HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-2000 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, October 25, 2000
PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chairman Page called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners, Barry, Jackman, Kurasch, Patrick, Roupe and Chairman Page
Absent: Commissioners Bernald (Excused)
Staff: Director Walgren
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 10, 2000.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Planning Commission minutes of October 10, 2000, were approved with minor
corrections to pages 5, 11, 13, 14 and 23. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Bernald was
absent and Commissioner Jackman abstained, as she was not present at this
meeting)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director Walgren announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting
was properly posted on October 20, 2000.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. DR-00-021 (503-17-066) – THE OWENS COMPANIES, 21116 Comer Drive: Request for
Design Review approval for the construction of a 7,317 square foot, single-story residence with a
3,636 square foot basement on a vacant parcel. The site is 7.8 acres and is located within a Hillside
Residential zoning district. (CONTINUED TO 11/8/00 AT THE DIRECTION OF STAFF)
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 2
2. 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 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 R-1-10,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED
TO 11/21/00 AT THE REQUEST OF APPLICANTS)
3. AZO-00-001 (CITYWIDE) – CITY OF SARATOGA: Amendments to the City’s Zoning
Ordinance will be considered for a recommendation to the City Council. Amendments include: 1)
excepting the calculation of driveways from the impervious coverage calculation for lots in the
Hillside Residential zone district so that the Ordinance will be consistent with the General Plan; 2)
clarifying that solar panels mounted on an approved main structure are allowed to be more than six
feet above grade; and 3) exclude excavation for swimming pools and basements from the
calculation of the total grading quantity for hillside lots. (CONTINUED TO 11/21/00 AT THE
DIRECTON OF STAFF)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Barry,
Consent Calendar Item No. 1 was continued to the November 8, 2000, Commission
meeting and Consent Item Nos. 2 and 3 were continued to the November 21, 2000,
Commission meeting. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent.)
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NOS. 4, 5 & 6
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 FROM
9/27/00)
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 FROM
9/27/00)
DR-99-053 (397-28-047) – BLACKWELL PROPERTIES, Lot 54, Alta Vista Avenue: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a 2,242 square foot two-story residence on a 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 FROM
9/27/00)
Mr. James Walgren, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows:
• Recommended presenting his staff comments on all three applications at once and then having the
Commission take action on each one individually.
• Advised that these applications are for Design Review consideration to construct three new, two-
story homes on three existing lots of record located at the end of Alta Vista Avenue. These lots are
currently undeveloped and are located just above a five-lot subdivision, which is just now nearing
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 3
completion. That five-lot subdivision was originally two lots that consisted of a main residence,
guesthouse, accessory farm-type buildings and a kennel. That property was recently subdivided
into five lots. There was a Vesting Subdivision Map that included the architectural design of the
five new two-story homes, all in a very rural, farm or Craftsman-style architecture. It is an
architectural style that is particularly compatible with this older Williams and Walnut
neighborhood, which is a very homogenous, well-maintained and isolated development. None of
these streets go through to any other arterials, they simply loop through their own development and
come back out onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road.
• Advised that the three subject lots are slightly substandard, ranging in size from 9,500 to 11,200
square feet. They are more seriously constrained by the fact that only the front half of the parcels
are a level plateau. The topography drops off steeply to the back and these lots are very heavily
wooded.
• Said that the typical lot in this area is similarly sized to these three because they are older lots.
However, the current zoning standard requires a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet and there
is a further reduction based on slope densities. It would be impossible to create these lots today.
Staff did an extensive title research on each of the parcels as required, which resulted in the City
Surveyor issuing a Certificate of Compliance for each of the lots verifying without a doubt that
they are legal lots of record.
• Informed that the applicant and his architect worked very closely with staff and the City Arborist to
come up with the proposals that are before the Planning Commission this evening. The current
proposal is the result of several designs and building placement changes. Also involved were the
City Geologist, the Fire Department and the Public Works Department.
• Said that originally there were Variance requests associated with these applications because of the
constrained nature of the parcels and the City’s setback and height requirements. The need for
Variances has since been eliminated.
• Recommended approval of the applications with the conditions in the attached resolutions.
• Stated that the necessary findings can be made as to architectural compatibility, protection of
views, privacy and solar accessibility.
• Advised that these are the last three lots to finish out the development of the Williams and Walnut
area.
• Corrected the staff report to clarify that Lot 52 would utilize a wood shingle design.
• Identified Lot 52 as the first home of the three, adjacent to the existing Alta Vista homes. Lot 53 is
next. Lot 54 is the more constrained of the three and has the smallest level pad. The applicants
have been able to utilize this by tucking the garage into the backside of the property. This
necessitates the removal of nine oak trees. None of these trees are of Ordinance-protected size.
• Added a correction regarding Lot 52, The staff report notes that a fine coast live oak tree (labeled
tree number 5 at the back of the property) needs to be removed. The plans have been modified and
it no longer needs to be removed. Added that this tree is not a fine coast live oak but rather a
marginal tree that the City Arborist felt perhaps should be removed. It does not need to be and will
be retained and protected during construction. If it continues to decline, it may have to be removed
later.
• Recommended an additional condition in the resolution that front yard landscape plans be
developed that incorporate native replacement trees for the trees being removed. That can be
spread out amongst the three lots primarily in replacement of the trees being removed from Lot 54.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 4
Commissioner Roupe:
• Noted that it may be necessary to include a condition of approval that requires some sort of
abatement or mitigation of off-site runoff from Lot 54.
Director Walgren advised that this recommendation is consistent with the City’s standard requirement
to retain water on site to the degree possible.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren when these substandard-sized lots were created.
Director Walgren replied that the lots were created well before the City was incorporated, probably at
the turn of the last century. Added that it is an older subdivision.
Commissioner Barry asked about the potential for including some sort of screening in front of the
school’s fence across the street from this project. Stated that the contractor seemed amenable to that
idea when it was raised during the Commission’s site visit. Asked if it was possible to make that a
condition even if it is not a part of the subject property.
Director Walgren answered that the condition would need to be generally worded. As long as
permission is granted by the school district, the applicant shall (or should) make an effort to landscape
and maintain the landscaping in the right-of-way on the opposite site of Alta Vista Avenue in front of
the school fence.
Chairman Page opened the Public Hearing No. 4 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. David Britt, Britt Rowe, 108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos:
• Thanked staff for working with them so closely on this project and helping them to design the best
houses for the lots that they had to work with.
• Stated that he and the developers, Mr. Jack and Chris Blackwell, are present and available for
questions.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Britt if the requirement to minimize any runoff from Lot 54 and to
provide landscaping screening in front of the high school fence across the street were acceptable.
Mr. David Britt replied that these requirements are acceptable. They are willing to work with staff and
the consulting civil engineer in creating the best solution to deal with the issue of water runoff. As far
as landscaping on the Saratoga High School site, they are willing to look at options to do that as well
since that will increase the property values for the entire neighborhood. There is the issue of irrigation
for that landscaping that will need to be considered.
Commissioner Kurasch mentioned the steep drop off, particularly of Lot 54, and asked Mr. Britt if he
had any objection to a condition requiring the use of native plants to minimize the amount of irrigation
required in order to reduce the impact of on-site percolation of water.
Mr. David Britt replied that native landscaping, designed well, could only help with the aesthetics of
the property.
Commissioner Jackman asked if the driveways would use pervious pavers. Suggested that pervious
material would be preferred since these are smaller lots.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 5
Mr. David Britt advised that there is no landscape plan to this date so the actual driveway material has
not yet been specified.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Public Hearing for Agenda Item Nos. 4, 5 & 6 was closed at 7:52 p.m. (6-0-1;
Commissioners Bernald was absent)
Commissioner Roupe:
• Reiterated the conditions outlined by the Commission including:
1. Maximizing the on-site retention of water;
2. Landscaping plans for on site and across the street; and
3. The use of native plantings, particularly on the backside of Lot 54, to minimize the amount of
irrigation necessary.
• Stated that with these conditions, this is an excellent set of proposals.
• Advised that he had no other reservations regarding all three applications.
Commissioner Kurasch sought to amplify one condition to state “retention of and use of native
planting on the stricter slopes behind the properties in the area contiguous to the existing natural
landscape.” Added that she has no reservations and that the homes fit in well.
Commissioner Jackman suggested handling all three applications as one.
Chair Page advised that each application would have to be approved individually.
Commissioner Patrick concurred with previous comments.
Commissioner Barry also concurred with previous comments. She wanted to repeat for the record the
language Director Walgren stated with respect to the strip of landscaping across the street from the
homes to read, “If permission is granted by the school district, the applicant should screen and
maintain the landscaping strip in front of the high school fence.” Added that the designs for these
homes are very nice, as are the other homes in the immediate area.
Chair Page agreed that the designs of these homes are as befits the neighborhood and that this project
fits in very well. Asked Director Walgren to provide an overview of the amended conditions of
approval.
Director Walgren recapped the amendments to the resolution’s conditions as follows:
• That landscape plans be developed for the front yards of the properties, incorporating native
replacement plants for those being removed as well as a plan to retain and re-vegetate the back
slope of Lot 54 with native plant materials, not just trees but native plant materials.
• The applicant shall make an effort, and show that they have made an effort, to receive permission
from the school district to plant and maintain the right-of-way opposite the new homes along Alta
Vista. The key is the ability to get irrigation there.
• Emphasize, particularly with Lot 54, that there shall be an effort to control storm water drainage.
Chair Page reminded the Commission about Commissioner Jackman’s suggestion for the use of
pervious pavers on the driveways and walkways.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 6
Director Walgren advised as long as the wording of the condition is sufficiently general, that is fine.
Added that the exclusive use of pervious pavers might be difficult, particularly on Lot 54, due to the
slope of that lot.
Commissioner Barry sought to clarify the condition regarding the retention of water on site. Pointed
out that there already is on the plans a collector to prevent erosion as the water goes down hill. What is
being talked about is some kind of dissipater.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission voted to approve DR-00-042 with the conditions outlined by Director
Walgren. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission voted to approve DR-00-043 with the conditions outlined by Director
Walgren. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission voted to approve DR-00-053 with the conditions outlined by Director
Walgren. (6-0-1; Commissioners Bernald was absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final.
***
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 7
DR-00-010 & V-99-005 (517-14-078) – TAORMINA, Quickert Road: Request for Design Review
and Variance approval to construct a new 6,287 square foot, two-story residence. Variance approval is
required to allow a retaining wall to exceed five feet in height and to allow the structure to be built on a
slope of greater than 30 percent. The property is 3.1 acres (net) and is located within a Hillside
Residential zoning district.
Director Walgren provided the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is an application that the Planning Commission has had presented to them several
times previously.
• The proposal is to build a new home on a three-acre plus vacant parcel located off Quickert. This
is a very constrained parcel.
• Said that there is an existing driveway cut into the side of the hill and a small building pad that pre-
exists. The remainder of the site is very steep terrain and heavily wooded and heavily vegetated.
• Reminded the Commission that it first considered a proposal on this site in April 2000 to build a
very similar sized home of 6,296 square feet. The Commission was fairly unanimous at that
meeting that the building did not integrate well into the site. The focus was on the architectural
style of the building and its massing and detailing. There was also concern expressed about the
size of the building. The applicant was given the opportunity to redesign the home. They basically
took that design and incorporated a more woodsy architectural style, using stone and wood siding
in lieu of the previous stucco finish. The Planning Commission realized at that meeting that it was
not just the architectural style it was having difficulties with but the placing of the building on the
site and its massing and prominence on this hillside parcel. The application was then continued to
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 7
an informal work study session meeting where the applicant was able to present three alternative
conceptual diagrams on where the structure could be located on the property and not appear so
prominent or massive. Of those exhibits, the Commission was fairly unanimous that Alternative C
was the one that best integrated the building into the site. It was noted at that meeting that
Alternative C would require a Variance to the City’s slope requirement.
• Informed that Alternative C pushes the building off the level building pad and then cuts the
building into the slope. This was an idea the applicants had pursued early on. Because of the slope
regulations, staff had discouraged this proposal. Ultimately, it was agreed that that might actually
be the best solution, to cut the building into the hill and reduce its prominence on the site. The
applicant was encouraged to pursue that alternative after all. That is what is before the Planning
Commission this evening.
• Advised that the original application did include a Variance for retaining wall heights which staff
supported as there was no other way to build a home and have adequate emergency vehicle
turnaround without the Variance to exceed the five foot height limit. That Variance request is still
a part of the proposal. The highest retaining wall height proposed is 10 feet.
• Add that the Variance request also now includes authorization to build on a slope greater than 30
percent. Given the history of the application, staff does feel that it can support this.
• Provided the special circumstance findings, which include the constrained nature of the parcel. If
the proposed location is the one that best integrates the structure on the site, that can be a
circumstance to support the Variance. Once you cut the building into that 30 percent slope and
build the structure into the slope, it is not visually going to be visible. It is not going to be a
building that projects off of a very steep slope.
• Advised that the applicant contracted with a new architect for the project. The project reflects a
much more uniform and balanced architectural style that is more compatible both with the built-in
and natural environment of hills of this particular region.
• Recommended approval of both the Design Review application and the Variance Request.
Commissioner Kurasch inquired about the projection onto the slope, whether the drawings accurately
depict the step down the slope when comparing the new design to the old.
Director Walgren advised that it is a little bit disorienting to compare the two because the new design
cuts the building back into the hill. Said that the new drawing fairly accurately demonstrates how the
house is placed on the pad and then is cut into the steeper slope.
Commissioner Roupe pointed out the inconsistency in the Variance application file number and asked
that it be clarified in order to keep it straight for the record.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Director Walgren to provide a comparative analysis of the two
proposals. Asked for clarification about the differences.
Director Walgren referred to page two of the fact sheet prepared by staff. The top half of that page
represents the proposal this evening, for a total of 6,287 square feet with proposed lot coverage of 12
percent in a district that allows up to 35 percent. The lower half of the page shows the previous
proposal with a total of 6,296 square foot home and its proposed coverage, which was 9 percent. That
actually very well illustrates another significant change. Although the square footage seems
comparable, what this new design does is physically exclude a 2,200 square foot basement so the
building is physically 2,200 square feet smaller than the original proposal.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 8
Commissioner Jackman questioned how the retaining walls are utilized for the driveway.
Director Walgren replied that the grading plan fairly clearly illustrates the retaining walls and their
heights. The driveway actually has a very minimal retaining wall, it is more like a curb than a
retaining wall. The tallest portion of the retaining wall occurs just to the left of the proposed garage
and supports the slope. The slope then supports the garage and the turnaround area in front of the
garage.
Commissioner Jackman said that she was speaking of the roadway off Quickert Road to the pad. Said
that some of it was cut in quite a way into the hill. How would the road drain and where.
Director Walgren advised that there would not be any work done to the slope above the road but there
was a requirement of this project that Quickert Road be resurfaced down to a certain point as a
condition of this approval.
Commissioner Roupe stated that Commissioner Jackman’s concern is that the existing roadway is not
sufficiently wide. There was concern about the encroachment into the uphill side. Said that it appears
that there is curbing but that it is not sufficiently called out as to what it will be.
Director Walgren clarified that there is a small retaining wall along the driveway on the downhill side.
It is more a curb than a retaining wall.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 7 at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. Stan Queen, 12151 Mellowood Drive, Saratoga:
• Stated that he is the Operations Manger for Pacific Diversified.
• Said that he is happy to present this design, the best to date.
• Said that this design is the result of a group effort with the staff and Planning Commissioners.
• Advised that there were two redesigns at the staff level, two revisions at the Planning Commission
level and a Study Session with the Planning Commission and staff. This is a win-win situation for
everyone concern.
• At the Study Session, Commissioners Barry, Patrick, Jackman and Bernald all expressed concern
that the house was too large for the site and did not integrate with the environment. With the new
design, they have eliminated the bulk and the mass and stepped the house down the slope so that it
is now lower on the site. Now when one drives up to the house, it is a single-story effect.
• Reminded that Commissioner Barry was concerned with the previous design's size of 8,532 square
feet. They reduced the square footage by 2,248 square feet at the Study Session.
• Advised that Commissioners Roupe and Page wanted to see some muted colors and a darker color
scheme. The body is a gray color and the roof a darker gray, which complements the environment
very well.
• Said that Commissioners Roupe and Bernald had questioned the inclusion of the tower. That tower
has been deleted.
• Advised that he has had conversations with the neighbors and addressed any concerns.
• Said that he met with the closest neighbor, Mary Ann Sawyer, to address her concerns. She likes
this design.
• Stated that they have worked very hard with three different staff people as they have gone through
this process.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 9
• Expressed appreciation for the time spent by the Commission.
• Said that what has been reached is the best design for the applicant and the City of Saratoga.
• Said he was available for any questions.
Commissioner Barry thanked Mr. Queen for his efforts. Asked if he remembered a conversation in
which he accepted responsibility to fix the road to the driveway, to make it passable.
Mr. Stan Queen replied that they would repave so that when people drive up they will not encounter
potholes.
Mr. Bob Samsel, 15300 Kittridge Road, Saratoga:
• Said that he has no concern with the house itself. It is not visible to them but is located uphill from
them.
• Advised that he had submitted a letter in April addressing concerns regarding water run-off. His
concern would be any water run-off to Quickert Road or any water from this parcel that might go
across Quickert because that is on the backside of their property. If there is a slide, the water goes
down the gutter on Quickert Road, down the dirt road and into their driveway. Therefore they are
concerned about any additional water run-off.
• Said that one concern is the proposed construction vehicle route. Requested that construction
vehicles not utilize their property (Lot 83) to access this site during construction.
Commissioner Barry asked Mr. Samsel if it is possible for construction vehicles to get to where they
need to go without using his property.
Mr. Samsel replied that there are two other accesses, either from uphill or downhill.
Mr. Irving Haws, 2067 Colusa Way, San Jose:
• Advised that he is the designer for this project and is available for questions.
• Said that this single-story house is nestled tightly into the hillside so that it does not project above
the vegetation and trees. Said that they have tried to maximize the views from the house but
minimize the views of the house.
Commissioner Roupe commended Mr. Haws on the tremendous improvement in the design of this
versus previous alternatives. It is a better fit and is responsive in almost all respects to the issues that
have been raised by the Commissioners. Said that he really appreciated the cooperative attitude shown
in working with the Commission and coming up with what is clearly a win-win situation.
