Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 14, 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, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick and Acting Chair Roupe Absent: Chair Page Staff: Interim Director Irwin Kaplan and Planner Mark Connolly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of February 28, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Bernald, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of February 25, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 5 – Questioned the reasoning for Condition of Approval 30A as it pertains to street addressing addresses being placed in view…. • Page 9 – Modifications and/or additions to the Conditions of Approval for SD- 00-006 included as part of the motion for approval: • 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. • Page 11 – Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch Barry … • Page 16 – Suggested deepening the garage instead. However, if they enlarged the garage, the house would be above the allowable FAR. Said that necessary storage… • Page 18 – Commissioner Bernald reported on the possible improper removal of a eucalyptus tree. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Jackman abstained as she was absent from this meeting and Chair Page was absent.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. 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 March 9, 2001. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 2 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Interim Director Irwin Kaplan, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Advised that Agenda Items 2 and 3 will be continued to the March 28, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-036 (397-05-091) – SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story residence on a 43,042 square foot parcel, and Use Permit approval to allow an accessory structure to be located within the rear yard setback. Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet tall and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Commissioner Bernald recused herself as her home is located within 300 feet of this project site. She left the dais to sit in the audience. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this project was continued from the January 24, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Barry asked whether the structure’s square footage in now larger than the proposal reviewed by the Commission on January 24th. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the structure’s square footage has not changed since January 24th. Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 7:48 p.m. Ms. Grace San Filippo, Project Site Property Owner, Sobey Road: • Introduced her team including architect, landscape architect and attorney. Mr. Rick Zea, 4616 Venice Way, San Jose, CA 95129: • Acknowledged that the Commission stated several objections at the last meeting. • Informed that they have addressed the concerns through changes and redesign. • Added that the project meets City guidelines and rules. • Admitted that they had made calculation errors in the total amount of impervious coverage originally depicted on the landscape plan. • Said that they have since reduced the impervious coverage to 32% by reducing hardscape areas and/or utilizing pervious materials. • Another concern was the mass and bulk of the structure. To counter that concern, they have lowered the height of the study portion of the home by two feet, added wood elements to the structure as well as corbels. Additionally, decorative stone will be use. • Advised that, while the Commission had objected to what they considered “orange” tile roofing material, they have brought samples this evening to clearly demonstrate that the roofing material is brown. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 3 • Said that another concern raised by the Commission was the need to reflect the character of the neighborhood. Advised that there is no coherent theme or design standard on Sobey. The homes in the area reflect diversity in architectural styles. Added that they actually have captured the flavor of the vineyard currently being installed on property across the street from their project site. • Said that they have honored the desire for an unobtrusive structure. • Showed slides of the surrounding homes, including slides which feature the project site with story poles in place for this proposed structure. Another slide showed a perspective of the planned home. • Distributed stone samples for use on the retaining wall as well as on the columns for the arbor. • Informed that the study portion of the new home will actually be hidden by the natural berm on the property. • Said that an electric gate will secure the garage area at the side rear while guests will pull up at the front of the house. • Advised that a great deal of time and effort have been spent to design and to reflect the concerns of the Planning Commission. • Said that members of the design team are available for any questions. Commissioner Kurasch questioned what has been done to address the Commission’s concerns about bulk and mass. Also mentioned the 10-foot drop in grade from the street to the proposed house and asked what the drop is from the street to the second story elements. Mr. Maurice Camargo, 3953 Yolo Drive, San Jose, CA 95136: • Advised that they have veneered the structure with stone. The roofline for the study portion of the home was lowered by two feet. This section is set back from the entry and living room space. They also added wood corbels and used articulation of textures and materials, including stone on the chimney elements. • Informed that the house is split level. There is a nine-foot plate height at the top of approximately 5.5 feet. There is a slope in the land from east to west. Commissioner Jackman asked when the story poles went up and wondered why the Commissioners were not notified that they had been installed. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that he only discovered that they had been installed on the day of the site visit. Mr. Maurice Camargo replied that the story poles were installed on Tuesday morning (March 13th) and that they had brought pictures this evening in the event that the Commissioners had not had the opportunity to see the story poles in person. Commissioner Patrick asked how the coverage was reduced from Plan A to Plan B. Said that it appears that the paths and driveways are mostly the same as before. Mr. Michael Rosenberg, 878 Valencia Schoolhouse Road, Aptos, CA 95003: • Said that portions of the driveway have been removed for gravel, paving off of the dining area has been removed and paving around the pool area diminished with planting areas being cut into the impervious coverage around the pool. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Zimmerman: • Advised that several hundred square feet of impervious coverage have been cut out and replaced with permeable material. That is why the drawings still look similar. Commissioner Patrick pointed out that there was 12, 726 square feet of impervious coverage in the original plan. Commissioner Barry reminded the applicants that the Commission had requested a maximum of 30 percent in impervious coverage at the last meeting. Mr. Rick Zea: • Stated that they did reduce as requested. • Added that the original plan was actually over 35 percent due to calculation errors. • Promised to find ways to reduce even further as a Condition of Approval. • Said that they have already achieved a 32 percent level. Mr. Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga: • Said that he did not agree with the depiction of the impact on his home. • Added that the new submittal has made little effort to meet the requests of the Commission. • Said that this home cascades down the slope and has excessive bulk and mass. • Stated that while the actual square footage of the second story is very small, the massing is bigger to accommodate that space. • Said that the impact of this proposed structure is too great on the neighbors. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. McNeil if he felt the design home was in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Tim McNeil replied that he was not objecting to the architectural design. That is up to Ms. San Filippo. He is only objecting to the cascading effect. Mr. David Scott, 14269 Quito Road, Saratoga: • Advised that he lives next door to the McNeils and has two objections. The extent of the impervious surfaces and the need it creates for the storm drain on site to be upgraded as well as the massing of the structure, which will tower over and affect his privacy greatly. Mr. Frank Garcia, 4691 Albany Circle, San Jose: • Stated that there is some misunderstanding and that this house does not reflect mass. Mr. Nick Livak, Attorney, 981 Fremont, Santa Clara: • Stated that the letter prepared by Mr. Camargo answers issues including the two-story feature and drainage issues. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:29 p.m. (5-0-1-1; Chair Page was absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 5 Commissioner Jackman expressed disappointment that the plans appear the same as before. There is too much house for the shape of the lot. The proposal is for a 5,841 square foot house when 5,844 is the maximum allowable. This property is an irregularly shaped lot with neighbors on five sides. This is way too much for the lot. The architectural style of the house is great but not on this lot. It is too imposing on this lot. Commissioner Patrick concurred and suggested that the house either needs to be smaller or reset on the lot. There is too much coverage with 14,000 square feet of coverage which will result in drainage into the watershed. Advised that she cannot approve this project as it is proposed. Commissioner Barry stated that she is pleased with the added wood and stone and that the roof has been lowered by two feet. However, she agreed with fellow Commissioners with what is missing in the proposal. There are specific peculiarities of lot and impact on neighbors, which present a major problem. Stated that the storm drain issue has been covered with the Conditions of Approval. The applicants are attempting to maximize the use of the lot but they can’t due to the shape of the lot. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Barry. Said that the house is not in context with its location on the lot. Said that a sensitive use of the property could have stunning results. Said this current configuration has negative impacts on neighboring properties and that there are alternatives available. Suggested a reduction in lot coverage. Acting Chair Roupe stated that he shares similar concerns. Said that the applicants have reduced the height and added materials to the structure. Added that the architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood but the extent of impervious coverage raises concern. The greatest concern is the structure comes down the hill, more evident from the McNeil property than from the street. The use of impervious coverage has been reduced but needs further reduction. Asked what options are available to the Commission. Commissioner Barry replied that there are two options, another continuance or denial with a stipulation without prejudice. Commissioner Patrick said if the applicant wants a vote, the Commission should just deny the proposal outright. Commissioner Kurasch said that she would prefer a denial without prejudice as it gives the applicant the most flexibility. Commissioner Jackman stated that the project would require a major redesign to obtain approval so she stated her support for denial without prejudice. Acting Chair Roupe agreed to support denial without prejudice. Added that the applicant can appeal the denial to Council if filed within 15 days. There is no fee involved. The second alternative is a continuance to allow for a substantial redesign including a change in the footprint. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission reopened the Public Hearing at 8:42 p.m. to allow the applicant to chose one of the two options, denial or continuance. (5-0-1-1; Chair Page was absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Nick Livak, Attorney for the Applicant, advised that Ms. San Filippo would prefer a denial without prejudice. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission again closed the Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m. (5-0-1-1; Chair Page was absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission denied DR-00-036, without prejudice. (5-0-1-1; Chair Page was absent and Commissioner Bernald abstained) Commissioner Kurasch asked whether a vote needed to be taken on the Use Permit application. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that the Use Permit application was moot due to the Commission’s denial of the Design Review application. Commissioner Bernald returned to the dais upon conclusion of Public Hearing No. 1. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 DR-00-054 & V-01-002 (517-14-087) – MARTIN/ROSE, Kittridge Road: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 7,340 square foot two-story residence on a 346,173 square foot vacant parcel. The Variance is necessary for retaining walls to exceed five feet in height and possibly closer than 10 feet for parallel walls. The Variance is also necessary to exceed 15,000 square feet of impervious surface due to a long driveway. Maximum height of the structure is 26 feet tall, located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. Acting Chair Roupe opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 8:46 p.m. Mr. I.M. Farrar, 20860 Kittridge Road, Saratoga: • Advised that Kittridge Road is a private road for which repair and maintenance is the responsibility of the residents of that road. • Expressed concern about a high level of construction traffic on the road and the potential for damage to the road. • Asked that either the City or Builder assume responsibility for repair of the road caused by this project’s construction. Commissioner Jackman encouraged Mr. Farrar to put his request in letter form for inclusion in the next staff report. Mr. I.M. Farrar agreed to do so. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Commission continued consideration of DR-00-054 & V-01-002 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2001. (6-0-1; Chair Page was absent) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 7 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 DR-00-001, SD-00-001 and 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 2,498 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. 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. (This item will be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2001, to allow consideration of the original proposal and modifications, as well as an alternative proposal that the applicant will present to the Commission at that time.) Acting Chair Roupe opened Public Hearing No. 3 at 8:52 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission continued consideration of DR-00-011, SC-00-001 and V-00-018 to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 2001. (6-0-1; Chair Page was absent) *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Acting Director Irwin Kaplan provided the following updates: 1. Staff Report Review: Suggested that the term “Maximum Allowable” be used in the staff reports in the future. The Commission at its last meeting raised this issue and staff was asked to consider options and report back. 2. Recruitment of Community Development Director: Advised that the recruitment closed on Friday, March 9, 2001. There were 20 applications received. The recruitment firm is presently pre- screening those applications and paring the list down. Interviews will occur in April and an appointment is expected in May. It appears to be a good pool of qualified candidates. 3. March 27, 2001, City Council Meeting: Advised that the Council will consider the Housing Needs Assessment Report at its meeting on March 27th. The Report in draft form will be distributed. Warned that the 2000 Census information is not yet available. Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the Commission was supposed to have input with the consultant before they moved forward. Furthermore, information about what other comparable cities are doing was to be provided. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 8 Acting Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is just the beginning of the process, an informational document. Assured that the Commission would be involved further. This is just the start to help identify needs, set priorities and determine how to address issues. COMMISSION ITEMS 1. DR-00-021; 2116 Comer Drive – Review of Landscape Plan: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the Commission previously approved this project. One of the imposed Conditions of Approval was to bring the final landscape plan to the Commission for review as well as to provide it to the neighbors for review. Advised that approximately 30 owners were notified and only one responded in writing. Mr. Ken Pastrof, Applicant, Owens, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos: • Stated that the staff report sums up the request. • Advised that Ms. Paula Blanchfield, the Landscape Architect, is present this evening. • Said that he did not understand Mrs. Nieman’s letter. • Added that geologic safeguards are in place. • Said that the City’s Engineering Department will address drainage plans after the Planning Commission approves the landscape plan. Ms. Paula Blanchfield, 60 E. Third Avenue, San Mateo: • Advised that this landscape plan is for the exterior perimeter of the property and not interior landscaping. • Advised that native trees and shrubs, requiring minimum water once established, will be used. • Some more decorative trees will be used also such as olives in the driveways and flowering trees. Oaks, pines and native shrubs are proposed. • Where the soil is shallow, it will be amended as necessary. Commissioner Kurasch inquired about irrigation that is not depicted. Asked whether drip irrigation is planned. Ms. Paula Blanchfield replied yes, on the slope drip irrigation is planned with more traditional irrigation on the flat, which will be properly drained. Commissioner Kurasch expressed problems with using oaks from other areas. Commissioner Barry asked whether drainage was covered with the Conditions of Approval in the original approval. Acting Chair Roupe advised that water management is a routine condition. Mr. James Torre, 21680 Wardell Road, Saratoga: • Stated his objection to the proposal and provided photographs of the vicinity from various vantage points to demonstrate the fact that the proposed screening will not screen this site from his property or another neighbor, Mr. Joe Lee’s, property. • Advised that he has owned 12 acres for the last 40 plus years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 9 • Said that his issue is with the height of the structure. • Asked that the proposed landscape plan not be approved but rather revised and returned at a later date. Commissioner Bernald thanked Mr. Torre for providing the photographs. Reminded that she had voted against the original project approval. Mr. Ken Pastrof: • Said that the highest point of the structure is 22 feet. • Added that they are proposing to plant almost 100 trees and said that he did not know what more to add. • Suggested that the Commission review landscaping prior to final inspection as it is best to determine where to place landscaping once the house is built. • Reminded that despite 30 letters, only one complaint was received. Commissioner Barry asked staff what options the Commission has on this matter. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan suggested that staff bring back a report. Commissioner Patrick expressed her displeasure with the information provided. Said that it is not clear what the landscape really is and the Commission needs to see the actual plans. Acting Chair Roupe asked staff what the best process to resolution would be. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan replied that staff should prepare a status report for the Planning Commission with a recommendation of action at the next meeting. Commissioner Kurasch stated that in past cases, neighbors worked together to come up with a final plan. Commissioner Bernald stated that more neighborhood input is needed. Some impacted properties are outside of the required notification distance. Said that this project was passed allowing construction on a minor ridgeline despite City policy. Added that there is not enough screening from the valley and that a minimal effort will not alleviate the problem. The Commission did ask to have the Commission approve the final landscaping plan. Declared that it is ridiculous to wait until final permit to do so. Acting Chair Roupe directed staff to work with the applicant and to encourage the applicant to work with the neighbors. Asked that the matter be agendized for the next meeting. 2. Discussion of Planning Commission Staff Report Format: Commissioner Barry stated that a standard condition requiring the posting of signs providing allowable hours of construction should be added to approvals. Additionally, suggested that any specialized reports with recommendations, such as Arborist or Geologist’s reports, should be specifically quoted within the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the comparisons provided in the San Filippo project were good this evening and expressed appreciation for that fact. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 10 3. DR-00-050; 14499 Oak Street – Modification of Approval: Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this project was approved by the Commission in December, 2000. Projects with modifications more than 25 square feet must come back before the Commission. This project proposes to add 47 square feet to the approved square footage. The exterior elevation is unchanged as this addition will be to the master bedroom and bath enclosing existing deck area on the second floor. Advised that the original approval was for 2,873 square feet. With this small addition, the total square footage will be 3,020. The maximum allowable square footage is 3,040. Commissioner Patrick said that it is nice to actually see this proposal in a drawing. Commissioner Bernald said that the added balcony creates potential privacy issues. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that the balcony was in the original approval. An arbor has been added to it. However, the proposed addition is completely a second floor addition. Acting Chair Roupe stated that it does not appear that sufficient information is being provided to satisfy the Commission. Asked staff to prepare a report and agendize this item for the next available meeting bringing forth further details. 4. League of California Cities Planners Institute: Staff advised the Commission that the Conference will occur from March 21-23, 2001, in Monterey. Any Commissioner available to attend is encouraged to do so. The City will process reimbursements for registration expenses. 5. Tree Issue on Caldwell/Duncan Properties: Commissioner Kurasch pointed out the letter prepared by staff regarding the issue of the tree which is not being properly protected during construction and asked what action is being taken to deal with this situation. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that protection of the tree is called out in the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, these Conditions must be complied with by the builder. Commissioner Barry reminded that Chair Page had asked staff to require the applicant to appear before the Commission to explain their failure to comply with the tree protection provisions. Interim Director Irwin Kaplan advised that this is an enforcement issue for staff to deal with at this stage rather than a matter to be brought forth before the Commission. Commissioner Kurasch asked staff to get it right for the sake of the tree. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 14, 2001 Page 11 • Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meetings of January 23 and February 13, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Acting Chair Roupe adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. to Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn Minutes Clerk