Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2001 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Commissioner Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Jackman, Kurasch and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Roupe and two currently vacant seats Staff: Senior Planner Bob Schubert and Planners Mark Connolly and Kim Duncan Commissioner Jackman advised that the Commission would need to select a Temporary Chair for the Commission until a full complement of Commissioners is appointed and a permanent Chair can be selected for the year. Motion: Upon Motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, Commissioner Barry was nominated to serve as Chair for this evening’s Planning Commission meeting. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are presently two vacant seats on the Commission.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of March 28, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Regular Planning Commission minutes of March 28, 2001, were approved with the following amendments: • Page 4 – Commissioner Barry expressed concern that the size of these units suggests family use while no viable safe play area is being provided on site for children to use. • Page 7 – Commissioner Kurasch’s third bulleted comment was revised to read: Expressed that since parking in the Village is already deficient by 250 spaces, the parking Variance would have a comparative small impact. The solution is not to decrease retail space but rather to increase available parking as recommended in the Village Plan, No. 11, Page 17, of the General Plan. • Page 11 –Commissioner Barry said that, based on a Planners’ Conference, her understanding of the Planning Commission’s mandate is that some sort of summary needs to be provided. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Jan Birenbaum, Co-Chair, Teachers’ Housing Coalition Committee, 20052 Sunset Drive, Saratoga: • Updated the Commission on issues raised with Council in relation to their activities to assist teachers, living and/or teaching in Saratoga, find affordable housing. • Stated that it is their goal to ask the City of Saratoga to set aside $2 million for a Housing Assistance Program, designed to assist teachers. • Said they also hope to see modifications to the Housing Ordinance to reduce limitations on secondary living units, a means of providing affordable small units for teachers. • Added that they also seek to support including residential units above commercial uses. • Said that the City needs to require developers to set aside 10 to 15 percent of their units for BMR (Below Market Rate) units. Commissioner Jackman reminded the Commission of comments made at the last meeting by a citizen expressing concern that BMR units would adversely impact property values. Reiterated her belief, as well as her response to that citizen, that BMR units do not reduce property values and that the people who need the assistance of available BMR units include many professionals, with good incomes, such as teachers. Chair Barry suggested that the Commission be kept informed of ideas generated by the Teachers’ Housing Coalition Committee. Suggested that updates be provided to staff who in turn can forward the information to both the Commission and Council. Ms. Lisa Liu, Teachers’ Housing Coalition Committee, 20291 Merrick Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that she is also present to show support for the Teachers’ Housing Coalition Committee’s Housing Assistance program. • Provided a number where she can be reached as (408) 741-4824. • Advised that this Committee is meeting monthly. 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 April 20, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, provided the following technical corrections to the packet: • Agenda Item No. 2 (Lot 1) and No. 3 (Lot 2): Correct page 4 to read 45 percent maximum allowable square footage. • Agenda Item No. 1: Page 4 should read that there is an attached garage proposed rather than a detached garage. • Agenda Item No. 4: Project number is actually UP-00-013 not UP-01-013. The square footage of the equipment structure is 45 square feet not 50 square feet. • Order of Agenda: Suggested that the four projects under consideration for Howell & McNeil be grouped together at the end of the agenda. The revised Agenda order would be Items 1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-00-062 (397-28-013) – PICO RANCH, INC., 20460 Williams Road: Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,974 square foot single-family residence and construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence. Maximum height of the structure will be 23 feet. The 7,671 square foot parcel is located in the 4-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01). Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report: • Advised that this item was continued from the April 11, 2001, Planning Commission agenda. • Said that the application is for approval to demolish a 1,974 square foot, single-story residence and detached garage and to construct a new 2,663 square foot, two-story residence with attached garage. • Informed that this is a substandard lot with just 50-foot width. The required lot width in this zoning district is 85 feet minimum. • Pointed out two concerns raised by adjacent neighbors as being privacy impacts from a rear deck and the proposed front setback for this project. • Advised that the applicant has offered to install additional landscaping to buffer the balcony. • Staff is recommending approval of this proposal. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:05 p.m. Mr. John Ridder, Applicant: • Said that he has worked closely with Planning staff and has met all design criteria, including a 25- foot front setback. The rear yard setback is 52 feet when only 25 feet is required. The proposed height, at 23 feet, is three feet lower than the maximum allowable. The second story setback is eight feet more than required. • Advised that this home has been developed to fit in with the neighborhood. • Said that is response to the concerns outlined in the letter from the Neighborhood Watch, dated April 3, 2001, they are proposing a screening trellis. • Added that upon conducting a survey of the front setbacks in the area, only one home has a 38-foot setback. Most homes are 25 feet or less set back from the front property line. • Said that he believes they have met and exceeded the City’s criteria and design guidelines. • Added that they are willing to work with staff and neighbors to solve any concerns. Commissioner Kurasch said that in order to minimize the perception of bulk, the home couldn’t appear to stick out at the front of the property further than the adjacent homes. Added that it may be necessary to slightly reduce this home in size. Mr. John Ridder replied that he has met all guidelines. Commissioner Zutshi asked what size homes are in the immediate area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 4 Mr. John Ridder replied that a similar home is located just down the street from this site. Mr. George Elliott, 20462 Williams Road, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is located adjacent to this parcel. • Added that the home mentioned by Mr. Ridder, Jack Cook’s home, is set back behind its adjacent neighboring homes. • Added that recent infill projects have been sensitive to setbacks. • Read the letter from the Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee into the record: The Williams Avenue Neighborhood Watch Committee respectfully ask the Saratoga Planning Commission to consider and act on two requests which affects our neighborhood concerning the Proposed Site Plan for 20460 Williams Avenue. The first request is to review the “interference with privacy” of the deck shown on the left/front elevation of the proposed site plan. Please read Police 3 #1: Control view to adjacent properties on page 19 of the Residential Design Handbook, City of Saratoga. In this context, we believe the proposed design does not work. The city planner for this project and the architect have already come to that same conclusion. We would like to find a solution that is agreeable to John and Chris Pace whose home is adjacent to the Left/East elevation. Secondly, the Committee would like to “minimize the perception of bulk” on the proposed site plan by having the house use the same front setback that now exist with the present home at this location. Again referring to the Handbook Police 1 #5: Design structure to fit with existing neighborhood, page 8. Under the design Don’ts section we quote: “Avoid overwhelming existing residences and do not design to attract attention or stand out.” We do not object to the building of a two-story, 4057 square foot house set between two 1600 square foot homes. We do object to the “sticking out” 13 feet beyond the existing front setback which would not be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. We think the proposed setback does not minimize the perception of bulk but in fact would maximize it and “set it apart” from the existing surroundings. We have a positive example in the neighborhood on how this can work where neighbors and developers both win. Jack Cook of Cook Construction Company set his new two-story house on Williams slightly behind his neighbor’s front setback. If you view the house, as many of you on the Planning Commission did, clearly this works with the existing surroundings and it minimizes the bulk issue. (By the way, the same designer working on the site at 20460 Williams Avenue designed the Cook house.) Both Cook Construction and Blackwell Properties, who are working on “infill” projects on our street have been very sensitive to front setbacks and keeping the look consistent with the neighbors so not to overwhelm them. Therefore, our neighborhood committee is asking the Planning Commission not to approve the proposed design without adoption of our two requested modifications. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 5 Signed: M/M Pace, M/M Elliott, M/M Kerin, M/M Hart, M/M Rockwood, M/M Hulme, M/M Kwan, Ms. Felcyn, Ms. Anderson and Ms. Paxton. • Added his belief that Mr. Ridder can design to better fit into the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that one issue is tree retention. Mr. George Elliott replied that they could either reduce the size of the 4,000 + square foot home or design around the trees. Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Elliott that he should not count the 1,092 square foot basement as actual square footage. The actual home is 2,663 square feet per City code. Mr. Anthony Kerin, 20461 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that his home is directly across the street from this property. • Added that he will be visually impacted by the bulk and mass of this proposed structure and that the wishes of 17 neighbors should be respected. Mr. Theo Hart, 20431 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Said that his home is also across the street and down from the proposed home. • Said that this is a great neighborhood and the real issue is having a contiguous line in the front year setbacks on the street. Chair Barry asked whether Mr. Hart and the other Neighborhood Watch members would be willing to appoint one representative to meet and work out issues with the developer and staff. Mr. Theo Hart replied absolutely. Mr. Allan Hulme, 20485 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Identified his home as being across the street and two house over. • Said that none of the neighbors is opposing the construction of this home just the proposed setback from the street. The proposed setback would be very different from what is there now. This is already a bigger and two-story home coming onto this lot. • Stated that it is important to take the neighborhood into consideration. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Hulme if size, bulk and mass are issues for him. Mr. Allan Hulme reiterated that their only concern is how this home will relate to the other houses on the street. Chair Barry stated that it is always a key consideration of the City to take into consideration neighborhood compatibility. Ms. Chris Pace, 20450 Williams Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that her home is next door to this site. • Said that the proposed balcony was her original concern as well as the potential of bulk and the home sticking out. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 6 • Said that the tree being retained could be removed as far as she is concerned as it has caused many sewer problems over the last 15 years. • Suggested that removing that one tree will allow the home to be moved back. Commissioner Jackman stated that she would not support the removal of this tree. Mr. John Ridder: • Clarified that he had nothing to do with the design of the Cook home. Architect Bruno Marcelic, who shares office space with him, did that design. • Said that the Commission should consider the setbacks of the whole neighborhood and not just five homes. • Said that he is unable to remove the tree as it is recommended for retention in the Arborist report. • Pointed out that the setback for the Kerin Home across the street is just 16 feet. • Reminded that the second story setback is 33 feet from the front property line. Commissioner Jackman stated that she felt the design could be reworked. Chair Barry asked Mr. Ridder if he is willing to work out issues together with a neighborhood representative and staff. Mr. John Ridder replied that he would be so willing. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if the garage might be better detached than attached. Mr. John Ridder replied that a detached garage would result in a vary narrow home to allow the driveway. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission closed Public Hearing No. 1 at 8:34 p.m. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Commissioner Jackman suggested that the project be redesigned and returned for further review. Advised that Mr. Ridder would have to retain the redwood tree. Commissioner Kurasch said that a compromise could be struck with a balance between the applicant’s and neighbors’ interests. Said that the home should have a deeper front setback and reduction in size and bulk. Suggested scaling the project back by about 10 percent, with a deeper setback and retention of the redwood tree. Commissioner Zutshi concurred. Mr. John Ridder asked for further clarification. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the setback should be about 30 feet and the project have a reduction in bulk and size. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 7 Chair Barry stated that the applicant can meet with staff and one representative from the neighborhood. It appears that five additional feet in front setback, for a total of 30 feet and the retention of the tree are specifics offered by the Commission. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission continued consideration of DR-00-062 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to work with staff and a neighborhood representative in order to develop an alternative design that provides a 30-foot front setback and some reduction in bulk and size as well as the retention of the redwood tree. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 UP-00-013 (386-44-040 – NEXTEL, Cox Avenue and Cumberland Drive: Request for Use Permit approval to install nine, four-foot tall panel antennas mounted 84 feet high on an existing 143 foot tall utility lattice tower. A proposed 50 square foot equipment shelter surrounded by a six-foot high wood fence would be located on the northwest portion of the property north of Cumberland Drive on Cox Avenue. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01.) Ms. Kim Duncan, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this request is for a Use Permit to install nine antennas on an existing utility tower. • Said that an equipment shelter will be constructed and will include an air conditioning unit that will run continuously to maintain the equipment within. • Said that staff is recommending approval of this application and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Ashraf Rageh, Nextel Representative: • Said that he worked closely with the City and was able to reduce the shelter for the equipment to a seven-foot high, five by nine footprint, surrounded by a six-foot fence enclosure at 25 by 25 foot with redwood slats. • Added that there is already quite a canopy of existing landscaping in the immediate area. • Said that they are prepared to meet the Conditions of Approval. Chair Barry pointed out