Mr. Irving Haws thanked Commissioner Roupe for his remarks.
Commissioner Kurasch asked whether there is a way to address the on-site percolation, based on upon
the concerns expressed by the neighbor.
Mr. Irving Haws said that he would defer that question to Mr. Queen.
Mr. Stan Queen assured the Commission that he would be more than happy to study the issue of on-
site water percolation with the Civil Engineer.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 10
Commissioner Kurasch said that she wanted this issue to be more adequately addressed. How much
water could be retained, how much would have to be drained, pervious materials, etc.
Mr. Stan Queen suggested that the Commission allow him to work this issue out at staff level after
consultation with the Civil Engineer.
Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 7 was closed. (6-0-1; Commissioner Bernald
was absent)
Commissioner Kurasch stated that this latest design represents an improvement on the previous
designs seen for this lot. Added that it doesn’t even look like the same house or the same lot.
Expressed appreciation for the fact that this proposal is more environmentally responsive and that a
very large basement was removed from the design. Stated that this house is still ambitious and
massive for the lot and it takes up quite a chunk of a very steep lot. Said that she would be more
supportive of the project with on-site water drainage, native drip and planting and use of pervious
surfaces. Added that this is probably the best that we are going to get from this discourse. Said that
the criticism that the Commission has received for its long meetings has another side, the fact that they
get better products. Said that she is pleased with that result and this is probably one of the most
evident examples.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the plan as it is now and that it represents a big
improvement. Added that she wants to see the applicant work with the Planning staff to deal with on-
site water maintenance.
Commissioner Patrick expressed concern about maintaining water on site. Said that she thought that it
was a better idea to drain water off site. The neighbor’s concern is that he does not want water to go
downhill onto his property, which she can appreciate. Said it is more accurate to ensure that
appropriate drainage of water off site occurs so as not to adversely impact adjacent properties. With
that caveat, everything else is very appropriate.
Commissioner Barry acknowledged the applicants’ efforts. Said that it is appropriate that this is no
longer an 8,000 square foot house. Advised that this lot would not even be approved by today’s
standards. Both the City and the applicant compromised to come up with this proposal. There is now
a house that fits in well. Restated the two added conditions in order to support this project. One is to
deal with the water drainage issues and the other is to ensure that construction vehicle traffic not utilize
Kittridge Road, where the recent sewage construction occurred, to access the site.
Commissioner Kurasch reiterated her comment regarding on-site water retention, or perhaps
percolation. Said one issue is the amount of impervious surface and the runoff they create that is a
burden on storm water drain systems. That is a hillside area problem with impervious surfaces. Said
that it is not just retention but having on-site water become ground water rather than entering into the
storm drain system that ultimately ends up in creeks and the bay.
Director Walgren assured Commissioner Kurasch that the condition would be worded, “to the extent
feasible, and allowed by the project Geotechnical Engineer, water shall be retained on site and
pervious materials shall be used on the driveway apron and other areas as possible.”
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 11
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission approved DR-00-010 with the added conditions as follows:
1. That the project works with the Planning Department on the disposal of water
on site in the proper channels;
2. That construction vehicles not go through private property to access the site;
and
3. That road repairs be made on Quickert Road prior to completion and any
damage to Quickert Road be corrected at the end of the project.
(6-0-1; Commissioner Bernald was absent)
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Commission approved V-99-005. (6-0-1; Commissioner Bernald was absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period.
***
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 8
DR-99-063 & F-99-003 (503-30-019) – HUANG, 13870 Pike Road: Request for Design Review
approval for the demolition of a 2,040 square foot, single-story residence and the construction of a new
5,974 square foot, two-story residence. The application includes a request for a Fencing Exception to
allow the enclosure of more than 4,000 square feet of the site. The site is 3 acres and is located within
a Hillside Residential zoning district.
Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows:
• This application is a two-part request. The first part is a Design Review request to allow the
existing residence and buildings on the property to be demolished and a new, two-story home built
in their place. The current structures total approximately 2,000 square feet. The new two-story,
will total 5,974 square feet, including garage. The property is approximately 3 acres in size. It is a
hillside lot, located at the corner of Pike Road and Pierce Road, within a Hillside Residential
zoning district. The new home would be on the upper third of the property versus the lower
location of the existing home.
• Said that staff has reviewed the application. It is a difficult site to access. The applicants have
worked closely with the Fire District to design a driveway that would access the new residence and
meet the Fire District’s and emergency service providers’ requirements. It meets all other
minimum zoning ordinance requirements in terms of building height, placement, lot coverage,
impervious coverage and setbacks. Staff is therefore recommending approval of the project. The
necessary findings can be made. It is a relatively straightforward design. It is architecturally
compatible with the existing homes on Pike Road and all the view protection, solar accessibility
and privacy protection findings can also be made.
• Advised that two Ordinance-protected coast live oak trees would be removed as a result of
construction of the new home. The City’s Arborist has reviewed the proposal and notes the great
number of trees on site as a mitigating factor. Replacement trees would be required as a condition
of approval.
• Informed that the second part of the application has a longer history. Early in 1999, the City
received a complaint about fencing on the property. The property is entirely enclosed with fencing.
In the Hillside district, only 4,000 square feet of property can be enclosed with fencing. This
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 12
requirement is an aesthetic criteria. It is intended to allow fencing around the home only as
necessary for the protection of young children and pets and not to fully enclose the four corners of
all of hillside lots. Homeowners are allowed to request an exception to that rule to enclose a
greater area if they can show that their property is not visible from offsite views, that is the primary
finding required. The Planning Commission approves a handful of these exception requests every
year. The requests have been dwindling as undeveloped hillside lots have dwindled. In a previous
staff analysis, it was noted that the typical fence exception request that is not visible from public
view is about 30 percent of the property. That was used as a comparison for this proposal. This
proposal is for closer to 75 percent of the property to be enclosed with fencing as modified. The
applicant is proposing to bring in the fence up from Pierce Road. This is the triangular portion,
which is approximately a third or less of the property.
• Said that a comment was made during the site visit that if the property line abutting Pike Road was
considered the property frontage than the fencing along here could not be more than three feet in
height. That is correct. Noted that staff research, done when this application was originally
submitted last year, found that this was designated as the front of the property. The
recommendation in the staff report is that the fencing be pulled up further Pierce Road and that it
not enclose more than 50 percent of the property.
Commissioner Barry stated for the record, and to put this request in context, that while the City has not
adopted a new Fencing Ordinance, the one that was proposed by staff at the time that the Commission
considered the Fencing Ordinance was for a 20 percent maximum. Said that she wanted to have that
fact on the table.
Commissioner Kurasch wanted to clarify for discussion where the area that was precluded from
development is located on this site. Was it in the flat pad of the existing home or above it. Said that
she understood it was above it and that she did not believe it was the flat pad.
Director Walgren advised that there were a series of geologic investigations that were performed on
the property, and peer-reviewed by City geologists, that ultimately cleared the building to be located.
Said that he had not personally read those reports. That was a very involved and comprehensive
process that took from December of 1999 to date to complete. The applicant had mentioned that this
area was perhaps precluded from redevelopment as a result of geologic conditions but he could not
confirm that this evening.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested that perhaps the architect could address that this evening.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 8 at 8:35 p.m.
Mr. Warren Hyde, Architect:
• Thanked the Commission for their site visit.
• Stated that this is not the easiest site on which to build. It is long and narrow with geological
problems. The area that is on the downhill side from the proposed home is definitely a slippage
area.
• Said that this particular site is unusual in that it is not visible from too much of the neighborhood,
perhaps just the one home across the street and even from there just the garage end of the proposed
new home will be visible.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 13
• Said that he has designed a home that follows the topography. It has a Country Italian style, with a
European tile roof. The roof tiles are of a Class-A type to meet Fire District requirements. The
roofing tile color is also of a necessary color and style to blend in. The roof is hipped.
• Said that he worked closely with the Fire District and City Arborist to work it out so that a
minimum number of trees, four, would need to be eliminated. The Arborist is asking that one tree
be protected during construction. The Fire District required that an appropriate turn off from Pike
Road onto the location of the garage include a hammerhead. A hammerhead is the only way that
turn around could occur. One of the unusual requests from Fire, was the fact the need to have a
Class A roof, a complete one-hour structure, meaning that the entire structure, not just the garage
wall, had to be 5/8. They also put in an early warning system, which is quite normal for this area.
What was more unusual was the requirement to fire sprinkle the entire building and tie it in with
the Fire Department. This house will be protected as correctly and as wonderfully as a hospital. It
has the fire protection automatically in every room that would come on in the event of a fire.
• Said that all of the water from the roof, driveway and parking has to be taken by pipe into the street
and gutter. No water can be dumped onto this site because it will really impact the soil conditions.
They will have to plant some natural landscaping. The Arborist likes to take out larger trees and
plant newer trees to grow into the area. He says older trees sometimes are a problem on a site.
• Reminded that this site is not visible from the road. It can be seen, like a lot of hillside homes,
from a distance. As far as neighbors are concerned, they are not really going to see the home with
the trees and the steep bank. Said that this will be a nice residential addition to the neighborhood.
Stated that his main concern is that the house be built in a way that is structurally safe on the
hillside, which means using piers and grade beams. It is a special process but it is done all the time
in the hills.
