that mixed uses help meet affordable housing requirements. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, consideration of Agenda Item No. 1 (DR-00-011/SD-00-001/V-00-018) was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 2001, at 7:55 p.m. (7- 0) *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-048 (510-06-014) – ONG, 19051 Austin Way: Request for Design Review approval that will involve the demolition of an existing 3,855 square foot single-story residence and construction of a new single-story 6,393 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 60,448 square foot parcel is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this project is back before the Commission for a second time, continued from the January 10th Planning Commission meeting. Areas of concern included the size of the proposed light wells, construction access to Highway 9, inadequate information regarding tree protection, view and/or privacy impacts and questions about the actual height of the proposed structure. • Stated that the maximum height of the structure has been lowered from the original proposal of 24 feet to 23 feet. • Added that the adjacent neighbor still has concerns about privacy impacts and has provided several alternative site plan suggestions. • Staff is recommending approval of the applicant’s proposal. Commissioner Barry inquired whether the siting of the house remains the same as reviewed at the January 10th meeting. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that no change in the placement of the home has occurred since that time. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that Barrie Coates had recommended a move of the structure to alleviate impacts on a tree. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that Mr. Coates’ recommendation had been met with the original submittal. Commissioner Barry suggested altering the orientation of the house to help preserve Tree No. 5. Commissioner Jackman suggested the removal of Tree No. 2 (magnolia). Add that the palm tree on site is the only one in the neighborhood and it does not necessarily need to remain. Commissioner Barry asked the distance between the new home and Tree No. 25 (Redwood). Mr. Mark Connolly replied that there is about an eight to ten foot distance between the trunk and the proposed structure. Commissioner Barry advised that the minimum distance recommended between a structure and an Oak tree is ten feet, with an eight-foot separation for other tree species. Added that eight feet does not offer much protection during construction. Said that this particular Redwood tree is an incredible one. Mr. Mark Connolly added that the Arborist has not required construction fencing for that particular tree. Commissioner Bernald agreed with Commissioner Barry that the Redwood tree is a majestic one. Added that she also found that Tree No. 4 (Douglas Fir) is a particularly fine tree. Said that she was less concerned with the Oak. Commissioner Kurasch said that the Oak is listed as the most vulnerable. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the construction distance would not cause any life threatening impacts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Barry read from the June 20, 2000, Arborist’s Report, which recommended moving the house to the east of the Douglas Fir. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant states that they will have most enjoyment of the house as they have sited it. Chair Page asked if the house has been relocated. Mr. Mark Connolly replied not since the last meeting. It was moved from its original proposed placement based upon the Arborist’s recommendation. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Ray Nasmeh, P.O. Box 844, Saratoga: • Advised that while there are over 90 trees on this parcel, only 27 are mentioned in the Arborist’s Report. • Added that they are trying to have the front door of this new home fronting onto the drive. • Advised that they will hand dig around the Redwood tree to assure the health of that tree. • Advised that they will be adding four 24-inch box trees to help screen this site from the neighboring home. This is in replacement for two trees that will be removed between the two properties. Additionally, they will replace the shared fence. • Informed that they re-sited the house twice based upon recommendations of the Arborist and that they have been working with staff for more than a year on this project. Mr. Scott Stoller, 18625 Sutter, Suite 900, Morgan Hill, CA: • Said that he was available for any questions. • Added that the Ongs selected to build a single-story house and that the front setback provided is 76 feet. Mr. Mike Garakani, 19061 Austin Way, Saratoga: • Said that the Commission is missing several points. • Advised that he purchased his property three years ago and that he has three children. • Added that his property is to the east of the Ong parcel with a picket fence separating the two parcels. • Currently, he has a view of trees on the Ong property. These trees obscure the current structure on the Ong parcel. Some of these screening trees are proposed for removal. • Said that he is particularly concerned with Trees No. 5 and 7, which have been deemed healthy and worth saving. • Said that he provided five alternate site plans, some of which rotate the house without changing the footprint but saving all trees that had been recommended for retention by the Arborist (either rated as fine or exceptional specimens). • Asked the Commission to either require the redesign of the house to preserve the exceptional trees, require the rotation of the house to preserve several of the exceptional trees slated for removal and/or to require a landscape plan. • Asked why the Arborist’s report is being ignored. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 5 Chair Page asked Mr. Garakani whether the addition of four 24-inch box trees along the shared property line will help or hurt. Does he want them or not. Mr. Garakani replied that he wants to see the existing trees retained. Chair Page stated that other trees are placed at risk with his alternative proposals. Mr. Garakani suggested that the Commission consider the July Arborist’s Report. Commissioner Barry inquired about such a report. Added that she has seen both the June and October Arborist’s Reports but not a July Report. Commissioner Roupe stated that the October Arborist Report is the most recent and relevant. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would like to see what is included on the July report. Commissioner Roupe stated that the October Arborist Report refers back to the June report but makes no mention of a July report. Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that the July 12, 2000, report is an addendum to the June report. That update stated that trees rated as exceptional (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11) must be retained at any cost while those rated as fine (9 and 10) should be retained if possible. Mr. Nesmeh stated that not all trees on the site are in the report. Added that the trees on this parcel are an asset and will be preserved as recommended by the Arborist. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 8:30 p.m. (7-0) Commissioner Kurasch stated that there are five exceptional trees at risk. The house is at the maximum allowable square footage. Another solution might be to reduce the footprint. Added that she is in favor of a landscape plan requirement. Said that the home design is a good one. Commissioner Jackman agreed that the home design is good. Added that the neighbor’s suggested alternate site plans provide too small a rear yard. Said that she would like to see a landscape plan for the site. Asked whether there will be bonding required for the trees. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that staff could hold onto the bond for a longer period of time if the Commission so desires to ensure the health of the trees on site. Commissioner Patrick reminded the Commission that the original light well gave the appearance of a sunken terrace. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the light well now meets the 36-inch maximum. Commissioner Patrick stated that perhaps the house needs to be smaller. Added that one tree on the Arborist Report that is rated exceptional did not appear particularly exceptional to her upon seeing at on a site visit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Barry asked to hear the comments of the other Commissioners prior to making her own remarks. Commissioner Roupe stated that most concerns have been addressed including the front elevation, height and articulation. Said that the proposed square footage is not an issue for him and that this is a reasonable home. Said that he has no concerns with the design or the location of the home on the site. Commissioner Bernald stated that she appreciates the lowered front entryway. Said that her main concern is the preservation of Tree No. 4 (Douglas Fir) and Tree No. 25 (Redwood). Added that she did not see Tree No. 5 as being exceptional and that she had noticed bark damage on that tree. Tree No. 1 is an Olive and she is not concerned about that tree. Trees No. 6, 7 and 11 did not appear to be unreplaceable. Said that with the optimal protection of Tree No. 4 and Tree No. 25, she has no problem with the trees to be removed. Added that while this is a massive home, it is balanced. The use of stone helps integrate the new home onto the site. Said that perhaps with the elimination of any wood-burning fireplaces, the need for spark arresters can be completely eliminated. Said that she can support the project as long as the shed (currently covered with a blue tarp) is removed. Chair Page expressed his appreciation for the lowered height. Added that a single-story takes more space on the lot but that he prefers a single-story to a two-story home. Suggested a Condition of Approval to retain the bond longer to make sure the replacement trees survive. Commissioner Barry stated her appreciation for the redesign of the entryway. Agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners regarding the trees. Specifically, she is not comfortable with the closeness of Tree No. 4 and Tree No. 25 to the house. Said that she is open to suggestions. Commissioner Roupe suggested requiring a Project Arborist who will be on site and responsible for monitoring the trees at key points of the project. Chair Page agreed that this requirement can be made a Condition of Approval. If the applicant does not agree, they can appeal that Condition to Council. Commissioner Barry suggested a landscape plan that accomplishes the necessary screening for the adjacent neighbor. Said that she would like to see a Water Retention Plan. Added that a good faith effort has been made here. With screening, this is a reasonable project. Commissioner Kurasch said that this project would impact two neighbors. The driveway is close to the property line (six feet). Said that she did not agree that this is the only or even best placement of the house on site. Said that she will not support. Added that she does support the requirement for a landscape plan for the site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved DR-00-048 with the requirements for: A. a Landscape Plan, B. a Water Retention Plan; C. that the tarp-covered shed structure be removed from the property; D. that an on-site Arborist be retained for the project specifically during critical foundation construction as well to provide regular monitoring of the health of the trees during construction; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 7 E. that a bond for the trees be retained for two years after Final Occupancy; F. that the outside stairwell be reduced; and G. that two of three spark arresters be removed from the structure. (6-1; Commissioner Kurasch voted against the project) *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 UP-01-001 (397-24-093 & 094) – PINN BROTHERS, 20075 Spaich Court: Request for Use Permit approval to construct a new 930 square foot cabana which would be 12 feet, 6 inches in height. A Use Permit is required to allow the structure to be built within 33 feet of the rear yard property line rather than the required 59 feet and to be 12 feet, 6 inches in height where the maximum allowed height is 12 feet. There is an existing 4,773 square foot house on the 41,747 square foot parcel, which is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a Use Permit to allow a 930 square foot cabana in the rear yard for a house currently under construction. The cabana would be located 33 feet from the rear setback where 59 feet are required. The structure would be 12 feet, 6 inches while the maximum allowed without a Use Permit is 12 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:54 p.m. Ms. Gina Terisi, 14315 Douglas Lane, Saratoga: • Advised that she is the representative of the purchasers of this home and that she is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Jackman asked if a stove is planned for this unit and whether the owners consider this structure to be a cabana or a guesthouse. Ms. Gina Terisi replied that the unit is considered a guesthouse per the plans and includes a bedroom. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:57 p.m. (7-0) Commissioner Jackman stated that as this unit will not be visible from the street she felt that it would be okay. Commissioner Patrick inquired if there is not a square footage limitation on guesthouses. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the maximum square footage is based on the total square footage on the lot. Chair Page asked what the total square footage is on the property. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the main house is 4,773 square feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch asked if all the homes in the project were sold. Commissioner Patrick advised that the homes located directly behind this property are older existing homes. Mr. Mark Connolly stated that he is confident that this project will not exceed the total maximum allowable square footage. Chair Page called for a break at 9 p.m. to allow staff the opportunity to obtain the specific square footage for this site. Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that the house and cabana would total 5,703 square feet while the allowable square footage for the property is 6,040 square feet. Commissioner Barry stated that while there may be no impact from the street, there may be great impact to the neighbors on the other side of the fence. Suggested that the cabana could be more rectangular in shape rather than bulky and intrusive on the setback. It doesn’t appear as if there are any hardships or reasons why the applicants cannot comply with required setbacks. Added that she had no problem with the extra six inches in height. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the cabana could be built closer to the home. Commissioner Barry said that she has design and placement concerns. A 900 square foot cabana is large and it is closer to the fences than it needs to be. Commissioner Patrick advised that the use of the term cabana implies the future addition of a pool, which may explain the placement to the side of the lot. Commissioner Jackman stated that most cabanas don’t include a bedroom. Recommended a reduction in the size of the cabana so that it is a cabana rather than a guesthouse. Suggested approximately 700 square feet rather than the proposed 930. Commissioner Bernald stated that a 30 by 30 foot house is not a huge structure and that the homeowners should be able to use their backyard as they see fit. The proposal does not exceed the allowable square footage and a pool is probably going to be added to the site. This is not an unprecedented request to have a guest house/cabana within a setback. Jokingly suggested throwing in an oven and allowing this to become affordable housing. Stated her support. Commissioner Roupe stated that the height is not an issue and that he will support this proposal. Commissioner Kurasch stated that it is fair game to look at this proposal, since the applicant could have chosen a conforming design in height and placement, a Use Permit is required to approve the cabana. Said that the unit could be smaller. Chair Page stated that he can support the proposal as it is. Added that having a bed and bath in the unit is a nice addition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 9 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved UP-01-001. (5-2; Commissioners Barry and Kurasch voted against) Chair Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS 1. Modification to Review Standards: Mr. Mark Connolly suggested bringing to the Commission, at its meeting of February 28, 2001, proposed modifications to relax the standards to minor modifications to previous approvals in order to allow staff to handle minor changes as opposed to requiring them to be brought back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jackman stated that it is a good idea to review the standards. Commissioner Patrick added that she had no objection to bringing the idea up for review. Commissioner Bernald cautioned that sometimes even a minor modification such a moving a structure just a few inches causes big problems. 2. Heritage Preservation Commission Request: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission will be conducting a site visit at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue (Kalkunte project) on March 6, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. and is asking any available member of the Planning Commission to join them on that site visit. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. West Valley College Stadium Expansion: Commissioner Roupe advised that West Valley College is seeking to expand its stadium. Suggested that staff be directed to investigate whether the Planning Commission can call up the College’s Use Permit for review with respect to other issues not in litigation. Commissioner Patrick suggested that Commissioner Roupe contact the City Attorney directly due to staff limitations at this time. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the City Attorney is already involved. Added that there is a Use Permit for the college. Advised that recently 10 trees were removed but the City does not have a lot to say about that. Said that staff can update the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Patrick again suggested a report directly from the City Attorney as to what purview the City and/or Commission has in regard to West Valley College. Chair Page suggested that Richard Taylor be contacted. 2. La Paloma Project: Commissioner Jackman expressed concerns regarding the total disregard for the safety of a tree on her friend’s property, adjacent to the La Paloma Project. Concrete has been Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 10 dumped on the ground beneath the tree and gravel was poured beneath the tree. The City red- tagged the project. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a $1,700 fine has been imposed. A platform buffer was installed but later removed by the contractor. There is the possibility to impose a $200 per day fine effective from the date of the removal of the platform buffer. Commissioner Roupe stated that it appears that imposing a fine is not enough of a deterrent. Suggested that the developers be put on notice and brought before the Planning Commission to explain their lack of compliance with the Tree Protection requirements. Mr. Mark Connolly asked what recourse the Commission would take if the developer refuses to come before the Commission. Chair Page directed staff to invite the developer to the next meeting. If they do not appear, the project will be red-tagged. 3. Conditions of Project on Quito Road: Commissioner Jackman advised of a friend living on Quito Road where a messy construction site is located nearby. Commissioner Jackman asked how long those poor site conditions would be allowed to remain. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that as long as the project is making progress and inspections are being obtained, they comply with City regulations as far as timing of a project. The property owner is installing a sub-terrainian basement up to the property line. Commissioner Barry asked if there is any discretion to call this project up for review and whether there are any geological concerns regarding the amount of basement space under construction. Chair Page suggested that staff pose that question to the City Geologist. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a basement is exempt from the requirement for a grading permit. Commissioner Bernald added that there is a safety issue, as this building appears to be tilting while the basement is being dug beneath it. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that Building inspectors visit the site often. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from January 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. to Wednesday, February 28, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2001 Page 11 Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk