Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2001 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Barry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Planner Christy Oosterhous APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of November 28, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the regular Planning Commission minutes of November 28, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Barry, Jackman and Roupe APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Study Session of November 28, 2001. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Study Session minutes of November 28, 2001, were approved as submitted. AYES:Garakani, Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Barry, Jackman and Roupe ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Forest Glen Durland, 14675 1/2 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated he was present to speak his opposition to the public access trail at 14645 Big Basin Way, saying that this access was angering nearby neighbors. • Pointed out that several years ago at a public hearing, loud opposition to this potential access was expressed. • Urged the abandonment of plans for this trail access. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 2 Ms. Mary Boscoe, 14611 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Stated that she learned about plans for the trail going in just yesterday. • Declared that she purchased her property in order to live within a quiet area and never envisioned the public being there. • Asked the City to reconsider the installation of this access. Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Durland and Ms. Boscoe that as this item was not an agendized item the Commission is not at liberty to discuss this matter at length. Director Sullivan suggested that Chair Barry direct staff to place this item on a future agenda if it so wishes. Pointed out that the trial access was approved in 1998 and the easements required were accepted by the City Council. Therefore, any abandonment of these easements would also have to be executed by Council. Commissioner Roupe stated that staff should place this matter on a future agenda and provide the Planning Commission with any pertinent facts. Said that this is a subject worthy of future discussion. Commissioner Kurasch questioned what action the Commission could take as it has no authority over this matter. Director Sullivan replied that the Commission could simply make a recommendation of action to Council. Commissioner Roupe reiterated that the Commission must be provided with the complete facts to determine what course of action is appropriate. Chair Barry advised the two speakers that the only action that could be taken this evening is to agendize this matter for a future meeting. Mr. Forest Durland inquired whether the Commission could stop the developer from putting a sign on the street identifying the access. Director Sullivan replied that neither staff nor the Commission has the authority to do so. Commissioner Kurasch said that there is nothing that the Planning Commission can do and suggested that the speakers approach Council. Chair Barry suggested that they make a complaint to Director Sullivan to be forwarded to the appropriate body for consideration. Mr. Forest Durland promised to bring a letter of complaint to Director Sullivan the next day. Commissioner Garakani asked when the Council’s next meeting will occur. Director Sullivan advised that the Council would meet next Wednesday. He cautioned that as this item has not been advertised for that meeting, the Council would also be precluded from discussing it in any detail at that meeting. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 3 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 6, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 DR-01-019, V-01-011, UP-01-016, BSA-01-001 & ED-01-001 (503-13-117) HUERTA, 22551 Mount Eden Road: Request for Design Review and Building Site Approval to construct a 4,830 square foot two-story residence with garage on a vacant lot. A variance is requested in order to construct retaining walls in excess of five feet for geotechnical mitigation. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 1.42-acre site is located within the Hillside Residential (HR) Zoning District. (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant seeks approval for a new single-family residence on a 1.42-acre lot. The 4,830 square foot home would include a 1,260 square foot basement and 504 square foot garage. The maximum height would be 26 feet, with the garage height at 14 feet. • Pointed out that two-thirds of the site will be undeveloped and that the property is zoned Hillside Residential. • Reminded that this project was originally considered by the Commission on October 24th and continued to this meeting. • Said that the Commission had two concerns. The first is what would be involved to remediate the slide area. The second was whether redwood trees could be planted near the slide area without jeopardizing that slide area. • Pointed out that remediation of the slide area would involve construction on several adjacent properties and that there is no nexus for requiring that action. • Advised that it has been determined that trees can be planted in the slide area but with the warnings that trees not be placed too close to any other structures. • Added that the size of the structure was also reduced at the instruction of the Commission. The reductions include 403 square foot on the first floor with the elimination of a guest room and a family room. The kitchen nook and terrace were modified. The garage was moved up the hill by seven feet. There were no alterations to the basement or second floor. • Recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Tentative Subdivision, Variance, Use Permit and Design Review for this project. Advised that the Building Site Approval and Environmental Determination require final approval by Council. Commissioner Roupe asked if the total 4,830 square footage includes the garage. Director Sullivan replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Roupe pointed out that with that reduction the application is now for an approximately 4,400 square foot structure. Commissioner Jackman inquired why Council must approve this building site. Director Sullivan pointed out that Building Site Approvals are handled like Parcel Maps and Final Subdivisions. The Planning Commission approves Tentative Subdivisions, while Council approves Final Subdivisions. Chair Barry asked if there are any open issues. Director Sullivan said he would defer to the Commission for that response. Chair Barry pointed out that this is a legal lot that was recorded quite a long time ago. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the variance for the retaining walls is only because of their height or due to their location within a setback. Director Sullivan replied some of both. Commissioner Jackman asked why this was going to Council. Director Sullivan replied because the lot was created more than 15 years ago. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Charles Brown, Project Architect: • Said that they have reduced the size of this proposed home as required by the Commission. • Added that with their changes, the building has been pulled away from the bottom property line, through the elimination of both a guest and family room. The structure is 15 feet further up hill, with the garage being 6 feet further up hill. • Stated that articulation has been included to reduce the mass of the building. • Made himself available for any questions. Commissioner Kurasch: • Pointed out that the garage has been located at the most severe slope on the western edge of the site. • Questioned why the garage is detached and why a carport has been located on the slope site of the garage itself. Mr. Charles Brown replied that this carport is for emergency or guest parking. Added that the garage was originally attached to the house but they were required to detach it. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Brown for the width of the parking area. Mr. Charles Brown replied 22 feet, representing two parking space widths. This is required for emergency access. Added that with the relocation of this garage further up hill, they also moved the retaining wall that will now become shortened in height. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 5 Chair Barry asked Mr. Brown to describe the retaining walls. Mr. Charles Brown replied that in general terms they are installing minimal walls that step down the hill. There are wide enough separations between the walls to allow for planting areas to mitigate the height. Chair Barry asked for the approximate numbers. Mr. Charles Brown replied eight-foot maximum where prior the maximum was 12. There is between three to five feet between the walls. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the eight-foot walls are located. Chair Barry replied that the wall is three-feet high closest to the neighboring property. Five feet away, the wall is eight-feet high. Planting will be installed in between the two to providing screening. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that for the Hillside Residential District a landscaping plan is required. Mr. Charles Brown suggested that the Commission make that requirement a Condition of Approval at the time of building permit. Director Sullivan pointed out that this is the normal procedure. The Commission can elect to leave the review of the landscaping plan to staff or require review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jackman said that staff review would be quite adequate. Chair Barry pointed out that the house’s orientation is not facing Mount Eden Road. Mr. Charles Brown said that this is an informal house with a central spine design. Added that the home features an entry feature and that this is not a typical residential tract lot. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Brown why he has elected to design and orient a house using a north-east instead of a north-south orientation. Mr. Charles Brown replied the reason is views. The best views are to the southeast. The living room and dining room would be overlooking that side. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern about the encroachment on setbacks. Mr. Charles Brown opined that he felt this home fits the site nicely. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that this project requires extensive variances due to the slope and the retaining wall heights. • Added that the fact that the front door is not visible from the street frontage is also a concern. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Zutshi stated that while she realizes experts have reviewed this site, she has concerns about it even being a buildable lot. Commissioner Roupe: • Declared that this site has been deemed buildable when the subdivision was approved. • Added that upon careful geotechnical reviews, this lot has been deemed a buildable lot with necessary modification and mitigation. • Said that the Commission cannot second-guess that judgement. Commissioner Zutshi said that she is not sure it is buildable and is concerned about the potential for slides. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Planning Commission is a community oversight committee. Said that she has concerns about a house hanging over a hill where the rear of the house is visible from the road. Commissioner Roupe asked Director Sullivan whether the Commission could decide this is not a buildable lot. Director Sullivan pointed out that the Commission has the authority to make decisions. If the Commission has questions, they need to articulate them so that experts can be brought in to provide the necessary response. Commissioner Kurasch said that there are always unknowns and that she does not question the experts. Pointed out that there has been a 15-year wait on building on this lot and questioned whether this lot could be approved today. Director Sullivan pointed out that the purpose behind the Building Site Approval is to review any changes that might have occurred since the approval of the lot. Chair Barry said that many are uncomfortable with the perception that the properties do not look safe. This is a dilemma. Commissioner Hunter said that retaining walls become prevalent. Commissioner Garakani said that the issue is not whether this is a buildable. Pointed out that this applicant came before the Commission several months ago and was given instructions. Now the applicant has come back with the requested changes to his project. Commissioner Kurasch said that she disagreed that approval was promised. Said that she had the same discussion and concerns at the last meeting. Commissioner Hunter added that she voted against this project at the last meeting. Chair Barry pointed out that the project was continued to allow full discussion at this meeting. Commissioner Jackman said that she has a couple of concerns. Stated that it does not appear as if this lot can hold a house this big. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 7 Commissioner Garakani asked what Commissioner Jackman is suggesting. Commissioner Jackman said that she would not approve this as it is. Chair Barry asked the Commission what it would like to do. Commissioner Kurasch: • Said that she did not believe another Design Review would help unless the proposal is very different in orientation and design. • Pointed out that the carport and driveway on the west side necessitate the Variance for the retaining walls. This is imposing on the next door properties. • Said that she did not believe that extensive landscaping would mitigate these retaining walls. • Suggested that the orientation and design as proposed are poorly suited to the physical location and that she cannot support it. Chair Barry asked if there is any agreement with this position. Commissioners Hunter and Jackman replied yes. Commissioner Roupe replied no. Commissioner Garakani suggested that the Commission must tell the applicant what specific square footage it believes this site can accommodate. Commissioner Roupe stated that it does not make sense how the Planning Commission is proceeding on this application. Commissioner Garakani said that it is not just this application but lots of Hillside Residential lots. Commissioner Hunter said that it is very valid to state that a 4,800 square foot home is a very large house. Pointed out that she lives in a 3,000 square foot house with four kids and her husband and it is plenty big. Said that she would go for a smaller house on this lot, considerably smaller. Chair Barry agreed that this configuration is imposing and may need to be redesigned. Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Armando Huerta, Applicant and Property Owner, 14225 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Described the sheer pin wall that has been recommended to provide long-term stability for this property. This wall will assure stability and will be installed underground at a cost of $200,000. • Assured that he wants this property to be safe and that he needs this large home for his nine children. • Pointed out that this project has been underway for two years during, which time he has been paying a mortgage, and that he has eliminated a family and guest room to reduce the size of his home. • Said that his previous project planner even stated that project has been ongoing for a long time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 8 • Declared that he has met all previously stated criteria, reducing the house as asked and that it is unfair now to simply say no. • Reiterated that they have gone through extensive work in planning the proposal. Chair Barry expressed understanding of Mr. Huerta’s concerns but cautioned that Design Review is the purview of this Commission. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Huerta why the entrance of his home is facing the hillside. Mr. Armando Huerta replied that he left the design to his architect and was pleased with what the architect came up with. Pointed out that he is a builder who has experience in hillside development. Said that he had hoped that all issues had been raised at the previous hearing. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that only four of the seven Commissioners was at that previous meeting. Chair Barry asked if there is any way to increase the curbside appeal of this project. Mr. Armando Huerta replied that this is essentially a flag lot hidden behind eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Kurasch said that she wants to see less need for retaining walls. Right now there are two to three walls in the most fragile area of the site. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that Mr. Huerta needs the square footage proposed to house his nine children. Agreed that the goal is a safe house but that the eight-foot retaining walls are of concern. Mr. Armando Huerta pointed out again that a sheer pin wall is being installed below ground throughout the site. Commissioner Jackman asked if this is in addition to the eight-foot retaining walls. Commissioner Roupe replied that the sheer pin walls will be what holds up the hillside. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Huerta if he would be willing to reorient the house to reduce the need for an eight-foot retaining wall. Mr. Armando Huerta replied that if he were to remove the carport, the retaining wall could be lowered considerably. Mr. Charles Brown said that removing the carport would remove 10 feet and take the garage away from the ravine area of the site. While a retaining wall will still be required, it would be of a height that would not require a variance. Chair Barry asked Mr. Huerta if this compromise is acceptable to him. Mr. Armando Huerta replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 9 Chair Barry stated that by giving up the carport the need for the eight-foot retaining wall disappears. She asked Mr. Huerta if he would support a requirement for indigenous landscaping and the addition of screening by the ravine and a reduction of square footage by eight percent. Director Sullivan reminded that the Geotechnical consultant cautioned on the careful placement of trees near the ravine. Chair Barry reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 at 8:15 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval for DR-01- 019, V-01-011, UP-01-016, BSA-01-001 and ED-01-001 to allow the construction of a new residence on property located at 22551 Mount Eden Road with the added conditions: • That the carport be eliminated; and • That a landscaping plan be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of building permits. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Roupe NOES: Hunter, Kurasch and Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Garakani suggested that in the future the Planning Commission be involved in a project such as this one earlier in the process. Director Sullivan pointed out that the geotechnical review of this site took two years. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that this is only the second Public Hearing for this applicant. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that this application was only filed in May 2001. Chair Barry said that Commissioner Garakani is simply suggesting a Study Session be held early on. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this is a relatively small house for a 1.4-acre lot. Commissioner Jackman extended congratulations to Mr. Huerta. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 2 UP-01-007 SPRINT, Saratoga-Los Gatos Road & Farwell Avenue: Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a wireless communication facility consisting of antennas and equipment cabinets in the Caltrans right-of-way. The site is located in the R-1-40,000 Zoning District. (LIVINGSTONE) (CONTINUED FROM 10/24/01) (TO BE CONTINUED AND RE- ADVERTISED). Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 10 • Advised that the applicant is seeking a continuance on this application to a date uncertain. Staff will readvertise this project. The Planning Commission concurred with this continuance request. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 3 F-01-005 (503-14-010) – PRIDHAM, 13651 Pierce Road: Legalize an as-built fence. The applicant requests an exception to the maximum area of enclosure permitted in the Hillside Residential zone district pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-29.020 ( c ). (OOSTERHOUS) Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval for an as-built fence. • Pointed out that the Ordinance requirements for the Hillside Residential Zoning District permit up to 4,000 square feet of fencing enclosure. The Commission can grant an exception if the conditions exist that the visibility of the fence is reduced by topography or if the fence is required for safety reasons. • Stated that conditions on this site meet both criteria. The fence has a reduced visibility from the public view and the fence is necessary for safety reasons. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Jackman asked how much area is enclosed with this fence. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied 57,064 square feet. Commissioner Kurasch inquired whether the wood fence along Pierce Road is conforming. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. This fence is set back 40 feet where a setback of 30 feet is required. The six-foot height is conforming. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that the property is now completely enclosed. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:36 p.m. Mr. Tom Pridham, Applicant and Owner, 13651 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission and Planning Department. • Stated that the safety of his three small children is the reason for enclosing his property. Dangers include the busy Pierce Road, Calabasis Creek, and a cliff in the back of the property. • Added that the front wood fence was installed prior to his ownership. • Pointed out that drowning is the number one cause of death in youth according to his pediatrician. • Said that he spoke with both attached neighbors and one sent a letter of support. The other, who originally gave verbal agreement a year ago, appears to have changed her opinion. • Said that this fence is virtually invisible unless actually on his property. • Said that the fence has been acid etched so that it looks like wood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 11 Commissioner Roupe: • Said that he visited the site and can appreciate the difficult topographical situation. • Added that the fence material is nice. • Stated that the Commission tries not to have wall-to-wall enclosure of the Hillside. This fence represents a complete enclosure of this property. • Questioned the need to enclose the triangle area due south of the property. This area is steep and wooded and could be cut off completely from the rest of the property and therefore not need to be fenced. Mr. Tom Pridham advised that his kids play in that area now and he plans to install a play structure there in the future for their use. This is an important part of their property and represents a flat area available for riding their bikes. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that this property is essentially 80 percent enclosed. The Ordinance permits 4,000 square feet of enclosed area, this property has more than 50,000 square feet. This is excessive and removing the fencing from this triangle area is one way of reducing that square footage. Mr. Tom Pridham reiterated that this is a desirable play area for his kids, one of only two flat areas available on this property. Commissioner Kurasch asked if it is acceptable to fence the area designated as a Water District Easement. Director Sullivan said that no structures are permitted. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Pridham for clarification that the pool area is not used unsupervised. Mr. Tom Pridham replied yes. Added that a manual cover is over the pool, one that only he can manage to open. There is a wood fence around the pool area. Commissioner Kurasch pointed out that since the children would never be in the pool area unattended, they cannot access the triangle area from the pool area. Mr. Tom Pridham pointed out that the access to the triangle area comes from a path to the left of the driveway. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Pridham how long he has owned this property. Mr. Tom Pridham replied since October 1999. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is access to the triangle area directly from the home. Mr. Tom. Pridham replied that one must walk into the field area to access the triangle. Chair Barry said that the neighbor raised the issue of deer access. Added that it seems that the fencing around this triangle serves as an impediment to deer, interrupting their natural path. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Tom Pridham said he understood that concern. Added that it is not his intent to impede the natural paths for deer. Pointed out that he has blazed a path along the fence edge to accommodate deer. Additionally, there is a 40-foot path between the road and the front fence. Chair Barry pointed out to Mr. Pridham that the intent of the Ordinance is that folks in the Hillside Residential Zoning District gives up the fenced-in aspect of properties. Mr. Tom Pridham said that he thought he had done all necessary due diligence prior to installing this fencing. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that the letter from the neighbor indicates that the fence has not been installed as agreed upon. Mr. Tom Pridham said that he is actually offended by her letter. Said that he had met with her on three occasions and had obtained her agreement. Commissioner Zutshi said it might be better having a proper survey. Mr. Tom Pridham replied that this survey is a legal survey prepared for the prior owner. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 8:58 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi said that she could agree with some of the fencing due to the children but that she did not feel the fencing of the triangle is necessary. Commissioner Roupe stated that the intent of the Hillside Ordinance is not to have totally enclosed properties. Said that this applicant can eliminate the fencing of the triangle area and still have a large totally enclosed place. Commissioner Kurasch said that she does not like big fences or enclosures. While there are real concerns for safety, this factor should be taken into consideration when purchasing such a property. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out that when one buys a property, one does not always understand the rules. Commissioner Kurasch said that a reasonable compromise is the way to go. Said that she cannot support all of the fencing. The elimination of the triangle will go a long way. Disagreed that enough room has been left for deer and their fawns to pass. Said that the applicant has done a nice job to try to tie in the fencing but it is excessive. Commissioner Hunter agreed with Commissioner Kurasch and said that the triangle should be left open. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if it might be possible to condition the fence exception so that it does not outlast the current owner. Director Sullivan replied that a deed restriction would have to be recorded. However, enforcement is nearly impossible. It is better to meet the intent of the Ordinance and make a final decision. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 13 Chair Barry stated her agreement that the triangle area should not be fenced. Added that she could not see a way to reduce the rest of the fencing due to the site’s topography. Said that the Commission would be basing its exception on the unusual topography of this property. Commissioner Kurasch proposed removing the northeast corner of the house’s fencing (another triangle area) on the other side of the creekside. Director Sullivan said that the plans show that this area has a brick and concrete area. Commissioner Garakani said that the safety of children is the issue as well as the enjoyment of this area of the property near the creek. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the Planning Commission proposed approval of an as-built fence (F-01-005) on property located at 13651 Pierce Road except for the enclosed triangle which is to be opened up with the removal of the fencing, Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the original motion was amended to include the requirement to remove the chain link fence on the northeast side from the end of the wooden fence across to the new fence, thereby eliminating another triangle area of approximately 40 feet by 60 feet; Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that this fencing may be part of the neighbor’s enclosure. Commissioner Garakani said that he did not find the second fence removal to be necessary. Director Sullivan suggested that the Commission vote on the proposed amendment and then vote on the main motion. Added that the second fence portion is clearly on the inside of the property line. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION AYES:Barry, Hunter and Kurasch NOES: Garakani, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The amendment failed. VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe & Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Director Sullivan advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. Commissioner Jackman pointed out that lots of fences are built without permits and that she wants to advise the public that they have to get permits before installing fences. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 14 Commissioner Kurasch agreed that work getting the word out needs to occur. Commissioner Hunter endorsed that statement. *** PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 4 DR-00-059 (397-17-012) – KALKUNTE, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue: Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 6,048 square foot two-story residence and demolish an existing 2,000 square foot residence and 2,400 square feet of accessory structures. Maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet. The 42,011 square foot parcel is located in the R-1-40,000 Zoning District. (LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new 6,000 square foot two-story residence and the demolition of an existing 2,000 square foot structure and 2,400 square foot accessory buildings. The proposed maximum height is 26 feet. The parcel is 42,000 square feet within an R-1-40, 000 Zoning District. • Informed that the existing house is included on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. There were initial concerns over the potential demolition. Staff hired a Historic Architect to prepare an extensive report. The conclusion of this report was that this house was not of significance. It is not qualified for the National Register or the California Register. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the removal of the structure from the Inventory. • Stated that this applicant has contacted each of his neighbors to show the plans. There have been no negative reports from the neighbors. • Said that staff finds the design consistent, using slate roofing, stucco and stone accents. The home has a unique semi-circular design around a large oak tree. They are working with an Arborist to work around this tree safely. The project meets the policies of the design guidelines. The home will be painted light beige with olive window trim and a gray slate roof. • Pointed out that the new home will be located at the same place as the existing home. • Added that mature trees reduce the visibility from the public right-of-way. The tree canopies surround and will maintain the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. No tree removals are proposed. The applicant has worked with the City Arborist to ensure the safety of the trees. Additionally, the applicant will take steps to preserve an existing herb garden. A turf block material is proposed that will allow water to reach the trees. • Said that the structure has a varied roof line and change of elevations. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Garakani pointed out that oaks do not require a lot of water but rather oxygen. Commissioner Kurasch asked why a landscape plan has not been submitted. Inquired if one is in the works. Director Sullivan advised that this application was received a year ago, prior to the requirement for the submittal of a landscape plan with the original application packet. Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:35 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Kalkunte, Applicant, 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked John Livingstone. • Advised that the oak around which his home has been designed is 300 years old. • Assured that he has done everything to protect it and all trees on the site. • Stated that he is incorporated energy saving provisions, a solar material, as much as they can into the design of this home. • Said that he has spoken with his neighbors and agreed to the removal of an old fence. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte if he would be able to meet all the requirements set forth by the Arborist. Mr. Kalkunte replied yes. He assured that he has considered all the requirements and the tree is being well protected and will continue to be so. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte if he plans to retain the herb gardens. Mr. Kalkunte clarified that he will preserve all the specimens. He added that they plan to save as much as they can. Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Kalkunte what his landscaping concept is for the property. Mr. Kalkunte replied that they would maintain existing pathways, not altering anything significantly. In the front yard, they will install a lawn. Commissioner Kurasch asked where the neighbors wanted more screening. Mr. Kalkunte said that they have requested additional trees at Fruitvale Avenue. Commissioner Roupe declared that he is pleased with the efforts Mr. Kalkunte undertook to work with his neighbors. He added that Mr. Kalkunte has gone the extra mile. Commissioner Hunter advised that the Heritage Preservation Commission visited this site twice and Mr. Kalkunte was very accommodating. Agreed that he has worked beautifully with his neighbors. Commissioner Jackman pointed out the nice letter of support from the Sassos. Mr. Kalkunte informed that he remains in touch with them. Chair Barry said that she is very comfortable with the decision to allow the demolition of the old house. Stated that the herb garden on this site is very special. Wished Mr. Kalkunte luck with his new home. Mr. Wendell Roscoe, Project Designer, 25431 Adobe Lane, Los Altos: • Declared that he has an exceptional client. • Said that his design originally incorporated a standing seam roof, which has been changed to slate as requested. • Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Zutshi asked which roof would hold the photoelectric system. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Wendell Roscoe replied primarily the garage. Commissioner Zutshi stated that this is an interesting and unusual house concept. Mr. Wendell Roscoe said that this project is close to his heart. Added that he has designed many homes around oak trees. Commissioner Kurasch asked if there would be any objection to the requirement to have a Supervising Arborist at critical times of construction. Mr. Wendell Roscoe replied no. Added that they would actually appreciate it. Said that it was their suggestion to change the grade for the garage to protect this tree and the neighbor’s tree. Chair Barry cautioned that the Supervising Arborist would be at Mr. Kalkunte’s expense. Mr. Kalkunte said that he is open to that requirement. Director Sullivan pointed out Condition 15 in the Arborist’s report. He suggested that the Condition be strengthened to require the Arborist on site at all critical points of construction as well as to have plans submitted which outline how materials and equipment will be stored on site so as not to adversely impact the trees. Mr. Wendell Roscoe advised that they plan to store construction materials and equipment on the potential pool area, where the barn is now located. Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4 at 9:55 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission approved DR-00-059 to allow the construction of a new single family residence at 14625 Fruitvale Avenue, with the added Conditions to: 1. Have a supervising Arborist on site during critical points of construction; and 2. Require a plan to detail where construction materials and equipment will be store on the site so as not to impact the trees. AYES:Barry, Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Kurasch, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period. *** DIRECTOR ITEMS Planning Commission Mission Statement: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 17 Director Sullivan provided a draft mission statement for the Commission’s review. Offered that this draft is simply intended to serve as a starting point in the development of a final mission statement for the Planning Commission. Chair Barry stressed the importance of ensuring the physical development of the City. Commissioner Roupe asked that “property and business owners” be added and that the end of the statement should read “as set forth in the intent of the General Plan and Ordinances of the City.” Commissioner Kurasch said that the statement should express values rather than goals. Suggested language that states that “the mission of the Saratoga Planning Commission is to foster/steward the physical development…. Codes and charters and that supports the shared environmental, social and economic segments.” Added that the mission is to encourage participation by the public. Commissioner Roupe stated a set of goals and purposes would also need to be developed. Director Sullivan advised that this mission statement is but a part of a strategic plan. Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan what the intent of the City is with this mission statement. Director Sullivan suggested that this should be discussed at the Commission’s joint meeting with Council that will occur at the beginning of the year. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that she has some experience in developing mission statements while serving on the School Board and finds that they must be succinct. Commissioner Kurasch provided a mission statement that she heard when attended the League of California Cities Planners Institute. That statement simply said, “I am the steward of the shared vision of the community.” Reminder to Commissioners that December 26, 2001, meeting is cancelled. Director Tom Sullivan advised that the next meeting would be cancelled in light of the holiday. Commissioner Kurasch advised that she would be absent from the January 9, 2002, meeting. Commissioner Hunter advised that she would be absent from the January 23, 2002, meeting. COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Commission Subcommittees Director Sullivan advised he would keep this item on the agenda in case issues come up. Commissioner Jackman advised that her subcommittee has been working on specifications and definitions for basements. Reminded that presently, light wells are permitted to be no more than three feed wide. The Commission may want to consider extended that to four feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 18 Director Sullivan said that the determination needs to be clear as to when a basement becomes a daylight basement, which is countable as square footage. It is important to determine at what point a basement becomes floor area. Commissioner Jackman said that the basement should be located beneath the footprint of the house and not extend beyond. It would be important to establish a maximum size of basement, located completely beneath the footprint. Additionally, light wells should not encroach into setbacks. Geotechnical reports should be provided at the beginning of an application with the original plans. Under consideration should be the distance of excavation from property lines. Finally, only a single story basement depth should be allowed. Chair Barry added that the viability of allowing second units in basement space should be considered. Resolution of Intent to Amend Zoning Ordinance Re: Rear Yard Setbacks: Director Sullivan advised that this Resolution of Intent is the first step in the process. Following authorization to proceed, staff will begin to draft the Amendment to the Ordinance. Commissioner Roupe pointed out that there is a 10-foot difference in rear setbacks between single and two-story structures, which seems inconsistent with the design guidelines. Director Sullivan pointed out that the setbacks are different in R-1-10,000 and R-1-40,000 Zoning Districts. Commissioner Kurasch offered that this new proposal takes flexibility away. The interpretation now being used is better for smaller lots. Chair Barry stated that this step of adopting a Resolution of Intent is the way to go forward in a formal way. Director Sullivan agreed that the determination by the Commission of interest in moving forward with preparation of language and sketches is required. Chair Barry asked if the Commission will have the option to change the numbers. Director Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Kurasch questioned the advantage of changing what is currently used. Wondered what the pros and cons might be. Director Sullivan replied that both methods have similar pros and cons and that there is discretion in the design guidelines. There would be different minimum setbacks. Less with the new proposal for the first story. Chair Barry said that there is good reason to go forward. Pointed out that there has been some disagreement on how the Ordinance is normally interpreted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2001 Page 19 Director Sullivan said that it is important to clean up the language of the existing Ordinance so no interpretation conflicts arise. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to Rear Yard Setbacks. (7-0) COMMUNICATIONS Minutes from City Council Meeting of October 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chair Barry adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting set for Wednesday, January 9, 2002, to begin at 7 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk