Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-2000 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Bernald, Jackman, and Chairman Page Absent: Commissioners Kurasch, Patrick, and Roupe Staff: Director Walgren PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - September 13, 2000 The minutes of September 13, 2000 were not available and will be in the next Commission agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. (Later in the meeting the agenda was moved back to Oral Communications for pubic comment.) REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Walgren announced that pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 22, 2000. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET Director Walgren announced that the only technical correction was that the minutes of September 13, 2000 were not available and that they would be ready at the October 11, 2000 Commission meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. DR-99-042 (397-28-028) – BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, Lot 52, Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,256 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height proposed is 22 feet. An 800 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is 9,580 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 10/25/00) 2. DR-99-043 (397-28-028) – BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, Lot 53, Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,189 square foot two-story residence on a vacant lot. Maximum height proposed is 22 feet. An 819 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is 8,721 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 10/25/00) 3. DR-99-053 (397-280-47) – BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, Lot 54, Alta Vista Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,242 square foot two-story residence on a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 vacant lot. Maximum height proposed is 22 feet. A 637 square foot basement is also proposed. The parcel is 11,200 square feet and is located within an R-1-12,500 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 10/25/00) 4. DR-00-027 (386-54-048) – TEAGLE, 12400 De Sanka Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,288 square foot addition, including a 1,198 square foot second story, to an existing 1,987 square foot single story residence. Maximum height proposed is 23 feet. The parcel is approximately 11,250 square feet and is located in an R-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 10/11/00) 5. DR-00-026 (503-27-028) – LIN, 14260 Elva Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 1,340 square foot single story residence and construct a new 2,664 square foot two-story residence in its place. Maximum height proposed is 23 feet. The parcel is 7,500 square feet and is located within an R-1-10,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO APROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. DR-99-014 (503-29-057 – CHANG, 22005 Dorsey Way; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 3,317 square foot residence and construct a new 4,203 square foot, two- story residence on a 40,032 square foot parcel. Maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED FROM 7/26/00) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the property is just less than one acre in size. When the Commission on July 26, 2000, first heard the application the Commissioners had already visited the property and reviewed the staff documents. The Commission moved to continue the item, giving the applicant an opportunity to either revise the plans or face a denial. Commissioners felt that although the original design was an attractive design, it was a much grander, more vertical, and massive design than currently existed in the developed cul-de-sac. A neighbor came forward and expressed concern about preservation of a particular viewshed on her property that the proposed addition would obstruct. The applicants accepted the continuance, and the plans have now been revised. It is primarily the same design, but the roof pitch has been lowered from 26’ to 24’, and much of the architectural detailing has been toned down to create a less busy architecture. The house has also been rotated and shifted 7’ to the left to address the view protection concerns. Staff feels that with these changes, the applicants have made a good faith effort to address the Commission’s concerns and recommends approval of the application. Responding to a question from Chairman Page, Director Walgren highlighted the portion of the front of the residence that had been reduced from 26’ to 24’. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m. Vaughn Haws, 2067 Colusa Way, San Jose, the Changs’ representative, stated that efforts had been made to comply with the concerns of the neighbors and the Commission, mainly by lowering the project’s roof 2’ making it a more compatible structure with the existing residences on the cul-de-sac. He said what was not apparent on the drawings was that the site is heavily wooded – trees both in front and back – and they PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 3 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 have tried with the driveway to maintain and to preserve those trees in the front that shield the house from neighbors across the street as well as giving the owners of the home a view out the side to the valley floor. Peggy Koen, 22000 Dorsey Way, stated that she lives directly across the street from the Changs’ property above the proposed house. She commented that she does not see the existing house today, noting it is below grade, one story, and has no windows across the entire front of the house. She said if the revised design meets all of the design criteria, she would support the project; however, if any changes are to be made, she would suggest the color be dark and compatible with the woods surrounding the house. She noted the driveway in front of the house, and said that she had no way of screening on her property as there is a city easement and a walnut tree as part of the easement. The only screening that can be done is on the Changs’ property. She expressed concern that once the two large pine trees on the Chang property are gone, there would only be driveway and house in front of her property. She asked if the Commission was looking at any design changes, that they consider any elements that would mitigate the impacts. Mr. Haws responded that the driveway is in the upper right hand corner of the site plan, which denotes the pervious pavers to be installed to mitigate the impact on the two trees in which the driveway will go. He said the existing driveway will be eliminated and hopefully this would satisfy Ms. Koen’s concern as the new driveway is off to the side going to the back of the property. Chairman Page noted that it appeared that a driveway came across the front and exits on the cul-de-sac. He said it is 16’, which would be more of a drive than a sidewalk, and this is probably what Ms. Koen was referring to. Mr. Haws stated that the driveway goes across the front of the lawn, but the driveway to be used by the family is on the right hand property line and the driveway across the front is to get to the front door and keep cars from parking out on the street. Chairman Page asked Mr. Haws if he would be averse to putting additional screening between the driveway and cul-de-sac to alleviate the problem of seeing the driveway. Mr. Haws responded that the driveway across the front of the house is below street level. It is heavily screened now and they intend to keep the screening intact. He said his clients would be submitting a landscape plan to staff at a later time and that issue would be addressed. Commissioner Barry noted that Ms. Koen requested dark color for the house; however, the color board distributed to the Commissioners is two shades of green, but did not seem particularly dark. Mr. Haws responded that the intent is to paint the house dark, and he will be resubmitting a color board reflecting the latest plan to staff for approval. Commissioner Jackman inquired whether all existing asphalt would be removed for the pervious pavers, and Mr. Haws said they would. Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Haws for the redesign, work, and effort. Commissioner Jackman commented that she liked the redesign much better than the original one. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 7:52 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Commissioner Jackman stated that the revised plans were much better and as long as the driveway is pervious all the way across the front, the plan would be acceptable to her. She suggested a darker brownish tone for the house. Commissioner Barry concurred. She said the applicants have reduced the height of the roofline and made an extremely good faith to accommodate the requests that have been made. Regarding the screening, she said some issues related to the pine trees will not come up until later if and when the trees go, and she is uncertain what can be done about the landscaping plan to insure screening. She agreed that a darker color would help. Commissioner Bernald commented that she missed the last meeting; however, she visited the site on her own, and said she liked both designs. She said the new design is charming. She can approve the color board at this time, noting that the colors are not the type that would reflect light. Instead they would draw light in, and given the proper landscaping, this will meld into the hillside very well. In an effort to guarantee that, she said she would like to add a condition that an extensive landscape plan be submitted that will account for the inevitability of the failure of the pine trees and that the planting go in with that in mind and focus towards the future for screening. Chairman Page concurred with his fellow Commissioners noting great efforts have been made. He said this is a great redesign and hoped that it met the needs of as many people as possible. He agreed with Commissioner Bernald that the color board looks good and with the condition of additional screening, this will be a great house and setting. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/JACKMAN MOVED TO APROVE DR-99-014 WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN CONDITION. PASSED 4-0 (COMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) 7. 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. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the Commission heard this item before and continued it at the applicant’s request to take a look at revising the plans rather than taking a vote that could have been negative. At that time, staff noted that the project met all minimum zoning ordinance requirements, but the Commission was concerned with the architecture of the building and whether it was too opulent and grandiose for the neighborhood. The Commission inquired whether the home could be pushed off the existing building pad and perhaps down the rear slope to minimize the massive front elevation as seen from the public road. The applicants were willing to revise the plans; however, it is noted that they have not pushed the building off the pad, and they have cited concerns for additional retaining walls and grading that would occur as a result. However, the applicants have significantly revised the architecture with a traditional design. The building has been lowered 2’ in height to lower its profile from the street elevation. The applicants have reduced retaining walls that were originally proposed within the front landscape improvements, removed much of the quoining and column detailing from the architecture, and incorporated pervious pavers into the driveway. Staff feels that the applicants have met the majority of the concerns expressed by the Commission and recommends approval of the project. Commissioner Barry referred to diagram A-2, asking whether inter-locking tiles would be put in over the existing driveway, and Director Walgren responded that there was a condition in the resolution that it not be built that way and that the driveway be removed and pervious pavers be set at grade. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 5 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Commissioner Barry, addressing the roof material, asked about a possible fire situation regarding shake roof, and Director Walgren responded that it is a composition simulated shake, which would be a Class A fire-retardant roof; however, wood shake could also be made Class A fire-retardant through some type of treatment that he described. Commissioner Jackman referred to the driveway on diagram A-2 showing the pad going quite a bit to the side yard of the garage, and asked if all of that would remain, and Director Walgren replied that it would. Responding to a question from Commissioner Jackman, Director Walgren stated that the new driveway would go across the front of the house. He said some of the existing driveway in the far northeast corner would be removed and the new driveway would be a horseshoe driveway connecting back to Sobey Road. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. There was no one in the audience who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:03 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Barry commented she was very pleased with the changes, noting that the applicants had complied with essentially everything the Commission had requested. Commissioner Bernald disagreed. She agreed that the roofline is lower, and she liked the new design more than the heavier design with the quoins and columns. She expressed that this was still a large house on a short frontage and that it would end up with the appearance of towering over Sobey Road. She would still like to see it pushed back further, and any design changes to be made need to be done with that in mind. Commissioner Jackman stated that the hill behind the proposed house is fairly steep and because of the retaining walls, the applicants designed it as it is. She asked what the relationship was of the new footprint compared to the old footprint. Director Walgren responded that it is pretty much lost with all of the line work but it is virtually going in the same spot, extending a little bit off to the north, but a very small degree, and virtually lines up to the south, and it is within the same footprint of the existing home. Commissioner Jackman conveyed that it would be difficult to ask the applicants to step the design down the hill because of the steepness of the hill in back; however, she expressed concern that there is a great deal of driveway to the north side of the garage and up to the front of the property plus the horseshoe drive across the front with two entrances to Sobey Road. She did not see why one three-car garage needs this much driveway space. Commissioner Bernald expressed that this is a very dangerous point of Sobey Road. She said she could support the horseshoe driveway because it would be safer to do a turn-around than back out at any point, and it would have parking spaces. Commissioner Jackman remarked that there was plenty of parking space and turn-around space by the garages and she would not want them to back out to the street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Commissioner Bernald said that from the first report, the proposal came in at 5,375 square feet, and the code requirement allowance was 5,376 square feet. She did not see anything new in the latest report, and assumed that the proposal was still under one-foot maximum. She said this was still a massive house for this site. Director Walgren stated that the house was as big as it could be and this would preclude future owners from building pool houses, guest houses, any other accessory uses, or ever adding on to it because it would be built to the maximum permitted. Chairman Page stated that the applicants did what was asked of them; however, he was concerned with the driveway in front, feeling it would add to the expansiveness and bulk one would see from Sobey Road. He agreed with Commissioner Bernald regarding the safety issue. He said it seemed like a very large house and it presents itself as a large house; however, the applicants have met the direction given by the Commission, and he would be willing to vote in favor of the proposal. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-00-025 AND THAT CONDITION #7 REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THE FRONT AND SOUTHSIDE OF THE PROPERTY. PASSED 3-1 (COMMISSIONER BERNALD OPPOSED; COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) 8. 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. (CONTINUED FROM 8/9/00) Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting that the five separate lots range in size from 21,100 square feet to 46,530 square feet. The application was previously heard by the Commissioners who had visited the site. He said public testimony was heard and neighbors expressed concern regarding the number of driveways being proposed to go on Carnelian Glen Court, a public roadway. Currently, the existing older residence with its guesthouse adjacent to it accesses off a long private driveway directly onto Highway 9. As a result of comments heard from the neighbors, the Commission continued the item for staff to have the Fire Marshall and City Traffic Engineer take a second look at the proposal with the specific question of whether there could be a joint shared driveway that runs along the existing private drive, and their answer was no. The Fire District was less adamant; however, the City Traffic Engineer was very clearly opposed to it and further stated that CalTrans would not permit another parallel road that close to Carnelian Glen Court as it would violate basic engineering principles. It was noted that Vickery and Montalvo Road across Highway 9 have a similar configuration, which is a historic configuration with problems of its own, and they would not want to duplicate that if it could be avoided. Additionally, the fact that it is directly across from those two roads would make the situation much worse. Director