• Advised that as far as the fencing request is concerned, there has been a dramatic situation up there
in past years. The owners acted in fear when installing their fence. It was an emotional response.
The fence went in for their safety.
• Said that the fence can be modified. The Ordinance does speak to certain requirements. Every site
has to be analyzed. This is a rural area. The house needs to have more protection than might
considered for this zoning. Suggested coming up 350 feet up Pike Road and eliminating fencing in
that area. Asked that this Fence Exception be approved.
Commissioner Kurasch expressed her concerns about the design and prominence of the home with its
size and location. It is quite a rectangular configuration with a two-story, very long roof that is very
accentuated. Asked how it has been designed to fit into the area and terrain and the rural hillside
character. Expressed concern about the need to protect the native plants in the area. Asked about an
overall landscape plan for the site.
Mr. Warren Hyde assured Commissioner Kurasch that a landscape plan could certainly be provided to
staff as part of the final application for building permits. They have been asked not to do too much
planting with no lawns or groundcover. They must leave the site as natural as possible because of the
geological problems. It is not serious but it could be serious if they let too much water impact the hill.
Regarding Commissioner Kurasch’s design concerns, he stated that they have attempted to tuck the
house into the hillside. They have excavated the minimum amount of earth possible. They have
retaining walls to contend with. Discussed various rationales for the ultimate design of the home to
meet the needs of the owners and the constraints of the property topography.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 14
Director Walgren read into the record four letters supporting this project: Mr. Don Perata, 14146
Perata Court; Ms. Norene Regester, 13792 Pierce Road; Ms. May Yang, 13983 Pike Road; and Taylor
LaCroix and family, 14501 Pike Road.
Chairman Page added that he was handed another letter of support signed by Tom and Carol
Lustenader and John and Marsha Witkin.
Mr. Carrol E. Bingham, 13801 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that he sees no problem with the fence that is there now.
• Said that he was happy when they painted the fence black.
• Added that the landscaping added by the Huangs has already nearly obscured the fence from view.
• Said that the proposed house placement is appropriate.
Ms. Lois Bingham, 13801 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Said that this house will be a very nice addition to the neighborhood and that the existing house is
an eyesore.
• Stated that the fence is attractive, especially with the planting of the shrubs, and does not detract
from the area in any way.
Ms. Jean Lundeen, 13810 Pierce Road, Saratoga:
• Said that she has looked at the plans for the house and has seen the fence and is in support of both.
• Expressed her understanding for the need for this fence.
• Admitted to seeing large dogs running loose all the time in the area.
• Advised that she had lost a pet to a neighbor’s dog that had wandered away from its own yard onto
her property.
• Said that the fence is unobtrusive and blends in well with the neighborhood.
Ms. Audrey Carlson, 14006 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that she has reviewed the plans for this house and finds that they have done a remarkable
job in creating something that will belong there with the proper landscaping.
• Said that the Huangs have tried not to be too grand and she appreciates that fact.
• Added that she wants the two young Huang twins to be safe on that hill and that the fencing is
appropriate.
Mr. Peter Lee, 13990 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Informed that his home is located right behind the Huangs’ property and that he has lived in his
home for five years.
• Said that more safety and security is needed and that he is happy with the fence.
• Advised that he has reviewed the proposed house plans and supports them.
Mr. Richard Carlson, 13971 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that his property is directly across the street from this site.
• Informed that the house will not offend anyone.
• Said that the fence with all of the plants is a very nice improvement to the area.
• Said that the proposed house is located in an acceptable spot on the site and will represent a vast
improvement and a benefit to all in the area. Added that he is glad to see that it will not be a big
pink Mediterranean box.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 15
• Said that he is not offended by what is proposed and that he will be a proud neighbor.
• Said that the Huangs have put up with a lot of circumstances. They have hired a renowned
architect who is not only going to influence the construction but also the environment. As far as
the drainage, if it goes into the gutter where it belongs there will not be landslide conditions.
• Expressed his overall support for the project.
Ms. Kathy Horner, 13857 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Said that she is the closest neighbor to the Huangs’ existing home and driveway.
• Expressed her agreement with the comments of the previous speakers in support of this project.
• Said that she is in support of the proposed project.
Mr. Jim Horner, 13857 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Informed that his home is directly opposite this property and that he is in great support of the
project as long as it meets building code.
• Expressed his strong belief in the Constitution of the United States, which promises life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness.
• Said that he has no problems with the fence and that it should be left alone as it is now. As long as
they meet code, let them do it.
Ms. Lori Cinnamon, 13991 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Advised that she has lived in the area for two years and finds this proposal to be a great
improvement that she looks forward to seeing completed.
• Said that she too is familiar with the problems of wandering dogs and understands the Huangs’
concerns. She too has been chased and harassed by dogs on the street.
• Stated her support for the project.
Mr. Louis Bergna, 14420 Pike Road, Saratoga:
• Stated that he has lived in the area for 30 years.
• Shared his long history of problems keeping deer from eating his plants and how important good
fencing is in order to maintain a yard.
• Finds the plans to be good looking and is sure that the Huangs will comply with the conditions.
• Added that he looks forward to having them as neighbors.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Bergna why he moved to the hillside area.
Mr. Louis Bergna advised that everyone in the valley wants to live on the hill with the rich people if
they can afford it. Added that, aside from the deer problem, living on the hillside is great.
Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Bergna why the deer eat his plants and not Mrs. Huang’s.
Mr. Louis Bergna replied her fencing.
Mr. Warren Hyde, Project Architect, expressed his appreciation for the neighbors’ expressions of
support and stated that he was available for any questions by the Commission.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 16
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Patrick, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 8 at 10:12 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner
Bernald was absent)
Chairman Park, Commissioner Jackman and Commissioner Roupe all advised that they had met with
Mr. Warren Hyde and reviewed the plans for this project on separate occasions. Commissioner
Kurasch advised that she has spoken with Mr. Hyde on the phone about this project.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the plans for the house and prefers this design to a
Mediterranean structure. This house hugs the hillside and fits in with the native landscaping.
Commissioner Patrick said that she is not enthralled with the design and believes that Mr. Hyde could
do better. She stated that the design, a long narrow house on a long narrow lot, does not fit into the
neighborhood and that she did not believe that fencing of the entire three-acre property is required.
Added that she was not in favor of this application at this time.
Commissioner Barry:
• Expressed her view that this is a heck of a neighborhood and that it is nice to see such good feeling
and spirit among the neighbors and commended them on that.
• Said that it appears that some neighbors are not being responsible about containing their dogs and
that is one of the issues here.
• Suggested that the City would give the neighbors all the support it could in doing something about
the stray dogs that are causing so much trouble in the area. There are laws that could be used.
Dogs should not run loose and cause such havoc in a neighborhood. Said that she hopes the
neighborhood will do something to try and deal with this dog problem.
• Said that while the home may not be the design that she might have chosen, it does fit into the land
and the colors are natural.
• One of the issues that she has with the house is that it includes the maximum square footage
allowed.
• Said that for that reason there may need to be some trade off with respect to landscaping and
preservation of natural landscaping, the existing trees and habitat that she would like to see
included as a condition. This is all the more important because of the water drainage issue, that
the water from this property has to go down to the gutter and therefore into the sewer and therefore
into the bay. All those things taken together make her want to see less fertilizer, less weed killer
and more natural planting that doesn’t require those measures. Particularly important is the
preservation of that thickly treed area. Said that she would like to see a landscaping condition,
which compensates to some extent for the maximizing of the square footage of the house.
• Said that the fence is a serious issue. Added that she absolutely supports the safety issue. This
family should have adequate fencing so that there is recreational use on the property to provide
enough safety for outdoor use by the family, particularly the children. Because this is a private
road, there is a different issue with respect to the visual impact of the fence. The neighbors on a
private road have some status to say what would like and what they would not like. Added that she
too lives on a private road and feels that strongly.
• Advised that the City has a General Plan and Open Space Preservation Ordinance that the Planning
Commission has to uphold and balance.
• Stated that she did not believe that the whole property should be enclosed with the fence. She said
that she could not support that. Said that the case has been made that a Fence Exception is
warranted here. A balance must be reached between the request to fence the whole property and
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 17
something that fits into our Ordinance numbers. Approximately 20 percent is allowed but that
actually comes to 30 percent when you count the house footprint. Said that she would like to see a
number in that vicinity.
• Said that while she understands that the Huangs have installed a lot of landscaping around the
fence and put a lot of money into that landscaping, the fence was never approved. There has not
been a fine for this fence that was put up without necessary approval. However, the fact that the
Huangs have gone ahead and landscaped around the fence is not something that can enter into the
Commission’s decision making. The safety issue has to be balanced against the Fencing
Ordinance.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Said that he shared the thoughts of some of the other Commissioners about the house itself.
• Added that it is appropriate for the site, which is a difficult site as it is long and narrow.
• Said that he can support the home design.
• Expressed his shared concern about the fencing.
• Said that it is admirable that the neighbors have come forward in support of this application. It is
clear that the applicants have been very diligent in discussing the plans with the neighbors and
trying to seek their support. The Commission gives that heavy weight in its considerations.
• Reminded that a Code exists that limits fencing to 4,000 square feet of area. While this site
certainly justifies an Exception of greater than 4,000 square feet, the Commission as a whole does
not want to see wall-to-wall fencing spanning the hillsides. This fenced in area is greater than I can
support.