a letter received from a neighbor which outlines concerns about cumulative effect of radio waves on the area. Mr. Ashraf Rageh advised that they have hired a consultant to conduct a pre and aft study of the site and area for RF (Radio Frequency) exposure. Mr. Bill Hammett, RF Consultant to Nextel: • Stated that he conducts tests to calculate and measure radio frequency exposure and develop mitigation if necessary. • Said that he has visited the site and this project will comply with all FCC standards. Frequency is 100 times below the allowable standards with this installation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 8 Commissioner Kurasch asked if the applicant could support requiring annual emissions tests as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Ashraf Rageh replied that such a condition would be no problem. Mr. Frank Marolda, 19884 Veronica Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has resided at this location since 1975 and the proposed installation is located right behind his rear yard. • Advised that he has heard a crackling sound off of this existing utility tower for many years. • Added that the lattice tower is an eyesore already. • Informed that he only received notice of the meeting on March 21 but that many of his neighbors never did receive notice, including 19862 Veronica Drive and 12672 and 22679 Cain Drive. • Said he questioned if adequate notice has been done. • Expressed concern for health hazards and asked for a copy of the radio frequency emissions testing. • Pointed out that many people on his block have cancer and he is concerned about the safety of his family, particularly his grandchildren who often use his backyard swimming pool. • Read aloud from portions of his letter, particularly paragraphs three and four. • Added that he is also concerned about view impacts from this installation. • Asked the Commission to deny this application. Mr. Jack Leman: • Advised that he resides two doors down from Mr. Marolda. • Said that the tower is already a concern. • Said that he does not know if the emissions from the tower are harmful or not but that someone should find out. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Jack Leman if he received a hearing notice. Mr. Jack Leman replied that he received the notice for April 11th (note that meeting was continued due to a lack of quorum). Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Hammett if there are any potential heath hazards with this installation. Mr. Hammett replied that Nextel is willing to do any necessary testing to assure that there is no impact. Added that his report was included in the Commissioner’s staff report this evening. Assured that this installation will comply with all safety standards. Chair Barry stated the City’s protocol regarding the requirement to replace outdated equipment and asked Mr. Hammett if this is a common requirement in his experience. Mr. Hammett replied that this is a common requirement. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there is a compounding effect with this installation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Hammett replied that there is no compounding effect. Added that it is very common to place such equipment on PG&E Towers. This is happening all over. Commissioner Kurasch asked if a third party evaluates. Mr. Hammett advised that he is a third party, in that he is not an employee of Nextel but rather a consultant. Mr. Frank Marolda asked who was responsible for the meeting notice mailing. Additionally, he wondered why this site was selected and whether any alternative sites had been considered. Finally, he wanted to know if the City has received any monetary compensation for this installation. Commissioner Jackman advised Mr. Marolda that there are already a number of other such installations throughout the City. Chair Barry asked staff to clarify the mailing procedures for hearing notices. Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, advised that for this particular agenda item 73 notices were mailed, included nine to addresses on Veronica Drive. The three addresses mentioned by Mr. Marolda were included on the affidavit provided by the mail house that prepares public hearing notices for the City. Explained that notices are sent to property owners rather than occupants of any property and one notice went to an off-site owner. No notices were returned for this mailing as undeliverable. The noticing area is 500 feet. Commissioner Barry asked if there is a financial benefit to placing the antenna on this site. Mr. Bob Schubert replied not for the City of Saratoga. This property belongs to PG&E. Chair Barry explained to those in attendance that the purview of the Commission does not include the ability to evaluate health issues. There is an established protocol for such antenna installations and the Commission is charged with dealing with aesthetic issues. Mr. Bob Schubert added that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 precludes a city from denying antenna installations based on emissions. Commissioner Kurasch said that the federal standards are the only criteria. Suggested noticing a wider area than 500 feet. Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Ashraf Rageh if he is willing to test residences in the neighborhood for emissions impacts. Mr. Ashraf Rageh replied yes. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:24 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved UP-00-013 with the standard protocol requirements and requiring independent party testing be made available to adjacent residents and Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 10 that annual testing of emissions be conducted and additional screening of the site from neighboring property. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Chair Barry directed staff to add to the basic protocol the requirement for independent party testing and the replacement of obsolete equipment. Chair Barry advised that this approval is final in 15 days. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5 V-01-001 (393-25-024), 13601 Saratoga Avenue, ST. ANDREWS SCHOOL: Request for Variance approval to construct a fence over three feet in height up to six foot maximum, along Saratoga Avenue and Crestbrook Drive, within the front yard and exterior side yard setback. The site is located on an 89,291 (net) square foot parcel within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 4/11/01). Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this application is for a Variance to allow a six-foot high, welded fence to replace an existing four-foot chain link fence, using the same postholes. • Additionally, new fencing will be installed on Saratoga Avenue. • Advised that this fencing represents both a security and ornamental feature. • The application was reviewed and approved by the Commission but the noticing description did not include the Crestbrook Drive portion of the proposed fencing proposal. Therefore, this application is again before the Commission for further review following notification to the Crestbrook Drive residents. Chair Barry opened Public Hearing No. 5 at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Bill Puder, 19680 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his concern with the placement of the fencing on Crestbrook so near the street. • Questioned the purpose for a six-foot high fence. Mr. Currie Munce, 19722 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed concern about noticing since the owners of 19747 Braemar Drive and 19704 Crestbrook Drive did not receive notice. • Said did not like fence as it will look institutional. • After looking at other schools in Saratoga, did not find any fencing so high. This proposal is therefore unique for Saratoga. • Said that most of the neighbors do not support this application. Mr. Jim Stallman, 19740 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has concerns about this proposal. • Added that he was unaware that the fencing was changing along Crestbrook when the original hearing notice was received. • Said that it does not appear that the corner sight lines are being met. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 11 • Advised that his kids walk to Sacred Heart School along Crestbrook and suggested that the fence be set back four feet to allow a walkway area along the street. • Added that the fence should not exceed four feet in height and that the dimensions of the bars should be changes. Ms. Carol Munce, 19722 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she feels strongly against this fence at six feet in height and its proposed green color. • Added that she is a 34 year resident of her home and that this fence would be too much, giving the appearance of a prison wall. • Said that the existing fence blends and does not stand out. This proposal does not blend. • Said that this fence installation would devalue the area and provide an unfriendly, unsightly view in the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch asked Ms. Carol Munce if she felt this fence is necessary for protection of the property. Ms. Carol Munce replied that she has often felt safety is not a big concern at the school as she sees students off site unsupervised all the time. Mr. Harry McKay, Representative of St. Andrews School: • Said that a chain link fence was viewed as very institutional so they had attempted to select something that was more decorative. • Assured that the fence height was selected for safety, for children when they are present and to secure the site from vandalism after hours. • Said that they are sensitive to the difference of opinion and had worked with the Heritage Commission in designing this fencing proposal. Commissioner Jackman asked why the fencing was so close with one-inch vertical on four-inch. Mr. Harry McKay replied that this was just the style fencing selected. Commissioner Jackman asked about the fence setback. Mr. Harry McKay replied that he had understood that the proposed setback was in compliance. Commissioner Jackman asked if there is walking space at the present time along the existing fence. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that the fencing is proposed to be installed using the existing postholes. The proposed setback is met but the Variance is required for the height over three feet. Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that Code allows the fence to be located at the curb, three feet or less in height or six feet in height if set back at least 25 feet. Asked how far the curb is from the fence. Mr. Mark Connolly replied three to four feet. Chair Barry asked if a walking path is possible. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that it would be a voluntary requirement not one the City could impose. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Currie Munce stated that the existing fence is just one foot from the curb. Commissioner Kurasch stated her concurrence that the proposed fencing gives a heavy construction appearance, which is a concern. Also was concerned about the proposed setback on Saratoga Avenue. Commissioner Kurasch and Chair Barry both stated that they had looked at other schools’ fencing and neither had located a six-foot fence. Mr. Jim Stallman said that he wanted to emphasize the proximity of the existing fence to the curb. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5 at 10 p.m. Commissioner Jackman suggested that the fence be no higher than five feet and of a less heavy material with more distance between rails. Suggested a four-foot walkway on the street side of the fence. Chair Barry asked staff for clarification about the hearing notice to neighbors. Mr. Mark Connolly reviewed the mail house affidavit, which states that the property owners for 19747 Braemar Drive and 19740 Crestbrook Drive are both included on the mailing list. Commissioner Kurasch asked why cutouts in the fencing are included. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that they provide clearance around bleachers. Again stated that the fencing would be utilizing the exiting postholes. Commissioner Kurasch wondered if it is unreasonable to ask for a walking path. Mr. Mark Connolly said that the Commission could ask. The bleachers could be relocated if necessary. Chair Barry expressed her relief that this application is being reconsidered as she feels she did not look at the design clearly enough. Suggested a continuance to allow for the redesign of this proposal. Added that the neighbors want to retain a nice view from their homes. Additionally, there are concerns about safety for those exiting cars with the fencing in its current location. Suggested that asking the school to move the fence location to accommodate safety for pedestrians is not unreasonable. Added that the City is going to have to address noticing problems. Commissioner Kurasch suggested a fence height no more than five feet on Saratoga and no more than four feet along Crestbrook. Mr. Mark Connolly suggested that with the specific criteria called out by the Commissioners, this application can be approved this evening and the applicant would be allowed to build it. Commissioner Jackman stated that she supports placement four feet from the curb with a maximum of five feet in height with five inches between 3/4-inch rails. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner Kurasch said that she has a problem with the five-foot height on Crestbrook Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission approved V-01-001 with a four-foot height on Crestbrook Drive, a five-foot height on Saratoga Avenue, a four foot setback on Crestbrook Drive and 3/4 inch vertical rails with larger spacing between the rails, if possible, and like landscaping along Saratoga Avenue in the street right of way. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Chair Barry called for a brief break at 10:15 p.m. Chair Barry reconvened the meeting at 10:22 p.m. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEMS 2, 3, 6 & 7 DR-00-057 (Portion of 397-21-022) – HOWELL & MCNEIL, Lot 1, Carnelian Glen Court (A part of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,677 square foot single-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height of the structure will be 20 feet. The 24,045 square foot parcel is located within an R-1-20, 000 zoning district. (CONTINUED from 4/11/01). DR-01-001 (Portion of 397-21-022) – HOWELL & MCNEIL, Lot 2, Carnelian Glen Court (A part of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,505 square foot single-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height of the structure will be 21 feet. The 36,528 square foot parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED from 4/11/01). DR-01-002 (Portion of 397-21-022) – HOWELL & MCNEIL, Lot 4, Carnelian Glen Court (A part of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,549 square foot two-story residence and demolish a 600 square foot tea house. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 32,384 gross square foot (29,010 net) parcel is located within an R-1- 20,000 zoning district. DR-01-010 (Portion of 397-21-022) – HOWELL & MCNEIL, Lot 5, Carnelian Glen Court (A part of 20251 Carnelian Glen Court): Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,294 square foot single-story residence and demolish a 2,300 square foot structure. Maximum height of the structure will be 22 feet. The 21,145 square foot parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Mr. Mark Connolly, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Suggested that the Commission consider all four houses as home hearing. • Advised that the applicant has worked with staff and the neighborhood, including sending a letter early in the project to the neighbors. • Said that Lot 4 has been revised in order to preserve trees and that the Arborist, Public Works and Fire staff reviewed each lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 14 • Informed that staff is supportive of each Design Review application and is recommending approval. Commissioner Kurasch asked if each home is being discussed in turn or if all would be discussed as a group. Mr. Mark Connolly suggested that all four homes be discussed as a group but that the vote is taken separately on each Lot. Chair Barry noted a change in the driveway location. Mr. Mark Connolly agreed and advised that in order to save Trees No. 1 and 2, the driveway on Lot 4 was relocated on the site. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that the driveway not be more than 16 feet in width. Mr. Mark Connolly clarified that for Lot 1 (Agenda Item No. 2) the actual impervious surfaces total 32 percent of the site while 45 percent is allowed. Commissioner Jackman suggested the use of additional impervious pavers in the driveway and that the roof drainage issue for Lot 4 raised by the Arborist in his report on page 17 be reviewed. Commissioner Kurasch stated that the numbering of trees in the various Arborist reports is confusing. Mr. Greg Howell, Applicant: • Said that they have been given lots of guidance by staff and took the existing homes in the neighborhood into consideration when designing their project. • These four proposed homes range from 4,000 to 5,500 square feet. Chair Barry asked Mr. Howell about what trees would be removed and what trees preserved. Mr. Greg Howell replied that they have complied with all of the recommendations of Mr. Barrie Coates, the Arborist, and have not discounted any of his recommendations. Commissioner Kurasch suggested the removal of the existing privet near the proposed front walk for Lot 1. Added that the path may significantly impact trees 4, 5 and 6. Said that it is important to keep the integrity of the canopy on Carnelian Glen. Mr. Chris Spaulding, Architect: • Agreed with Commissioner Kurasch’s recommendations and said that they could eliminate the straight portion of the walk and angle it toward the drive. Commissioner Kurasch said that she had no specific concerns regarding Lot 2. Asked if the inner courtyard would be paved at the back of this house. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that the new homeowners would install that rear yard landscaping. They envision that space as a garden court. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 15 Commissioner Kurasch suggested a narrower driveway for Lot 4, the flag lot and the only two-story in the project. Mr. Chris Spaulding asked if it is possible to have a narrower drive than the 16-foot proposed. If so, they could narrow the driveway to between 10 and 12 feet in width. Mr. Mark Connolly replied that it is possible. Commissioner Kurasch suggested positioning the drive to the right of a tree. Mr. Chris Spaulding replied that to do so would wipe out approximately seven trees. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is possible to reduce the on grade walk for Lot 5. Mr. Chris Spaulding pointed out that the auto access is shared with Lot 4. Commissioner Jackman asked to see the color board. Mr. Chris Spaulding stated that staff has it. Added that the roof material is different but the body colors for the homes is similar. The stone and windows to be used will also vary between the four homes. Chair Barry mentioned that the staff report is calling for a monochromatic rust colored roof tile. Mr. Chris Spaulding corrected that by stating that the roof tile has variations in color and is not monochromatic. Chair Barry said that the colors proposed sounds nice. Commissioner Kurasch suggested having an on-site Arborist, as has been required on similar type projects in the past. Asked if the applicants are willing to have one on their project, specifically for key times in the project such as at the time of site grading and during the early stages of construction. Mr. Mark Connolly reiterated that it is not uncommon to require an ISA Certified Project Arborist during demolition and construction at key times of the project. The project Arborist sends staff monthly updates on the site. Commissioner Kurasch stated that according to the Arborist report there are no landscape plans yet. Suggested a Condition of Approval requiring that the landscape plans be approved by the Arborist prior to construction. Mr. Greg Howell said that it is not reasonable to require a final landscape plan prior to construction. Typically, the landscape plan is required prior to final occupancy. Commissioner Kurasch disagreed and stated that the final landscape plan would have to be worked out prior to construction and that waiting until final occupancy is not appropriate. Mr. Chris Spaulding said that construction plans would depict trenching prior to issuance of permits. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 16 Commissioner Kurasch reiterated that it is both normal and reasonable to request final landscape plans. Chair Barry asked staff for clarification. Mr. Mark Connolly said that the requirement for landscape plans is handled on a case-by-case basis. Submission of preliminary plans is not uncommon with a Condition that final landscape plans be approved prior to final occupancy upon review by the City’s Arborist. It is possible to issue this project’s building permits with a Condition that they applicants begin work on their final landscape plans. Mr. McNeil, Applicant, Howell & McNeil: • Said that it is premature to prepare final landscape plans. It will be one to one-and-a-half years before installation of this landscaping. • Added that they will follow all guidelines provided by the Arborist for the protection of existing landscaping. Mr. Mark Connolly added that there is also a Condition requiring the installation of front yard landscaping prior to issuance of final occupancy. Chair Barry said that the preliminary landscaping plan should fit with tree preservation. Mr. Greg Howell reminded that the plans would be approved by the Arborist prior to installation. Commissioner Jackman mentioned that neighbors have expressed concern about the impacts of dust and debris during construction and asked what Lot would be constructed first. Mr. McNeil replied that Lot 2 would be the first. Chair Barry reminded the applicants that it will be required as a Condition of Approval that they post a sign on site that lists the allowable construction hours. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that that Condition would be added to this project. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Items 2, 3, 6 and 7 at 11:04 p.m. Chair Barry clarified the additional proposed Conditions for Lot 1 (Agenda Item No. 2) to include: • An on-site Arborist, • The posting of a sign listing construction hours, • The elimination of the straight walkway to Carnelian Glen Drive with the change in angle of the remaining walkway away from retained trees, • The submittal of preliminary landscape plans upon issuance of building permits, • Approval of the final landscaping plan by the City ‘s Arborist and • The installation of the front yard landscaping prior to final occupancy. Commissioner Jackman stated her disagreement with the requirement for preliminary landscape plans. Commissioner Zutshi agreed that these landscape plans could be submitted at a future time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 17 Chair Barry stated her support for the requirement to provide preliminary landscape plans. Commissioner Jackman proposed a compromise, which would require the submittal of the preliminary landscape plans three months after building permits have been issued. Motion: Upon motion of Chair Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission approved DR-00-057 (Lot 1/Agenda Item No. 2) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits, that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City’s Arborist and that the walkway be redirected. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission approved DR-01-001 (Lot 2/Agenda Item No. 3) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits and that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City’s Arborist. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Commission approved DR-01-002 (Lot 4/Agenda Item No. 6) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits, that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City’s Arborist and the access to the garage portion of the driveway be narrowed to 12 feet in width between Trees No. 1 and 2. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the Commission approved DR-01-010 (Lot 5/Agenda Item No. 7) with added Conditions that an on-site Arborist be retained, that the construction hours be posted on site, that the preliminary landscape plans be submitted three months after issuance of building permits and that the final landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City’s Arborist. (4-0-1-0-2; Commissioner Roupe was absent and there are two vacant seats.) Chair Barry advised that this approval is final in 15 days. Commissioner Kurasch warned staff that in the future she would be looking for more complete applications, which include landscape plans. Chair Barry suggested discussing this topic on a future agenda. *** Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 18 DIRECTOR ITEMS Request for reconsideration of Trafalgar Project Mr. Bob Schubert, Senior Planner, provided the staff report as follows: • Advised the Commission that the applicants for this project on Big Basin Way and St. Charles Street are asking the Commission to reconsider their project. They propose to merge their lots and have their project reconsidered without the need for a Variance approval for the reduced rear setback. Said that City Code allows Commissioners, who made the motion for denial, to reconsider an application in this manner. Mr. Glen Cahoon, Designer: • Said that this new proposal to merge the lots helps to resolve issues in this project. • Added that the Parking Variance was the only part of the project that was approved by the Commission. • Said that if they merge the two lots, they no longer need to ask for a Variance to the 30-foot setback requirement. • Added that the townhomes are proposed to have 15 x 30-foot rear yards. • Said that their demographics project that this project would appeal to professionals without children. • Asked the Commission to reconsider this reconfigured project so they will avoid having to appeal the denial to Council. Commissioner Barry clarified that her concern was regarding the living units on Big Basin Way. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman to deny consideration of a merging of the two properties, the motion died for lack of a second. Chair Barry advised Mr. Cahoon that the Commission believes that this is more appropriate as an appeal to Council. Added that combining the lots does not help with the design issues and the fact that there is not enough retail proposed on Big Basin. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Jackman stated that she would like to see the Commission look into a basement policy. Additionally, she proposed considering whether light wells of six feet be allowed instead of the limits of three-foot light wells that currently is the standard. Mr. Mark Connolly advised that this is a Director’s Policy and not a Municipal Code standard. The purpose is to prevent the appearance of light wells as terraces. Chair Barry stated that it would be beneficial to concentrate some meetings on planning issues such as these instead of specific applications. COMMUNICATIONS • Written: Saratoga City Council Minutes from Adjourned Meeting of February 21, 2001, and April 4, 2001. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 Page 19 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 11:37 p.m. to Wednesday, May 9, 2001, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk