Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-2000 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, August 9, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Page. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioner Roupe Staff: Assistant Planners Pearson and Ratcliffe PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - July 26, 2000 COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2000, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. PASSED 5-0-1 (COMMISSIONER BERNALD ABSTAINED, COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Page 9, second paragraph, line 2: “…that he as owner would be solely responsible for repair or removal of debris or earth from this property onto another in the event of a future landslide or earth movement.” Page 11, last paragraph, lines 1 and 3: “Peggy Coen Koen……” Page 23, first paragraph, line 1: “COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD BARRY MOVED TO…” ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no one from the audience who wished to address any issues not on the agenda. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Assistant Planner Pearson announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 4, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Assistant Planner Pearson reported that under Item #3, page 9, condition #16 was inadvertently included and will be deleted from the resolution. He also reported that on page 5 of Item #3, the report mentions one wood-burning fireplace; however, there are two gas-burning fireplaces and no wood-burning fireplaces. Assistant Planner Ratcliffe noted that the agenda refers to action minutes from the August 2 City Council meeting, and those are not included in the packet. CONSENT CALENDAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 AUGUST 9, 2000 1. UP-00-009 (389-12-019) - LEE, 18802 Cox Avenue; Application for Use Permit approval to operate a sushi restaurant in the Quito Village shopping center. No exterior changes to the existing building are proposed. The project is located within a Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Commissioner Jackman pulled the item from the agenda. Referring to the restaurant’s floor plan, she noted that the men’s and ladies’ restrooms are relatively close to the sushi track, and recommended that there be a door from the restaurant into the hallway to the restrooms. Chairman Page proposed adding a condition asking staff to work with the applicant to assure that there is no open area without a door to the restroom areas. Responding to Commissioner Bernald’s question, Commissioner Jackman stated that the health department does their inspection after the Commission’s review. Commissioner Jackman opined that the door was an aesthetic viewpoint. Commissioners Patrick, Barry, Bernald, and Kurasch had no comments to add to this issue. Following discussion, COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/JACKMAN MOVED TO APPROVE UP-00-009 WITH A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT CONSULT WITH STAFF TO ASSURE INSTALLATION OF A DOOR SEPARATING THE RESTROOMS AREA FROM THE RESTAURANT. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) PUBLIC HEARINGS Responding to a request from Commissioner Barry, Chairman Page explained that in some cases where the Commission is about to deny a project, rather than denying the project and having the applicant go through the appeals process or accepting the denial and going through additional expense, the Commission may give the applicant an opportunity to continue the item and bring it back during a study session or with revised plans based upon direction from the Commission. 2. DR-98-031 (503-78-004) – CHAO, 21888 Villa Oaks Lane; Request for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,832 square foot, two-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is 43,996 square feet and is located within a Hillside Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/26/00) Assistant Planner Ratcliffe presented the staff report, describing the property at the corner of Villa Oaks Lane and Deer Trail Court, within a hillside residential district. The applicant is also requesting an exception for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards. She reported that the only difference in the two options (Exhibits A and B) presented is the placement of the house on the lot and the grading. Staff feels that the design is appropriate for this neighborhood. She stated that the item was taken to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) because of a trail easement along the edge of the property. It is unknown why the easement was recorded on the title. It is not a condition of subdivision approval and does not connect with any other existing trails. However, the PRC felt that they did not want to give it up, and although they do not want it developed at this time, they wanted to reserve their right to develop it in the future. The PRC has requested placing a condition that no structures be permitted within that easement, including the planting of trees. At staff’s request, the applicant submitted a landscape plan, which included a tree within the easement, prior to going to the PRC. Removing this part of the plan has been made a condition of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 AUGUST 9, 2000 Ms. Ratcliffe further reported there are two retaining walls proposed on both plans whose purpose is to cut the home into the lot and sink it down further to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass from the street. They are within the 4’6” maximum height within the front yard setback. Part of them are three feet and this is also included as a condition of approval. Ms. Ratcliffe noted that a letter was received today from R.J. Haas, agent for Mr. and Mrs. Chao. She noted that the initial proposal (Exhibit A) was supported by neighbors Riding and Brown. Exhibit B is not supported by those two neighbors due to an increase in the pad elevation of the home. She said the letter notes that they are now proposing a third option (Exhibit C) which would lower the pad of the garage two feet and states that both Mr. Riding and Mr. Brown are in support of that option. Staff feels that findings could be made for either Exhibit A or Exhibit B, and before the letter was received, preferred Exhibit A because the neighbors were more comfortable with that. However, if the neighbors are more comfortable with Exhibit C with a reduced pad elevation and reduced grading, staff could support that. She stated that staff recommends approving Exhibit A as it is now or a modified Exhibit B should the neighbors be in support of that. Commissioner Bernald referred to the elevation of the garage pad, and noted that part of the second floor juts out over the garage and wondered whether the modification would impact the architecture. She suggested that the applicant might address her concern during the public hearing. She questioned whether the landscape plan was adequate as the City usually expects more in terms of planting before a permit is granted. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that if the Commission felt they would like more landscaping, a more substantial landscape plan could be included as a condition of approval. Ms. Ratcliffe responded to questions from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the grading in the exhibits. Commissioner Barry proposed it would be easier to refer to Exhibit C as amended Exhibit B, and Ms. Ratcliffe suggested calling it Exhibit B with the modification that is referred to in the latest letter. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. The applicants were not present to address this issue. Ken Riding, 21836 Villa Oaks Lane, stated he had many discussions with Mr. Chao and the architect. He said the original plans were very close to his house with the garage door opening directly into his front door. He said an agreement had been reached (Exhibit A), and he wrote a letter to the Planning Commission supporting that. When it was decided to swing the eastern part of the house towards Villa Oaks Lane, it put their garage door even closer with the floor elevations of the garage about 9’ above the driveway next door to his house. He had a conversation with Mr. Haas which would be the modified Exhibit B, and what he supports is bringing the garage floor down to basically the elevation of the existing grade; keeping the plate line no higher than 10’ on the garage; and that the second story portion above the garage be moved back away from the front of the garage to avoid 26’ plus 9’ of elevation there. Mr. Riding said his request to lower the garage pad will require additional grading, and recommends that the Commission approve the request to allow additional grading. He said the landscaping is part of his request to block some view. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 AUGUST 9, 2000 Mr. Riding requested that the Commission not add a horse trail easement where none exists. There is no horse trail at either end of the one requested by the PRC. He also recommended approval of the application as submitted in the amended Exhibit B with the garage pad elevation of 648 feet. There was no one else from the audience who wished to address this item. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:04 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Commissioner Kurasch asked what the purpose was for the 1,000 cubic yard grading limit in the hillside residential, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the intent was to prevent grading in hillside residential districts that created a large flat pad outside of a building pad, or change the natural topography of the natural hillside residential district. Ms. Ratcliffe said it was meant to encourage development that stepped into and followed the natural topography of the site, particularly in the hillside districts. She stated that a variance to exceed 1,000 cubic yards is not required; however, an exception is required, which is that the Commission make all the design review findings. Commissioner Jackman inquired about the geotechnical review conditions, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the plan had undergone geotechnical review, including the amounts of grading. Commissioner Kurasch commented that the house overall is as good a match for the rural character of this particular street and fits in. She is happy with the modified Exhibit B with the latest proposed letter, and it seems to be a good compromise. She said less grading is also environmentally less of an impact. She would ask for a revision or completion of the landscape plan, and would request use of native plants or trees and more screening along the retaining walls. Commissioner Jackman stated she was agreeable to the plans and agreed with Mr. Riding not to pursue putting in a trail when it does not connect to anything on either end. Commissioner Patrick stated she did not approve of a design that requires so much manipulation of the site by cut and grade. She agreed that the landscaping is especially important to this site because of the amount of proposed cut and grade and because of the previous geotechnical difficulties in the area. Although the current trail easement may be unnecessary, as long as an easement is recorded, she did not see any reason to change that. She did not see any reason that this design is so unique or so special, rural or otherwise, for her to grant any exceptions. Commissioner Barry noted she is much more in favor of Exhibit B because it required half the cut of Exhibit A. She asked Commissioner Patrick if her intent was to deny this proposal and ask the applicants to come back with a whole other plan that does not require a grading exception. Commissioner Barry declined to state further comments until she heard from the remaining Commissioners. Chairman Page clarified that each Commissioner’s comments are heard before a commitment is made. Commissioner Bernald stated it would be helpful to her if Commissioner Barry would express her thoughts regarding the native plants and trail easement. Commissioner Barry responded she would support comments made by Commissioners Bernald and Kurasch regarding an expanded landscape plan, and she would support the comment made by Commissioner Patrick that the trail easement should stay as it is. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 AUGUST 9, 2000 Commissioner Bernald agreed with Commissioner Kurasch that the edges and the front be included in the landscape plan because it is an important aspect. She also agreed with Commissioner Kurasch’s idea that consideration be given to native plants and more evergreen plants. She agreed with Commissioner Patrick that the trail easement should be recorded. She reiterated her concern regarding taking down the garage pad and stated that Mr. Riding had also suggested that the second story be moved over. Noting both of these are major design changes, she stated she was not comfortable voting one way or the other without knowing the answer from the applicant. Chairman Page conveyed that the style of the house could fit into the neighborhood. He said the amount of cut is a concern, but the modification to Exhibit B was done to accommodate one of the neighbors, and he could support that exhibit over Exhibit A. He concurred with Commissioner Kurasch that something needs to be done on the landscape. As for the easement, he said it would be best to save it for the time being, and suggested that the PRC look at all the connectors and make some decisions. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether Commissioner Patrick had any additional comments, and Commissioner Patrick responded that she did not approve a design that requires too much cut and fill, which is not the way to design houses. She said the house should fit into the site rather than make the site fit the house. Commissioner Barry expressed a concern regarding the height of the house and noted that interference with view is one of the major issues with the neighbors. She commented that if there is not some cut, it could cause a bigger issue for the neighbors. Chairman Page observed that the house does step down to meet the slope, and cutting down the garage to appease one of the neighbors was not a negative thing in his mind. He said even though this is an exception, he could accept that because in this case it is warranted. Commissioner Kurasch referred to Mr. Riding’s suggestion regarding redesign. She said that unless this proposal is continued, the Commission cannot consider another redesign with Mr. Riding’s comments other than what is in Mr. Haas’ letter. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified that the Commission could consider design changes no matter what the source, either from the Commission or outside, whether the applicant is here or not. She said the item has been continued three times, twice at the applicants’ request. She said she had spoken to the applicants last week and it was her understanding that either they, or their representative, or both would be present tonight. She said an option could be that the Commission might want to direct staff to revise the resolution and perhaps continue it to the next meeting, which would give the applicant an opportunity to review the Commission’s concerns and respond at the next meeting. Commissioner Bernald expressed she did not feel comfortable voting on this tonight. Chairman Page agreed with Commissioner Bernald. Commissioner Jackman stated she was uncomfortable voting without the applicants being present. Noting this has been postponed so many times, she did not want to see it continued to a next meeting. Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman. She said this is the applicants’ third hearing, and they chose not to be here the previous two times for various reasons. She said they know how to ask for continuance, and they chose not to be here tonight. She said the Commission does not have to accommodate them, assuming they may want to respond to something if they chose not to do so, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 AUGUST 9, 2000 she would be opposed to a continuance to allow them to respond to something the Commission is guessing they may want to respond to. Commissioner Barry suggested for consideration that this proposal be denied without prejudice, which means that they would be able to come back with a new design as soon as they are ready. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/PATRICK MOVED TO DENY DR-98-031. Commissioner Bernald asked whether denying would incur any additional costs for the applicant. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that once the application is denied, any new application would be a completely new application subject to all application fees. They already have geotechnical clearance for the site, and that would not be an additional cost. Commissioner Bernald said that because the applicants have taken the Commission’s time and staff’s time, she could support the motion. Commissioner Kurasch commented she could also support the motion; however, she would prefer some direction for the applicants. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the Commission’s comments included less grading; a revised landscape plan; and also a plan that would address the pad elevation and the heights, which would address the neighbor’s concerns and the Commission’s concerns regarding the amount of grading and landscape. Chairman Page stated he would be willing to give the applicants another chance. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman, Ms. Ratcliffe said that conditions cannot be made on a denial; however, findings for denial could include that a grading exception could not be made; that the amount of grading was excessive; that the landscape plan was not sufficient; and aesthetic concerns regarding the pad elevation. THE MOTION TO DENY DR-98-031 WITHOUT PREJUDICE PASSED 5-1-0 (COMMISSIONER PAGE OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) 3. DR-00-021 (386-12-044) – BELLIZZI, 12572 Paseo Flores; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of an existing 1,619 square foot, single story residence and the construction of a new 3,323 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,755 square foot basement. The site is 11,846 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. Assistant Planner Pearson presented the staff report, noting the maximum height of the residence is proposed to be 22’, which is relatively low for a two-story structure. No two-story walls are visible on the elevations with the exceptions of the dormer window areas. No trees are proposed to be removed. He said the applicant has submitted letters from all surrounding neighbors in support of the application, and staff recommends approval with the conditions in the resolution. Mary Elizabeth Bellizzi, applicant, thanked staff for their patience in working on this project and suggestions in meeting the requirements of the City and the neighborhood. She talked with the neighbors in front and back and others directly affected by the proposal, and they all liked the plan. She also discussed the landscape plan to minimize privacy issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 AUGUST 9, 2000 Commissioner Barry thanked the applicants and Mr. Pearson for their excellent efforts in all respects. There was no one from the audience who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:28 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Commissioner Patrick expressed that her only concern is that this is a nearly 5,100 square foot house going in an 11,000 square foot lot. She noted that the basement is slightly bigger than the first floor according to the square footage charts. Commissioner Barry commented that the design saves the size of the basement. She said the design is a modest second-story, set back, not viewable, and the total height of the structure is only 22’ as opposed to 26 feet. Everything that could be done to make this a reasonable second-story addition has been done. She feels that with nine neighbors supporting it, this is a very reasonable request. Commissioner Bernald concurred with comments made, including the larger basement than the house; however, she felt this is a design that fits well in the neighborhood, and comes in smaller than many homes that are single-story. Commissioner Kurasch said that a larger impact is when neighborhoods change from their character and impact others, and that is of concern to her. She said that in this case the two-story is very architecturally sensitive. She commented that until there is a clear methodology to look at the two-story versus one-story issue, it is a case-by-case basis. For this plan, she does not feel it will set a precedent of changing the neighborhood just because it is a two-story. She said she would like to see a precedent of good taste and scale, and this proposal certainly has it. Commissioner Jackman said she would like to see this plan set a precedent of how well a second-story can be worked into a neighborhood without disrupting the whole ambiance of the neighborhood. She said it is a very nice design, and she will support it. Chairman Page agreed that the design is absolutely appropriate for the neighborhood and does not have any massive bulk. Mr. Pearson clarified that on the table on page 3 of the staff report, the first floor square footage (plus the garage square footage) comes out to 2180, and that is the entire first level of the structure, which is larger than the basement. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-99-021. PASSED 6-0. (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) 4. SD-00-002 (397-21-022) – HOWELL & MCNEIL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 20251 Saratoga- Los Gatos Road; Application for Subdivision approval and adoption of a Negative Declaration to split an existing 3.7 acre lot into five lots. The parcel is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Ms. Ratcliffe presented the staff report, noting that the applicants are requesting a tentative map approval for the subdivision of a 3.7-acre lot into five separate lots. The zoning is R-1-20,000, and lots range in size from 21,000+ to 46,000+ square feet. She said the existing main residence is proposed to remain, and the existing guest house and tea house/meditation house are to be removed. An Environmental Initial PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 AUGUST 9, 2000 Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project. She said the proposal was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) who looked at both the main residence and guest house, and they are recommending that the main residence be placed on the Historic Residences Inventory, which has been included as a condition of approval. The HPC is not recommending that the guest house or tea house be retained. The proposal was also reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC.) Ms. Ratcliffe referred to the exhibit on the wall, noting the five lots and an adjacent public right of way along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road that borders proposed lot #1. The improvement plan includes an existing pathway that the City is requiring be improved. She said it is not contiguous at this time, but it would connect with another section that is improved on the other side of Horseshoe Drive along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. She noted there are over 200 trees on the site, of which over 70 are ordinance-protected. Of the 70, the proposal calls for the removal of five – two are rated hazardous and the Arborist is recommending their removal. The other three are tree #2 on lot #2, tree #3 on lot #3, and tree #4 on lot #5 and are proposed to be removed for driveway access. She said tree #2 on lot #3 is the very large Oak that is next to the existing residence and is proposed to remain, and the existing driveway around that is proposed to remain untouched. The driveway surrounding it within 50’ will be removed by hand so as not to disturb the roots and to protect the tree. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified the configuration on the flag lot (lot #4.) She said normally staff would view the line most parallel to Carnelian Glen (the access road) as the front property line; however, the code allows some discretion. With lot #4, the depth and width, and the position of the adjacent lots, it would seem more appropriate to consider the line that is parallel to Carnelian Glen as the left side property line, and the front line would be adjacent to lot #3. She explained the advantages are that this makes the rear yard setback abut the rear yard of another flag lot off of Carnelian Glen and the right side property line would abut the rear property lines of two homes on Horseshoe Drive. Additionally, there are many trees and a gully towards the right hand side of that lot. She said switching the configuration around would necessitate grading. Ms. Ratcliffe acknowledged a letter from William and Sylvia Bangerter, 14631 Horseshow Drive, whose property backs up to lot #4, and they would like to be informed of any future design review applications. They are interested in preserving the landscaping near their property line as a screen. She said one of the normal conditions of approval is that each proposed home on the lots come back to the Planning Commission for design review. At that time appropriate design and landscaping could be considered, and the neighbors would be notified. Furthermore, Ms. Ratcliffe conveyed that a letter from Mark Vandenberg and Kathleen M. Kennedy, 14631 Carnelian Glen Court, had been received too late for inclusion in the agenda packet. They stated they are unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Their concerns included that they want the frontage strip along the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road path improved, which is a condition of approval and part of the submitted plan. They also want a crosswalk connecting the path entrance to Montalvo to Carnelian Glen, and staff feels this would not be appropriate across Highway 9 at this juncture. Ms. Ratcliffe said that a pathway along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to the Village has a light where people can cross safely. She reported that this issue would also involve CalTrans who has a right-of-way along that area. A third concern was that the City enforce the setback restrictions as they are concerned about the guest house which is on lot #5. (The guest house is proposed to be demolished.) They also felt that the neighborhood would benefit from a formalized entrance to Carnelian Glen Court, and as part of that entrance, they are suggesting more sufficient lighting to address safety concerns at the front of the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 AUGUST 9, 2000 Ms. Ratcliffe reported that Commissioner Kurasch requested information relating to the Hayfield subdivision - a private agreement between Pinn Brothers, the developers, and neighbors to preserve trees on that property. Ms. Ratcliffe conveyed that this was an agreement reached prior to the Planning Commission approving the particular subdivision. She asked Commissioner Kurasch to address this issue later on. Ms. Ratcliffe stated that staff is recommending that the subdivision application be approved and that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Bernald asked whether the applicant had an opportunity to see the memo from staff responding to Commissioner Kurasch’s request, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded they had not. Commissioner Bernald asked staff to provide the applicant with a copy of the response. Commissioner Kurasch indicated she did not receive a copy of the letter from Vandenberg and Kennedy. She said she had asked Ms. Ratcliffe about two issues – one was patterning some kind of easement or protection for the trees in the map split. The other was the driveways, and her concern was what information would be appropriate to understand having one flag lot entrance from #4, rather than #3 and #4, such as the width of the drive and what the requirements would be. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified that the question referred to lot #3 and lot #5 and using a portion of the flag lot as entrance rather than having three separate driveways that access Carnelian Glen. She said that could be possible with the flag lot. The minimum access drive size for three lots would be 20’ width, rather than the 12’ width. To achieve that it would be necessary to utilize a portion of lot #5 and lot #3. It would have to be an access easement for all three, and those two lots would lose available land if that was done. The driveway would not have to be 20’ all the way back; however, it would have to be 20’ wide only to the point where the access for lot #5 and lot #3 would take off. She said that would affect the trees involved. She said she had put in a call to the Fire Chief and did not get a response. It might be possible to maintain the 12’ width if the houses on lot #3 and lot #5 are close enough to Carnelian Glen to allow the Fire Department proper access, and that is a question that can be answered by the Fire Department. Commissioner Kurasch stated she was primarily concerned with lots #3 and #4, not #5, so that may make it a little easier to combine the access of #3 and #4. She referred to page 238 of the Subdivision Required Street Pavement Right-of-Ways and Widths, the minimum service street is 20’ right-of-way, 18’ width, and that could apply, also. Ms. Ratcliff responded that the minimum access would be 18’ paved with one-foot pavers on either side. Commissioner Patrick conveyed that this is promoted as a lot-split, splitting one parcel into five lots, but it also sets driveways for all the lots, and sets house sizes and sites for all the lots. The Commission has not been given any information as to pervious/impervious coverage. She asked if tonight’s intent was to approve the driveway placement, the house site, and house size by voting on this tonight. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that this was not a vesting tentative map, but a tentative parcel map. Originally, the applicant did not submit the driveways or the tentative house locations. After the initial Arborist report with the substantial amount of trees, and the placement of the lots, staff knew the driveways were intended to go to Carnelian Glen, and staff asked for driveway placement. With that the applicant provided proposed footprints, but this is not an approval of those footprints, and it is not an approval of the driveways. It is to give the Commission an idea of where those would be. These placements could be used in future design of the lots. The driveways were designed to impact as few trees as possible, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 AUGUST 9, 2000 staff feels that they did a good job of doing that. However, there is no approval of the outline footprints or the driveways. Commissioner Patrick clarified that the Commission was not approving the five lots and that the rest of the project was still subject to further review, reconsideration, and this gives them no rights in any future discussions to say that a previous Commission has already approved these. Ms. Ratcliffe noted that the only change would be lot #3 which has an existing house, and information on the square footage, impervious coverage, etc. has been made available to the Commissioners. Commissioner Bernald asked if the discussion went further than the size of the driveways. Ms. Ratcliffe replied that it would depend on the Fire Department requirements and what kind of access they would need. Commissioner Kurasch asked if the Commission was precluded from considering any improvements that would go along with this approval. Ms. Ratcliffe replied that the Commission could condition the approval of the driveway placement being in conformance with what is being considered now or specify an alternative so that future design reviews would refer back to the conditions of subdivision approval. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:52 p.m. Greg Howell, Los Gatos resident, noted his partner is Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga, and addressed the Commission. Mr. Howell stated some of the questions raised by the Commissioners and those read in the letter were their concerns as well, and they looked at this very closely. He said they considered the cul-de-sac option, but also considered the impacts to the neighbors and would involve taking out too many trees. They felt the proposed plan was a better alternative with smaller driveways and less pervious coverage. Of the 200 trees on the site, they are only taking out three; the other two are recommended to be taken out by the Arborist, and they feel they have done a very good job with the driveways. They have spoken with some of the neighbors regarding their concerns. Commissioner Kurasch referred to the Arborist report. Notwithstanding the three trees that will be impacted directly, there are indirect and significant impacts to other trees, and the Arborist did go over the approximately 70 that may be at risk with different development schemes. She said that is where she got the idea of actually linking the impact or future impact on trees with a protection blanket to limit that or establish permanent measures where the trees could be protected. She expressed concern about the long- term safeguarding of the trees. Mr. Howell explained that the trees are in the exterior property and are in a position where they are most likely not to be impacted by the development. He said most of the trees are situated around the back portion of the property, and noted that the trees are good for the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurasch suggested that Mr. Howell review the report submitted by Ms. Ratcliffe. Commissioner Barry shared Commissioner Kurasch’s concern, and she requested a condition that addresses future landscaping with respect to screening. Mr. Howell agreed that that would be a reasonable request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 AUGUST 9, 2000 Tom Arnold, 14697 Carnelian Glen Drive, commented that access would have impacts on traffic, parking, and entrances to the houses. The subdivision map shows five lots and there is potential to making it only four. He said landscape, drainage, and removal of trees are of concern to him. He asked the Commission to consider enforcing CC&R’s to the parcels. As far as the construction of the site itself, he and his wife were severely impacted when the crew tore the fence down and debris was left in the open. He proposed that the project be a clean project with the least impacts to the neighborhood, including suitable screening from dust, and that the construction site remain clean. He asked that the Commission enforce litter control. Commissioner Bernald asked Mr. Arnold for his ideas regarding the parking. Mr. Arnold responded that the neighbors are impacted by Montalvo’s popular events, and the street has abundant parking from people attending those events. He asked whether, given the driveways and their positions, people would be encouraged to park on Carnelian Glen Court or would they first park in the driveway and what might that look like with the number of lots that are here, should someone actually be entertaining, and where would the overflow of parking go, although across the street there is not much of a frontage. He said his is the only home on the street that has a sidewalk and a curbside. Commissioner Bernald asked where his guests parked, and he responded that they parked in front of his home or in his driveway. Mr. Arnold, responding to Commissioner Bernald’s inquiry, said that with five driveways for five homes, it would be best to take from the flag lot and have three driveways for five homes. Jeffrey Kalb, 14617 Carnelian Glen Circle, said that from looking at the lots and drawings, it appears that the main house is situated on a one-acre lot, but the side setbacks are associated with a half-acre lot. Given the size of that house and its dominance, he believes the lot lines should provide appropriate setbacks consistent with the size of the house as opposed to treating it as though it were half-acre zoning. He said the staff report indicates there are about five trees to be removed, and asked whether that included all the trees necessary to build both the houses and the driveways and everything else, or was it only for the driveways and lot lines. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the Commission was not reviewing any buildings or building setbacks, and additional trees might be removed; thus, staff put in a condition that each of the lots come back to the Commission for design review so they can be looked at individually. Mr. Kalb recommended that more consideration be given the crosswalk. Mr. Kalb addressed the issue of the flag lot, which he sees as exacerbating the parking problem with additional parking and in reducing the amount of street footage available for parking. He said minimizing the impact on parking spaces ought to be a priority for the Commission and staff. He expressed he would prefer a four-lot subdivision to eliminate that problem, if possible. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman, Mr. Kalb said he was not opposed to the subdivision, but with five driveways, there would not be enough parking. Commissioner Bernald asked whether it would be more appropriate for the Public Safety Commission (PSC) to review the crosswalk issue rather than the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 AUGUST 9, 2000 Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the PSC would need to review it; however, it is a state highway, and CalTrans has jurisdiction. Chairman Page commented that the issue would be referred to the PSC, and noted that during the Circulation Element Plan review, it was learned that such a crosswalk and road gives pedestrians a sense of comfort and safety much more than it does drivers, and more people get hurt. Commissioner Barry questioned whether this is more appropriately a one-acre zoning area, and asked what the rationale was for considering five lots as opposed to four lots. Ms. Ratcliffe replied that the property is very large, and both the General Plan designation and zoning map define it as being within the R-1-20,000 zoning district, meaning 20,000 square feet minimum lot size, and a little more for a corner lot. Commissioner Barry asked whether five lots was the maximum that could go in this property, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded that there could be six or seven depending on how it is configured, explaining how more lots could go in. Responding to Commissioner Barry’s inquiry regarding Mr. Kalb’s concern with the setbacks, Ms. Ratcliffe said that the house is an existing house, over 6,000 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for this particular zoning district. However, noting it is an existing house, she said the code does not require that it be removed for the purpose of a subdivision, and it does not require that setbacks conform when there is an existing house that is not moved and not altered. She further explained the requirements. Mr. Kalb commented that his concern with the setbacks is an aesthetics issue, noting that the existing house’s proportions, in his opinion, are not appropriate. Lester Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen, said he was not complaining about the construction, but no advance notice was given to the neighbors and is probably one of the reasons they are concerned. He stated that the proposed width for each driveway may require taking out more trees to accommodate the property. He described Carnelian Glen as a cul-de-sac with 16 houses on the street, and additional houses and driveways would reduce the number of parking spaces and create more traffic situations, including crossing Highway 9. He proposed that the Commission look at how to preserve the trees along Carnelian Glen and not having too many driveways. He described the trees as majestic. Helen Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen Court, suggested that the entrance to all the lots be through Highway 9 as the street is getting very crowded. Responding to Commissioner Bernald’s question, Mr. Lee said that the size of his lot is closer to a one- third acre. Commissioner Barry requested that staff respond to Ms. Lee’s suggestion. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that coming in through Highway 9 would change the configuration and explained that it would become a cul-de-sac off Highway 9. She also addressed possible ramifications on the trail because of the pedestrian pathway. She said she could not see how the plan would be reconfigured and still maintain the main residence, which the HPC is recommending be retained. Commissioner Bernald stated that it appeared that with a reconfiguration more trees would be lost and noted that the trees are very valuable to the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 AUGUST 9, 2000 Ms. Ratcliffe responded to Commissioner Kurasch’s question regarding driveway and road widths with access from Highway 9 on lots #1 and #2. Robert Amaral, 14551 Carnelian Glen, a neighbor and also a developer, stated that the neighbors never heard from the developer. He expressed concerns with traffic. He conveyed he does not want any form of entry from Carnelian Glen as it is a very narrow street; would add more traffic; and create risks for children on the street. He requested that no variances to the code be made on this development, and if any variances are given that the developer give back in terms of the number of lots they develop. He commented that valuation of the properties in the neighborhood would be impacted. He requested that the Commission impose conditions regarding building times associated with the construction, clean-up, workers’ parking, etc. He asked the Commission to request improvements from the developer to add value to the neighborhood such as landscaping, a formal entrance to Carnelian Glen, etc. He asked that no trees be removed; that no variances be provided to setback restrictions; and that no flag lot property be allowed. He noted that adding five more houses is too many. He said he is not against the property, but it should have no more than four houses and the entry should be through Highway 9. Ms. Lee addressed the Commission again, noting she did not want the driveway facing her front door and cars parked close to her house. There was no one else from the audience who wished to address this issue. Mr. Howell responded that he and his partner had thought of basically all the concerns raised by the neighbors. He has plans that show six- or seven-lot plans without any variances. However, he and his partner felt had they brought a six-seven lot subdivision to the Commission tonight they would not be good for the neighbors nor for the developers to get it passed, and would be wasting time. He said they were the only developers who came in with a five-lot subdivision for this property, and every other developer had a six- or seven-lot subdivision on this property with no variances. Mr. Howell conveyed that he did not believe the neighbors understood how sensitive this project is to this site. He noted that he is ahead of the current ordinances and zoning for this area, and he was not asking for any variances and does not intend to ask for any variances. Regarding the trees on the frontage of the property that are already there, he agreed they are a big asset to the property and wants to keep as many as possible. The two trees that are being removed are on the smaller site. Regarding the size of the current house to be maintained, he said one cannot have both ways to tear it down, or keep it. He said he heard that the neighbors want it torn down, and that can be discussed, but he would like direction. He heard the neighbors say that the size of the house - a little over 6,000 square feet which includes the garage - is going to be bigger than the other homes. He noted the home right next door will be 5700 square feet without any variances, and they would be very comparable houses. These are issues that he and his partner have studied, including the impacts to the neighbors. Mr. Howell asked the Commission not to approve access through Highway 9, as this is an ingress/egress concern with a highway like that. Two roads so close together going on to a highway and with people turning onto or from it creates a safety issue and a major problem for not only the people that are going to live in the future houses, but for the people who are currently there. He said it is not wise to have access on a major highway and should have as few access onto a highway as possible. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:45 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 AUGUST 9, 2000 Commissioner Barry commented that, after listening to the public hearing input, this issue needs to be continued so that the neighbors have a chance to further study the proposal and maybe have some input that they feel that they haven’t had so far. She respects what the developer said at the site visit - that they have attempted to have open houses and to make themselves available. Neighborhood input is really important, and she did not feel that the neighbors are anywhere ready tonight to have the Commission make a decision on this. She said there was a good effort on the developers’ part to consider trees and driveway locations; however, the neighbors have brought up some issues that have not been considered yet and were not in the staff report, and she feels the Commission needs to address those. Commissioner Bernald concurred with Commissioner Barry. She was she disappointed because Commissioners specifically asked at the site visit yesterday if all the neighbors had been contacted and were given assurances that attempts had been made. She said she could not support the entrance from Highway 9, and would not want to disturb the improvements that the applicants are making with the walkway, the trees, and the buffer zone. She would want the neighbors to be able to see the plans and get an understanding of what is going on because the developers have made a tremendous effort to try and save the trees and keep the nature of the property. She noted that with the Commission’s concerns more language will probably go into the maintenance and protection of the tress. She thanked Mr. Arnold and Mr. Amaral. She shared having just gone through a total rebuilt of her house in another city and having a contractor who did a clean project. She noted it was very important to her neighbors and how much easier it was for them to accept inconveniences in other ways when the trucks came in and when sand was dumped on their driveways occasionally. She stated that the CC&R’s may be something to look into, and she suggested