• Brought to attention the latticework to which plantings have been added. Discussed whether this
can be considered an arbor or a fence. Said that he would be willing to consider this an arbor
instead of fencing and retained.
• Noted that should the applicants add a swimming pool in the future as has been mentioned, this
fencing would be inadequate and have to be revisited to meet Code.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated her agreement with the irony of this application. The fence came before the Commission
because it did not meet Code requirements.
• Said that going through proper channels is probably a good celebration of our Code as much as
anything.
• Noted in the staff report that most Fence Exception requests are at about 30 to 33 percent of their
lot size or about 3,600 square feet on average. The staff recommendation in this case is to about
double that, which would fence in about 66 percent of the property. The applicant, however, is
asking for about 75 percent. In perspective, the Commission did talk about a 20 percent standard
as reasonable. Whether or not that is adopted is up for grabs. Based on that definition, the
allowable fencing would be about 2,600 square feet.
• Said that there is certainly an animal control and safety issue as Commissioner Barry pointed out.
Maybe it should be determined why this area has so many problems with stray dogs. Added that
she is not an advocate for fortressing properties. Said that she could not understand the logic of the
fencing as it is located and the use of a double fence.
• Advocated a landscaping and fence plan to come back to either staff or the Commission in order to
understand comprehensively what is being proposed. What has been seen is kind of piecemeal.
• Agreed that about 20 percent of the site being fenced is what she could support. That would take
into the consideration the specific difficulties of this site.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 18
• Stated that she believed the proposed structure is bulky. The rectangular design is imposing. The
siting is well done but a little more sensitivity is needed with the articulation, perhaps with more
varied roof lines, something that would be more in keeping with some of the design review
guidelines.
• Suggested more of a landscape approach as a trade off as suggested by Commissioner Barry.
Perhaps a landscape easement, which is also appropriate according to the Hillside Specific Plan.
One of the reasons that hillsides seek to limit fencing is to keep the area open. That is a spirit that
this City has historically embraced. There is a community context.
• Said that perhaps a redesign can be requested.
Chairman Page:
• Stated that while the house is not a Craftsman-style home, it is fitting for the needs of the family.
There has also been a considerable amount of input from the neighbors. Their support deserves
some consideration. Said that he could support it as it is because of the overwhelming
neighborhood support.
• Said that the configuration of this lot does preclude looking at it in the standard manner for hillside.
There is some steep slope. Said that some sort of Exception is clearly warranted here.
• Added that, because of the severe geologic restrictions, landscaping may not be the best alternative
since they cannot water too much. These owners will have to be very careful with landscaping and
watering to avoid ending up with any geological problems on this property.
• Said that the Commission should allow some leniency with the Fencing Exception.
• Said that he could support the house as it is. It is a nice house with colors that will blend in nicely
with the hillside.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Chairman Page what sort of number he could support for the fence.
Chairman Page replied that he has no problem with the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she sees two issues. She said that she supports the house totally,
that it fits in very well in the environment, but that she has concerns with the amount of fencing.
Director Walgren advised that the applicants’ proposal is for fencing 75 percent of the site. The
property is currently entirely fenced. Staff is recommending 50 percent. Suggested that the final
design be worked out between the applicant and staff to reach 50 percent in fencing area.
Commissioner Barry stated that she would actually be happier with 30 percent, which would fence in
36,240 square feet. Since the building envelope is not counted, this will actually be closer to 40
percent. This would leave the Commission in a more defensible position that can be applied in future
occasions.
Commissioner Kurasch:
• Stated that she agreed with the use of landscaping that requires a minimal water use, which is
important for geological and environmental considerations here.
• Said that in that spirit, she would be supportive of a condition that would act as a type of landscape
easement for part of the property or at the very least a landscape plan that uses native plants for the
hillside area, exclusive perhaps of the building area.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 19
• Advised that she is in favor of a fencing cap on hillside areas. These are very specific, limited and
special areas of community-wide interest. Granted the neighborhood does have a lot to say and
their desires have to be taken into consideration but that is not the only consideration. The larger
issue is protecting open spaces in these very limited hillside areas. Reminded that she has
recommended a fencing cap of 15,000 square feet on any property in the City but that she would
support 20 percent in this case. That is still more generous perhaps than is warranted and would
allow approximately 26,000 square feet of fenced area.
• Asked if the lattice is a fence or an arbor.
Commissioner Roupe said that it could be considered a fence and a half, the wrought iron fence and
the lattice. The house should be looked at separately from the fence issue.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested conditioning this project to require the generation of an appropriate
native landscape plan prior to issuance of building permits.
Director Walgren clarified the language as “prior to issuance of building permits, the applicants will
develop a native re-vegetation landscape plan for the property, including the areas where the
buildings will be demolished and re-contoured, which will be required to be installed prior to final
occupancy of the home itself.”
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, the
Commission approved DR-99-063 as proposed with the requirement that a native
landscape plan be prepared and approved prior to obtaining building permits and
installed prior to obtaining final occupancy. (4-2-1; Commissioners Kurasch and
Patrick voted against and Commissioner Bernald was absent)
Commissioner Patrick said that if the Commission approves this fencing request, it must be prepared to
allow every hillside property owner to obtain the same fencing approval simply for safety reasons.
That precedent needs to be acknowledged. Deer, coyotes, etc., are issues for all people living on
hillsides.
Chairman Page asked Director Walgren the height of the black wrought iron fence.
Director Walgren replied that it is between three and four feet in height.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she would like to see a different and better fencing plan that
consists of 20 percent fencing and depicts the actual placement and materials for that fencing.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Commissioner Patrick what her issues are on the fencing proposal.
Commissioner Patrick said that she does not care how much area is enclosed as long as it is in
appropriate locations and of appropriate material. Added that she would support open wire fencing but
that wrought iron fencing on the hillside is absurd. Said that she did not agree with the current Hillside
Fencing Ordinance. Declared that hillside property owners have as much right to fence in their
properties as any other property owners.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that there is an existing Fencing Code.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 20
Commissioner Patrick stated that if that Code is used, the limit is 4,000 square feet. Added that the
Commission can exercise its discretion as long as it puts reasons to that discretion. Said that the real
issue is getting rid of and/or controlling the dogs wandering in the area that are creating such a safety
concern.
Commissioner Roupe:
• Stated that safety is an issue as well as the ability to reasonably enjoy the use of property.
• Expressed support for more than 4,000 square feet of fenced area. Add that when the Commission
discussed fencing limits in the past, it expressed an intention to avoid a stockade look on the
hillside.
• Suggested providing guidance to the applicant and allowing them to develop a fencing plan.
Suggested excluding the vine-covered lattice, counting it as an arbor instead of fencing.
Commissioner Kurasch reminded the Commission that this applicant was given one year to either
remove the fence or include a fencing plan with the design of this new residence.
Commissioner Roupe stated that the fence was improperly installed. By placing a time frame, well
before the new house is completed, the fencing request can be delayed.
Chairman Page agreed and suggested giving the applicant the opportunity to come back and make their
case.
Commissioner Barry said that she likes providing them with direction and giving them up to 90 days.
Director Walgren suggested a requirement for a fencing plan prior to issuance of permits.
Commissioner Barry asked that the applicant’s plan provide the amount, type and location of the
proposed fencing. The lattice with vines will be counted as an arbor instead of fencing. Stated that
this parcel is worthy of an Exception. From her perspective, the configuration of the land is a reason
for an Exception. Suggested a 20 percent fencing plan, which can be increased if warranted.
Commissioner Jackman suggested both a 20 percent plan and a 30 percent plan.
Director Walgren suggested if the recommended variation is only between 20 and 30 percent, it should
be made a condition of the project that no more than 30 percent of the property be enclosed with
fencing.
Chairman Page said that he agreed that the Commission does not have enough information and that the
applicant should be allowed to come back before the Commission with more information to make their
case for what they think is right.
Director Walgren suggested that offering the applicants perimeters of between 20 and 50 percent of
fencing area is sufficient direction.
Commissioner Kurasch said that she believed the Commission should give the applicants more specific
and concrete direction. The range of 20 to 50 percent is too great and needs to be narrowed down.
Said that she is not in favor of leaving it that open.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 21
Director Walgren said that if the direction were too narrow, it would not be warranted to bring it back
to the Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Barry said that there does not seem to be that kind of agreement amongst the
Commissioners.
Chairman Page stated that the applicants should be given the opportunity to come back before the
Planning Commission to make their case.
Commissioner Roupe said that the guidance provided is sufficient.
Commissioner Barry stated that the type of fencing is not clear.
Commissioner Roupe agreed that wrought iron is not appropriate and that a simple wire structure
would be more appropriate. Deferred the specific design of the fence to the applicant and architect.
Commissioner Barry suggested that the applicants refer to the Codes in the Hillside Specific Plan for
guidance.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the only place wrought iron is used is on the Pike Road side.
Commissioner Barry said that she understood that continuity was desired and that there are three
fencing treatments being used on this property.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if there was any agreement as to the range of fencing to be proposed.
Chairman Page suggested leaving it open for the applicant.
Chairman Walgren recommended a cap of not more than 50 percent or the Commission may end up
looking at the same proposal of 75 percent once again.
Commissioner Roupe again stated that this would exclude the footprint of the house.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Kurasch, the
applicant was instructed to come back to the Planning Commission, prior to
issuance of building permits with a fencing plan that shows the location, type and
placement of proposed fencing for the property located at 13870 Pike Road (F-99-
003). The existing lattice with vines will be counted as an arbor rather than
fencing and will not be counted in the final fencing percentage. (6-0-1;
Commissioner Bernald was absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period.
Chairman Page called for a five-minute break at 10:07 p.m.
Chairman Page reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
***
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 22
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 9
DR-00-028 (397-17-017) – SMEAD, 14401 Nutwood Lane: Request for Design Review approval to
construct a new 2,314 square foot addition to an existing 3,678 square foot, single-story residence.
The maximum height proposed is approximately 26 feet. The parcel is approximately 40,062 square
feet located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district.
Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this is an application to allow the addition of 2,300 square foot, one-story living area
to an existing 3,678 square foot single-story home on Nutwood Lane, which is just off Douglass
Lane. The zoning district is R-1-40,000. The lot is 40,000 square feet and is a relatively new lot so
that it conforms to all of the current subdivision requirements in terms of lot size, width, depth and
frontage.
• Said that this application does meet all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements in terms of being
under the maximum allowable floor area, being under the maximum allowable lot coverage, the
setbacks and height limits.
• Informed that this application would typically be viewed at an administrative level except for the
fact that they are raising the ridge line from its currently relatively low profile to the maximum
height permitted in Saratoga of 26 feet. The primary finding for the Planning Commission to make
is that this additional height is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As the Planning
Commissioners knows from visiting this site and driving through the neighborhood, there is a fairly
high mix of one and two-story homes that are 26 feet in height, or some of the earlier homes
perhaps even taller. So the height itself does appear to be compatible with the particular
neighborhood. The remainder of the findings would be that the height would have little effect on
neighbors’ views, privacy or solar accessibility. Because of the configuration of the roof line and
its placement on the site, it should have little effect on neighbors’ solar accessibility or views and
should have no impact on privacy since there are no second story living areas that would than be
looking over into a neighbor’s property. Staff is therefore recommending approval of the
application
• Advised that this proposal has been noticed to all adjoining neighbors within 500 feet as required.
No concerns have been raised to date from neighbors. Letters were received after the packet went
out and were distributed to the Commission this evening.
• One letter was received from Dr. and Mrs. Steven Block, 14452 Nutwood Lane, Saratoga, who
have cited three requests.
1. The first request is that because of the narrow width of Nutwood Lane with the planter median
in the middle, that perhaps the construction vehicles could be parked on Douglass Lane rather
than Nutwood to allow two lanes of traffic to flow. Advised that he was not certain that this
can outright be required but it could be required that an effort be made to park on Douglass
Lane to allow traffic circulation through the street.
2. The Blocks’ second request is that temporary construction fencing of a solid type to obscure the
visibility of the construction activity and also to secure the site be constructed around the
property. Advised that construction site fencing is a very typical requirement and in this case
they are simply asking that some sort of mesh be installed to obscure the site and provide a
visual barrier. This is probably a reasonable request that we can ask the applicant about.
3. The third request is that any dumpsters and/or portable toilets be placed on the private property
rather than in the public right-of-way so as to be less intrusive on the neighborhood. Again that
is a fairly reasonable request.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 23
• Advised that the second letter is from Mr. and Mrs. William R. Silver, 14400 Nutwood Lane,
Saratoga, who are reiterating these same three requests as the Blocks.
Commissioner Kurasch asked if these requirements were imposed as Conditions for the project on
Kenosha, which is referenced in the Silvers’ letter.
Director Walgren replied that they were not included as Conditions but are typical and reasonable
requirements.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 9 at 10:21 p.m.
Mr. Gary Schloh, Project Architect, 213 Bean Avenue, Los Gatos:
• Thanked Director Walgren and his staff for their help.
• Joked that he is really happy that there is not a fencing request included in his application, based on
the previous discussion this evening.
• Said that the staff report has covered almost everything.
• Explained his philosophy and the three points he considers when designing a new house. They
include the owners’ desires, aesthetics and curb appeal and compatibility with the neighborhood.
Said that this is a somewhat aged house with materials that need repair and interior spaces that are
not conducive to this age. The house is a low-scale ranch that lacks character.
• Advised that he considered the height and mass of houses surrounding this site. Of the 13 nearby
houses, five are two-story, seven are one-story with heights ranging from 16 to 20 feet and one is a
single-story house that is between 24 and 26 feet high. The houses immediately across the street
and to the south are both two-story. Pointed out the fact that as one turns off Fruitvale and drives
down Douglass, the houses are smaller and lower and become higher as you drive further down
Douglass toward the Smeads’.
• Said that the 26-foot height is only at one definitive point in the roof. All of the other roofs fall
down from that one point. It is a hipped roof.
• Assured that he does not take pride in designing monster houses and that he did not believe he had
that reputation.
• Said that the height of the existing walls of the house is not changing. The windows and ceilings
are staying basically the same. Added that the pitch of the roof is going from 3.5 in 12 to 7 in 12.
• Said that this design will enhance the neighborhood and house.
• Advised that he and Mr. Smead are available for questions.
Commissioner Roupe asked if there were vaulted ceilings in the house.
Mr. Gary Schloh answered that there are coffered ceilings but not full cathedral ceilings. There is no
room with a 25-foot high ridge to it. They are popping up some of the ceilings to about 12 feet. There
is attic in that space.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Schloh if he would agree to the requirements for construction
fencing and maintaining dumpsters and portable toilets off the street.
Mr. Gary Schloh replied that were he a neighbor he would have sent the same letter. Added that there
is adequate space to place the dumpsters and portable toilets on the site. Added that dumpsters don’t
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 24
actually stay on the property long as one pays for every day they are on site. Asked for guidance as to
the maximum height of construction fencing. Said that they would adhere to that.
Director Walgren replied that the construction fencing should be six feet high with screening material.
Mr. Gary Schloh said that while he has not discussed these requirements with Mr. Smead, he was
certain they would not trip up the project.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Schloh about the plans for a circular driveway. Said that this creates a
lot of asphalt on the lot and may be overkill to have that rather large circular driveway right in front of
the house. Asked how landscaping would be used.
Mr. Gary Schloh replied that the driveway is almost necessary to allow for visitor turnaround and/or
off-street parking. Said that the landscaping has not been finalized. Added that the driveway would be
disguised with landscape planting in front of the house. Said that he hopes to use something other than
poured in place concrete or asphalt. They have not reflected that on the plan. Suggested that the
Commission could make that a condition should they wish to do so.
Commissioner Roupe informed Mr. Schloh that the concern over the proposed driveway was expressed
by some of the Commissioners during the on-site visit.
Mr. Gary Schloh said that he was not sure how to respond to the Commission’s concerns. Said that
there are several swing-through driveways on Douglass similar to this. Added that a swing-through
driveway is more convenient than a hammerhead. Said that he does not support swing-through
driveways on smaller properties but that this site has 160 feet of street frontage with a lot of space for
landscaping, which can be installed to aesthetically control the impact of the swing-through driveway.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Schloh if he would be proposing and submitting a landscaping plan.
Mr. Gary Schloh replied that he would be willing to do so.
Commissioner Roupe suggested the use of berms to give some shape and character to the relatively flat
lot and to lesson the visual impact of the swing-through driveway.
Mr. Gary Schloh agreed with Commissioner Roupe that using berms on both sides of the driveway
would be something desirable that he could suggest to Mr. Smead.
Commissioner Barry said that she agreed with the other Commissioners about the driveway and
suggested either using a straight in driveway or semi-pervious material for the driveway together with
a landscape plan. Asked about existing fireplaces in the home.
Mr. Gary Schloh advised that there are two fireplaces. Only one is wood burning as allowed.
Commissioner Barry stated that the design for this home is pleasing but that the 26-foot height is
disturbing. Said that there is no real reason for the 7 in 12 pitch and suggested reducing it in order to
achieve a height limit of 22 to 24 feet.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 25
Mr. Gary Schloh replied that the 26-foot height is only one point. Added that he could do a flat roof at
the apex but that would be bad design. Added that the angle is important to the design. Said that he
did not select the 26-foot height and work his way down. Said that he picked a desirable roof pitch
that ended up requiring a 26-foot height at one point that is close to a disappearing point.
Commissioner Jackman asked if roofing material is Class A and whether the 26-foot height was
achieved at both peaks.
Mr. Gary Schloh replied that the roofing material is Class A and that only one peak reaches 26 feet the
other is between 22 and 23 feet.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she could live with the 26-foot height at one peak rather than 26
feet straight across.
Mr. Gary Schloh added that the 40-foot long ridge is only 16-feet high.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Commission closed Public Hearing No. 9 at 10:42 p.m. (6-0-1; Commissioner
Bernald was absent)
Commissioner Patrick advised that she has no objections except for the driveway. Asked that pervious
materials be utilized as much as possible.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the driveway allows for little screening near the garage and that she
was in favor of reducing the driveway. Added that she will support the project with the requirements
that the concerns raised by neighbors be addressed including placement of dumpsters/portable toilets
on site and the use of screened construction fencing as well as the requirement for development of a
landscape plan.
Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the
Commission approved DR-00-028 with the added Conditions as follows:
1. To maintain any dumpsters and/or portable toilets off the street and on the
project site;
2. To provide screened construction fencing; and
3. To prepare a landscaping plan which addresses the swing-through driveway
and incorporates the use of some pervious paving and driveway-screening
landscaping.
(6-0-1 Commissioner Bernald was absent)
Chairman Page advised that there is a 15-day appeal period.
***
PUBLIC HEARING – ITEM NO. 10
DR-00-038 (503-16-018) – LADONNIKOV, 13388 Surrey Lane: Request for Design Review
approval to demolish an existing residence and construct a new 5,207 square foot, two-story single
family residence in its place. Maximum height proposed is 26 feet. The parcel is approximately
42,590 square feet in size and located in an R-1-40,000 zoning district.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 26
Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised that this request is to demolish an existing 2,300 square foot home located on a one-acre
flag lot and replaces it with a new 5,200 square foot, two-story residence.
• This application has been published in the newspaper and mailed to all surrounding property
owners within a 500-foot radius.
• The City Arborist, the Fire District and Public Works Department and all other applicable agencies
have reviewed this project.
• Said that the project does meet all minimum zoning ordinance standards.
• There are two Ordinance-protected trees that will be removed as a result of this project. One is a
pine tree, at the entrance of the property that is in poor condition. The other is a crepe myrtle,
which is in fair condition. The Arborist did not express any concern over the removal of either
tree. Staff recommends a tree replacement requirement be provided for the value of those trees.
• Stated that this is a relatively large estate-style home on an isolated lot.
• Staff recommends approval with the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Roupe asked for the lot coverage.
Director Walgren states that the proposal does currently exceed the allowable lot coverage, which
could not be approved this evening. The condition is that it simply be reduced by two percent to be
under the 35 percent maximum permitted coverage.
Commissioner Jackman asked about the need to decrease the size of the light wells.
Director Walgren stated that this is also a condition of approval that prior to issuance of permits
revised plans are issued that show the light wells no more than three feet deep.
Commissioner Roupe sought clarification that the three feet means three feet from the side of the
property not necessarily discussing how far down in the ground they go.
Director Walgren agreed that it does mean three feet horizontally. The vertical distance is not
regulated.
Chairman Page opened Public Hearing No. 10 at 10:50 p.m.
Mr. Tom Sloan, Architect, 255 N. Market Street, #255, San Jose:
• Thanked Director Walgren for clarifying the requirement for the light wells.
• Advised that the plans are for a new, two-story, traditional French-style home. Planning staff calls
it a contemporary home.
• Said that only the finest materials will be used to construct the home.
• Said that his clients picked this site for privacy. The home is not visible from Surrey Lane because
this is a flag lot.
• Advised that the existing pad will be used. This will preserve the existing views, the drainage
pattern will be unchanged and the driveway will follow the existing pattern except as modified per
Fire District requirements.
• The new home will be 10-feet higher than the existing home but is really no higher than the ridge
behind the home right now and it will be comparable in height to the adjacent two-story houses that
surround this new home.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 27
• The two widest, or longest, elevations are oriented to the open space in front and to the rear
hillside. The narrowest portions of the house are oriented to the neighboring properties to its sides.
• In order to minimize the perception of bulk, they have used several design techniques. The
massing is broken into four distinctive forms and four separate rooflines. The walls modulate in
and out for all four facades, breaking the massing. All the upper floor levels have been reduced by
five and six feet in height and dormer windows are being used to bring in natural light.
• The proposed residence integrates well with the environment by only grading the site to provide
the basement and also to nestle it into the hillside behind. No other grading is required for the pad
where the house sits.
• Requested a hammerhead driveway as an alternative to a 72-foot wide circle turnaround. That 72-
wide turnaround would add unnecessary impervious coverage.
• Corrected the staff report to advise that there is a wood-burning fireplace.
• Advised that the coverage exceeds the 35 percent allowed. They are over by 686 square feet and
they would like to have some relief on that square footage.
• Said that there is no problem with drainage on site now
Commissioner Kurasch asked why there are 10-foot high ceilings in the basement.
Mr. Tom Sloan replied that this has no impact on the neighbors and his clients like that ceiling height.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned the need for a 4,000 square foot basement.
Mr. Tom Sloan said that as a result of that excavation, there would be no danger of landslides and no
adverse impacts.
Commissioner Barry expressed her concern with a 10,000 square foot house proposal. Mentioned the
Design Review Handbook, which talks about using underground basements spaces to reduce
aboveground mass. However, in this case, the aboveground coverage is exceeded. Stated that she
could not support this.
Mr. Tom Sloan questioned the statement that they are over the allowable square footage.
Commissioner Barry said that this project proposes 5,207 square feet (plus a 4,000 square foot
basement that is not actually counted as part of the lot coverage) and that is close to the maximum
allowable 5,298 square feet in lot coverage. This project really stretches the limits and totals nearly
10,000 square feet in living space. Said that this is not a question but rather a comment that she has a
real problem with this.
Mr. Tom Sloan said that he respected Commissioner Barry’s opinion and would leave it at that. Asked
what difference there really is whether a basement is included or not. There is no less an impact once
the basement is installed.
Commissioner Barry again stated that the Design Review Handbook outlines reasons to support use of
basements in order to reduce aboveground mass.
Chairman Page asked Director Walgren for about the consideration for basements.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 28
Director Walgren advised that it is a goal to build into hillsides rather than projecting out from them.
Basements do not count against the height and/or allowable square footage.
Commissioner Jackman asked whether land is as sturdy once a basement is constructed.
Director Walgren replied that the ground is actually sturdier once the basement is installed.
Commissioner Patrick asked about the proposed driveway material.
Mr. Tom Sloan advised that interlocking pavers would be used.
Commissioner Roupe asked Director Walgren from where the light wells are measured.
Director Walgren replied they are measured from the exposed wall of the first story and not the
basement wall.
Commissioner Jackman asked how the 686 square feet over allowable impervious lot coverage would
be resolved.
Mr. Tom Sloan admitted that he learned of this problem only last week. Added that there are several
possibilities, from modifying the driveway to removing area from the existing pool decking. Said that
they prefer to reduce the driveway. By using grass-crete type of material, they will achieve a 50
percent credit.
Commissioner Jackman advised that she did not want to give any Variance in lot coverage.
Mr. Tom Sloan said that in that case they would remove area from the driveway.
Commissioner Jackman asked about any structures around the pool.
Mr. Tom Sloan advised that there is an existing gazebo that will be removed.
Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Kurasch, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the
Commission closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 10. (6-0-1;
Commissioners Bernald was absent)
Commissioner Barry advised that she could not support a 10,000 square foot home. Added that
something has got to give. The square footage above ground has been maximized. No efforts have
been made to meet design guidelines.
Commissioner Roupe said that, according to existing Code, the Commission is not to count the
basement. Even if no basement were constructed, the elevation for this project would not change.
Added that he does not object to having the basement as part of this proposal.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that there are some inconsistencies with design guidelines. The mass
and bulk are too great and this project is maximized on everything. Said that there is an environmental
impact when grading for the basement as it sends the removed dirt into the landfill. The basement is
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 29
not a no-impact aspect of this proposal. The intent for basements is to reduce bulk and mass above
ground. Suggested that the size of the basement and the bulk of the house be reduced.
Commissioner Jackman stated that the house is bulky but that she could live with this design if the size
is reduced by the necessary two percent to meet 35 percent lot coverage. Said that she would support
the 10,000 square foot house as long as it can be constructed while meeting all Codes.
Commissioner Patrick concurred with Commissioner Jackman. Said that while the house design is not
ideal, it is acceptable for its site.
Chairman Page stated that he concurred with Commissioners Jackman, Patrick and Roupe.
Motion: Upon motion of Commisioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Patrick, the
Commission approved DR-00-038 with the condition or stipulation that the
impervious coverage is brought into line with the Code allowances. (4-2-1;
Commissioners Barry and Kurasch voted against and Commissioner Bernald was
absent)
Chairman Page advised that this action is final following a 15-day appeal period.
***
DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
S-00-008; SARATOGA LEGENDS, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road @ Herriman: Request for Sign
Permit approval to install a permanent subdivision identification sign.
Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows:
• Stated that this is a carryover item from the September 27th meeting wherein the applicant has
requested to put identification signage at the entrance of the subdivision nearing completion on
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, opposite the high school, to identify the subdivision as the Saratoga
Legends.
• The sign proposal at that time was a little larger than is permitted. A discussion ensued and the
item was postponed to give the Commission the opportunity to survey the more recent
identification signs that have been allowed in Saratoga and reconsider the proposal. Since then,
new exhibits have been submitted that actually reduces the sign area to a Code-conforming 24
square feet.
• As revised, the proposal does now meet the Code requirement but the question for the Planning
Commission is still whether it is appropriate to have a subdivision like this identified in this
manner.
Commissioner Roupe asked what the functional purpose is for such a sign. Is it to help find the
property or is it simply a cosmetic addition to the entrance. Suggested a more modest plaque-type
design. A 24-square-foot sign is not needed. Something simpler, perhaps a plaque installed on both
brick surfaces, would be preferable.
Commissioner Kurasch stated her agreement with staff that a smaller, understated plaque would
suffice.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 30
Commissioner Jackman agreed with Commissioners Kurasch and Roupe.
Commissioner Patrick also concurred. Suggested plaques similar to Bellegrove and Hayfield Estates
would be fairly attractive.