Walgren further reported that the driveways were marked and Commissioners revisited the site. Attempts were made to demark how few of the frontage trees would have to be removed as a result of the proposal, and it was determined that two or three trees would have to be removed. He said the proposal meets all minimum General Plan density and land use standards and exceeds all zoning ordinance standards for this zoning district. The City Arborist as well as other applicable advisory agencies has reviewed the proposal, and because it is accessing onto a relatively low traffic volume street, staff did not find anything about it that would be inherently negative and nothing that would result in a significant impact according to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 7 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Additionally, Director Walgren stated that staff discussed with the applicant early in the process that the only lot that is slightly irregular from a traditional subdivision is the flag parcel. He said zoning ordinances permit flag parcels, but they have the potential to result in increased privacy impact just because the lot is bound by homes on so many more property lines. He reported that at the site visit, as one is in the back property where the pond and improvements are, one does not see any adjacent homes or immediate impacts that could be anticipated, and staff is recommending approval of the map as presented with the conditions in the resolution. Commissioner Bernald reviewed past issues, including whether a precedent would be created for the house on parcel #3 with no proper setbacks, since it is already situated on its own lot. She wanted to make sure that a precedent would not be set, such as creating a situation that would in any other situation be asking for a variance. She also inquired whether the Commission should be voting on the driveways tonight. Director Walglren responded to the driveways issue, noting that a site development plan is required to be submitted with any tentative subdivision map, which identifies the building envelope and a proposed driveway to ascertain the average slope and any impacts to significant trees. Commissioner Bernald noted that one drawing appears to have three houses being accessed by one driveway and further on, it looks like five driveways. Director Walgren responded that the most recent exhibit (B) may look like a single driveway, but it only shows the landscaping along the corridor. He said the second and third pages of Exhibit B indicate the additional improvements that have been incorporated into the project, continues the asphalt pathway, and provides frontage improvements along Highway 9. He said the original tentative map represents the driveways as indicated. Director Walgren responded to Commissioner Bernald’s inquiry regarding lot #3, noting that the home proposed on that site meets all minimum setback requirements. Commissioner Barry asked whether it was accurate that the existing house is on the historic registry, and Director Walgren responded it was not currently in the inventory, but the Historic Preservation Committee has requested it be added to the inventory if the project is approved, and it would be a condition of the resolution. Responding to a question from Commissioner Barry regarding flexibility of the general location of the driveways, Director Walgren said that the flexibility is that the applicants, when developing the site, can either do the driveways as proposed or they can show the Commission a better way to do the driveways that also conform to the City’s minimum standards. Commissioner Jackman commented that when this issue was discussed originally, the Commission requested the driveways because they wanted the minimal number of trees cut down, and it looked like changing the driveway spots would result in more trees being removed than the current plan approved by the arborist. Chairman Page referred to the driveway on lot #4 (flag lot), and asked whether the driveway goes along the property line. Director Walgren responded that the corridor is 20’ wide, which is the minimum requirement for a flag lot, and the driveway needs to be 14’. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 8 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Commissioner Jackman, noting the corridor is 20’, asked whether that meant that a 14’ driveway would have to go in with plantings along the edge. Director Walgren responded that the landscape plan shows that planting would become a requirement. He said it is typically not the level of detail one would get into at this point, but it had to be part of the subdivision application. Commissioner Barry proposed reading her list of conditions that were being discussed at the last meeting, and Chairman Page suggested waiting until after the applicant has addressed the Commission. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. Greg Howell, 125 Glenridge Avenue, Los Gatos, and Tim McNeil, 18450 Sobey Road, Saratoga, of Howell & McNeil Development, addressed the Commission. Mr. Howell said that since the last public hearing, they were given direction to meet with the neighbors and discuss the overall development, and get input from them. They sent a letter to all neighbors on Carnelian Glen and met with quite a few neighbors. They did not always agree on everything, but they had good dialogue. He noted that the staff report covered all the points. He said that some concessions had been made, and that one of the points was that the neighbors had asked for a walking path across Highway 9. It was determined that that was not feasible, and they have put the pathway all the way to Horseshoe so it now ties in with the crosswalk. Chairperson Page referred to the driveway across from Mr. and Mrs. Lester Lee, and asked if it was possible to angle that driveway more towards Highway 9 so that it comes out more at an angle and less likelihood of lights. Mr. Howell responded that the minimum width is 20’ but the actual road only needs to be 14’ so it can be moved over as far as possible, but the property line cannot be moved because the lot is already at the minimum width of 80’. He said they considered this with the Lees and tried to come up with a solution that would work; however, they did not come up with a solution that was satisfactory to the Lees’ concern. Commissioner Bernald asked whether Commissioner Barry still had some concerns from her list, and Commissioner Barry responded she had some concerns with the driveways, but is unsure of a solution, and thought that might be a reason to have flexibility in the redesign as a condition. Mr. Howell stated that the roads were put in specifically looking at the arborist report to take out as few trees as possible, and two trees are being removed. He said later on when they come back for the design review of the houses, if it determined that the Commission would like the driveway placed elsewhere, he would have no problem with that. Commissioner Barry said it is reasonable to address the concern of the neighbors directly across the street and that they are close to three driveways looking at them. Her first thought was to have one driveway as a common driveway for part of the way, but she said it is reasonable to ask that something be done. She said she understood Chairman Page’s suggestion that by angling it a little at least it would not be a straight line directly to the neighbor’s front door. Mr. Howell conveyed that he offered to put some screening on the Lees’ property that would help; however, the Lees’ concern is just the fact that the driveway is there. He said the driveway was not hitting their front door; it was to the left of their front door, and he offered to angle it as much as possible and is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 9 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 willing to do so, but he has limitations of zoning requirements. He said that if the driveway were moved over, it would also impact some trees. He reiterated he was open to working toward resolving the issue. Chairman Page inquired about the standard configuration for driveways, and Director Walgren said there was none for residential driveways. Property is limited to one driveway opening for every 40’ frontage. For residences that are closer than 35’ from the public street, there are no requirements for how wide the driveway needs to be, but if they are 35’ or greater - these envelopes as a result of the required setbacks are all 40-60’ - the driveway needs to be a minimum of 14’ to allow emergency vehicles to get from the street onto the property. Helen Lee, 14653 Carnelian Glen, conveyed that she and Mr. Lee spoke to the developer once about the driveway facing directly in her front door. She said later on, if they decide to put a fence on the driveway it would look like her front door was facing an alley. She noted that Carnelian Glen has a very long driveway for the flag lot in the back, and it is not facing anybody’s front door. She said the driveway could face any place else, but not people’s front door. She strongly objects to this as this is against her Feng Shui and her whole family’s welfare depends on it. She said people have a right to use a part of the road, but to put a long driveway facing her front door is against Oriental culture. She also objected to the removal of the trees. Mr. Howell commented that on most streets in Saratoga, driveways face doors or property, which is a common feature of the street. He reiterated he is open to trying to work the driveways as best possible to accommodate others, but he has limitations. Commissioner Bernald agreed that this is a difficult situation and under most circumstances, this is not an issue that comes up. However, she asked what prevented putting in a driveway down the northside of the lot directly off Carnelian Glen and bringing it down the flag lot. Mr. McNeil explained that if that were done, lots #4 and #5 (where the guest house is currently situated) would have to be moved over and face a home. The original home would have that driveway so it would not change things much. Chairman Page asked whether the driveway could stay where it is and the house moved, and Mr. McNeil responded that huge trees exist along that property line. Katie Kennedy, 14631 Carnelian Glen, conveyed that the developers had done a great job in trying to work with the neighbors. She lives directly across from the guesthouse, where the bulk of the proposed driveways are planned, and she is interested in minimizing traffic. She asked why the driveways have to come in off Carnelian Glen and why they do not use the current driveway as the access. She said this would alleviate all of the neighbors’ concerns. Chairman Page responded that in between the last hearing and today’s hearing, the City Traffic Engineer talked to CalTrans who would not approve it because the roads would be too close together, and it would be a safety issue. Lester Lee, 16453 Carnelian Glen, asked whether any consideration had been given to restricting the entrance to one driveway from Carnelian Glen and then loop into the existing driveway that will consume a certain amount of the lot space. He said that at the previous meeting, it was mentioned that the street was 40’ wide and the neighbors have measured it at 30’. He asked if it was possible as part of the development plan to widen the street at least in the first three houses to alleviate the traffic problem in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 front. He added that during exercise hours when people, including children, are jogging on the street, any cars parked on the front section of Carnelian Glen pose a severe traffic problem. Commissioner Jackman commented that she understood that in Feng Shui, part of the impact can be broken by putting a screening on the Lees’ property near the front door to keep the spirits from exiting. She asked why this could not be done. Mr. Lee said it could be done, and there is an opportunity to discuss it. He said based on previous conversations, nothing had been presented to him after the first conversation. Commissioner Jackman indicated that would be Mr. and Mrs. Lee’s responsibility – not the developer’s – to put a screening fence on their property near their front entrance. Mr. Lee said he was fully aware of this, but it did not reduce the impact of whatever the developer wanted to do. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 8:41 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Bernald reported she had spoken to Mrs. Lee in a telephone conversation several weeks ago, and she completely understands Mrs. Lee’s concerns. She said developers are expected to do a certain amount and then they come across the City’s ordinances. She said she would like to consider what the developer can do to swing the entrance to lot #4 around in some way and see if that will be of some help. She recognized the restrictions in this area, and after she asked about moving the driveway over to the north end of the development, she realized that even in the back end it might not be possible to put a driveway there because of the slope down to the ravines. She expressed that a few weeks ago she had concern that the developer was creating a flag lot; however acknowledging a flag lot in the area already exists, she feels the precedent has been set. Another issue she had raised was the rather large homes; however, her concerns were addressed with the fact that the Commission will not be creating a situation of asking for any variance on this lot. When she reviewed the second report that gave the size of the lots in the very near neighborhood, which to her is the best definition for using comparisons for compatibility, she found that all of those lots are exactly the same size as what is proposed here. She said as much as she was ready to go with four lots and a generous landscaping, she has nothing that she can fall back on. At this point she is willing and ready to vote for this project with the idea that she still has a concern with how the entrance way to lot #4 is worked in this plan. Otherwise, she is very happy, and complimented the applicant on the landscaping along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, and in connecting with the trail Commissioner Jackman stated this is the best plan, given the existing trees and existing layout of the land. If the original house was not there, it could have been a totally different layout, but the existing house in the middle, which is worth saving historically, has really changed the shape and restricted how the applicant can divide the lot. Commissioner Barry asked Director Walgren to address two issues raised by Mr. Lee – the possibility of an internal loop road, which would access all of the houses from one driveway, and the other issue is whether it would be helpful to ask the developer to widen the street at the beginning to make more parking space. Director Walgren responded that a loop road would have to meet minimum access road standards and this basically means providing a cul-de-sac, which would have to be at a right angle off Carnelian Glen. He said this would be going back to the alternative proposal that the applicants have stated they looked at and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 11 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 could pursue, but results in a second roadway instead of just driveways. He said he did not think the idea of four-five residential driveways in a cul-de-sac is necessarily such a large negative that a cul-de-sac would be necessary. He said it could be done and it would result in an entirely different layout to have lots radiating from the cul-de-sac. Typically, this would be pursued if they were lots accessing off high- volume traffic street where one did not want to have individual access points. Regarding widening Carnelian Glen, Director Walgren said it is currently 30’ wide, fairly uniform, basically two travel lanes and a parking lane. The developers could be asked to widen the road, and the general desire is to keep residential roads, particularly cul-de-sacs, as narrow as possible to minimize black top, tree removal, etc. A wider road encourages people to drive faster. He said the developer could be asked to widen the road; however, it is not something that staff would recommend as being necessary. A requirement could be placed on each individual lot that they have only a single driveway access point to minimize several horseshoe driveways and that adequate guest parking be provided on each lot. Commissioner Barry stated this was very difficult. She conveyed to the Lees that she has taken their concern about the driveway facing their house very seriously and has looked at as many possibilities as she can. It seemed to her that at this point there was nothing reasonable that could be done about the driveways. She wanted to look at consolidating the flag lot and the big house and that idea did not work either. She agreed that the width of the driveway be restricted to one-car length as they are now as opposed to circular drives and that future design plans have a provision for on-site parking so that the street in front of the houses does not get parked and that the developers be asked to assist in landscaping, whether it is on the leased property or the development property. She said a condition to put the big house on the historic registry is also necessary, and that there be hand-digging around some of the tree roots that has to be carefully monitored – that there be an onsite monitor when that digging occurs. Finally, she stated that although Commissioner Kurasch is not here tonight, she has a note from a previous meeting that Commissioner Kurasch wanted some kind of condition that would not allow future landscaping to take out any of the large trees. Commissioner Jackman stated that widening of Carnelian Glen itself came up on the Circulation Element, and sometimes there is a great advantage to not having a big road in a residential area. She proposed keeping it narrow, and keeping drivers slow. Commissioner Bernald conveyed that it would have been appropriate, since new issues have been raised, to discuss this with the applicants while the public hearing was open. She said there was no discussion of restricting driveway widths and restricting on-site parking during the public hearing so that the applicants would have an opportunity to respond to what the Commission is asking of them. She said she was concerned with bringing up more conditions when the applicants could not respond to them. COMMISSIONERS PAGE/BARRY MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. PASED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Mr. Howell proposed that restricting driveway widths and on-site parking be addressed at the Design Review of the houses so everything can be taken into consideration rather than limiting the developer now. He asked whether his assumption is correct. Chairman Page and Commissioner Jackman responded that he was correct. Commissioner Barry stated that her concerns are the suggestions of the neighbors dealing with the issue of not having the parking space on the street increase unnecessarily and the neighbors for the most part are happy with the design, particularly in that it shows a one-width driveway rather than a circular PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 driveway of which there are several on Carnelian Glen. The design makes for more space on Carnelian Glen for cars to park and a circular driveway would not, and these conditions seem reasonable to her. Mr. Howell said that he would not come back to the Commission with circular driveways or something significantly different than what has been presented tonight. He said that would be completely inappropriate, and it is his intention for the driveways to be exactly as shown on the plan, but when the houses are put in, the Commission may have different suggestions. He said he did not want to be limited and later on find that he is bound by the decision tonight. He said the plan will remain as submitted unless the neighbors and Commission feel it should change. Commissioner Bernald noted that no discussion had been held regarding doing some landscaping on the Lee property. Mr. Howell responded that he had offered the Lees to help with the screening (landscaping) on their property, and it was rejected. Commissioner Barry commented that she heard Mr. Lee say that he would be willing to discuss it at this point, and she heard Mr. Howell make the offer earlier. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:00 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Bernald had no further comments. Commissioner Jackman stated she liked the proposal as presented, and that the Commission needs to go ahead and vote on the proposed driveways, given the house in the center and the trees. Director Walgren commented that all the driveways are locked into single driveways because it is part of the site development plan. To do a horseshoe driveway, the site development plan would need to be amended. Commissioner Barry noted she is prepared to vote for this project with the conditions of the historic registry, future protection of the trees for additional landscaping, and expansion of the tree root protection section that highlights there would be somebody on site to monitor that it is done by hand. Chairman Page conveyed that the lot split has been done appropriately, is not over encompassing, and is not too many lots. He said it is difficult with the driveways and can empathize with the Lees, and hoped that the developer and the Lees could work together. He stated he was curious about the future condition of the trees, and asked how that could be monitored. Director Walgren responded that the subdivision improvements are being regulated already by the City arborist’s comments and will be overseen by a licensed arborist as a condition of approval. Beyond that, the conditions need to emphasize that the site development plan has been designed to save all significant trees and that future home applications need to be consistent with the site development plan in terms of building pad location, retention of the existing heritage building, driveway locations, and tree preservation. Commissioner Bernald asked about the section on the historic preservation, and Director Walgren responded that condition #4 stipulates that they need to survey the building and supply that background PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 13 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 information to the Historic Preservation Commission and the documentation will be included in the City’s heritage preservation inventory. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BERNALD MOVED TO APPROVE SD-00-002 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT PUT FUTURE APPLICANTS ON NOTICE THAT THE SITE DEDVELOPMENT PLAN IS LOCKED IN REGARDING BUILDING PAD LOCATIONS, DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, AND TREE PRESERVATION EFFORTS. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) 9. UP-99-021 & DR-99-052 (517-10-015 AND 009) – OUR LADY OF FATIMA, 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; Request for Use Permit and Design Review approval to replace an existing Convent, Priest Quarters, Chapel and Visitor’s Apartments with an Assisted Living Facility for the elderly, and the interior conversion of an existing Skilled Nursing Facility into Assisted Living units. Total number of existing units 42; total number of Assisted Living Units proposed is 41. Existing floor area is 50,371 square feet; proposed floor area is 68,955 square feet. An Environmental Initial Study has been prepared, an adoption of a Negative Declaration is also requested. This project is being noticed a second time to add the following information: An existing house facing Oak Street will be demolished to accommodate an additional 10 parking spaces. (CONTINUED FROM 9/13/00) Commissioner Jackman recused herself from this issue because she resides in close proximity to the property, which left the Commission without a quorum. Director Walgren commented that because of a lack of a quorum, there is nothing that can be acted on regarding this issue tonight. However, he said the applicant could either be allowed to make a presentation, not respond to it, and allow the neighbors to speak or the entire item can be postponed to the first meeting in October. Commissioner Barry noted that if the Commission proceeded with the first alternative, those would be reflected in the minutes, and she would prefer to do that. Chairman Page stated he agreed with Commissioner Barry as did Commissioner Bernald. Director Walgren stated that a public hearing was not being opened, but merely allowing people who have come tonight to speak to the project be heard. He said it would be useful to hear a presentation of the project from the applicants. Chairman Page asked for a staff report, and Director Walgren responded that the staff report would be deferred to the next meeting. Preston Wisner, 20400 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, President and Chief Executive Officer of Our Lady of Fatima Villa, said he would make preliminary comments and turn the presentation over to the architect. He said he had no objection with Commissioner Jackman voting on this project, and Chairman Page responded that her absence from participating in this issue is the law. Mr. Wisner conveyed that the villa has been in existence since 1948 as a not for profit nursing home begun by the Dominican Sisters of Kenosha, Wisconsin. The villa runs an 85-bed facility that started out as a 22-bed facility, and has expanded over the years. He said in that period of time, the market has changed and they have had greater and greater demand for assisted living accommodations. He said three PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 14 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 to four people from Saratoga are referred each month to other facilities that can better accommodate their needs. He noted they also have referral patterns with the Saratoga Retirement Community. He said their demand studies indicate a need for 260 assisted-living units by the year 2003 in the primary market area, which is considered a radius of 25 miles of Saratoga. Their goal is to replace part of their facilities that are no longer being used, including an empty convent, priest quarters, visiting quarters, chapel, and administrative wing. They are proposing to demolish these facilities and replace it with a facility containing 34 assisted living units. They also plan to convert one of the wings, consisting of 23 beds, into another 7 units, for a total of 41 units. He pointed out that the project together with the project being done by the Saratoga Retirement Community will only supply approximately 42 percent of the needed units by 2003. Currently they place people as far away as places up to 40 miles away when they cannot take care of them. Mr. Wisner introduced Mr. Sandy Barker, Barker Associates Architects, 114 Santa Margarita Avenue, Menlo Park, who with his assistant, Ms. Cancilla, presented a brief