Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Page called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chair Page Absent: Commissioner Jackman Staff: Senior Planner Robert Schubert, Planner Mark Connolly and Planner Philip Block PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Study Session and Regular Meeting of February 14, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of February 14, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 8 -- 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 and since a Use Permit is required to approve the cabana. • Page 9 -- ...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. • Page 10 – Commissioner Bernald added that there is a safety issue, as this building appears to be perched on stilts tilting while the basement is being dug beneath it. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Study Session minutes of February 14, 2001, were approved with a correction in two places on page 2 replacing share with shared parking. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Mr. Robert Schubert, Senior Planner, announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 23, 2001. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 2 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Robert Schubert, Senior Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Advised that staff is recommending postponing the Director Item listed on this evening’s agenda to the March 14th meeting. • Agenda Item No. 1/Page 3 – Clarified that the proposed fence would be placed two feet behind the right-of-way on Saratoga Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to landscape and maintain the 20-foot wide area along the exterior fence. Commissioner Bernald pointed out a discrepancy in the staff report versus plans for Agenda Item No. 2 regarding inclusion of a wood-burning fireplace in Lot C in the Living Room/Library Area. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 V-01-001 (393-25-024) – ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL, 13601 Saratoga Avenue: Request for Variance approval to construct a fence over three feet in height along Saratoga Avenue within the front yard setback. The site is located on an 89,291 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this a Variance request to allow a six-foot welded metal fence within a required setback. • Added that the Heritage Preservation Commission approved the proposed design a few months ago. • The school’s biggest concern is the safety of children playing on that playground and preventing people from entering the site during school hours • Said that two fencing alternatives have been presented including the applicant’s original submittal, which is the one being recommended by staff. • The project site is within the R-1-20,000 zoning district with a required front setback from Sarataga Avenue of 30 feet. A temporary fence is in place at the present time. Commissioner Roupe stated his confusion about the two proposed layouts for the fence. Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that Exhibit A represents the fence being recommended for approval with the fence placed on the interior side of the trees. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the posts are already installed. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the applicant began installation without realizing that a Variance would be required to have the six-foot height. They stopped work when notified by the City of that requirement. Commissioner Kurasch sought clarification that the fence is not to be located within the street right-of- way on Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the applicant would maintain 20 feet of landscape area in the right of way. Commissioner Barry questioned the duration of time for the Tree Protection Bond (Condition of Approval No. 3). Mr. Mark Connolly replied a year. Commissioner Roupe suggested adding the words and duration to Condition of Approval No. 3. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:51 p.m. Rev. Ernest Cockrell, Applicant and Rector of St. Andrew’s Church, Saratoga: • Advised that this new fence will be much better than the previous chain link fencing. • Stated that safety is a factor and keeping people out who don’t need to be at the school. Additionally, the fencing should help prevent vandalism on site. • Assured that the fencing will add to the beauty of the site and will be nicely landscaped. Commissioner Patrick asked Reverend Cockrell if he would accept a Condition that prohibits the posting of any signs or banners on this fencing. Rev. Ernest Cockrell answered that he had no problem with that restriction. Commissioner Barry asked Reverend Cockrell if he is willing to install drought tolerant plants within the landscaping area. Rev. Ernest Cockrell replied that this is a very reasonable request. Commissioner Kurasch asked the age groups of the children on site. Mr. Richard Hof, Assistant Head Master of St. Andrew’s School, replied that students from third to eighth grades use the fenced area for both recess and physical education classes. Commissioner Kurasch asked if students are supervised while using the area. Mr. Hof replied that the children are supervised and added that the fence is needed for the safety of the children as well as providing an opportunity for the beautification of the property. Commissioner Patrick asked if there is a choice of colors available for this fencing material. Mr. Hof replied that he is aware of black and green being available. Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Hof if he had any problems using their original plan proposal locating the fence at the interior of the trees. Mr. Hof answered no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 4 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:55 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Commissioners Bernald and Roupe stated no problems with the application. Commissioner Kurasch expressed her concern regarding the height of this fence on Saratoga Avenue while also stating her understanding of the school’s safety issues. Added that the application is well thought out and that she agrees with the recommendation of utilizing native planting. Commissioner Patrick said she had no problems with the request. Commissioner Barry recommended some modifications to the Conditions of Approval as follows: • Favor Plan A strongly. • Suggest changes to Condition of Approval No. 3 relative to the bond duration, leaving the length of duration to the discretion of staff in conjunction with the City’s Arborist. • Suggested a change to Condition of Approval No. 4 requiring the final landscape plan to rely on the use of native plants. • Added a condition requiring a sign be posted listing allowable hours of construction. Chair Page stated that this is a good project and in this situation it is appropriate to have a six-foot fence. Added that a black fence may look better than a green. Commissioner Roupe reminded that a Condition has been recommended that prohibits the posting of any signs and/or banners on this fencing. Commissioner Patrick reiterated that the Conditions must encompass the use of native plants, the prohibition of signs on the fence and the bond for the tree protection to be established for an appropriate duration and amount as determined by staff. Chair Page added that the Sign Ordinance would apply regarding signs anyway. Commissioner Patrick replied that it might not apply to schools. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission approved V-01-001 with the amendments to the Conditions: • Strike Option B fence plan design; • Modify Condition 3 regarding the duration of the tree protection bond, • Modify Condition 4 to require native and drought tolerant plants; and • Add a Condition prohibiting the posting of any signs on this new fencing. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-045 7 SD-00-006 (410-39-012) – LEXOR INVESTMENTS, INC., 15202 Quito Road: Request for Design Review and Parcel Map approval to allow the subdivision of a 3.62 net acre parcel Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 5 into three lots of 48,426, 50,868 and 65,484 (net) square feet. The proposal calls for demolishing an existing residence and accessory structures and constructing three two-story residences ranging in size from 5,702 square feet to 6,498 square feet. The site is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Philip Block, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the project site is located on the northeast corner of Quito Road and Twin Creeks Road. • The application includes Design Review and a Parcel Map to create three lots. • An existing residence and accessory structures will be demolished and three new homes constructed, two two-story residences and one single-story residence. The size of these homes will range from 5,702 to 6,498 square feet. • Staff is recommending approval of this application. • Advised that the applicant is asking for the rewording of Condition of Approval 30A with the concurrence of the Public Works Department. • Added that a letter has been distributed from the adjacent property owners advising that they are receptive to an easement (specific details to be worked out). Additionally, a slight boundary adjustment will occur. Commissioner Bernald expressed concern about Condition No. 16 pertaining to rear yard landscaping and sought assurances that the recommendations contained within both the Arborist’s Report and the Harvey Ecological Report are followed. Questioned the reasoning for Condition No. 18 as it pertains to street addresses being placed in view, wondering why that condition is even included at all. Mr. Philip Block replied that the Condition is the result of a recommendation by the Fire Department. Commissioner Bernald questioned Condition No. 28 regarding the placement of interior monuments and asked the reasoning for that condition. Mr. Philip Block answered that this is a standard Public Works Condition of Approval that is not unusual. Commissioner Bernald stated that she just wanted to be sure that necessary monuments are installed. Commissioner Patrick questioned the requirement for a Reciprocal Access Agreement and why it has not been formalized prior to this evening’s meeting. Mr. Philip Block replied that this agreement is only necessary if the map is approved. Such an agreement is premature and unnecessary if the map is not approved. The agreement would be finalized prior to the final map. Commissioner Barry brought up the Ecological Report that states that the Repairian Habitat Area is of “moderate to low quality.” Suggested that the level be upgraded wherever and to the extent it is possible to do so. Mr. Philip Block agreed that such a condition could be added. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be two drives from Quito. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 6 Chair Page replied that there will be access for two lots from Quito Road and one lot from Twin Creeks Road. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are restrictions for the access driveways for the lots accessed by Quito Road. Mr. Philip Block advised that the applicant has worked with the Arborist’s recommendations. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there are any other easements. Commissioner Roupe asked whether Lot C will provide an easement for Lot B. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the level of detail provide goes beyond what is used for a Tentative Map. Mr. Philip Block advised that the Commission is considering the Subdivision and Design Review as a package this evening. This is the only opportunity the Commission will have to review this proposal. Added that the Final Map is handled by the Public Works Department and is a very technical process. Chair Page opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:27 p.m. Ms. Kristine Syskowski, Lexor Investments, Inc., 15585 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos. • Informed that they were encouraged by staff to bring this project forward to the Commission as a package as far back as 1999. • Clarified that for the easement, Condition No. 24 requires a recorded access easement to allow access to Twin Creeks Road. Additionally, there is a proposed lot line adjustment as a Condition of Approval. • Advised that the gross existing site is .92 acres. After the lot line adjustment, there will be no net effect. Commissioner Roupe asked whether the adjusted lot was used in the calculations provided. Ms. Kristine Syskowski: • Replied that the deductions were made off gross square footage. • Added that there is one wood-burning fireplace proposed which can be changed if necessary. • Informed that this project began in 1999 with James Walgren. • Said that there are three features to their application the site approval, the architectural design and landscaping. • Advised that the site is at Quito and San Tomas Aquino Creek. • Advised that the trees on site will be preserved. • Said that the three proposed homes will be scarcely visible and that there will be generous front setback. • Added that the lot depths are from 200 to 460 feet. • Advised that both Lots B and C will be accessed from Quito Road. • Said that pervious pavers will be used for the driveway and that minor retaining walls will be required. Added that Barrie Coates has approved the proposed driveway placement. • Said that allowing access to Twin Creeks is agreeable to the adjacent neighbor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 7 • Advised that they have spent a lot of time on site with the architect in order to site the homes and work with the existing landscaping. • The proposed homes are in context with the surrounding homes. • Advised that Lot A and C will include two-story homes and Lot B will have a single-story home. Distances between the homes are from 54 to 100 feet. The distance between Lot C and the existing neighboring residence is 130 feet. A distance of between 70 to 150 feet separates the three new homes from the Repairian Corridor. • Added that an existing structure will be demolished. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed and accepted this proposed demolition. • Advised that the architectural style proposed for the homes is early-Californian, incorporating low- pitched roofs; stucco walls; upper balconies; front courtyards; wood windows and doors; stone, wood and tile materials, including recycled tile from the Town & Country project recently demolished in San Jose. The rooflines will be articulated. • Regarding landscaping, there are 48 trees on the Tree Report. Five olive trees will be relocated and seven trees removed, including a walnut, pine and fruit trees. The trees to be removed are rated as being in fine, fair or poor condition. Eighty-eight new trees will be planted include seven redwoods on Lot A. There will be groves of redwoods between each of the homes. • Stated that this proposal meets all City Zoning and General Plan requirements. • Added that they have met and exceeded the Repairian Corridor requirements. Commissioner Bernald asked whether the Harvey Report supports rear yard landscaping. Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that it is fine to landscape the rear yards. Advised that the Repairian Corridor is considered to be in poor condition because of the existing structures, which will be demolished. Commissioner Bernald asked if the applicants are willing to accept a Condition to disallow swimming pools. Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that they would prefer to discuss this further. They are not proposing any swimming pools within the Repairian Corridor itself but in the rear yards. Commissioner Bernald asked why there is a second story exit at the front of the home on Lot C. Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that it leads off of a bonus room but that she was not sure of the reasoning for that exit. Mr. Kirk Nonley, Architect, advised that this exit is a traditional architectural feature that was incorporated in this particular design because it did not include a courtyard feature as is included with the other two homes. Commissioner Patrick asked if the applicants would eliminate the wood-burning fireplace. Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied yes. Commissioner Patrick stated that there should be no structures within the Repairian Corridor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 8 Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that she believes that Codes do not permit structures in the Repairian Corridor but they are willing to agree not to have any structures within the Repairian Corridor. Commissioner Patrick inquired about impervious coverage numbers for each unit. Ms. Kristine Syskowski pointed out the details on the plans. Commissioner Patrick asked why the lot line adjustment is not being done at the same time. Ms. Kristine Syskowski admitted that she would have liked to have done so but was encouraged by staff not to file at the same time. Commissioner Patrick asked Ms. Syskowski if she would accept a Condition of Approval requiring the easement exactly as depicted in the drawings. Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the location of the driveways from Quito Road, particularly for Lot B. Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that more grading and hardscape would be required to place that driveway elsewhere on the site. Mr. Bill Hirschman, Engineer for the project, replied that the goal is to make the road parallel to the contours of the property. Added that they are successful in dealing with trees near paving. Commissioner Kurasch stated that there will be an impact to Quito Road itself as a result of the driveway. Added that her main concern is Lot B. Stated that it appears from the plans that six-foot high fences will be required in the future for security purposes. Suggested a Condition of Approval that all fences comply with current code. Ms. Kristine Syskowski replied that they want to keep the sites open. The proposed fencing is located 60 feet from the front property line. The proposed fence depicted is three-foot high that meets the six- foot columns at the gates of the driveways. Added that staff has indicated that the six-foot columns are a supportable Variance but that they could revise the six-foot columns. Commissioner Roupe made it clear that the fencing is not under consideration for approval this evening. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Bernald, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 2 at 9:03 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Commissioner Roupe stated that he has no real concerns with this project and that it appears to be well thought out. Commissioner Kurasch stated that she would like to see an alternative front drive for Lot B, even if it goes against the contours as long as it leaves more of a buffer on Quito Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 9 Commissioner Patrick stated that she has no concerns or objections. Suggested that the rear yard landscaping take into consideration the recommendations of the Harvey Report; that the easement be recorded as shown; that no structure or pools be constructed within the Repairian Corridor; that no wood-burning fireplaces be included in the project; that Condition 30A be amended with the Public Works Department’s approval; that Condition 22 be modified so that the Fire Department approval for the House Numbering Placement be obtained prior to final occupancy; and that the second sentence of Condition 28 be deleted entirely. Commissioner Barry suggested adding the landscape restriction within the Repairian Corridor by modifying Condition 12 to read that no hardscape, fencing or accessory structures will be allowed within the Repairian Corridor. Added the recommendation that a sign be posted listing the allowable construction hours. Commissioner Bernald commended the applicants for designing homes that echo the existing homes in the area and for the detailed report provided to the Commission. Thanked the applicants for their willingness to eliminate the only wood-burning fireplace of this project. Said that the homes integrate architectural materials used in the area. With the changes outlined by the previous Commissioners, all concerns are set aside. Chair Page stated his agreement with Commissioner Bernald and said he could support this application. Commissioner Barry said that the design is great and a lot of work has gone into designing this proposal. Expressed appreciation for the applicants giving up the wood-burning fireplace. Suggested additional landscape screening to help alleviate Commissioner Kurasch’s concerns regarding Lot B’s driveway. Commissioner Bernald said that there are few pedestrians using Quito Road as the fast paced traffic makes it dangerous to walk on Quito. As a result, no one will be looking down onto the site from Quito Road. Commissioner Kurasch said that she is not necessarily just concerned about pedestrian views. Added that she also does not want to rely on landscape screening for design defects. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission approved SD-00-006 with the following Conditions: • Amend Condition of Approval No. 30A as approved by the Public Works Department; • Delete Condition of Approval No. 28 and require that all monuments be installed prior to recording the map; • Amend Condition of Approval No. 22 requiring Fire Department approval of the house numbering placement prior to final occupancy; • Require the recordation of an easement exactly as depicted on the plans seen this evening by the Commission; • Include a Condition that restricts placement of any structure, pool or hardscape within the Repairian Corridor; Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 10 • Require additional landscaping to the satisfaction of staff, including landscaping in the rear yard; and • That the last paragraph in the Harvey Report should be directly quoted in the Conditions of Approval. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission approved DR-00-045 with the following Conditions: • Add a Condition that no wood-burning fireplaces be installed; • Include a Condition that restricts placement of any structure, pool or hardscape within the Repairian Corridor; and • Require additional landscaping to the satisfaction of staff. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Chair Page called for a break at 9:20 p.m. Chair Page reconvened the meeting at 9:28 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 V-00-023 (503-56-010) – HALL, 13410 Old Oak Way: Request for Variance approval to construct an addition to match an existing non-conforming structure, within the rear yard setback, on a slope that exceeds 30% and at a height greater than 26 feet. The existing structure is built on piers with a maximum height of about 43 feet. The site is located on a 40,075 (net) square foot parcel within an R- 1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for three point Variance for an existing home for setback, slope over 43% and height of 44 feet. • The subject house was built on piers and is a legal non-conforming structure. • The applicants wish to add a new entry and nook on the first floor with a walk-in closet, bath and sitting room on the second floor. The new space will be contained within an existing deck footprint. • The property is located within the Hillside Residential District and consists of nearly an acre. • Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked how much square footage is being added to the home. Mr. Mark Connolly replied 300 square feet. He added that without the need for the Variance for setback, height and slope, this size addition would typically be handled over the counter. Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Tom Hall, 13410 Old Oak Way, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 11 • Complimented staff for their assistance and said that everything has been well spelled out in the staff report. • Added that this addition will have no impact on neighbors and that existing trees screen the site from view. • Said that they will match the existing exterior wood siding on the addition so there will be no real change visible from the outside. Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Hall whether any additional piers are required and whether a structural engineer has found the residence to be structurally sound and able to handle this addition without additional piers. Mr. Tom Hall replied that his architect has advised him that review by a structural engineer is a requirement of this project. Mr. Mark Connolly added that a structural analysis is a part of the building plan review. Added that no geologic review is required in this situation. Commissioner Barry suggested that if any additional piers are deemed necessary, this project be required to be returned to the Planning Commission for further review. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that if any structural changes are required the project would most certainly be returned to the Commission. Commissioner Patrick questioned two apparent cut out sections on the second story front of the house. Mr. Tom Hall advised that what is seen is decking. Added that they have been experiencing a small leak in the upstairs patio. Chair Page asked if a color board is available. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that a color board is not required due to the small scope of work with this addition. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 3 at 9:37 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is a supportable application. It has no impact and fits in the area. Commissioner Patrick concurred. Commissioner Barry said she supports the project as long as no grading or additional piers are required. Commissioner Bernald concurred. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Roupe reiterated that should additional piers be deemed necessary, this project must come back to the Commission. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the Commission approved V-00-023 with the addition Condition of Approval that this application will be returned to the Commission for additional review in the event that a structural engineer deems additional piers to be necessary to accommodate this addition. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Chair Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 4 DR-00-063 (397-07-083) – SATHAYE, 15315 Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,066 square foot two-story, single-family residence. The maximum height proposed is approximately 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 43,680 square feet located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for the construction of a new 6,066 square foot, two-story residence with a 2,009 square foot basement, on a 43,680 square foot site, which is zoned R-1-40,000. • The project includes the demolition of an existing 2,476 square foot home. • The applicants have prepared an extensive landscape plan for the site including 46 replacement trees, exceeding the requirements. • Staff is recommending approval with proposed modifications to the draft Conditions of Approval to allow the removal of Tree No. 15 (cedar) and Tree No. 31 (olive) and deleting Condition 7B and 7C. • Advised that a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor has been provided. Commissioner Bernald inquired what will be done to prevent storm water from draining east onto neighboring property. Chair Page mentioned that he saw a dissipater on the plans. Commissioner Roupe questioned the six-foot high fence depicted on Sheet 8.1.2 as surrounding the property, saying that it appears to encroach upon setback area where fencing is limited to three-feet in height. Commissioner Patrick asked why the staff recommendation for removal of Trees 15 and 31 is changing. Mr. Bob Schubert advised that staff has since met with the applicants on the site and due to the impacts of these trees to the applicant’s plans, staff can support the removal of those two trees. Commissioner Kurasch asked if staff had the figures for the excavation of the basement. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Bob Schubert replied 1,272 cubic yards. Commissioner Barry asked staff why there are no requirements limiting the amount of excavation that can be done for a basement. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that basements are exempt from grading permits. Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 4 at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Louie Leu, Architect, 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos: • Advised that drainage will be handled through the placement of a large dry well at the back of the site along with a sump pump. • Added that the fence is to the lower right of the site and that they have no problem pushing the fence back to the setback line. • Explained that the cedar tree (No. 15) is messy. The olive tree (No. 31) is low and sparse and not particularly attractive. Added that they will install redwoods to help screen the site. They plan to retain most of the native trees and add 46 new trees to the site. A small vineyard will also be installed. • Said that they have gone to a lot of effort to articulate the massing and materials to minimize bulk. Materials to be used include brick, cobblestone, stucco, half-timber trim and a slate roof. • Informed that they have taken time to talk to the neighbors and solicit their support for this project. Commissioner Roupe stated that the project is close to the maximum allowable impervious coverage and that retention of on-site water is a concern. Suggested one option to reduce impervious coverage might be to used crushed granite instead of stone for some of the walkway areas. Said that the applicants need to drop back the percentage of impervious coverage. Mr. Louie Leu replied that this can be done. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that more pervious surfaces should be used and suggested adding a Condition of Approval that native trees be used as replacement trees for those being removed. Mr. Tim Hoagland, Landscape Architect, 43 E. Main Street, Los Gatos: • Stated that it had always been their intention to remove Trees No. 15 and 31 and somehow that was never communicated to the Arborist and therefore not incorporated into the Tree Report. • Added that they have no problem coming back with pervious pathway materials. • Advised that they will be using interlocking paving stone for the driveway. • Said that they can easily cut down the amount of impervious coverage to 30%. • Said that most of the driveway will drain out to Sobey. Commissioner Barry asked if the applicants are willing to give up the wood-burning fireplace. Mr. Louie Leu said that he thought that question might come up. Said that there are good reasons to have wood-burning fireplaces as well as good reasons for not having them. The wood-burning fireplace gives a bigger size opening than does a gas fireplace. Added that even though the fireplace is intended to be constructed as wood burning, they plan to place a gas log within it. A gas fireplace in itself does not fit the proportion of this house, it has too small an opening for the large room in which it will be located. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Roupe reiterated the importance to retain all water on site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 4 at 10:05 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Commissioner Patrick stated that she is not comfortable with the design and that the project has an incredible amount of lot coverage. Added that she is uncomfortable with removing trees to install a patio. Suggested that the Tree Protection Bond be increased if two more trees are removed as well as an adjustment to the replacement requirements. Said that this is a very busy, ambitious design of which she is not in favor. Commissioner Barry agreed that convenience is not a good reason to ignore the Arborist’s report. Agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners. Added that pervious pavers are a good option for the car drive. Said that this is a massive house. Commissioner Bernald concurred with concerns about impervious coverage and site drainage. Said she had no problem with the removal of the two additional trees as they are not substantial trees. Added that the landscape plan is more than is usually provided. Said that this project is similar to homes already existing on Sobey. Said that the vineyard down below will compliment this site tremendously and help lessen impervious coverage. Commissioner Roupe agreed with Commissioner Bernald, saying this is an ambitious but compatible proposal that he finds acceptable. Commissioner Kurasch said that impervious coverage should be reduced by reducing the actual amount of site coverage rather than simply switching from impervious to pervious materials. Said that she is able to support the type and size of house proposed. Chair Page concurred that the design is appropriate and the vineyard a nice addition. Suggested removing the walkway around the vineyard as well as reducing the overall impervious coverage of the site. Said that Tree No. 15 should be removed as it is hazardous. Commissioner Roupe asked whether crushed stone is considered a pervious material. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that it depends upon the size of stone and how it is installed. Commissioner Barry suggested that the Arborist review the removal of Trees No. 15 and 31 and that, as a matter of policy, an appropriate time frame for the Tree Protection Bond be established. Chair Page pointed out that the two additional trees slated for removal are only rated as fair and fine. Commissioner Kurasch asked what level of impervious coverage should be achieved. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the maximum credit for use of pervious materials is 25%. Chair suggested reductions in the walkways, particularly by the vineyard, and the auto court. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 15 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission approved DR-00-063 with the Conditions of Approval: • That the impervious coverage be reduced to the maximum extent possible with the reduction in area and use of different materials, to a level of no more than 30%; • That Tree No. 15 and Tree No. 31 can be removed subject to the review by and concurrence of the Arborist and with appropriate replacement trees; • That fencing be moved beyond the setback area in all instances; and • Than an appropriate time frame for the Tree Protection Bonds be set by staff. (5-1-1; Commissioner Patrick voted against and Commissioner Jackman was absent) Chair Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 DR-00-061 (397-07-103) – CHIU, 18615 Maude Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,873 square foot single story residence with accessory structures and construct a new single story 6,096 square foot residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 46,120 square foot parcel is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Mr. Philip Block, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this site is located on Maude Avenue, near Quito Road. • The proposal is for a 6,096 square foot residence with a basement. The maximum height is 26 feet. • The property is zoned R-1-40,000. • An existing residence will be demolished as well as accessory structures. • Staff is recommending approval. • Among the trees to be removed are two Spanish fir (No. 14 and No. 15) and Tree No. 29 that needs to be removed for placement of the pool. Commissioner Roupe pointed to sheet C.1 of the plans and said that it appears that the house can be removed without impinging on setbacks in order to retain Tree No. 14 and Tree No. 15. Questioned the need for both a three-car garage and two-car carport. Chair Page opened Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:34 p.m. Mr. Greg Kawahara, Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore: • Stated that this home reflects a Mediterranean style elevation with concrete s-tile roof, plaster siding and a manufactured stone veneer wainscoting. • A three-car garage is proposed for the west side as well as a two-car carport. • Added that he has tried to set back this home in a similar fashion to the other homes on the street. • Advised that the wainscoting will be used all around the house and not just on the front elevation. • Said that there will be a basement on the west side of the structure. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 16 • Said that Trees 14 and 15 are the biggest issue. Said that Tree 14 would not likely survive construction as the base of the house will be fairly close. • Added that they are willing to move the house forward to save Tree No. 15 but to do so would encroach into one of the side setbacks by 18 inches. Commissioner Roupe suggested encroaching on both side setbacks by nine inches instead. Questioned why the applicant needs both the three-car garage as well as the two-car carport. Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that the applicants currently own two cars and have a teenaged daughter who will be driving soon. Additionally, they plan to have live-in help. Commissioner Kurasch asked about hardscape plans for the site. Mr. Greg Kawahara advised the Commission that the project’s Landscape Architect has just been retained so the landscape plans are not yet developed. Commissioner Kurasch stated that this home reflects side to side coverage of the lot. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:42 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Commissioner Barry stated that a redesign should occur that preserves Tree No. 14 and Tree No. 15. Commissioner Bernald concurred and stated that exceptional trees must be retained at any cost. These trees are in beautiful shape. Added that she hates carports. Suggested deepening the garage instead. However, if they enlarged the garage, the house would be above the allowable FAR. Said that necessary storage can also occur in the proposed basement/bonus room. Said that she supported the home’s design but that the end to end placement of the residence on the site is inappropriate. Stated that she is not willing to support this project as it is currently. Commissioner Roupe also expressed concern about the end to end coverage and tree protection. Suggested that the applicants give up on having the carport and move the house forward. Commissioner Kurasch said that Siberian Elms are not highly rated in this area. Said that with a small shift and the elimination of the carport, she can support this project. Suggested that a landscape plan for screening at the front of the site be provided for review by staff. Commissioner Patrick concurred. Chair Page concurred with the need to save Trees 14 and 15 and suggested striking Condition No. 10. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission reopened Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:50 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Louie Leu suggested a compromise by which they will reduce the carport to a one-car carport, save both trees and set the house at a realistic and sufficient distance from the two trees (No. 14 and No. 15) so as not to negatively impact them per the recommendation of the Arborist. Commissioner Kurasch again asked if the applicants could consider the complete elimination of the carport. Mr. Chiu, Property Owner, 18615 Maude Avenue, Saratoga: • Stressed his desire to have the carport to provide covered parking for his guests. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Commission again closed Public Hearing No. 5 at 10:53 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Commissioner Roupe stated that he can support a one-car carport with the move of the footprint of the house, staying within the setbacks, in order to protect Trees 14 and 15. Commissioner Bernald stated that parking in the carport will not protect visitors from rain. Commissioner Patrick asked where the carport is located. Commissioner Roupe pointed it out and added that it now will be half the width. Chair Page stated his support with the move of the house to save the two trees and the reduction in the carport. Commissioner Kurasch stated that rather than cutting the carport in half, the Commission should simply say yes or no to including the carport at all. Commissioner Patrick agreed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Commission approved DR-00-061 with the Conditions of Approval: • That the house be moved to the south and southwest position an adequate distance to safeguard Tree No. 14 and Tree No. 15 per the Arborist; • Elimination of the carport; • Removal of Condition of Approval No. 10; and • That the applicants provide a front landscape plan for review and approval by staff. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) Chair Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS The Director Item was postponed to the March 14, 2001, meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 18 COMMISSION ITEMS 1. Chew – Rodeo Creek Hollow (Lot 5) Modifications: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project (DR-99-056) has been brought back to the Commission because any proposed modifications to an approval that changes more than 25 square feet must be reviewed and approved by the Commission. This project’s modification includes the reduction of the basement by 1,000 square feet and a 50 square foot addition to the sunroom. The original approval was for a 3,417 square foot residence. With the added square footage, the structure now would total 3,467 square feet. The maximum allowable is 3,728. The project continues to meet all requirements. The Commission supported this minor modification. (6-0-1; Commissioner Jackman was absent) 2. Illegal Tree Removal: Commissioner Bernald reported on the possible improper removal of an eucalyptus tree. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that he has submitted this matter to Code Enforcement. The Senior Code Enforcement Officer will handle the situation. 3. League of California Cities Planners Institute: Commissioner Bernald inquired about the League of California Cities Planners Institute, which is scheduled for March 21 –23 in Monterey as the Commissioners normally are able to attend this program. Mr. Mark Connolly will look into obtaining authorization for the Commissioners to attend. 4. West Valley College Update: Commissioner Roupe advised that the City Attorney has provided a letter in response to the Commission’s inquiry about the potential to review the Use Permit for West Valley College. The City Attorney has recommended that the Commission let this matter sit. 5. 13497 Old Oak Road: Commissioner Kurasch reported on a block wall currently under construction that appears to be at least five feet tall right at the street. Mr. Mark Connolly said that he would research this installation and report back at the next meeting. 6. Proposed wording for staff report: Commissioner Barry suggested identifying the maximum code allowance column as being “discretionary” in order to clarify for the public. Chair Page asked staff to look into this matter but stated that using the word “maximum” is perhaps more clear than discretionary. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from February 7, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Page adjourned the meeting at 11:12 p.m. to Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 2001 Page 19 Minutes Clerk