Commissioner Barry asked Director Walgren to clarify the Code on such signage and when it was
enacted.
Director Walgren
• Informed that it is not a new Ordinance and it limits entry signage to 24 square feet.
• Read from the Code Section, Article 15-30.080 (Signs in Agricultural and Residential Districts),
Subsection F – A permanent sign, not exceeding 24 square feet in area, identifying a subdivision,
located adjoining each entrance to a subdivision.
• Advised the Commission that this is called out as a permitted sign type in Saratoga. This
Ordinance is probably one of the City’s early Ordinances, adopted in the 1970s. That is probably
why one sees the 1960s-era subdivisions with larger than 24-square foot identification signs, they
predate the Ordinance. There are a couple such signs off of Cox Avenue and Prospect Avenue.
Commissioner Barry asked if an exception was also made for the Vineyards.
Director Walgren advised that the Vineyard signage was installed at about the time that Highway 85
was opened in 1996.
Commissioner Barry asked what basis could be used for denial of this request.
Commissioner Roupe offered that it is aesthetically unappealing.
Director Walgren advised that the Commission is able to give design consideration of the request as it
is a part of the overall 15-home subdivision project that is on going. Added that if signage is less than
10 square feet and not illuminated it is exempt from permit requirements.
Chairman Page said that while the proposal may meet Code, something smaller would be considered
classier.
Commissioner Kurasch asked why this sign is before the Commission if it does meet Code.
Director Walgren advised that this request is part of the overall subdivision design review with the
improvements of this entire development. It is a discretionary permit decision.
Commissioner Kurasch clarified that the Commission can vote that this signage is excessive. Either
denying or approving the signs would be meeting the Code.
Director Walgren assured Commissioner Kurasch that she was absolutely correct. This request is still
subject to a discretionary permit.
Mr. Byron Navid, 20480 Flower Drive, Saratoga:
• Provided a computer-generated picture of his proposed signs.
• Said that he has also brought pictures of other similar identification signs in the vicinity.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 31
• Said that each sign is actually only 12 square feet on each side of the entryway.
• Advised that in calculating the sign area, he measured the two capital letters and multiplied the
entire name by that same size even though the rest of the lettering is lower case and therefore
smaller.
Commissioner Roupe asked what the purpose is for the sign.
Mr. Byron Navid replied for the two reasons already outlined by Commissioner Roupe earlier, for
beauty and to create an identity and character for the project.
Commissioner Jackman said that the use of separate lettering looks tacky and cheap. Both the
Bellegrove and Hayfield projects have utilized small plaques. These are quality projects. Stressed
that a plaque would appear classier.
Mr. Byron Navid stated that he respects Commissioner Jackman’s opinion. Added that he has
attempted to select brass lettering so they would be less obvious against the red brick.
Commissioner Kurasch asked Mr. Navid how he felt about using a plaque in lieu of the individual
lettering.
Mr. Byron Navid replied that it would be a waste of money to install such signs as they are not visible.
The purpose for the signs is that they be seen.
Commissioner Barry questioned exactly where the plaque could be installed and what size.
Commissioner Jackman asked for the height of the capital letters.
Mr. Byron Navid replied that the capital letters are 13-inches high and the lower case letters are 7.5
inches tall.
Commissioner Patrick stated her concurrence with the applicant’s statement that the plaque sign is not
worth putting up. Added that identification is the purpose for street signs. Suggested either a plaque
or nothing at all.
Commissioner Kurasch said that the subdivision itself speaks to its identity. A plaque can still be
attractive.
Mr. Byron Navid said that people pass by and appreciate the development and wonder what the
subdivision is called. Said there is nothing wrong with having an identity. Pointed out several
developments with signs using letters two feet tall.
Commissioner Jackman stated that the developments with existing signs are all older, 20 or more
years.
Commissioner Roupe added that lots of the signs are for commercial properties.
Commissioner Barry asked how this sign can be denied if within Code.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 32
Director Walgren reminded that this is a discretionary permit. The sign can be permitted if the
Commission finds that it is appropriate. This is like a design review request.
Commissioner Barry asked whether the Code needs to be amended.
Director Walgren replied that the Code is fine. This sign request needs to be looked at as a
discretionary permit.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the Commission could find that the proposed signs are
architecturally and aesthetically inappropriate.
Commissioner Roupe stated his preference for a discrete plaque on both pillars. Said that this sign
request is excessive.
Commissioner Kurasch agreed, saying that it is dated. Something more understated would give it
more polish. Said that in her view it is a plaque or nothing.
Chairman Page agreed that the original request has been reduced. Said that he was impartial on this
request.
Commissioner Jackman stated her support for a plaque.
Commissioner Patrick agreed with Commissioners Roupe, Kurasch and Jackman.
Commissioner Barry agreed with Chairman Page.
Chairman Page advised that the final vote is 4-2-1 in favor of a plaque in lieu of the individual letters.
Mr. Byron Navid thanked the Commission for its time and consideration.
***
DR-00-023; SHAH, 15270 Sobey Road: Request for Modification to an approved project.
Director Walgren presented the staff report as follows:
• Advised the Commission of the policy requiring that any proposed changes (materials, architecture,
placement, height, etc.) to an approved project must be brought back to the Commission as an
informational item. One criteria requiring review by the Commission is any alteration to the
approved location of a building by more than six inches.
• This proposal is to shift the location of a structure by five feet to the east and five feet to the north,
which are the right side and the rear. This change is made for very good reasons. Staff is bringing
this item to make the Commission aware of this change. No further action is necessary.
Commissioner Patrick asked if the neighbor has been consulted.
Director Walgren replied that he was not sure but that he would make sure that the neighbor supported
the change in placement prior to allowing it to occur.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 33
Commissioner Kurasch stated that this is ok but questioned why things like this come up after projects
have been approved.
Chairman Page advised that the final vote is 6-0-1.
Mr. Marty Oakley, 20804 Beauchamps Way, Saratoga:
• Explained that the house was shifted because the west wall of the house was too close to the two
olive trees.
• Advised that he has obtained the approval from the east neighbor.
• Discussed design changes on the roof and the columns. Said that he has added two columns at the
entry for a total of four.
• Advised that he added 10 trees to the project and finds that they will not fit.
• Suggested that items like this be left to the discretion of the Director and staff instead of coming
back to the Commission.
Director Walgren:
• Agreed that the policy has been in place for a number of years and that it might be time for the
Commission to review them and perhaps delete the requirement to bring some of the minor
changes back to the Commission and/or to reaffirm the policies.
• Stated that while the rear elevation changes are minimal, the front elevation as it has been
redesigned creates a much more ornate entry. It is very different from what was approved.
Mr. Marty Oakley stated that the entry is out of proportion using only two columns and looks better
with four.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that the original design is much less fussy.
Mr. Marty Oakley disagreed, stating that the entry was not depicted in the original drawings. Added
that he has changed the material from stucco to pre-cast concrete.
Director Walgren stated that staff’s recommendation is for two columns. Added that the more
important issue that staff wanted to bring before the Planning Commission’s attention is that generally
a front elevation would not be drawn with something in the foreground obstructing it. When the
Commission and staff reviewed these plans, they accepted that as part of the building. No one
understood that this was something that was 50 feet away and it obviously gives the entryway a very
strong first-floor level horizontal detail to it. When you look at the actual elevation, it is very different.
Commissioners Barry, Patrick and Jackman supported staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Kurasch stated that she had no opinion.
Mr. Marty Oakley offered to bring in a drawing depicting both the uses of two columns and four
columns. Added that he believes that the four columns are required to achieve balance.
Commissioner Barry suggested that the applicant work with the Planning Department with the
direction to create a less ornate entry. Added that the Commission did like the horizontal look depicted
on the original elevations. With those two directions, the Planning staff could make the decision with
the applicant.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2000 Page 34
Commissioner Roupe said that the same effect could be achieved with a single set of columns centered
over the vertical piece. Supports the simpler design rather than this more ornate solution.
Director Walgren advised that Commission that staff can move forward with the applicant based upon
the Commission’s recommendations. Stated that the five-foot shift has been acknowledged.
Chairman Page agreed that the five-foot shift has been acknowledged and is fine.
***
Holiday Meeting Schedule:
Director Walgren suggested moving the second meeting in November to Tuesday, November 21, 2000,
and the cancellation of the second Planning Commission Meeting in December.
The Commissioners agreed to that schedule modification.
***
November 8, 2000, Housing Plan Meeting:
Director Walgren recommended scheduling a presentation on the Housing Plan to be made by himself
and the Housing Consultants prior to the November 8th Planning Commission meeting. This
presentation would begin at 6:30 p.m. in the Planning Conference Room and last about 45 minutes.
Dinner would be provided and the presentation would wrap up at about 7:15 p.m.
***
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Chairman Page:
• Mentioned his concern about the lack of consistency with the fencing conditions as they appear in
the staff reports. Sometimes they are bold, other times in caps. Asked that they be presented in a
uniform manner.
• Discussed consideration of roof pitch standards and the potential impacts of roof pitch on a roof’s
durability and life span.
COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN
1. City Council Meeting Minutes for September 20, 2000.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Chairman Page adjourned the meeting at 12:07 a.m. to Wednesday, November 8, 2000, at the Council
Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn
Minutes Clerk