overview of the project, displaying drawings of the existing facilities and proposed facilities. He said that the new proposed buildings are a smaller footprint than what is currently on the site. He noted that another advantage they have achieved is a much more residential, less institutional look from the street. Mr. Barker reported that several community meetings have been held with the intention to get input on other concerns. He said the peripheral concerns included operations and screening for views, which have been addressed. Mr. Barker conveyed that the convent, chapel, and priest quarters would be removed, and the existing redwood grove would remain as a park-like setting and provide a much larger side setback than what is currently there. The administration wing, which is at level with the plaza, and the convent are going to be replaced with a slightly different footprint than the existing one, and all of the existing oak trees in the front and the side, the palms and redwoods will be maintained. Only three trees will need to be removed – one is a black acacia and a few smaller pine and scrub trees. He said the City arborist has agreed that the applicants have met all of the concerns. Additionally, Mr. Barker said that they did not want to become a massive building and demonstrated what the existing property looks like, including the sign which is to be replaced (one of the neighborhood complaints), and also displayed the artist’s rendering of the proposed facility. He said the existing driveway would be enhanced with pavers and provide entry for guests and visitors. The color palettes submitted are a dark brown color with a shingle roof. Because the side slopes 10 percent, they were able to carve out more of the side to create a small administration wing. Efforts have been made so a1l the facades will be viewed as two-story residential units, and the majority of the view along Saratoga is just two-story residential complex; however, from another area one can see all three-stories. He described a substantial berm that would screen most of the bottom floor of the administration wing. Mr. Barker stated that one of the concerns from a neighbor was to utilize the site the best possible and still provide some additional parking. He said an existing adjoining residential house would be demolished and made into a park-like setting with more than 50 percent landscape; existing live and blue oaks would remain on site; and they are proposing an overflow parking of nine cars. Mr. Barker reported there are 103 current units including a combination of residential units in the convent, priest quarters, and visiting guest quarters as well as an 85-bed skilled nursing facility and at the end of phase two will have 103 units, but the mix will be 41 residential units and 63 skilled nursing beds. He displayed the drawings of phase one and phase two. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 15 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Mr. Barker noted that they want to be able to house all of the cars generated by staff and visitors on site and not have them park in the neighborhood, and demonstrated a rendering of how they plan to do so. He said that traffic studies, noise studies, arborist studies, and geological studies have been conducted and they have been working with the City’s consultants to answer their concerns. Director Walgren suggested that Commissioner Jackman be invited to return to the dais and that the record reflect that when she notified the Commission that she would recuse herself, the existing Commissioners were unable to function as a Commission. After the presentation, Commissioner Jackman reseated herself and the Commission moved to go back to Oral Communications solely for the purpose of people who have been sitting in the audience for several hours to comment on the project. Commissioner Jackman returned to the dais. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/JACKMAN MOVED TO RETURN THE AGENDA TO ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC COMMENT. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Charles Leiter, 20483 Forest Hills Drive, stated that his house backs up against the proposed project. He said overall it would be an improvement for the neighborhood. He likes the design; however, his concern is noise, which is outlined in a letter from him and from his neighbors who are unable to be present tonight. He said the applicants have a laundry that backs up to his fence and they get deliveries all hours of the day and night. He asked that when the use permit is issued, that the Commission consider restricting those activities to during business hours, Monday through Friday, 9 to 5, so he doesn’t get woken up in the middle of the night due to the noise. Denise Michel, 20375 Park Place, expressed concern for pedestrian safety and traffic congestion. She said Saratoga-Los Gatos Road becomes a bottleneck during the rush hour, creating congestion, and cars frequently use Park Place to cut back and forth at excess speeds. Many of the neighbors have small children they take to school and they cross the crosswalk at Highway 9 and Oak Place. She said the crosswalk is extremely dangerous and unsafe. She asked the Commission to address the traffic and safety problem. Dave Pittman, 14628 Horseshoe Drive, conveyed that his aunt was very ill a few years ago, and he brought her to Saratoga to be close to her, visiting her several times a week. He said he looked at the villa’s plans and wished that it could have been that nice when his aunt was there. Gary Vernon, 1677 Vireo Avenue, Sunnyvale, Administrator of Saratoga Retirement Community, spoke in favor of the proposal. He indicated there is a large demand for assisted living and in association with this project and the project currently under construction at Saratoga Retirement Community, they are still 58 percent below the need for residents of the community. With no further speakers, Chairman Page closed the Oral Communications section of the agenda. Chairman Page declared a brief recess. Upon reconvening, the same Commissioners and staff were present. 10. DR-00-029 (397-04-060) – JEAN, 14906 Sobey Road; Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,374 square foot residence, including a 983 square foot second story. The maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 57,935 square feet and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 16 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a request to demolish a single-story residence on one-plus acre behind two parcels. He said the existing property has been there for sometime and the lower half of the property was recently split off through a tentative map application and will in the near future be developed with a new single-family home. The application is for the existing developed property. The cottage on the property would remain; the existing main residence would be demolished and a new two-story home constructed in its place. The proposal meets all zoning ordinance requirements. Staff feels that all the necessary design review findings can be made in terms of architectural compatibility with the existing homes in the Sobey Road area and that the design protects the neighbors’ use of their property, particularly their solar accessibility, their views, and their privacy. Director Walgren noted that the grading quantities in the staff report are relatively high – 1600 cubic yards of cut – and noted that this includes basement excavation which will be an excavated hole with a basement constructed and 1200 cubic yards of that excavation will be hauled off site, and the 400 cubic yards of cut will be used around the property to get the proposed driveway up the embankment that is currently undeveloped. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the resolution. Chairman Page asked about the size of the basement. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 9:47 p.m. Robert McBain, 1952 Camden Avenue, #2, San Jose, designer of the project, said he designed the house as a wine country house, noting the second floor contains only the master bedroom, and it is tucked into the roofline so that it is very discreet. Using a computerized rendering program, he demonstrated and described the house. Director Walgren, responding to Chairman Page’s earlier question, said that the basement is 1,600 square feet. Responding to a question from Chairman Page regarding the existing driveway, Mr. McBain said that the driveway would be dirt or gravel compacted which goes down to the cottage, with much permeability and wanders through a vineyard to be planted going up the slope. COMMISSIONERS JACKMAN/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 9:56 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Jackman stated that the house is a very large house that would fit well in the hillside, particularly with the grapevines next to it. Commissioner Barry noted that the color picture helped her in visualizing what the house was going to look like. She said it looks very large, however, a very small part is in the second floor, and the plan makes use of the basement. Commissioner Bernald commented that it is a commendable house and thanked the applicants for the use of the horizontal siding and grounding that occurs with the stone links coating around the house. She said it would be a delightful home and a real asset to the Sobey Road area. Chairman Page concurred, especially with the enhancement of the vineyard, and it is well anchored to the ground. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 17 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 11. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE DR-00-029. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) V-00-013 (503-16-014) – HARGUIDEGUY/LE, 13750 Surrey Lane; Request for Variance approval to allow a 48.5 foot rear yard setback compared to a 50-foot minimum required setback. The parcel is approximately 45,670 square feet and is located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting this is a variance request for an existing home. The proposal is for a 1,726 square foot one- and two-story addition off the back of the home but more in a split-level design than a traditional two-story. The variance application is to allow the addition to match the rear wall line and footprint of the existing building and encroaching slightly into the currently required rear yard setback. Staff supports the variance based on the required findings that there are special circumstances applicable to this property – that the home currently exists where it sits and currently encroaches into the setback requirement that most likely was not in place when the home was built. The proposed addition does not increase the nonconformity. He said the back of the property is entirely isolated and the indents of the building that would be filled in would not be noticeable from offsite. Staff does not feel that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the variance, and any such application would get similar consideration. Staff recommends approval of the variance application. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 10:02 p.m. Monty Lucas, Rockwood Design, 14554A Big Basin Way, explained that they are taking advantage of the existing shape of the house, by removing the existing bedroom and adding a new master bedroom suite and two additional bedrooms. On the other side of the house, which backs up against the garage, a bedroom is being added, and underneath that space, they are proposing adding a basement. He said whether or not a basement is added, the elevations of the home in that area would not change. There was no one else from the audience who wished to address this issue. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING (AT 10:03 P.M.) PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Commissioner Barry commented that a case is well made for a variance, and she agreed with Director Walgren that it would not be a special privilege. She liked that the roofline stays low. Commissioner Bernald agreed, stating that it was unique to Saratoga, and thrilled that the applicants are keeping it in the shape that it is. Commissioner Jackman agreed, and hoped that they would landscape some of the front down towards Surrey with native shrubs and a few oak trees. Chairman Page concurred with his fellow Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/BARRY MOVED TO APPROVE V-00-013. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) 12. DR-00-030 (389-15-073) – CHIEN/TONG, 13220 McDole Avenue; Request for Design Review approval to demolish an existing 2,140 square foot single-story residence and construct a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 18 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 new 3,038 square foot two-story residence. Maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 10,297 square feet and is located in an R1-10,000 zoning ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director Walgren presented the staff report, noting the majority of redevelopment applications in this area have been two-story homes versus replacing an existing single-story with a single-story structure. He said some of the lots are relatively shallow and do not lend themselves to allowing a contemporary sized home in a single-story configuration. The staff report notes that the ratio of two-story homes to one-story homes is about 1:14, which was based on a neighborhood survey. He said the two-story homes are fairly spread out and dispersed, not grouped together, and are fairly well integrated with perhaps a few exceptions in the neighborhood. He said staff is not able to support the application as designed. It meets all zoning ordinance standards, but staff did not find that the necessary design review findings can be made to support the project. Two letters were received this evening from adjacent residents – Kirk and Debra Gudere and Adele Hirose. Director Walgren conveyed that staff’s primary concern was with the architectural compatibility, and described it as a massive, vertically emphasized design. At a minimum, staff would recommend that the item be continued to have the very large, grandiose, double-story element reduced to a single-story, more pedestrian scale, and perhaps other measures be taken to break up some of the massive wall expanses outlined in the staff report. He said another issue for the Commission to consider is the applicants have accurately noted that their house is next to two existing relatively tall, massive, two-story homes, and if two adjoining neighbors were able to get their designs approved, then perhaps this design should also be allowed to get through the design review process. However, what this does by concentrating on these two-story homes, three in a row at this point, is emphasize these designs, and it breaks up the neighborhood fabric. He said this tends to hurt the application more than it helps. Additionally, Director Walgren reiterated that staff recommendation, at a minimum, is that the plans be redesigned if a two-story is going to be supported, and that the Commission consider whether a two-story home on this lot is appropriate. He noted that referring to the site plan and building envelopes, there appears to be room for a new single-story structure and still meet most of the objectives in their proposed floor plan. Commissioner Barry asked whether it was difficult to dig a basement if a slab already exists, and Director Walgren said it is fairly common to lift an existing home and it is difficult and expensive. Chairman Page inquired about the size of the lot and reasonable back yard, asking whether it was possible to put in a 3,000 square foot home, and Director Walgren responded it could be done, considering the volume of area on the second floor and setback available, which are comparable. Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing at 10:11 p.m. Byron Zhang, project designer, pointed out that the plan was studied very well around the environment, including the adjacent two-story homes. He displayed a drawing of the plan and described in detail the method they felt was best to reduce the bulky feeling of the structure. He noted that the height will be 23.75’ and the entry is approximately 22’ high. Responding to questions from Commissioner Barry, Mr. Zhang said that the basement is 1200 square feet and will be used for family entertainment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 19 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Chairman Page asked if the applicants would be willing to reduce the front entryway, and Mr. Zhang said the room over the entryway has a 5’ window. If the entryway is lowered, the room cannot be used because the window would be lowered. Kirk Goodere, 13235 Paseo Presada, stated his house is behind the proposed project, which creates a privacy issue for him. The house would look right into his back yard. He said the homes in the neighborhood are primarily single-story homes and he would like to keep it that way. The last two homes that applied for two-story permits were not allowed, and they put in a basement and a single-story. He has no problem with the house being 3,000 square feet, but he is concerned with a second-story looking into his yard. Adele Hirose, 13221 Paseo Presada, conveyed that a portion of her back yard adjoins this property. She said there are already two two-story homes that look into her back yard and rear windows of her home. Her yard has a large mulberry tree in the corner that adjoins this property, which has far more shade than she wants. She planned to either severely prune or remove the tree and replace it with a small tree until she received this notice, and feels that she would need a taller tree to provide privacy. She said bringing in more two-story homes changes the character of the neighborhood, which is very disturbing to her. Mike Trautman, 13249 Paseo Presada, noted he lives next door to the Gooderes. He said the staff report stated that the project would not seem to affect any privacy issues; however, the proposed balcony would look into his backyard. He expressed concern with future two-story homes going in if this is approved, and he would not want to see this happen. He said this size house could be built in a one-story as other houses in the neighborhood have done. He noted the house is huge and should be a one-story to fit in the neighborhood. Penny Tong, 13220 McDole Street, applicant, stated that this remodeling first started when she wanted to add an air conditioner or heater, but to do so she was told by a contractor she would have to tear down eight walls because of the age of the house. She felt that if she had to tear down eight walls, she would work with Mr. Zhang to help her design the proposed house. She stated that she followed all the City’s rules and regulations. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/JACKMAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) The Public Hearing was re-opened solely to allow Mr. Zhang to rebut. COMMISSIONERS BARRY/BERNALD MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:35 P.M. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) Mr. Zhang explained that they considered the backyard privacy and tried to push the whole building to the front. They still have 45’ of backyard that is far from the 6’ fence. He said people standing on the second floor, which has a maximum of 16’ for eye level, would not affect privacy. He said they would be open to planting trees in Ms. Hirose’s back yard to maintain her privacy. In response to Commissioner Barry’s request, Chairman Page explained the continuation process to the applicants. Commissioner Bernald referred to the staff report’s recognition that only one in 14 homes in the vicinity are two-story homes and the fact that the application, if approved, would create an immense block of two- story homes speaks to not passing this as a two-story home. Additionally, the entryway is immense and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 20 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 something not typically found or compatible with the homes in Saratoga. She said with the massive wall expanses; a balcony; the entire back end of the house on the second story level is the master bedroom suite. and with lights on in the evening, it would be easy to look into other homes. She said that, given that this is a good size lot and the additions in the second story, it could fit into a single-story home, and recommended that the Commission request it be redesigned as a single-story home with a basement. Commissioner Jackman said it was a well-designed house, but not for the neighborhood, which is already too heavy on two-story homes. She did not feel any more two-story homes could be added to the neighborhood. She said there is enough space on the lot to expand a one-story and get almost as many square feet as proposed. She would like to see the applicants come back with a one-story plan. Commissioner Barry agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She would like to see the applicants accept a continuation with a one-story design. She said this two-story home, if approved, would create a burden on the neighbors. She noted that neighborhood preservation is a very important issue for the city. She appreciated the design attempts, but she cannot approve a two-story design, and she would like the applicant to come back with a redesign. Chairman Page concurred with Commissioners Jackman and Bernald; however, he expressed that a neighborhood is defined by the people who live there, but it is framed by the houses that surround it. Recognizing the impact on privacy issues, both behind and possibly to the side, he said that a one-story design would be more appropriate. He would support a continuance to allow the applicants to go back and redesign. The applicants agreed to a continuance. COMMISSIONERS BERNALD/JACKMAN MOVED TO CONTINUE DR-00-030 TO THE OCTOBER 25, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND THAT THE APPLICANTS COME BACK WITH A SINGLE-STORY DESIGN. PASSED 4-0 (COMMISSIONERS KURASCH, PATRICK, AND ROUPE WERE ABSENT.) DIRECTOR ITEMS 1. S-00-008; Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road @ Herriman – Saratoga Legends; Request for Sign Permit Approval to install a permanent subdivision identification sign. Director Walgren stated that this is a request for a sign permit to install bronze letters on the perimeter walls on either side that identifies Saratoga Legends. He said typically this would be reviewed at a staff level; however, staff is not supporting the permit. Staff has given the applicants a chance to have it heard by the Commission. He said the reason for not supporting it is that the subdivision is so visibly and obviously newer than the other homes and much larger home sizes already tends to stand out from the existing neighborhoods. It is the City’s goal to always integrate infill developments into existing neighborhoods, and putting this kind of subdivision identification sign further separates the developments from the adjoining neighborhoods. He said it is not necessary and not appropriate. Commissioner Barry asked Director Walgren to comment on the differences between this request and that approved for Hayfield. Director Walgren responded that the Hayfield signs were small enough that they did not require any permit from the City and the Bell Grove signs went back many years ago and approved by the City Council as part of their overall planned development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 21 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 A discussion ensued regarding other development signs. Byron Naviv, applicant, stated that giving identity to any project adds to the community. He said he is trying to make this project more attractive. He distributed a computer-generated photo of the proposed sign project, noting that it had nothing out of the ordinary. Chairman Page asked if the sign were put in on one side only would the applicants be going through this process. Commissioner Bernald asked if the sign were brought down to the 24 square-foot total would they be going through this process. Director Walgren responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Barry commented that if a plaque was appropriate for Hayfield Estates why would it not be appropriate here. Responding to Chairman Page’s inquiry, Commissioner Barry said she would be in support of a plaque versus big letters as submitted. She said it would be consistent to allow a new project to have what another new project has. The plaque on Bell Grove Circle and the plaque on the Hayfield Estates are pretty modest and there is nothing particularly wrong with them. Commissioner Jackman noted the beautiful big wall and that its beauty stands alone. She suggested looking at another sign and continuing the issue to another date. She would not want to see some of the brick work hidden. Director Walgren commented that this item could be on the October 11 agenda and on the next site visit, the Commissioners could tour other existing signs and compare it to this proposal. Commissioner Bernald proposed that the applicant come back with a picture of the sign closer to the 24 square-foot size. She agreed with Commissioner Jackman that the wall is beautiful and makes a wonderful statement as it is, and the lettering seems to overwhelm the wall. The representative from Stop Signs addressed the Commission, commented that it would be difficult to pick a letter style readable from far distance. The wall is curved and a plaque would not stand. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to continue this item for the applicant to bring back optional signs. Director Walgren announced that an informational Housing Plan kick-off meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Thursday, October 5, in the Senior Multi-Purpose Room. The community is invited to hear the steps the City will be taking to meet its housing requirements. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner Bernald announced that a Library Expansion public meeting was held September 18, and was well attended. Two others are scheduled at 7 p.m., October 16, in the Community Room at the Library, and 7 p.m., November 20, in the Senior Center. She said the architects and Expansion Committee have been talking about a joint meeting with Public Safety, Orchard Parks & Recreation, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 22 SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 Heritage Preservation, and Planning Commissions on October 17, 7 p.m., location to be determined. She proposed that residents come out and participate on this community bond issue. Director Walgren commented that because of the tight schedule of the library project and the fact that it will be ultimately decided by the City Council, he suggested the joint meeting rather than go through a linear process. COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN − None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. to Wednesday, October 11, 2000, at the Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Lynda Ramirez Jones Minutes Clerk