that perhaps the Commission may need further discussion. Ms. Ratcliffe stated that CC&R’s are agreements between property owners in general and in most cases, the City is not involved in them nor does it have the authority to enforce them. Commissioner Bernald stated she would like more information before the site development is done on the setbacks for lot #3 with the existing house, and she would entertain comments from the rest of the Commissioners regarding the flag lot. She said she had a conflict here. She expressed concern that this is an R-1-20,000 zoning, and she would like to have feedback whether the General Plan is followed or if there is any support for four lots at this point. She said she is not placing a value on that statement; she was merely asking for input from other Commissioners and staff. She asked what the potential problems might be if lot #4 and #5 were made one lot or lot #3 were given some of that area. Commissioner Kurasch agreed that that there was a need for another meeting. She heard a lot of concerns from the neighbors on the character of the area, preserving the views, the setting, the integral part of their neighborhood, access, parking, and traffic. She sees a sensitivity of preserving trees and champions that. If this means impacting a neighborhood very adversely, then maybe the Commission needs to look at it again and mitigate that impact. She asked how many access roads or drives would be appropriate from Carnelian Glen. For her, a compromise might be an internal cul-de-sac, and perhaps that means three lots can have one access, and one driveway for two lots, or something that would preserve the idea of living in a neighborhood. She conveyed that five driveways bother her a lot, and four may be okay. She said maybe even three would be good. However, she thinks the assumption is that the five in the half-acre lots works because of all these access roads, but if that is the impact, it is too great. She is not opposed to trying to have five lots. It may be that with less impact on Carnelian Glen it may turn into four if an access road has to be put in. She said this is a very small street, which means that the impact is going to be greater. Commissioner Jackman stated that the developers have tried to come up with a good plan, but she had problems with lots #3, #4, and #5. She said lot #3 is limited because of the existing house, but perhaps a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 AUGUST 9, 2000 different configuration with one driveway leading to two houses would be appropriate. She said she would like to know the distance between the existing driveways – how many cars can park between each driveway – and whether the actual width of Carnelian Glen is wide enough for parking on both sides and allowing a fire truck to get through. She noticed when Mr. Howell was commenting about the original house, she saw several eyebrows go up among the neighbors, and it is time to go back to the neighbors for another meeting for a better understanding. She would like some method of keeping the street clean, not just from nails, but dirt also. Commissioner Patrick commented she had heard a lot, most of which does not have anything to do with the proposal tonight. She noted there are no variances requested, and the Commission is not dealing with variances. Neighbors are talking about where the driveways are going to be placed, and the Commission is not placing driveways tonight. She said the discussion is only about where the driveways might be on these lots, not placing them. She conveyed that the Commission is not deciding how many driveways there are going to be, nor is it deciding where the entry is going to be, and frankly, the Commission cannot make the entrance from Highway 9 so that is out of the Commission’s hands. A few things she heard, such as having a formal entry onto Carnelian Glen is sort of outside the boundaries of what the Commission does. She said this is not Montalvo – this is a neighborhood, and efforts should be made to try to keep it to a neighborhood. She stated that the Commission is not approving house sites or sizes. There are City ordinances regarding hours of construction work and how to handle construction debris, and she recommends that the neighbors call the City if they have a problem with the current construction in their neighborhood. Every application the Commission has ever approved for building has hours of operation on it. It also imposes what people are supposed to clean up and what they’re supposed to do. The City does not go out and check on those unless they happen to be checking on a permit or similar issue. Speaking to the application itself, she said she had no problem with it. Additionally, Commissioner Patrick stated that the application is to divide up a parcel of land, and that will change. She said this parcel of land has been sitting there as a benefit to the neighborhood for years. She did not think it was fair for the neighborhood to expect that whoever subsequently buys the parcel has to maintain it for the benefit of the neighbors. The City will require the trees to remain as the City goes to extraordinary lengths to keep those trees. She said discussion has been on the potential of removing trees should the various elements ever get in place. A flag lot, in her opinion, is essential on this parcel. She does not like them, but feels it is essential to maintain the character of the neighborhood. She expressed that the Commission wants the existing house on lot #3 to stay there, whatever the setbacks are. She said the house has been there for many more years than the rest of the neighborhood has apparently been there, and it has enough trees to screen; therefore, that would not be a problem. She said she is prepared to vote on the application tonight, and the rest of it can be discussed when design applications come up. Chairman Page concurred with Commissioners Bernald and Patrick. He said the developers have done an admirable job of spec-ing out where things might be, but that is not what the Commission is voting on tonight. He said he would hold his comments until the vote, but he would be prepared to vote on this tonight. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/KURASCH MOVED TO CONTINUE SD-00-002. A discussion ensued. Commissioner Barry stated that the neighbors need to have understanding and input into this project, and whether the developers tried to make that possible or not, it clearly has not happened. There are many issues that have been raised that should be answered and some questions about which the Commission should direct staff to provide answers or information, specifically how the Commission could request four PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 AUGUST 9, 2000 lots on this property rather than five or six or seven. She asked whether that would involve changing the zoning and whether a legal opinion would be necessary. She said the Commission definitely needs to hear from the Fire Chief, and definitely needs more information about driveways. She proposed continuing this item so that the neighbors have more input and so that the Commission can receive more specific information from staff. Commissioner Patrick commented that it is nice to talk to the neighbors, but she did not think the Commission could require anybody to talk. She said the issue is what the Commission thinks about it and what it needs to know at this point. She noted that the issues raised needing answers, such as requiring four lots, is the Commission’s discretion. That is the reason the Commission is voting on dividing the property, and does not need a legal opinion on that. She said the Commission is not voting on driveways, and kept emphasizing she did not like some of these driveways, but would deal with that later. She stated that any questions she had, she has asked of staff and received answers, and she is ready to proceed. Commissioner Jackman conveyed that basically this is a good division into the five lots, but she stated she was a little distressed. She knows that legally, the Commission does not have to make sure the neighbors are happy, but she knows Mr. Howell and Mr. McNeil have tried to make the neighbors happy before. She feels that possibly with another meeting, concerns could be worked out, and she would like to see the neighbors well pleased. She said she would like to have this item come back for another hearing. Commissioner Kurasch concurred with Commissioner Jackman. She said every lot has to have a drive, an access, and if they are not considered and are addressed later, for her, it is a more complete picture to be able to look at the impacts of whatever the configuration is. She said the sites are footprints, and they are related, not necessarily to how large the building is going to be, but they show the pad and a potential size of the particular house or structure that can go in. She would want to consider with this approval conditions for the property. She said it is appropriate to look at neighborhood views. Aesthetics is a legitimate objective, and legally her perception is discretionary, so there are views here to consider. She would like a little more information about the existing road and what the capacity is for traffic and parking and those kinds of quantitative impacts. She stated that that information could be obtained from staff and would be helpful to her. She would support a continuance. Commissioner Bernald stated she needed some clarification on what the layers of the process are. Tonight the vote is not on driveways, but on a subdivision. The Commission is not definitely looking at where the houses will be with the exception of lot #3. She asked what process would be followed from here on so that the concerns that have been raised tonight will be addressed and will come in an order which is timely and appropriate to this division. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that at this point the driveways could be addressed. The Commission could say yes to this development provided that the driveways are where they are or provided that they share access for lots #3 and #4, or whatever the Commission chooses. She noted that the Commission could in fact make that decision tonight, or it could also approve the tentative map with the driveways tentative and request to review each lot independently of that. Referring to the shared driveway, she said an access easement has to be recorded with the land, and that would have to necessarily be handled at a subdivision level, rather than later, unless it is the same owner. She explained that once the subdivision is complete and the final map is recorded, it is possible to have two separate owners, and one cannot at that point say that an easement has to be given to somebody else. She said if this was a concern, the Commission might want to look at that at this level, and make the driveways as part of the approval. Chairman Page voiced that getting input from the neighbors as was done tonight and further attempts could possibly help to come to consensus. He said he is not a big fan of shared driveways, and if the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 AUGUST 9, 2000 decision is made to create an easement, it is evident that could cause more problems. It could also add to the parking necessary on the street because people will not be able to park in their own driveway. They have to leave parts open, which may cause more parking on the street, and the neighbors do not want this. He is in favor of having the neighbors meet with the developer and if there is some discussion regarding CC&R’s to meet the needs of the present homeowners and needs of the future homeowners which are going to be a part of the neighborhood, he would like to see it done now. He noted that if a continuance helps, the Commission could go ahead and vote on this tonight. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification that the one thing that would be absolutely done tonight if the Commission approves this is the number of lots, and Ms. Ratcliffe responded she was correct. Commissioner Barry then stated she was not prepared to do that, and deferred to the Chairman to call the question. Ms. Ratcliffe clarified that what she heard from the Commission is that they want from staff more information about easements, driveway placements, the width of Carnelian Glen, which is actually 40’ - cars could park on both sides and still allow room for a fire truck to get through there. She asked if there was anything else for staff to work on. Commissioner Barry requested that staff provide a game plan on how to change this to four lots, whether it would require a zoning change, and whether there would be any issue with the developers losing more than the Commission can appropriately ask the developer to dedicate. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that the Commission could approve two lots or it could deny the subdivision application. It could also say it wants to see four or three, or whatever number of lots. As far as getting involved in whether that is asking too much, she would have to defer to the City Attorney. Commissioner Barry said she would appreciate staff obtaining that information for the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Kurasch said she was concerned with the possibility of some type of easement as far as viewshed – the landscape easement discussed earlier, specifically for the trees that would front Carnelian Glen, and also that were important for the perimeters, southeast side of lots #1, #2, #3, the rear of the lots discussed earlier, specifically something to develop conditions for overall protection of those trees. Commissioner Bernald stated she would like to know the size of the existing homes across the street on Carnelian Glen, the square footage of lots and house sizes. THE MOTION TO CONTINUE SD-00-002 PASSED 5-1-0 (COMMISSIONER PATRICK OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Chairman Page declared a recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 5. V-00-011 (386-06-033) - KARREN, 12515 Woodside Court; Application for Variance approval for a proposed 649 square foot addition. Twenty square feet of the addition and a portion of a porch would intrude into the rear yard setback. The parcel is located within an R-1- 10, 000 zoning district. Ms. Ratcliffe presented the staff report, noting the existing configuration of the house is a pie-shaped lot and is an existing legal non-conforming location. It was built approximately in 1953 and intrudes into the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 18 AUGUST 9, 2000 rear setback. The kitchen is in the rear of the residence, and the applicant wishes to expand it. The only way to do so is to extend the non-conforming setback. Additionally, there is another proposed addition on another portion of the house, of which all the square footage is within the setbacks and does not require a variance. However, the applicant wants to put a porch overhang and column supporting the porch, which would intrude into the rear setback by approximately five feet, and would require a variance. There are no trees involved. The applicant has submitted a signed petition from four adjacent neighbors in support of the project. Staff has indicated that all findings for the variance can be made and recommends approval. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 10:30 p.m. Melanie Karren, applicant, stated that the kitchen expansion would not go towards the fence but into the middle of the yard, and further described the remodel. There was no one from the audience who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:33 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Commissioner Bernald stated this was a fine example of an applicant connecting with the neighbors. She said that with the neighborhood support and approval allowing the family to remain in the home, she can support the proposal. Commissioner Kurasch commented that findings can be made to support the special circumstance to support the variance, and the request is very reasonable. Commissioner Jackman noted that the request shows good planning and she will support it. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Barry said that this is a legal non-conforming lot, which is a special circumstance. She said the proposal is well-supported, and she supports it also. Chairman Page stated he supports the project. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE V-00-011. PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) 6. DR-00-025 (397-07-035) – MAESUMI, 15141 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval for the demolition of an existing 2,713 square foot, single story residence and the construction of a new 5,375 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,737 square foot basement. The site is 43,476 square feet and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. _________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Pearson presented the staff report, noting that staff generally supports the application with a few design changes that have been made conditions of approval in the resolution. He said the recommendations were made in efforts to make the home more compatible with some of the older homes in the surrounding neighborhood. The changes include removing the columns from the front of the garage, removing one pair of columns from the entry, eliminating the quoins, and eliminating the keystones from above the garage doors. He said two relatively small trees would be removed, and staff recommends approving the project with conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 19 AUGUST 9, 2000 Responding to a question from Chairman Page regarding the two driveway entrances, Mr. Pearson stated that they are within the allowable limits for impervious coverage, and one of the changes was to move the driveway from the redwood tree. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 10:37 p.m. Ms. G’Lush, designer of the home, explained that the applicant would like to keep the quoins, keystones and the columns, and she asked for the Commission’s opinion. She said that if the columns had to be eliminated, she could try to use stucco. Commissioner Jackman commented that the house looked very busy with the quoins, and asked if they would be precast in the stucco, and Ms. G’Lush responded that they would be precast in stone. Commissioner Barry asked if the existing driveways were going to be torn up or changed as part of the construction, and Ms. G’Lush replied that some of the concrete would be eliminated. Commissioner Barry asked whether pervious pavers would replace any driveway/s to be removed, and Ms. G’Lush replied that pervious pavers would be used. Chairman Page stated that if pervious pavers are to be used it might be made part of the conditions because the proposal stated concrete would be used. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kurasch regarding the area of the circular drive on the right side, Ms. G’Lush described it as a one-foot stucco wall as part of the decorative entrance landscaping. Commissioner Kurasch noted that it was shown on the overall site map outside of the property line and construction outside of the property line would be in the right-of-way. Mr. Pearson confirmed that a redesign of that specific area would be necessary with the condition that the Public Works Department has imposed, and an encroachment permit would be required. He said a condition could be added requiring coordination with Public Works for the decorative landscaping. Deon Babrouski, 15225 Blue Gum Court, stated he resides in back of the property, and asked what the process was whereby the Commission considers the elevation aspect as the house is in a ravine. Chairman Page stated that the Commission was interested in hearing Mr. Babrouski’s views on how this house would impact him, and explained that there are specific rules about the height of a home. Mr. Babrouski was of the understanding that there was supposed to be a demonstration of what the house would look like in this area so others can see the impact. Mr. Pearson replied that as a policy this is only required in the hillside zone area, and this is not a hillside home. Chairman Page explained that any house built in Saratoga has a 26’ height limit over the current grade. He suggested that Mr. Babrouski address the issue with staff for a better understanding. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 20 AUGUST 9, 2000 Omid Shakeri, 16240 Greenwood Lane, Monte Sereno, addressed the Commission representing the owner. He responded to Mr. Babrouski’s question regarding three stories and noted that the project has a basement, which is not visible. Commissioner Kurasch asked whether the architect had considered moving the house down the hill or further back from the street. Ms. G’Lush responded that the other side is too steep, and they would want a small patio behind the house as there is very little backyard, which includes a pool. COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/BERNALD MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:54 P.M.) PASSED 6-0 (COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) Commissioner Jackman commented that the front elevation looks very busy with the quoins on the corner and stones going around the circular windows in the front and three columns along the garage. She said looking at the color sample, the gray was not very dark, and it would be more visible. She would prefer a dark gray to reduce the bulk, and more could be done to make it look classic and fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Patrick concurred with the staff recommendation with the inclusion of the pervious pavers. Commissioner Barry agreed with the staff recommendations for the design changes, and pervious pavers should be made a condition. She proposed adding a condition regarding coordinating the landscape plan with the Public Works Department. She stated she was opened to hearing from other Commissioners regarding issues with the home placement or the general design. Commissioner Kurasch expressed concern with placement of the house in that it is too close to the street. She said the homes across the street are 150’ from the street. With the amount of drive in the front it is going to be tremendous. She proposed less of a two-story look. Commissioner Bernald agreed with Commissioner Kurasch. She said her experience is that the homes in the back yard may be compatible but the houses across the street and next door are one-story ranch homes. The frontage is minimal and the site is going to be overwhelmed from the street by the bulk of the building. She noted that the application is at the maximum square footage allowed with nothing going down the slope, and the slope is too great to build on and is probably why they are using the proposed pad site. She sees this as a home that is designed in an extremely bulky, ostentatious manner and is ill-fitted to this site given the frontage. Chairman Page stated that this home has a lot of design elements. He said the sheer bulk of it, and because it will be placed on the lot, it will be extremely visible and give a perception of undue bulk from the street. He would encourage a redesign. He concurred with Commissioner Bernald that the slope is probably way too steep to build on, and that would not be an option. He said it is unfortunate, but the applicants have a very constrained area to build on. Commissioner Barry said she would be agreeable to supporting either a continuance or a design that is less bulky, and suggested offering the applicant a continuance for that purpose. Commissioner Jackman stated she would like to see a design review possibly to the left side where the pool is isolated. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 21 AUGUST 9, 2000 Commissioner Kurasch noted that the design is one square foot from the absolute maximum allowable, and is large. She suggested perhaps some other options for getting more living space in some other design or a bit smaller. She spoke with Mr. Pearson about piers on these slopes and asked if that was a possibility to direct as far as non-impacting. Mr. Pearson responded that could be a possibility, noting there is a limitation of not more than 5’ between the floor and the grade. Also, there is a limitation of the maximum slope on which to build of 30 percent. The house could probably be stepped down the hill a bit, but the basement area would be lost. The lower level of the house would only be visible from the rear and the upper level visible from the street. Commissioner Kurasch commented that the basement is central under the core of the house and could be moved under another part of the house that did not step down the hill. Ms. Ratcliff clarified that if the basement were continued out and stepped down, it would lose being considered a basement; therefore, it would have to be included as part of the square footage and would no longer be considered a basement. Mr. Pearson also noted that the grading would be impacted and it would be necessary for a considerable amount of cut removed from the site to accomplish this. For purposes of discussion, COMMISSIONERS BARRY/KURASCH MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-00- 025 TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2000. Commissioner Kurasch commented that perhaps with a smaller home size or pad, some of the problems could be addressed. The advantage of pushing it back from the street is evident to her. Commissioner Jackman referred to previous projects where the square footage of the lot allows a certain number of square footage for the house, but the configuration of the house with this much slope makes it almost impossible to build the whole size that is allowable. Chairman Page asked whether the applicant’s agent was agreeable to the continuance, and Mr. Shakeri agreed, commenting that an issue would be the impact on the neighbors. THE MOTION TO CONTINUE DR-00-025 PASSED. 5-1-0 (COMMISSIONER BERNALD OPPOSED; COMMISSIONER ROUPE WAS ABSENT.) DIRECTOR ITEMS - Reminder that P.C. meeting of August 23, 2000 is cancelled – Noted. - Draft Agenda for September 13, 2000 – Noted. - Ms. Ratcliffe reported on a memo from the City Attorney regarding the selected portion of the July 12, 2000 Planning Commission minutes, which Commissioner Kurasch requested be stricken from the record. This referred to comments made by an applicant after the Public Hearing was closed. The City Attorney’s legal opinion is that those comments shall remain in the minutes. COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 22 AUGUST 9, 2000 • Commissioner Barry requested that future staff reports include a summary of extensive geotechnical analysis that is done beyond the initial analysis. She said there have been two or three reports where extensive analysis was done and the Commissioners do not receive copies of those. She said a summary of extensive work done would be very helpful. Ms. Ratcliffe responded that staff does not receive a report of the work that is done; however, staff receives a list of conditions from the geotechnical consultant. Commissioner Barry stated that examples would be helpful. Mr. Pearson proposed that staff work with the engineers in the Public Works Department to provide a brief chronology or summary of the issues that the City Geologist has requested the applicant to address. • Chairman Page requested that staff work to coordinate joint meetings of the Commissioners with the Heritage Preservation, Public Safety, and Parks and Recreation Commissions. • Commissioner Barry stated she wrote correspondence addressing the Sobrato project regarding the Fire Chief’s input on the evacuation plan, and suggested that the Public Safety Commission should also be involved. Chairman Page proposed a representative from the Public Safety Commission could be present at the September 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. WRITTEN − City Council minutes for regular meeting of July 19, 2000, action minutes from August 2, 2000 – Noted and filed. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 11:18 p.m., to Wednesday, September 13, 2000, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk